guest column

Houston expert: Moving the needle on methane emissions

Methane emissions are rising—about 25 percent in the past 20 years, and still going up— but they are difficult to measure and track. What can be done? Photo via Canva

Here’s the bad news. In 2019, methane (CH4) accounted for about 10 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, such as those related to natural gas extraction and livestock farming. Methane doesn’t last as long in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, but is more efficient at trapping radiation; over a 100-year period, the comparative impact of CH4 is 25 times greater than CO2. To put it another way, one metric ton of methane equals 84 metric tons of carbon dioxide (see chart). Finally, while methane emissions are rising—about 25 percent in the past 20 years, and still going up—they are difficult to measure and track.

No alt text provided for this image

Source: McKinsey.com

And here’s the good news. Five industries—agriculture, oil and gas, coal mining, solid waste management, and wastewater—account for almost all of human-made methane emissions. There are practical things these industries can do, right now, at reasonable cost and using existing technologies, that could cut emissions by almost half (46 percent) in 2050. That said, it will be easier for some industries than for others. Take agriculture. Most of its emissions come from cows and sheep, which produce methane during digestion; in fact, animals account for more carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) emissions than every country except China, according to a recent McKinsey report. Dealing with billions of animals, dispersed on farms small and large all over the world is, to put it mildly, complicated. Certain kinds of feed additives, for example, can reduce the formation of methane, cow by cow—but is expensive ($50 per tCO₂e and up). This add costs to farmers, without any economic benefits to them, and makes food more expensive. That’s a tough sell.

On the other hand, the energy industry accounts for 20 to 25 percent of methane emissions; its operations are fairly consolidated, and there are significant resources and expertise at hand. Plus, in many cases, there are genuine economic opportunities. For example, plugging methane leaks means less gas gets lost. Large volumes of methane emissions that are now treated as a waste could be recovered and sold as natural gas—something that is not always economic to do, but could be as gas prices rise or conditions change. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the industry flares approximately 90 Mt of methane per year, losing $12 billion to $19 billion in value. Over time, too, normal maintenance and upgrading strategies can also reduce emissions, for example, by replacing pumps with instrument air systems. There are many different ways to prevent losses in upstream production, including leak detection and repair, equipment electrification, and vapor recovery units.

No alt text provided for this image

Source: McKinsey.com

In the short term, meaning over the next decade, the IEA says that these and other changes could reduce emissions 40 percent (at 2019 gas prices), while more than paying for themselves. In effect, there is low-hanging fruit out there. The full potential, according to McKinsey, is 75 percent fewer emissions by 2050, but to get there, things get more expensive, somewhere in the range of $20 per tCO₂e.

Naturally, oil and gas players are not eager to embrace added costs, and these will eventually be passed on to consumers. But the industry is looking at a future that is carbon-constrained in one way or another, either through a price on carbon, or regulation, or both. It might well be that addressing methane emissions provides a way to decarbonize its operations at reasonable cost. And while there is little brand equity to natural gas at the moment—no one shops for it by name—it is possible that in decades to come, companies that can show they are producing low- or zero-carbon gas might be able to command a price premium.

Much of the oil and gas industry doesn’t disagree with this analysis. The International Group of Liquefied Natural Gas Importers, a trade group, has made the case that “abating greenhouse gas emissions (from wellhead to terminal outlet), in particular fugitive methane emissions,” is important. On the oil side, the American Petroleum Institute, as part of its climate action plan, has called for the development of methane detection technologies, and reducing flaring to zero: “We support cost-effective policies and direct regulation that achieve methane emission reductions from new and existing sources across the supply chain.” And the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, whose companies account for almost 30 percent of global production, are also on board, calling the reduction of methane emissions to near zero “a top priority.” Back in 2017, the Houston Chronicle, the home paper of the Texas oil and gas industry, argued for better practices: “If Texas wants the world to buy our LNG exports, a sign of environmental good faith would go a long way.” And in fact there has been progress: the OGCI estimates that methane emissions are have declined 33 percent from 2017-20.

On the whole, then, this looks like one area of climate policy where there is broad consensus. Methane matters. According to one science paper, dealing with it “could slow the global-mean rate of near-term decadal warming by around 30 percent.” Just the oil-and-gas industry’s share, then, could make a measurable difference. I am not saying getting methane emissions way down will be easy, but the industry knows what to do and how to do it. It is in its interest, and that of the planet, to do so.

------------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally ran on LinkedIn on October 21, 2021.

Trending News

A View From HETI

Data centers, EVs, and storms put the Texas grid to the test. Photo courtesy UH.

