Understanding India’s coal mine methane landscape

With increasing coal production targets, India’s coal mines are a growing source of potent methane emissions. A strong policy framework and clear implementation pathway would present a high-leverage opportunity to align the sector with climate goals while offsetting gas imports through methane capture and utilisation.

India is the second-largest coal producer and consumer globally, with production surpassing 1 billion tonnes in the fiscal year (FY) 2024-25, underscoring its dependence on coal for over half of its primary energy needs and more than 70% of electricity generation. Despite significant progress in renewable energy adoption, the consumption of coal is rising in the near term due to increasing energy demand even as its share in the energy mix is projected to decline. Reflecting this, by 2030, India aims to produce 1.5 billion tonnes of coal annually, including a plan to triple underground mining, potentially exceeding 100 million tonnes per year by FY2028-29. This expansion presents a major environmental challenge. Annual methane emissions from coal mining are projected to more than double from 2019 levels by the end of the decade, potentially exceeding 1.6 million tonnes of methane. Considering the short-term warming impact of methane is over 80 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2), these coal mine methane (CMM) emissions are equivalent to about 138 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). The scale of these emissions is comparable to the CO2 emissions from India’s heavy-duty transport vehicles (about 140 million tonnes) in 2021.

India is actively pursuing its climate commitments under “Panchamrit”, including achieving net zero emissions by 2070 and reducing emissions intensity by 45% by 2030. Yet the country lacks a dedicated national policy framework for CMM abatement.

The Indian energy landscape is heavily dependent on coal. It contributes nearly three-quarters to electricity generation. While the coal sector falls under the aegis of the Ministry of Coal (MoC), a complex web of regulatory bodies, both within and beyond MoC, shapes its governance. These institutions address diverse aspects of coal operations, often resulting in gaps, overlaps and delays in certain areas of execution.

1.1 India’s coal economy and energy reliance

India is one of the world’s largest producers of coal, with production surpassing 1.047 billion tonnes in the fiscal year (FY) 2024-25. It targets 1.5 billion tonnes by 2030 to meet the rising demand. Coal supplies over 70% of the country’s electricity generation. Thermal power, primarily coal-fired, has accounted for about 74% (1,363 billion units) of total power generation over the past decade. However, over the coming decades, the dominance of thermal power and coal is likely to diminish as renewable energy capacity and integration into the energy mix increase. This is reflected in future projections indicating the share of thermal power generation will fall to about 55% by 2030 and further decline to 27% by 2047.

Interestingly, despite the future shift towards renewables dominance, the Ministry of Coal forecasts that overall demand for coal will increase to about 1,462 million tonnes by 2030 and 1,755 million tonnes by 2047 to support the country’s energy requirements. Amid this growth, Ember’s analysis identifies a fundamental structural shift in the operational role of coal plants. Rather than providing a steady baseload, the coal plants will transition into a flexible balancing energy source required to achieve deep midday turndowns and fast ramp-ups in the evenings to accommodate variable renewable energy integration into the energy mix. Furthermore, modelling indicates that the costs of solar plus storage undercut the costs of coal-based power. This gap is likely to widen further as solar-plus-storage prices continue to drop, and Plant Load Factor (PLF) reducing between now and FY2031-32. As a result, the fixed costs of coal power will rise due to reduced utilisation. Therefore, suggesting building new thermal capacity beyond the National Electricity Plan (NEP) 2032 target of 35 gigawatts (GW) would lead to severe overcapacity and underutilisation, creating the risk of stranded assets.

1.2 National climate commitments

India’s climate strategy is driven by its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC). The country initially submitted its key commitments in 2015 and later updated with enhanced commitments termed “Panchamrit” to align with global climate targets at COP26 for 2022-2030. In March 2026, India updated its NDCs for the 2031-2035 period.

Although India’s per capita emissions are about a third of the global average, it ranks among the top emitters as a result of being the world’s most populous country. Therefore, the country believes its 2070 net zero emissions (NZE) target aligns with its long-term development goals while contributing to its climate efforts. Although its NZE target is 20 years more than that of developed nations, India argues that without adequate financial support and access to technical advancements, it will be challenging to commit to ambitious goals.

1.3 Importance of methane mitigation

Methane mitigation is a low-hanging opportunity and one of the most effective tools India can deploy to slow short-term global heating, and contribute to greenhouse gas reductions, aligning with its climate commitments. Below are some of the advantages of methane mitigation:

