LARCO India Touts Its Turnkey Sewage Treatment Plant Design for Housing Societies: Features Multiple Treatment Stages and Recycling for Non-Potable Use

     Having worked as a sanitarian, or environmental health specialist at the county level, and having seen a housing development on hillsides surrounding a lake and the poorly performing individual septic systems, I can certainly understand why a sewage treatment plant for the whole housing development would be desirable. After going in through a manned gate, it could take 20 minutes to get from one side of the lake to the other due to the steep and narrow roads. One thing that was prevalent there was the smell of sewage, indicating the many failing septic systems. These days, such a development would likely be designed with a communal sewage treatment plant, which would be the most effective sanitation method.

     LARCO India is touting a sewage treatment plant with water-saving, cost-saving, and water recycling features, along with modern redundant treatment methods. LARCO was founded in 1998 and specializes in Wastewater treatment, Sewage Treatment, and Water treatment for municipalities and industry. India is notorious for poor-quality public water and sewage systems like many developing countries. Its public water systems were plagued by extensive leaks, according to a book I read about water in the 2010s. LARCO is located in the state of Maharashtra, India, where wastewater and sewage pollution are environmental concerns. They offer turnkey sewage treatment plant solutions with modular components.

     LARCO’s sewage treatment plant design for housing societies features six stages of operation: 1) Preliminary Treatment, which captures large debris and grit that could harm equipment; 2) Primary Treatment, which involves slow settling of particles into a settling tank; 3) Biological Treatment, which involves the deployment of microbes to break down matter via advanced technologies such as a Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR), a Sequential Batch Reactor (SBR), and an Activated Sludge Process (ASP). These result in a reduction of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), a primary goal of sewage treatment; 4) Secondary Clarification involves separating treated water and biological sludge, the latter of which is disposed of safely; 5) Tertiary Treatment utilizes pressure sand filters, activated carbon filters, UV, or chlorination to remove remaining impurities and pathogens; and 6) Water Reuse, for non-potable uses such as flushing, gardening, and cleaning.

     They also list six benefits of sewage treatment plants: water conservation, lower water bills, environmental protection, regulatory compliance, improved hygiene, and sustainable living.

“A Sewage Treatment Plant for Housing Society is no longer a luxury—it is an essential infrastructure for modern residential developments. By treating and reusing wastewater, housing societies can reduce water consumption, lower operational costs, protect the environment, and comply with pollution control regulations.”

  

References:

 

Sewage Treatment Plant for Housing Society: Benefits, Working & Water Reuse. LARCO India. Blog. Sewage Treatment Plant for Housing Society by LARCO India

Metascience: Can It Spur More Innovation and Discoveries by Making Funding More Efficient? NSF and NIH Propose New Offices Featuring Metascience

What is Metascience?

     Casrai provides a definition of Metascience:

“The empirical, quantitative study of science itself: applying research methods to research methods, reporting practices, evaluation systems, and incentive structures, in order to describe how research is actually conducted and to test interventions that make it more reliable and efficient. Something counts as metascience when its object of study is the research process across a field — study design, statistical power, reporting completeness, peer review, replication rates, or how funding and career incentives shape researcher behavior — rather than a first-order scientific question within a specific discipline. Also called meta-research or, informally, "the science of science."

     David Peterson, a professor of sociology at Purdue University, defines it roughly and simply as “the practice applying scientific scrutiny to the work of science.”

     While I am quite familiar with the study of science itself and the scientific method from thinkers like Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper, and I have come across many “meta-studies” or “meta-analyses” that look at many different studies simultaneously and compare them, I have not really come across the term ‘metascience’ before. Perhaps I am just late to the game. In any case, ‘meta-studies’ are defined by Microsoft Copilot AI as follows:

“Metastudies” most commonly refers to meta‑analysis—an evidence‑synthesis method that statistically combines results from multiple independent studies to produce a single, more powerful estimate of effect size. It can also refer to broader “meta‑studies” in metatheory, which analyze methods, theories, and knowledge systems themselves.”

 

Metascience for Innovation: Pros and Cons

     Apparently, metascience is being explored for its potential ability to spur innovation. One might see it as a statistical study of a scientific subject, which may reveal things like where most research dollars go or the feasibility of different theories and how much effort and resources are going to each theory.  

     The Aventine Research Institute notes in a recent article entitled ‘Can Metascience Supercharge Scientific Discovery?’ that the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently formed offices within their domains devoted to metascience.

“On September 10, the National Science Foundation (NSF) proposed the creation of a new Office of Metascience. Part of a larger effort to double the impact of each federal dollar spent on science by 2036, the new office is designed to help the agency become a “self-improving institution” that “tries new approaches” and “measures their effects.” The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is creating a new division, too — the Office of Research Economics, Planning, and Analysis — to carry out similar work.”

