The Methane Credit Should Follow the Meter

EPA counts 400 manure based anaerobic digestion systems operating on livestock farms in the United States. The same AgSTAR data says biogas recovery is technically feasible for more than 8,000 large dairy and hog operations. Source: https://www.epa.gov/agstar/agstar-data-and-trends

That gap is too large to explain with farmer indifference. It is a payment design problem. Thousands of farms have manure, methane, and climate value. What they do not have is a simple way to get paid for keeping methane out of the air month after month.

The Climate Problem Is Already Counted

EPA says direct greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture accounted for 9.4 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2022. Within agriculture, manure management accounted for about 14 percent of the sector total. That is not the largest slice of the national inventory, but it is one of the clearest places where a molecule can be stopped before it becomes a bigger problem. Source: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/agriculture-sector-emissions

Manure methane is not mysterious. EPA explains that liquid manure management systems create anaerobic conditions, which increase methane production. The agency lists common reduction practices, including anaerobic digestion with biogas flaring or utilization, and the capture of methane from manure decomposition. Source: https://www.epa.gov/agstar/practices-reduce-methane-emissions-livestock-manure-management

The public interest is straightforward. If methane is produced in a lagoon or storage system, policy should make it affordable to capture and destroy it. The hard part is not proving the climate value. The hard part is making the payment simple enough that a farm can say yes without becoming an energy company.

Installation Is Only the First Check

Most farm programs are better at paying for equipment than paying for performance. That matters because methane systems do not work by being installed once. They work because gas is collected, meters are read, equipment is maintained, service calls are answered, and destruction is verified.

EPA's project planning guidance treats anaerobic digestion as a business case, not a one time purchase. It tells farms to estimate revenue from biogas, electricity, fuel, coproducts, tipping fees, and avoided costs. It also tells them to estimate capital and ongoing operating expenses. Source: https://www.epa.gov/agstar/project-planning-and-financing

That is the honest way to plan a project, but it also exposes the affordability gap. If the only revenue is tied to a fuel market, a credit stack, or a commodity sale, the farm has to carry a public climate service inside a private business model. For the largest projects, that may work. For many mid size farms, it turns a manure problem into a financing problem.

Small Farms Need a Different Payment Unit

EPA's small farm guidance is careful. It says smaller digesters can work, but they require more planning and favorable economic and financial conditions than larger farms. It also says a working business model is key. Source: https://www.epa.gov/agstar/frequent-questions-about-livestock-biogas-projects

That should be read as a warning, not a footnote. If methane policy only rewards the farms that can support a full fuel project, it will leave too many real emissions untouched. The payment unit should not be whether a farm can sell gas into a market. The payment unit should be verified methane destruction.

A practical methane credit would follow the meter. It would pay only when gas is measured, the control device is operating, and records show methane was destroyed instead of vented. It would reserve money for service and monitoring because those are not extras. They are the work that turns equipment into a climate result.

This is not asking taxpayers or ratepayers to pay twice. It is asking them to buy the result they think they are already buying. A capital grant buys hardware. A measured destruction credit buys performance. One without the other can leave a farm with a climate asset that still needs labor, parts, power, inspection, and paperwork.

What Should Change

This is where cap and flare belongs in the policy conversation. It is not a substitute for every renewable natural gas project. Big farms near infrastructure may still choose RNG. Some projects will justify the extra equipment, contracts, and fuel reporting. That is fine.

But the cheapest methane cut should not be disqualified because it does not create a saleable fuel. A farm that captures gas, destroys methane, and verifies the result is providing a public benefit. If the public wants that benefit, the payment should be tied to the result and sized so the farm can keep the system running.

The next generation of methane policy should keep capital grants, but add operating payments for measured destruction. It should let farmers use the simplest technology that fits the site. It should compare options by dollars per ton, uptime, and verified methane kept out of the air.

The meter is the honest referee. It does not care whether the gas became a fuel, powered an engine, or went to a flare. It tells us whether methane was handled. A credit that follows the meter would be fairer to farmers, clearer for consumers, and faster for the climate.