Contents

• Introduction
• Background
• Effects of Methane Emissions
• Global Methane Emissions
• U.S. Methane Emissions
• Methane Mitigation: Technologies and Management Practices
• Methane Mitigation in the Agriculture Sector
• Methane Mitigation in the Fossil Fuel Sector
• Methane Mitigation in the Waste Sector
• Methane Monitoring
• U.S. Methane Mitigation Policies and Approaches
• Legislation
• Legislation in the 118^th Congress
• Legislation in the 119^th Congress
• Executive Branch Activities
• International Initiatives
• International Methane Mitigation Activities
• Multilateral Efforts
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
• Global Methane Pledge (GMP)
• Declaration on Reducing Methane from Organic Waste
• Measurement, Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MMRV) Working Group
• Joint Declaration from Energy Importers and Exporters
• Bilateral Initiatives
• United States-China
• United States-European Union
• United States-Kazakhstan
• Other International Agreements and Efforts
• Selected Methane Mitigation Policies in Other Countries
• China
• Brazil
• European Union
• Canada
• Mexico
• Nigeria
• Colombia
• Considerations for Congress

Summary

Methane is a greenhouse gas (GHG) emitted in part as a result of human activities. According to climate scientists, approximately 0.5°C of the net 1.1°C increase in global surface temperatures that has occurred since 1850 may be attributed to methane emissions. According to such scientists, methane emissions are generally increasing around the world.

A number of stakeholders and policymakers consider mitigating (i.e., reducing or abating) methane emissions one of the most effective ways to address near-term global warming. This is due to methane's potency as a GHG—it has approximately 80 times the warming impact of carbon dioxide over 20 years—and the availability of relatively cost-effective mitigation strategies.

A number of satellites designed to monitor methane emissions have been launched in recent years. These monitoring technologies provide near real-time data to detect and address large emissions events, opportunities to enhance regulatory enforcement, and potential to improve the accuracy of greenhouse gas inventories.

The United States has engaged in a range of actions—both domestic and international efforts—that address methane emissions. Congress has enacted a number of policies regarding methane emissions, in particular from the oil and gas sector. For example, Congress addressed methane emissions through a budget reconciliation measure commonly referred to as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA; P.L. 117-169). The IRA allocated funding to assist the oil and gas sector in reducing methane emissions, required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revise Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program regulations focusing on the oil and gas industry, and directed EPA to impose and collect a "waste emissions charge" (WEC) on methane emissions from oil and gas facilities. EPA issued a final rulemaking to implement the WEC in November 2024. In the 119^th Congress, both the House and the Senate passed a joint resolution (H.J.Res. 35) disapproving under the Congressional Review Act of EPA's WEC rule. President Trump signed the measure on March 14, 2025, enacting the resolution (P.L. 119-2). It is uncertain what effect the enacted joint resolution will have regarding the statutory requirement.

The United States participates in a range of international efforts that seek to reduce global methane emissions, including the Paris Agreement (PA) obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Global Methane Pledge (GMP). The Trump Administration has directed the United States to withdraw from the PA, which is to occur in January 2026. The GMP is a voluntary commitment to reduce global anthropogenic methane emissions (i.e., those caused by human activities) by at least 30% from 2020 levels by 2030. The United States has engaged in a number of collaborative efforts with international partners—including through bilateral agreements and participation in international coalitions and working groups—to facilitate methane mitigation.

National governments have developed a number of methane mitigation policies and initiatives. These policies range from national plans with no binding legal requirements and targets, to incentive programs, to regulations with binding requirements. The policies may be of interest to Members considering mitigation options in the United States.

Congress may consider what, if any, actions to take on methane emissions. Some Members advocate for rolling back existing regulations, citing economic and competitiveness concerns. In particular, some Members have proposed repealing the WEC in statute, limiting federal agency authority, or reducing funding for methane reduction. Other Members support stronger measures to address methane emissions from fossil fuels, agriculture, and waste management. Members could consider their support for federal agency initiatives, regulatory actions, or funding for methane detection and mitigation.

Introduction

Methane is a potent but comparatively short-lived greenhouse gas (GHG).¹ According to climate scientists, approximately 0.5°C of the net 1.1°C increase in global surface temperatures that has occurred since 1850 may be attributed to methane emissions.² Scientists estimate anthropogenic sources (i.e., human activities) account for 55%-70% of total global methane emissions. The remaining emissions are from natural sources, such as wetlands.³ The main sources of anthropogenic methane emissions are agriculture activities, fossil fuel production, and waste management.⁴

Some policymakers and stakeholders contend that reducing near-term global warming is an important climate change goal and that mitigating methane is one of the best opportunities to achieve this objective. Technically feasible and relatively cost-effective methane mitigation strategies are available.⁵ In addition to climate impacts, mitigating methane emissions provides public health and environmental benefits, such as improving air quality by reducing ground-level ozone formation.⁶

In 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that near-term methane mitigation—combined with longer-term efforts to address carbon dioxide (CO₂)—would play a key role in avoiding global average temperatures that exceed the targets set by the Paris Agreement (PA).⁷ In its 2024 nationally determined contribution (NDC) under the PA, the United States set a target to reduce GHG emissions by 61%-66% below 2005 levels by 2035.⁸ The NDC states the following:

While this submission does not set NDC sub-targets for individual gases, the United States anticipates, as part of achieving its 2035 NDC emissions target, methane reductions of at least 35 percent from 2005 levels in 2035. Cutting methane emissions is among the fastest ways to reduce near-term warming and is an essential complement to carbon dioxide (CO₂) mitigation.

In 2025, President Trump signed an executive order directing the United States to withdraw from the PA.⁹ The PA allows for any party to voluntarily withdraw by providing written notice to the United Nations, and that withdrawal becomes effective one year after notice is received. The UN Secretary General issued a depositary notification of the U.S. withdrawal from the PA effective January 27, 2026.¹⁰

The United States has a range of methane mitigation policies in place, including some that have been in place for years and others that have been recently developed. For example, a budget reconciliation measure in the 117^th Congress—commonly referred to as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA; P.L. 117-169)—included several provisions that address methane emissions, including direction to EPA to impose and collect a "waste emissions charge" (WEC) on methane emissions from selected entities in the oil and gas sector.¹¹ Some Members of Congress have proposed further efforts to mitigate methane emissions. Other Members have supported efforts to modify or repeal some of the recently enacted policies, particularly some of the IRA provisions—including the WEC.

