DENVER—Energy industry representatives asked the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday to delay adopting final rules for limiting air pollution at oil and gas wells and to give them more time to comment.
Environmentalists who attended a public hearing on the proposal argued the agency’s proposed rules could go further. The meeting was the second of three on the agency’s plan, which includes what would be its first regulations for wells that are hydraulically fractured by blasting water, chemicals and sand underground.
While some states have enacted their own rules to balance energy development with protections for people’s health and the environment, a federal rule will level the playing field nationwide, EPA regional administrator Jim Martin said.
“It will bring other states up to where Colorado and Wyoming are in many respects,” he said.
Dozens of people spoke at hearings Tuesday in Pittsburgh and Wednesday in Denver. More planned to speak Thursday in Arlington, Texas.
The EPA published its proposal following a lawsuit by citizens groups that claimed the agency had let existing rules languish instead of periodically reviewing them as required by the Clean Air Act.
The new rules would focus on having operators capture and sell natural gas that now escapes into the air.
The EPA estimated its fully implemented proposal could reduce emissions of smog-forming volatile organic compounds by about 540,000 tons, or 25 percent. It would reduce emissions of the greenhouse gas methane by about 26 percent and reduce hazardous air pollutants, including benzene, by almost 30 percent, the EPA estimates.
Though drilling companies would have to spend millions of dollars complying with the rules, the government estimated the industry could save almost $30 million overall in 2015 from selling the captured natural gas.
Trade groups questioned those figures and asked for more time to review them. The Western Energy Alliance and others also urged the agency to ask a judge to push back the Feb. 28 deadline for adopting final rules.
The EPA contends companies could recover its costs of meeting the rules within a year, but Jason Rauen of Enerplus Resources USA Corp. said his company estimates it could take up to five years.
At one point, William Harnett of the EPA suggested it would help if his agency could see hard facts on availability of equipment and controls the proposal would require.
Earlier this month, President Barack Obama backed off on tightening smog standards after some businesses and Republicans complained it would kill jobs.
Sportsmen and environmentalists counter that air pollution could hurt tourism and outdoors industry jobs.
“It’s unlikely people will want to spend their money in Colorado if they can’t see the Rockies in the haze,” said Whitney Coombs of the National Wildlife Federation.
Conservationists say updated air rules are overdue. Last winter, ground-level ozone in the Upper Green River Basin in western Wyoming, home to natural gas drilling, was recorded at levels worse than those in Los Angeles.
Speakers with the American Lung Association repeatedly urged the EPA to toughen its proposal to regulate methane more directly. Others said the proposed rule also should end “flaring,” in which unused gas is burned off, and to address existing infrastructure, not just new facilities.
In Colorado, Weld County has been a hot spot for drilling. Before the hearing, county Commissioner Sean Conway said the EPA’s proposal could have unintended consequences on the industry, whose tax dollars and lease payments for land for drilling help support schools.
“If these rules become so restrictive that you reduce exploration, you reduce jobs, you reduce taxes. It’s a ripple effect,” he said.
April Beach, of Erie, Colo., said her sons have developed asthma since gas drilling started near her home. “Natural gas itself is very important,” said Beach, 35. “However, we have to have stricter restrictions to protect ourselves and our kids.”
———
Follow Catherine Tsai at
———
Online:
