1 

New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman 

Delaware Attorney General Joseph R. Biden, III 

Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler 

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley 

Oregon Attorney General Ellen F. Rosenblum 

Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin 

Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell 

June 16, 2014 

Via Electronic Mail (w/cc to: oilandgas.whitepapers@epa.gov) 

Gina McCarthy 

Administrator 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

RE: Comments on EPA Methane White Papers 

Dear Administrator McCarthy: 

The Attorneys General of New York, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, 

Rhode Island, and Vermont (together, “States”) respectfully submit these comments on the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s five white papers addressing major sources of methane 

emissions from the oil and gas sector. These papers stem from the Administration’s strategy to 

reduce methane emissions, which EPA acknowledges to be a key element in the President’s 

Climate Action Plan. The States view EPA’s publication of the white papers as a positive step in 

the direction of cutting methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. The States urge EPA to 

take the next logical step of promptly setting emission standards and guidelines for methane for 

these sources under sections 111(b) and (d) of the Clean Air Act for the sources identified in the 

white papers. 

1. Background 

The Need for Prompt Action to Reduce Greenhouse Gases, Including Methane 

Greenhouse gas pollution is warming our planet, with significant and wide-ranging 

adverse effects to human health and welfare. The recently released U.S. Global Change 

Research Program’s Third National Climate Assessment concludes that the evidence of humaninduced global warming continues to strengthen and that impacts are increasing across the 

country. Finding that “climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved 

firmly into the present,” the Assessment’s authors present compelling bases for the need to 
2 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions from major sources, such as the oil and gas sector.1 Given the 

strong body of science that demonstrates the impacts on human health and the environment, EPA 

must act expeditiously to ensure that major sources of greenhouse gases – such as the oil and gas 

industry – promptly and aggressively limit their emissions. Prompt and effective action in the 

power generating, industrial, and transportation sectors are required if the U.S. and the rest of the 

world are to have a reasonable chance of avoiding the most severe impacts of global warming. 

EPA determined in its 2009 endangerment finding that methane is one of the six 

greenhouse gases that endangers public health and welfare. See 74 Fed. Reg. 46,696 (Dec. 15, 

2009). Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas. Pound for pound, it warms the climate about 

34 times more than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period, according to the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change, and even more over shorter periods. As noted in the White House’s 

Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions (March 2014), methane accounts for about 9 percent of 

greenhouse gas emissions in the country, and that percentage will rise by 2030 unless measures 

are put in place to cut those emissions. Id. at 1. Not surprisingly, therefore, the President’s 

Climate Action Plan issued in June 2013 states that curbing emissions of methane is “critical” to 

our effort to address global climate change. Climate Action Plan at 10. 

 

In evaluating methane emissions from the oil and gas industry, there are four major 

segments from development to delivery that must be considered during which methane either 

leaks or is intentionally vented to the atmosphere. Each of these segments represents a 

significant percentage of methane emissions: 

 

 Production. The production segment includes extraction of oil and gas from a well and 

use of gathering pipes or lines to move the fuel to a processing facility. 

 Processing. The processing segment involves the use of compressors to move natural gas 

from the well to facilities that remove liquids to create “pipeline quality” gas, which is 

then shipped via pipelines in the transmission phase. 

 Transmission. The transmission segment includes the use of pipelines and compressors 

to ship natural gas from processing facilities to distributors. 

 Distribution. The distribution segment includes the use of city gates to receive the 

natural gas from pipelines and then distribute the gas through smaller lines to commercial 

and residential customers. 

According to 2012 emissions data from the oil and gas sector, the production segment accounts 

for approximately 32 percent of methane emissions, the processing segment 14 percent, the 

transmission segment 33 percent, and the distribution segment 20 percent. U.S. EPA, 

Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report (April 2014), Table 3-43. Because each of these segments 

represents a significant percentage of emissions, a successful strategy to reduce methane must 

address all four segments. EPA has previously acknowledged that its authority under the Clean 

Air Act covers emissions from all of these segments. 76 Fed. Reg. at 52,745. 

                                                             1 U.S. Global Change Research Program, Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The 

Third National Climate Assessment (doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2) (Jerry M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, 

and Gary W. Yohe, eds. 2014).
3 

The critical need to limit methane emissions was further underscored by EPA’s recentlyproposed Clean Power Plan targeting greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. One 

of the underpinnings of that rule is to encourage states to switch from energy generation using 

coal to generation using natural gas and lower carbon-intensive fuels. Because of the readilyavailable supply of natural gas in this country, and the fact that natural gas is mostly methane, we 

must act to ensure that the global warming benefits of switching from coal to natural gas are not 

diminished because of the release of methane throughout the natural gas system. According to a 

recent World Resource Institute report, cutting methane leakage rates from natural gas systems to 

less than one percent of total production would ensure that the climate impacts of natural gas are 

lower than coal or diesel fuel. World Resources Institute, Clearing the Air: Reducing Upstream 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Natural Gas Systems (March 2013). 

