The EPA’s Proposed End to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: What It Means and Why It Matters

The EPA has announced a proposal that could fundamentally reshape how the nation tracks and understands industrial emissions. Lee Zeldin, EPA administrator, revealed plans to terminate the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program—a requirement for large GHG emitters, fuel, and industrial gas suppliers to annually measure and publish their emissions. 

The EPA cites Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” framing the proposal as a way to reduce regulatory costs and estimating annual savings of $303 million. However, labelling this as deregulation is misleading. While deregulating production processes is a separate issue, eliminating reporting removes the shared factual basis that enables policymakers, markets, and communities to develop proportionate, risk-informed regulations.

Coming into effect in 2010, during the Obama administration, the GHGRP has provided essential public transparency for over a decade, with thousands of facilities reporting and sector-level trends informing public datasets used by researchers, investors, and regulators.

The agency argues that scrapping reporting will save hundreds of millions of dollars per year and relieve companies of an administrative grind, and therefore translate directly into cleaner air or measurable health benefits. However, high-quality emissions data alone does not directly reduce pollution, just as financial statements do not directly reduce debt. It is a tool to measure and keep track of your emissions, not to magically reduce them by simply monitoring. In the end, this is not deregulating production, it is simply deleting visibility.

In Reporting Year 2023, direct reporters accounted for 2.58 billion tCO₂e. Effective management, pricing, assurance, and enforcement all depend on accurate measurement. Without the GHGRP, policymakers and markets lose a common evidence base, making it more difficult to access credible data. Companies also lose accountability, as policymakers, competitors, and the public can no longer review emissions data to ensure responsible practices.

Consider what remains under the proposal. The EPA would preserve a narrower slice of oil-and-gas methane data linked to the Waste Emissions Charge. Even that foundation is politically and legally unsteady: Congress has already voted on a resolution to overturn the methane fee architecture in February of this year, and litigation continues to hover around related standards. A once comprehensive framework of emissions management is slowly being broken down into a patchwork of blank spaces and blind corners. 

Defenders of the rollback frame it as common-sense liberation from red tape, yet the irony is hard to miss. The industries best positioned to benefit reputationally from reliable data (the ones with modern monitoring and genuine abatement strategies) are also those that will be penalised by a decrease in visibility. When everyone’s numbers become less comparable and less standardised, the market cannot easily distinguish between competitors. The cost of capital, insurance pricing and supply-chain access begin to reflect uncertainty rather than performance, and instead of becoming a competitive edge, it becomes a tax on credibility.

It’s important to remember that the GHGRP required the most polluting companies to report on their emissions. Emissions resulting from GHGRP reporting amounted to 85-90% of US emissions data. By removing their obligation to report, the proposal isn't removing marginal data, but removing the requirement for polluters that make up 90% of the nation's emission profile. Without consistent reporting from the biggest polluters, the integrity of national and sector-level inventories decreases significantly.

It is known that the current administration in the U.S. does not believe in climate change, carbon footprints, or renewable energy, but this is not necessarily only a climate issue. This is an information issue. Essentially, rolling back this regulation is altering what we can deem the truth and creating spheres of uncertainty. In the end, if we do not know the numbers or the risk, I guess no risk exists. 

Removing reporting obligations from the most polluting sectors is not efficient, it’s a risk multiplier. History will not remember the dismantling of the GHGRP as liberalising companies from government overreach. It will remember it as the moment the U.S. chose not to know. 

If you’re a company, here’s what to do next:

1. Monitor international regulations: Continue GHG emissions reporting if required abroad, as many business partners and jurisdictions (such as CSRD) will expect consistency even without US federal rules.

2. Engage the rulemaking: Use the public comment window to argue for modernisation (automation, proportional thresholds) rather than elimination.

3. Assume higher scrutiny, not less: International expectations are not rolling back with the GHGRP. Investor, lender, and supply-chain expectations remain. Maintain (or enhance) internal GHG accounting to ISO/GHG Protocol standards across Scopes 1–3.

   
   

At Regenify, we’ll continue to help clients measure rigorously, disclose credibly, and act decisively. Whether or not the GHGRP survives, we still encourage businesses to continue reporting and follow best practices.