A couple of weeks ago, at the annual meeting of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency would be loosening Biden-era regulations for methane emissions at oil and gas wells.
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and contributes to air pollution. To learn more about what this could mean for the environment, The Allegheny Front’s Kara Holsopple spoke with John Rutecki, regulatory and legislative manager at the Environmental Defense Fund.
LISTEN to the interview
Kara Holsopple: What did EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announce about methane regulations in New Mexico to a group of oil and gas industry people there?
John Rutecki: At the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association meeting, they announced, or at least previewed, some possible changes to the EPA methane rule, and this revolved around treating low-producing well sites or marginal well sites slightly differently as far as what the rule had originally said. [He] talked about repeal of the super emitter response program and changes to capture and control equipment. It’s really a preview towards weakening that rule, and I think just general accountability around what are significant sources of methane pollution.
Kara Holsopple: Can you just say what a super emitter program is?
John Rutecki: Super emitter is just the fancy term for a really large emissions event. There are quite a few satellites out there now. When there is a large plume or just like a large cloud of methane coming off, it can see that. Then it will keep circling the Earth and finding that. Ultimately, large emissions events obviously have a huge impact, and [it’s] something that allows more people to help with accountability around those types of events.
That’s why on the large side, it’s really important, but on the small side, it’s also very important because those low-producing well sites — they’re only emitting small amounts, but cumulatively it is a large impact.
Kara Holsopple: What have the regulations been up to now?
John Rutecki: The EPA methane rule was finalized in 2024, and that set a timeline in motion for states to adopt that rule. Unfortunately, we have not gotten to that point.
There was a delay in implementation in March 2025. This rule was set to be the first of its kind that addressed new and existing sources of oil and gas methane pollution. As of now, the new sources are in place; that’s called Quad Ob (OOOb). Quad Oc (OOOOc) deals with existing sources.
Unfortunately, as of now, January 2027 is when state plans were to be finalized, but we don’t know, with this most recent announcement or preview, whether or not that will be extended again. So currently there is no national standard for existing sources, and what they have to do to control methane pollution.
Methane emissions much higher than gas industry targets, study says
Kara Holsopple: I’m trying to make this as listener-friendly as possible for folks. So when you say methane pollution, we’re talking about methane leaking from oil and gas wells.
John Rutecki: Yes. Methane is the main component of natural gas. It’s 80 times more potent than CO2 in the short term. And so, obviously, to address the current rate of warming we’re experiencing today, it’s really one of the fastest and easiest ways for us to address that.
What I would say is this current proposal, and what we’re talking about when we were talking about these rules, is really, to me, about unfortunately moving our country backward. This is about a waste of an American energy resource. By weakening these rules, we’re really increasing that methane pollution that we’re already experiencing.
That is exacerbating the climate crisis, and it is also creating public health harms for those living closest to that. When you think about what is happening, we know there’s a source of pollution, and this is just allowing them to continue business as usual, even though there are lots of companies in the industry already doing many things to reduce this pollution because methane is a product as well.
This is something that’s in the best interests of companies, especially at a time when they’re facing higher and higher energy prices themselves.
Kara Holsopple: Yeah, I was going to ask what is the benefit to oil and gas companies of allowing methane leaks?
John Rutecki: If you’re talking about natural gas, there is no benefit. That’s why I think there’s kind of a disconnect when we’re talking about this. There’s not a benefit, and there is a lot of technology out there that companies are already using.
What is important about this, though, is it was setting kind of a level playing field for everyone across the country. Very often you’ll see states on their own just have their own rules. This was going to create that level playing field.
If you’re talking about natural gas, there is no benefit [to allowing methane leaks]…and there is a lot of technology out there that companies are already using.
So as we’re talking about consumers wanting lower-emission energy, whether we’re talking about Europe or if we’re talking about here in America, I think companies have seen it in their best interest. There are other types of gas associated with operations like oil production that actually do create natural gas as well when they’re drilling. If we can encourage that capture and beneficial reuse, it’s good for the company, and it’s for consumers on the backend.
Kara Holsopple: What have other states done to regulate and reduce methane leaks by the industry?