• High climate impact: Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with a global warming potential (GWP) of over 80 times higher than CO2 over a 20-year period. Although it remains in the atmosphere for a shorter time, methane is estimated to be responsible for 30% rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution. Converting methane’s GWP into CO2-equivalent allows comparison with emissions from other sectors, highlighting the scale of these emissions, making its reduction one of the fastest and most effective levers for slowing short-term temperature rise.
• Coal sector contributions: The Indian coal sector is a large source of methane emissions. In 2020, coal mine methane contributed to about 68% of total fugitive methane emissions from the fossil fuel sector. Therefore, implementing targeted coal mine methane mitigation methods, such as methane capture, pre-drainage and sealing of abandoned mine shafts, is important for aligning the sector with national climate goals and contributing to reducing its greenhouse gas intensity.
• Energy security and economic co-benefits: Captured methane serves as a valuable resource rather than a waste product. In sufficient quantities, it can be captured and used for power generation, integrated into local gas grids or substituted for imported gas, thereby contributing to India’s energy self-reliance and reducing foreign expenditure. Additionally, if the coal sector is included in the Carbon Credits Trading Scheme (CCTS), it can help unlock access to tradable credits and additional climate finance opportunities.
• Safety and environmental co-benefits: Beyond climate and energy benefits, methane abatement improves worker safety and reduces local air pollution and surface-level ozone.

1.4 Policy and regulatory status

A hierarchical network of regulatory bodies and a framework of laws, regulations and technical standards govern the Indian coal sector. These encompass licensing, safety, mine planning, environmental protection and specific rules on methane monitoring for mine safety.

Regulatory bodies and their core functions

The Ministry of Coal (MoC) has the overall responsibility of determining policies and strategies for the exploration and development of coal and lignite reserves and for approving important and high-value projects (usually about $55 million). MoC executes these key functions through its public sector undertakings, Coal India Limited (CIL) and Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL). Within the ministry, an implementation committee reviews major project proposals to ensure they align with India’s energy policies and climate objectives before sanctioning.

Key regulatory authorities governing coal mine methane

Coal mine methane regulation in India is primarily safety driven. The Directorate General of Mines Safety (DGMS) oversees regulations on safety and methane monitoring. These regulatory requirements lie within the environmental clearance processes administered by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). Technical expertise from Central Mine Planning & Design Institute (CMPDI) and monitoring and approvals by the Coal Controller’s Organisation (CCO) create an integrated approach that aligns mine safety, environmental protection and climate commitments.

The DGMS mandates routine methane monitoring and classifies underground mines into Degree-I, II and III based on methane emission rates. Degree-II and Degree-III mines face stringent safety controls, including mandatory methane drainage before mining commences, continuous methane monitoring, ventilation standards and emergency procedures to mitigate explosion risks.

DGMS must approve methane capture equipment and safety systems. The agency has the authority to halt operations if safety protocols are breached. The Mines Act, 1952, provides the legal basis for mine safety enforcement, empowering the DGMS to inspect mines and enforce methane-related safety measures to prevent explosions and protect miners.

The MoEFCC includes methane in fugitive emissions inventories and evaluates the GHG impacts of mining projects during environmental clearances. Although there is no standalone methane emission cap, methane management for miners’ operational safety forms part of compliance under the Environment Protection Act and related guidelines.

In order to receive mining approvals, production plans must outline a methane drainage and safety ventilation mechanism for underground mines during operations. Mine closure plans include a post-mine closure monitoring period, including air quality and other parameters, to mitigate effects on local communities. This post-mine closure monitoring period lasts two years for standard coal mines and three years for underground coal gasification (UGC) blocks after final mine closure, with approvals coordinated by CCO and MoC.

CMPDI acts as the nodal agency for commercial methane resource feasibility and provides technical and project-level oversight for CMM. The CMM/CBM Clearinghouse, established under the aegis of MoC and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), facilitates CMM information exchange and addresses barriers to design and supports the development of methane utilisation projects. The Clean Energy Department (CED) wing at CMPDI serves as the Principal Implementing Agency (PIA) for developing CBM projects within CIL subsidiaries, including Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL), Eastern Coalfield Limited (ECL) and South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL). CMPDI has delineated the Jharia CBM Block‑I (within the BCCL leasehold) and awarded it to a CBM developer for commercial exploitation. The project is currently in the exploration phase.

NITI Aayog is the primary policy think tank of the Government of India (GOI). It offers strategic guidance in shaping long-term policy directives on sustainable development by promoting energy diversification and aligning sectoral policies with national climate commitments. It helps coordinate R&D efforts and monitor the implementation of policies and initiatives.

Key institutional gaps and overlaps

The Indian coal sector faces several institutional coordination gaps that affect the effective management of CMM and overall coal mining governance. Some of these significant institutional coordination gaps are:

• Fragmented regulatory responsibilities: There is no single mandatory, cross-sectoral body coordinating CMM policy, standards or enforcement. The absence of a unified central authority for CMM causes inefficiencies and fragmented accountability.
• Limited data sharing and disjointed monitoring: DGMS separately collects methane and safety data. However, the absence of an integrated real-time methane monitoring system, standardised reporting framework and data-sharing platform hampers accurate and transparent inventory management. Although NITI Aayog and the Ministry of Coal set strategic direction, poor coordination among implementing agencies leads to inconsistent monitoring and enforcement resulting in weak methane mitigation efforts and responsive regulatory action.
• Procedural overlaps: Mine safety mandates from DGMS and environmental approvals from MoEFCC, Central and State Pollution control boards (CPCB/SPCB) often follow different procedures and timelines. These include equipment certification, mine-opening permissions and environmental clearances. This misalignment creates procedural overlaps and sequencing problems when approvals require signoffs in a particular order that need both safety certification and environmental permits to proceed, leading to delays.

