Public-health advocates are welcoming a new proposal to reduce harmful air pollution by limiting methane waste at oil and gas facilities.

Sabrina Pacha, director of Healthy Air and Water Colorado, said medical professionals have long been sounding the alarm about the health impacts of methane pollution, which has been linked to respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, stroke, Alzheimer's and poor maternal health.

"Folks who are pregnant who are living in areas with elevated rates of methane pollution are at higher risk of preterm birth, low-weight birth and, in severe cases, even higher rates of maternal and fetal illness and death," Pacha said.

Reducing methane pollution, which is more than 85 times more potent at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, is also seen as critical for mitigating climate change. The EPA's proposal, under authority of the Clean Air Act, calls on oil and gas operations to find and repair leaks, capture gas lost through venting and flaring, and other proven strategies already at work across Colorado.

Critics of efforts to rein in waste have argued it places an undue cost burden on smaller operators.

Proponents point out there are cost-effective options available for operations at all scales, in part because producers are able to bring lost natural gas to market. Recently passed federal infrastructure and climate legislation also provides significant funding to reduce waste.

Pacha believes other states should be able to adopt the EPA's proposed regulations, which are similar to protections already at work in Colorado.

"And we were able to achieve those in partnership with business groups who have really stepped up to the table," Pacha said. "So if our Colorado businesses can do it, folks across the country can meet those standards as well."

The EPA is accepting public comments on its proposal, and will hold public hearings. The rule is expected to be finalized next year.

Overall, Pacha believes the proposal is strong in cutting methane pollution, but said she would like to see additional limits expanded to all states similar to those adopted by Colorado on routine flaring, where operators burn off excess gas.

"Unfortunately, air pollution can't be contained in just one state; it's a multi-state issue. So we would like to see the federal government match our Colorado standards when it comes to routine flaring," Pacha said.

Montana's environmental advocates are criticizing Gov. Greg Gianforte for signing a bill they said will allow the state to ignore the impacts of climate change when developers construct large-scale energy projects such as coal mines and power plants. The measure received a lot of attention during the legislative session, most of it in opposition.

House Bill 971 builds on a decade-old law prohibiting the state from including actual or potential impacts which are "regional, national or global in nature" in environmental reviews of big energy projects.

Anne Hedges, spokesperson for the Montana Environmental Information Center, said the measure is a direct attack on the state's most precious natural resources and leaves them unprotected.

"You're telling the public and you're telling the state their rights don't matter," Hedges asserted. "That they don't really have a right to a clean and healthful environment and the state has no obligation to protect people from the very real dangers of the climate crisis."

The bill prohibits regulators such as the state's environmental quality department from measuring greenhouse-gas emissions and the effects of climate change when they review the overall impacts of large projects such as coal mines and power plants. The bill's supporters argued they are trying to avoid excessive state regulation and contend measuring and regulating greenhouse-gas emissions and other impacts on the climate should be left up to federal laws like the Clean Air Act.

Hedges countered the state understands local issues better than the federal government does, and added the whole purpose of Montana's environmental agencies doing these sorts of studies is to be able to educate residents who live here about the impacts of a major energy project.

"On the land, on the air, water, wildlife, economy, cultural resources, et cetera," Hedges outlined.

Hedges pointed out ultimately, the bill will create longer and more dangerous wildfire seasons, a shrinking snowpack, and reduced stream flows as emissions from power plants add to a warming climate and unstable atmosphere.

A law known as the "Halliburton Loophole" is under growing scrutiny. It exempts oil and gas companies from revealing the chemicals they use in the hydraulic fracking process.

The latest study finds between 2014 and 2021, companies used hundreds of millions of pounds of toxic chemicals - without any governmental oversight.

Another report published last year by scientists and medical organizations says living near fracking sites increases risks for cancer, respiratory diseases, heart problems, birth defects and more.

Leatra Harper, managing director of the Freshwater Accountability Project, explained that the loophole prevents communities from understanding potential harms.

"People need to know what the exposures could be," said Harper. "We need to know what the chemicals are to look for when we find water contamination. And we don't even know how to test for it, because we don't know what to test for."

The Independent Petroleum Association of America and other industry groups argue that fracking poses little to no risk of harmful health effects.

The group FracTracker estimates hydraulically fractured wells produce about 2.3% of the oil and gas output in Ohio.

Harper added that previously proposed federal legislation would have addressed the issue by requiring companies to reveal which chemicals they use in the fracking process.

"There's something called the FRAC Act that has just basically been mothballed," said Harper. "And we need to revive that and fix this problem that started at the federal level, that allowed this industry to take off."

As of 2022, hydraulic fracturing techniques have been used on an estimated 1.7 million wells across the U.S.

Memorial Day is considered the unofficial beginning of summer in the United States, with many Texans keeping an eye on what the weather has in store.

Federal forecasters said there is a 40% chance of a "near-normal" hurricane season for Texas and the rest of the Gulf and East coasts, and are more concerned about what the development of an El Niño could bring.

Brad Pugh, meteorologist at the National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center, said before El Niño's arrival, drought is still a factor for the Southwest.

"The seasonal drought outlook, which is valid through the end of August, calls for persistence of ongoing drought through much of New Mexico and Texas," Pugh reported. "Although we are forecasting improving drought conditions over the northeast Texas panhandle."

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is predicting between 12 and 17 named tropical storms will form this season. One to four of those storms could become hurricanes rated Category 3 or higher, with wind speeds of at least 111 miles per hour. Much of Texas is considered vulnerable to the impacts of storms, made worse by rising sea levels.

El Niño is a natural climate pattern, but could send global average temperatures soaring to a record high.

Johnna Infanti, also a meteorologist at the National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center, said the chance for it to develop is about 55%, likely producing the chance for excessive rain and snow starting in the fall.

"So with the El Niño, we expect a transition between the May through July season," Infanti noted. "We're expecting that to form during the May through July season and we're expecting that to persist into winter."

As might be expected because of climate change, NOAA predicts this summer will bring hotter-than-average temperatures across most U.S. states, including Texas.


get more stories like this via email