Policy Overview

The European Commission proposed new rules to prevent methane leakage in the energy sector in December 2021, as part of the EU’s strategy to reduce methane emissions (adopted in October 2020), which outlined plans to reduce methane emissions in the energy, agriculture, and waste sectors. The EU Commission consulted on the file from December 2020-May 2021. The regulation aimed to implement measures to tackle methane emissions from the sector in the EU and on imported fossil fuels.

Policy Passed

Despite intense negative engagement on the EU Methane Regulation for the energy sector from the oil and gas sector, the file, approved in April 2024, increased the scope to include methane emissions from imported fossil fuels, but appeared to weaken measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) requirements and leak detection and repair (LDAR) obligations.

InfluenceMap Query

GHG emission regulation

Policy Status

Inactive: completed. The file was approved in April 2024 and entered into force in August 2024.

  • European Parliament: Joint responsibility for Environment Committee and Industry Research and Energy Committee
  • ENVI Committee Rapporteur: Pascal Canfin (Renew)
  • ITRE Committee Rapporteur: Jutta Paulus (Greens)
  • European Council: Energy

Evidence Profile

Key

opposing not supporting mixed/unclear
supporting strongly supporting

European Commission

European Parliament

European Council

Policy Engagement Overview

The aggregated evidence of corporate and industry lobbying on the Methane Regulation proposal shows intense, negative engagement from the oil and gas industry, while some renewable energy utilities took positive positions.

New Lobbying Trends in 2024-2025

Resurgence in oil and gas industry efforts to reopen the methane regulation, including weakening measurement and reporting obligations, particularly from industry associations Eurogas and the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP).

Continued pushback against the transparency obligations for methane emissions from energy imports, including an April 2025 joint letter to EU officials signed by EU and US energy entities BP, ConocoPhillips, Engie, Eni, Equinor, Eurogas, Naturgy, Repsol, and Uniper.

Industry pressure to establish regulatory equivalence between the EU and third countries, which would allow imports to automatically comply with the regulation. Cheniere Energy highlighted equivalency between the US and EU as "critical"in a May 2024 meeting with EU Commission Officials, and Eurogas recommended the EU adopt a "pragmatic" approach, which could lead to less rigorous equivalency requirements in a March 2025 publication.

The key narrative promoted by industry in its advocacy against the regulation has been that it jeopardizes the EU's energy security and economic competitiveness. For example, the American Petroleum Institute and US Chamber employed this narrative in a letter to EU officials in November 2024, and IOGP recommended the regulation be included on the EU’s regulatory simplification omnibus to strengthen the bloc’s energy security in a February 2025 position paper.

Long-term Lobbying Trends from 2022-2023

The oil and gas industry did not support proposed leak detection and repair requirements, measurement verification and reporting obligations, and banning routine flaring and venting. This included advocacy from companies BP, Eni, Equinor, and industry associations International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP), GasNaturally, Eurogas, Gas Distributors for Sustainability (GD4S), Gasunie and Gas Infrastructure Europe.

The oil and gas industry advocated against measures on imports, including industry associations Eurogas, International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP) and Gas Infrastructure Europe, and companies Eni, Engie and Snam.

Renewable energy utilities supported higher ambition, including companies such as Enel and Iberdrola, by advocating for binding methane emission reduction targets, penalties for non-compliance, and measures for imported fossil fuels.

The coal sector opposed its inclusion, Euracoal consistently opposed the regulation in 2023, and called for an increase in methane allowances for coal mining.

Impacts on Policy Ambition

By considering the potential scenarios in the EU Commission's original Impact Assessment Report for the EU Gas Package, and comparing this to the final proposal, a gauge of the impact of industry lobbying can be taken. In this case, intense engagement from the oil and gas industry appears to correlate with the adoption of several weaker positions by the EU Commission.

EU Commission's Proposal:

  • Standards and measures: The EU Commission’s proposal introduced high standards for measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) for methane emissions, stricter rules for leak detection and repair (LDAR) including mandatory checks every 3 months.

  • Flaring and venting: The proposal prohibited routine flaring, and routine venting except under certain circumstances.

  • Imported fossil fuels: The proposal only tackled methane emissions from imported fossil fuels through the use of “diplomatic dialogue” with international partners, despite an EU reliance on imported gas.

  • Emission reduction target: The Commission’s proposal did not provide any binding or prescriptive reductions targets for methane emissions.

  • Review: The European Commission will review the regulation in 2025.

EU Council Position:

The EU Council’s Proposal of the Methane regulation for the energy sector significantly weakened the ambition of the EU Commission’s proposal.

  • Standards and measures: The EU Council’s position reduced the frequency of leak detection and repair (LDAR) measures to checks every 6 months.

  • Flaring and venting: The Council watered down requirements for inspections on routine flaring, and removed the Commission’s plan to report flaring events during shutdowns.

  • Imported fossil fuels: Did not include action on imported fossil fuels, however a provision was included for the EU Commission to assess the implications of extending the regulation to imports as part of its next revision.