Texas has spent the past five years racing to strengthen its electric grid after Winter Storm Uri exposed just how vulnerable it was. Billions have gone into new transmission lines, grid hardening, and a surge of renewables and batteries. Those moves have made a difference, we haven’t seen another systemwide blackout like Uri, but the question now isn’t what’s been done, it’s whether Texas can keep up with what’s coming.

Massive data centers, electric vehicles, and industrial projects are driving electricity demand to unprecedented levels. NERC recently boosted its 10-year load forecast for Texas by more than 60%. McKinsey projects that U.S. electricity demand will rise roughly 40% by 2030 and double by 2050, with data centers alone accounting for as much as 11-12% of total U.S. electricity demand by 2030, up from about 4% today. Texas, already the top destination for new data centers, will feel that surge at a greater scale.

While the challenges ahead are massive and there will undoubtedly be bumps in the road (some probably big), we have an engaged Texas legislature, capable regulatory bodies, active non-profits, pragmatic industry groups, and the best energy minds in the world working together to make a market-based system work. I am optimistic Texas will find a way.

Why Texas Faces a Unique Grid Challenge

About 90% of Texas is served by a single, independent grid operated by ERCOT, rather than being connected to the two large interstate grids that cover the rest of the country. This structure allows ERCOT to avoid federal oversight of its market design, although it still must comply with FERC reliability standards. The trade-off is limited access to power from neighboring states during emergencies, leaving Texas to rely almost entirely on in-state generation and reserves when extreme weather hits.

ERCOT’s market design is also different. It’s an “energy-only” market, meaning generators are paid for electricity sold, not for keeping capacity available. While that lowers prices in normal times, it also makes it harder to finance backup, dispatchable generation like natural gas and batteries needed when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining.

The Risks Mounting

In Texas, solar and wind power supply a significant percentage of electricity to the grid. As Julie Cohn, a nonresident scholar at the Baker Institute, explains, these inverter‑based resources “connect through power electronics, which means they don’t provide the same physical signals to the grid that traditional generators do.” The Odessa incidents, where solar farms tripped offline during minor grid disturbances, showed how fragile parts of this evolving grid can be. “Fortunately, it didn’t result in customer outages, and it was a clear signal that Texas has the opportunity to lead in solving this challenge.”

Extreme weather adds more pressure while the grid is trying to adapt to a surge in use. CES research manager Miaomiao Rimmer notes: “Hurricane frequencies haven't increased, but infrastructure and population in their paths have expanded dramatically. The same hurricane that hit 70 years ago would cause far more damage today because there’s simply more in harm’s way.”

Medlock: “Texas has made significant strides in the last 5 years, but there’s more work to be done.”

Ken Medlock, Senior Director of the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University’s Baker Institute, argues that Texas’s problem isn’t a lack of solutions; it’s how quickly those solutions are implemented. He stresses that during the January 2024 cold snap, natural gas kept the grid stable, proving that “any system configuration with sufficient, dispatchable generation capacity would have kept the lights on.” Yet ERCOT load has exceeded dispatchable capacity with growing frequency since 2018, raising the stakes for future reliability.

Ken notes: “ERCOT has a substantial portfolio of options, including investment in dispatchable generation, storage near industrial users, transmission expansion, and siting generation closer to load centers. But allowing structural risks to reliability that can be avoided at a reasonable cost is unacceptable. Appropriate market design and sufficient regulatory oversight are critical.” He emphasizes that reliability must be explicitly priced into ERCOT’s market so backup resources can be built and maintained profitably. These resources, whether natural gas, nuclear, or batteries, cannot remain afterthoughts if Texas wants a stable grid.

Building a More Reliable Grid

For Texas to keep pace with rising demand and withstand severe weather, it must act decisively on multiple fronts, strengthening its grid while building for long-term growth.

  • Coordinated Planning: Align regulators, utilities, and market players to plan decades ahead, not just for next summer.
  • Balancing Clean and Reliable Power: Match renewable growth with flexible, dispatchable generation that can deliver power on demand.
  • Fixing Local Weak Spots: Harden distribution networks, where most outages occur, rather than focusing only on large-scale generation.
  • Market Reform and Technology Investment: Price reliability fairly and support R&D to make renewables strengthen, not destabilize, the grid.

In Conclusion

While Texas has undeniably improved its grid since Winter Storm Uri, surging electricity demand and intensifying weather mean the work is far from over. Unlike other states, ERCOT can’t rely on its neighbors for backup power, and its market structure makes new dispatchable resources harder to build. Decisive leadership, investment, and reforms will be needed to ensure Texas can keep the lights on.

It probably won’t be a smooth journey, but my sense is that Texas will solve these problems and do something spectacular. It will deliver more power with fewer emissions, faster than skeptics believe, and surprise us all.

-----------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally appeared on LinkedIn.

Trending News