     Thus, their goal is to make scientific research more efficient. It is my own opinion that while the goal may be noble, it could backfire if the focus becomes too much about research efficiency and less about the research itself. Research takes time and requires failure, or at least ruling out what doesn’t work. It is less amenable to becoming efficient because it is overly inclusive, especially in the beginning, and rigor takes time and resources. Prioritizing is, of course, a priority. (See what I did there - is that a meta-statement?) Nobody wants to waste time, money, and other resources on ideas that have little merit or on ones that are not likely to have much of an effect on society. Thus, having people who work exclusively in prioritizing and weeding out less impactful research may be a good idea.

     The article notes that the UK established a metascience unit in 2024, Ireland and Japan are doing similarly, and that “moonshot factories” such as NSF’s X-Labs initiative and the UK government’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency can be seen as offshoots of metascience.

     Interestingly, the article notes that scientific discoveries have been dropping for years and now require more researchers to manifest.  

“…our ability to generate scientific breakthroughs has declined dramatically. Sustaining the rate of improvement in computer chip advances now requires 18 times as many semiconductor researchers as it did in the 1970s, for example. The number of new drugs approved per billion dollars spent on R&D has halved roughly every nine years since 1950.”

“Metascience is meant to be corrective. It’s about “how [we can] be more effective, more innovative, drive the pace of scientific progress more quickly,” said Stuart Buck, a longtime supporter of metascience who runs the Good Science Project, a nonprofit think tank with the stated mission of improving the funding and practice of science.”

     The article does mention that there are risks to this approach. It’s untested, especially at scale. It may take years or decades to know if it has been worthwhile. They emphasize that success will be hard to measure. However, they also note some measurable improvements. The UK’s Metascience Unit did an experiment where evaluating and peer-reviewing grant applications was undertaken by more researchers, including those applying for grants, rather than a small panel of experts. This resulted in the measurable success of reducing the decision-making time for grant approval or non-approval by three months. It really is hard to measure in the sense that when one research path is chosen over another, it is simply hard to know whether the other one would have yielded better and more useful results. Another issue is that success at a small scale does not mean success when scaled up. Scaling can kill projects as new technical challenges and expenses arise. Another issue is that different sciences have much different standards.

“Standards of evidence, standards for justification, data collection, replication — everything differs widely from field to field,” said Peterson.

     The article also notes some of the history and recent events in metascience. They note that metascience began in the 1930s or possibly earlier. The replication crisis of the 2010s in the field of psychology was blamed on results that were not reproducible due to small sample sizes and the urge to publish, especially to publish surprising results. This led to calls for better apportionment of research dollars. They also cite a 2019 article in The Atlantic by CEO Patrick Collison and economist Tyler Cowen entitled: ‘We Need a New Science of Progress’ as being very influential.

     Finally, the article asks whether metascience is being used as a Trojan horse for budget cuts or whether it is being used for needed disruption and reform of the processes. Stuart Buck, a supporter of metascience who runs the Good Science Project, a nonprofit think tank with the stated mission of improving the funding and practice of science, notes:

“There are a few people who are influential and whose agenda is just cutting science,” he said, but there are others in the administration who he believes have a “good faith intent to improve science.” His hope, he added, is that “the folks with that view can prevail in the end.”

     Collison and Cowen’s article in The Atlantic suggests that scientific research is a major engine for progress. They cite progress-minded 19th-century reformers who shaped some of the best research universities in the U.S., including MIT, Caltech, Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Stanford, and the University of Chicago. They argue that it could be beneficial to study progress itself. They also cite hubs for R&D like Silicon Valley in software and Switzerland’s Basel region in life sciences. They call these cultural ecosystems that foster research. The article covers optimizing talent and training and cultivating the most effective management practices. They call for more investment and research funding and note examples where it has led to innovation and discoveries. Thus, the current version of the Trump administration’s gold standard science push, which includes attention to metascience, while at the same time gutting research funding, does not seem to accord with their ideas. Collison and Cowen make the case for progress resulting from science applied to human well-being and their goal of establishing progress studies. Before this article from 2019, there was and is HumanProgress.org, which is associated with the libertarian-oriented Cato Institute. They have featured in my blog posts several times. They post articles, data, and ideas about human progress.

     The 2010s were a pivotal time for metascience. The replication crisis called for better oversight and methods. Journals began to publish more meta-research. In 2015, a meta-research conference was held for the first time. According to Wikipedia:

“On 8 July 2025, an editorial published in Nature announced the birth of the Metascience Alliance, a coalition of more than 25 funders, academic groups, companies, and other institutions that pursue metascience: the use of scientific methods to understand and improve science itself. The initiative was attended in London by more than 830 participants from around 65 countries. The editorial calls upon metascientists not to limit themselves to studies within academia, but to address the broader social needs, to communicate scientific uncertainty effectively, and rebuild public trust in science.”

     I think that metascience is both the study and management of science and research.      

     Luke Fehilym in an article for The Irish Times, suggests that metascience is resulting in better research outcomes through better management of funding and grants.

