Sean Casten, a Democratic member of the House Energy and Environment Coalition, has written to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen urging the bloc to keep its forthcoming methane‑emissions regulation unchanged. Casten argues that the rule, which will apply to both imported natural gas and gas produced within the EU, is essential for Europe to meet the climate targets set out in the European Green Deal and to support the strategy of diversifying energy sources away from Russian supplies.

The United States’ oil‑and‑gas industry has stepped up lobbying of the White House in recent months, seeking to persuade the EU to delay the parts of the rule that cover imported gas. Casten says the effort is a defensive move aimed at protecting a shrinking market, as US producers increasingly look to overseas buyers, particularly in Europe, while domestic gas consumption has levelled off.

According to Casten, roughly ten to fifteen per cent of the gas extracted in the United States is used to power liquefaction facilities, and the carriers that transport LNG are prone to leaks. He notes that methane, the main component of natural gas, traps heat more than eighty times more effectively than carbon dioxide over a twenty‑year horizon, making any increase in emissions a serious climate concern.

A coalition of EU member states led by the Czech Republic, together with the Netherlands, Italy, Poland and Belgium, has asked the Commission to suspend the import‑related provisions for three years, citing legal uncertainty and the risk of supply disruptions. The Commission, however, has not signalled any change to the rule. A spokesperson for the Directorate‑General for Climate Action reiterated that the regulation is proportionate and consistent with the EU’s climate ambition, and that the climate benefits outweigh short‑term market concerns.

Members of the European Parliament from the Greens and the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats have voiced support for full implementation of the methane standards. Trade unions across Europe have warned that reliance on imported fossil fuels, even at lower prices, could hinder long‑term decarbonisation and job creation in emerging clean‑energy sectors.

Analysts caution that postponing the import provisions could facilitate a smoother flow of cheaper US LNG to Europe but might also increase hidden methane emissions. Conversely, a strict methane regime could stimulate investment in leak‑detection technology, pipeline upgrades and cleaner processing, potentially creating skilled jobs supported by EU transition funds.

Casten points out that while there is bipartisan support for methane regulation within the United States, the debate becomes sharply partisan when export impacts are considered. He references Republican Representative John Curtis of Utah as an example of a lawmaker who backs stricter domestic methane rules but notes that many Republicans from oil‑rich rural districts oppose measures that could limit exports.

The European Commission is expected to announce its final decision on the import provisions later in the year. If the rule is kept, US exporters may need to adopt tighter leak‑control measures, raising LNG costs but delivering a cleaner product. If the rule is suspended, it could set a precedent for other jurisdictions to seek exemptions for fossil‑fuel exporters, potentially weakening global methane‑reduction efforts.