Pennsylvania Legacies #209: Emission Impossible

Oil and gas producing states have two years to bring their regulations up to newly finalized EPA standards, including stricter inspection and repair requirements, to stop leaks and intentional release of climate-changing methane. Environmental Defense Fund’s John Rutecki explains what the new rule will mean for Pennsylvania, the nation’s second-largest producer of natural gas.

In December, the EPA released its final rule to reduce emissions of planet-warming methane from the oil and gas sector, along with other pollutants that threaten human health and safety.

Oil and gas operations represent the largest industrial source of methane emissions in the country, much of it in the form of unnecessary waste resulting from leaks or other malfunctions. The EPA expects the new rule to cut methane emissions by 80% from 2024 to 2038, recovering enough natural gas to heat nearly 8 million homes. It will also prevent the release of 16 million tons of volatile organic compounds that cause smog and 590,000 tons of air toxics.

In order to achieve those reductions, the rule requires states to draft regulations for new, modified, and reconstructed emissions sources. That includes well sites, centralized production facilities, and compressor stations. 

“Once these rules are implemented and enforced, when you look at these numbers, Pennsylvania really will benefit from these emissions reductions,” said John Rutecki, Regulatory and Legislative Manager at the Environmental Defense Fund.

One of the most important provisions under the new rule, Rutecki said, is stricter monitoring requirements, especially for equipment that is prone to leaking.

In particular, the rule addresses process controllers, the technology that operates valves and controls liquid levels, pressure levels. It represents the second largest source of emissions from well sites because conventional controllers use natural gas to pressurize pipelines. Operators will be required to switch to compressed air, which is expected to cut well site emissions in half.

The rule doesn’t just apply to the gas industry. Producers routinely use flaring to burn off natural gas, a byproduct of drilling for oil.

“A lot of times those flares just malfunction. They don’t burn properly,” Rutecki said. “And so you end up directly releasing methane and more [volatile organic compounds] impacting our communities.”

Flaring will be subject to new limitations, already in place in states like Colorado and New Mexico, including the ending of routine flaring at new drilling sites and the capturing of emissions at others.

Rutecki expects the EPA’s rule to be finalized by the end of this month. States will then have two years to develop and submit their own plans for reducing methane from existing sources. After that, the oil and gas industry will have three years to devise plans to comply with the new standards, meaning the benefits won’t be fully realized for at least five years.

The response from the industry has been mostly positive, Rutecki said, in part because they recognize they negative impacts of climate change and see the EPA’s rule as a fair, reasonable way to address it.

“You’ve seen leading companies be galvanized and reaffirmed their support for reducing emissions and recognizing the important role they play,” Rutecki said.

Stronger regulations will also create jobs, he added, particularly in the methane mitigation industry, which help companies measure and reduce their emissions. That’s in addition to preventing waste of gas that can instead be used for energy.

“They call it the triple win,” Rutecki said. “It’s for climate, public health, and for energy security.”

Episode Links:

Josh Raulerson: (00:01)
Today is Friday, February 23rd, 2024. I’m Josh Raulerson, and this is Pennsylvania Legacies, the podcast for the Pennsylvania Environmental Council. Everybody knows carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas — arguablythe greenhouse gas. CO2 released in the combustion of fossil fuels accounts for three quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions, making it the single biggest contributor to climate change. But even if you could wave a magic wand and make all of that atmospheric carbon dioxide just disappear, you’d still have to contend with warming caused by methane. Even though it makes up only about 16% of climate change and pollution, methane, AKA natural gas, is far more effective than CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere, at least in the near term. In Pennsylvania, the second largest natural gas producer in the U.S. methane’s share of the carbon footprint is outsized, mainly due to leaks and even intentional release of natural gas during its production and distribution. 

Controlling those emissions is one of the most impactful things we can do, especially in this part of the world, to address global climate change. Not only that, controlling methane would also improve human health by reducing levels of volatile organic compounds in the air we breathe and could lead to lower energy costs by eliminating waste. While other oil and gas states have taken steps toward cutting methane emissions through strong state level action, Pennsylvania’s been slow to catch up, but that’s about to change. New federal standards announced by the Environmental Protection Agency in December will compel states to adopt tougher rules for monitoring and inspection of well sites among other measures. That means the clock is ticking for Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection to develop and implement effective controls. What will that look like, and what effect might it have? Scientists and policy experts with the Environmental Defense Fund have been focusing on methane for years with a particular interest in Appalachia. John Rutecki is EDF’s Regional Regulatory and Legislative Manager and our guest today as we unpack how EPA’s final methane rule could play out in the Commonwealth. John, welcome.

