Collaboration between gas utilities and local environmental groups to find common ground on a contentious issue is not always easy. One such issue includes the repair of Grade 3 leaks. Cumulatively, these leaks are seen by environmental groups and others as a major source of methane emissions and a contributor to climate change, but they are classified as non-hazardous according to the Gas Pipeline Technology Committee’s standards.
Conflict can sometimes be more common than collaboration. In Massachusetts, though, diverse groups with differing perspectives and opinions did come together, working to find mutual agreement on the emissions question.
In our state, environmental groups had been pushing for gas local distribution companies to repair all leaks, including Grade 3 leaks, which typically are not on a strict timetable for repair as they aren’t considered an existing or probable hazard to people or property. This is compared to Grade 1 or 2 leaks, which are considered high priority.
However, in 2016, new research by Boston University’s Margaret Hendrick showed that 7 percent of Grade 3 leaks from the city’s distribution system represented 50 percent of total methane emissions. A new state law followed, pre-empting the GPTC’s standards and requiring gas companies to repair Grade 3 leaks. Massachusetts utilities had a goal to develop a methodology for identifying these large-volume leaks. Meanwhile, environmental activists wanted to ensure the approach was effective.
As a result, Columbia Gas of Massachusetts received letters expressing concern from environmental groups in western Massachusetts. Taking a slow breath, utility leadership read the letters. What they did next was the most valuable part of the process—they issued an invitation for the different groups to meet and sit across the table from one another in an effort to understand one another’s motivations and ideas. Following up on the meeting, Columbia Gas continued more in-depth conversations with environmental groups such as the nonprofits Home Energy Efficiency Team, or HEET, and Mothers Out Front. Those conversations grew to include Eversource Energy, National Grid and university researchers. The end result was a study to find a low-cost, reliable proxy method to identify the highest-emitting Grade 3 leaks so they could be prioritized for repair.
“In the process, the environmentalists and other parties learned a lot from us about what it takes to do repairs and make replacements,” said Bill Akley, president of gas operations, Eversource Energy. “In turn, they pushed us from a leak and risk perspective. They brought focus to measuring pure methane that could be leaking. We can now focus on these higher-emitting methane areas for pipe replacement.”
The industry executives also shared that their thinking about natural gas emissions began to shift as they recognized the activists’ viewpoints. As Dan Cote, vice president of Pipeline Safety & Compliance at NiSource, the parent company of Columbia Gas of Massachusetts, put it, this became a “gas operations decision in the context of an overriding public policy.”
In this situation, it was apparent the two sides had a common goal: a least-cost, reliable solution. We could work together. And we did. Through the study, all the participants learned more about each other’s perspectives and skills as we worked toward a solution all could endorse. The result of our efforts was noticed. In fact, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey remarked that it was a pleasure to have experts collaborate and come forward with a best solution.
Collaboration can replace contention, even in the most thorny of situations, as our experience illustrates. Here’s our advice for groups thinking about collaboration:
Learning is one of the really positive outcomes of such collaborations. As Zeyneb Magavi, lead researcher and a member of Mothers Out Front, said, “In the end, I can gush about the entire process. The outcomes of the coalition were truly win-win.
“In general, we all had to open up our minds,” he added. “A lot of assumptions are made by groups who may not routinely work with one another. For us scientists, we were exposed to the real, on-the-ground complexities that utilities face. By getting hard hats and visiting work sites, we got a more nuanced understanding of the work being done.”
The environmentalists learned a lot about the details and challenges faced by utilities. That learning has percolated throughout their organizations, affecting direction and new ideas. HEET even has plans to use similar collaborative techniques to further reduce emissions.
Going forward, the utilities intend to develop even better methods for identifying methane emissions. In addition, they plan to improve the tools they use and take advantage of electronic devices that might offer a visual look at potential problem areas.
In addition to the cooperative spirit to identify methane measurement solutions, we were able to see a regulatory benefit. Our state regulators saw groups developing solutions together—united on scope and approach—and hearing our solutions is a better use of regulators’ time than trying to manage disagreements.
Our collaborative solution helps utilities confirm the size and scope of emissions and gives them the ability to prioritize emissions for repair. Based on our work, our coalition has submitted this proposal to the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities as the preferred approach for implementing the law. The group will be meeting again to talk about next steps, which might include a focus on the actual implementation of the emissions study by standardizing the emissions footprint process.
It may be too early to say, but we’re hopeful that this could be a model other gas utilities could consider adopting.
Steve Bryant is president of Columbia Gas of Massachusetts, and Audrey Schulman is president of Home Energy Efficiency Team.