In addition to domestic efforts, the United States is a party to a number of multilateral and bilateral initiatives that address climate change issues and methane emissions in particular. Some Members of Congress may be interested in international efforts to mitigate methane emissions, particularly given the United States' role in certain international initiatives, such as the Global Methane Pledge (GMP). Congress may want to assess the effects of these initiatives and consider changes to existing initiatives or support for different or new international initiatives. Congress may also wish to assess the scale and extent of current U.S. policies related to methane and determine what additional domestic actions, if any, should be taken to further the objectives of these international efforts.

This report begins with background information on methane emissions, both globally and within the United States. This background information also discusses methane mitigation technologies and policies and recent advances in methane monitoring. The report then provides an overview of U.S. policies, including recently enacted and proposed legislation. Subsequent sections discuss the range of international efforts to mitigate methane emissions. These include multilateral and bilateral initiatives, as well as selected examples of methane policies in specific countries. The report concludes with considerations for Congress.

Background

Effects of Methane Emissions

Methane is a more potent GHG than CO₂, ton-for-ton, with a global warming potential (GWP) approximately 80 times more than CO₂ for the first 20 years, and 30 times more in the 100 years after it is emitted to the atmosphere.¹² In other words, methane has approximately 80 times the warming impact compared to CO₂ over a 20-year period and 30 times the impact over a 100-year period.¹³

Methane is considered a short-lived climate pollutant. Methane remains in the atmosphere for approximately 12 years after it is emitted. Reducing methane emissions in the near term can provide a more immediate impact on climate change compared with similar reductions of other GHGs, particularly CO₂.

Some methane mitigation efforts can also provide health benefits by improving air quality and reducing exposure to pollutants. In addition to affecting climate, methane contributes to the formation of tropospheric ozone (i.e., ground-level ozone).¹⁴ Tropospheric ozone affects air quality and can harm human health by causing respiratory issues and aggravating cardiovascular diseases. Tropospheric ozone can also damage vegetation, such as crops and forests. Additionally, the combustion of methane in gas appliances can contribute to indoor air pollution by releasing pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, which may exacerbate asthma and other respiratory conditions.¹⁵

Global Methane Emissions

The concentration of methane in the atmosphere has more than doubled since 1750.¹⁶ Scientists attribute this increase to human activities.¹⁷ Figure 1 illustrates historical concentrations of methane in the atmosphere from ice core data (1010-1992) and modern concentrations of methane in the atmosphere (1983-2024).¹⁸ Over the last decade, methane concentrations in the atmosphere have increased at an accelerating rate and are greater than at any time in at least 800,000 years.¹⁹

Figure 1. Atmospheric Concentrations of Methane, 1010-2024

Source: Prepared by CRS; data from D. M. Etheridge et al., "Atmospheric Trace-Gas Variations as Revealed by Air Trapped in an Ice Core from Law Dome, Antarctica," Annals of Glaciology, vol. 10 (1988), pp. 28-33; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) direct air sampling data available at NOAA, "Trends in CH4," and the NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory.

While estimates of the total concentration of methane in the atmosphere are based on decades of direct measurements, estimating the individual contributions from specific sources or regions is more challenging and involves greater uncertainties.²⁰ The relative contributions of anthropogenic sources are generally similar across studies using different methodologies.²¹ For example, studies indicate that anthropogenic sources contribute approximately 55%-70% of total global methane emissions. The remaining emissions are from natural sources, such as wetlands, where microbes break down organic matter in anaerobic (i.e., low-oxygen) conditions—producing methane.²²

Scientists generally agree on the main sources of global anthropogenic methane emissions. One assessment is provided by the Global Methane Budget, which synthesizes research and tracks emissions trends.²³ According to the Global Methane Budget, the main sources of anthropogenic methane emissions are from activities in the agriculture (40%), fossil fuels (35%), and waste management (20%) sectors.²⁴

The main agricultural sources of global methane emissions are livestock and rice cultivation. Livestock (e.g., cattle) produce methane during digestion, and manure can also release methane under certain storage conditions. Rice paddies emit methane due to the anaerobic conditions created by flooding during cultivation.

Methane emissions from the energy sector are mainly from fossil fuel production. Methane is co-produced with oil and is the primary component of natural gas. Methane may be emitted into the atmosphere through both unintentional (i.e., fugitive emissions) and intentional releases. For example, methane is emitted from leaking infrastructure and as the result of flaring and venting. Methane may be released at various stages of oil production, refinement, transportation, and storage. As a main component of natural gas, methane emissions occur during production, processing, storage, transmission, and distribution. Methane emissions can also occur from natural gas appliances such as gas stoves, water heaters, and building heating systems, primarily due to leaks.²⁵ Methane is naturally present in coal seams and can be released during coal extraction.

Methane emissions occur in the waste sector when organic waste, such as food and yard waste, decompose under anaerobic conditions in landfills, and similarly from sewage treatment at wastewater treatment facilities.

U.S. Methane Emissions

According to EPA, methane is the second-most-prevalent GHG emitted in the United States (behind CO₂), accounting for an estimated 11% of total GHG emissions in the United States in CO₂ equivalents (CO₂e) (see Figure 2).²⁶

Figure 2. U.S. Total Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions by Gas, and Sources of Methane Emissions 2022 Emissions Estimates in Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents (MMTCO2e)

Source: Prepared by CRS with data from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2022, Table ES-2, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2022/.

Between 1990 and 2022, EPA estimates U.S. methane emissions decreased by approximately 19% (see Figure 3).

EPA estimates methane emissions as part of its national inventory of GHG emissions (U.S. GHG Inventory).²⁷ The U.S. GHG Inventory has been submitted to the United Nations as part of the U.S. commitment under the UNFCCC and the PA. It is developed as a "bottom up" inventory consistent with UNFCCC requirements and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines to ensure comparability among national inventories.²⁸ "Bottom-up" refers to the methodology of calculating emissions based on activity data (e.g., fuel consumption, livestock populations, waste generation) and applying emissions factors that estimate the emissions associated with those activities. This approach relies on detailed, sector-specific data collected at the source level.

Bottom-up inventories have some limitations. These include uncertainties in activity data or emissions factors, which may not fully capture actual emissions. Additionally, bottom-up methods may miss emissions that are difficult to measure or account for, such as fugitive emissions from natural gas systems or certain agricultural practices.

Figure 3. U.S. Methane Emissions and Sources, 1990-2022 Emissions Estimates in Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents (MMTCO2e)

Source: Prepared by CRS with data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2022. 430-R-24-004, April 11, 2024, Table 2.1.

