Proposed Repeal Of GHG Reporting Program Sparks Debate

On September 12, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to narrow the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) significantly,¹ citing Executive Orders aimed at deregulation.² The Proposal would eliminate most GHGRP reporting requirements, leaving only those for petroleum and natural gas operations under Subpart W, which would be delayed until 2034.³ Notably, the natural gas distribution sector would be exempt in its entirety.⁴

This move marks a major reduction of a program established over 15 years ago. The Proposal drew over 53,000 comments from diverse stakeholders, including industry, environmental groups, state officials, tribes, and the public. Environmental organizations opposed the rollback, emphasizing the GHGRP's role in climate policy, transparency, and federal incentives.⁵ They argued EPA's authority under section 114(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) supports maintaining the program, warning that its removal could hinder climate risk assessment and disproportionately harm vulnerable communities.⁶

Industry feedback was mixed. Many acknowledged the GHGRP's benefits for emissions management, investor disclosures, and global market compliance, while criticizing EPA claims of cost savings.⁷ Industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, argued that the costs of rescinding—such as disruption of ongoing projects and investments—far outweigh the purported savings.⁸ Some supported EPA's narrower interpretation of its Clean Air Act authority and suggested a targeted⁹ or voluntary¹⁰ approach instead.

If finalized, the rule would take effect 60 days after publication. Given the significant public concern, legal challenges are likely, especially in light of recent court rulings emphasizing independent interpretation of EPA's authority under the CAA.¹¹ The outcome remains uncertain, with potential implications for federal and state climate programs that rely on GHGRP data.¹²

Footnotes

1 See U.S. EPA, "Reconsideration of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program," 90 FR 44591 (Sept. 16, 2025), Dkt. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-0186 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 98) (the Proposal).

2 Executive Order 14154, "Unleashing American Energy" (Jan. 20, 2025); Executive Order 14192, "Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation" (Jan. 31, 2025).

3 See 90 FR at 44596 (information collection must have a "closer nexus" to an underlying statutory purpose), 44599 (rescinding GHGRP would save regulated entities approximately $303 million per year between 2025 and 2033).

4 See id. at 44601-02.

5 See e.g.,Env. Defense Fund Comment on Proposal (Nov. 3, 2025), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0186-0327 (arguing GHGRP data is crucial for policymakers, stakeholders, and the public to understand how domestic GHG emissions contribute to climate change and how to address those emissions through legislation, regulation, and other efforts); Ctr. for Biological Diversity Comment on Proposal (Nov. 3, 2025), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0186-0307 (asserting that rescinding or narrowing the GHGRP "would undermine transparency, create data gaps, and hinder both state and federal policymakers' ability to develop cost-effective, evidence-based pollution control strategy").

6 See e.g., Env. Defense Fund Comment (asserting Congress directed EPA to implement the GHGRP in Appropriations Acts of 2008 and 2009 and reaffirmed EPA's statutory authority in the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act and the Inflation Reduction Act); Ctr. for Biological Diversity Comment (arguing information collected pursuant to CAA §114(a)(1) only needs to be "reasonably related" to the purposes of the CAA); Nat. Tribal Air Ass'n Comment on Proposal (Oct. 24, 2025), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0186-0244 (asserting GHGRP repeal will impair the ability to protect Tribes, which are "particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change").

7 See e.g.,Exxon Mobil Corp. Comment on Proposal (Nov. 3, 2025), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0186-0847.

8 See U.S. Chamber of Commerce, et al. Comment on Proposal (Nov. 3, 2025), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0186-0852 (claiming shortcomings in EPA's cost analysis like "sunk costs or stranded investments," tax credit-related eligibility, and reduced competitiveness); see also U.S. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Kevin Cramer Bipartisan Comment on Proposal (Nov. 3, 2025), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0186-0830 (arguing the proposed "capital jeopardized by EPA's actions" far exceeds $100 billion).

9 See e.g., U.S. Chamber of Commerce, et al. Comment.

10 See e.g.,Business Roundtable Comment on Proposed Rule (Nov. 3, 2025), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0186-0452; Shell USA Comment on Proposal (Nov. 3, 2025), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0186-0486.

11 See Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 412-13 (2024) ("Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority[.]").

12 See e.g., U.S. Senators Bipartisan Comment (CCUS projects rely on federal Section 45Q tax credit incentives); Env. Defense Fund Comment (ten states incorporate provisions of the CAA into their GHG reporting programs, and "more than half of the states use GHGRP data either directly or indirectly to compile their statewide greenhouse gas inventories"); U.S. Chamber of Commerce, et al. Comment (the U.S., as the leading supplier of LNG, exports a majority of its supply to European markets that mandate verified emissions information upon entry).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.