Trump’s Deregulatory Mission vs. Methane Regulation Realities

Trump’s Deregulatory Mission vs. Methane Regulation Realities

While some regulatory uncertainty is expected, a complete rollback of methane rules is unlikely under the new U.S. Administration. The interconnected nature of these regulations, along with legal and economic realities, ensures that methane management will remain a key consideration for the industry.

By Keegan Conley- Envana Methane Regulatory Advisor

This is why:

• Rolling back methane regulations presents significant challenges.  

• Even if federal rules are weakened, state-level enforcement and international market pressures will continue to drive methane reduction efforts.  

• For oil and gas operators, regulatory consistency is crucial. It is essential for stable permitting conditions, market access, and investor confidence. 

Introduction: The Future of Methane Regulation Under a Trump Administration 

President Trump has made it clear that his energy agenda prioritizes increasing oil and gas production, lowering energy costs, and streamlining permitting to accelerate project approvals. A key component of this strategy includes regulatory rollbacks to reduce industry compliance burdens, thereby lowering costs associated with oil and gas production. However, efforts to weaken methane regulations, such as Subpart W, NSPS Subpart OOOOb/c, and the Waste Emission Charge (WEC) rule, face significant legal, economic, and political obstacles. 

This paper evaluates the resilience of methane regulations under a second Trump administration. Broader factors—including congressional mandates, state implementation plans (SIPs), industry realities, and international market pressures—create significant barriers to sweeping methane deregulation. 

Trump’s Broader Deregulatory Agenda and Methane Regulation 

While Trump is positioned for regulatory rollbacks, the administration’s broader energy policy includes: 

• Expanding LNG Exports: Increasing natural gas shipments to global markets, mainly Europe and Asia. 
• Reducing Permitting Delays: Fast-tracking infrastructure projects, including pipelines and gas processing facilities. 
• Reversing Biden-Era Environmental Rules: Rolling back methane regulations and limiting the EPA’s authority. 

The challenge is that many of these goals conflict. For instance, reducing methane regulations could restrict U.S. gas producers' access to European markets, where strict emissions requirements are enforced on the entire supply chain. Moreover, legal and procedural constraints make it challenging to eliminate regulations without introducing viable alternatives, which is a time-consuming and costly process. 

State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and the Limits of Federal Rollbacks 

Under the Clean Air Act, states play a crucial role in implementing and enforcing air quality standards through State Implementation Plans (SIPs). These plans embed federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) within state regulations, making them challenging to repeal at the federal level. 

• Colorado has integrated NSPS Subpart OOOOa into its methane regulations (Regulation No. 7). It also established a GHG performance standard that requires all operators to progressively reduce their GHG intensity threshold over time.   

• New Mexico’s methane rule aligns with federal NSPS standards. 

Even if the Trump administration weakens federal methane regulations, many states will continue enforcing stringent standards, particularly in states with Democratic leadership or strong regulatory agencies. 

As of the end of January 2025, President Trump has not rolled back any methane regulations. However, he has frozen federal funding, which is expected to impact the Methane Emission Reduction Program (MERP) - a program that provides financial assistance to the oil and gas sector for methane reduction efforts. On February 4, 2025, members of both the House and Senate introduced a joint resolution under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to repeal the Waste Emission Charge (WEC). To successfully repeal the WEC, the resolution must pass both chambers of Congress and be signed into law by President Trump.  

Legal Challenges to Deregulation: Lessons from West Virginia v. EPA and Loper Bright 

Recent Supreme Court rulings restrict federal agencies from issuing broad regulations without explicit congressional authorization. While these decisions may seem to support Trump’s deregulatory efforts, they also reinforce the legal foundation of existing methane rules. 

• West Virginia v. EPA (2022): Limits agency authority on “major questions” unless Congress provides explicit authorization. However, the Clean Air Act and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) both explicitly authorize methane regulation. 

• Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024): Overturned Chevron deference, requiring agencies to rely on clear statutory language. Methane regulations, however, are based on well-defined statutory provisions, reducing the likelihood of successful legal challenges. 

