Kendall Henry

Associate Editor

Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2027

Amid a plethora of changes in the past eleven months, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to virtually end the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), one of their most significant tools for tracking industrial emissions. The GHGRP, 40 C.F.R. Part 98, requires industrial facilities and other major emission sources to track and report their greenhouse emissions to the EPA annually. However, under the new proposal, the reporting requirement would be halted for 46 of the 47 categories, allowing large sources across numerous industries to operate without any federal emissions reporting oversight. The potential end of the GHGRP presents numerous issues.

What is the GHGRP?

Under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), Congress directed the EPA to develop a rule requiring a greenhouse gas emissions reporting system. Facilities with direct emissions sources of 25,000 or more metric tons of carbon dioxide – or its equivalents per year –fuel and industrial gas suppliers, and facilities with underground carbon dioxide injection wells are required to report. Covered facilities must comply with the GHGRP regulations by reporting “(1) combustion emissions resulting from burning fossil fuels (such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) or biomass and (2) emissions from industrial processes.” These reports then become data used to identify pollution problems, improve energy efficiency, and address climate change. In addition to submitting annual reports, source facility owners must also keep records for at least three years to remain compliant.

Since its inception, the GHGRP has collected and published data from over 8,000 facilities and estimates that close to 11,000 facilities will report in 2025. This number reports on 85%-90% of greenhouse gas emissions in the US. The data has been instrumental in state policy development and monitoring business emissions performance and compliance with international regulations.

The proposal

The EPA’s proposal comes under the guise that the GHGRP is costly and burdensome. From a compliance standpoint, the EPA argues there is no statutory requirement that it collect greenhouse gas emission data for non-petroleum and natural gas sources. Specifically, the EPA requires only continuous greenhouse gas reporting when it is connected to a statutory goal, and alternatively, the CAA grants only discretionary authority, making the GHGRP “unnecessary.” Lee Zeldin, the EPA’s Administrator, has taken the position that ridding the GHGRP will release a regulatory burden and remain within EPA’s statutory obligations.

However, this proposal closely follows the repeal of the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding, which held that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare; it also follows the recent attempt to cancel the ENERGY STAR program, which labels energy-efficient products. All appear motivated by Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity through Deregulation,” signaling an effort to dismantle the regulatory framework built over the past decade to address climate change.

If finalized, almost all greenhouse gas source categories would be relieved of the reporting requirement in 2025 and beyond. The natural gas sector remains the sole exception, subject to Waste Emissions Charge (WEC) reporting requirements through 2034, as mandated by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Additionally, the EPA estimates  it would save $303 million per year in regulatory costs over the next 10 years, totaling $2-2.4 billion under the proposal’s effects.

The drawbacks

The GHGRP is more than just a compliance tool. It is the foundation for essential climate and energy policy in the U.S. The GHGRP’s proposed cancellation is a very literal contradiction of the very purpose of its promulgation. Eliminating the reporting requirements raises significant policy and competition issues, as well as obvious environmental drawbacks.

States and cities rely on the GHGRP data to develop policy. Without the data provided from the federal level, the burden then falls on the states and city communities to identify and regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Some states are pushing back. California’s Attorney General, Rob Bonta, leads a coalition of multiple attorney generals, including the Chief Legal Office of the City of Chicago, in a joint comment letter stating that the recession of the GHGRP is unlawful and has multiple jeopardizing effects. If the GHGRP is ended as proposed, competition may also suffer. American businesses no longer possess the data to show industries or global trading partners are operating cleaner. For example, the GHRGP requirement helps U.S. companies comply with the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). CBAM is essentially a tax on goods that emit greenhouse gases during production. Thus, reconsideration of the GHGRP would eliminate critical federal emissions data essential for CBAM compliance, leading to higher carbon border taxes and diminishing U.S. competitiveness.

The lack of GHGRP federal oversight does not eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. It would only eliminate visibility and subsequent ability to protect the planet. It is well established that greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global warming, extreme weather, and natural disasters. Moreover, greenhouse gas exposure can lead to multiple health issues. The bottom line is that ending a compliance requirement for the most extensive inventory of greenhouse gas data is harmful in more ways than one.