Energy& #39;s #1 argument on BLM methane rule has been that it is the EPA& #39;s job to regulate emissions. But there was immediate backpedaling from this admin on efforts to create an EPA methane rule for all the existing oil and gas infrastructure, as noted here https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/climate/trump-methane-climate-change.html?smid=tw-share">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/2...

What these emails pertain to primarily our surveys that oil and gas cos were required to complete which were meant to provides a foundation for building a new rule. EPA had a rule for new infrastructure being built, new sources of emissions, but what about everything else?

Industry very openly argued that the surveys were burdensome, costly, particularly for small companies. And that argument went straight to the admin in its early days, as Oklahoma& #39;s Scott Pruitt was just taking helm of EPA.

Anyway, focus is always on BLM methane rule. It& #39;s been so resistant to the administration (and R-led Congress in & #39;17)& #39;s many attempts to undo it. As @niina_h_farah covered recently, admin rewrite got tossed last week for "myriad inadequacies." https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1063575103/">https://www.eenews.net/greenwire...

But this NYT story, and the lawsuit that prompted release of those internal emails and correspondence, is just a reminder of the methane rule that never was, that industry kinda said was appropriate but also resisted when it had the chance in a supportive admin.

There is an "our" instead of an "are" in this thread and I& #39;m leaving it.