1.5 International frameworks

India has not signed the Global Methane Pledge, but it actively participates in the Global Methane Initiative (GMI) and UNECE’s Group of Experts. This participation includes adopting best-practice guidelines, capacity-building and attending international workshops with an aim to improve monitoring, reporting and mitigation. However, collaborations with these international organisations have yielded only a pilot project and pre-feasibility studies. UNECE’s guidance documents on CMM management, covering MRV, VAM, methane drainage and utilisation and abandoned mines, are widely recognised benchmarks developed in partnership with GMI.

Additionally, India serves as Vice Chair of the GMI Steering Committee, thereby deepening its engagement in global methane reduction initiatives. GMI collaborates with CMPDI and the MoC to promote technical support, capacity building and knowledge exchange for CMM mitigation projects.

Furthermore, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has maintained a memorandum of understanding with India since 2006 through its Coalbed Methane Outreach Program (CMOP). This provides technical assistance, feasibility studies and financing guidance, especially in support of the CMPDI-led CMM Clearinghouse. Collectively, these partnerships have played a significant role in India’s understanding of international best practices to advance CMM abatement.

India mines coal from both surface and underground. Underground mines account for 40% of coal mines but contribute to about 3.5% of production. Despite this low output, they generate about 15% of methane emissions, highlighting their disproportionate climate impact. The majority of Indian coal is bituminous, primarily sourced from the Gondwana coal fields of central and eastern India.

2.1 Types of Indian coal mines

India’s coal mining sector comprises operations across surface, underground and mixed mines. According to the MoC, 408 coal mines were active in 2024. Of these 229 were surface mines, which accounted for the majority of production, 165 underground mines and 14 mixed mines contributed to the overall output.

Underground mines produce about 3.5% of India’s coal, as the majority of reserves are shallow to near-surface. Surface mining has lower production costs per tonne and supports large‑scale operations with larger and more efficient machinery, enabling rapid and high‑volume production. On the contrary, underground mining requires higher capital investment, specialised equipment, a skilled workforce and the setting up of complex ventilation and safety systems. This cost-to-capacity dynamic has driven policy and investment toward surface mining to meet rapidly growing domestic demand at a lower unit cost per tonne of coal produced. However, it is worth noting that India plans to scale up underground coal production by 2029, with a target of 100 million tonnes (Mt), nearly three times the FY 2023-24 production, to boost overall domestic output.

Captive mines produce coal exclusively for the mine owner’s own industrial use, like steel, cement and power plants. Ideally, captive miners do not sell coal on the open market except in limited quantities under regulated conditions. These mines have been a part of India’s mining landscape for about three decades. In contrast, India opened commercial coal mining to private companies through auctions in 2020. While captive allocations continue under a separate system, commercial mines are developed to produce coal for sale on the market to third parties and operate under the same auction, licensing and regulatory framework as CIL.

Of the 61 producing captive and commercial mines, 38 are allocated to the power sector, 11 cater to the non-regulated sector and 12 are designated for open market sale. Combined, these mines contribute about 20% of the country’s coal output.

2.2 Geographical distribution of reserves

India’s coal reserves come from two distinct geological formations, the Gondwana and Tertiary coals. The Gondwana coalfields are largely in the country’s eastern and central regions and account for a majority of India’s coal reserves and are rich in both coking and non-coking coal. Jharkhand, Odisha and Chhattisgarh dominate India’s coal mining landscape due to the extensive Gondwana coal deposits in the region. Coalfields in this region, such as Jharia, Talcher and Korba, have historically fuelled steel production, electricity generation and the development of heavy industries, contributing significantly to the Indian economy.

• Jharkhand ranks first with 28.22% of proved reserves. It also contains the Jharia coalfield, known for high-grade coking coal. Interestingly, Jharkhand produced over 99% of India’s coking coal in 2024-25. The Moonidih underground mine, the site of the first CMM pilot study, is located in the Jharia coalfield.
• Odisha holds 25.34% of reserves, primarily in the Talcher and Ib Valley coalfields, which support power generation and are central to India’s coal gasification ambitions.
• Chhattisgarh contributes 19.18% of the country’s reserves, featuring the Korba, Hasdeo-Arand and Mand-Raigarh coalfields. Korba is often referred to as the “Power Capital of India”.

2.3 Emerging priorities for domestic coal expansion

India’s energy demand is growing rapidly. According to the National Electricity Policy, coal-based power generation is projected to increase to 260 GW by 2031. In response, the Ministry of Coal has outlined plans to increase domestic coal production “in order to meet the peak energy demand.”

