Could "Simplifying” the Methane Regulation through the Omnibus Undermine Legal Certainty of EU law?

Introduction

The first EU regulation targeting methane emissions (2024/1787) has become a tug-of-war between external market actors pulling toward a “simplification” of its requirements and the Union holding the line to preserve the Regulation's integrity. Investors, MEPs and the international association of oil and gas producers are urging EU policymakers to revisit the Methane Regulation as part of the bloc’s simplification agenda known as “Omnibus”, which aims to reduce complexity and unnecessary barriers for companies. Recently, in February 2026, the first package, ‘Omnibus I’, was adopted by the European Commission with a signal for future regulations to be included in the various packages. According to the Commission, the purpose of the Omnibus packages is to support the development of renewables, however many energy providers, think tank institutes, as well as the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change are instead arguing that using the Omnibus would “erode trust, create uncertainty for industry, and send a damaging signal that Europe’s standards can be bargained away”. Legal Scholars align with these views that the Omnibus packages could give rise to conflicts with core EU constitutional principles if amendments lead to unclear, uncertain and unforeseeable rules. This raises the question of whether simplifying the Methane Regulation to reduce its complexity for operators could inadvertently undermine the EU’s constitutional values, particularly the principle of legal certainty.

The Methane Regulation and its turn to “Simplification”

The Methane Regulation (2024/1787) was adopted following the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), calling for the urgent need to reduce anthropogenic methane emissions. It aims to translate methane reduction into procedural and substantive compliance duties from producers across the value chain, from measuring and monitoring methane emissions to demonstrating they have applied equivalent rules. It includes a rigid non-compliance framework where penalties can result in fines up to 20% of annual turnover, and a progressively tightening regime where by 5 August 2027, operators must fall below the methane intensity thresholds to not be penalised. The Regulation, being the world’s first comprehensive and binding framework for methane governance, places the EU as a rule-setter beyond its borders and as a global LNG market shaper for the upcoming crucial years of energy transitioning. As defined by Article 288 TFEU, Regulations under the EU are binding in their entirety and directly applicable to EU institutions, Member States and individuals to whom it applies, impacting on a bigger scale the extraterritorial business who want to operate within the EU market. The Regulation is therefore a pillar for establishing the Union’s legitimacy in advancing the energy transition globally through EU legal instruments.  

With the Regulation’s significance for the EU’s legitimacy, market competitiveness and relations abroad and with Member States producers, the Omnibus package becomes relevant as a legislative technique to simplify the strict requirements producers are expected to meet. Last month, the UN Economic Commission for Europe stated that the Regulation is subject to an Omnibus Process to address EU-US trade deal concerns and technical issues for businesses. This legislative vehicle allows for the amendment of multiple instruments at once and is increasingly being used as a mechanism for accelerated regulatory change. The first Omnibus package was adopted on February 26 2025, followed by Ursula von der Leyen signalling further adoption of simplifications. It is therefore not surprising that investors are urging the EU policymakers to revisit the methane regulation as part of the Omnibus package. The Omnibus I reduces the complexity of legislation to limit the scope, scale and nature of the obligations introduced for companies. It is framed to ensure efficiency and coherence of different legislation, and at the same time pursuing the EU’s objectives, such as energy policies.  However, this instrument which was historically used to update old legislation has now established a simplification framework which is capable of streamlining, postponing implementation timelines and substantively modifying components of EU legislation. It therefore sets up the legal question of whether such “simplification” can be pursued without undermining core EU law-constraints.

Legal Framework: Legal Certainty as the Relevant EU Law Constraint

Legal certainty is a fundamental principle of EU law, binding both EU institutions and Member States when acting within the scope of EU law.  In a compliance regime where entities can be exposed to heavy sanctions, like the penalties in the Methane Regulation, legal certainty is necessary to ensure regulated actors can plan long-term conduct ex-ante. The principle of legal certainty is derived from the concept of the rule of law established in Article 2 of the TEU, and closely related to other principles such as legal stability, clarity, predictability and legitimacy. According to the CJEU, the principle of legal certainty requires “that rules of law be clear, precise and predictable as regards their effects”.Today, legal scholars conclude that strict and detailed rules increase legal certainty. Yet, this approach is hard to sustain in areas of energy transition where there is continuously evolving regulation. This tension between the demand of stable obligations and the constantly evolving sustainability rules frames my analysis on whether Omnibus “simplification” can preserve the legal certainty of EU law in the energy-related field.

How Omnibus “simplification” Could Undermine the Legal Certainty of EU Law

The legal-certainty risk raised by the Omnibus lies less in the legislative technique’s capacity to deliver rapid bulk regulatory change across multiple instruments at once. The Methane Regulation offers an interesting case for testing the legality concerns raised by the Omnibus “simplification”: It is a directly applicable regulation with phased obligations and a sanctions-backed framework requiring ex-ante planning. Moreover, it is responsible to hold the EU’s legitimacy as a global actor advancing sustainability in the LNG sector. In this setting, legal certainty is necessary for operators to lawfully organise long-term conduct with clarity, foreseeability and predictability. If an Omnibus “simplifies” the regime by altering timelines, equivalence conditions and reporting content in shortened consultations. This risks creating informal understandings and variable administrative practice, which leads to a scenario where legal certainty is undermined.