State Action on Reducing Methane Emissions from the Oil and Gas Sector 

It is the States’ position that not only is targeting methane emissions a necessary 

component of a successful strategy to address global warming, it is required under the Clean Air 

Act. In that vein, in December 2012, seven of the States sent a notice of intent to sue EPA based 

on the agency’s failure to set emission standards for methane in its 2012 New Source 

Performance Standard (NSPS) rule for the oil and gas sector, 77 Fed. Reg. 49,490 (Aug. 16, 

2012). Oregon sent a similar notice of intent in June 2013. As explained in the notice letters, 

EPA has determined that emissions of this potent greenhouse gas endanger public health and 

welfare, and that processes and equipment in the oil and gas sector emit vast quantities of 

methane. We further explained that EPA has compelling data, including from 18 years of 

experience administering the Natural Gas Star Program, demonstrating that many measures to 

avoid (or reduce) methane emissions from new and existing oil and gas operations are available 

and cost-effective. In light of these findings, EPA’s failure to determine in its 2012 rulemaking 

whether it is appropriate at this time to set standards limiting methane emissions from oil and gas 

operations under section 111 of the Clean Air Act is a violation of a nondiscretionary duty of the 

Administrator or constitutes an unreasonable delay in taking agency action. 

Although the 60-day and 180-day notice periods to bring a nondiscretionary duty and 

unreasonable delay claim, respectively, have now expired, the States have chosen not to file a 

lawsuit as of this date in light of the President’s subsequent commitment that EPA and other 

federal agencies would examine how to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. 

See Climate Action Plan at 10. This commitment was fleshed out in the Administration’s 

Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions, which was issued on March 28, 2014. As set forth in the 

methane strategy document, EPA’s issuance of technical white papers is the first step in a 

process in which the agency is considering direct regulation of methane in the oil and gas sector 

through rulemaking. Methane Strategy at 2. Under this schedule, the agency would issue any 

proposed rule this fall, to be followed with the promulgation of a final rule and deadline for state 

implementation plan submittals by the end of 2016. Id. 

In the meantime, a number of states – including Colorado, Ohio, and Wyoming – have 

enacted regulations to prevent methane leaks from the oil and gas sector. Colorado’s rules, 

passed in February, govern both new and existing wells and require leak inspections either 

monthly, quarterly, or annually, depending on the amount of emissions. Colorado has stated that 
4 

it expects these regulations, which target methane emissions directly rather than as a co-benefit 

of reducing other pollution, to reduce methane emissions by approximately 65,000 tons per year. 

 

2. Comments on Methane White Papers

EPA’s five white papers describe sources of methane emissions in the oil and gas sector 

and methods that are available to limit those emissions. The States’ comments on each of these 

white papers (Oil and Gas Sector Leaks, Hydraulically Fractured Oil Well Completions and 

Associated Gas during Ongoing Production, Pneumatic Devices, Compressors, and Liquids 

Unloading Processes) are set forth below. 

Leak Detection and Repair 

EPA’s “Oil and Natural Gas Sector Leaks” white paper acknowledges that as the oil and 

natural gas exploration and production industry in the U.S. grows rapidly, so does the potential 

for greater methane emissions from leaks. As EPA notes, “leak emissions occur through many 

types of connection points (e.g., flanges, seals, threaded fittings) or through moving parts of 

valves, pumps, compressors, and other types of process equipment.” Oil and Natural Gas Sector 

Leaks White Paper at 3. The white paper identifies a number of different leak detection 

technologies, including portable analyzers and infrared cameras, which are readily available and 

inexpensive. As discussed in the recently issued report by Carbon Limits, “Quantifying Costeffectiveness of Systematic Leak Detection and Repair Programs Using Infared Cameras,” 

(March 2014), infrared cameras can be used relatively inexpensively to scan an entire facility for 

leaks. Furthermore, EPA has determined that “once a leak is found it is almost always 

economical to repair the leak” and that inspection and maintenance programs “can effectively 

decrease leak emissions.” Id. at 55. In light of these findings that leak detection and repair 

programs can effectively reduce methane emissions from leaks at a reasonable cost, EPA should 

follow the lead of states such as Colorado that have made these programs mandatory. 

