EPA Proposes Rolling Back the Biden-Era Methane Rule for Oil and Gas
At a rally in Lubbock, Texas, on Tuesday, President Trump said he was "officially terminating" the 2024 methane rule for oil and gas. What EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin signed that day is a proposal. It would drop the Super Emitter Program, write lighter rules for low-producing wells, and allow flaring in place of piping gas to market. The 2024 rule stays on the books until EPA finishes a new one. The proposal is set to appear in the Federal Register on Thursday, followed by a public comment period and a virtual hearing.
By Rachel Dunmore, Washington Correspondent
Published · 8 min read
The Overview
The facts, straight
What happened. At a campaign rally in Lubbock, Texas, on Tuesday night, President Trump told the crowd: "Tonight, I am officially terminating Biden's expensive and unnecessary methane regulations to save consumers and energy producers $45 billion in costs, unlock vast quantities of Texas natural gas, and produce 210 million barrels of oil." The White House's Rapid Response 47 account posted the clip:
Video: Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) on X, Oct. 27, 2026, 8:32 p.m. ET.
What was actually signed. The rule is still in force. That same day, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin signed a proposed rule to revise the 2024 Clean Air Act standards for oil and gas operations, known in the industry as NSPS OOOOb (for new sources) and EG OOOOc (guidelines states use for existing sources). The document is labeled "ACTION: Proposed rule." The Federal Register put it on public inspection Wednesday morning and is scheduled to publish it Thursday, Oct. 29. Comments are due 48 days after publication. By our count, that is Dec. 16. The public inspection version sets a virtual public hearing for Nov. 16, with speaker pre-registration closing Nov. 10. Until EPA finalizes a new rule, the 2024 standards stay in place, along with the compliance-date extensions EPA has already finalized.
What the proposal would change. According to EPA's news release, fact sheet and the proposal itself:
- Super Emitter Program. The program let EPA-certified third parties flag large leaks spotted with remote sensing, such as aircraft or satellite surveys. Operators then had to investigate. EPA proposes to rescind it. Its fact sheet says the program "is not necessary to meet CAA requirements, is not effective," and that its legal basis is "inadequate." EPA also says other parts of the 2024 rule already give operators "timely, actionable" information about big leaks.
- Small and older wells. EPA is co-proposing two ways to put some well sites in their own categories with lighter standards. One is by production: "marginal" sites producing 15 barrels of oil equivalent a day or less. The other is by type: conventional versus unconventional wells.
- Gas from oil wells. The 2024 rule required "associated gas" from oil wells to be sent to a sales line in most cases. EPA proposes to go back to 95%-efficient flaring or another control device as the standard, saying a sales line "is not possible in all producing areas."
- Leaks and equipment. Covers and closed vent systems would get a short repair window, so a leak fixed in time would not count as a violation. EPA also proposes changes on control-device monitoring, liquids unloading, process controllers and pumps.
- Possible further repeal. EPA asks for comment on repealing the process-controller standards, leak monitoring at gas processing plants, and "all other aspects" of the 2024 rule. In the preamble, it invites comment on "any or all changes (whether by amendment or repeal)."
The numbers, as EPA estimates them. The agency says the proposal would save $45 billion and "unleash an estimated 210 million additional barrels of oil and 1.41 trillion cubic feet of natural gas." In the proposal, the $45 billion is a present value over 2027 to 2050 at a 3% discount rate. At 7%, the figure is $32 billion. The same document (Table 33) projects that over the same period the proposal would add about 60 million short tons of methane, 17 million tons of smog-forming volatile organic compounds and 2.3 million tons of hazardous air pollutants compared with keeping the 2024 rule. The conventional-well co-proposal would add 88 million tons of methane. EPA says parts of its analysis "may have resulted in overestimation" of these forgone reductions. The agency's own methane page says the gas is "more than 28 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat" (EPA).
How we got here. The 2024 rule was published in the Federal Register on March 8, 2024. That same day, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued to block it, calling it "blatant overreach." Paxton is now the Republican Senate nominee Trump was campaigning for in Lubbock. Zeldin announced a full reconsideration in March 2025. Since then, EPA has extended several compliance deadlines and loosened the flaring provisions (EPA timeline). This proposal is the broadest step so far. It is separate from the administration's Clean Air Act exemptions for 202 industrial facilities from air toxics rules (our report).
What the Left Says
The progressive and Democratic case
Environmental groups say the proposal favors the worst-run operators and that more leaking gas would mean a hotter climate and dirtier air near wells. NRDC posted Wednesday:
Post: NRDC (@NRDC) on X, Oct. 28, 2026.
"When gas pipelines and equipment leak, everyone loses—there are more cancer-causing pollutants, worse climate disasters, and companies losing their product. The EPA's plan to weaken this methane safeguard puts our health at risk while giving a free pass to a few rogue oil and gas companies."
When Zeldin previewed the plan on Oct. 7, NRDC senior strategist David Doniger said: "Methane leaks are the dumbest kind of pollution because the industry is losing the very product it is selling." He added that "a few rogue actors refuse to check for leaks." On Tuesday, he told NBC News that he expects litigation: "I would expect it to be another lawsuit." A lawsuit could come only after EPA finalizes the rule.
The Center for Biological Diversity said marginal wells produce about 7% of the country's oil and gas but put out about half its methane, and pledged: "We'll fight this disastrous rollback with everything we've got" (statement). Darin Schroeder of the Clean Air Task Force said the proposal "sets the stage for the complete deregulation of methane under the Clean Air Act" (statement). Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, now chair of America Is All In, pointed to states such as California, New Mexico, Colorado and Pennsylvania that are adopting their own methane standards (statement).
