Trump says ending the methane rule will save $45 billion and support drilling; the change would unwind monitoring and repair requirements for existing wells.
The financial case for ending the Biden-era methane rule is sharply disputed. President Donald Trump says the change will save consumers and energy producers $45 billion and unlock 210 million barrels of oil—roughly 10 days of U.S. petroleum use. The rule’s supporters point to projected climate and health benefits, while Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin has put its cost at $18 billion.
Trump announced the move Tuesday at a rally in Lubbock, Texas, where he was campaigning for Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton. He said the Biden plan “crushed the small operators” with costly requirements. The administration’s stated aim is to encourage domestic drilling as it faces criticism over high fuel prices during the war in Iran.
What the rule covered
The Biden rule, finalized in 2024, extended methane controls to existing oil and gas wells as well as new ones. It called for inspections and repairs to address leaks, including at smaller wells. Those wells produce about 6% of U.S. oil and gas, yet account for as much as half of methane emissions from oil and gas fields, according to the figures cited by federal officials.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin previewed the planned changes last month. They would end the agency’s Super Emitter Program, which requires companies to investigate and fix major methane releases from oil and gas facilities, and set less restrictive standards for small wells.
The rule had already been delayed. Last year, the EPA imposed an 18-month pause to give companies more time to meet inspection requirements and other provisions. Trump now says his administration is terminating the measure.
Methane is the main component of natural gas and a potent greenhouse gas in the short term. Scientists estimate it causes about a third of planet-warming emissions. Oil and gas operations are the largest industrial source; leaks from equipment and gas burned off as waste release methane into the atmosphere.
Competing estimates of costs and benefits
The administration and the rule’s backers use different assumptions to assess its economic impact. Zeldin has argued the rule would cost $18 billion and constrain the U.S. energy industry. Trump said ending it would save $45 billion, though the rally remarks did not provide a breakdown of that estimate.
Under the Biden administration’s projections, the rule would prevent an estimated 58 million tons (52.6 million metric tonnes) of methane emissions by 2038 and reduce other pollutants linked to health problems. Officials projected $98 billion in benefits by 2034, calculated using estimated future social costs of greenhouse gas emissions to public health and the environment. Trump’s EPA has rejected that valuation approach.
Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp criticized the rollback, saying it gives companies a “free pass” at consumers’ expense. “EPA should be fighting this waste, not making it easier,” he said. Environmental groups argue that methane captured instead of released could be used to supply energy to households.
A wider shift in energy policy
The Biden rule was announced in 2023, including by then-Vice President Kamala Harris at a U.N. climate conference in the United Arab Emirates. It was designed to work alongside a methane fee created under the 2022 climate law. That program would have charged energy producers up to $1,500 per metric ton for emissions above a set threshold; Congress repealed the fee weeks after Trump took office.
The methane change is part of a broader retreat from climate measures adopted under former President Joe Biden. Other steps cited include revoking a scientific finding central to U.S. greenhouse gas policy, lowering vehicle fuel economy standards, and seeking to repeal emissions limits for coal and natural gas power plants. Earlier federal efforts to curb methane from oil and gas also faced changes: measures pursued under former President Barack Obama were scaled back during Trump’s first term.
For producers, the practical effect will turn on which monitoring and repair obligations are removed and how the revised standards treat smaller wells. The competing cost and benefit estimates leave the central trade-off clear: lower compliance burdens for operators, alongside fewer required measures to detect and capture methane emissions.
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion.