Thijs ter Haar/Flickr

As the European Commission considers weakening the enforcement of its flagship methane regulation amid industry and geopolitical pressure, experts are urging policymakers to stay the course.

The regulation, which came into force in August 2024, is intended to reduce avoidable methane emissions from the energy sector. It requires all domestic oil and gas companies to conduct regular surveys of equipment and systems to detect and repair leaks. It also phases in a series of requirements for European oil, gas, and coal importers, which must demonstrate that fossil fuels entering the European Union were “produced in a jurisdiction with monitoring, reporting, and verification requirements equivalent to those applied domestically in the EU.”

The phased approach was designed to give companies sufficient lead time to comply with the monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) requirement that would come into force on January 1, 2027.

But the Commission has faced intense pressure from the Trump administration, oil and gas companies, and five Central European countries to either repeal the legislation outright or delay its implementation. Opponents warned the regulation could “spark an energy crisis” [paywall] and lead to surging gas prices, a claim disputed by supporters of stronger methane monitoring, who argue that by 2027 the market will have sufficient compliant supply to meet Europe’s demand without significant disruption.

The Commission is now considering “a more relaxed approach” to enforcing the methane rules, Politico reported May 6, citing the executive’s draft guidelines circulated to EU member states. Amid certain periods of market stress—for instance in anticipation of a supply disruption—authorities can suspend or reduce fines on a case-by-case basis. Applying penalties during a crisis could “worsen the security of supply situation, endangering continuity,” the Commission wrote in the draft, reported The Financial Times.

With Europe increasingly dependent on imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the United States, “Brussels is concerned that strict enforcement could strain relations with suppliers, deter investment, or divert cargoes to more lucrative Asian markets,” reported euronews.

The pushback against its methane regulations is a “decisive test” of the EU’s “credibility and negotiation power,” writes the Brussels-based think tank Strategic Perspectives in a recent briefing. Climate change, public health, and community wellbeing all demand a resolute line on methane regulation, the briefing argues, as do both energy security and sovereignty.

“The war in the Middle East shows clearly that fossil fuel supplies cannot be considered reliable, affordable, or stable.” 

As the largest single global market for LNG, the EU can “behave and negotiate out of a position of strength,” trading with those who “can meet its standards and respect the authority of rules-based markets,” the think tank adds.

Back in June 2024, Amanda Bryant, manager of the oil and gas program at the Pembina Institute, celebrated the newly-adopted EU methane regulations as “a game-changer” that tells Canadian oil and gas producers exactly where the puck is heading, so they can position themselves—and Canada—to profit in a market that will increasingly favour products with the lowest carbon intensity.

Fast forward two years, Bryant continues to urge Canadian producers and Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government to recognize the need for strong methane regulations at home and abroad.

Such regulations “are key to Canadian sovereignty, because they equip us to diversify trade partners as we seek new international markets for Canadian energy exports,” Bryant told The Energy Mix in an emailed statement.