- – Bloc fears stricter methane rules could threaten gas supplies, but experts argue cutting leaks could make more gas available
- – ‘Every year this standard slips costs another 1 to 2 million tonnes of methane,’ Clean Air Task Force’s Pablo Lopez Legarreta tells Anadolu
When natural gas leaks from a well or pipeline on its way to Europe, less fuel reaches the homes that need it for heat. The methane that escapes also warms the planet, trapping more than 80 times as much heat as the same amount of carbon dioxide over 20 years.
That gives Europe two reasons to tackle leaks.
Yet with the war in the Middle East disrupting gas supplies and driving up prices, EU governments want to give importers another year to show how much methane escapes when their fuel is produced. They say stricter requirements could put further pressure on supplies.
The European Parliament backed a three-year delay for some obligations in October. On Nov. 6, the Council of the European Union, which represents member governments, backed the European Commission’s proposal for a one-year postponement.
However, the Council also introduced a review mechanism that could allow further delays if the requirements are not ready to be implemented.
The Council and Parliament must still agree on a final timetable.
For Lea Pilsner, director for energy policy at Environmental Defense Fund Europe, a year would give companies and governments time to prepare. Her concern is what happens when that year is up.
– Further delays not ruled out
Under the Council’s proposal, EU methane reporting and verification requirements for fossil fuel importers would be delayed by a year, until January 2028.
Deadlines for reporting methane intensity – a measure of emissions associated with producing fuel – and meeting emissions limits would also be pushed back a year, to August 2029 and August 2031, respectively.
However, the proposal also requires the European Commission to assess by Sept. 30, 2027, whether the necessary arrangements are in place to implement the reporting requirements, potentially opening the door to further delays.
Pilsner told Anadolu her organization was “in a way pleased” that the Council backed the shorter delay. However, she warned that the proposal divided the regulation into several review points, creating a “big risk” to its implementation.
“It opens the door to many further delays at times that are unclear,” she said. “It does not send the right message when it comes to certainty for implementation.”
She said the uncertainty could discourage companies that had already prepared for compliance from continuing their efforts, while leaving investors unsure about the direction of the sector.
Pablo Lopez Legarreta, Europe policy manager for methane pollution prevention at Clean Air Task Force, described the Council’s position as a “step in the right direction.”
“One year must mean one year,” he said in a statement. “Europe needs a genuine implementation period, not a rolling mechanism for continued delay.”
He argued that reviews should hold governments and the Commission accountable for completing the necessary work.
“It should not reward a failure to act with another delay,” Lopez Legarreta added.
– Why do methane cuts matter for global warming?
Methane reduction is an important component of climate action because of the gas’s particularly strong warming effect in the short term.
According to the EU, methane emissions are responsible for around 30% of global climate warming.
“Cutting it is often described as an emergency brake on global warming,”Lopez Legarreta told Anadolu in a separate interview after Parliament’s vote.
He said reducing methane emissions now could slow near-term warming while longer-term efforts to cut carbon dioxide emissions continue.
He explained that these requirements allow buyers and regulators to distinguish between cleaner and more polluting energy supplies while helping producers prepare for the performance standard.
A 2023 study by Rystad Energy, commissioned by Clean Air Task Force, gives a sense of the scale. It modeled what would happen if suppliers paid a fee when methane emissions from producing their oil or gas exceeded a set limit.
Rystad estimated that by 2031, the fee could cut methane emissions linked to EU imports by an additional 1.9 million metric tons a year.
“Monitoring and reporting don’t cut emissions by themselves, but they’re what make the import standard work,” Lopez Legarreta said.
“Every year this standard slips costs another 1 to 2 million tonnes of methane.”
– Delays could increase wasted energy
Some of the natural gas Europe buys never reaches consumers. Natural gas consists primarily of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that can escape through leaks in wells and pipelines or be deliberately released into the atmosphere through a practice known as venting.
Capturing more of that gas would give producers more fuel to sell.
At a press briefing after the European Parliament proposed delaying the rules, Huong Nguyen, economist and policy manager for global methane at Environmental Defense Fund Europe, presented findings on the potential costs of postponement.
“The first of all is the cost of complying with the regulation is small. Second, a substantial supply of gas remains available in the market. And last one is that every year delay means more gas is wasted,” she said.
Nguyen cited a May report by the International Energy Agency that looked at how much more gas could reach consumers worldwide using technology already available.
In the short term, the agency estimated that nearly 15 billion cubic meters of additional gas could reach markets if importing and exporting countries with spare capacity implemented methane reduction measures.
Over the longer term, cutting methane emissions could make nearly 100 billion cubic meters of gas available worldwide each year. Ending the practice of burning off gas except in emergencies could free up another 100 billion.
“Implementing these rules quickly can help keep more gas in the system at a time when wars and trade barriers are putting our global markets under pressure,” Nguyen said.
– Would suppliers pass the cost on to Europe?
With European buyers already facing high gas prices, one concern is whether suppliers could raise prices to cover compliance costs or redirect their exports elsewhere.
Nguyen said the studies her organization commissioned found little risk of a shortage.
One assessment, by Rystad Energy, estimated that the volume of gas available worldwide that was ready to meet the requirements was more than three times what the EU currently imports.
Nguyen said she had seen no evidence that the regulation was contributing to current market pressures or that delaying it would strengthen Europe’s energy security.
She also cited a study by Norwegian consultancy Carbon Limits estimating that full compliance would cost producers less than 1% of the value of their output.
“There is no evidence that these rules will threaten energy supplies or cause spikes in energy prices,” Lopez Legarreta said.
He cited a narrower estimate for the cost of measuring methane emissions, reporting the results and verifying their accuracy. Those requirements would amount to between 0.03% and 0.6% of gas production costs, he said.
“Costs this low are barely noticeable, and far too low to drive fuels away from Europe,” he said.
Lopez Legarreta said producers could also benefit financially from finding and fixing leaks because gas that would otherwise escape could be sold.
– What would a delay mean for Europe’s influence abroad?
For Pilsner, one benefit of the regulation is that it would give European buyers a clearer picture of methane emissions associated with the fuels they import.
That information could influence purchasing decisions, she said. Exporters seeking to retain access to the EU market would have an incentive to monitor emissions more closely and fix leaks, extending the regulation’s reach beyond Europe.
Legarreta, speaking after Parliament backed a three-year delay, warned that postponement could weaken that incentive.
“There is no equivalent measure that can fully compensate for this postponement,” he said, noting that methane emissions from the oil and gas sector are among the “cheapest, fastest and most technically feasible emissions to reduce.”
“The delay undermines EU climate policy by leaving some of the easiest reductions unrealized,” he added.
Lopez Legarreta said the decision would also send a signal to international suppliers about whether Europe intended to stand by its own regulations.
He warned that retreating under industry and political pressure from commitments made just two years ago “weakens the EU’s standing as a climate leader.”
Source: www.aa.com.tr