John Rutecki: (02:10)
Thank you so much, Josh. I really appreciate the opportunity. 

Josh Raulerson: (02:13)
When we talk about controlling methane emissions from natural gas production, oftentimes there are distinctions between different types of facilities. Sometimes rules apply only to new facilities versus existing. There are often different sets of rules for conventional and unconventional production. Sometimes there are differences based on the volume produced or the size of the installation, etcetera, etcetera. So before we get into what’s in the new federal rule, let’s establish who’s actually subject to these new standards. What kinds of facilities? Or is it kind of all of the above? 

John Rutecki: (02:48)
I appreciate that question. So as far as these new standards, which will work to cut methane and local air pollution from new and existing facilities, this is in the oil and gas industry. So it’ll apply to all conventional and unconventional operations. And that will include all well sites, centralized production facilities and compressor stations. And there’s also a piece in it that will require storage vessels or tank batteries that’ll try to avoid too much technical jargon here, but to, for them to reduce emissions as well.

Josh Raulerson: (03:16)
What are the new requirements, specifically, what will operators be expected to do and what’s the timeline for compliance? 

John Rutecki: (03:23)
So the key details and what’s really great about this new proposal is that it will allow operators to address the two largest sources of methane pollution. So that will be from leaks and from pneumatic controllers, or they call it in the rule process controllers. And so to give you a little idea of process controllers, just equipment that’ll help move the gas through the pipeline and the other infrastructure. But they’ve been shown to be large methane emitters. So obviously important to address those. The rule has not been finalized but should be hopefully finalized this month we are hoping. And so 60 days after that, the standards for the new facilities and those are just the ones that will have been drilled since December, 2022, will take effect 60 days after that. So we’re looking, you know, sometime in the April time range, but existing facilities, we’ll have a two year time period to establish state plans. So Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection will go through a planning process and they will submit that rule to the EPA, so 24 months for that where the EPA will review those state plans for compliance. And then the final rules require within 36 months to have all the facilities compliant with those new regulations. So the short answer is that it’ll be, we’re looking around up to five years until companies have to fully comply with the requirements in those state plans. 

Josh Raulerson: (04:41)
Looking at the requirements one by one, starting with leak detection, the requirement is to monitor for leaks and inspect for leaks. Could you kind of explain what that means, what options operators have in order to meet that requirement? I understand there are different inspection schedules for different methods of detection, which is kind of interesting because there’s been so much new technology developed for leak detection.

John Rutecki: (05:06)
Yeah, like I stated before, like what’s important is that these final standards are actually going to require regular inspections. That was not something that has been required before. And then obviously a timely repair after they find some type of equipment leaking. And so typically this was based off of how, how much production each well had. But now the EPA has taken a really smart approach and looked at just wells that have equipment that could malfunction that are known to leak. It took that standard approach, but also is providing flexibility to use advanced monitoring as well. That will be up to the operator, which, you know, standard, they will choose whether it’s the standard monitoring approach going out and doing audio visual olfactory inspections where you just go out regularly to check on the well, and that will be for the much smaller wells that don’t have equipment that is failure prone and known to pollute as much. 

So that will involve handheld cameras and visual inspections. So as the well has more equipment than is known to fail, that inspection will be a higher inspection requirement there. But they can use advanced technologies. So there’s a lot of aerial flyovers that can be used. There’s drone technology out there and there’s also continuous emissions monitoring. What’s really important about this, though, is either way, this will require frequent and ongoing inspections at the site. So you know, this will also include those lower producing and inactive wells. And so it should lead to significant cuts in pollution. Really we’re looking at anything from a quarterly approach where they have to go out there using that, that AVO approach or handheld gas imaging cameras. There’s a large matrix that’s involved with this as far as defining each of the types of inspections that’ll be required. But if they use the advanced technologies, they’ll have to go between four and 12 times per year to actually look at the site. That will depend on the technology itself. The important part is that obviously follow up action would be required when they detect elevated emissions, and all of those technologies will have to be reviewed and approved by the before they actually are deployed. 