John Rutecki: I think that’s a really important question, and why I think it’s so important that you’re seeing Pennsylvania propose two rulemakings to adopt standards like the EPA methane rule. New Mexico and Colorado would be two good examples of states that have shown that you can regulate these emissions but still have a very healthy oil and gas industry.
Colorado has adopted these standards under their own state authorities, and New Mexico should do that in December. Pennsylvania will be moving forward under their own authority and so have the ability to adopt rules like this. We obviously are encouraging that progress to continue, with Governor Shapiro leading the way when the federal government is really retreating and its duty to address these emissions
Kara Holsopple: The New Mexico and Colorado regulations are the same as the EPA 2024 regulation?
John Rutecki: They’re close. Actually, Colorado has been regulating oil and gas methane since about 2014. So they actually will at least meet but probably will exceed in their standards that they currently have now. The EPA rule was a product of lots of states and stakeholders coming together to find something that would be workable all across the country. But Colorado and New Mexico have both shown that even with these kinds of regulations, you’re still seeing an increase in their production year over year.
Kara Holsopple: What are the impacts of methane on public health?
John Rutecki: Obviously, methane is a climate super pollutant. Addressing that in the short term allows us to address longer-term climate impacts. From a public health impact standpoint, when methane is released, you will see smog-forming volatile organic compounds be released, so general air quality impacts.
Pennsylvania currently has about a million people who live within a half mile of oil and gas operations.
During production, there are also releases of hazardous air pollutants like benzene. So there’s cancer-causing items that come out. Public health science has shown the closer you are to production, [with a] half mile being the typical proximity for individuals to start experiencing these health harms. Pennsylvania currently has about a million people who live within a half mile of oil and gas operations.
Kara Holsopple: Can you just say what Pennsylvania is proposing to do about methane leaks?
John Rutecki: So it is still early on. The purpose of part of this announcement was to work towards meeting the federal requirements of implementing the rule.
Pennsylvania has a specific rulemaking process that they follow, so this was just a way to do that. We don’t know the specifics of the rule, we do know what we’re encouraging, which would be closer to the EPA rule, and think that’s kind of the starting point for Pennsylvania.
I think it’s important that we see leak detection and repair standards at all well sites because we know that there’s emissions coming from them, so someone should be out there checking on them. The EPA proposed rollbacks would actually exempt low-producing well sites from going out and doing these inspections.
Nationwide, we know the low-producing wells sites account for about 5% of total production, but more than almost 60% of total emissions when you’re talking about new sources, existing sources [of methane]. In Pennsylvania, low-producing well sites are 1% of production, and so driving nearly half of all of those emissions. We want to see those kinds of leak detection and repair standards.
We want to see intentionally polluting equipment removed. There’s specific types of equipment in the natural gas industry called pneumatics. That’s about as much as I would need to expound on that, I think for your listeners, but what’s important to know is the previous models used to just vent natural gas as a way to relieve pressure. Now they’re air-driven. You’re seeing that replacement, which EQT themselves, Pennsylvania’s largest and actually the nation’s largest natural gas producers, already replaced all of theirs in anticipation of this rule or any other subsequent rules because they realized they’re losing product.
We would love Pennsylvania to maintain a super emitter program because this is where you can take innovation and satellites that are out there and find larger emissions events, find a way to have the regulator and the operator know that there’s a problem.
But ultimately, I think it’s important, when they’re looking at this rule, to make sure that they’re taking into account all types of operators in this. A blanket exemption where you would just allow all low-producing well sites to not have any type of rules around them is not the right approach.
There are small operators out there, but we do know that there are about 72 corporations across the country that own a thousand or more well sites, so they have the capital with which to fix this. Let’s not do a large exemption; let’s approach this in a way that I think is of benefit for all parties involved.
John Rutecki is regulatory and Legislative Manager for Appalachia, Michigan and Wyoming at the Environmental Defense Fund.
The Allegheny Front reached out to the Marcellus Shale Coalition, a trade group for the gas industry, for comment about EPA’s rollback plans. In an email, a spokesperson said the group won’t comment formally until after having a chance to review the draft rules, which have not been published yet. But the spokesperson noted that the coalition previously commented that emissions rules must have a reasonable and cost-effective pathway to compliance. Pennsylvania’s methane rules are scheduled to be considered by the Environmental Quality Board in the second quarter of 2027.