Some stakeholders have criticized EPA emissions estimates for underestimating emissions from certain sources, and some studies have produced conflicting estimates.²⁹ For example, some studies found EPA underestimates methane leaking from U.S. oil and gas operations by as much as 50%. In addition, recent research using satellite observations found methane emissions from landfills at higher levels than EPA estimates.³⁰

According to EPA, "EPA has engaged with researchers on how remote sensing, ambient measurement, and inverse modeling techniques for estimating greenhouse gas emissions could assist in improving the understanding of inventory estimates."³¹

Further discussion of these estimates is beyond the scope of this report.

Methane Mitigation: Technologies and Management Practices

A variety of strategies are available to mitigate anthropogenic methane emissions. This section identifies mitigation options in the agricultural, fossil fuel, and waste sectors.³²

Some methane mitigation measures in specific economic sectors may be more cost-effective than methane mitigation measures in other sectors or than mitigation measures for other GHGs.³³ Technologies that capture and repurpose methane can offer a dual benefit of reducing emissions while potentially creating economic value by converting methane into energy or other useful products.

There are challenges to mitigating methane and implementing these strategies. One obstacle is that the upfront investments may not be readily available. The costs and complexities of monitoring methane emissions, particularly from diffuse or remote sources, can make it difficult to prioritize mitigation efforts—both at the policy level and for individual sites—and to verify whether the mitigation strategies achieved their intended outcomes. In some regions, a lack of infrastructure or technical expertise, and limited awareness (e.g., of the amount of methane emissions occurring, of the value of methane reduction, and of available mitigation strategies) present challenges.

Currently, methane-specific policies directly target sources responsible for approximately 13% of global methane emissions, with much of this coverage concentrated in North America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific.³⁴ These policies generally target emissions from fossil fuels, which are more prevalent in these regions and focus on technologies like leak detection, repair programs, and flaring reduction measures.

Currently, no technologies directly remove methane from the atmosphere.³⁵ Without such technologies, prevention or reduction of emissions (i.e., mitigation) are the available approaches to address the climate impact of methane.

Methane Mitigation in the Agriculture Sector

In the agriculture sector, methane mitigation strategies include changes in practices and operations, as well as technological approaches. These strategies include targeted changes in practices or operations specifically aimed at reducing emissions, such as improving manure management for livestock and water management in rice cultivation. For example, manure management strategies include reducing the time manure is stored under anaerobic conditions by frequently removing it from barns and applying it to fields. Water management strategies for rice cultivation include using alternate wetting and drying to reduce continuous flooding and composting rice straw instead of flooding fields. In addition, farming practices that lower GHG emissions and support other environmental goals, such as rotational grazing, can also help reduce methane emissions. Technological approaches include existing technologies such as dairy digesters, which capture methane from manure and convert it into biogas for energy use, as well as emerging options such as methane-reducing feed additives that inhibit methane production during digestion in livestock.³⁶

Some of these approaches may provide direct benefits to agricultural producers in addition to reducing methane emissions. For example, dairy digesters capture methane from manure and convert it into biogas, which can be processed into renewable natural gas (RNG) for injection into pipelines or used on-site for electricity or heat. By using captured biogas for on-site energy generation, farms can in theory reduce energy costs or sell surplus energy to the grid, creating an economic benefit for farmers.

The cost-effectiveness of methane mitigation strategies in agriculture is generally lower than in the oil and gas sector, according to global assessments.³⁷ Challenges to implementing methane mitigation strategies in the agriculture sector include the additional labor, time, and costs required to implement these methods, and access to capital. In some cases, there is also limited access to technical knowledge or incentives to adopt these practices. For rice cultivation, implementing strategies like alternating wetting and drying can be constrained by water availability, infrastructure, or familiarity with the technique.

Methane Mitigation in the Fossil Fuel Sector

According to a 2021 assessment by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC), the fossil fuel sector contains the greatest potential to mitigate methane emissions globally.³⁸ This is primarily due to the high volume of methane emissions from oil and gas operations and the fact that a large portion of these emissions can be reduced with existing leak detection and repair methods, often at low or even negative cost (as discussed below). Mitigation strategies in this sector focus on detecting and preventing leaks throughout the production, processing, and transportation of fossil fuels; limiting intentional releases from venting; reducing flaring; and capturing methane for use as an energy source. In addition, some state and local jurisdictions have pursued policies to phase out natural gas use in buildings—such as by including bans on gas connections in new construction—to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and limit methane emissions associated with natural gas appliances.³⁹

In the oil and gas sector, the costs of leak detection and repair may be offset by the sale of recovered methane, since the captured gas is a commodity with economic value.⁴⁰ Whether these costs can be offset can depend on the price of natural gas. There is a financial benefit to recapturing methane when the cumulative expected returns from recovered methane exceed the cost of upfront mitigation measures. The upfront costs to recover methane or repair leaks may be a deterrent. When the market value of the recovered methane is greater than the cost of mitigation measures required to capture it, oil and gas facilities have an incentive to install leak reduction and capture technologies.⁴¹ Even when the market value of the recovered methane is greater than the cost of mitigation, some businesses may not voluntarily implement mitigation projects. For example, these projects may offer lower or less immediate financial returns compared with other projects. Inadequate infrastructure (e.g., lack of natural gas pipelines) or underdeveloped local markets may also limit the ability to transport and use abated methane from petroleum operations.

In coal mining, mitigation strategies address methane released during extraction as well as emissions from abandoned mines. This includes managing coal mine methane through pre-mining degasification to capture methane before mining begins. Methane emissions from coal mining can also be reduced through coal mine methane recovery (where methane and coal are recovered simultaneously) and by capturing methane present in the mine's ventilation air. Removing methane from the mine atmosphere reduces the risk of explosions and enhances worker safety.⁴² Techniques like degasification systems for coal mines can trap methane at the source for on-site energy use or for transportation to processing facilities where it can be sold as natural gas.⁴³ This approach requires upfront investment in infrastructure, and market conditions may not provide enough financial incentive for businesses to invest in such projects.⁴⁴ The costs of methane capture technologies and the complexity of the infrastructure can vary depending on the mine, and costs can sometimes outweigh the potential financial benefits.⁴⁵ For abandoned mines, strategies such as flooding coal mines can help trap methane and prevent its release into the atmosphere.

Methane Mitigation in the Waste Sector

According to the 2021 UNEP and CCAC assessment, the greatest potential for methane mitigation in the waste sector is in improved treatment and disposal of solid waste.⁴⁶ Mitigation strategies in this sector focus on reducing methane emissions at various stages of waste management, from collection to disposal. These include methods to prevent methane formation, such as separating waste at the source for recycling and reuse and diverting organic waste for composting to eliminate methane-generating decomposition in landfills.⁴⁷

There are different technological approaches to capturing methane from waste. Covering landfills reduces methane emissions while also capturing and utilizing biogas—a mixture of methane and CO₂ from organic waste. Waste treatment with energy recovery involves landfill gas collection and flaring, converting methane to CO₂. Secondary and tertiary treatment processes further enhance biogas recovery and utilization.

