How EU protected the Green Deal in trade with US and what lessons Ukraine should draw
The European Union is effectively rewriting the rules of the global gas market by introducing control over methane emissions throughout the entire supply chain, including imports.
This is how the new EU Methane Regulation emerged, whose logic is radically simple: any gas supplies entering the European market must be transparent and accountable.
In other words, suppliers must show where the gas comes from and how much methane was emitted at each stage – from extraction to delivery to buyers in the EU.
Read more about the new rules of the game on EU energy markets and US resistance in the column by Oleh Savytskyi of Stand With Ukraine: A dispute with the smell of gas: how the EU’s soft power prevailed over US pressure.
This week, the Methane-250 conference is being held in Milan, covering several key dimensions of methane emissions in energy supply chains – from scientific data to financing and policy.
Special attention is paid to the fact that methane is not only about climate. It is also about new rules for energy markets.
According to the author, for the EU the Methane Regulation is a matter of climate responsibility and consistency in implementing the Green Deal, while for fossil fuel suppliers it is a matter of market access and competitiveness.
It is therefore not surprising that new transatlantic tensions emerged on this basis.
Savytskyi notes that the United States is currently a key supplier of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe.
"For the White House, the EU’s new regulatory framework was perceived as an example of 'green protectionist policy'. EU requirements for accountability and transparency of imported gas create additional barriers for US LNG exports, increase producers’ costs and, most importantly, extend EU regulatory jurisdiction far beyond its borders," the Stand With Ukraine campaigns director writes.
For Brussels, however, this is a matter of logic: if transparency is not required from fossil fuel imports, any internal climate policy loses its meaning. Emissions are simply "shifted" to other countries and the effectiveness of domestic policies is undermined.
Previously, the American side effectively signaled readiness to use the suspension of LNG supplies as leverage in response to European requirements, but in the final version of the trade arrangements Washington stepped back from these threats.
On 26 March, the European Parliament supported the text of a new trade agreement between the EU and the United States, in which Brussels managed to secure a fundamentally important clause on protecting its regulatory integrity and to establish safeguards in trade relations.
"This looks like a restrained but illustrative diplomatic victory for Europe: the EU not only preserved access to critical energy resources, but also demonstrated that it is ready to defend its regulatory approaches even under pressure from a key trading partner," the author emphasises.
According to him, this story has particular significance for Ukraine. On the one hand, implementation of European methane rules is part of European integration. It will inevitably change regulation in the energy sector and require new institutional solutions.
On the other hand, this is far from only about obligations. It is also about opportunities.
"Ukraine has significant potential to reduce losses and utilise substantial volumes of gas that are currently simply wasted due to outdated technologies and lack of continuous infrastructure monitoring. This is not only about reducing emissions, but also about an additional gas resource that could strengthen the country’s energy security at a critical moment," the Stand With Ukraine campaigns director concludes.
In this sense, methane is an example of a rare situation where climate policy, economics and security converge at one point.