Josh Raulerson: (07:06)
When you say continuous monitoring, that would be like you’ve got a sensor or something that’s feeding real time measurements to somebody that’s watching them all the time. Is that correct?

John Rutecki: (07:16)
Yeah, so they’re, I mean, most operations have kind of a, an operation center that’s monitoring that. So yeah, the continuous monitoring is a, you know, an all time 24/7, 365 monitoring approach. And combining those approaches has been, you know, shown to have the best system for reducing emissions 

Josh Raulerson: (07:34)
A minute ago, you mentioned process controllers. Could you explain what those are, why they are so apparently leaky and what other physical components of natural gas infrastructure is EPA concerned about? How are those concerns being addressed in the rule? 

John Rutecki: (07:51)
So process controllers and for the specific item that’s being addressed in the rule are pneumatic controllers. And so those are used widely in the natural gas industry. They operate valves and control liquid levels, pressure levels. And so when they’re actually activated, previously they are natural gas driven. And so when they are turned on, they actually they emit methane when they are being used. And so those are being retrofitted and they’re requiring a zero-emission standard to have those be air-actuated as opposed to natural gas. We’re just having compressed air. So EPA recognized since it is the second largest source of emissions from a well site, you know, if we take that out, they’re actually seeing about a 50%, expecting a 50% reduction in emissions just from that requirement in the rule. So obviously we’ll have a huge impact because it’s said to reduce around 29 million tons of methane in the coming years with that rule being implemented, obviously we’ll have a large impact. And they also finalized the zero-emission standard for pumps. And so there’s, you know, like tanks and compressors where they’re trying to cut emissions. So having some type of zero emission standard for that is really important to address what they found to be, I guess, leaky or malfunctioning equipment. 

Josh Raulerson: (09:10)
Setting aside malfunctions, there’s a lot of methane release, more or less intentionally by industry through flaring and venting. Why do operators use this practice? What’s the purpose of venting or flaring and given the changes that are coming, what are they going to do instead of using those, those methods under the new rule? 

John Rutecki: (09:29)
I think that’s an important question. So this is an oil and gas rule, so that’s where the flaring provisions come in. So it’s good to see that the EPA did tighten the requirements around routine flaring, which is actually the burning off of associated gas. So when you are actually drilling for oil, natural gas is also produced as a byproduct. And so if there is no sales line or a way to route that to another beneficial use, it will be used in a flare stack where they will burn that off. They’ve strengthened that standard a little more in line with some leading oil producing states like Colorado and New Mexico. And a lot of times those flares just malfunction. They don’t burn properly. And so you end up directly releasing methane and more VOCs impacting our communities obviously. So strengthening these rules and putting a limit on when you can flare and when it is allowed will obviously help drive down those emissions even further. 

So there are some provisions in there, like the newly constructed sites will have to end routine flaring within two years and it can only be permitted under predefined circumstances. So they’re trying to limit the ability of industry to be able to do that. You know, especially, you know, obviously it’s allowed in an emergency situations and they’ll have to submit like certifications that show that capturing the gas or using some other technology to avoid the use of flare is the only feasible option. So that’ll be based on how much methane they produce existing sites, they’ll have to demonstrate through that certification that they can’t capture the gas or use it in some other way. 

Josh Raulerson (11:04)
You know, in Pennsylvania we have a lot of small wells, we’ve got a lot of orphans too, a lot of sources of methane emissions. I think most of them are relatively small relative anyway to what are sometimes called super emitters. And we know that most of the, like the bulk total emissions coming out of this industry are coming from a relatively small number of sources, or at least I know that’s the case out West. How does the rule account for that kind of disparity and will the new inspection requirements catch those, those super emitters soon enough to make a big difference 

John Rutecki: (11:36)
As far as being able to get at the relative emissions of the smaller sources I think that’s important to highlight again, that the leak detection and repair standards that are in there, and obviously the process controller provisions again because having a comprehensive leak inspection across all well sites that will also include regular monitoring at these smaller well sites with that leak-prone equipment. So what we found is Pennsylvania, like many oil and gas producing states have been, you know, at this for a long time and have many smaller wells. So these small wells, while they account for just 6% of production, recent studies have shown that they are cumulatively driving about half of all methane emissions from oil and gas sites. So obviously have an outsize impact and highlight why it’s really important to have a strong leak detection repair standard that you can ensure that we’re monitoring those wells on a regular basis. 