Where Reality Likely Sits
Radio Purple's analysis
- "Terminating" is the goal, not the legal status. A signed proposal is not a final rule. The 2024 standards stay in effect until EPA finalizes a replacement after the comment period and hearing. Any final rule could then be challenged in the D.C. Circuit, as the 2024 rule was.
- Small wells, small share of production, a large share of leaks. EPA's own proposal cites federal data showing that marginal wells are about 78% of U.S. wells, about 717,000 of 918,000, but produced about 7% of the oil and gas in 2024. It also cites a Department of Energy study estimating those wells account for roughly half of methane from oil and gas production. EPA's own past estimate was about 60%. Both sides' facts can be true: many of these wells barely break even, and taken together they leak a lot.
- "Small operator" doesn't always mean small. According to the proposal, 51.3% of marginal wells belong to 127 companies that each run 1,000 or more wells. The 7,320 firms with ten or fewer wells own 3.2% of marginal wells. Relief aimed at family operators would also reach large companies unless the final rule draws the line differently.
- Common ground: leaked gas is lost money. Doniger and the industry make versions of the same point: methane that leaks is product that can't be sold. EPA counts that lost value in its own math, because its savings figure is net of "the forgone value of natural gas captured." The open questions are where leak detection pays for itself and where flaring is the only practical option because no pipeline exists.
- What to watch: Thursday's Federal Register publication and the final comment deadline; the Nov. 16 hearing; which well-site option EPA picks; whether the final rule goes as far as repealing the methane standards themselves; and the lawsuits that are likely to follow.
Should rules for small, low-producing wells be lighter, even if those wells leak a large share of the methane? Tell us.
What the Right Says
The conservative and Republican case
The administration says the 2024 rule cost too much, threatened small family-run wells and pushed up prices. Zeldin said in EPA's release: "When owners and operators can produce, America benefits with lower prices. That is common sense, and it's what we're delivering with this proposal." EPA says the Biden administration estimated the rule's cost at $18 billion but "underestimated the costs." Zeldin posted after the rally:
Post: EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin (@epaleezeldin) on X, Oct. 27, 2026, 10:27 p.m. ET.
"The crowd went wild as the President announced EPA's new action that takes a well designed sledgehammer to the Biden EPA's oil and gas regulations. It is estimated that $45 BILLION in regulatory savings will be realized as a result, an additional 210 MILLION barrels of U.S. oil will be released, and over 1.4 TRILLION cubic square feet of U.S. natural gas will be produced."
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Energy Secretary Chris Wright both called the 2024 rule red tape that raised energy costs (EPA release). Edith Naegele, CEO of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, said that "as originally written," the rule "could have threatened the continued operation of hundreds of thousands of marginal wells nationwide" (IPAA). The National Stripper Well Association says compliance costs "will make the wells uneconomical to operate." It disputes the methane figures, saying stripper wells account for "less than 0.2% of total U.S. emissions inventory," according to federal data (NSWA). On the Super Emitter Program, EPA argues the third-party reports did not identify which company owned a site, so the agency had to track down the operator before it could pass on a notice. That delay, EPA says, undercut the point of the program.
Sources & Citations
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Proposes Major New Revisions to Burdensome, Unworkable Biden-era Oil and Natural Gas Regulations”, October 27, 2026.
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Additional Reconsideration Standards of Performance ... Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review (prepublication proposed rule, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0163)”, October 27, 2026.
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Fact Sheet: Proposed Rule, Additional Reconsideration ... Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review”, October 1, 2026.
- Office of the Federal Register, “Federal Register public inspection, Document 2026-22082 (scheduled publication Oct. 29, 2026)”, October 28, 2026.
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Actions and Notices about Oil and Natural Gas Air Pollution Standards”, October 27, 2026.
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “2026 Actions to Reduce Burden on the Oil and Natural Gas Industry”, October 27, 2026.
- Regulations.gov, “Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0163”, October 28, 2026.
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Global Methane Initiative), “Importance of Methane”, October 28, 2026.
- X, “Post by Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47), video of President Trump in Lubbock”, October 27, 2026.
- X, “Post by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin (@epaleezeldin)”, October 27, 2026.
- X, “Post by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin (@epaleezeldin)”, October 27, 2026.
- X, “Post by NRDC (@NRDC)”, October 28, 2026.
- Natural Resources Defense Council, “Administrator Zeldin Announces Another Oil Industry Giveaway”, October 7, 2026.
- Clean Air Task Force, “EPA methane proposal would increase air pollution, waste energy, and harm the climate”, October 27, 2026.
- Center for Biological Diversity, “Trump EPA Proposal Guts Methane Pollution Rule”, October 27, 2026.
- America Is All In, “STATEMENT: EPA's Methane Rollback Weakens Public Health and Climate Protections”, October 27, 2026.
- Independent Petroleum Association of America, “IPAA Applauds Trump Administration for Changes to OOOOb/c, Recognizing Vital Role Marginal Wells Play in U.S. Economy”, October 27, 2026.
- National Stripper Well Association, “National Stripper Well Association's Position Statement on Methane Emissions from Stripper Wells”, September 29, 2026.
- Office of the Texas Attorney General, “Attorney General Ken Paxton Sues Biden Administration to Stop New Radical Emissions Rule”, March 8, 2024.
- NBC News, “Trump says he'll roll back Biden-era methane rules for oil and gas companies”, October 27, 2026.
Positions above are attributed to the public statements and published reporting cited here. Quotations are taken from these sources; Radio Purple does not publish unattributed or invented quotes. See an error? Request a correction.