• Production targets: India surpassed 1 billion tonnes of coal production for the first time in FY2024-25, reflecting the country’s push to scale domestic coal production to 1.5 billion tonnes by the end of the decade. Rising energy demand and strategic intent to reduce non-essential coal imports is expected to drive this expansion.
• Underground mining expansion: MoC aims to triple underground mining, potentially exceeding 100 million tonnes of production per year by 2028. Achieving this requires annual production growth from underground mines of over 20%.
• Mission Coking Coal: Launched in 2021, this mission aims to reduce dependence on imports by increasing domestic coking coal production to about 140 million tonnes per year by 2030. However, domestic coking coal has high ash content (18-49%), making it unsuitable for direct use in blast furnaces. It requires washing to reduce ash content to below 18% and blending with imported coal, which has an ash content of less than 9%, to use in blast furnaces. CIL plans to add eight more washeries by 2030 to support this initiative. However, due to increasing demand from the steel sector, coking coal imports have remained stable between 56-59 million tonnes over the last four years.
• Mine utilisation through revenue sharing model: CIL has identified 34 discontinued mines to offer to private companies under a revenue-sharing model to boost output. For this, Mine Developers cum Operators (MDOs) are also being engaged by CIL through open tenders to handle operations and dispatch as contractors rather than as leaseholders. MDOs receive a fixed fee per tonne of coal produced.

India reports its coal mine methane emissions using a mix of Tier-2 and hybrid Tier-2 & Tier-3 models in accordance with IPCC guidelines. Without intervention, emissions are projected to double by the end of the decade from 2019 levels, highlighting the importance of abatement.

3.1 Coal mine methane categorisation and emission reporting standards

India’s officially reported fugitive methane emissions are estimated using a bottom-up approach based on annual coal production and the country-specific emission factors. Emission factors for surface mining and underground mining for different degrees of gassiness are evaluated based on field measurement. The Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR) measured emissions from 16 surface and 83 underground mines from various basins. These active measurements were used to develop basin-level emission factors across each basin. These multiple basin-level emission factors were further weighted to derive national-level emission factors for each mine type.

The DGMS classifies underground mines into Degree-I, II and III based on methane released per tonne of coal produced. The classification determines the mandatory safety protocols required in underground mines as per DGMS mine safety guidelines. These include standards for ventilation systems, the frequency of methane monitoring, requirements for pre-mine drainage and the certification of equipment.

3.1.1 Country-specific emission factors and associated emissions

The emission factors (EF) for underground operations are derived from ventilation air methane monitoring as per tonne of coal produced. Appropriate EFs are attributed to underground mines based on methane emission rates. For surface mines, direct flux measurements over the exposed coal surface provide the EFs. Since surface mines are not classified by gassiness in the same way as underground mines, the average surface mine emission factor from Singh and Mallick (2015) is typically applied in national estimates where mine‑specific flux data is not available. Generally, underground coal mine methane emissions are disproportionately high compared to surface mines, as greater depth, pressure and temperature influence the methane gas content of coal seams.

India’s CMM emissions reporting to the UNFCCC under the Paris Agreement is the only officially available dataset. The latest Biennial Update Report (BUR-4) provides a breakdown of coal production by surface and the three degrees of underground mines from 2017 to 2020. The corresponding emissions for each mine type were calculated using the reported methane emission factors.

3.2 Historical emissions and forecasted trajectory

The official reported data submitted to the UNFCCC (BUR-4) tracks fugitive emissions from surface and underground mines.

Reported coal mine methane emissions in India remained relatively stable over the last decade. This is primarily because surface mines dominated coal production, emitting less methane per tonne of coal produced than higher methane-intensity underground mines. During this period, underground mines saw their share of total coal production decline. Consequently, the methane emissions remained relatively stable throughout the decade. India reported 796 kilotonnes (Kt) of coal mine methane in 2020 in its latest submission to UNFCCC, indicating a slight decline from 810 Kt in 2019, reflecting the impact on demand due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

