Reducing Methane Emissions Through Certification Systems: A Q&A with Lara Owens | Article

Atmospheric methane concentrations have been surging for over a decade, contributing to a rapid increase in global temperatures. Methane—a potent greenhouse gas 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere over a 20 year period—is the second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States behind only carbon dioxide. To limit the worst impacts of climate change, methane emissions must be rapidly reduced.

There are several anthropogenic sources of methane emissions, such as livestock and landfill waste. One of the largest sources of methane emissions in the United States, however, is fossil fuel operations. Since methane is a short-lived climate pollutant with an atmospheric life of 12 years, reducing methane emissions could significantly reduce near-term warming.

Quantifying methane emissions is important to understand the extent of the problem and subsequently target emissions reduction. EESI sat down with Lara Owens, manager of climate intelligence at RMI—a non-profit organization that aims to accelerate the clean energy transition—to discuss the role of certification systems in reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.

EESI: How do you work to quantify and address greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas industry? Are there any challenges associated with this?

Owens: There are a lot of groups that focus on the term ‘measurement.’ What I think we are able to do with confidence is called ‘quantification.’ The distinction is that quantification uses a combination of measurements, calculations, or models to more accurately examine the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced from a certain activity. Some people assume that measurement is the only option we have available for combating this problem, but in order for us to make progress, we have to use the tools that are available, and not let perfect be the enemy of good.

If we can all agree on an acceptable method or equivalency for examining greenhouse gas emissions, emissions quantification is achievable using technology that is available today. And the more flexible and the more dynamic the method, the more future-proof you make those requirements or those performance standards, which allows new technologies with improving precision. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses a quantification method to report emissions, but it is inaccurate, biased, and has gaps in detection and emission sources, thus needs to be significantly improved.

EESI: Why is quantifying greenhouse gases from oil and gas activities important, and how can this help inform regulators?

Owens: When it comes to emissions tracking, we work on something called climate intelligence. Our theory is that you cannot regulate what you do not know. It is important to know the actual emissions to help identify the biggest sources and the best opportunities for reducing emissions. That could mean focusing on a particular sector, like production or pipelines, or on the biggest emitters, like the ultra-emitters or super-emitters, or on certain countries, or certain practices that all operators manage, like flaring.

EESI: Are there motivations for oil and gas companies to address greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane leakage? What policies could provide further incentives?

Owens: There is definitely investor pressure. After talking to dozens of operators, we are really impressed at how private sector investors have been instrumental in driving entrepreneurship in companies. For example, cleaning up older or dirtier operations gets high marks from private investors. We are trying to make this message more transparent for large investors and financial institutions.

As a result, we are also trying to educate the private sector about the specifics of a certification or voluntary program or an emissions reporting protocol. There are two types of numbers for emissions target setting: there is the baseline and there is the emissions reduction target. The current EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) method does not provide a good baseline and is not an accurate form of qualification. But there is a perception that reporting real numbers is going to make companies look like they are behind on achieving their targets because the numbers might be two or three times what they were last year when they were reported using this other method. We are educating producers, operators, investors, and financial institutions to recognize these two sets of numbers to move towards quantified emissions and quantified reductions.

With MiQ, which is our voluntary emissions certification system, we provide a global performance standard that is open-source. It is a method that better quantifies emissions to reliably evaluate emissions reductions targets. All voluntary programs have the right idea, but the quantifications may end up being fragmented. For example, there may be different methods for quantifying emissions across the country or world, so buyers do not know the actual emissions.

The real key is transparency. There are a lot of certification programs that companies are doing themselves, but customers or competitors do not end up knowing the method, and that is an issue. Sometimes when certification happens using existing, poor emission factors, like GHGRP, it is not accurate. It is great that they want to be certified, but that is not accurately defining improvement. There needs to be more of a level playing field—a widely understood method of improvements in order for there to be credibility. And without credibility, it makes it much harder to trust investments or operators.

EESI: Are there other emerging opportunities or technologies that could help identify or mitigate greenhouse gases from the oil and gas sector?

Owens: The short answer is tons, and that is really exciting. And, there are individuals working in this space who want a policy or consistent tool to apply these technologies. What is also really critical is that in these next 10 years, we are going to have more precise technology solutions, costs will come down, and more technologies, like satellites, will be deployed. Soon satellites will be available with detection limits that only airborne companies can quantify today, and that will provide dense coverage to identify leaks. And technologies can be combined to increase accuracy.

There are a lot of commercial solution providers who witnessed this heterogeneity between how different operational systems work and in different geographies. For example, you cannot fly a drone in certain countries because you do not have permission from flight control. In those cases, there are a lot of opportunities for using combined solutions. A combination of solutions is more accurate than limited, narrow solutions. That is another argument for using flexible performance standards to provide limits to operate under. We must design smart regulations that go beyond ticking the boxes.

This interview was edited and condensed for clarity.

Author: Savannah Bertrand