EU Parliament Position:

The European Parliament's position on the Methane Regulation strengthened the EU Commission's proposal.

  • Standards and measures: The position increased the frequency of leak detection and repair measures to every 2 months.

  • Venting and flaring: Parliament proposed a strict position on venting and flaring of methane.

  • Imported fossil fuels: The position stated that from 2026 imported coal, oil and gas will be included in the regulatory scope.

  • Sector scope: Parliament included the petrochemicals sector in the scope of the regulation. However, it excluded measures to address methane emissions from coal mines.

  • Emissions Reduction Target: Parliament proposed that the EU Commission set a 2030 methane emission reduction target for all relevant sectors, including agriculture, by the end of 2025. It stated that member states should set national methane emission reduction targets as part of their national energy and climate plans (NECPs).

Policy adopted

EU policymakers approved the EU Methane Regulation in April 2024, and it entered force in August 2024. The agreement proposed a more ambitious frequency of measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) measures, but allowed using quantification methods instead of actual measurements for the first 2 years. The proposal weakened the ambition of leak detection and repair (LDAR) obligations by decreasing survey frequencies, but maintained the EU Commission’s restrictions on routine venting and flaring. The agreement widened the scope to include methane emissions from imported fossil fuels, including a three-step approach to mitigation: i) the creation of a methane transparency database by 2026, ii) an extension of MRV rules to importers from 2027, and iii) a delegated act to define a methane intensity target (3 years after entry into force).

InfluenceMap Query

GHG emission regulation

Policy Status

Inactive: completed. The file was approved in April 2024 and entered into force in August 2024.

  • European Parliament: Joint responsibility for Environment Committee and Industry Research and Energy Committee
  • ENVI Committee Rapporteur: Pascal Canfin (Renew)
  • ITRE Committee Rapporteur: Jutta Paulus (Greens)
  • European Council: Energy

Evidence Profile

Key

opposing not supporting mixed/unclear
supporting strongly supporting

European Commission

European Parliament

European Council

Live Lobbying Alerts

Energy sector associations advocate to delay measures for importers in EU Methane Regulation

24/07/2025

In a 9 July joint paper, seven industry associations representing the energy sector have pushed to weaken the timelines for measures on fossil fuel importers under the EU methane regulation for the energy sector. Signed by Eurogas, FuelsEurope, International Gas Union (IGU), and the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (IOGP), the action plan advocated for importers’ obligations (e.g., equivalence with EU measuring, verification, and reporting (MRV) standards and methane intensity reporting) to be delayed until implementing guidance is in place, including a grace period for applying penalties and grandfathering of contracts signed in the interim. The paper emphasized concerns around the regulation's impacts on the bloc's energy security and urged the Commission to simplify the regulation, referencing June 16 Energy Council Presidency Conclusions.

International Association of Oil & Gas Producers advocates to include EU Methane Regulation in Energy Omnibus

26/06/2025

In a 13 June position statement, the European branch of the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP) called for the inclusion of the EU methane regulation for the energy sector in an Energy Omnibus. The statement included specific recommendations to 'simplify' technical aspects of the rule and delay implementation timelines, such as removing certain leak detection and repair (LDAR) obligations, deferring monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) requirements for domestic producers and importers, postponing the introduction of penalties, and weakening regulatory equivalency criteria. Following the 16 June EU Energy Council meeting which discussed the regulation, IOGP Europe put out an 18 June press release which reiterated these points, with managing director François-Régis Mouton emphasizing how the rule jeopardizes EU energy security.

EU and US energy companies advocate to weaken aspects of the EU Methane Regulation in joint letter to EU officials

09/05/2025

BP, ConocoPhillips, Engie, Eni, Equinor, Eurogas, Naturgy, Repsol, and Uniper signed a 28 April joint letter addressed to EU Commissioners, Commission Vice Presidents, and Presidencies of the Council, emphasizing concerns with measures of the Methane Regulation for the energy sector. The letter suggested that the regulation jeopardizes EU energy security in light of the bloc’s goal to eliminate Russian gas imports. It also recommended delaying measuring, reporting, and verification (MRV) requirements, and establishing equivalence between nations and methane intensity reporting, including a grace period for the application of penalties until implementing regulations are in place.

Cheniere Energy unsupportive of measurement, reporting, and verification obligations under EU Methane Regulation

06/03/2025

In a May 2024 meeting with a cabinet member of EU Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, accessed via freedom of information request, Cheniere Energy shared documents outlining its objection to the EU Methane Regulation's measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) requirements for fossil gas imports to the EU. The company characterized the obligations as "unworkable" due to the "unique nature" of the US fossil gas supply chain, and appeared to advocate to establish regulatory equivalence between the US and the EU, which would waive the MRV requirements for imports from the US.

International Association of Oil and Gas Producers pushes for weaker requirements in the EU Methane Regulation

27/06/2024

In an 18 June news release, International Association of Oil and Gas Producers appeared to push for weaker requirements in the EU Methane Regulation. The association advocated for more lenient timelines for leak detection and repair (LDAR) obligation and did not support venting and flaring requirements.

