Democrats Want Scott Pruitt to Stop Smothering Methane Data

But oil-producing states call the rule an “onerous” result of Obama’s “climate agenda.” 

Ron Sachs/CNP via ZUMA Wire

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

House Democrats are angry with EPA administrator Scott Pruitt again and, this time, it has nothing to do with first class flightsreal estate dealsTrump hotel mattresses, moisturizing lotions, or any of his other ever-expanding list of controversies.  

Lawmakers asked Pruitt in a letter released Wednesday to reconsider his decision to rescind a little-known rule regulating information about methane, a heat-trapping gas that is one of the primary contributors to global warming. Under the terms of an Obama-era rule, which mandates the documents and data a federal agency can request from private companies, EPA officials were set to receive updates from oil and gas companies on the levels of their methane emissions. That is, until Pruitt took over. 

Almost immediately after he was confirmed at the EPA, Pruitt officially withdrew that request, which effectively permitted companies to shield their methane emission levels from the public. Nine attorneys general and two governors from major oil-producing states had written Pruitt a letter last year calling the rule an “onerous” result of Obama’s “climate agenda.” 

Today’s letter, which was signed by House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), and four other Democratic lawmakers, asserted that without these public disclosures, government regulators cannot “collect accurate data on methane emissions.” Their letter is another attempt by Democratic lawmakers to draw attention to the costly effect of Pruitt’s policies on the environment. 

“Methane emissions exacerbate the worst impacts of climate change, result in significant air pollution … [and,] when occurring on public lands, deprive American taxpayers and states of a valuable source of royalty payments,” the letter reads.

Democrats received a boost this week with the release of a study in the journal Science that found methane emissions from the US oil and gas supply chain exceeded EPA estimates by 60 percent. The study was released on June 21 after five years of research and includes authors affiliated with Princeton, Harvard, Stanford and other academic institutions. Researchers suggested that recent EPA estimates undercounted the amount of emissions released during industrial malfunctions and other “abnormal operating conditions,” resulting in what the New York Times called a “leak problem” for the oil and gas industry. The Times noted:

Methane, the main component of natural gas, can warm the planet more than 80 times as much as the same amount of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period if it escapes into the atmosphere before being burned. A recent study found that natural gas power plants could actually be worse for climate change than coal plants if their leakage rate rose above 4 percent.

According to the EPA website, methane with its superior heat-trapping abilities compared to carbon dioxide, has less staying power in the atmosphere. But because it has a far greater ability to absorb energy, it is a much more potent short-term contributor to global warming when leaked into the atmosphere. 

Whether the letter from House Democrats will make any difference is unlikely, but it may provide fodder for the August hearing Pruitt is scheduled to attend with senators from the Environment and Public Works Committee. Trump officials have been consistently in favor of relieving  businesses and corporations from the responsibility of meeting methane emission restriction standards. 

In February, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management moved to repeal a rule that had managed to survive in the Senate during the first year of the Trump administration. The regulation, which applies to drilling that occurs on public land, would have stopped companies from letting methane be leaked into the atmosphere. In a statement, the department’s assistant secretary for land and minerals management called it a “punitive regulation.” While the rule remains in place for now, subject to a potential suspension, aspects of it are tied up in litigation across half a dozen federal courts. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate