Policy Overview

Following the methane waste emissions charge (WEC)’s adoption in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) as part of the Methane Emissions Reduction Program, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its implementation guidance in November 2024. As written, the fee applies to oil and gas facilities that report more than 25,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year, beginning at $900 per metric ton of methane reported in 2024 and increasing incrementally to $1,500 by 2026 and beyond. (See InfluenceMap’s Methane Emissions Charge policy tracker page for an overview of how the fossil fuel industry advocated to weaken the ambition of the methane fee over the 2021-2022 time period leading up to the IRA’s passage).

In its implementation guidance, the EPA proposed three possible exemptions from the methane fee, available to companies that exceed the waste emissions threshold:

  • “Unreasonable delay” in environmental permitting, defined by a set of four criteria that must all be met in order to qualify for the exemption;

  • Regulatory compliance, for facilities that meet the methane regulation once all federal and state implementation plans have been approved, among other qualifications;

  • Plugged wells, only in the onshore and offshore petroleum and natural gas production industry segments, that have been “permanently shut-in or plugged” in the previous year in compliance with closure requirements.

Interaction with Other Methane Policies

The methane fee was written to complement the EPA’s methane regulation – finalized in December 2023 – in that companies that do not comply with the regulation would be subject to the fee. The methane reporting revisions, which were finalized in May 2024 (see InfluenceMap’s policy tracker page), provided assessment requirements and criteria for the methane fee.

Policy Status

The finalized implementation guidance for the methane fee in November 2024 appears weakened compared to the guidance proposed in January 2024. Following the comment period between January and March 2024, which received intense engagement from the oil and gas industry, the emissions netting provisions and exemption criteria have been adjusted: the final ruling allows for emissions netting at the parent company level and the scope for emissions under the plugged wells exemption was expanded. However, with Congress passing a Congressional Review Act resolution in February 2025 to overturn the final guidance, the methane fee is at risk of repeal.

Policy Status

AT RISK – President Trump signed Congressional Review Act measure to repeal the methane fee, in March 2025. Additional legislation required to fully overturn the policy.

Evidence Profile

Key

opposing not supporting mixed/unclear
supporting strongly supporting

Policy Engagement Overview

The current state of corporate engagement on this regulation is summarized below. The graph to the right indicates InfluenceMap's capture of corporate positions on the regulation, ranging from strong opposition to strong support. Both this page and the graph were last updated on February 28, 2025.

The aggregated evidence of corporate and industry lobbying on the implementation of the methane fee shows negative engagement from oil and gas companies and industry associations.


Engagement on the Proposed Implementation Guidance, March 2024

  • Several industry interests have aligned with the American Petroleum Insitute’s (API) position against the EPA's proposed methane fee. ConocoPhillips opposed the fee and supported API's comments, advocating for less stringent emissions calculations and compliance exemptions. The Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) criticized the methane fee, labeling it as burdensome and economically detrimental, while endorsing API’s stance. Additionally, a joint letter led by API, signed by multiple groups including American Exploration and Production Council, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, Western States Petroleum Association, Independent Petroleum Association of America, and LNG Allies, opposed the EPA’s methane fee implementation. The letter called for less stringent requirements for exemptions and questioned the EPA’s legal authority.

  • Several major companies advocated for more flexible measures toward netting emissions, which as proposed allows for lower-emitting facilities to offset higher-emitting ones if they belong to the same operator or owner. In efforts to reduce the methane fee, companies including BP, Kinder Morgan, and Occidental Petroleum have called for the EPA to allow netting of emissions at the parent company level, since if net emissions are zero or negative, no charge would be owed.

  • Several companies and associations have advocated for a weaker implementation of the methane fee, emphasizing exemptions. Coterra Energy opposed the fee by advocating for less stringent emissions calculations and additional exemptions for gas facilities. The American Gas Association (AGA) similarly called for exclusions of certain fossil gas facilities and more exemptions. American Exploration and Production Council (AXPC) called for greater flexibility and the exclusion of specific emissions to ease regulatory compliance.

  • Reservations about the EPA’s authority and regulatory approach have been a significant theme in lobbying efforts. The US Chamber opposed methane fee implementation, challenging the use of SC-GHG values and alleging that the EPA exceeded its legal authority. IPAA also critiqued the regulation as economically harmful and burdensome, endorsing API's critical stance on the EPA’s regulatory reach.

Policy Status

AT RISK – President Trump signed Congressional Review Act measure to repeal the methane fee, in March 2025. Additional legislation required to fully overturn the policy.

Evidence Profile

Key

opposing not supporting mixed/unclear
supporting strongly supporting

Entities Engaged on Policy

The following table lists companies and industry associations that have engaged on the implementation of the methane fee, with evidence indicating a strong negative response from fossil fuel interest groups. Click on an entity name to view the full profile on its climate policy engagement.

Influencemap Performance BandOrganizationPolicy PositionPolicy Engagement Intensity