• Growth Drivers: Since 2020, there has been a major uptick in the country’s strategy on domestic coal production. The MoC plans to increase local production to 1.5 billion tonnes per annum by the end of the decade. To contribute to this target, India aims to triple underground mining, potentially exceeding 100 Mt per year by 2028.
• Unabated Projections: In the absence of abatement measures, projections based on India’s national inventory methodology indicate that annual methane emissions from coal mines could more than double by the end of the decade, potentially exceeding 1.6 Mt. Between now and 2030, India’s coal mines could have cumulative emissions of around 10 Mt without any abatement.
• Alternatively, several independent studies from Global Methane Initiative (GMI), Global Energy Monitor (GEM) and IEA have shown varying emissions of 894 Kt, 1,023.8 Kt and 2,759 Kt, respectively, with IEA 2022 estimated emissions being more than thrice the 2019 official reported emissions of 810 Kt methane in line with IPCC guidelines.
• Abandoned Mine Methane (AMM): India does not include AMM in its official emissions reporting to UNFCCC, stating, “Due to a very few abandoned coal mines in India, abandonment done many years back, and very low production when the mines were active, the contribution of methane from these is considered insignificant and not estimated.” With 147 coal mines identified for closure by 2028, AMM measurement and reporting will be important for assessing emissions and integrating them into the national emissions inventory, irrespective of the emissions quantity. Making this data publicly available will improve accountability and provide pathways to develop tailored solutions to address fugitive methane from these mines.
• Climate impact and CO₂-equivalent footprint: Ember’s study highlights that India’s coal mine methane emissions are projected to reach over 1.6 million tonnes annually by 2029. Due to methane’s short atmospheric lifespan and its significantly higher global warming potential relative to CO2, the short-term warming impact of these emissions over a 20-year period could be about 138 MtCO2e. The scale of these fugitive emissions becomes clear when compared to India’s heavy-duty transport vehicles (freight trucks and buses), which represented half of India’s transport sector emissions in 2021, emitting around 140 MtCO2e.

Although India reports its coal mine methane emissions to UNFCCC, it can improve by using international best practices in monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) as a guide to enhance measurement, data transparency and address emissions monitoring and reporting gaps.

4.1 Current Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) standards

India reports CMM emissions to the UNFCCC through its national communications using a combination of Tier 2 and Tier 3 methods.

• Tier 2: Uses country-specific activity data and emission factors derived from national surveys.
• Tier 2 – Tier 3 Hybrid: Involves high-resolution measurements within coal mines. CIMFR developed bottom-up inventories across basins to create a cluster of emissions factors. These data points are weighted to produce a single country-specific EF by mine type (surface, Degree-I, II and III underground mines) and reported to the UNFCCC through its national communications.

4.2 Gaps in measurement and transparency

Several limitations hamper the effectiveness of MRV. These are:

• Lack of publicly accessible data: The underlying mine-level measurements and the raw datasets used to create the national emission factors are not publicly available. This restricts independent verification and the ability to trace emissions hotspots.
• Data fragmentation: Fragmentation of methane data across various state agencies, companies and regulatory bodies (such as DGMS and MoEFCC), hindering usability and integrated monitoring.
• Inaccurate estimates: Significant variation in gas content within a single coal basin can lead to inaccurate estimates depending on the methodology used.
• Satellite limitations: While satellite observations can detect super-emitting coal mines and support verification, they may provide skewed measurements of spatially dispersed emissions (common in surface mines). Furthermore, given the high temporal variability of emissions from coal mines, extrapolation of short-term measurements to annual emissions is not always reliable. Effective MRV requires validating bottom-up on-the-ground emissions with top-down satellite or aerial measurements to provide accurate verified emissions data.

4.3 International best practices in MRV

A robust national MRV framework must be built on standardised, comparable methodologies and access to accurate, facility-level data, aligning with IPCC Tier-3 methodology. India can benefit by adopting elements of MRV programmes from those in the US, the European Union (EU) and Australia, as their models prioritise reliable, measured data collection and accessibility for effective policy design.

EU Methane Regulation (monitoring, ban on venting and methane emission threshold): The EU Methane Emissions Regulation provides effective and replicable measures for coal mine methane reporting and abatement. It mandates continuous reporting from underground mines, setting progressive methane emission thresholds (> 5 t methane (CH4)/Kt coal produced by 2027, further tightening to > 3 t CH4/Kt of coal by 2031) as well as banning all methane venting from drainage stations. Additionally, it requires all member states to submit a detailed inventory of all abandoned underground mines with systematic emissions measurement, reporting and mitigation. Combined, the EU Methane Regulation provides a framework for accountability, transparency and phased emissions reductions.

USA GHGRP (setting reporting scope): The US Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program requires underground mines to report mine-level methane emissions when they exceed the set threshold of 25 Kt CO2e. The programme also mandates facilities to document periodic measurements (quarterly methane ventilation system concentrations and weekly degasification monitoring) as well as total methane emitted, destroyed and net emissions, with a strict quality control of monitoring equipment and thorough recordkeeping. All the reported data are made transparent.

Australia NGER (data quality and mitigation integration): The Australian National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) is a national framework for facility-level reporting, recordkeeping and data accessibility similar to the USGHGRP. Based on the size of emissions, the NGER scheme mandates four methods of measurement, creating a data foundation that enables policy tools like the Safeguard Mechanism.

The Safeguard Mechanism requires high-GHG-emitting facilities to maintain emissions within a 100 Kt CO2e baseline. The facilities must offset emissions exceeding the baseline. If emissions are within the set baseline, they can use the savings to generate tradable Safeguard Mechanism Credits (SMCs), providing a market-based incentive for operators to reduce emissions. Combined, these initiatives effectively turn MRV data into an actionable compliance tool. Up to 2030, these emissions baselines will decline by 4.9% per year and may be subject to a revised decline rate beyond 2030 to align the emissions-intensive sectors with its climate targets.