Under EU law, Article 11 TEU requires the institutions to maintain open dialogue with civil society and for the European Commission to carry out broad consultations before it takes action. Consultations are especially necessary as a mechanism through which ambiguity is identified before obligations are enforced. Legal scholars, notably Alberto Alemanno, argue that Omnibus proposals tend to deviate from this as they skip through public consultation and impact assessments. This is justified by the fact that prior legislative research has already been conducted for the adoption of the legislative measure. Moreover, EU law, under Article 296 TFEU, requires that legal acts shall state the reasons on which they are based because it allows subjects to understand what problem an amendment is solving, how to interpret it, and how courts and authorities can apply the rule consistently. With the Omnibus package, this is looked over, leading to many cases in which stakeholders are not made aware of what precisely has changed from the simplification. Applied to the Methane Regulation, which is already complex on its own by having rules that will not be fully set out until 2027, using an Omnibus can risk diluting the Regulation to an informal and variable framework. This results in the Regulation deviating from Article 11 TEU and Article 296 TFEU, resulting in EU actions which are not coherent, transparent, or understandable to the public. As a consequence, the legal certainty of EU law in the energy market would be heavily undermined.

Moreover, the baseline of the Methane Regulation, being built on obligations progressively tightening, increases its sensitivity to the Omnibus simplification. Technical standards are already evolving with import‑facing obligations becoming more rigid over time; the requirement for importers to provide specified information by May 2025 and annually thereafter, followed by the need to report methane intensity annually from 5 August 2028 without a clear methodology. This already requires complex planning, where legal changes from the Omnibus would lead to further unforeseeability and gaps in reporting, as the technical standards of the Regulation would be changing simultaneously to the amendments made by the Omnibus package. The regulation would become even more dependent on future guidance, and as a result, it would lead to divergent national enforcement approaches and limited foreseeability for producers. Overall, reopening legislation for the Methane Regulation would most likely create unnecessary uncertainty, affecting both producers' expectations and the EU’s credibility as a rule-setter of methane emission reduction.

Conclusion

The push to simplify the Methane Regulation through the Omnibus agenda reflects the EU’s dilemma between maintaining market competitiveness, EU-US relations and business efficiency, and its constitutional integrity. In a directly applicable legislative measure like the Methane Regulation constituted by phased obligations, technical requirements and sanctions, legal certainty becomes a central aspect of EU law. The Omnibus packages do not inherently undermine legal certainty. It is the Methane Regulation’s evolving technical components which make it susceptible to the Omnibus simplifications, risking undermining the legal certainty of EU law. The Commission itself cautions that reopening the legislation of the Methane Regulation would create “unnecessary uncertainty”. It could leave both the EU and producers with a framework that is less complex in form yet less predictable, less uniformly applied, and ultimately weakening the EU’s legal certainty in using legislative tools to steer the energy transition.

---

Reference List

Admin. (2025, June 18). Methane emissions: Europe and Italy face the energy omnibus. ECCO. https://eccoclimate.org/methane-emissions-europe-and-italy-face-the-energy-omnibus/\

Alemanno, A. (2025, November 10). The legality of omnibus legislation under EU law: A preliminary analysis of omnibus I simplification directive of CSRD and CSDD and its legal consequences on the EU legal order. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5727822

Article 2 TEU; Case C-13/61; Case C-42/59 Snupat v. Haute autorite´, EU:C:1961:5, p. 87. A. Portuese, O. Gough and J. Tanega, 44 European Journal of Law and Economics (2017), p. 132–133.

Boute, A. (2012). The Quest for Regulatory Stability in the EU Energy Market: An Analysis Through the Prism of Legal Certainty. European Law Review.

Council of the European Union. (2026, February 24). Council signs off simplification of sustainability reporting and due diligence requirements to boost EU competitiveness[Press release]. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/02/24/council-signs-off-simplification-of-sustainability-reporting-and-due-diligence-requirements-to-boost-eu-competitiveness/.

Council of the European Union. (2025, December 12). Implementation solutions for the import requirements of Regulation (EU) 2024/1787 on the reduction of methane emissions in the energy sector (Doc. No. 16479/1/25 REV 1) [Note to delegations]. https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-16479-2025-REV-1/en/

Criminal proceedings against Costa (C-72/10) EU:C:2012:80 at [74].

Environmental Defense Fund Europe. (2025, September 11). Under pressure, Europe’s methane rules must stand. https://www.edfeurope.org/under-pressure-europes-methane-rules-must-stand

European Parliament. (2025, July 3). Simplifying Regulation (EU) 2024/1787 on methane (Parliamentary question No. E-002719/2025). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025-002719_EN.html\

EU Methane Regulation and its impact on LNG imports. (2024, October 15). The Journal of World Energy Law & Business (Oxford Academic). https://academic.oup.com/jwelb/article/18/1/jwae022/7823205

FuelsEurope, et al. (2025, August 1). Integrating the EU Methane Regulation into the EU Simplification Agenda (joint letter, 1 August 2025)

Lentschig, H., & van Schaik, L. (2025, June 12). Why the EU should hold the line on its Methane Regulation. (Clingendael, 12 June 2025) https://www.clingendael.org/publication/why-eu-should-hold-line-its-methane-regulation.

Regulation (EU) 2024/1787 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on the reduction of methane emissions in the energy sector and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/942.

The omnibus simplification package: Explained (24 April 2025). Normative. https://normative.io/insight/the-omnibus-simplification-package-explained/

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. (2026, January 20). The EU Methane Regulation: Global implications, benefits and challenges [Workshop session]. https://unece.org/sustainable-energy/events/eu-methane-regulation-global-implications-benefits-and-challenges