BLM postpones the compliance dates for Methane Waste Rule

Date: June 15th, 2017

Explanation: Regulatory action

Agencies: BLM, DOI

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued a federal register notice announcing that it was postponing the compliance dates for certain provisions of the Methane Waste Prevention Rule (finalized on November 10, 2016.  See below), which aims to reduce waste of natural gas (methane) from oil and natural gas production activities on federal and tribal land. BLM said that it was delaying the compliance dates pending the outcome of litigation over the rule.

Methane Waste Prevention Rule

In November 2016, BLM published a final rule to reduce waste of natural gas (methane) from oil and natural gas production activities on federal and tribal land. The rule includes new requirements for flaring, capture, leak detection, and venting. According to BLM, the rule could eliminate 175,000-180,000 tons of methane emissions annually (equivalent to 4.4-4.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide).

Deregulatory Action

On February 3, 2017, the House passed a resolution to  (H.J. Res. 36) to repeal the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)’s methane waste prevention rule using the Congressional Review Act (CRA).  However, on May 10, 2017, the Senate voted against the resolution (S.J. Res 11).

On March 28, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order directing BLM  to review the methane waste rule and to rescind or rewrite the rule as needed to promote the President’s goals of energy independence and economic growth. On March 29, 2017, the Department of Interior issued Secretarial Order 3349, which directs BLM to review the the methane waste prevention rule and report on whether the rule is fully consistent with the executive order’s policy of promoting domestic energy production.

On June 15, 2017, BLM issued a federal register notice announcing that it was postponing the compliance dates for certain provisions of the Methane Waste Prevention Rule (finalized on November 10, 2016), which aims to reduce waste of natural gas (methane) from oil and natural gas production activities on federal and tribal land. BLM said that it was delaying the compliance dates pending the outcome of litigation over the rule. On October 5, 2017, BLM issued a follow-up proposal to postpone key requirements of the rule until January 17, 2019.

On November 1, 2017, BLM sent a proposal for “revision or rescission” of the Methane Waste Prevention Rule to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

On December 8, 2017, BLM issued a final rule postponing several key requirements of the Methane Waste Prevention Rule.

On February 22, 2018, BLM published its proposed revisions to the Methane Waste Prevention Rule. BLM proposed to rescind several provisions of the 2016 rules, including those governing leak detection and repair. Other provisions, including those dealing with venting and flaring, would be substantially revised.

Litigation

On July 5, 2017, the States of California and New Mexico filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, challenging BLM’s decision to postpone certain compliance dates of the Methane Waste Prevention Rule. A second suit challenging BLM’s decision was filed by 17 environmental groups (led by the Sierra Club) on July 10, 2017.

On October 4, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a decision holding that BLM had violated the APA by postponing the compliance dates after the rule’s effective date had already passed. The court vacated the postponement notice, thereby reinstating the original deadlines for compliance with the rule.

On December 19, 2017, the States of California and New Mexico sued the administration, challenging issuance of the December 2017 rule postponing implementation of the Methane Waste Prevention Rule. A second suit challenging the rule was filed by 17 conservation and tribal citizens groups.

On February 22, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction enjoining BLM from enforcing the December 2017 rule. The court held that the plaintiff’s “are likely to prevail on the merits,” indicating that BLM’s reasons for adopting the December 2017 rule are “untethered to evidence contradicting the reasons for implementing the Waste Prevention Rule,” and BLM appears to be “casually ignoring all of its previous findings and arbitrarily changing course.” The court further found that, without a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs would suffer “irreparable injury caused by the waste of publicly owned natural gas, increased air pollution and associated health impacts, and exacerbated climate impacts.”