      Berna Devezer, a Professor of Marketing at the University of Idaho and practitioner of metascience, wrote an article in The Scientist that strongly criticizes the politicization of metascience, which she thinks is more likely with metascience units and offices, like the NSF and NIH plan to do. Michael Kratsios. Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy put out a big report in July 2026 entitled Science: A New Golden Age, which has both good and bad recommendations in my opinion. It recommends more private sector R&D, which is good. However, private sector R&D is already ample. It is public or government R&D that is good for getting things off the ground, taking on the more difficult, riskier early stages of R&D. “Unleashing innovation” is a goal of the report but it is hard to see that happening when budgets are reduced by a half to two-thirds. It covers the replication crisis, grantmaking, funding, publishing, bureaucracy, institutions, and accountability. I may read and review the report later, now having just scanned a few parts. I will say that the report itself is politicized, with sections where Trump and his team strongly criticize the Biden approach to science. There is a chapter entitled Securing U.S. Dominance in Critical and Emerging Technologies, which I think both parties would support, although the Dems likely won’t keep the word ‘dominance’ that the Trump administration uses ubiquitously. One part I liked is a short section on restoring permissionless innovation, having read and considered Adam Therier’s book and writing on the subject. Below is a snippet from the report:

“Restore Permissionless Innovation: American regulators have grown skilled at weighing the risks of action, but blind to the costs of inaction. Developing good rules require real-world evidence, and building that evidence base only comes from letting innovators prototype and experiment.”

     I also agree with the idea of strengthening public-private partnerships, which is a bipartisan goal. I believe.

     The report also talks about gold standard science. What does that really mean? Devezer tears down the whole idea in her article in The Scientist, noting that adopting the gold standard for financial systems turned out to be wholly inadequate and likely contributed strongly to the Great Depression. That idea has long been abandoned and is widely seen as a failed idea among economists. She says that when recommendations become standards, science fails. The heart of her takedown of the idea is reproduced below:

“First, imposing externally fixed standards on scientific fields without taking the specific needs, aims, and constraints of the fields into account is unlikely to engender progress. Second, systemic, institutional commitment to such external standards will render scientific communities rigid and unable to correct course or adjust to emergent crises. Failing to find the right standards is not my major concern. Top-down imposition of any rigidly held standard would suffice to disrupt the scientific process and derail progress.”

 

“Let me be blunt: There are no gold standards in science and there have never been. This should not come as a surprise to working scientists, or to anyone familiar with the history and philosophy of science. One of the defining characteristics of science is that it keeps challenging its own standards and redefining what it means to practice science at a given moment, in a given field. As philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend captures in a provocative slogan, “anything goes,” scientific progress happens when rigid rules are actively broken and multiple, incompatible theories are allowed to coexist and challenge one another simultaneously.”

     She does think that it is good that the government is interested in metascience but argues that funding is essential and that taking funding away, as the administration has done, undermines the whole process.

“To prioritize our understanding of science as a complex system, NSF should fund both interdisciplinary and discipline-specific metascience as independent research. To advance scientific understanding and to provide solid grounding for applied research, it should also fund basic and theoretical research. There are no gold standards in science. There are, however, scientific communities who do the hard work, day in day out, and what they need is support to build edifices.”

     Jen Gold, who worked on the development of the UK’s metascience unit, wrote in an article for Nature that she thinks they have been successful with some funding reforms and with the mentioned distributed peer review process, which led to much faster grant evaluations. They also implemented a process of removing what they call non-competitive grant applications. She recommends small teams as more effective than larger ones. That is the last recommendation I got from the article before the paywall hit.

     An editorial published a couple of days ago in Nature argues, as its title exemplifies, that “metascience should be a source of evidence, not a means of control.” The article warns against the misuse of metascience and notes that now there is a much larger pool of researchers due to the expansion of universities and the globalization of science.

“Funding agencies need to change how they work to adapt as the world changes. That includes addressing the problem of falling success rates resulting from the greater demand for grants.”

“By far the best way for policymakers to use metascience to inform funding decisions is for them to work with researchers to create and implement tools designed to measure quality and competitiveness, and — as in science itself — to learn from experimentation and experience.”

     Metascience can be quite useful, I believe, but scientists will still need the slack to perfect their ideas. I used to call this “tinker time,” or time to tinker around with ideas and test them and come up with better ideas. I think that holding scientists to higher efficiency standards will backfire. I also think that high levels of funding are necessary for both the public and private sectors. Skimping on R&D simply offers no advantages. Funding can be cut elsewhere. Funding science is too important. Nonetheless, metascience can cut some waste and weed out some of the less plausible and less potentially impactful research going on.  

References:

 

Can Metascience Supercharge Scientific Discovery? Aventine Research Institute. October 1, 2026. Can Metascience Supercharge Scientific Discovery?