While India currently mandates periodic measurements in Degree-II and III underground mines for safety purposes, it lacks a robust MRV framework. These established international frameworks offer India a practical starting point for implementing mine-level reporting, beginning with higher-emitting Degree-II and III underground mines to ensure strategic resource allocation. Such a framework would enable efficient Tier-3-level quantification by regulating methane monitoring, maintaining standardised data records and requiring regular equipment calibration. By implementing these mandates, ensuring data transparency while protecting commercially sensitive information and incentivising compliance, India can create a data-driven foundation for well-informed methane abatement initiatives.

Although several feasibility assessments have been conducted in Indian underground coal mines, no active CMM mitigation projects are operational, despite research indicating the feasibility of mitigation projects in operating coal fields using existing technologies.

5.1 Pre-feasibility studies and pilot projects

International organisations funded most of the feasibility and pilot studies on CMM abatement in India. Of these, only the Moonidih underground coal mine in the Jharia Coalfield has been extensively studied, leading to a pilot project to prove the technical feasibility of methane extraction. Following the pilot study, preliminary assessments over the last decade have identified several mines for CMM recovery potential at first glance. However, pre-feasibility studies were undertaken at three underground mines (Pootkie, Sawang and Chinakauri) and are well documented. Interestingly, no commercial CMM mitigation projects have been taken up since the pilot and pre-feasibility studies due to the lack of policy initiatives and mechanisms to incentivise mitigation projects.

5.2 Research for broader adoption of mitigation measures

• CIMFR: It is the designated institute for methane emission measurements from coal mines and has measured emissions across 16 surface and 83 underground mines to develop the national emission factors. Using core-hole sampling and ventilation monitoring, these measurements, categorised as Tier-2 & Tier-3 hybrid measurements, form the basis of India’s official coal mine methane emissions reporting to the UNFCCC.
• Academic Studies: Several studies by researchers Ajay K. Singh and Jaywardhan Kumar have indicated potential for profitable mitigation projects in several existing and expanding coal fields, including Raniganj, Jharia and East Bokaro. Satellite studies indicate that satellite observations can be highly effective at monitoring methane emissions due to India’s mid-latitude location, which is suitable for better data quality and density compared to high-latitude and tropical countries. Additionally, Ember’s study highlights that satellite observations can monitor about 73% of India’s coal production all year round.
• International Guidance: The IEA provides international mitigation examples, and USEPA toolkits offer practical guidance on emissions measurement, VAM and CMM project implementation using international case studies, as well as good accounting practices for compliance feasibility for carbon finance.

Collectively, these studies lower technical barriers to methane monitoring and mitigation by offering clear guidance to strengthen MRV, practical mitigation approaches in gassy coal mines and making a coordinated national rollout of CMM abatement technically feasible.

The magnitude of coal mine methane emissions has a notable climate footprint. Abatement can contribute to financial savings, which would require addressing some barriers to progress and streamlining abatement project approvals.

6.1 Climate and environmental impacts

The lack of CMM abatement poses a significant climate threat, potentially undermining decarbonisation efforts in other sectors.

• CMM equivalent footprint: To put the coal mine methane emissions in context, Ember’s projected increase in annual CMM emissions to 1.6 million tonnes by 2029 could have a short-term warming impact (over 20 years) of about 138 MtCO2e. This projected fugitive emission footprint is comparable to the total CO2 emissions from all of India’s heavy-duty transport vehicles in 2021.
• Local environmental benefits: Methane abatement reduces local air pollution and surface-level ozone. As methane reacts with atmospheric oxidants to form ground-level ozone, which worsens respiratory and cardiovascular health, deteriorates plant health and lowers crop yields. As methane is a short-lived pollutant, reducing it can have tangible benefits for human and crop health.

6.2 Economic impacts and energy security gains

CMM capture and utilisation represent a crucial opportunity to enhance energy security and reduce import dependency.

• Import savings: India spent over $13.3 billion importing close to 31 billion cubic metres of gas in FY2023-24.
• Conservative savings estimate: Ember’s moderate mitigation scenario highlights that over 1,600 Kt of coal mine methane could be captured cumulatively by 2030. Utilising this methane for electricity generation could save up to $980 million by offsetting imported gas, based on 2023 gas prices. The projected mitigation pathway could cumulatively reduce methane emissions equivalent to more than 44.5 MtCO2e.

• Maximum savings scenario: If the higher IEA estimates of CMM mitigation capacity were fully realised and utilised, it could replace close to 1.5 billion cubic metres of imported gas saving $220 million, based on 2023 gas prices. The potential annual savings could rise well over $1 billion by the end of the decade.

6.3 Barriers for widespread methane abatement

The factors preventing commercial-scale projects in India are primarily institutional and financial.