Biogas recovery systems—often referred to as landfill gas-to-energy systems—collect methane produced during waste decomposition and utilize it to generate electricity or heat on-site, or for processing and injection into natural gas pipelines, or as a transportation fuel.⁴⁸ Implementing methane capture systems, such as landfill gas-to-energy projects, requires upfront investment in infrastructure and technology. The operation of these systems can range in complexity, as gas recovery rates can vary over time and by the surface area of the landfill and are influenced by factors such as waste composition, climate, and landfill age.

Methane Monitoring

Advancements in methane monitoring technology have become important components of domestic and international efforts to detect methane emissions. Various jurisdictions and stakeholders are using methane remote sensing data from satellites, as well as aerial and ground-based platforms, to identify emissions sources, track trends, verify compliance with regulations, and guide mitigation efforts. Remote sensing data can provide economic benefits to companies as a result of identifying and stopping leaks more quickly—helping to prevent further product loss. These technological advances present an opportunity to improve the accuracy of national GHG inventories.⁴⁹

Satellite-based monitoring enhances these efforts by providing independent, high-resolution data on methane emissions, helping to identify discrepancies and improving overall transparency. In addition, satellite monitoring can support enforcement of import standards, such as carbon border adjustments, and be used to enhance accountability for voluntary industry commitments by tracking progress on methane reduction efforts.⁵⁰

In particular, a number of satellites have been designed to monitor methane emissions and were launched in recent years—for example Sentinel-5p, GHGSat, MethaneSAT, and Tanager-1.⁵¹ These satellites are designed to continuously monitor and provide near real-time data on global and regional methane emissions, as well as single point sources—depending on the remote sensing technology.⁵² Different instrumentation and technologies offer varying spatial resolutions and detection thresholds.

In addition to advances in data collection, there have also been advances in data processing to convert raw data into methane emissions estimates, and in new data platforms supporting data sharing. For example, the UNEP International Methane Emissions Observatory (IMEO) launched a new satellite-based system, the Methane Alert and Response System (MARS).⁵³ This system collects data from multiple satellites and uses new algorithms and machine learning to identify abnormally large emissions events—sometimes referred to as super-emitter events—and notify governments and companies to ensure timely intervention.

The data from these methane monitoring systems are being integrated into decisionmaking processes and regulatory frameworks. For example, a 2024 EPA rule for oil and gas operations established a Super Emitter Program that allows the agency to respond to emissions events detected remotely by "qualified third parties," as defined in the rule.⁵⁴ This response may include notifying the operator of the facility, requiring corrective actions, or pursuing enforcement measures to address the emissions event.

These technologies provide benefits and have costs and limitations. For example, in some cases methane satellites are providing new opportunities for the public to access data at little or no cost. Methane monitoring technologies, particularly satellites and aircraft, may present relatively high costs compared to modeling estimates. For example, satellites and aircraft measurements cost more than computer model estimates extrapolated from limited sampling during normal operation. In addition, satellites may have coverage limitations. For example, they may not be able to detect emissions events under certain environmental conditions or may miss detection of sporadic emissions events, depending on their sampling frequency.⁵⁵

U.S. Methane Mitigation Policies and Approaches

U.S. methane mitigation policies cover a range of activities, including methane emissions regulations and fees that focus on the oil and gas sector, promotion of methane leak detection and repair, funding for technology development, and incentives for the capture and use of methane from landfills and agricultural operations. This section provides highlights of some of these policies.

Legislation

Congress has taken action to address U.S. methane emissions through, among other legislation, provisions in the budget reconciliation measure commonly referred to as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA; P.L. 117-169) and in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58). The IRA imposed a "waste emissions charge" (WEC) on methane emissions for specific types of oil and gas facilities—the first time the federal government has directly imposed a charge, fee, or tax on GHG emissions.⁵⁶ Subsequent to EPA issuing a rule implementing this requirement, Congress disapproved the rule through the Congressional Review Act (CRA) in P.L. 119-2. The IRA also directed EPA to update the reporting requirements for the oil and gas industry's methane emissions under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP).

The IRA and IIJA provided appropriations that support methane mitigation. The IRA allocated $1.4 billion for grants, loans, and technical assistance to help the oil and gas sector monitor and reduce methane emissions.⁵⁷ The IIJA provided $4.7 billion for grants to cap abandoned oil and gas wells, reduce methane leaks, and repair and replace aging natural gas distribution pipelines.⁵⁸

Legislation in the 118^th Congress

In the 118^th Congress, Members introduced legislation related to methane emissions (see Appendix A).⁵⁹ These proposals covered a wide range of objectives.

Some bills focused on repealing recently enacted provisions or limiting related regulatory measures, including the following selected examples:

• Eliminating the methane fee and the EPA incentive program for petroleum and natural gas systems established under the IRA.⁶⁰
• Altering the methane monitoring program to make it optional for financial assistance programs and removing methane measurement as a condition for eligibility for the orphaned well grant program established by the IIJA.⁶¹
• Restricting EPA from using funds for certain activities, such as those related to regulating or requiring reporting for methane emissions from livestock.⁶²

Other bills would have supported research, development, and deployment of technologies for detecting, capturing, and mitigating methane emissions, including the following selected examples:

• Establishing a federal strategy for monitoring methane.⁶³
• Establishing a program for methane detection research and technology development.⁶⁴

Some Members sought to incentivize voluntary emissions reductions through tax credits, grants, and support for industry-led initiatives, particularly in agriculture and energy:

• Establishing a tax credit for capturing methane from mines.⁶⁵
• Reducing methane emissions from livestock and through grants to improve waste management practices, changes to livestock feed, and expanded support for farming practices that result in fewer GHG emissions and support other environmental goals.⁶⁶

Some Members proposed bills related to fossil fuel imports and exports:

• Establishing a methane border adjustment mechanism and imposing fees on imported goods based on their methane emissions.⁶⁷
• Directing EPA to collect and publish data on carbon dioxide and methane emissions linked to fossil fuel exports to enhance transparency and accountability for emissions beyond U.S. borders.⁶⁸

Legislation in the 119^th Congress

In the 119^th Congress, Members have continued to introduced legislation related to methane emissions (see Appendix B). One proposal—a joint resolution (H.J.Res. 35) disapproving EPA's WEC rule—was enacted as noted above.

