The EPA Is Days From Killing Its Own Methane Leak Watchdog

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• The announcement: EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said on October 7, 2026 at the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association's annual meeting in Santa Fe that the agency is "days not weeks" from proposing the second part of its reconsideration of the Biden administration's 2024 oil and gas rules, known as OOOOb/c, per the EPA press release and InsideEPA.
• The number: EPA says the proposal is estimated to save $45 billion, and attributes $18 billion in regulatory costs to the 2024 rule, per the agency's release. The Environmental Defense Fund counters that oil and gas companies have already wasted nearly $7 billion in energy value since enforcement of key methane protections stopped, per the Associated Press.
• The target list: The proposal would create separate well-site categories aimed at marginal wells, rescind the Super Emitter Program, split the covers and closed vent systems standard, revisit the approach to associated gas, and loosen control-device monitoring, per the EPA.
• The state counterweight: New Mexico's Environmental Improvement Board holds a hearing starting December 1, 2026 on a state-level super emitter program, after the state environment department proposed one in August, per the AP.
• The evidence gap: EDF satellite data from the Delaware subbasin shows 60% less methane pollution in New Mexico than in Texas across similar geography and industry, a gap the group attributes to state regulation, per the AP report.

SANTA FE, New Mexico. The administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency walked into the annual meeting of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association on October 7 and told the room something it already suspected: the federal methane rulebook that governs their wells is about to get much shorter, and the part of it that watches them work is about to disappear entirely.

Lee Zeldin's announcement, in the agency's own framing, is the "second part" of a comprehensive reconsideration of the Biden administration's 2024 oil and natural gas rules, the package regulators and industry call OOOOOb/c. The first part was procedural. This part names names. Among the specific changes EPA said it will propose: separate categories of well sites that would create a lighter compliance track for marginal wells, the outright rescission of the Super Emitter Program, a split of the covers and closed vent systems standard into design and operational pieces, a full revisit of how associated gas from oil wells is regulated, and technical flexibility on control-device monitoring for flame-monitoring deviations, alerts, and visible-emissions test conditions, per the EPA press release.

What the second part actually touches

The 2024 rules at issue set performance standards for methane and smog-forming organic compounds from new, modified, and reconstructed oil and gas infrastructure, per the Associated Press. They were the centerpiece of the previous administration's methane agenda, and they have been under sustained institutional pressure since the day they were finalized.

The unwind has been staged, and each stage has looked modest on its own. The Waste Emissions Charge, the fee on excess methane emissions that accompanied the standards, was repealed through the Congressional Review Act, per Harvard's Environmental and Energy Law Program regulatory tracker. In July 2025, EPA extended several compliance deadlines in the rules through an interim final action, per the agency's oil and gas actions page. This September, the agency separately moved on power plants, signing a partial repeal of the carbon pollution standards for fossil fuel-fired generating units and proposing to rescind the underlying greenhouse gas findings, per the EPA. The oil and gas "second part" continues the pattern: never one dramatic repeal, always the next step in a reconsideration docket that produces the same destination.

What makes this installment different is the specificity. Zeldin did not gesture at "burdensome regulations" in the abstract. He listed the mechanisms. In his words, per the EPA release: "The Trump EPA is days not weeks away from announcing our proposal for the second part of the oil and gas reconsideration. This proposal takes on many of the problems American producers and operators have raised with us. That includes the burden on marginal wells and oil and gas operators in general, the Super Emitter Program, associated gas, and control device requirements."

The program on death row

Of the items on that list, the Super Emitter Program is the one that changes the daily physics of enforcement. The program, as wire service reports describe it, requires companies to act when third parties report suspected methane leaks at or near oil and natural gas facilities using remote sensing, per OE Digital's report. In practice, it turns satellites, aircraft, and independent monitors into a distributed leak-detection network, and it obliges operators to investigate what that network finds.

EPA's stated reasons for rescinding it are legal and practical rather than scientific. The agency says it has heard "serious legal concerns" about the program, does not believe it is necessary to meet Clean Air Act requirements, and considers it ineffective, per the press release. The administration had already delayed implementation of the policy until next year, per the same report. The proposal would finish the job.

For an industry that measures compliance in monitoring equipment, inspections, and workovers on low-producing wells, the Super Emitter Program is the difference between leaks that are found by third parties and leaks that are found by nobody. Killing it does not change the leak. It changes who is allowed to notice.

The numbers war

The agency and its critics are running two competing ledgers, and both are built on the same program. EPA says the second-part proposal is estimated to save $45 billion, and that the Biden-era rule imposed $18 billion in regulatory costs without delivering the environmental benefits promised, per the EPA release. Wire coverage of the announcement reported the savings figure as $45 billion a year, per OE Digital.

The Environmental Defense Fund's ledger runs the other direction. The group says oil and gas companies have been allowed to waste a domestic resource, contributing to nearly $7 billion in lost energy value since the administration stopped enforcing key methane protections, per the Associated Press. A molecule of methane that leaks from a wellhead is a molecule that never reached a customer, never generated revenue, and never got taxed. Both sides of this argument are, in their own framing, arguing about efficiency.

