May 5, 2015

The Honorable Janet McCabe

Acting Assistant Administrator 

Office of Air and Radiation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Via Electronic Mail 

Re: API Comments on the potential EPA Enhanced Natural Gas STAR (ENGS) 

program

Dear Ms. McCabe:

The American Petroleum Institute has had a long, successful working relationship with 

EPA on a number of air emissions programs. The oil and gas industry has also been 

successful in significantly reducing emissions from our operations. The EPA has 

recently reported that methane emissions from hydraulically fractured natural gas wells 

are down 79 percent since 2005 and total methane emissions from natural gas systems 

are down 11 percent since 2005 despite significant growth in oil and gas production. 

We do not believe that additional EPA regulation of our emissions is necessary.

As you are aware, industry has a long history of supporting the Natural Gas STAR 

Program and remains interested in addressing methane emissions through voluntary 

action. Recently we were briefed on EPA’s thoughts on the potential EPA Enhanced 

Natural Gas STAR (ENGS) program and would like to share our thoughts with you and 

your team. We are raising our comments to you given the interrelationship of this 

program with other existing and contemplated EPA air programs. Our four primary 

concerns revolve around 1) flexibility, 2) clear commitments and assurances with 

respect to benefits that would accrue to participants through their participation, 3) 

regulatory overlap and 4) recordkeeping, quantification, and verification. We believe 

these concerns need to be addressed within the confines of the potential program if 

such a program is to be a success and we are happy to discuss these further with you 

and/or your staff.

Howard J. Feldman

Senior Director

Regulatory and Scientific Affairs

1220 L Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005-4070

USA

Telephone 202-682-8340

Email feldman@api.org

www.api.org
Page 2 of 5

Flexibility

 A growing body of research indicates “fat tail” emissions distribution for a variety 

of sources, where a small number of sites and sources are responsible for a high 

percentage of emissions. A voluntary program that targets lowering fat tail 

emissions is appealing to industry, results in the greatest cost-effective 

reductions, and produces significant reductions in emissions more quickly. EPA 

should provide program flexibility to allow for cost-effective emission reductions. 

Adhering to rigid protocols or requiring company-wide implementation of specific 

technologies could limit participation, which defeats EPA’s ultimate objectives. 

 In most instances, application of Best Management Practices (BMPs) is a more 

practical and effective path to implementing reductions. Standardized practices 

and associated pollutant reductions will make it easier for agency/industry 

agreement on practices to be implemented. However, companies/basins will 

need the ability to amend the standard practices to make implementation 

practical (i.e., variability in operations due to type and amount of product, specific 

equipment operated as well as accounting for future potential changes of these 

items).

 Standard BMP protocols are bound to contain details that will make them 

inefficient in a given geographic area. For example, an equipment leak protocol 

may call for monitoring at all sites, but this would be inefficient in an area that 

uses centralized gathering facilities to process production from broadly dispersed 

facilities consisting of only a well head. It would be costly to pay for travel time to 

routinely monitor the wellhead facilities with little environmental benefit. 

Companies can increase the emissions reductions with the available resource by 

customizing BMP protocols to initially monitor the well head facilities, while 

routinely monitoring the centralized facilities. The ability to customize the BMPs 

for efficiency should be considered permissible.

 Within any area, some of the facilities will have regulatory requirements (i.e., 

state permits including potential need for offsets, CTGs for existing sources, 

NSPS, or NESHAP) that will parallel and potentially conflict with employing 

voluntary BMPs. The voluntary BMPs should not apply in these instances, 

unless provisions are available that exempt the facility from the regulatory 

requirements due to the voluntary BMP protocols.

