In 2020, the EU launched its methane strategy, the first comprehensive plan to limit its emissions in the energy, agriculture, and waste sectors. This strategy led to the adoption, in 2024, of the European Regulation on Methane (EUMR).
This regulation obliges fossil energy companies operating in the EU, as well as gas importers, to monitor, report, and detect methane leaks across their activities and supply chains. This helps reduce energy waste and deliver more gas to consumers rather than letting it escape into the atmosphere.
However, internal notes and meeting reports obtained exclusively by Euronews suggest that these essential standards could be up for review. The possibility of a review emerged following a series of opaque meetings between the United States and the EU, which could influence European sustainability and energy independence goals.
In 2025, European officials held numerous meetings with major liquefied natural gas (LNG) producers, industry representatives, and the American administration.
A preparatory internal note from March 2025 for one of these meetings indicates that the DG ENER, the Commission’s Directorate-General responsible for energy policy, is prepared to amend the EUMR after the first report on methane emission intensity, expected in 2028. It also considers working directly with LNG producers to discuss the implementation of rules and regulations.
An access request submitted by the investigative climate NGO ARIA, shared with Euronews, allowed access to preparatory notes containing talking points for at least two DG ENER officials before meetings with American gas giants, including the US Chamber of Commerce. This meeting was never made public.
The notes hinted at some flexibility from the Commission. It stated, “Based on this data, the Commission is tasked with drafting a report. It will be a very important report. The Commission will examine many essential aspects of methane emission intensity: impact on energy supply security, competitiveness of the Union’s economy, and potential distortions of global and regional markets.”
A follow-up email from Commission senior official Cristiana Lobillo Borrero to Energy Commissioner Ditte Juul-Joergensen described a “successful first meeting with American companies on methane regulation.”
American companies found the methane regulation complex and claimed it hindered compliance, especially regarding molecule traceability in the American gas system. They questioned the possibility of equivalence at the country level with the Commission.
[“Pression des États-Unis” translates to “Pressure from the United States” – Context note]
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas responsible for about a third of current global warming. The EU’s 2020 strategy aims to significantly reduce emissions from the fossil energy sector by enforcing stricter control, leak detection, and better reporting. The regulation also applies to imported gas, requiring companies introducing fossil fuels to the European market to provide detailed methane emission data throughout their supply chains.
[“Manque de transparence” translates to “Lack of transparency” – Context note]
Discussion progress remains unknown. ARIA’s access requests to documents related to these exchanges were rejected on the grounds that disclosure could compromise ongoing negotiations.
[“Des discussions constantes” translates to “Continuous discussions” – Context note]
Despite increasing calls for energy independence due to the US-Iran conflict threatening global gas supply, the EU remains largely dependent on American gas. In August 2025, Brussels and Washington agreed to increase US energy exports to Europe, including annual imports estimated at around $250 billion, including LNG.
[“Accord” translates to “Agreement” – Fact Check note]
This agreement could increase Europe’s dependency on a single supplier. An analysis published in January 2026 estimates that the US could supply about 40% of gas and LNG consumed in the EU by 2030, potentially contradicting the EU’s REPowerEU strategy of diversifying sources and reducing fossil fuel demand.
[“Affaiblir l’EUMR serait très problématique…” translates to “Weakening the EUMR would be very problematic…” – Fact Check note]
