Resolution to Revoke Obama-Era Environmental Rules Fails in Senate

The vote is a blow to the Trump administration’s attempts to repeal regulations on the oil and gas industry

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

By Valerie Volcovici

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a blow to administration efforts to free the oil and gas industry from Obama-era environmental rules, a Senate resolution to revoke a rule to limit leaks and flaring of methane from oil and gas production on federal lands fell short of votes 49-51 on Wednesday.

The surprise vote outcome came after Republican leaders scrambled for weeks to secure the 51 votes necessary to pass the Congressional Review Act resolution, which would revoke the rule and prevent any similar regulations from being introduced.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Getting the Trump administration to repeal the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management methane rule had been a top priority of the oil and gas industry, but not all Republicans supported the measure because it would make it difficult to regulate methane waste in the future.

Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona made a surprise vote against the resolution, joining fellow Republicans Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine in opposition.

The rule, finalized by President Barack Obama in his lacks weeks in office, updated 30-year-old regulations that govern flaring, venting and natural gas leaks from oil and gas production. His administration said the rule could avoid wasting up to 41 billion cubic feet (BCF) of natural gas per year.

Industry groups such as the American Petroleum Institute had argued that the rule was unnecessary because companies have made strides in reducing methane leaks from their operations.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American