Benefits of Participation

 As a general matter, participants in the program will need to have a 

comprehensive understanding of what they will receive in exchange for their 

participation in ENGS in the way of EPA commitments and assurances. 
Page 3 of 5

 It is a win for EPA, industry and the environment if EPA makes participation in a 

revised voluntary program attractive to a large percentage of industry. A 

successful voluntary program benefits the environment and has reputational 

value for both Administration and industry. Linking participation in the voluntary 

program to the generation of emission reduction credits or offsets encourages 

industry participation. In particular:

 The voluntary program should be coordinated with other regulatory action, 

including any Control Technique Guidance to the states, to preserve 

industry’s ability to generate Emissions Reduction Credits (ERCs) for VOCs 

to the maximum extent permissible under the Clean Air Act and to preserve 

any credits they have. Voluntary reductions of other ozone precursors such 

as NOX currently generate ERCs. EPA may want to consider incentivizing 

further reductions from these precursors in its voluntary framework to make 

the program appealing to producers who may not have VOC-rich gas. 

 EPA should consider the generation and use of credits for methane emission 

reductions as well. 

 EPA should explore crediting early action in recognition of the significant 

reductions industry has already made.

 EPA’s voluntary program should include guidance and ensuing provisions for 

the banking and selling of credits or offsets in nonattainment areas or 

methane, if regulated. 

 Offices such as Office of Air Quality Policy and Standards (OAQPS) and Office of 

Atmospheric Programs (OAP) are likely to have regulatory programs that impact 

ENGS participation. As such, EPA management should actively support 

regulatory efforts to include incentives (or remove disincentives) for participation 

in the ENGS.

 EPA should provide guidance to allow for limiting potential to emit (PTE) for 

regulatory and permit requirements based on ENGS participation. EPA can 

include a potentially effective incentive in ENGS by allowing ENGS BMP 

commitments to limit PTE of a facility, as long as maintaining the BMP for the 

facility is documented.

 

Regulatory Overlap

 Participation in ENGS should inform the necessity for further regulation of 

existing sources. It is unclear how participation will inform the agency’s decision 

on whether to regulate VOC or methane (which will lead to regulation of existing 
Page 4 of 5

sources and potentially create additional permitting burdens) in the NSPS OOOO 

rule. 

 EPA should not regulate methane directly under 111(b) or 111(d) but rather 

pursue a path that allows the ENGS to address existing source emissions. 

 Industry is facing a suite of proposed regulatory changes in the coming years. 

EPA should consider delaying implementation of the program until the new rules 

are finalized and some regulatory certainty for industry is restored. To gauge 

industry commitment and, thereby, inform the necessity to regulate methane from 

existing sources, perhaps EPA should first seek a revocable letter of intent to 

participate rather than a commitment to immediate implementation. 

 Voluntary BMPs and regulatory requirements will overlap in many cases. The 

agency should incentivize ENGS participation by including exemptions from the 

regulatory requirements in new or revised regulations and permits, including 

Control Technique Guidelines, when implementation of an equivalent ENGS 

BMP is documented. 

 EPA should provide guidance to the States to avoid redundancy / overlap of 

voluntary programs and other programs and regulations.

 EPA communicated that one important aspect of ENGS, the leak monitoring 

program, will not be incorporated into the program until after amendments to the 

NSPS OOOO rule are final in 2016. It will be difficult for companies to commit to 

a voluntary leak monitoring program until program details are known, and the 

decision to regulate methane will have already been made. 

Recordkeeping & Quantification

 Recordkeeping/reporting and verification requirements of ENGS need to be 

simple as possible and not impose requirements that are more burdensome than 

any equivalent regulatory program. Quantification of emissions reductions is 

likely to be part of the program and EPA should engage industry to develop a 

simplified approach to quantify emission reductions. 

 EPA should provide guidance or establish streamlined mechanisms for limiting 

potential to emit (PTE) with regards to regulatory and permit requirements based 

on ENGS participation. EPA can include a potentially effective incentive in 

ENGS by allowing ENGS BMP commitments to limit PTE of a facility, as long as 

maintaining the BMP for the facility is documented. 
Page 5 of 5

Again, we look forward to engaging with you and your staff on these issues. Please 

contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Howard J. Feldman

Cc: Joseph Goffman

Paul Gunning

Carey Bylin