EPA Proposes Major New Air Emissions Requirements for the Oil and Gas Industry

Aug 18, 2015

Reading Time : 2 min

The proposed rules would amend the 2012 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) to address not only methane and VOC emissions for sources already covered, but also sources and equipment downstream from wells and production sites that were not regulated in the 2012 rules. The EPA issued a proposed Source Determination Rule that, according to EPA, would clarify air permitting rules as they apply to the oil and gas industry. Finally, EPA proposed a Federal Implementation Plan for EPA’s Indian Country Minor New Source Review program for oil and gas production sources.

According to EPA, its proposals are “cost effective regulations to reduce harmful air pollution from the oil and natural gas industry . . . [that] rely on proven technologies and best practices that are in use today to reduce emissions . . . .” These new requirements “will help combat climate change [and] reduce air pollution that harms public health . . . .”
[http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/actions.html].

There appear to be some positive elements to EPA’s action, though what EPA gives with one hand, it provides mechanisms for the other hand to take away. For example, sources already subject to the 2012 NSPS requirements for VOC reductions that also would be covered by the proposed 2015 methane requirements would not have to install additional controls, because the controls to reduce VOCs reduce both pollutants. However, the proposed Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) provide recommendations for state and local air agencies to consider in determining reasonably available control technology (RACT) for reducing emissions from covered processes and equipment.

While the CTGs do not impose legal requirements on sources, they are likely to have the greatest impact in ozone nonattainment areas. Moreover, in light of EPA’s November 2014 proposal to make the ozone health standard more stringent, existing VOC sources can expect additional controls to be forthcoming.

Any entity connected to the oil and gas industry and related associations should seriously consider reviewing the proposals and providing comments to EPA. Comments on issues such as the costs imposed by the new requirements, the technical feasibility of EPA’s suggested controls and assumptions regarding control efficiencies are the types of comments that are most likely to have an impact on the final rule.

EPA’s chart identifying the sources covered by the 2012 NSPS for VOCs and the proposed 2015 NSPS for VOCs and methane can be found at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/pdfs/og_table_081815.pdf.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.