Natural gas, which accounted for almost 32% of power generation in the United States in 2017,¹ is often touted as a cleaner, cheaper, and more plentiful alternative energy source to coal.  In relation to coal, burning natural gas produces nearly half as much carbon dioxide per unit of energy.²  These benefits have led to a recent decrease in the United States’ carbon emissions and have led many to consider natural gas to be a “bridge fuel” that can help the United States and other countries to reduce carbon emissions while gradually transitioning from fossil fuels to carbon-neutral, renewable forms of energy.³

The benefits of natural gas fracking do not come without costs, particularly costs pertaining to climate change.  Natural gas is primarily comprised of methane, a potent greenhouse gas (GHG), that is more than twenty times stronger than carbon dioxide over a hundred-year horizon.⁴  Methane is about thirty times more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping atmospheric heat,⁵ and unburned methane reacts in the atmosphere to form ozone, “a major threat to public health and welfare.”⁶  Methane escapes from natural gas pipelines primarily through unintentional leakage from equipment and intentional routine venting or flaring, during which well operators release or burn off natural gas for purposes of well maintenance or safety.  Whether these fugitive methane emissions render natural gas less environmentally friendly than coal in the long run is a question currently under debate.⁷

One NASA study using “space-based observations of North American methane emissions gathered between 2003 and 2009” determined that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emissions inventory underestimated methane emissions “by a factor of 1.8.”⁸  Recent research estimates suggest that total methane emissions in the UnitedStates could be twenty-five to seventy-five times higher than estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and methane leakage from the natural gas industry “are an important part of the problem.”⁹  Methane emissions from both human activity and naturally occurring sources precipitate climate change and pose a holistic threat to life on Earth as we know it.  One projection commissioned by the Environmental Defense Fund found that the twenty-year “global warming potential of methane emissions from the oil and gas drilling sector totaled the equivalent of 5,650 metric tons of carbon  dioxide, with nearly 3.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas having leaked into the atmosphere in 2012.”¹⁰

In this comparative study, I will analyze the various methods employed by states for monitoring and curtailing methane leakage in comparison with approaches that have been employed at thefederal level.  I will juxtapose the regulatory regimes of Colorado, North Dakota, New York, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and California with the Obama Administration methane leakage regulations, including the 2016 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) “methane waste rule” regulations that the Trump Administration formally rolled back in September 2018.¹¹  Finally, I will consider what the failure of the Obama Administration methane leak regulations means for climate change law in the United States and will argue that there is a compelling need for stronger methane leakage regulation at the state level.  While California arguably has the most comprehensive and effective state-level regulations in place, California’s regulatory scheme is not a one-size-fits all solution to methane leakages.  To preventor halt the progress of climate change, I contend that other states should adopt regulatory schemes driven by their own state-specific needs.  If fugitive methane emissions are to be curbed in future years, there will need to be significant state-level regulatory efforts.