In the 119^th Congress, EPA's WEC rulemaking received congressional attention under the Congressional Review Act. The CRA allows Congress to overturn—under specific conditions—certain federal agency actions.⁶⁹ In February 2025, both the House and the Senate passed a joint resolution (H.J.Res. 35) disapproving of EPA's WEC rule.⁷⁰ President Trump signed the measure on March 14, 2025, enacting the resolution (P.L. 119-2). Therefore, EPA's final rule will not take effect. In addition, a rule subject to an enacted joint resolution of disapproval under the CRA "may not be reissued in substantially the same form, and a new rule that is substantially the same … may not be issued, unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution."⁷¹ It is uncertain what effect the enacted joint resolution will have on the statutory requirement regarding the WEC. The CRA disapproval does not alter CAA Section 136, which was added by the IRA and which directs EPA to implement the WEC.⁷²

Other legislation introduced in the 119^th Congress includes proposals similar to those introduced in the 118^th Congress. As of April 2025, Members have proposed the following:

• Eliminating the methane fee and the EPA incentive program for petroleum and natural gas systems established under the IRA.⁷³
• Altering the methane monitoring program to make it optional for financial assistance programs and removing methane measurement as a condition for eligibility for the orphaned well grant program established by the IIJA.⁷⁴
• Establishing a program for methane detection research and technology development.⁷⁵
• Establishing a tax credit for capturing methane from mines.⁷⁶
• Establishing a methane border adjustment mechanism and imposing fees on imported goods based on their methane emissions.⁷⁷
• Directing EPA to collect and publish data on carbon dioxide and methane emissions linked to fossil fuel exports to enhance transparency and accountability for emissions beyond U.S. borders.⁷⁸

Executive Branch Activities

Past administrations have issued regulations and adopted policies aimed at addressing methane emissions across various sectors. This section highlights some of these executive branch activities but does not provide a comprehensive list of all actions taken.

The Biden Administration took a number of actions to address methane emissions, many of which are described in the U.S. Methane Emissions Reduction Action Plan and subsequent updates.⁷⁹ Whether the Trump Administration will continue any of these efforts is to be determined.

EPA has taken regulatory actions to address methane emissions in the oil and gas sector. As discussed above, in November 2024 EPA issued a final rule, since disapproved, to collect the WEC, an authority provided by the IRA.⁸⁰

Also in 2024, EPA issued a final rule to strengthen emissions standards for new and existing oil and gas facilities. This rule updates emissions limits, requires certain leak detection and repair protocols and control technologies, and expands the scope of the rule to additional sources.⁸¹ In addition, also in 2024, EPA issued a final rule to strengthen and expand the methane emissions reporting requirements under the GHGRP to ensure more complete and accurate data collection.⁸² These rules address underreporting of methane emissions from petroleum and natural gas systems and facilitate the use of satellite data to identify super-emitters and quantify large emissions events. The rules also require direct monitoring of key emissions sources, and updated the methods for calculation.⁸³ The rules respond to a directive in the IRA for the measurement of methane emissions to rely on empirical data. In 2024, EPA released a request for information on use of advanced technologies for quantification of methane in the GHGRP.⁸⁴ In 2025, EPA announced "reconsideration of mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program" as part of a broader deregulatory effort.⁸⁵

In the waste sector, EPA announced in 2024 its intent to issue a proposed rule in 2025 to update emissions standards for solid waste landfills in order to mitigate methane.⁸⁶ Regulations for landfill emissions have been in place since 1996, when EPA first established New Source Performance Standards and Emissions Guidelines to control methane and other pollutants from municipal solid waste landfills.⁸⁷ Whether such a rule will be proposed is unclear.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has also taken a number of actions to mitigate methane emissions from agriculture, including through grants programs, incentivizing farmers to use land management practices that reduce GHG emissions (e.g., cover crops and rotational grazing), and technical assistance for farmers. Additionally, USDA invests in research, for example, to address methane from livestock—including funding to accelerate the development of feed additives.⁸⁸

International Initiatives

In addition to its participation in the GMP and other multilateral efforts focused on methane, the Biden Administration advocated for accelerated action on non-CO₂ GHGs (e.g., methane, hydrofluorocarbons) more broadly as well as addressing emissions across all sectors in the economy as part of multilateral and bilateral climate efforts.⁸⁹ For example, in 2023, the United States convened a summit on non-CO₂ GHGs, together with China and the United Arab Emirates, and issued a call to action for other countries to include non-CO₂ GHGs in nationally determined contributions (NDCs) under the PA.⁹⁰

In addition to co-founding the GMP, the United States has led other efforts, such as the Methane Finance Sprint. President Biden launched the Methane Finance Sprint in 2023 and invited other governments, along with the private sector and financial institutions, to contribute to the effort. In response, and concurrent with the 28^th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP28), world leaders announced over $1 billion in new grant funding for projects designed to reduce methane emissions, with a focus on low- and middle-income countries.⁹¹ The Methane Finance Sprint funded the relaunch of the World Bank Global Flaring and Methane Reduction Partnership, $200 million for the launch of the Enteric Fermentation Accelerator, and additional support for the CCAC, the IMEO, and other methane-related programs.

The United States has also funded international activities to reduce methane emissions through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).⁹² USAID has funded methane mitigation work in Haiti, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, the Philippines, Tanzania, Thailand, and Vietnam through the $22.15 million Methane Accelerator funded by the U.S. Department of State.⁹³ With reduction in staffing at USAID and reevaluation of international activity priorities, the status of these efforts is unclear.

Under the PA, the United States had committed to reducing GHG emissions, including methane, as part of broader global climate efforts. On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order directing the United States to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.⁹⁴ Per the agreement's provisions, a party may withdraw by providing written notification to the United Nations, with the withdrawal becoming effective one year after the notice is received. The UN Secretary General issued a depositary notification of the U.S. withdrawal from the PA effective January 27, 2026.⁹⁵

International Methane Mitigation Activities

A variety of multilateral and bilateral initiatives address methane emissions. These efforts encompass a wide range of activities, including establishing methane reduction targets, developing and implementing methane reduction policies, employing advanced monitoring technologies, enhancing reporting, and providing technical assistance and capacity-building.