Metascience. Casrai. (Dictionary). Metascience - Definition — CASRAI

Metascience. Wikipedia. Metascience - Wikipedia

I built the UK government’s metascience unit — here’s what countries need to know: To find evidence-backed ways to improve grant-funding processes, metascientists need freedom and money to experiment, as well as leaders who are willing to make change. Jen Gold. Nature. October 30, 2026. I built the UK government’s metascience unit — here’s what countries need to know | Nature

Holding Science to a Gold Standard Will Hold It Back: A metascientist pushes back against the unified and idealized vision of science embodied in NSF’s new Office of Metascience. Opinion. Berna Devezer, PhD. The Scientist. October 29, 2026. Holding Science to a Gold Standard Will Hold It Back | The Scientist

Rise of metascience: Turning science on itself: Focus on the ‘science of science’ is ensuring better research outcomes. Luke Fehily. The Irish Times.  October 17, 2024. Rise of metascience: Turning science on itself – The Irish Times

We Need a New Science of Progress: Humanity needs to get better at knowing how to get better. Patrick Collison and Tyler Cowen. The Atlantic. July 30, 2019. We Need a New Science of Progress - The Atlantic

Science: A New Golden Age. A REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT BY MICHAEL KRATSIOS, DIRECTOR OF THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY. JULY 2026. Science-A-New-Golden-Age.pdf

Metascience should be a source of evidence, not a means of control: The field has captured the interest of politicians. There are positives — but governments must not misuse the data. Editorial. Nature 659, 272. November 10, 2026. Metascience should be a source of evidence, not a means of control | Nature

 

U.S. Oil & Gas Sector Methane Emissions Intensity Decreased by 11% from 2019-2024, Continuing Trend

     A recent study from Johns Hopkins University, published in Communications Earth & Environment, analyzed U.S. oil & gas sector methane emissions from 2019 to 2024. The study found that methane emissions remained steady or decreased slightly even as oil and gas production increased. They cited better methane-capturing infrastructure as one reason for the decrease in methane emission intensity. The researchers used data from satellites, including the TROPOMI instrument and the GOSAT satellite.

     According to Phys.org:

“Total methane emissions from oil and gas activities for the contiguous U.S. remained between 9.3 teragrams and 10.4 Tg each year. Emissions decreased by 0.58 Tg from 2019–2023, but rose slightly from 2023–2024.”

“However, the intensity of emissions—the amount of methane emissions relative to oil and gas production—decreased by about 11%, representing the continuation of a decades-long trend rather than a significant drop in emissions, the researchers said.”

     The researchers noted that they did not see a detectable drop in emissions after the Inflation Reduction Act but noted that emissions may have been higher without it. They also cited more pipeline infrastructure availability to bring associated natural gas from oil wells, presumably in the Permian Basin, to market, as a reason for the lack of rise in emissions. They also cited better industry protocols and less flaring. Texas saw a 14% reduction in emissions. However, they noted that California and Colorado were not meeting their own methane emissions goals.

     In the paper, the researchers explain the decrease and give three main reasons: 1) regulations, 2) better measurement technologies, and 3) more methane being brought to market for LNG.

“The 11.1% [9.3%, 13.6%] decline in O&G emissions intensity occurred alongside a 8.5% increase in production and a 3.5% [1.6%, 6.2%] decline in emissions from 2019 to 2024 (Fig. 1) and is in line with basin-specific satellite inverse model estimates17. We propose three possible explanations for why emissions have remained relatively flat despite an increase in O&G production. First, earlier federal regulations, namely NSPS Subpart OOOOa, instituted systematic Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) for any O&G facility that was constructed, modified, or reconstructed after September 18, 201518,19. These newer facilities are often built with cleaner equipment (e.g., air-driven pneumatics and controlled tanks) but have very high production volumes, contributing to lower intensity. Second, improvements to methane measurement technologies over the last decade have made it easier to detect large emissions, resulting in more opportunities for mitigation20. These improvements are especially important given that the largest emissions account for an outsized percentage of total methane emissions21,22. Because these technological advancements occurred incrementally, we do not expect a precipitous drop in emissions in any one year from improved monitoring capabilities. Instead, these technological advancements, in aggregate, have likely contributed to the relatively flat emissions despite a substantial increase in production. Third, since 2019, rapid growth in U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports (see Fig. S9) has driven a steady increase in the outflow of Permian Basin natural gas to global markets. The corresponding expansion of regional pipeline capacity has significantly reduced the flaring and direct venting of associated gas and is discussed in detail in the last section23,24.”

     It remains to be seen whether recent relaxations of the Biden-era methane rule will result in any changes in methane emission intensity over the next few years. If the Trump EPA’s estimates are right, then more natural gas will be produced from marginal wells that were shut in due to non-compliance with the rule and are now exempt from it.