These rulings may make it harder—not easier—for a Trump administration to rescind methane regulations without substantial legal justification. 

Industry Reactions and Economic Pressures 

The oil and gas industry is not a monolith, and perspectives on methane regulations vary: 

• Large Operators: Many major oil and gas companies support methane regulations to maintain access to international markets (e.g., the EU Methane Regulation) and meet investor expectations. These operators recognize the benefits of methane regulations as they lead to increased production efficiency and reduced product loss, ultimately improving operational performance and profitability. 

• Small and Mid-Sized Operators: These companies face higher compliance costs and are more likely to oppose stringent methane rules. However, only facilities emitting over 25,000 metric tons of CO2e must report under Subpart W, meaning smaller operators are often exempt from reporting and the WEC charge. 

Deregulating methane may provide short-term relief for smaller producers but could create long-term market access issues for the broader industry. For instance, U.S. oil and gas producers may struggle to demonstrate that the oil and gas they produce meet the intensity thresholds along with the measurement, reporting, and verification requirements of the EU methane rule. This could limit their market access or prompt a fee for importing U.S. oil and gas to the EU.  

Permitting and Compliance Considerations 

One of the administration’s key goals is streamlining permitting for oil and gas projects. However, methane regulations play a crucial role in expediting environmental reviews by providing standardized emissions data. 

• GHG Inventories Facilitate Permitting: Regulatory consistency ensures that operators can quickly obtain permits without additional emissions assessments. 

• Regulatory Uncertainty Delays Projects: Frequent rule changes can slow down investment decisions and project approvals, contradicting the administration’s goal of faster permitting. 

Download The Ultimate Guide to Oil & Gas Scope 3 Emissions

Interdependency of Methane Regulations 

Methane regulations are deeply interconnected, making it difficult to remove one component without disrupting others: 

• NSPS Subpart OOOOb/c Compliance → WEC Exemptions: Facilities compliant with NSPS OOOOb/c are exempt from the WEC methane fee. click here for an explanation of what OOOO is and its development in recent years. 

• Subpart W Reporting → WEC Fee Calculations: Emissions data from Subpart W determines WEC fee applicability. 

• Industry Voluntary Commitments: Many companies use Subpart W data for voluntary initiatives (e.g., OGMP 2.0, ONE Future) and investor disclosures. 

Rescinding one regulation could create unintended consequences, increasing compliance uncertainty for operators. 

Conclusion: What to Expect Moving Forward 

While the Trump administration may attempt to roll back methane regulations, multiple factors complicate these efforts: 

• Legal Barriers: Congressional mandates in the Clean Air Act and IRA provide strong legal backing for methane rules. 

• State-Level Safeguards: SIPs embed federal regulations within state law, preventing complete federal rollbacks. 

• Industry and Market Pressures: Large operators face international and investor-driven demands for methane reductions. 

• Regulatory Complexity: The interdependence of methane rules makes partial rollbacks challenging to implement without creating disruptions. 

Key Takeaways: 

• The Trump administration faces significant hurdles in rescinding methane regulations. 

• Even if federal rules are weakened, state-level and international regulations will continue to drive methane reductions. 

• Regulatory consistency benefits operators by providing stable permitting conditions and market access. 

• The industry should prepare for regulatory uncertainty but recognize that a complete rollback of methane rules is unlikely. 

Ultimately, while the administration may prioritize energy expansion, the legal and economic realities suggest that methane regulations will remain a key consideration for the oil and gas industry. 

Don't miss Envana at the 2025 Methane Mitigation Technology & Innovation Summit

At Envana, we specialize in navigating the complexities of both voluntary and mandatory reporting, leveraging our in-depth expertise, and staying up to date with evolving regulatory requirements. By proactively aligning with potential regulations and adopting industry best practices, your organization can optimize its market position, reduce risks, and achieve greater operational efficiency. Let us tailor a roadmap that aligns with your resources and goals. Contact us today to get started.