International Association of Oil and Gas Producers calls for flexibility in EU Methane Regulation for energy security

29/05/2024

In a 28th May press release, the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP) appeared to advocate for further clarity and greater flexibility in the EU Methane Regulation, following the formal adoption of the policy from EU member states. The association demanded greater flexibility, citing energy security consequences without such.

International Association of Oil and Gas Producers highlights concerns with EU Methane Regulation

18/04/2024

In an 11th April X post, the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP) appeared to advocate against several elements of the EU Methane Regulation after the EU Parliament passed the policy into implementation. The association notably highlighted energy security concerns from the inclusion of imported fossil fuels in the scope of the policy.

International Association of Oil and Gas Producers pushes to weaken the EU Methane Regulation

16/11/2023

In a November 13th Euractiv article, the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP) appeared to push to weaken key elements of the EU Methane Regulation ahead of key trilogue negotiations. The association labelled the proposed thresholds for leak detection and repair as “disproportionate and nonsensical,”.

European oil & gas industry associations push to weaken ambition of the EU Methane Regulation

28/09/2023

In a September 5th letter to European policymakers, European oil & gas sector industry associations including GasNaturally, Eurogas and the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (IOGP) pushed to weaken key elements of the EU Methane Regulation. Ahead of upcoming key policy trilogue negotiations, the letter called for less frequent leak detection and repair measures, reducing the policy scope by excluding plugged and abandoned wells, and advocating against the inclusion of imported fossil fuels.

Global oil & gas associations oppose the inclusion of imported fossil fuels in EU Methane Regulation

28/09/2023

Several oil and gas industry associations, including the American Petroleum Institute (API), Eurogas, and the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (IOGP) sent a joint letter to European policymakers calling for the exclusion of imported fossil fuels in the EU Methane Regulation in an attempt to weaken the climate ambition of the policy ahead of key upcoming trilogue negotiations. The letter called for existing contracts to gain exemptions and raised the risk energy security concerns from including imports in the policy scope.

Eurogas does not support EU Methane Regulation measures

04/08/2023

In a July 19th RiEnergia article, industry association Eurogas appeared to advocate for the weakening of measures in the EU Methane Regulation for the energy sector, labelling existing measures as ‘overly prescriptive’.

​​Euracoal opposes EU Methane Regulation​

17/03/2023

​​In multiple netTG.pl articles in late February to early March, Euracoal executives have strongly opposed the European Union (EU) Methane Regulation. In a March 11th article, Euracoal Senior Vice President Vladimir Budinsky opposed the regulation, stating that the association has engaged with EU Commissioner for Energy Kadri Simson on the issue. Similarly, in a February 26th article, Euracoal President Dr. Tomasa Rogala also opposed the regulation, stating that the mining sector will strive to raise limits relating to methane emissions for coal mining.​

Gas associations advocate for weaker EU methane measures

25/11/2022

In a 21st November joint statement, Eurogas and Gas Distributors for Sustainability (GD4S) called for the EU Methane Regulation for the energy sector to weaken measures monitoring methane emissions, leak detection and repair, and thresholds for venting.

Gas associations advocate to weaken the EU Methane Regulation

25/10/2022

Industry associations Eurogas and Gas Infrastructure Europe released a 10th October joint position paper on the upcoming EU Methane Regulation. The groups advocated to weaken and reduce measures for monitoring, reporting and verifying methane emissions, and reducing the frequency of leak detection and repair requirements, alongside opposing venting and flaring proposals.

Eurogas advocates for new EU gas infrastructure

23/06/2022

In a 14th June joint statement on EU-US LNG trade, Eurogas advocated for new LNG infrastructure in the EU and long-term LNG contracts to meet gas demand in the bloc. The group did not appear to take a position on the EU’s methane regulation, but stated it would “uphold” the policy, and supported a pragmatic approach to methane regulation in the US.

Fortum advocates to weaken the EU's proposed methane regulations

07/10/2022

In an April 2022 position paper on the EU’s Methane Rules for the energy sector, Fortum supported the legislation with exceptions. These included advocating for compensation or incentives for methane emissions reductions, reducing the frequency of Leak Detection and Repair checks, and appeared to be unsupportive of the routine venting and flaring ban.

Eurogas opposes inclusion of gas imports in the EU's Methane Regulation

04/10/2022

In a February 2022 Euractiv article, Eurogas president Didier Holleaux appeared to support the EU’s Methane Rules for the energy sector with major exceptions, including advocating against measures on gas imports by highlighting gas supply concerns.

Entities Engaged on Policy

The table below lists the entities found to be most engaged with the policy. The entities are ranked by performance band. InfluenceMap tracks over 500 companies and 250 industry associations globally. Each entity name links to its full InfluenceMap profile, where the evidence of its engagement can be found.

Influencemap Performance BandOrganizationPolicy PositionPolicy Engagement Intensity