References:

 

U.S. methane emissions flatline, despite increases in oil and gas production. Hannah Robbins, Johns Hopkins University. Edited by Sadie Harley, reviewed by Robert Egan. Phys.org. October 14, 2026. U.S. methane emissions flatline, despite increases in oil and gas production

U.S. oil and gas methane emission intensity declined 2019–2024 with little indication of federal policy impact. Ao Chen, William S. Daniels, Ziting Huang, Arvind P. Ravikumar, Sarah M. Jordaan, Zhen Zhang, Leyang Feng, Hanyu Liu, Lee T. Murray, Xueying Yu, Dylan C. Gaeta, Kristan L. Morgan, Jialuo Yuan & Scot M. Miller. Communications Earth & Environment volume 7, Article number: 813 (October 13, 2026). U.S. oil and gas methane emission intensity declined 2019–2024 with little indication of federal policy impact | Communications Earth & Environment

Big Oil and Pure Players are Leading Smackover Lithium Project Development: The Potential is There to Move the U.S. from Producing 1% of Global Supply to 20% or More

     Jordan Blum wrote an interesting piece in Fortune Magazine about upcoming lithium sedimentary brine projects being developed in the Smackover Formation, where direct lithium extraction (DLE) will be utilized. The article gives an update and timelines on ongoing projects and the plans of developers. These developers include Big Oil companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron and pure-play companies like EnergyX and Standard Lithium, which focus on brine extraction.

     With global lithium demand rising 400% this decade to 1.5 million metric tons per year for batteries to power grids, EVs, data centers, and automation, the demand is set to stick around for a while and will likely rise even higher. The U.S. only produces 1% of global supply, mainly from a single mine, the Silver Peak Mine in Nevada. However, other sources utilizing DLE are getting closer to coming online in the Salton Sea region of California and especially in the Smackover Formation in Southern Arkansas, East Texas, and Northwest Louisiana. Smackover brine has very high concentrations of lithium. Standard Lithium believes its leased land alone can produce 150,000 metric tons per year, about 10% of current global supply. The company is expected to initiate its Southwest Arkansas Project late this year and begin construction in 2027. Below is some information about Standard Lithium's Projects.

     Another company, EnergyX, led by Elon Musk acolyte Teague Egan, might break ground on a smaller 15,000 metric tons per year project in Texas next year after finding success at its 250-ton pilot project. They have plans to expand to 50,000 metric tons per year by 2031.

     ExxonMobil holds net 400,000 acres in the Smackover lithium play and plans a pilot project for 2027. Chevron holds 125,000 acres in the play. The process is simply to drill wells, produce the brine, extract lithium and a few other components like bromine, and return about 90% of the brine to the formation. There are no evaporation ponds. It has about 1% of the land footprint compared to production in the Lithium Triangle of South America. Norway’s Equinor is another late entrant in the play, entering as a joint venture partner.

     However, some challenges remain. DLE has yet to be proven at scale. DLE can extract lithium much faster than waiting for water to evaporate and precipitate the solid lithium. China does not lead the world in lithium mining but leads it in lithium processing. DLE offers a competitive processing method. Below is Standard Lithium's schematic model for a DLE plant.

     The article mentions the Thacker Pass project in Nevada, which is a 40,000-ton open-pit clay mine, which could be completed by the end of 2027. It could potentially produce 160,000 metric tons per year when it reaches peak production. Thus, it seems fair to predict that in five years or so, the U.S. could be producing much more domestic lithium.

     Standard Lithium notes on its website that it is continuing research into producing lithium sulfide (Li2S) for next-gen solid-state battery chemistries. They are working with a partner, Telescope Innovations, to convert lithium hydroxide into lithium sulfide via a simple, low-temperature process.

 

 

 

References:

 

A ‘geologic freak’ called the Smackover may end America’s lithium dependence on China, and Big Oil is already there. Jordan Blum. Fortune. November 7, 2026. A ‘geologic freak’ called the Smackover may end America’s lithium dependence on China | Fortune

The Future of Lithium in North America. Standard Lithium. Website. Standard Lithium Ltd.

Cooperative Federalism Can Work to Support Both Economic and Environmental Goals, Argues Director of ALEC Task Force, Lora Current, in Op-Ed about EPA’s Methane Emissions Revision

     On October 27, 2026, the EPA announced a revision of the Biden Methane Emissions rule known as OOOOb/c. Trump and EPA chief Lee Zeldin announced the changes in Lubbock, Texas. A major part of the change, and one that I agree with and have long advocated for, is that producers of marginal wells be exempt or at least given a lot more time to comply. There are many marginal wells being produced by small operators in the U.S. who do not make high profits, and their costs to comply can be prohibitive. Apparently, from reading the EPA announcement, this has caused many of those small operators to shut in their marginal wells earlier than expected.

     Back in March of 2025, I wrote and compiled a post about compliance with the rule. It seemed a bit overly complicated then. While I thought the Zeldin EPA’s announcement was a bit anti-Biden, it described the rule as burdensome and unworkable. For those with marginal wells, that is likely true. However, I think that most major producers are not having any major issues with compliance.

