Highlights
- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is soliciting public comments on its proposal to eliminate a substantial portion of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program and suspend reporting requirements (for the remainder of the program) until 2034.
- The proposal is in response to President Donald Trump's Executive Orders 14154, "Unleashing American Energy," and 14192, "Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation," as well as a continuation of the EPA's deregulatory initiative.
- Interested parties and stakeholders have an opportunity to engage in the public comment period, which ends on Nov. 3, 2025.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is soliciting public comments on its proposal to eliminate a substantial portion of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), 40 C.F.R. Part 98, and suspend reporting requirements for the remainder of the program until 2034. The proposal is in response to President Donald Trump's Executive Orders (EOs) 14154, "Unleashing American Energy," and 14192, "Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation," and a continuation of the EPA's deregulatory initiative. (See Holland & Knight's previous alert, "EPA Announces Deregulatory Initiative to "Power the Great American Comeback," March 17, 2025.)
Since its enactment in 2009 and commencing in 2011, the GHGRP has required certain large greenhouse gas (GHG) emission sources, including fuel and industrial gas suppliers and carbon dioxide (CO2) injection sites, to report emissions data in a standardized way. The GHGRP data has been used in a number of areas, including in legal, tax and investment evaluation. The standardized data was seen as useful for many stakeholders but has been described as burdensome and unnecessary by the current leadership at the EPA in light of the continuing mandatory information submissions already required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). In its reasons for the repeal of the significant portions of the GHGRP, the EPA also notes that the program, in its current form, exceeds the authority included in the CAA and, otherwise, the agency action lies within the discretion of EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.
What Is the GHGRP?
The EPA developed the GHGRP in the wake of a 2008 congressional appropriations directive (P.L. 110-161), which provided $3.5 million for the EPA to issue a rule requiring "mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy of the United States."
When the EPA created the GHGRP in December 2009, it relied on its information-gathering authority under Section 114 of the CAA. This provision allows the EPA to require entities to submit reports containing "information necessary" either 1) to develop certain types of regulations under the CAA or 2) assess compliance with existing requirements.
The current GHGRP requires annual reporting of GHG emissions from facilities that directly emit GHGs, as well as from suppliers of fossil fuels and "industrial GHGs" such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). It also applies to CO2 injection sites used for enhanced oil recovery or geologic sequestration. Generally speaking, facilities must report if they emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 equivalent per year. Currently, more than 8,000 entities report under the GHGRP.
Although the GHGRP does not itself impose emissions limitations or other regulatory restrictions, the data collected by the regulation has been utilized in a number of data regulatory and nonregulatory ways. On notable example lies in Subpart W of the GHGRP – which governs methane emissions reporting from petroleum and natural gas systems – which was referenced in Section 136 of the CAA, enacted via the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in 2022. This provision established a "methane emissions and waste reduction incentive program," including a statutory "Waste Emission Charge," or WEC, applicable to certain facilities. See 42 U.S.C. § 7436(c). The legal and practical status of the WEC has since become significantly complicated.1
EPA Proposal
Under the proposed rule, the EPA would eliminate GHG reporting requirements for 46 of the 47 source categories currently covered by the GHGRP, the sole exception from the proposed source categories being petroleum and natural gas systems, as set forth in Subpart W. Within Subpart W, the EPA proposes to repeal reporting requirements for the "natural gas distribution" segment – the only segment not referenced in Section 136 of the CAA regarding the WEC. See 42 U.S.C. § 7436(d)(1)–(9).
The other eight segments in the Subpart W source category are unique because, as the EPA states in the proposal, reporting for them "is specifically required under CAA section 136" for the WEC.2 For those segments, the EPA would suspend all reporting obligations until 2034 because the WEC has been postponed to 20343 and, thus, reporting "is not needed" until that date.4
Otherwise, for the repeal of all other GHGRP reporting requirements, the EPA offers two alternative justifications. First, the EPA proposes to conclude that CAA Section 114 does not authorize the GHGRP because the reporting requirements do not appropriately serve the CAA's rulemaking or enforcement purposes. Alternatively, the EPA proposes that if the GHGRP is permissible, the EPA Administrator has the discretionary to rescind the program if he determines that it is not necessary to implement the CAA.
Implications
This proposal is aligned with recent deregulatory actions taken by the EPA, particularly with respect to GHG emissions. (See Holland and Knight's previous alerts, "Up in the Air: EPA Opens Comment on Repealing Endangerment Finding, Motor Vehicle GHG Rules," Aug. 7, 2025, and "EPA Launches Comment Period on Power Plant Climate and Air Toxics Rules," June 20, 2025.). The proposal also appears to align with President Trump's EOs on the subject.
State-Level Action
While most federal GHG reporting faces potential revision or elimination, several states have established or are currently developing GHG reporting programs of their own. For example, New York has proposed a GHG reporting program with reporting obligations that would begin in June 2027.