• Regulatory vacuum: The absence of a legal and regulatory framework governing CMM in India remains a significant barrier to accurate fugitive methane quantification and reporting and providing pathways for project implementation.
• Fragmented mandates: Responsibility for CMM policy, standards and enforcement is scattered across multiple ministries and agencies, with no single mandatory, cross-sectoral coordinating body.
• Lack of incentives: The absence of a clear incentive structure and lack of interest in capital-intensive abatement operations have prevented commercial-scale projects.
• Abandoned mine uncertainty: Many mines are abandoned or discontinued but not formally closed, creating uncertainties regarding long-term emissions. Current contributions of AMM are considered negligible. However, there is no ground-based measurement data that is publicly accessible to confirm this. In practice, scientific mine closures and post-mine-closure monitoring have been slow to advance.

The latest Mine Plan Guidelines for coal and lignite mandates a two-year post-closure monitoring period covering air and water quality and subsidence to mitigate effects on “nearby communities”. However, methane is not explicitly mentioned and seems to fall under “air quality”, which does create ambiguity, leaving methane emissions from closed and abandoned mines without a clear and dedicated monitoring obligation. Therefore, revamped regulations on AMM measurement and mitigation could stimulate proactive methane monitoring and abatement measures where required.

• Lack of operational abatement projects: Despite showcasing proven technical feasibility at the Moonidih underground mine, no commercial-scale methane capture or utilisation projects have been implemented. This is because of issues such as limitations for deep and/or in-seam drilling in the coal industry, prioritising mining over methane extraction, data gaps and absence of regulatory guidance.
• Infrastructure and demand constraints: Limited pipeline infrastructure and market demand for CMM remained constraints. However, projects such as the Jagdishpur-Haldia gas pipeline (proximity to major eastern coalfields) offer hope in the future.

India has an opportunity to achieve tangible methane abatement by introducing a strong regulatory framework, adopting proven measurement and mitigation technologies and creating channels to integrate finance into decarbonisation strategies.

7.1 Policy and institutional reforms

A clear legal and institutional framework is required to move CMM regulation beyond just safety‑driven rules and align it with international best practice. Key elements should include:

• Adopting international MRV guidance: Drawing on the EU Methane Regulation and established MRV mandates from leading coal-producing countries, India should formulate a national MRV framework that reflects global best practices and ensures effective policy formulation.
• National CMM strategy: Establish a legally backed policy that defines roles, responsibilities and a coherent measurement, transparent reporting and abatement framework for CMM.
• Expand the scope of the CMM Clearinghouse: Transform the clearinghouse into a dedicated regulatory body under the Ministry of Coal to serve as a single-window clearance authority (in coordination with DGMS and MoEFCC) for project permissions, develop guidelines to standardise MRV, compliance pathways, investigate violations and impose penalties as required.
• Accountability: Ensure a clear framework regarding methane ownership and utilisation rights for CMM is established, as it differs from the definition of coal bed methane (CBM), but more often than not, they are treated as one. Officially, CBM is treated as an unconventional hydrocarbon, and its commercial development falls under the purview of the Director General of Hydrocarbons (DGH).

Together, these measures will standardise practice, improve transparency and accelerate deployment of CMM mitigation.

7.2 Enhancing MRV

Addressing CMM effectively requires a robust framework built on enhanced measurement to improve accuracy, transparent reporting and verification and clear accountability. Such a framework should align with global best practices and provide a structured pathway for well-planned mitigation measures.

• Tiered Measurement Strategy: Adopt a scalable approach starting with production data, emission factors and subsequently introducing Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) for detailed Tier-3 facility-level measurements for the largest emitting mines (beginning with Degree-II and III underground mines).
• Transparency and Audits: Develop national-level standardised reporting mandates that require quality control through independent verification and on-site audits. Audited data on methane concentrations and emitting events should be published on public domains.

7.3 Technology pathways and infrastructure enablers for wider adoption by operators

CMM mitigation offers a range of proven technology pathways. The applications can vary depending on methane concentrations and site conditions. Some of the important technical mitigation pathways available are:

• Pre-mine drainage: This method should be prioritised in virgin seams as it is the most effective and preferred way to produce higher-quality methane suitable for power generation, while significantly enhancing mine safety. This requires planning well in advance (months to years).
• Post-mine drainage: In actively mined seams, post-mining drainage captures lower concentrations of methane from the goaf area.
• VAM mitigation and utilisation: For low concentrations, Ventilation Air Methane (VAM) can be concentrated or destroyed using Regenerative Thermal Oxidisers (RTO). Medium to high concentrations of VAM can be used on-site or near the mine to generate electricity for consumption in mines or nearby townships, as demonstrated in the Moonidih Pilot.
• Flaring: Enclosed flaring should only be used when concentrations or economics do not support utilisation, as it converts methane (GWP 80-84) to CO2 (GWP 1), reducing immediate climate impact significantly.
• Infrastructure upgrade: For future high-concentration gas extraction intended for the grid injection (such as the Jagdishpur-Haldia pipeline), the gas can be upgraded using gas treatment equipment (separators, filters, concentrators and compressors) to meet pipeline injection specifications.

