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.
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.
GHG emission regulation
Inactive: completed. The file was approved in April 2024 and entered into force in August 2024.
GHG emission regulation
Inactive: completed. The file was approved in April 2024 and entered into force in August 2024.
According to a 25 September Responsible Investor article, investors are cautioning EU policymakers against revising the EU Methane Regulation as part of the environmental Omnibus process. Nordea Asset Management and L&G have written to policymakers to express their concerns while Robeco voiced its support in comments to the media.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,”.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Band | Organization | Policy Position | Policy Engagement Intensity |
|---|
