State regulators in the middle of the ongoing shale gas boom spurred by new hydraulic fracturing techniques are none too happy with efforts by federal regulators to oversee the process -- with one telling a House committee yesterday that the states should just "back off" -- and officials feel that a nonbinding U.S. EPA guide is just a precursor to broader regulation.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee convened two sessions that stretched across most of the day, inviting an array of state officials and industry critics to air their grievances with recently proposed rules and guidance from EPA and the Bureau of Land Management to manage the extraction process known as fracking. Administration officials were invited to testify at the end of the second hearing, which was cut short by votes on the House floor, where they attempted to allay concerns that had been raised throughout the day.

BLM last month proposed a rule requiring chemical disclosure and setting standards for well design and wastewater disposal for fracking operations on public lands (Greenwire, May 4). The same day, EPA released a draft guidance document interpreting requirements for wells in which diesel fuel is used in fracking fluid (E&ENews PM, May 4).

State officials from Pennsylvania, Utah and Oklahoma said the rules were unnecessary because they already had regulatory programs that covered much of the same ground.

BLM Deputy Director Mike Pool defended his agency's actions, saying state laws do not apply to federal lands. He said about 90 percent of the wells drilled on federal lands employ fracking techniques and that BLM proposed the new rule because earlier regulations had become outdated. The rules are not intended to "duplicate" state efforts, Pool said, and were in part motivated by federal officials' taking notice of recent updates to regulations in fracking-heavy states like Colorado, Wyoming and Texas.

Regarding the EPA guidance, the state officials said they worried about its implications. Oklahoma's Lori Wrotenbery, who oversees oil and gas regulations, said that while it technically would not apply because her state is authorized to implement its own well program, she had "no doubt" EPA would be pressing regulators there to implement it and worried it could eventually become a formal rule. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Michael Krancer said he was unaware of diesel being used in the state, meaning the guidance would not generally apply, but he called it the "nose under the tent" to further EPA regulations.

Acting EPA water chief Nancy Stoner defended the diesel guidance as nonbinding, saying the agency would not step on the toes of states that have primary authority to implement the Safe Drinking Water Act's Underground Injection Control program even if they do not follow the guidance. The guidance is directed only to EPA permit writers in states that have not been granted primary authority to regulate injection wells; such states include Pennsylvania, which has experienced a shale gas boom in recent years, and New York, which also overlies the gas-rich Marcellus formation.

The guidance interprets requirements of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which barred EPA from regulating fracking unless diesel is used in the fracking fluid.

Rep. James Lankford (R-Okla.), who was presiding over the hearing, took issue with the definition of diesel outlined in the guidance. EPA identified six substances by their unique chemical abstract service numbers that would be regulated, but Lankford said the inclusion of substances like crude oil or kerosene inappropriately expanded the scope of the 2005 energy law.

"If I drove a diesel truck ... and poured kerosene into it, I wouldn't consider that a diesel fuel," Lankford said.

Stoner noted there was no definition included in the 2005 law and said EPA was taking public comment on its proposed definition.

EPA also has proposed a Clean Air Act rule requiring fracked wells to employ "green completion" techniques to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (Greenwire, April 18). Stoner said she could not address the air rule because it falls outside of her portfolio.

Stoner, Pool and the state officials appeared before an Oversight subcommittee at a hearing aimed at "assessing the impact of new federal red tape" on fracking. Cornell University's Robert Howarth, who has published studies arguing that greenhouse gas emissions from shale gas extraction, processing and use make it worse for the climate than coal, also appeared before the subcommittee to stress fracking's health and environmental concerns.

Democrats defend Obama record

The fracking panel followed a hearing earlier in the day before the full Oversight Committee at which industry groups and the same Pennsylvania state regulator were invited to air their biggest grievances with the Obama administration's broad approach to oil, natural gas and coal extraction. Defending the administration during the morning session was Daniel Weiss, a senior fellow specializing in climate and energy at the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund.

At the morning hearing, Pennsylvania's Krancer also took aim at the decision by EPA to issue regulations on air emissions from fracking and offer guidance on regulating the use of diesel fuel in fracking fluid. Such issues are best handled at the state level, he said, advising EPA and other federal regulators to stay away from his operation.

"My primary advice would be to back off, because the states ... are doing a good job," he said. "The federal government, all of a sudden, out of the blue, despite the history ... all of a sudden is showing an interest in hydraulic fracturing and regulating hydraulic fracturing. Never before has the federal government at any level, regardless of administration, shown any such interest in [regulating fracking]. ... The states where this is happening know what they're doing, they've been doing it for generations, and we're on top of it."

Common complaints at the hearing were the burdens imposed by environmental reviews, which witnesses and committee Republicans said could delay drilling or mining on public lands for several years compared to similar activity on private lands that could come to fruition in a matter of months, and the administration's delays in issuing leases or permits.

Democrats on the committee repeatedly pointed out that U.S. production of oil and natural gas has actually risen in the three years since President Obama took office, and ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) grew heated as he lamented the Republicans' and industry's refusal to give the president credit for anything good. "It gets on my nerves," he said.

Committee Republicans and industry representatives -- including Kathleen Sgamma of the Western Energy Alliance and Charles Drevna of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, a refiners trade association -- questioned whether Obama's pledge to support an "all of the above" energy strategy really included coal, oil and gas. The morning featured a litany of oft-cited complaints including the slowdown in issuing oil drilling permits following the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, EPA's aggressive regulation of coal mining and apparent favoritism for renewable energy over traditional sources.

The administration's approach, they said, was too focused on the "above" sources, like wind and solar, while discounting the role of those from "below," like oil and gas.