Postponing the EU’s methane rules could mean billions in lost benefits, more premature deaths and more wasted gas, says energy policy expert Léa Pilsner. She argues that delaying will do little to ease energy price pressures, while damaging trust in the bloc’s climate obligations.
Agreed by EU governments in 2024, the Methane Regulation aims to cut emissions from the energy sector, including oil and gas imports. As many European countries are experiencing mounting stress due to high energy prices and dwindling supplies, some have asked for additional time to implement the new regulations.
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that also contributes to the formation of ground-level ozone, a harmful air pollutant linked to respiratory illness and premature deaths. Cutting methane emissions can therefore bring health benefits as well as slowing global warming. Its leaks also means losing natural gas that could reach consumers.
Dr Léa Pilsner, EU Energy and Climate Policy Specialist for the Environmental Defense Fund, argues that delaying the rules would bring economic and public health costs without solving Europe’s energy challenges. In an interview with EU Perspectives, she explains what is at stake and what must happen before the proposed 2028 deadline.
French President Emmanuel Macron argues that applying the rules on time would push up energy prices in the middle of a fuel crisis. Your estimate is just a few cents cents per household per month. Where does that gap come from, and who is right?
The Methane Regulation is increasingly being blamed for energy security challenges it did not create. The data tells us who is right: the regulation did not cause the current energy price crisis or supply disruptions, and delaying its implementation will not solve them. There is no publicly available evidence showing that the regulation would lead to the significant price increases some have suggested.
Every methane leak is wasted energy, and Europe cannot improve its energy security by delaying measures designed to reduce that waste.
By contrast, independent analysis has quantified compliance costs. It shows that even if producers and traders passed 100 per cent of those costs on to consumers, the increase for the average European household would be between 1 and 23 cents per month.
Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen has confirmed that the European Commission does not expect the regulation to create security-of-supply problems and considers major disruptions highly unlikely. The proposed delay is therefore about implementation concerns raised by some member states.
Methane that leaks is gas that never reaches the market. Could strict enforcement actually improve Europe’s energy security rather than threaten it?
Yes. Every methane leak is wasted energy, and Europe cannot improve its energy security by delaying measures designed to reduce that waste. Methane that escapes into the atmosphere is gas that never reaches households and businesses. The EU Methane Regulation helps keep more of that gas in the system while delivering significant climate, health, and economic benefits.
More than 200 billion cubic metres of gas are lost globally every year through leaks, venting and flaring — enough to cover around two-thirds of annual EU gas consumption.
Recent analysis estimates those benefits at around €704 billion. Delaying implementation means delaying those benefits too, while accepting more waste and higher costs.
The most secure gas is the gas that actually reaches the market, since more than 200 billion cubic metres of gas are lost globally every year through leaks, venting and flaring — enough to cover around two-thirds of annual EU gas consumption.
Member states negotiated and approved the Methane Regulation themselves only a few years ago. Now many of them want to postpone it. What does this U-turn say about the credibility of EU climate legislation, both for investors and for the countries exporting energy to Europe?
The Regulation was agreed in 2024 by the very governments that are now calling for delays. Since then, companies and investors have spent time and resources preparing for implementation. Changing course at the last moment risks creating huge uncertainty, penalises first movers instead of rewarding them, and has massive economic and human costs.
DIW Econ estimates that full implementation of the EU Methane Regulation could deliver around €704 billion in climate, health and economic benefits, compared with €49 billion in regulatory costs. The Regulation could also help prevent 155,000 premature deaths worldwide by 2030.
Changing course at the last moment risks creating huge uncertainty, penalises first movers instead of rewarding them, and has massive economic and human costs.
By contrast, a three-year delay coupled with weaker methane requirements would forfeit about a quarter of these benefits, resulting in an additional €185 billion in damages and around 40,000 more premature deaths.
For investors, suppliers and governments alike, credibility depends on following through on commitments that have already been made.
Some suppliers have already invested in monitoring and reporting systems. Does a delay reward the laggards and punish those who prepared?
Yes, any delay rewards the laggards and punishes first movers who invested early in implementation. Those businesses should be able to trust that preparation will be rewarded, not penalised.
It’s worth noting that more than 150 energy companies worldwide already report methane emissions under the OGMP 2.0 framework. It shows that robust methane measurement and reporting aligned with the EU Methane Regulation is achievable.
When deadlines move repeatedly, the message to the market is that waiting may be a better strategy than acting. That is not the incentive Europe should be creating.
Commissioner Jørgensen insists one year is the limit, while some governments and industry groups wanted three. What must happen during that year to make sure 2028 does not become just another deadline to postpone?
Member states and industry have had two years to prepare for implementation. The sector has been working on methane emissions for much longer. The additional year should be used to accelerate implementation, with member states closing the remaining gaps, industry advancing compliance efforts, and the Commission keeping progress on track.
Too much of the debate has focused on why implementation is difficult rather than how to make it succeed. We’re not starting from scratch. Compliance does not require a perfect system from day one.
The task now is not to revisit the regulation, but to make it work. By 2028, the question should not be whether implementation is possible, but how much progress has already been delivered.