Unfortunately, the white paper leaves out a significant source of methane leaks by 

excluding methane emissions from the distribution sector, i.e., only considering leaks that are 

“upstream of the city gate.” Oil and Natural Gas Sector Leaks White Paper at 3. As EPA noted 

above, however, EPA has found that methane leaks in distribution from city gates and associated 

above-ground facilities and from underground pipes comprise about one-fifth of methane 

emissions from the oil and gas sector. As a result, leaving this segment unaddressed would 

undermine the President’s goal of significantly cutting methane from the oil and gas sector as an 

important strategy to address global warming. 

Distribution sector methane leaks present significant environmental, economic, and 

safety concerns for states. In Massachusetts alone, leaking pipelines are estimated to release 

between eight and twelve billion cubic feet of methane a year, at a cost of about $38 million per 

year to customers. Shanna Cleveland, Into Thin Air: How Leaking Natural Gas Infrastructure is 

Harming Our Environment and Wasting a Valuable Resource (CLF, Boston), Nov. 2012, at 7, 

12, available at http://www.clf.org/static/natural-gas-leaks/WhitePaper_Final_lowres.pdf. A 

number of recent studies have documented extensive leaks from thousands of miles of 

underground piping in cities such as Boston, New York, and Washington, D.C. See, e.g., Nathan 
5 

G. Phillips, et al., Mapping Urban Pipeline Leaks: Methane Leaks Across Boston, 

Environmental Pollution, Vol. 173 (Feb. 2013) at 1-4 (copy attached). For example, a team 

using infrared imaging discovered 3,356 leaks with fifteen times the global background level for 

methane in Boston alone. Gas distribution companies in 2011 reported releasing 69 billion cubic 

feet of natural gas to the atmosphere, almost enough to meet the state of Maine’s gas needs for a 

year and equal to the annual carbon dioxide emissions of about six million automobiles. See 

America Pays for Gas Leaks: Natural Gas Pipeline Leaks Cost Consumers Billions (Staff Report 

Prepared for Senator Edward J. Markey, Washington, D.C.) Aug. 2013, at 2 & 7, Table 3, 

available at: http://www.markey.senate.gov/documents/markey_lost_gas_report.pdf. As a result, 

nationally consumers paid at least $20 billion from 2000-2011 for gas that was unaccounted for 

and never used. Id. at 1. 

Some states have undertaken efforts to deal with this problem. Since 2009, 

Massachusetts has promoted replacement of leaking distribution pipeline through the use of 

Targeted Infrastructure Replacement Funds that provide for expedited reimbursements to utilities 

that replace aging steel and cast iron infrastructure, as opposed to the use of traditional rate 

recovery. The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities has also opened an investigation 

into the Service Quality Standards for local electric and gas distribution companies that is 

investigating, among other items, appropriate metrics for leak detection and response. And, the 

Massachusetts Legislature recently took up legislation (H3873 and S2073, currently in 

conference committee) to address gas leaks. Similarly, in New York, the New York Attorney 

General’s Office successfully argued to the Public Service Commission that Consolidated Edison 

should be required to increase it rate of replacement of old distribution system pipes in New 

York City in order to reduce methane emissions. As a result of that proceeding, Con Ed is also 

conducting a study to improve detection of distribution system leaks and quantification of 

associated leak rates. Although these state efforts represent important steps, federal action is 

needed to drive a more concerted, immediate effort to eliminate leaks and reduce methane 

emissions from the distribution segment. 

In light of the significant emissions from the distribution segment, at a minimum EPA 

should broaden its scope of potential regulatory action to encompass emissions from city gates, 

which the agency has previously identified as the largest source of methane emissions in 

distribution. See EPA, Technical Support Document: Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems for 

the 2010 Final Rule – Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases from Petroleum and Natural 

Gas Systems – Subpart W, at 76, available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/documents/pdf/2010/Subpart-W_TSD.pdf. City gates are 

metering and pressure regulating facilities located at the custody transfer points where natural 

gas is delivered from transmission pipelines into the lower pressure lines of local distribution 

companies. Distribution providers that are participants in EPA’s Natural Gas STAR program 

have reported significant savings and methane emission reductions by implementing inspection 

and maintenance programs of city gates, which are easier to fix than underground piping. Based 

on data provided by these companies, implementing these programs at gate stations and 

associated above-ground facilities can result in gas savings worth up to $1,800 per year, at a cost 

between $20 and $1,200. EPA, Lessons Learned: Directed Inspection and Maintenance at Gate 

