EPA 2023 Methane Reporting Revisions

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 July 5, 2024.

At least 17 industry groups and companies engaged on the methane reporting revisions, with evidence indicating a strong negative response from fossil fuel interest groups. This opposition to methane abatement measures is misaligned with the recent April 2022 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report which clearly indicates the need for significant methane emission reductions to limit global warming to 1.5°C and meet the Paris Agreement objectives. The International Energy Agency also estimates  that the oil and gas industry could achieve a 75% reduction in methane emissions by 2030 using existing technologies.

Oppositional/Unsupportive Positions

• Several major oil and gas industry groups opposed the revisions, including the American Exploration and Production Council (AXPC), Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and National Federation of Independent Business. The American Petroleum Institute (API) submitted comments in August 2023 and September 2023 that emphasized the bureaucratic burden of the proposed revisions, including the burden of operation and maintenance costs associated with pneumatic devices. A joint comment submitted by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, API, AXPC, and IPAA specifically advocated for the EPA to weaken the thresholds for reporting large emission events, a position that American Gas Association also took in its own comments. Several of these groups emphasized that methane regulations, including the costs of implementation, would negatively impact the security of the American economy.

• ConocoPhillips and Devon Energy endorsed the oppositional comments of API and AXPC in their own comments. ConocoPhillips emphasized concerns with several elements of the proposal, including the parameters for measuring large emission release events. While Devon seconded the negative positions of API and AXPC, its own statements supported the use of empirical data and advanced methane detection technologies.

• Some utilities joined energy companies in advocating to weaken the revisions. The Differentiated Gas Coordinating Council (DGCC) – whose members include Williams Companies alongside utilities Sempra, Southern Company, and Xcel Energy – questioned the proposed use of site-level measurements, although the group did support the use of continuous monitoring technologies. Williams also submitted individual comments suggesting the EPA was acting beyond its legal boundary in proposing a reporting category for large emission events, among other criticisms of the revisions. Both Duke Energy, a utility, and Occidental Petroleum submitted comments advocating for weaker thresholds for reporting large emission release events.

Supportive Positions

• A few entities expressed support for the revisions. Utility industry group Edison Electric Institute stated in its comments that it supported the EPA’s efforts to develop reporting rules based on empirical data. Meanwhile, BP and Honeywell called for continuous monitoring. In its comments, BP stated support for continuous monitoring technologies, however, while emphasizing some concerns with third-party reporting around large release events. Honeywell also called for continuous monitoring systems and broadly supported data collection for large emission release events.

Unclear Positions

• The Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) did not appear to take a clear position on the reporting revisions, although it did advocate for clarity to ensure the revisions apply only to the petroleum and fossil gas facilities and not to the transport sector.