EPA Proposes Rollback to 2016 Methane Rule

Sep 12, 2018

Reading Time : 2 min

By: David H. Quigley, Stacey H. Mitchell, Bryan Williamson, Law Clerk (not admitted to practice)

Specifically, the proposed rule would:

  • require less frequent monitoring of leaks at oil and gas wells and compressor stations
  • extend the time that oil and gas operators have to repair leaks in wells and compressor stations
  • allow oil and gas operators in six states to choose to follow their state’s regulatory standards instead of the potentially more stringent federal standards3
  • permit oil and gas operators to use their own engineers—as opposed to third-party professional engineers—to evaluate emissions systems and determine when it is “technically infeasible” to control emissions from pneumatic pumps
  • simplify the process for applying for permits to use alternative practices not delineated by EPA to achieve emissions reductions.4

Along with the anticipated cost savings, the proposed rule would have a significant effect on pollutant emissions.5 EPA estimates that the proposed rule’s less stringent requirements could negate emissions reductions of 480,000 tons of methane, 120,000 tons of volatile organic compounds and 4,700 tons of hazardous air pollutants through 2025.6 Notably, and perhaps as a result, EPA failed to discuss the proposed rule’s impact on public health and climate change.  This starkly contrasts with the 2016 rule, where EPA explicitly stated that the pollutants associated with methane emissions are linked to reduced lung function, asthma attacks, asthma development, emergency room visits, hospital admissions, early death from respiratory and cardiovascular causes, cancer and other serious health effects.7 In addition, methane has a global warming potential that is more than 25 times greater than that of carbon dioxide, the reduction of which was “an essential part of an overall strategy to address climate change,” according to EPA in 2016.8

The agency will accept public comments on the proposed rule for 60 days after the rule is published in the Federal Register, and it plans to hold a public hearing in Denver, Colorado.


1 EPA Fact Sheet, “EPA Proposes Amendments to the 2016 New Source Performance Standards for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry” (Sept. 11, 2018), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-09/documents/oil_and_gas_technical_proposal_fact_sheet.9.11.18_0.pdf.

2 EPA Press Release, “EPA Proposes Oil and Gas Targeted Improvements Package to Advance President Trump’s Energy Dominance Agenda” (Sept. 11, 2018), https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-oil-and-gas-targeted-improvements-package-advance-president-trumps-energy.

3 Under the proposed rule, the four states in which oil and gas operators would be able to choose to follow the state standards in lieu of the federal standards as applied to both well sites and compressor stations are California, Colorado, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Oil and gas operators in Texas and Utah would be able to choose to follow the state standards as applied to only well sites, not compressor stations.

4 See generally supra note 1.

5 See id. at 7.

6 Id.

7 EPA Fact Sheet, “EPA’s Actions to Reduce Methane Emissions from the Oil and Natural Gas Industry” (May 12, 2016), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/nsps-overview-fs.pdf.

8 Id. at 2.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 24, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) directing NYISO and NYISO transmission owners to show cause as to why NYISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,216 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.