Southern California Gas recently told California’s air regulator that it wants to fix the damage done by one of its leaking natural gas storage wells, which ultimately released tens of thousands of tons of methane into the atmosphere. That is, as long as making things right doesn’t cost too much.

In a proposal sent to SoCal Gas earlier this month (PDF), the California Air Resources Board (CARB) outlined sustainability projects that the utility could undertake to compensate for the pollution caused by the massive leak. Some of the projects that CARB suggested included reducing methane emissions from agriculture facilities like dairies and waste treatment plants, which are notorious for how much methane they belch; promoting sustainable energy initiatives by replacing old water heaters or subsidizing zero-emissions vehicles; and addressing “orphan” environmental issues that no company bears a responsibility for, like cleaning up abandoned oil wells.

Two weeks later, the gas company responded (PDF), saying that it would prefer to count its methane emissions using a more relaxed standard than the one CARB used in its proposal.

SoCal Gas also said it doesn't want to have to complete emissions reduction projects entirely within California, as CARB suggested, preferring to implement such projects in markets where the projects would be cheaper.

The Aliso Canyon leak has been classified as the most damaging methane leak in US history, having doubled the methane emission rate of the Los Angeles basin over the four months that it continued unabated. Besides the fact that methane is a potent greenhouse gas, the leak also drove residents of the nearby Porter Ranch community out of their homes due to the noxious chemicals that the natural gas was treated with. In January, California’s governor declared a state of emergency, ordering regulators to "ensure that Southern California Gas Company covers costs related to the natural gas leak and its response, while protecting ratepayers.”

In SoCal Gas’ response to CARB’s mitigation proposal, the utility reminded the regulator that “any proposed mitigation program from the ARB does not itself impose any legal obligations on SoCalGas.”

That’s true—CARB’s mitigation proposals remain voluntary for now. However, CARB has sued SoCal Gas, and the regulator could try to get the utility to commit to the final proposal. That proposal was approved by California’s governor last Friday as part of a settlement, according to Los Angeles public radio station KPCC.

Global warming in scores of years

One of SoCal Gas’ main contentions with the CARB proposal is that the regulator measures the greenhouse gas potential of the leaked methane in 20-year terms rather than 100-year terms. Methane is much more harmful to the climate than carbon dioxide over 20 years, but after that time period, it decays into less-potent molecules. Over 20 years, one ton of methane has the global warming potential of 84 tons of carbon dioxide, CARB explained in the final draft of its proposal (PDF). Over 100 years, however, one ton of methane has the global warming potential of just 28 tons of carbon dioxide.

SoCal Gas maintains that most of California’s climate change-oriented rules, from cap-and-trade to Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions requirements, ask companies to report methane emissions with a 100-year measure of Global Warming Potential (GWP). “[U]sing the 20-year GWP in this situation is inappropriate as well as contrary to California and federal law,” SoCal Gas contended in its letter.

"Therefore, we do not intend to use a 20-year GWP as we evaluate mitigation projects,” the utility stated.

But in the final draft of CARB’s proposal, the regulator argued against SoCal Gas' version, saying that a 20-year measure of GWP was scientifically appropriate because it “emphasize[s] the need for immediate action on climate change.”

"The anticipated consequences of climate change by 2050 and 2100 are sufficiently dramatic and irreversible to make it inappropriate to tether mitigation here to methane’s impacts over an even longer time horizon,” CARB wrote, adding that "the approximately 100,000 tons of methane emitted in the Aliso Canyon leak amount to about 8,000,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.”

SoCal Gas also took issue with the length of time CARB wanted to give the utility to complete the mitigation projects. CARB asked that SoCal Gas compensate for the methane it leaked at Aliso Canyon within 10 years from the start of the leak. SoCal Gas says it wants to count emissions reductions over the “lifecycle of a project."

CARB noted that some stakeholders wanted to hold SoCal Gas to a five-year period for mitigation due to the urgency of the situation. But in its final proposal, CARB dismissed a five-year period, as it would "unduly disadvantage potentially transformative projects that may take a few years to begin yielding significant emission reductions.” But CARB also dismissed SoCal Gas’ “lifecycle” approach as unrealistic in achieving any meaningful results from mitigation projects.

Cost-cutting

In its letter to CARB, the gas company stated that it wants to mitigate the effects of the methane emissions with an eye to saving money. “SoCalGas’ commitment to mitigate the GHG [Greenhouse Gas] impact of the actual natural gas emitted from the leak will be executed, as you would expect, as economically as possible,” the company wrote. "Our intent is not to wastefully spend resources but to deliver on our commitment to mitigate the impact of the leak.”

Going cheap on infrastructure might not be the best message for the company, considering some attorneys for Porter Ranch families have accused the company of being stingy with well maintenance that might have prevented the leak in the first place. In January, a SoCal Gas spokesperson told the Los Angeles Times that the leaking Aliso Canyon well did not have a "deep subsurface valve” that might have stymied the release of natural gas from the damaged well. The spokesperson added that such a valve was not required by law at the time it was drilled.

In its letter to CARB, SoCal Gas also said that it wanted to have the freedom to choose where it implemented its mitigation projects. “Since the effects of climate change are global, the specific location where methane or other GHG emissions reductions occur is irrelevant to their effectiveness in mitigating the impacts of such emissions.”

On this point, CARB seemed willing to compromise, at least a little bit, although it added that it would prioritize any projects from SoCal Gas that would benefit communities around Aliso Canyon. "The geographic adjustments... will remain subordinate to the primary emphasis that the mitigation program will place on projects addressing methane emissions from the agriculture and waste sector,” the regulator wrote.

In a follow-up statement to Ars on Tuesday afternoon, CARB spokesman David Clegern said, "SoCal Gas certainly has a right to provide input. However, they made a commitment to the governor to cover mitigation costs, and at this point we are assuming they will honor that commitment. We hope that SoCal Gas will allow sound science, not a corporate bottom line, to guide mitigation efforts in this unprecedented situation."

Ars contacted SoCal Gas for comment but has not yet received a response.

Not over yet

While CARB and SoCal Gas duke it out over the specifics of how the gas company will pay for its leaks, reports from the Southern California area suggest that problems with the utility’s natural gas storage persist.

According to the Los Angeles Business Journal, SoCal Gas has a smaller natural gas storage facility in LA's Playa del Rey neighborhood, near Los Angeles International Airport, which "has been beset by leaks and mechanical failures, forcing state regulators to conduct more than three dozen inspections since the start of the year.”

Inspectors apparently found three leaking wells, two of which SoCal Gas was able to quickly fix. The third well, however, was shut down “pending further evaluation.”

The Los Angeles Times also reported today that the Aliso Canyon leak may mean that LA "could experience as many as 14 days of blackouts this summer.”

The leaking well was one of 115 wells at the Aliso Canyon site. But once the magnitude of the leak was known, SoCal Gas was prohibited from injecting natural gas into any of the wells at the facility for storage until each of the 114 undamaged wells were checked for safety. Reportedly, the facility is currently at one-fifth of its capacity.

In a press release, the utility stated, "SoCalGas’ number one priority for more than 145 years has been to provide our customers and communities in Southern California with safe and reliable energy. We look forward to working in partnership with the responsible regulatory agencies in our shared efforts to provide a continued supply of dependable gas and electric services in the region.

"For decades, SoCalGas has understood the significance of natural gas to Southern California’s electricity supply, and consistently worked with state agencies to help ensure the region has reliable power."