Stations and Surface Facilities, Pub. No. EPA430-B-03-007 (2003). 
6 

Hydraulically-Fractured Oil Wells 

 The white paper on hydraulically-fractured oil wells and associated natural gas 

production underscores the need for emission standards and guidelines for these sources. In its 

2012 NSPS, EPA did not include “oil wells” in the definition of affected facilities, so those wells 

are currently exempt from rule’s reduced emission completion, i.e., “green completion,” 

requirements that apply to hydraulically-fractured gas wells. The NSPS rule requires flaring of 

gas wells until January 1, 2015, at which time producers will need to use green completion 

equipment to separate out the gas from the water and send the gas into pipelines, where it 

subsequently can be sold. 

The white paper supports the conclusion that hydraulically-fractured oil wells (either 

completion of a newly-fractured well or re-stimulation of a previously fractured well and 

ongoing production) are also significant sources of both methane and volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emissions. For example, the Environmental Defense Fund/Stratus study cited in the 

white paper estimated methane emissions from hydraulically-fractured oil well completions 

(venting, flaring, etc.) at approximately 247,000 metric tons of methane per year. An ERG/ECR 

study cited in the white paper estimated VOC emissions at approximately 116,230 tons per year 

(assuming a 7-day flowback period). Furthermore, the emission figures for methane at least may 

underestimate the amount of those emissions given that aerial, or “top down” surveys of oil 

fields in Colorado, Utah, and elsewhere have detected much higher levels of methane than found 

in the “bottom up” studies in the white paper. 

The white paper further shows that the types of measures required for gas wells 

(complete combustion, green completions) as well as other alternative technologies are available 

to limit methane and VOC emissions from oil wells. Although the cost effectiveness of these 

measures appears to vary depending upon different factors, such as the existence of nearby gas 

pipelines, those considerations can be addressed in the context of implementing the requirements 

to hydraulically-fractured oil wells. 

Compressors and Pneumatic Devices 

Regarding the white papers addressing compressors and pneumatic devices, in the 2012 

NSPS rulemaking, EPA identified compressors (reciprocating and centrifugal) and pneumatic 

devices (controllers and pumps) in the natural gas transmission segment as equipment that emits 

large quantities of methane. But at the time, EPA declined to establish standards to limit these 

emissions based on its approach of focusing on reducing VOCs, which are largely removed by 

the time the natural gas stream reaches compressors and pneumatic devices in the transmission 

segment. See 77 Fed. Reg. at 49,522-23 (declining to regulate transmission compressors and 

pneumatics because of “the relatively low level of VOC emitted from these sources”). 

In light of the President’s subsequent commitment to reduce methane emissions and the 

issuance of the methane strategies document, a VOC-focused rationale is no longer supportable. 

The white papers for compressors and pneumatic devices confirm that this equipment is the 

source of significant amounts of methane emissions. According to EPA, compressors emitted 

more than 2 million tons of methane in 2012, with more than 50 percent of that amount coming 
7 

from the transmission segment. Oil and Natural Gas Sector Compressors White Paper at 43. 

Similarly, EPA estimates that pneumatic controllers are responsible for about 13 percent of 

methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, while pneumatic pumps account for about 16 

percent of methane emissions from the production and processing segments. Oil and Natural 

Gas Sector Pneumatic Devices White Paper at 56-57. 

Moreover, both of the white papers demonstrate that methane can be significantly and 

cost-effectively reduced by establishing emission standards for methane from compressors and 

pneumatic devices. Centrifugal compressor emissions may be cost-effectively controlled by 

using dry seals in place of wet seals, while reciprocating compressor emissions may be 

controlled by the periodic replacement of rod packing systems. Compressors White Paper at 43. 

Pneumatic controller emissions can be significantly reduced by replacing high-bleed controllers 

with either low- or zero-bleed controllers, while methane from pneumatic pumps can be cut in 

many instances by replacing them with instrument air pumps and electric pumps. Pneumatic 

Devices White Paper at 56-57. These findings in the white papers are consistent with previous 

EPA determinations concerning this equipment and in other studies. See, e.g., EPA, “Reducing 

Methane Emissions from Compressor Rod Packing Systems” (Oct. 2006) at 1 (indicating 

payback periods from 1 to 3 months for compressor maintenance activities that reduce methane 

emissions); WRI Clearing the Air report at 6 (replacing existing high-bleed pneumatic devices 

with low-bleed equivalents throughout natural gas system identified as one of three strategies 

that could cost-effectively cut methane emissions by 30 percent); Natural Resources Defense 

Council, “Leaking Profits: The Oil and Gas Industry Can Reduce Pollution, Conserve Resources, 

and Make Money by Preventing Methane Waste,” (2012) (improved maintenance of 

reciprocating compressors and replacement of high-bleed pneumatic controllers with low-bleed 

or zero-bleed controllers identified as two of ten cost-effective strategies that could reduce 

methane emissions from oil and gas sector by 80 percent). 

