IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v87y2015icp496-504.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The real value of FracFocus as a regulatory tool: A national survey of state regulators

Author

Listed:
  • Dundon, Leah A.
  • Abkowitz, Mark
  • Camp, Janey

Abstract

Over the last decade, domestic oil and gas production has increased dramatically because of advancements in the technologies associated with hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. This boom generated a wave of new state laws and regulations, especially addressing disclosure of fracturing chemicals. In 2011 the chemical disclosure registry FracFocus.Org was launched to provide well-by-well chemical information to the public. Many states adopted FracFocus for chemical reporting. In 2013, Harvard Law School researchers issued a report concluding that FracFocus “fails as a regulatory compliance tool.” The report made serious criticisms regarding the utility of the registry; however, the report was incomplete because its authors never interviewed state regulators. This paper remedies that oversight. We surveyed regulators in twenty oil and gas producing states to determine how they view and are using FracFocus. The results contradict the most crucial claims of the Harvard report and indicate that states are quite positive about FracFocus and are using it in novel ways that go beyond the registry's original purpose. This paper represents the first comprehensive survey of state regulators and the first attempt to obtain a data-driven analysis of how FracFocus is being used and whether it is effective as a regulatory tool.

Suggested Citation

  • Dundon, Leah A. & Abkowitz, Mark & Camp, Janey, 2015. "The real value of FracFocus as a regulatory tool: A national survey of state regulators," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 496-504.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:87:y:2015:i:c:p:496-504
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.09.031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421515301166
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.09.031?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tian, Lei & Wang, Zhongmin & J. Krupnick, Alan & Liu, Xiaoli, 2014. "Stimulating Shale Gas Development in China: A Comparison with the US Experience," RFF Working Paper Series dp-14-18, Resources for the Future.
    2. Clarke, Christopher E. & Hart, Philip S. & Schuldt, Jonathon P. & Evensen, Darrick T.N. & Boudet, Hilary S. & Jacquet, Jeffrey B. & Stedman, Richard C., 2015. "Public opinion on energy development: The interplay of issue framing, top-of-mind associations, and political ideology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 131-140.
    3. Tian, Lei & Wang, Zhongmin & Krupnick, Alan & Liu, Xiaoli, 2014. "Stimulating shale gas development in China: A comparison with the US experience," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 109-116.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Esterhuyse, Surina & Avenant, Marinda & Redelinghuys, Nola & Kijko, Andrzej & Glazewski, Jan & Plit, Lisa & Kemp, Marthie & Smit, Ansie & Vos, A. Tascha, 2018. "Monitoring of unconventional oil and gas extraction and its policy implications: A case study from South Africa," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 109-120.
    2. Geltman, Elizabeth Glass & Gill, Gunwant & Jovanovic, Miriam, 2016. "Impact of Executive Order 13211 on environmental regulation: An empirical study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 302-310.
    3. Miron Avidan & Dror Etzion & Joel Gehman, 2019. "Opaque transparency: How material affordances shape intermediary work," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 197-219, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yu, Chin-Hsien & Huang, Shih-Kai & Qin, Ping & Chen, Xiaolan, 2018. "Local residents' risk perceptions in response to shale gas exploitation: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 123-134.
    2. Shangfeng Han & Baosheng Zhang & Xiaoyang Sun & Song Han & Mikael Höök, 2017. "China’s Energy Transition in the Power and Transport Sectors from a Substitution Perspective," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-25, April.
    3. Auping, Willem L. & Pruyt, Erik & de Jong, Sijbren & Kwakkel, Jan H., 2016. "The geopolitical impact of the shale revolution: Exploring consequences on energy prices and rentier states," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 390-399.
    4. Wang, Jianliang & Mohr, Steve & Feng, Lianyong & Liu, Huihui & Tverberg, Gail E., 2016. "Analysis of resource potential for China’s unconventional gas and forecast for its long-term production growth," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 389-401.
    5. Li, Yanbin & Li, Yun & Wang, Bingqian & Chen, Zhuoer & Nie, Dan, 2016. "The status quo review and suggested policies for shale gas development in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 420-428.
    6. Guanglin Pi & Xiucheng Dong & Cong Dong & Jie Guo & Zhengwei Ma, 2015. "The Status, Obstacles and Policy Recommendations of Shale Gas Development in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-20, February.
    7. Yuan, Jiehui & Luo, Dongkun & Xia, Liangyu & Feng, Lianyong, 2015. "Policy recommendations to promote shale gas development in China based on a technical and economic evaluation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 194-206.
    8. Chi Kong Chyong and David M. Reiner, 2015. "Economics and Politics of Shale Gas in Europe," Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    9. Qin, Yue & Tong, Fan & Yang, Guang & Mauzerall, Denise L., 2018. "Challenges of using natural gas as a carbon mitigation option in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 457-462.
    10. Hui Li & Renjin Sun & Wei-Jen Lee & Kangyin Dong & Rui Guo, 2016. "Assessing Risk in Chinese Shale Gas Investments Abroad: Modelling and Policy Recommendations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-17, July.
    11. Dong, Kangyin & Sun, Renjin & Wu, Jin & Hochman, Gal, 2018. "The growth and development of natural gas supply chains: The case of China and the US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 64-71.
    12. Krupnick, Alan & Wang, Zhongmin & Wang, Yushuang, 2014. "Environmental risks of shale gas development in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 117-125.
    13. Xunpeng, Shi & Variam, Hari Malamakkavu Padinjare & Tao, Jacqueline, 2017. "Global impact of uncertainties in China’s gas market," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 382-394.
    14. Yang, Yan & Wang, Limao & Fang, Yebing & Mou, Chufu, 2017. "Integrated value of shale gas development: A comparative analysis in the United States and China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1465-1478.
    15. Čábelková, Inna & Strielkowski, Wadim & Streimikiene, Dalia & Cavallaro, Fausto & Streimikis, Justas, 2021. "The social acceptance of nuclear fusion for decision making towards carbon free circular economy: Evidence from Czech Republic," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    16. Savin, Ivan & Drews, Stefan & van den Bergh, Jeroen, 2021. "Free associations of citizens and scientists with economic and green growth: A computational-linguistics analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    17. Clarke, Christopher E. & Evensen, Darrick T.N., 2023. "Attention to news media coverage of unconventional oil/gas development impacts: Exploring psychological antecedents and effects on issue support," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    18. Arnold, Gwen & Farrer, Benjamin & Holahan, Robert, 2018. "How do landowners learn about high-volume hydraulic fracturing? A survey of Eastern Ohio landowners in active or proposed drilling units," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 455-464.
    19. Isoaho, Karoliina & Karhunmaa, Kamilla, 2019. "A critical review of discursive approaches in energy transitions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 930-942.
    20. Centner, Terence J., 2016. "Reducing pollution at five critical points of shale gas production: Strategies and institutional responses," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 40-46.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:87:y:2015:i:c:p:496-504. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.