Questions to Ask When Defining Success in Methane Reduction Programs

Methane reduction programs may succeed or fail based on one thing when run without strategic clarity. That’s why savvy utilities take the time to set clear goals, establish expectations, and develop measurable definitions of success.

In our webinar, How to Integrate Aerial Leak Detection into Your Methane Reduction and Leak Survey Programs, industry veteran Ed Newton (formerly of SoCalGas) outlined a set of core questions utilities should use to shape, evaluate, and continually refine their methane reduction programs.

Below, we expand those questions into a practical decision-making framework utilities can apply immediately.

Question 1: What Is Our Vision?

When a program is lacking in well-defined vision, a utility will struggle to set priorities or measure success against it. In the webinar, Newton emphasized starting with vision because it anchors every technical and operational choice that follows. 

A strong methane reduction vision does three things:

Utilities can use vision-setting discussions to clarify whether the program should primarily:

• Increase public and employee safety
• Improve operational efficiency
• Support regulatory compliance and science-based reporting
• Drive toward broader corporate emissions or ESG targets

Even if multiple motivations apply, ranking them forces operational alignment.

For example, if aging infrastructure is a top concern, the vision should emphasize system-wide visibility and prioritization of leak-prone pipelines.

If efficiency is the priority, the vision might stress reducing false positives and cutting down on unnecessary field dispatches.

Aerial detection, for instance, aligns well with visions centered on:

• Complete network visibility
• Faster identification of hazardous leaks
• Quantified, auditable emissions reporting data
  
  

Question 2: How Do We Meet Our Goals?

Compliance is the starting point. The utility defines the rest.

Newton encouraged utilities to think beyond meeting requirements. Instead, he encourages utilities to design programs that help them lead in transparency, reporting quality, and system intelligence.

Here are actionable ways utilities can operationalize this:

For each regulatory expectation (e.g., survey frequency, quantification accuracy, documentation), ask:

• What data do we need?
• How will we collect it?
• How will we verify it?
• Who owns each step?

Aerial detection can streamline these needs by providing:

• Full-system coverage
• Time-stamped, geo-referenced detection data
• Emitter height, plume characteristics, and emission rate data
  
  

Regulators, investors, and customers increasingly expect scientific reporting and transparent reduction metrics.

Utilities can future-proof programs by:

• Using quantified emissions rate data 
• Establishing datasets that support trend analysis, year-over-year emissions tracking, and automation
• Selecting technologies with robust validation histories (e.g., Gas Mapping LiDAR™)
  
  

For example, if a utility has corporate emissions targets, methane detection programs should include:

• Plans to establish emissions baselines
• Achievable annual reduction targets
• Defined reporting cadences for benchmarking
• Communication plans for internal and external stakeholders
  
  

Question 3: How Do We Measure Success?

Clear metrics make it possible to tell whether effort is converting to impact.

Newton highlighted the importance of measuring performance across operational, safety, and emissions outcomes, not just leak counts.

Below is a framework utilities can use.

These help utilities understand whether workflows are becoming more efficient. Examples:

• Probability of detection (PoD) for targeted leak sizes
• Number of actionable leaks per survey
• Reduction in false positives
• Time from detection to repair
• Unnecessary truck rolls avoided

From SoCalGas’ experience using aerial detection:

• Detection probability reached 81% for emissions >10 SCFH
• 100% area coverage was achieved during R&D testing

These metrics directly tie to operational ROI.

Success can be measured by:

• Increased identification of hazardous leaks
• Decreased windshield time and fewer unnecessary site visits
• Reduced time spent by crews in unsafe or remote environments
• Faster response to high-priority issues

At SoCalGas, aerial detection contributed to a 25% increase in hazardous leak detection compared to traditional approaches.

These quantify impact in a way regulators and investors recognize. Examples:

• Total volume of methane abated
• Reductions in persistent emissions sources
• Year-over-year emissions reduction percentages

SoCalGas’ program resulted in an estimated one billion cubic feet of emissions abated over 2.5 years.

Utilities often struggle to quantify cost-benefits, but Newton provided a clear direction. He recommends they measure cost against:

• Emissions abated
• Hazardous leaks prevented
• Maintenance labor reallocated to productive tasks
• Avoided regulatory penalties
• Reduced truck rolls or time spent searching for leaks
  
  

Putting the Questions Into Practice

Defining success in methane reduction is not simply about setting goals. It’s about establishing:

1. A clear, actionable vision
2. A path to meet and exceed compliance
3. An agreed-upon measurement framework

When utilities answer these questions early and revisit them regularly, they build programs that are measurable, defensible, and adaptable as technology and regulations evolve.

For deeper guidance from Ed Newton (including examples from his work at SoCalGas) watch the full webinar any time: How to Integrate Aerial Leak Detection into Your Methane Reduction and Leak Survey Programs.