Liquids Unloading 

The white paper on liquids unloading discusses methane and VOCs that are emitted when 

companies periodically open mature wells to the atmosphere to unload well bore liquids, such as 

water and condensate, which accumulate in the bottom of the well. This process, typically 

referred to as a “well blowdown,” can result in large quantities of methane and VOCs being 

released. Although emission figures vary, EPA estimates that methane and VOC emissions from 

liquids unloading comprised about 14 percent of emissions from the natural gas production 

segment in 2012. 

Rather than using well blowdown methods to unload liquids and allow the flow of gas 

from the well to resume, there are available technologies that perform this same function while 

significantly reducing emissions. As the white paper notes, plunger lifts are the most common of 

the technologies. Of these, the use of optimized plunger lift systems (e.g., those that use smart 

well automation) offer the dual benefits of decreasing the amount of emissions by more than 

90 percent while reducing the need for venting due to overloading. Oil and Natural Gas Sector 

Liquids Unloading Processes White Paper at 16; see also NRDC Leaking Profits report at 24-25 

(summarizing emission reductions attributable to use of plunger lift systems). Previous studies 

have also demonstrated that plunger lift systems are cost-effective. Id.; WRI Clearing the Air 
8 

report at 6 (identifying use of plunger lift systems at new and existing wells during liquids 

unloading as one of three technologies that could cut methane emissions in the oil and gas sector 

by 30 percent). Other available technologies – such as artificial lifts, velocity tubing, and 

foaming agents – can achieve even greater emission reductions, eliminating emissions entirely 

from liquids uploading. Liquids Unloading White Paper at 17-18. 

3. Conclusion 

 In summary, EPA’s publication of the white papers for the oil and gas sector represents a 

positive step in implementing the President’s directive to significantly cut methane emissions 

from this industry. The States urge EPA to take the next logical step of proposing emission 

standards and guidelines for methane for the sources discussed in the white papers under sections 

111(b) and (d) of the Clean Air Act, as it has done recently with carbon dioxide emissions from 

power plants. In light of the potency of methane as a short-term accelerator of global warming, 

the States urge EPA to act in expedited fashion by proposing standards and emission guidelines 

by this fall. 

Sincerely,

FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

 ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN 

 Attorney General 

 

 /s/ Michael J. Myers 

By: ____________________________ 

 MICHAEL J. MYERS 

 MORGAN A. COSTELLO 

 Assistant Attorneys General 

 Environmental Protection Bureau 

 The Capitol 

 Albany, NY 12224 

 (518) 473-5843 

 

FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

 JOSEPH R. BIDEN, III DOUGLAS F. GANSLER 

 Attorney General Attorney General 

 VALERIE M. EDGE MARY E. RAIVEL

 Deputy Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 

 Delaware Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 

 102 West Water Street, 3rd Floor Maryland Department of the Environment 

 Dover, Delaware 19904 1800 Washington Blvd., Suite 6048 

 (302) 739-4636 Baltimore, Maryland 21230 

 (410) 537-3035 

 

 
9 

FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF FOR THE STATE OF OREGON 

MASSACHUSETTS 

 ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM 

 MARTHA COAKLEY Attorney General 

 Attorney General PAUL A. GARRAHAN 

 MELISSA HOFFER Acting Attorney-in-Charge 

 Division Chief Natural Resources Section 

 Environmental Protection Division Oregon Department of Justice 

 One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor 1515 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 410

 Boston, MA 02108 Portland, OR 97239 

 (617) 963-2428 (971) 673-1943

FOR THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND FOR THE STATE OF VERMONT 

 

 PETER F. KILMARTIN WILLIAM H. SORRELL 

 Attorney General Attorney General 

 GREGORY S. SCHULTZ THEA J. SCHWARTZ 

 Special Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorneys General 

 Rhode Island Department of Attorney Office of the Attorney General 

 General 109 State Street 

 150 South Main Street Montpelier, VT 05609 

 Providence, RI 02903 (802) 828-2359 

 (401) 275-4400 x 2400