And so we go from small to large events. You know, you asked about the super emitter response program, and so to supplement that process, there will be a super emitter response program along with this. And what this will allow is for the EPA to certify third parties to report large emissions events. What’s important about that is EPA’s been using third party monitoring data. This isn’t new. This will just allow for a formalized program around that these certified third parties will report these emissions to the EPA. They will share that information with the operators who will be able to investigate, you know, more quickly. It’s a team effort, I guess, here in that way. Like they’ll have other ways to identify these leaks and get out there and fix them quickly. And I think really the most important part about that is that that’ll increase transparency. So, you know, these notifications will be publicly listed, so impacted communities will be alerted to something like this happening. What’s interesting about methane technology now, you’re seeing a lot of advancements in that now. And so I think when we start combining all these technologies like satellite data like flyovers with planes and drones, you’ll start being, although lessen the amount of super emitters that we have. 

Josh Raulerson: (13:33)
And the third parties you referred to, are these businesses for-profit entities or nonprofits or what 

John Rutecki: (13:38)
These Yes, and they, they are not going to be associated with the industry. They will be third parties. So yes, they will typically be some kind of methane mitigation company that there are multiple technologies that could be used. So it just depends on the company. But yes, these will be companies that have an interest in measuring and identifying methane emissions. 

Josh Raulerson: (13:54)
And there are some kind of economic implications there too, right? We’ve seen methane mitigation growing nationally and in Pennsylvania the last few years, a lot of innovation coming out of our universities. Does this sort of create more business or more economic impact from that sector potentially?

John Rutecki: (14:11)
And I appreciate that question because I mean, I think an important element to highlight this is that reducing these methane emissions, I think, can be looked at as a win for the climate for public health and for energy security and job creation. So we, we recognize that methane has that short-term impact and really is driving a lot of the warming we’re experiencing today. And so when you ask about that, it’s, you know, very important because we also need to remember that there are industries out there that want to find, identify and reduce leaks. And so when we’re stopping the unnecessary waste of energy resources, it’ll help heat more product in the pipelines and out of our air. And these efforts will also obviously support job creation in the methane mitigation industry, which you mentioned. So what the methane mitigation industry does is they’ll provide the goods and services to help companies measure and reduce their emissions. That industry has actually doubled in size since 2017. It’s made up of over 200 companies, quite a few of them in Pennsylvania. And when they were asked about, you know, their place with methane mitigation and it growing with regulations, you know, more than 75% of them said that they would create additional jobs with strong policies like this in place. So I think that’s a very important one. And these are also going to be homegrown jobs. So, you know, we can increase employment in Pennsylvania. These are not things that can be offshored, and they’re actually, you know, high paying as compared to the national average salary as well. 

Josh Raulerson: (15:34)
Coming back to the rule then, and thinking about what it will mean in Pennsylvania, how is this rule gonna be implemented in forest on the ground in our Commonwealth? What is the role of states generally in implementing something like this? 

John Rutecki: (15:48)
I mean, the roles of states are, you know, to use the, their authority to implement and design rules that, you know, are tailored for what the state’s needs are. And so the implementation of this rule will be undertaken by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. So their next steps as far as after the rule is finalized would be to put together a draft plan to submit for review by the Environmental Quality Board. There’s quite a few layers of review and approval for Pennsylvania to adopt rules like this. So it’s, you know, important. And what’s great is that, you know, they’ll use this as another opportunity to engage the public during comment periods and get feedback on, you know, what the rule should look like. So it’s going to, you know, kind of restart the process that we saw with great interest from the EPA rulemaking where, you know, there was a lot of comments provided to try and make this rule of the best benefit for the environment and operators at the same time. And so I think the role the states have is very important because what is most important is to see these rules implemented and enforced because that’s when, you know frontline communities, they’re impacted by this pollution, will have the, you know, the opportunity to realize the benefit of these emissions reductions.

Josh Raulerson: (16:57)
And focusing on DEP’s role, what are the most important things for them to consider as, as they’re moving forward with implementation? Or what do you hope DEP will focus on? 