The Sierra Club's read was blunter. Mahyar Sorour, director of the organization's Beyond Fossil Fuels campaign, called the move "a giveaway to fossil fuel executives" that is "foolish and short-sighted," per the OE Digital report. In Santa Fe itself, the announcement drew protesters from the Sierra Club's Rio Grande chapter, the Environmental Defense Fund, New Mexico Interfaith Power and Light, and Healthy Climate New Mexico, per the AP.

The state that will not wait

The most consequential response to the announcement may not come from Washington at all. New Mexico, where Zeldin chose to make the announcement, is preparing to write the federal program into state law. The New Mexico Environment Department proposed a state super emitter program in August that would identify large methane leaks using satellite and aircraft imagery, and the state Environmental Improvement Board is scheduled to begin hearing on that proposal on December 1, per the Associated Press.

The state has an empirical case to make. Nini Gu of the Environmental Defense Fund told the AP that satellite images from the Delaware subbasin, which spans parts of New Mexico and Texas, show 60% less methane pollution on the New Mexico side than on the Texas side, and that the states share similar geography and industry, per the AP report. Gu attributed the difference primarily to regulation, and called the December hearing "an opportunity for New Mexico to codify its own regulations to reduce methane emissions," adding that it "can happen in spite of what the EPA does."

That is the quieter half of this story, and the half that matters most to anyone building a position around American energy policy. A federal rescission does not produce a regulatory vacuum. It produces a patchwork. Producers operating in New Mexico, Colorado, and other states with their own methane regimes will face one set of rules; producers across the state line will face another. The compliance map stops being a federal map and becomes a state map, and the differences between adjacent basins become a line item in every operating budget.

What comes next

The proposal itself has not been published. What exists today is an announcement of an announcement: a press release in Santa Fe, a target list, and a timeline measured in days. When the proposal appears in the Federal Register it will open a comment window, and the specifics of the well-site categories, the marginal well definitions, and the mechanics of the Super Emitter rescission will be readable for the first time. Litigation is a near certainty; environmental groups have challenged each prior stage of the reconsideration, and the December 1 New Mexico hearing will run on a parallel track.

For markets, the near-term read is straightforward. The marginal well carve-out is a direct earnings question for small operators, the associated gas revisit matters to operators in basins where takeaway capacity is thin, and the Super Emitter rescission lowers an enforcement risk that had been priced into compliance budgets. The longer-term question is the patchwork: whether producing states follow New Mexico toward their own satellite-based enforcement, and whether the operators who cheered in Santa Fe find that the leak-detection network simply reconstitutes itself in state capitals, one hearing at a time.

The energy Zeldin described in his remarks is real, but so is the arithmetic on both sides. His closing argument, per the EPA release: "Americans must be able to afford to heat their homes in the winter and fill up their car and drive to work. They can't do that when the people producing the energy are weighed down by unnecessary burdens. The Trump EPA is committed to fixing this so the U.S. can reach its full energy potential." The Environmental Defense Fund's counter, in leaked and vented molecules, is $7 billion. The rulemaking that will referee those two claims is days away.

The Free Markets Report is provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC. All opinions and views mentioned in this report constitute our judgments as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time. Information within this material is not intended to be used as a primary basis for investment decisions and should also not be construed as advice meeting the particular investment needs of any individual investor. Trading signals produced by the Free Markets Report are independent of other services provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC or its affiliates, and positioning of accounts under their management may differ. Please remember that investing involves risk, including loss of principal, and past performance may not be indicative of future results. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC, its members, officers, directors and employees expressly disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken based on any or all of the information on this writing. Nothing in this report shall be construed as an offer to provide investment advice or services. Nothing in this report shall be construed to be an offer to provide investment advisory services. Nothing in this report shall be construed as an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any security. The Free Markets Report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a complete description of our investment services or performance. THE INFORMATION IN THIS REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF INDIVIDUALS WHO MIGHT RECEIVE IT. THE INVESTMENTS DISCUSSED MAY NOT BE SUITABLE FOR ALL INVESTORS. INVESTORS MUST MAKE THEIR OWN INVESTMENT DECISIONS BASED ON THEIR OWN PARTICULAR FINANCIAL SITUATIONS AND OBJECTIVES. This report is not an offer to provide investment advice or services. Nothing in this report shall be construed as an offer to provide investment advice or services. Nothing in this report shall be construed to be an offer to provide investment advisory services in any jurisdiction in which Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC is not authorized to provide such services. All investments involve risk, including the risk of loss of principal. No representation is being made that any security, account, or strategy is or is likely to achieve results similar to those shown. Investing in securities involves risks, and there is always the potential of losing money when you invest in securities. Before investing, consider your investment objectives, and Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC's charges and expenses. This report is not a prospectus and does not contain all of the information necessary to fully evaluate any security or strategy discussed, including, but not limited to, the risk of adverse effects of related market developments. You should not rely solely on the information contained in this report, and should seek advice based on your situation from a licensed investment professional. Carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses of any investment product before investing. This report may not be copied or distributed without the express written consent of Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC. Any decisions made based on any or all of the information in this writing are the sole responsibility of the user, and the user should exercise caution and take appropriate advice before acting.