     It’s worth noting that the rule is still in place and has simply been tweaked. The EPA provided the following summary of changes, which includes rolling back the super-emitter program, giving different compliance requirements based on well production, allowing repairs of covers and closed vent systems, adding flexibility for flame monitoring, and preferring 95% combustion flaring over requiring associated gas to go directly to sales lines. I agree with most of these aside from the flaring rollbacks. Flaring remains a serious issue in the Permian Basin and in North Dakota, where far more associated gas is flared and vented than needs to be. It is here that state rules may override federal rules in states with primacy granted by the EPA. This is where cooperative federalism comes into play. I wonder if this will result in higher flaring rates than the already high flaring rates in the Permian Basin. 

     While the EPA says that the rule changes could reduce regulatory costs by $45 billion while allowing an estimated 210 million additional barrels of oil and 1.41 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to be produced, I am skeptical that those numbers are correct and may be way off.

     Cooperative federalism is when federal agencies, such as the EPA, empower states to make rules and ensure compliance. Lora Current of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) noted in August that Zeldin’s EPA has been promoting cooperative federalism, as did previous Trump EPA leaders. There can be many advantages to ceding rulemaking and compliance to states. It makes sense for efficiency and the many regional variations in environmental issues. States are often better situated to manage environmental protection. Current wrote:

“The federal government has an important role in administering federal environmental laws, but states and local governments bring knowledge that federal regulators cannot replicate from Washington. Cooperative federalism allows each level of government to fulfill its appropriate responsibilities while giving states room to develop policies suited to their circumstances.”

     She also noted that there is a newly revitalized Local Government Advisory Committee that is set to deal with AI data center development, especially siting concerns.

     In a recent op-ed in Real Clear Energy, Current touted the usefulness of cooperative federalism in EPA’s revamped methane rules. She notes that EPA is seeking input from states and operators about how regulations can better reflect regional variations in environmental and economic conditions. She praises cooperative federalism as the best approach, and I agree. It is the most sensible approach and probably the fairest approach as well. She concludes:

“Environmental stewardship is strongest when government respects those closest to the issue, markets are allowed to work, and states retain the authority to lead.”

“That is not a retreat from environmental protection. It is a return to federalism.”

“EPA will accept public comments for 45 days following publication in the Federal Register. This provides states and stakeholders with an important opportunity to advocate for greater state flexibility and a final rule grounded in cooperative federalism.”

 

 

 

References:

 

Trump EPA Applies Federalism to Environmental Regulation in Reform of Over-the-Top Oil and Natural Gas Rules. Lora Current of ALEC via Real Clear Energy. November 7, 2026. Trump EPA Applies Federalism to Environmental Regulation in Reform of Over-the-Top Oil and Natural Gas Rules

EPA Proposes Major New Revisions to Burdensome, Unworkable Biden-era Oil and Natural Gas Regulations. October 27, 2026. U.S. EPA. EPA Proposes Major New Revisions to Burdensome, Unworkable Biden-era Oil and Natural Gas Regulations | US EPA

Restoring Federalism at the EPA. Lora Current. ALEC. August 19, 2026. Restoring Federalism at the EPA - American Legislative Exchange Council - American Legislative Exchange Council

 

Bio-CNG vs. Bio-LNG and CNG vs. LNG for Trucking: Different Advantages in Different Markets

      Bio-CNG is biomethane, which is purified biogas, compressed into pressurized cylinders. Bio-LNG trucks can carry more fuel and travel more miles between fill-ups. However, it costs more to liquefy the gas. Biomethane is liquefied via cooling to very low temperatures and stored in insulated tanks. More LNG than CNG can fit into a comparable-sized container. That means LNG fuel tanks for long-haul trucks can carry much more fuel than CNG trucks.

     According to Elastia:

“In the UK, provisional figures put bio-LNG supply at about 59,000 tonnes in 2025, up from 41,000 tonnes in 2024. Bio-CNG remained the larger market, rising from about 63,000 to 75,000 tonnes.”

     A commenter added:

“In UK road transport is about 50/50 CNG to LNG. In Germany, NL its 90% LNG.”

     In the U.S., biomethane in the form of renewable natural gas provides about 94% of the natural gas road fuel. This is mostly CNG for fleet vehicles and short deliveries.

        In the U.S., biomethane in the form of renewable natural gas provides about 94% of the natural gas road fuel. This is mostly CNG for fleet vehicles and short deliveries.

     LNG can offer advantages to ships, buses, trains, and heavy-duty vehicles, including lower fuel costs, lower pollution, and lower carbon emissions, compared to diesel.

     According to ExxonMobil:

“LNG has the greatest amount of energy per unit of mass of all conventional fuels. It packs the best punch for its weight.”

     LNG for mining vehicles and as a bunker fuel for ships is growing. ExxonMobil notes:

“In trials by a USA railway the LNG locomotive cost approximately 23% less to fuel on an energy equivalent basis compared to diesel fuel. The LNG switcher locomotive established an estimated 92% reduction in nitrogen oxides (NOx) and 76% less particulate matter (PM) compared to the baseline (uncontrolled) diesel locomotives. (Report by Patrick Couch Jon Leonard Helena Chiang, April 2010.)”

