What Drives Decisions During Regulatory Uncertainty

I've had several conversations with operators this year and have read a wide range of commentary about where attention is being focused while EPA continues to reconsider the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Emission Guidelines (EG) for the oil and gas sector. What has been most apparent is that even in periods of regulatory uncertainty, decisions are still being made.

What remains to be seen is whether the assumptions underlying those decisions, and the risks accepted as a result, will hold once the regulatory landscape settles.

Known Regulatory Actions

While not all outcomes are known, several aspects of the regulatory landscape that are clear today and form the backdrop for current decision-making.

• NSPS OOOOb is final and largely effective, with certain compliance deadlines delayed through subsequent rulemaking.

• Compliance with NHV testing requirements has been delayed until June 1, 2026.

• Compliance for certain additional requirements has been delayed until January 22, 2027.

• States have until January 22, 2027 to submit State Plans implementing the EG OOOOc requirements for existing sources.

• EPA has proposed a reconsideration of the NHV testing requirements and provisions related to specific flaring scenarios; those reconsiderations have not been finalized as of the writing of this post.

• EPA has proposed changes to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), including eliminating reporting requirements for all sectors except Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems.

• For Subpart W, EPA has proposed extending the reporting deadline for GHG emissions from 2025 to June 10, 2026, removing the distribution segment from reporting, and delay full implementation until 2034.

• EPA has also announced a broader reconsideration of NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc.

Taken together, these actions create a regulatory environment in which some obligations are clear, others are deferred, and several remain unresolved, leaving operators to determine how to proceed in the absence of final answers.

What Remains Uncertain

While several regulatory actions are clear, important questions remain unresolved and continue to shape how operators interpret and respond to current requirements.

Final Treatment of NHV Testing and Certain Flaring Scenarios

EPA has proposed reconsideration of the NHV testing requirements and provisions addressing certain flaring scenarios related to associated gas. As of this writing, those reconsiderations have not been finalized, and it remains unclear whether EPA will finalize the proposed revisions, further refine them, or retain the 2024 requirements.

Applicability of the March 31, 2026, GHG Reporting Deadline

EPA has also proposed changes to the GHGRP, including extensions to reporting deadlines and changes in sector coverage. It remains uncertain whether the original March 31, 2026, reporting deadline applies in the absence of a final rule, and how any such timing would apply across sectors.

Scope and Direction of EPA's Broader Reconsideration

EPA has announced a broader reconsideration of NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc, but the scope, focus areas, and potential outcomes of that effort have not yet been defined. It is unclear which provisions may be revisited and which are likely to remain unchanged.

Timing of Further Regulatory Action

Beyond the proposals already issued, the timing of any additional regulatory action, including final rules, guidance, or implementation-related communications, remains uncertain.

Taken together, these uncertainties create a regulatory environment in which operators must decide how to proceed without clarity on timing, scope, or final requirements. As a result, assumptions become an unavoidable part of current decision-making.

Where Assumptions Start to Fill the Gaps

In the absence of regulatory certainty, operators inevitable make assumptions in order to keep work moving forward. In most cases, planning and execution of work can be months (if not years) in the making. Assumptions are often practical responses to uncertainty rather than deliberate risk-taking. Common examples include assuming that delayed compliance dates allow certain requirements to be deprioritized, that proposed reconsiderations will result in material changes to current obligations, or that reporting, monitoring, and documentation expectations will effectively pause until final rules are issued. Finally, there is also an assumption that once clarity returns, there will be sufficient time and guidance to adjust course without consequence.

Over time, these assumptions begin the shape real decisions: whether testing or planning is initiated or deferred; how much effort is invested in documentation and internal tracking; and whether cross-functional alignment is pursued now or postponed. As assumptions persist, they can quietly harden into operating positions, embedded in budgets, internal guidance, and informal norms, making them more difficult to revisit later. Whether those assumptions ultimately prove accurate or not, decisions made in reliance on them can have lasting implications once regulatory certainty is realized.

How Assumptions Translate into Risk and What Helps Right Now

As assumptions persist, they begin to shape decisions in ways that may only become visible later. One example is further delaying planning for NHV testing based on the assumption that the requirement will ultimately be revised or eliminated. NHV testing is costly, requires specialized equipment, and involves meaningful lead time - factors that EPA itself cited when delaying compliance until June 2026. If the requirement remains in place and planning has been deferred entirely, operators may still struggle to meet the deadline despite having acted reasonably based on current assumptions.

This kind of friction rarely stems from a single technical choice. More often, it reflects assumptions that were never fully examined across legal, EHS, and operations, or decisions treated as temporary that quietly became embedded in planning and budgets. What helps in moments like this is not predicting the regulatory outcome, but making assumptions explicit, distinguishing reversible from irreversible decisions, and aligning internally on what signals would trigger action.

The Point Isn't to Guess Right

The goal in this moment is not to predict how the regulations will ultimately resolve. It is to ensure that decisions being made today, often in the absence of final answers, are intentional, defensible, and aligned internally. Regulatory clarity will come in time. When it does, the assumptions and decisions made along the way will already be part of the record.

I'm interested in how others are navigating these uncertainties and the choices they are making in the meantime.