Enbridge Gas tells PSC it has cut methane emissions and is pursuing efficiency, but provides limited new targets

Enbridge Gas representatives told a Utah Public Service Commission technical conference that the company has reduced methane emissions and continues to pursue efficiency and lower‑carbon initiatives. Jordan Stevenson, manager of regulation for Enbridge Gas, opened the presentation and said the company is “focusing on improving our performance and modernizing our equipment as well as investments in lower carbon initiatives.” A company representative said, “we reduced our methane emissions by 87%,” and described equipment replacements and other investments as the primary drivers of that reduction. The company presented energy‑efficiency program results it said equate to 49,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2024 and lifetime savings “equivalent of a 190,000 passenger vehicles each driven for one year.” Using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency equivalency calculator, Enbridge said the 2024 savings correspond roughly to 11,000 passenger vehicles driven one year. Commission staff and presenters pressed on the measurement method. A PSC participant asked why the CO2‑equivalent intensity metric varies year to year; Enbridge staff explained the intensity measure is an average across the system — total greenhouse‑gas emissions divided by throughput — so changes in throughput and the effectiveness of reduction measures affect the metric. Company representatives described distribution‑system work to reduce emissions, including replacing bleed devices at wellheads, increased leak surveys, reducing pressure instead of blowing lines when taken out of service, and targeted capital investments. Presenters said some initiatives are already in the IRP filing and that engineering staff are available to answer project‑level questions. No new formal targets, ordinance citations, or enforceable deadlines for additional methane reductions were proposed during the conference. Questions about future intensity targets, specific program budgets, or quantified near‑term goals were not answered with new commitments at the session. Observers at the technical conference were referred to the IRP filing materials for project lists and program descriptions and were told follow‑up technical questions could be routed to the company’s engineering staff.