John Rutecki: (17:07)
I mean, I hope what they would do is obviously approach this process and timeline with the two years and, you know, work towards finalizing this new regulation as quickly as possible. Because what’s most important for a lot of the groups that we work with in Pennsylvania is to realize these emissions reductions, you know, through implementation and enforcement. So going through this process, taking input from all parties to ensure this is tailored for what Pennsylvania, you know, industry and communities would like to see. And I mean their most important considerations is just public input and ensuring that they find the best system for emissions reductions. 

Josh Raulerson: (17:45)
Well, and obviously DEP is part of the executive branch. Governor Shapiro has been very keen on reducing methane emissions from things like abandoned wells. We just heard his budget address a few days ago as we’re recording this, and he did talk about some of those things. I don’t know if you caught the speech, but was there anything in, in either that the address or, or the budget itself that sheds any light on where things might be going with the methane rule where, where the governor’s head’s at on this issue? 

John Rutecki: (18:12)
One of the great things to hear from the budget address was obviously the funding allocated to the Department of Environmental Protection. Obviously ensuring that the regulatory body has the money to operate and, you know, implement and enforce rules is a very important element. So happy to see Pennsylvania DEP receive funding through the budget, but it’s also great to recognize before the budget even happened, before this, you know, rule was finalized while it was being talked about, we got to hear from Governor Shapiro and, you know, his leadership in the area where he, you know, said that he’s looking forward to this rule being finalized. He’s looking forward to Pennsylvania implementing this so we can have methane emissions reductions in Pennsylvania. So super excited to have that comment from him, excited to work with him on this process, just get this rule implemented and enforced and just happy to know that he recognizes the impact that this can have. But obviously the importance that this industry has as far as job creation and obviously recognizes a bipartisan approach is a great way to do it. 

Josh Raulerson: (19:12)
Can you expand a little bit more on what you were saying earlier about what we might expect the results of the change may be in over what sort of time span, how much are we actually expecting emissions to reduce? How does it break down and when does that happen for Pennsylvania versus in a, in a national context? 

John Rutecki: (19:30)
So that will be something that DEP will look into actually how, what emissions reductions there will be from how the rule is implemented. But from a national perspective, then I’ll try to put it in a little bit more of a state perspective after that, these new protections the EPAs proposing will really deeply cut oil and gas pollution. So they’re looking at about 58 million tons of methane being removed, 16 million tons of the smog-forming volatile organic compounds, and nearly 600,000 tons of air toxins. And that includes the cancer-causing benzene that’s released during drilling operations. And that’s just in the next 15 years alone. You could also look at this from a financial aspect and that these standards will result in climate and ozone reduction health benefits of around a hundred billion dollars. And that’s even accounting for industry compliance costs with the retrofits of those process controllers with going out and doing the leak detection and repair and why that’s so important. And while we don’t have the specific numbers for Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania is the second largest natural gas producing state. And so once these rules are implemented and enforced, when you look at these numbers, Pennsylvania really will benefit from these emissions reductions. 

Josh Raulerson: (20:40)
So I think fair to say, and tell me if I’m wrong, but the, the response to the EPA announcement has been pretty positive. It seems like it encompasses a lot of things that we wanna see happen. What doesn’t it do? What, where’s room for improvement, I guess? And where can states or other federal programs or initiatives help make the difference?

John Rutecki: (21:00)
I don’t know that I would say what it doesn’t do, rather than like where it opened up an opportunity for other regulatory action to address the, you know, methane being an, a large driver of climate change. And so there are a few other programs that I think that are out now or working towards finalization that are important ones to highlight. This obviously is talking about well sites, new and existing well sites with these methane regulations, but the Pipeline Hazardous Materials and Safety Administration has an advanced rule that deals with gathering lines. So everything after it leaves the well site where they’re talking about an advanced leak detection and repair rule there. And so all of the pipelines that are, you know, taking natural gas away, that infrastructure would have a new leak detection and repair standard on it. And that obviously would help vector climate and the safety of communities from any type of work like that. 

