Just days after announcing an agreement-in-principle to participate in an outcomes-based methane equivalency process, Alberta released minimal updates to its methane regulations. It is difficult to reconcile how the province could, in one breath, agree to develop regulations that achieve equal outcomes as the federal regulations and, in the next breath, release a regulatory update that so patently falls short of that objective.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) gives the federal government authority to regulate methane emissions (as it is a potent greenhouse gas - in addition to being a waste of a resource). The federal government recently amended its oil and gas methane regulations in support of the target to reduce oil and gas methane emissions 75% (from 2012 levels) by 2030 nationally, which means that either the federal regulations must be implemented as-written in the producing provinces, or the provinces must design their own equivalent regulations.
Equivalency agreements
While the provincial regulations need not implement all the same measures, the federal government can deem the provincial regulations “equivalent” and stand down its own regulations if – and only if – the provincial regulations will achieve equal outcomes. Provinces can negotiate about the methods but not the results. “Equal outcomes” means equivalent cumulative emissions reductions over the period of the equivalency agreement. That’s the legal bar for equivalency; nothing short of that suffices.
Ostensibly, Alberta recognized this when it co-signed the agreement-in-principle to “Develop an outcome-based equivalency agreement under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.” Given the federal government’s constitutional authority over methane, this agreement wasn’t legally necessary. Still, we were pleased to see the province signal its intent to work towards equivalency and meaningfully reducing methane emissions.
How far apart are the federal and Alberta regulations?
However, the new edition of Alberta’s methane regulations falls far short of the stringency of the federal regulations. Just compare the changes to the federal regulation to the changes to Alberta’s regulation (Table 1). Again, in principle, the province is allowed to implement different measures – but, on the whole, its regulation needs to result in equal emissions reduction outcomes. A regulation that is weaker in every respect than its counterpart – as this one is – does not meet the bar.
| Federal methane regulation | Alberta methane regulation | Comparable outcome? |
|---|---|---|
| Prohibits routine venting from all new and existing sources (including pneumatics, tanks, dehydrators, compressors) by 2030 | No prohibition on routine venting from any existing sources, or from new sources other than dehydrators | No |
| Prohibits routine flaring except where an engineering study shows using the gas on-site is infeasible | No prohibition on routine flaring; introduces measures to ensure flares remain lit | No |
| Increases frequency of leak detection and repair surveys to 4x/year at high-risk sites | Maintains frequency of leak detection and repair surveys at 3x/year at high-risk sites | No |
| Monthly instrumented leak screening required if operator is on site | Annual leak screening required unless a leak detection survey has already been conducted; need not be instrumented | No |
| Annual third-party inspection requirement | No third-party inspection requirement | No |
This comparison makes clear that Alberta’s regulations are not remotely commensurate with the federal ones. The most significant difference between the two – and one that would be virtually impossible to make up for with market mechanisms such as offset credits and market investments – is the comparative weakness of Alberta’s approach to venting.
Venting accounts for over two thirds of Alberta’s methane emissions, so it is critical that regulations adequately target vent sources. A significant remaining source is gas-fired pneumatic devices. Alberta is the only producing province not to have regulated a phase-out of existing emitting pneumatics. As we recently pointed out, this is a significant regulatory gap. Closing this gap would have been an obvious first step if Alberta were truly committed to making meaningful progress on methane.
Yet the province has declined to make this or other material regulatory revisions. Instead, the new edition of the regulations adds a requirement to conserve gas from new glycol dehydrators – just new installations of just one source of vent gas. This provision doesn’t affect existing emissions from existing equipment.
Other additions to Alberta’s regulations require new flares to have failsafe devices and existing flares to be inspected twice monthly, both in the service of ensuring flares stay lit. Unlit flares are a problem, accounting for 4 per cent of Alberta’s methane emissions. Regulatory solutions are indeed needed. Yet there are much larger emissions sources still needing mitigation (including pneumatics, tanks, and compressors).
What happens next?
On their own, we do not see how these changes can result in the scale of emissions reductions that Alberta is legally obliged to achieve under CEPA. We can only conclude that this regulatory update is not a genuine attempt at equivalency. We expect that any independent third-party verifier using a credible methodology would recognize this and recommend that the federal government direct Alberta to go back to the drawing board. Any other outcome would represent a failure of the equivalency process, would undermine equivalency with other producing provinces and would risk litigation. Since equivalency agreements are now expected to have ten-year durations (extended from the previous five-year duration), failing to ensure genuinely equivalent outcomes would lock in more emissions for a longer time.
We look forward to seeing Alberta’s next attempt at an equivalent methane regulation.
