Compliance & Policy

EU Weighs One-Year Pause on Methane Import Rules as Energy Costs Bite

Brussels may delay MRV duties for oil, gas and coal importers by one year after €100 billion in added energy costs and U.S. LNG supply warnings.

EU Weighs Delaying Methane Rules as Energy Prices Rise - Inside Climate News
EU Weighs Delaying Methane Rules as Energy Prices Rise - Inside Climate NewsAI-generated

Waypoints

  1. The EU methane regulation requires oil, gas and coal importers to monitor, report and verify methane emissions from January 1; Commissioner Dan Jørgensen has proposed postponing the import-related parts for one year.

  2. The EU spent an additional €100 billion on energy this year; President Macron urged postponement in a September 18 letter amid costs driven by the Iran war.

  3. In July the Commission recommended member states pause penalties for three years, including for importer MRV; methane intensity requirements for imports still take effect in 2030.

A reporting obligation covering every tonne of oil, gas and coal entering the European Union may slip by a year. European Commissioner for Energy and Housing Dan Jørgensen told EU energy ministers meeting in Dublin on Tuesday that he wants to postpone parts of the EU methane regulation covering energy imports, with the monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) requirements for importers due to start January 1.

The Commission has already begun work on a formal postponement proposal, a spokesperson confirmed in a written statement.

The trigger is cost. The EU has spent an additional €100 billion on energy this year due to rising prices, Jørgensen said. French President Emmanuel Macron pressed the case in a September 18 letter, urging the Commission to postpone the new methane reporting requirements and ease other fuel-related rules as prices climbed after the Iran war began in February. Jørgensen noted that in a typical winter, close to 50 million Europeans cannot adequately heat their homes. "This winter might be even worse, so we take it very, very seriously," he said.

Importers have warned they cannot comply because suppliers refuse to hand over the emissions data the regulation demands. According to Bloomberg, the United States — Europe's largest LNG supplier — signaled it could redirect supply elsewhere if the rules took effect unchanged. Jørgensen insisted any pause would be "targeted and temporary" and would not undermine the regulation's emission-reduction goal.

The MRV obligation is one pillar of a broader framework. The regulation's methane intensity requirements for imports, the stricter test that could eventually block high-emitting cargoes, take effect in 2030. Methane is the primary component of natural gas and the second-largest driver of global warming after carbon dioxide.

This would be the second relaxation this year. In July, the Commission recommended member states pause penalties for three years across a range of requirements, including importer MRV. Penalties remain a national competence. Importers are still legally bound to begin monitoring and reporting in January; the anticipated postponement could push that start date back.

Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, backed the proposed pause, saying Europe and the world are "facing a major energy security risk."

The industry's U.S. wing welcomed the move. Rob Jennings, vice president of natural gas markets at the American Petroleum Institute, said the group supports the Commission's efforts to address implementation concerns and wants to keep working to "secure long-term certainty for the industry."

Critics contest the supply rationale. Maas Goote, the EU's former lead climate negotiator and now an independent policy advisor, said there is no evidence the methane rules, left in place, would cause price spikes or reduce supply. Globally, gas wasted each year through flaring and methane emissions runs to twice the volume shipped through the Strait of Hormuz in 2025, he noted — volume lost to market well before any reporting form is filed. "We're not just talking about climate here," Goote said. "We're also talking about [an] enormous waste of energy."

Investors flagged the credibility cost of a second delay. Michael Button, senior policy specialist at the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, said another postponement would create uncertainty and disadvantage companies that have already paid for compliance systems. "Legitimate implementation challenges should be addressed through clear, harmonised guidance and the practical compliance solutions available — not through delay or dilution," Button said in a written statement.

What happens next rests on the Commission's formal postponement proposal, which would need to move through the EU legislative process before the January 1 compliance date. That filing — its scope, its duration and whether the 2030 methane intensity threshold stays untouched — is the milestone that determines whether Europe's methane regime holds its schedule or slips for a second time in six months.

via live.euronext.com (Original)

Share this article:

More from Grace Kim

Grace Kim

Show full bio

Market editor covering business strategy at Circular Wire.

145 articles

Nearby routes

« Previous articleNext article »