The Changing Environmental Compliance Landscape: What Your Business Needs to Know in 2026
June 12, 2026
6 minute read
Environmental and sustainability regulations worldwide have grown 155% over the last decade. Despite the United States federal EPA pulling back, businesses are not slowing down.
50% of EHS executives surveyed by Intelex have increased their environmental and sustainability investments in the past 12–18 months, and another 42% are maintaining current investment levels, with regulatory pressure cited as the second-biggest driver.
Many of these new regulations are signaling more complexity as states, international markets, and trading partners develop their own frameworks that could place unexpected onus on multinational companies.
To better understand the current landscape, we partnered with Onterris to highlight the most important regulations you should pay attention to in 2026 and beyond.
1. State-level GHG reporting fragmentation
Expert interviews: Chris Howard, Principal Engineer, Onterris; Ben DuVal, Environmental Sales Specialist, Intelex
If you’ve seen federal environmental oversight loosen and think the pressure is off, think again. State-level regulations are often stricter than federal ones. The federal pullback is accelerating states’ efforts to advance their own frameworks.
States like Colorado and New Mexico are stepping in to fill the gaps, and for operators working across multiple basins, that creates a more complex regulatory landscape.
The Colorado benchmark
The southwestern United States is a great example. Consider operators splitting activity across the Denver-Julesburg, Rocky Mountain, and Eagle Ford basins.
Colorado has some of the most stringent permitting requirements in the world. Texas is roughly 10 years behind Colorado’s current regulations, and New Mexico sits somewhere in the middle.
Operators need to comply with regulations from three very different rulebooks. Leak detection and repair are compliance issues in Colorado, tied directly to licensing to operate. In Texas, that work is mostly treated as a production issue. New Mexico sits somewhere in the middle with methane regulations actively evolving.
Building systems that scale across state lines
How you manage this across multiple states depends on the company, but several key principles hold true:
- If you want a comprehensive system, build in flexibility from the start by separating data capture by basin or operating area from day one. This lets you address the more granular requirements of each jurisdiction.
- Clarify reporting ownership. Different states can mean different compliance teams handling different obligations, so that structure needs to be clearly defined and scalable.
- When personnel or operational changes occur, rebalancing responsibilities must avoid creating gaps or confusion.
2. EPA Subpart W
Expert interviewed: Daniel McDermott, EHS&S Solutions Consultant, Onterris
For oil and gas operators, EPA Subpart W has been anything but simple to navigate lately and the uncertainty itself has become the problem.
Companies had already been preparing for the 2025 updates to Subpart W methodologies, which brought significant changes to methane quantification, emissions calculations, and reporting expectations. Operators invested time and resources into updating inventories, refining practices, and upgrading data systems to meet these requirements.
Then came the signals that the EPA might roll back portions of the rule or remove Subpart W reporting altogether.
As the March 31st, 2026 reporting deadline approached, there was still no clear answer on requirements. An October 2026 extension emerged, but it is a stopgap, not a resolution. The extension shifts timing but does not eliminate the 2025 methodology changes or global momentum behind methane transparency and emissions accounting.
What operators should do
Most experienced operators will continue under current Subpart W accounting practices through the transition. The internal conversation has shifted from “Do we technically have to report right now?” to “How do we avoid disrupting our emissions accounting systems?” and even, “How would we manage our GHG inventories if it was regulated by each state individually rather than the federal government?”
Maintaining continuity is the best strategy for building resilience against whatever future reporting framework ultimately emerges.
Why stepping away is a risk you don’t want to take
- Companies that stop quantifying their GHG emissions risk losing institutional knowledge and introducing inconsistencies into emissions inventories that will appear as data gaps when annual trending occurs.
- Reconstructing years of emissions data retroactively is hard and rarely inexpensive.
- Companies that maintain clean, consistent Subpart W accounting today will be far better positioned for regulatory shifts, methane intensity certifications, and ESG disclosures down the line.
During this extension window, focus on strengthening the durability of your reporting systems. That means solid documentation, validated assumptions, consistent QA/QC discipline, and keeping operational teams aligned on consistent accounting practices.
At the end of the day, Subpart W is increasingly becoming the foundation for long-term emissions transparency, operational credibility, and reporting resilience.
Related Guide: The Hidden Complexity of Emissions Data Management at Scale
3. California Climate Disclosure (SB 253)
Expert interviewed: Conor Merrigan, Senior Principal, Onterris
If your company does business in California and earns over $1 billion in total annual revenue, this regulation is important: Senate Bill 253, California’s greenhouse gas reporting and disclosure law.
Passed in 2023 as part of a package of seven Senate bills, SB 253 is now coming into force. The first annual report covering 2025 emissions is due on August 10, 2026.
What you need to know
California and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) are treating this as a transition year. A good-faith effort is considered sufficient.
As long as you submit a report that makes sense and follows best practices, you can build on it to make next year’s report more robust.
The focus now is on establishing a methodology and accounting for your Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. Scope 3 isn’t required yet, but that will change, and assurance requirements will be in place next year in a limited fashion.
A few things worth flagging
- This applies to your entire company’s operations, not just California facilities. If you meet the threshold, your nationwide footprint is in scope.
- Your best starting resource is the CARB website’s climate accountability disclosure page, which offers guidance to help you complete the first pass.
California won’t be alone for long. New York is close behind with legislation that borrows heavily from California’s language though there are differences, and New York will require Scope 3 reporting. Non-compliance penalties can reach $500,000.
4. EU Methane Regulation
Expert interviewed: Elizabeth McGurk, Methane Market Leader, Onterris
The EU Methane Regulation (EUMR) is a clear example of how greenhouse gas management is shifting from purely environmental compliance to a commercial requirement.
The regulation applies to fossil fuel-based energy — natural gas, oil, and coal — placed on the European market. The legal obligation lies with the EU importer, but these requirements flow through contracts to exporters and upstream producers. If you sell into the European market, this regulation applies to you.
What it requires
At its core, the EUMR establishes a methane monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) framework. Import requirements begin in 2027 and phase in over time, evolving from emissions disclosure to methane-intensity reporting, and finally to an emissions-intensity limit starting in 2030.
Where things stand
The timelines remain in place and EU signals show the regulation is moving forward. A notable clarification is that book-and-claim certificates will be accepted as a compliance mechanism.
Many open questions remain because EU regulatory structures differ significantly from those in the US. Further guidance from the EU and competent authorities is expected in the coming months.
What you can do now
While details are still being worked out, operators can take practical steps to prepare. The key starting point is ensuring your measurement-based methane emissions inventories are complete, up-to-date, and assurance-ready.
Why this matters beyond oil and gas
The EUMR signals a broader shift: Countries increasingly use commercial mechanisms and trade to drive climate outcomes, emphasizing value-chain emissions. Environmental compliance is no longer purely domestic. Participating in a global marketplace means operating within a global regulatory environment.
The big picture for 2026 and beyond
While these are very different regulations, spanning continents and industries, three consistent themes emerge:
- Regulatory momentum is accelerating.
- Fragmentation and complexity demand better data infrastructure.
- Proactive compliance is a strategic advantage.
These regulations are no longer developed in isolation. Companies that stay ahead now and continue investing will be best positioned for regulatory shifts, ESG disclosures, and new commercial requirements down the line.
The regulatory landscape isn’t getting simpler. But with the right systems and the right partners, it is manageable.
Want to build emissions reporting that’s defensible by design? See the 6 areas where emissions data management breaks down and what an effective solution should address.