Multilateral Efforts

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

Methane is a covered GHG under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the PA.⁹⁶ Most parties to the PA have included methane in their NDCs, which are nonbinding pledges that outline their emissions reduction goals, implementation strategies, and time frames for achieving their goals.⁹⁷ Of the 168 latest available NDCs, representing 195 parties to the PA, over 90% include methane as one of the GHGs in their overall target.⁹⁸ About 30 of these NDCs include specific targets for reducing economy-wide methane emissions, and another 20 included measures to reduce methane emissions from fossil fuels.⁹⁹ The NDC the United States submitted in 2024 includes methane as one of the GHGs in its overall GHG target but does not have a specific target for reducing methane emissions.¹⁰⁰ It also includes strategies for reducing methane across all major sources of anthropogenic methane emissions. In 2025, President Trump signed an executive order directing the United States to withdraw from the PA.¹⁰¹ Until the withdrawal becomes effective in January 2026, the United States remains a party to the agreement and continues to be subject to its reporting and transparency requirements.

Under the PA, parties are required to update and submit NDCs to the UNFCCC every five years. Current NDCs and methane pledges generally cover the period to 2030. Under the PA, the next round of NDCs was due to the UNFCCC secretariat by February 2025, and the goal is to achieve the commitments in these NDCs by 2035. The United States, along with a number of other countries, did not submit an updated NDC by the February 2025 deadline.¹⁰² While parties are legally obligated to have an NDC, and to pursue measures with the aim of achieving it, achievement of the NDC is not a legally binding or enforceable commitment.

Some of the actions at sessions of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC have been relevant for methane mitigation. For example, at COP28, parties adopted a decision on the first Global Stocktake—a periodic assessment that evaluates collective progress toward the PA's climate goals—that included a first-time mention of methane reduction in the negotiated decision documents of the COP. The decision called on all parties to "accelerat[e] the substantial reduction of non-carbon-dioxide emissions globally, in particular methane emissions by 2030," and encouraged them to include all GHGs in their next NDCs. The decision also called on parties to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels—a main source of anthropogenic methane emissions.¹⁰³ In addition, other initiatives to address methane have been announced concurrent to and in conjunction with the official proceedings of the COPs. These initiatives are discussed below.

Global Methane Pledge (GMP)

The United States, the EU, and 11 other countries launched the Global Methane Pledge (GMP) as a campaign concurrent to the proceedings of COP26 in Glasgow, UK, in 2021.¹⁰⁴ The GMP is a nonbinding commitment by countries to collectively reduce global methane emissions by at least 30% from 2020 levels by 2030. The GMP estimates that meeting these goals has the potential to reduce global warming by at least 0.2°C by 2050.¹⁰⁵

As of November 2024, 159 nations had signed the pledge—representing more than 50% of the world's anthropogenic methane emissions.¹⁰⁶ The world's largest methane emitters are currently China, India, the United States, Brazil, and Russia.¹⁰⁷ Together, these countries emit close to half of global methane emissions. Of these, the United States and Brazil have signed on to the GMP. China, India, and Russia have not.

By joining the pledge, participating countries agree to take comprehensive domestic actions and support international efforts to mitigate methane emissions across all sectors—including the energy, waste, and agriculture sectors. The pledge includes a commitment to moving toward using best available inventory methodologies to quantify methane emissions and encourages participating countries to include methane mitigation as part of their broader efforts to reduce GHG emissions under the PA. The GMP also states that the participants intend to review progress through annual ministerial meetings. Annual ministerial meetings have historically been held concurrently with sessions of the COP.

The GMP has established six action areas, including the Energy Pathway, the Waste Pathway, the Food and Agriculture Pathway, Methane Plans and Policies, Data for Methane Action, and Finance for Methane Abatement. Each pathway represents targeted thematic areas for coordinated global action to reduce methane emissions.

Some countries have taken steps to reduce methane emissions through new regulations and requirements on methane, including the United States, EU, and Canada. A number of other countries—including Brazil, China, and Kazakhstan—have announced plans to develop new regulations.¹⁰⁸

Some observers have highlighted a gap between commitments to reduce emissions by specific amounts and detailed implementation plans to achieve these emissions reductions. For example, fewer than one-third of the countries participating in the GMP have provided details on the reduction strategies they plan to use to reduce methane emissions or have developed national methane action plans.¹⁰⁹

Incorporating methane into NDCs, required as part of the PA, could provide a framework for assessing progress toward meeting the GMP targets. Ahead of the 29^th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP29), the GMP Champions group—composed of Canada, the EU, the Federated States of Micronesia, Germany, Japan, Nigeria, and the United States—released a statement encouraging countries to accelerate action to mitigate methane.¹¹⁰ The group emphasized the importance of including methane in NDCs, reducing methane emissions from the energy sector, and leveraging technical and financial assistance alongside data-driven solutions. They urged countries to follow CCAC guidance to include methane in countries' NDCs, as a way to accelerate action on methane mitigation, and in their first Biennial Transparency Reports.¹¹¹ Starting in 2024, countries are required, under the PA, to submit Biennial Transparency Reports every two years, providing detailed information on their GHG emissions, mitigation efforts, adaptation actions, and support received or provided for climate initiatives.

Declaration on Reducing Methane from Organic Waste

Azerbaijan, holding the presidency for COP29, launched the Declaration on Reducing Methane from Organic Waste as one of the multilateral pledges it put forward during the conference.¹¹² The United States was one of the 30 countries that signed the declaration.¹¹³ By endorsing this declaration, parties committed to setting sectoral targets to reduce methane emissions from waste and food as part of national policy documents and including these targets in future NDCs.

Measurement, Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MMRV) Working Group

The United States, the European Commission, and 12 other natural-gas-importing and exporting countries formed an international working group for the measurement, monitoring, reporting, and verification of methane and CO₂ emissions in order to facilitate comparable and reliable information about these emissions across the natural gas supply chain to drive global emissions reductions.¹¹⁴

Joint Declaration from Energy Importers and Exporters

The United States, EU, Japan, Canada, Norway, Singapore, and the United Kingdom issued the Joint Declaration from Energy Importers and Exporters on Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Fossil Fuels, outlining their commitment to reducing GHG emissions including methane across all stages of production, processing, and distribution—to the extent practicable.¹¹⁵ The declaration supports improving emissions monitoring and data transparency, calls for mobilizing technical assistance and financing, and encourages private-sector fossil energy producers and purchasers to leverage contracts to reduce emissions.¹¹⁶

Bilateral Initiatives

The United States, under the Biden Administration and previous administrations, has participated in bilateral engagements and agreements with various countries that address methane mitigation issues. Selected examples of such bilateral initiatives are presented below. Whether the Trump Administration will continue any of these efforts is to be determined.

United States-China

In recent years, the United States and China have included commitments on methane mitigation in joint climate agreements. For example, in the 2021 U.S.-China Joint Glasgow Declaration on Enhancing Climate Action, both countries committed to cooperate on methane abatement strategies. This includes exchanging best practices for reducing methane emissions in oil and gas operations. In the declaration, China stated its intent to develop a national action plan for methane.