     Fleetworks compares CNG and LNG below:

     Most natural gas engines are spark-ignited. Cummins, Westport Fuel Systems, and other OEMs make the engines. A more advanced natural gas engine utilizes high-pressure direct injection (HPDI), where a small amount of diesel is injected for ignition. These engines give a more diesel-like performance. They run on 95% natural gas. Natural gas-powered transport offers significantly lower fuel prices, although prices vary by region. Lower maintenance is also a feature of natural gas engines. They may also be eligible for tax incentives. Environmentally, they offer much lower particulate matter, much lower NOx, much lower carbon emissions, and quieter operation.

     In the U.S., natural gas for transport is limited by infrastructure. According to Fleetworks, there are about 1000 CNG gas stations in the U.S. There are about 140 LNG gas stations along major transportation corridors. California, Texas, and the Northeast Corridor have the most.

     Upfront costs are a barrier for natural gas trucks, but those costs can be recouped over time in fuel savings, maintenance savings, and incentives.

“Natural gas trucks typically cost $30,000 to $80,000 more than comparable diesel trucks. This premium must be offset through fuel savings, incentives, or other operational benefits over the vehicle's lifecycle.”

     Since CNG trucks are bulkier and heavier, they are more suited to local and regional deliveries. They also require more frequent refueling. LNG trucks require specialized tanks. Both types, but especially CNG trucks, have reduced payload capacity due to the size of the tanks. CNG trucks have become a standard for waste and refuse hauling. Many of those run on biogas and biomethane (processed biogas), which in many cases is also called renewable natural gas (RNG), which comes from landfill gas collection systems. CNG trucks are being used more at ports where air quality concerns are great, and there may be more stringent requirements.

       Fleetworks estimates that the payback periods for natural gas trucks are 3-7 years. After that, the benefits of lower fuel and maintenance costs accrue. With the current very high diesel prices and low natural gas prices, those running on CNG or LNG are saving quite a lot over diesel rigs.

 

 

References:

 

 

Elastia. LinkedIn post. November 5, 2026. (22) Feed | LinkedIn

LNG for Transport. ExxonMobil. 70-lng-for-transport.pdf

Understanding Natural Gas Trucking in the Freight Industry. Fleetworks. Natural Gas Trucking Guide: CNG & LNG for Freight Carriers

 

BAAJA and Streamlining Permitting Disempowers Radical Environmental Groups, Which is Why They are Leading the Opposition: Alex Trembath Debunks Their Claims

      For decades, the more radical environmental groups have survived and prospered by opposing energy and infrastructure projects. They have succeeded in denying and delaying projects of all kinds. They have been able to do this by taking advantage of current permitting rules and through endless litigation. By exploiting these rules and finding sympathetic judges, they have succeeded in stopping and delaying pipelines, transmission projects, solar and wind farms, fossil power plants, hydroelectric projects, and many other projects. If the rules are changed to give them less leverage to affect these needed economic projects. The new rules will make permitting slightly less expensive and much faster. It will aid companies by making it easier for them to plan with more certainty.

     Yesterday, when I was driving, I heard Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman, who is set to take over as chair of the House Natural Resources Committee next year, speaking on the NPR environment show, Living on Earth. He stated that he wants to delay the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA) bill, set for debate this week, in order to get a deal more favorable to Democrats next year. This is a bad idea, and hopefully it won’t happen. This bill has been decades in the making and is closer than ever to a truly bipartisan solution that, frankly, benefits all parties: developers of all forms of energy, clean energy advocates, and streamlines processes that should have been streamlined a long time ago. The more radical environmental groups are pretty much the only faction that does not benefit. They have held unwarranted power for too long. Trump did a similar thing before he was re-elected with bipartisan border legislation, holding out for a better deal after he was elected. He ended up more or less bypassing Congress, with success at the border, but failure with the ICE chaos.

     Alex Trembath debunked some of the environmentalist claims about the bill in an article for the Ecomodernist. He notes that Huffman wants to gut the bill and only keep the power transmission reforms. That is a non-starter, in my opinion. Trembath notes that he and his colleagues at the Breakthrough Institute have argued for years that reforms to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) would benefit clean energy infrastructure. Trembath calls the environmentalists’ arguments misleading, their analysis “cockamamie,” and outright bullshit. He takes six of their arguments, ranging from absurd to more reasonable, and debunks them.

     The first claim he debunks is the absurd claim that the bill would allow Trump to build a coal plant in the Grand Canyon, put forth by Friends of the Earth. He simply notes that the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 prevents such a thing and that air quality standards are higher in national parks than elsewhere. No one would want a coal plant there in any case.