In terms of existing programs, the California Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (California MRR) first went into effect in 2009. The data collected through the California MRR are used in California's cap-and-trade program and made publicly available annually through the state's GHG inventory. The California MRR generally requires reporting of certain third-party-verified emissions of CO2, nitrous oxide and methane at the facility level. Entities covered by the California MRR include producers of electricity, cement, lime or nitric acid – as well as petroleum refining and CO2 sequestration, regardless of volume of emissions. In addition, facilities in certain other industries, including fuel suppliers, CO2 suppliers, and importers and exporters of CO2, must report if their annual emissions exceed 10,000 metric tons (MT) CO2 equivalent. More recently, additional reporting requirements have been established by California Senate Bill 253 (2023).
Similarly, the state of Washington's GHGRP went into effect in 2012. The data collected through the Washington GHGRP are used in Washington's cap-and-invest program and made publicly available through the Washington State GHG Inventory. Reporting under the Washington GHGRP is at the facility level, and the program applies to facilities that emit at least 10,000 MT CO2 equivalent annually, as well as fuel suppliers that produce, import or deliver products contributing 10,000 MT CO2 equivalent per year within Washington state and power entities that import or deliver electricity with emissions equivalent to 10,000 MT CO2 equivalent annually.
If the EPA's proposal becomes final, other state and local governments may feel pressure to develop their own programs that would mimic the data gathering requirements of the GHGRP.
Climate Science
The EPA's proposed rule brings to the center stage key questions about the underlying climate science and whether the agency has clear authority to regulate what it describes as a global environmental concern. When the EPA unveiled the proposed rule, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) produced at the same time a report, "A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate," prepared by the Climate Working Group.
The DOE report asserted that the science behind the endangerment finding was overstated and relied on overly sensitive models. The DOE report has subsequently been criticized because of DOE's failure to convene the Climate Working Group pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. Chapter 10. Studies conducted pursuant to FACA are subject to requirements of transparency, membership balance and open meetings. EPA has also asserted that there is no clear congressional authorization for it to regulate GHG, thereby raising the major questions doctrine. EPA also contends that GHG only impact public health and welfare indirectly.
Greenwashing
The proposed elimination of most GHGRP requirements could complicate the growing field of "greenwashing" litigation, in which companies are accused of misleading consumers with environmental marketing claims. If the EPA proposal becomes final in its current form, companies defending their environmental record could face a mixed result. On the one hand, where corporate marketing claims align with a company's reported data under a standardized federal program, the company can point to such alignment in defense of the reasonableness of its claims. On the other hand, standardized public reporting requirements rely on simplified assumptions that may not reflect more nuanced methodologies that companies use when formulating voluntary claims.
Tax
The EPA proposal acknowledges that the GHGRP is somewhat intertwined with several energy tax credits. For example, the carbon capture and storage (CCS) tax credit under Internal Revenue Code Section 45Q requires "secure geological storage" of CO2 (other than for utilization) to be eligible for the credit. Section 45Q statutorily directs the U.S. Department of the Treasury Secretary to establish regulations for determining adequate security measures, in consultation with the EPA Administrator, among others. Current Treasury Department and IRS regulations effectuate that rulemaking by cross-referencing, for secure geological storage, EPA's 40 CFR Part 98 subpart RR and other parts of the Section 45Q regulations and direct taxpayers to consider, for utilization, Table A-1 of subpart A. The EPA's proposal recognizes that the Treasury Department and IRS "may need to revise" their regulations if the GHGRP is rescinded.
Impact Investing Metrics
If the EPA finalizes the proposed rule, investors that utilize GHGRP emissions data to assess an entity's climate risk, progress toward net-zero goals and other environmental-related investment considerations will need to identify or develop alternative emission data, including attempting to require companies to self report emission data in a standardized manner. If finalized, the proposed rule may produce opportunities for third-party verifying companies to develop voluntary programs that replicate the GHGRP and could serve as a substitute source of data for impact investment purposes.
Conclusion
The EPA's proposed rescission of the GHGRP would serve as a significant deregulatory action. Stakeholders and parties impacted by the proposed rule should participate in the public comment process, which closes on Nov. 3, 2025.
Footnotes
1. In November 2024, the EPA finalized a rule implementing the WEC. However, in March 2025, Congress passed and President Trump signed a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), invalidating the EPA's WEC rule. As a result, the rule no longer has any legal effect, and the EPA formally removed the WEC regulations from the books in May 2025. Importantly, the CRA prohibits the EPA from issuing a new rule that is "substantially the same" unless specifically authorized by Congress. While the statutory requirement for the WEC remains in place, the absence of an implementing rule has effectively stalled its enforcement. Further complicating the legal status, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law on July 4, 2025, postponed the effective date of the WEC until 2034. (See Holland & Knight previous alert, "Senate GOP Passes Sweeping One Big Beautiful Bill Act," July 1, 2025.)
2. 90 Fed. Reg. at 44,595. Those segments of the petroleum and natural gas system source category are offshore petroleum and natural gas production, onshore petroleum and natural gas production, onshore natural gas processing, onshore natural gas transmission compression, underground natural gas storage, liquified natural gas (LNG) storage, LNG import and export equipment, and onshore petroleum and natural gas gathering and boosting. Id. at 44,596 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 7436(d)); Id. at 44,597 ("[R]eporting under subpart W is not statutorily required under CAA section 136 until [Reporting Year] 2034").
3. 42 U.S.C. § 7436(g).
4. 90 Fed. Reg. at 44,595.
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.