Ahead of COP28, the United States and China issued the United States-China Sunnylands Statement on Enhancing Cooperation to Address the Climate Crisis.¹¹⁷ The statement covered topics related to renewable energy, forest conservation, and non-CO₂ GHG emissions—including methane. China announced it would include non-CO₂ GHGs, including methane, in its 2035 NDC.¹¹⁸ It also launched a bilateral working group focused on "climate action in the 2020s," which started meeting in the first half of 2024.¹¹⁹

Concurrent with COP29 in 2024 in Baku, Azerbaijan, the United States and China hosted a summit focused on methane and other non-CO₂ GHGs.¹²⁰

United States-European Union

Bilateral cooperation between the United States and the EU on methane mitigation has focused on key sectors, including oil and gas, agriculture, and waste management. In 2022, the U.S.-EU Energy Council emphasized methane mitigation as a key component of its joint effort to address climate change as part of cooperation across the two jurisdictions.¹²¹

The United States and the EU have emphasized the exchange of best practices and technologies for methane capture and abatement, particularly in oil and gas operations, where both parties see significant potential for emissions reductions. In 2023, both parties agreed to advance policies and regulations aimed at reducing methane emissions from fossil fuel production.¹²²

The United States and the EU have also collaborated on improving measurement, monitoring, reporting, and verification (MMRV) systems to enhance transparency and accountability in emissions data, such as through the international MMRV working group for natural gas GHG emissions.¹²³

United States-Kazakhstan

In 2023, the United States announced a partnership providing technical assistance to Kazakhstan to develop national standards to eliminate non-emergency venting of methane and require leak detection and repair in the oil and gas sector.¹²⁴ Kazakhstan is a major oil and gas producer in Central Asia, and the majority of its methane emissions are from its fossil fuel sector.¹²⁵

The collaboration includes capacity-building initiatives, with U.S. agencies and private-sector experts providing technical assistance to Kazakhstan's energy sector to support its adoption of best practices for methane leak detection, repair, and emissions reporting.

Other International Agreements and Efforts

A number of other international initiatives support and contribute to methane mitigation in various ways. A range of entities leads and participates in these efforts, including international institutions, industry, nongovernmental organizations, and public-private partnerships. A brief description of selected initiatives is provided below. This list may not be comprehensive.

• The International Methane Emissions Observatory (IMEO). IMEO is led by UNEP and supports global monitoring of methane emissions through satellite data and other technologies. IMEO provides data to verify and track emissions-reduction commitments, complementing efforts under the GMP by enhancing transparency and accountability.¹²⁶
• Global Methane Hub. The Global Methane Hub is a philanthropic organization dedicated to reducing methane emissions globally and boosting philanthropic resources allocated specifically to methane reduction.¹²⁷
• Global Methane Initiative (GMI). The GMI is an international public-private partnership focused on reducing barriers to the recovery and use of methane as a valuable energy source—including from oil and gas, coal mines, and biogas.¹²⁸ EPA leads the GMI Secretariat, which manages administrative tasks.¹²⁹
• The Oil and Gas Methane Partnership (OGMP 2.0). OGMP 2.0 is led by UNEP and works with companies and governments to improve methane emissions measurement and reporting standards. This initiative focuses on generating accurate emissions data and setting industry-wide standards for the oil and gas sector.
• Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter (OGDC). OGDC is a voluntary industry agreement that calls for eliminating methane emissions and routine flaring by 2030, and achieving net-zero emissions in participating companies' operations by 2050. It was announced in 2023, and over 50 oil and gas producers have joined it.¹³⁰
• Methane Guiding Principles (MGP). The MGP is an industry consortium for energy companies and civil society organizations to implement specific strategies for reducing methane emissions across the oil and gas value chain. These strategies include establishing best practices for leak detection and repair, providing training and resources to improve methane management, and advocating for policies and regulations to minimize emissions.¹³¹
• World Bank Global Flaring and Methane Partnership (GFMR). The World Bank's GFMR, formerly the Global Gas Flaring Reduction Partnership (GGFR), is a multidonor trust fund composed of governments, oil companies, and multilateral organizations working to design and implement measures aimed at phasing out routine flaring of gas at oil production sites across the world and reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector to near zero by 2030.¹³²
• Lowering Organic Waste Methane Initiative (LOW-Methane). LOW-Methane is a coalition of organizations working and collaborating on providing data, policies, technical assistance, and financial solutions to subnational governments and their national government counterparts to accelerate progress toward achieving the goals of the GMP. The goal of LOW-Methane is to reduce at least 1 million metric tons of methane emissions from the waste sector each year before 2030. LOW-Methane also has a goal of obtaining over $10 billion in public and private investment toward methane emissions reduction in the waste sector.¹³³
• The Waste Methane Assessment Platform (WasteMAP). WasteMap is a joint effort of the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) and the Clean Air Task Force. It launched in 2022 and is an open-source platform providing information and best practices to operators, policymakers, and financiers.

Selected Methane Mitigation Policies in Other Countries

National governments have developed a number of methane mitigation policies and initiatives. These policies range from national plans with no binding legal requirements and targets, to incentive programs, to regulations with binding requirements. Examples of specific methane mitigation measures are described below. The policies identified do not represent a comprehensive list of countries with mitigation policies or a comprehensive list of the methane mitigation policies in the countries identified.

China

In 2023, China released its Methane Emissions Control Action Plan (Action Plan) outlining its approach to controlling methane emissions in the energy, agriculture, and waste sectors.¹³⁴ The Action Plan serves as a targeted strategy within the broader framework of China's five-year plans. The Action Plan includes objectives for monitoring, reporting, and verifying methane emissions, as well as for capturing and utilizing methane. China has included several commitments to reduce methane emissions in its recent five-year plans.¹³⁵ For example, China's 14^th Five-Year Plan sets goals to reduce methane emissions from agriculture and waste and to increase the capture and use of methane from coal mines.¹³⁶ It also includes a plan to gradually eliminate flaring by oil and gas producers by 2030.

Brazil

Brazil has a methane mitigation policy called the "Zero Methane Program," which aims to reduce methane emissions through initiatives like increasing the capture of biogas and biomethane and using them as renewable energy sources, and encouraging research and international cooperation on methane reduction.¹³⁷ Brazil has adopted the Brazilian Agricultural Policy for Climate Adaptation and Low Carbon Emission, which is in effect from 2020 to 2030, to promote climate-friendly agriculture and reduce GHG emissions, including methane, from livestock and other agricultural activities.¹³⁸

European Union

In 2024, the EU, which is the world's largest importer of oil and gas, approved new regulations addressing methane emissions from fossil fuels, including domestic and imported sources.¹³⁹ The regulations require industries to measure, monitor, report, and verify (MMRV) their methane emissions and take action to reduce them.

