by Catelyn Fitzgerald ’23
Staff Writer
This summer saw the slashing of multiple environmental policies by the Trump administration in an effort to reduce time and costs associated with energy and infrastructure development in the United States. These changes met resistance from environmental groups and became the subject of political controversy. Two environmental regulations that have recently been rolled back are the National Environmental Policy Act and the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule on methane leaks in fossil fuel production.
NEPA is a piece of environmental legislation that requires all major federal actions to be assessed on their environmental, social and economic impact before implementation. “Major federal actions” cover a wide range of activities, from infrastructure projects such as building roads and bridges, to the implementation of federal policies and programs. Under NEPA, all such projects must draft environmental impact statements, explore ways to avoid negative environmental, economic and social impacts, consider long-term effects of the project and identify permanent resources needed to complete the project. These actions required by NEPA have often been criticized for causing unnecessary delays in the execution of projects, as they can be time- and resource-consuming.
The Trump administration’s new rule changes key definitions within NEPA to reduce its scope in an effort to increase the efficiency of federal projects. The new rule narrows the definition of “major federal actions” to exclude projects that require “minimal Federal funding or minimal Federal involvement.” The definition was previously given a broad interpretation, so the new rule releases many projects from needing to follow NEPA. The new rule also dictates that agencies are only responsible for effects that are “reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal relationship to the proposed action or alternatives,” meaning that agencies are not responsible for negative effects that would occur in the far future or the indirect effects of their projects.
Concerns regarding changes to NEPA are not only centered around the potential for negative environmental effects of projects to go unnoticed, but also around the speeding up of project planning that will reduce opportunities for communities to voice their opinions about the projects. As of Aug. 28, more than 20 states, including Massachusetts, have sued the Trump administration over changes to this policy.
Another environmental regulation that has been rolled back is a rule on methane leaks created by the Obama administration. The rule required fossil fuel companies to monitor and repair leaks of methane gas from oil and gas wells. The regulation would have required many oil and gas wells to be retrofitted with the proper technology for methane detection, which is both costly and time-consuming for fossil fuel companies. EPA estimates predict that the rollback will save these companies $100 million through 2030 and lead to 850,000 tons of methane being released into the atmosphere. Methane is a greenhouse gas that stays in the air for less time than other GHGs like CO2, but has 80 times the heat-trapping capability of CO2 during its first 20 years in the atmosphere. The gas is released by energy production plants, landfills and livestock.
The EPA has also reported that emissions from methane leaks have stabilized in recent years, meaning that the regulation may not necessarily have a significant impact on emissions, but these reports have been challenged by data collection within the scientific community. Recent findings are in agreement that atmospheric methane levels are higher than what was previously reported by the EPA. Discrepancies between EPA and independent data collection come from the EPA’s use of a mix of self-reported data from fossil fuel companies and on-site testing of methane leaks. The discovery of higher-than-expected methane levels means that policies aiming to curb emissions of the gas are more important than ever in slowing the onset of climate change.
Major fossil fuel companies have decided to continue following the regulation in order to avoid damaging their public image and aid in their promotion of natural gas as a “green” alternative to oil. If natural gas were to be associated with high amounts of methane emissions, it would undermine companies’ efforts to promote it.
The methane rule was part of a set of three regulations created by the Obama administration in an attempt to slow climate change. The others targeted CO2 emissions from cars and coal burning and have previously been rolled back by the Trump administration.