7.4 Financial and incentive mechanisms

Financial support is essential to de‑risk projects and accelerate the wider adoption of CMM projects. Some important measures that can stimulate adoption include:

• Viability Gap Fund (VGF): Extend the VGF scheme, currently used for coal gasification projects, to include CMM capture and utilisation projects. VGF would provide capital grants that could assist with equipment, installation and operation costs improving financial viability of projects.
• Carbon Credits Trading Scheme (CCTS): Inclusion of the coal sector in future iterations of the CCTS would be highly beneficial. CCTS would mandate emissions tracking, set reduction targets and create financial incentives by generating credits for mines that mitigate emissions below their quotas, providing an additional revenue stream.
• ESG/CSR leverage: Mandate the inclusion of methane mitigation as a measurable Key Performance Indicator (KPI) under GHG emissions control within CIL’s Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reports (BRSR) and ESG reports. This alignment with SEBI’s BRSR framework, Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) global reporting standards can attract climate finance.
• Revenue sharing: Provide revenue-sharing incentives (as percentage rebates) for commercial mining blocks that implement CMM mitigation, similar to incentives offered for coal gasification.

India stands at a critical juncture. The decisions made this decade on CMM will determine whether the country’s energy expansion and transition come at an avoidable climate cost or become a responsible resource development. The technological tools are available, the regulatory and financial mechanisms required for effective abatement policies are presented. What remains is the political and institutional will to deploy them.

8.1 Strategic importance of addressing CMM for India’s energy and climate future

With the growing demand for energy in the country, India’s target of mining 1.5 billion tonnes annually by the end of the decade and beyond has the potential to double methane emissions from 810 kilotonnes in 2019 to beyond 1.6 million tonnes annually by 2030. Therefore, mitigating methane from coal mines is a high‑leverage, low-hanging opportunity for India. It contributes to India’s GHG emissions reduction goals, adds to the domestic gas supply reducing LNG imports, thus saving foreign reserves and enhancing mine safety. To tap into these benefits, India should introduce a well‑defined national policy focused on mitigation through capture, utilisation or destruction. The policy would guide all stakeholders with standardised MRV rules and improve data transparency. It will also accelerate mainstream mitigation projects by enabling access to finance via government incentives, blended finance and loans. Additionally, including the coal sector in the CCTS, providing funds for CMM projects under the Viability Gap Funding (VGF) and encouraging the industry to move towards low‑carbon technologies can help address fugitive methane effectively.

Coal India Limited, through its Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report (BRSR) acknowledges the importance of reducing GHG emissions and commits to implementing modern technologies to mitigate them effectively. They report on CO2 emissions reduction through energy efficiency measures and solar power initiatives. However, no projects related to methane mitigation from upstream mining and handling activities exist or are planned. Implementing abatement projects, starting with Degree-II and III underground mines will reduce the organisation’s Scope-1 emissions and contribute to its green initiatives, boosting investor sentiment.

8.2 Call to action for government, industry and international partners

The Government of India must prioritise a national strategy for CMM abatement by integrating methane capture into its climate and energy policies. This entails mandating methane monitoring across coal mines, verified quantification, incentivising abatement and designing a single regulatory body to enable streamlined inter-ministerial coordination. These steps will form a strong foundation to scale coal mine methane mitigation projects.

The state, commercial and captive coal companies must take initiatives to collaborate with technology providers and researchers focused on abatement and adopt best practices in MRV, data transparency and methane capture. Aligning with the proposed national framework will not only help operators reduce fugitive emissions but also unlock additional revenue streams through savings from energy offsets, access to carbon markets, and climate finance. This will also benefit companies to align with global ESG standards.

International organisations such as the UNECE and Global Methane Initiative (GMI) can play a catalytic role in accelerating India’s coal mine methane abatement efforts by offering technical expertise, policy guidance and access to climate finance. Facilitating knowledge exchange and capacity-building programmes will empower Indian stakeholders to adopt proven and effective mitigation strategies.

This integrated approach, bringing together policymakers, industry and partners, will position India to effectively address its CMM problem and contribute to its climate goals. Without planned intervention, methane emissions from India’s coal sector are bound to increase. This is not an inevitable consequence of energy demand and growth, but a policy choice. The regulatory instruments, financing mechanisms and technological tools required to address CMM are well understood and proven in other major coal economies, and their adoption is now a matter of political will.

Supporting materials

Downloads

Acknowledgement

Contributors

Ember: Nishant Bharadwaj, Dody Setiawan, Sabina Assan, Reynaldo Dizon, Hannah Broadbent, Tito Das, Taiki Asato and Ardhi Arsala Rahmani.

We thank our external reviewers Kushal Tibrewal and Rohit Vakkalagadda

Cover image

An aerial photograph capturing the scale of a coal mine in Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India, highlighting the rugged terrain and ongoing mining operations.

Credit: Vikash Singh / Pexels