Canada

Canada was one of the first countries to regulate methane emissions from the oil and gas sector at the national level. Canada committed to reducing methane emissions from its oil and gas sector by at least 75% from 2012 levels by 2030.¹⁴⁰ Canada has also created a $750 million (Canadian dollar) Emissions Reduction Fund to reduce emissions in Canada's oil and gas sector.¹⁴¹

Mexico

Mexico issued guidelines in 2018 to regulate methane emissions from the oil and gas industry, requiring certain facilities to identify and measure all sources of methane and develop protocols to control methane emissions. Mexico also prohibited routine venting of methane, with exceptions for emergency situations.¹⁴² According to CCAC, this is the first action of its kind in Latin America.¹⁴³

Nigeria

Nigeria adopted a National Methane Action Plan that addresses oil and gas methane emissions with leak detection and repair programs. Nigeria has enacted a mandate that companies take action, first, by implementing leak detection and repair measures in oil and gas infrastructure.¹⁴⁴ Companies must also start utilizing high-destruction efficiency flares to reduce the methane vented or leaked. Lastly, companies must implement controls on venting devices or replace them with zero-emissions technology. Nigeria also has a Gas Flare Commercialization Program, which monetizes captured methane and aims to eliminate routine flaring.

Colombia

In 2023, Colombia implemented flaring and fugitive methane emissions regulations.¹⁴⁵ Colombia's rule for methane essentially means that the country has committed to ending routine gas flaring by 2030. Colombia's regulations also include measures to manage fugitive methane emissions through leak detection and repair programs, vapor recovery units, and optimized equipment usage.

Considerations for Congress

Congress could consider what, if any, actions to take to address methane emissions. Members and stakeholders hold various views on whether additional provisions to mitigate methane emissions are necessary, with some advocating for stronger policies to address climate change and others supporting the rollback of existing regulations due to economic and competitiveness concerns.

Supporters of additional provisions to mitigate methane emissions argue reducing methane emissions presents a unique opportunity to mitigate climate change, as methane is a potent GHG with a relatively short atmospheric lifetime, meaning reductions can yield near-term climate benefits. Further, some stakeholders assert that methane emissions can be mitigated cost-effectively while reducing waste and increasing efficiency in sectors such as oil and gas, agriculture, and waste management. Reducing methane can also improve air quality and public health by helping to lower ground-level ozone and other air pollutants linked to respiratory issues.

Supporters of additional policies to mitigate methane emissions have proposed various actions that Congress may consider, including supporting the continuation and implementation of existing federal agency initiatives on methane reduction, directing agencies to take or accelerate specific regulatory actions, or providing additional funding. For example, the IRA established a "waste emissions charge" on methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. As mentioned above, both the House and the Senate passed a joint resolution (H.J.Res. 35) disapproving of EPA's rule to implement the waste emissions charge, and it became public law (P.L. 119-2). It is uncertain what effect the joint resolution will have on the statutorily required waste emissions charge. In addition, a number of Members have expressed an interest in repealing the WEC through a budget reconciliation process.

Some Members have supported stricter methane controls under the Clean Air Act for landfills. For example, EPA announced its intent to issue a proposed rule in 2025 to update emissions standards for solid waste landfills in order to mitigate methane. Others have raised concerns about the potential economic impacts of such regulations, including increased costs for landfill operators, particularly for smaller or rural facilities—and the possibility of diminishing returns on investment for more stringent standards. Some argue that regulatory approaches may impose unnecessary burdens on businesses and that market-driven solutions or technological innovation could reduce methane emissions without government intervention. Whether the Trump Administration will continue this effort is to be determined. Congress might engage in oversight regarding Trump Administration plans regarding this rulemaking process, and may also consider whether to support or revise EPA's regulatory authority.

In addition to regulatory approaches, Congress may evaluate options to strengthen or supplement methane mitigation efforts, such as codifying stricter standards or supporting state and local enforcement activities, or expanding financial incentives beyond those in the IRA. Expanding financial incentives beyond those in the IRA—such as grants or tax credits for methane capture in agriculture, oil and gas, and waste management—might further reduce emissions. In its oversight role, Congress could evaluate the impact of IRA-funded programs, such as those supporting alternative energy technologies and reduced reliance on natural gas in buildings, on methane and overall GHG reductions. Additionally, increased investments in methane detection and mitigation research could improve monitoring technologies and enhance emissions-reduction efforts.

Some Members and stakeholders have expressed support for rescinding existing provisions to mitigate methane emissions. Some argue such policies impose unnecessary costs on businesses, particularly small and independent operators, and could lead to higher energy prices. Others contend technological advancements and market-driven solutions will reduce methane emissions without government intervention. Additionally, some argue that methane regulations place a disproportionate burden on the United States, potentially reducing competitiveness of U.S. industries while other major emitters like China and India have not established comparable requirements.

Members in support of rescinding existing legislative provisions and policies have proposed various actions to roll back methane emissions mitigation efforts. Some Members have introduced legislation to repeal the methane emissions charge established under the IRA. Others have proposed delaying or modifying EPA regulations on landfill and oil- and gas-sector methane emissions. Congress may also consider limiting federal agency authority over methane regulations by restricting rulemaking powers or shifting oversight to state governments. Some Members have supported rolling back financial incentives for methane reduction, such as grants or tax credits for methane capture in agriculture, oil and gas, and waste management.

Additionally, Congress may consider rescinding funding for methane detection and mitigation research or revising emissions reporting requirements for regulated industries. Some have also advocated for loosening compliance requirements for methane leak detection and repair programs, citing concerns about costs and feasibility for smaller operators. Others have pushed for exemptions or relaxed standards for certain sectors, such as agriculture or independent oil and gas producers, arguing that sector-specific flexibility is necessary.

Congress may also explore withdrawing from the GMP. Congress may also consider how market-based approaches and international trade policies related to methane emissions affect U.S. industries and energy exports. In the context of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and methane emissions, some countries and trading blocs, including the EU, are considering methane performance standards for imported fossil fuels, which could affect U.S. LNG exports if they are required to meet stricter emissions reporting and reduction targets.¹⁴⁶ As international markets evolve, Congress may examine how data transparency and methane intensity requirements affect U.S. LNG production, trade, and emissions reduction efforts.¹⁴⁷

Appendix A. Legislation Pertaining to Methane Proposed in the 118^th Congress

Appendix B. Legislation Pertaining to Methane Proposed in the 119^th Congress

Footnotes