Illinois Democratic Representative Sean Casten is calling on the EU to maintain firm methane standards.

US oil and gas firms have intensified lobbying efforts in recent months, even enlisting the White House to press the EU for a delay in implementing the rules.

In a letter addressed to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the congressman - who has long advocated stricter methane measures in Washington - encouraged her to withstand influence from fossil fuel interests seeking to weaken or postpone the standards.

Methane forms the primary element of natural gas and acts as a greenhouse gas over 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in driving climate change.

Casten, vice chair of Congress energy and environment coalition comprising about 100 House Democrats, co-signed the letter with four colleagues and stressed that applying the rules consistently to all suppliers, including American ones, remains vital for Europe's energy security and worldwide climate objectives.

Yet political sentiment in Europe has shifted toward flexibility. Shortly before the letter, a Czech-led bloc of member states including the Netherlands, Italy, Poland and Belgium urged the commission to pause the import requirements for three years due to legal ambiguities and potential supply disruptions.

EUobserver discussed with Casten his motivations for writing, the pushback against the rules, and his view that delay would prove counterproductive.

You have backed methane measures in the US. What prompted you to urge the EU against yielding to calls for postponement?

Bipartisan backing exists for methane regulation in the United States, particularly regarding domestic gas use. The sector generally prefers to sell gas rather than allow leaks downstream of collection points, though upstream collection remains prone to losses that can be addressed.

Exports present greater challenges. Fifteen years ago US natural gas served only domestic needs, but growing reliance on overseas sales has amplified the emissions issue for the industry.

Why does that create difficulties?

Liquefaction plants consume 10 to 15 percent of the gas, while tankers suffer notable leakage. Robust EU methane rules would therefore affect the main expansion area for US gas exports directly. That is why the letter was sent. The sector, via the White House, will seek to soften the standards, yet this moment requires those focused on science and climate protection to unite firmly.

You note domestic bipartisan support. Where does opposition to the EU rules originate?

Bipartisan does not imply universal congressional agreement. Figures such as Republican John Curtis from Utah have shown support, along with Democrats from oil-producing areas. However, shifting focus to production for export rather than home consumption turns the issue sharply partisan.

Much of the current Republican Party represents rural regions most tied to oil, gas and extractive activities. Consequently the industry seeks minimal environmental constraints on extraction, encompassing methane controls.

What economic factors drive the US industry's determination to challenge these rules?

The US oil and gas sector has experienced gradual market share decline over two decades. Despite portrayals of strength, renewables excluding hydro now outproduce coal domestically. Oil consumption has stagnated near 20 million barrels daily for 20 years even as population and travel rise, thanks to efficiency gains. The industry thus faces eroding competitiveness and increasing export dependence.

Renewable firms enjoy lower capital costs via price-earnings ratios, as markets favor alternatives over continued oil and gas investment. The sector acts from a defensive stance typical of declining industries. Allies in the White House currently offer protection from competition, yet that support will not persist indefinitely.

How did Brussels and Strasbourg react? Did policymakers appreciate the advice against yielding?