Another element that I think is important to highlight is the Methane Emissions Reduction program that was part of the Inflation Reduction Act. What’s important about that is Congress obviously recognized that there is a major role that oil and gas methane emissions have in causing the climate crisis. But the important part of the Methane Emissions Reduction program is that it will complement and reinforce the EPA methane standards. So each of these are kind of a tool that play an important role, but they also reinforce each other in taking care of methane pollution. What’s important is that with any of these rulemakings, especially with the EPA methane rule and the Methane Emissions Reduction program is that, you know, strong and comprehensive pollution standards are needed to make sure that we actually are getting pollution reductions for communities. And part of that Methane Emissions Reduction program is a charge on excess levels of methane emissions. 

So the point of that is to further discourage that pollution and obviously be able to hold companies accountable for the impact they’re having. So because of that, it recognizes the importance of the EPA methane regulations and it actually contains an exemption that will allow companies to avoid that charge if they’re actually in compliance with these new rules that methane emissions reduction programs also important because there’s provisions to improve reporting and estimation of methane emissions, which is a very important piece because EPAs current methods for estimating emissions has been shown to under count those emissions. Some numerous studies here recently have observed actual emissions could be 60% higher than what those estimates are. So we really need to try to figure out how impactful this is. And so to ensure that’s possible, they’ve taken the step here in the Methane Emissions Reduction program to address that issue by redoing the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which is the, where those estimates are in. And so they’re trying to find a way to accurately reflect total methane emissions by using empirical data. So a lot of these working together are going to be very important. Just interested to see all of these, you know, be finalized and implemented so we can actually get an understanding of the impact that methane is having. 

Josh Raulerson: (23:58)
Looking at the response from the regulated community to the announcement, there does seem to be some support for the new rule within industry. What can you tell me about what producers are saying, what the level of buy-in is looking like at the moment? 

John Rutecki: (24:12)
I think that’s a great question, and what’s nice to see is that EPAs built some momentum on this actually. You’ve seen leading companies be galvanized and reaffirmed their support for reducing emissions and recognizing the important role they play. And so you’re seeing a lot more responses from them. And related to this, because, you know, oil and gas companies and investors look at this as well, if there is a climate risk, that’s a financial risk. And so they don’t want to have these unchecked methane emissions that are having powerful climate impacts. You know, there were actually quite a few companies that, you know, lined up to support the EPA rulemaking process, provided comments, provided feedback. That’s really in recognition that it’s clear that fair and reasonable standards that will provide this certainty, predictability, and the fact that it levels the playing field for all operators. It’ll allow businesses to implement their individual methane programs and will also ultimately create some homegrown jobs. 

Josh Raulerson: (25:08)
And we kind of talked about economic potential within the mitigation industry. Are there other economic angles that bear mentioned here? Do you also talked about just the fact that reducing waste in theory should mean more product is available to consumers and therefore prices should be lower? What else on the economic plane is, is important to note here? 

John Rutecki: (25:27)
I mean, I think, you know, ensuring U.S. energy security is an important aspect of all of this. Recognizing, you know, methane is the main component of natural gas. You know, we can’t be allowing a valuable energy resource to be wasted. And so under current estimations, the wasted methane is enough to meet the annual needs of more than 12 million households at this point in time. So any reduction in that would help. And then of course, obviously keeping more product in the pipelines and out of the atmosphere, which we talked about. They call it the triple win, you know, it’s for climate, public health, and for energy security. 

Josh Raulerson: (26:00)
John Rutecki, thanks so much for being on the show today and sharing your expertise. 

John Rutecki (26:04)
Thank you so much, Josh. 

Josh Raulerson: (26:16)
John Rutecki is Regulatory and Legislative Manager for Appalachia with Environmental Defense Fund. EDF’s website has a wealth of information on methane and climate in both a Pennsylvania context and nationwide. We’ll include some links in the show notes. We’ll also link to recent stories we’ve produced at PEC, exploring other aspects of the issue as it relates to Pennsylvania, including the shocking number of known and unknown orphan wells scattered across the Commonwealth, and the cost of plugging those. There’s lots more to discover on energy and climate issues in Pennsylvania, not just methane, but also the impact of electricity generation on the state’s carbon footprint. You can learn more about it at That’s our website, Past episodes of this podcast can be found on that same website or can be downloaded directly to your app of choice on your mobile device or however you listen to podcasts where available on most of the major platforms. We’re glad to have you as a listener. Your rating and review of this show is especially appreciated wherever you listen. That’s all for this episode. Hope you’ll join us for the next one coming out in about two weeks. From the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, I’m Josh Raulerson. Thanks for listening.