by Doug Allen
A reader corrects me on the EPA’s ability to regulate fracking:
Your desire to “see the EPA start looking into ways to eliminate leakages where it is “technologically and economically feasible,” whether below the surface or above” is a nice thought, but not actually legal. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress passed the “Halliburton Loophole,” which prohibits the federal agencies in charge of environmental protection from regulating hydraulic fracturing under any of the major environmental statutes – the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Water Drinking Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, etc. So while EPA has the authority to commission studies on health impacts, such as it is currently undertaking, that is about as far as its legal authority extends. In order to do anything further, let alone “eliminate leakages,” it would need Congress to close the loophole and extend authority to regulate in this area.
Duly noted. I’ll amend my desire to have Congress first close the loophole (which as far as I can tell is a horrible piece of special interest legislation) and then have the EPA do everything possible to eliminate leakages. Another reader highlights fracking’s water usage:
Fracking uses A LOT of water. Colorado’s snow pack currently stands at less than 73% of average and it is where the majority of the Front Range’s (Denver, Boulder, Loveland, Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, etc) water comes from. Local farmers can usual rent water for around $35 an acre foot. Some people are already getting quotes of over $200 an acre foot for the upcoming summer. Fracking companies have money to burn and the local farmers don’t. Last summer set records for sustained high temperatures. They are forecasting more of the same this summer. It’s going to get ugly.
Just for some context on my energy background, my views on natural gas are heavily informed by my past work as an energy consultant in California, working primarily on long-term resource planning for the electricity sector.
One of the first things I learned from my experience working with regulators, utilities, energy companies, and stakeholders was that there are no easy solutions. Every proposed solution has its advocates and opponents, and the “best” energy future is highly dependent on what you find important. People who focus on cost will reach a different conclusion than those who focus on reducing emissions, who will reach a different conclusion than those who are opposed to big transmission lines traversing the state. My opinion of natural gas is based on my belief that it provides the best balance between the various concerns I’ve heard. But there are plenty of arguments that can be made for alternatives.
The Dish 