     The ACLU apparently claims that BAAJA would allow ICE to build out an immigrant detention system far more easily. Here, Trembath simply notes that detention centers more than doubled from 134 in January 2025 to 272 in July 2026 according to the Migration Policy Institute, with only about three of them facing NEPA issues. That is a very small percentage and not statistically significant. He also takes down John Podesta’a claim that BAAJA would allow illegal permits to stand. Trembath simply states that there is a provision in the bill that addresses that and if the permits are found to be illegal, they can be revoked.

     Next, he considers Abigail Dillen’s claim that BAAJA “would bar consideration of new information and science, while significantly increasing deference to federal agencies to define the scope of their reviews.” Trembath counters:

“Reality: BAAJA codifies and specifies the timelines for environmental review, statutes of limitations, qualifications for standing in litigation, applicable interventions under judicial review, and the criteria that can be considered before issuing permits. These specifications are necessary after decades of procedural bloat, as agencies have found new ways to expand the scope of environmental review, litigants have engineered new premises under which to sue projects, and courts have pursued winding and inconsistent paths in hearing lawsuits and reviewing permits and other infrastructural legal qualifications.”

     He gives two examples: Trump holding up offshore wind development and Biden cancelling oil and gas lease sales and holding up LNG terminal development. Both would have less power to do these things under BAAJA.

     Next, he takes on Jared Huffman’s claim that “BAAJA increases both GHGs and premature deaths from air pollution.” Here, he cites studies that suggest emissions will drop under BAAJA, presumably due to clean energy projects coming online faster. He criticizes the one study Huffman cited, calling it counterfactual and saying most studies suggest lower emissions. However, I would caution that U.S. LNG demand is set to rise and power demand continues to rise due to data centers. Natural gas will be needed to feed that demand. U.S. LNG and oil are both in heavy demand around the world. That means oil & especially gas production is likely to rise in the near term, and that means higher emissions. However, the emissions gains will be partially offset by clean energy projects. Thus, I think Trembath does not make a great case here.  He does point out that natural gas can still continue to replace coal and fuel oil where applicable, in New England, for instance, thereby reducing emissions.

     Next, he takes on the Climate Justice Alliance’s claim that BAAJA would “would gut bedrock environmental laws created over half a century ago.” He writes:

“Reality: BAAJA would curtail, and in some cases consolidate, federal requirements for environmental review and community consultation under multiple regulatory statutes. This is far from a repeal or “gutting” of legacy environmental laws.”

     He notes and explains below that the big issue with NEPA is environmental review, which is procedural, not statutory.

“It’s important to remember that the specific form that federal agencies have adopted to conduct environmental reviews is a procedural development, not a statutory requirement of NEPA. These reviews have become more sprawling and unmanageable over time, vulnerable to often frivolous litigation brought by activist groups and subject to unpredictable and unconstrained judicial review. BAAJA would expand the use of Categorical Exclusions (itself a kind of environmental review) for certain classes of project, specify the criteria relevant to reviews, permit alternative reviews from states or other agencies to satisfy the review requirement, and establish deadlines for both environmental review and litigation.”

     He notes that BAAJA would also reform public engagement and consultation, an area where environmentalists routinely flood public comments airwaves with anti-project sentiments.

     Lastly, he takes on the Wilderness Society’s claim that BAAJA “would sell out our shared public lands to fossil fuel drilling, hardrock mining and AI data centers, silence public input and erode Tribal sovereignty.”

     Here, he argues that the views of tribes are varied, and many important tribal groups and voices support infrastructure projects. He also confirms that while the more radical environmental groups oppose BAAJA, many environmental groups, including the more mainstream ones, are more neutral or even support it.  

“While figures like Bill McKibben and David Bookbinder, and groups like Earthjustice and the Center for Biological Diversity, have come out guns blazing, organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council and the League of Conservation Voters appear to be hedging their bets, criticizing the bill while refraining from formal opposition.”

     Trembath also writes that BAAJA will be reworked before it gets into a passable form and in the coming years more tweaks will be needed, especially for things like judicial and environmental reviews.

“Further reforms outside the scope of BAAJA will almost certainly be needed in the coming years, on issues ranging from further consolidation of judicial review, normalization of environmental review across agencies, and reforms to other federal statutes that are implicated in NEPA and broader environmental regulation.”

     He notes the sad facts of the past decades of empowered radical environmentalist groups wielding power to deny and delay important energy and infrastructure projects.

“Environmental regulation has become a vehicle for activist litigation and fundraising.”

     I would change that from “has become” to “has long been.” It’s time to weaken the radicals and make environmental review fairer, faster, but still keep it effective. There is no reason that cannot be done. The radical environmentalists do not have sound arguments and have been reveling in their ability to sink projects for too long. Pass BAAJA before year’s end!

 

References:

 

On Anti-BAAJA Bullshit. Debunking the Case Against Permitting Reform. Alex Trembath. The Ecomodernist.  Ovember 6, 2026.  On Anti-BAAJA Bullshit - by Alex Trembath