EPA Proposes Ending Reporting Requirement for Large Greenhouse Gas Emitters

The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday proposed eliminating a long-standing program that requires large, mostly industrial facilities to report their greenhouse gas emissions to the federal government.

The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, established in 2009, covers refineries, power plants, oil wells, landfills and other industrial sources and currently requires more than 8,000 facilities and suppliers in the United States to calculate and submit annual emissions data. Since the program began, industry-reported U.S. carbon emissions have fallen by roughly 20%, a decline officials and analysts say was driven largely by the closure of coal-fired power plants.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin framed the proposal as a cut in unnecessary regulatory burdens, saying the reporting requirement is "burdensome" and does not improve human health or the environment. The agency estimates removing the rule would save American businesses up to $2.4 billion in regulatory costs over 10 years while allowing the EPA to continue to meet its statutory obligations under the Clean Air Act.

"The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is nothing more than bureaucratic red tape that does nothing to improve air quality," Zeldin said in a statement. "It costs American businesses and manufacturing billions of dollars, driving up the cost of living, jeopardizing our nation’s prosperity and hurting American communities. With this proposal, we show once again that fulfilling EPA’s statutory obligations and Powering the Great American Comeback is not a binary choice."

If finalized, the proposal would remove reporting obligations for most large industrial facilities in the U.S., as well as for fuel and industrial gas suppliers and carbon dioxide injection sites. The EPA said, following an internal review, that the agency found no requirement under the Clean Air Act to collect greenhouse gas information from businesses and that ongoing data collection is not necessary to fulfill its statutory duties.

Environmental and public health experts sharply criticized the plan, saying the reporting program provides essential transparency that allows policymakers, communities and investors to identify high-polluting facilities and to shape policies and corporate responses aimed at reducing emissions. Joseph Goffman, who led the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation under President Joe Biden, said eliminating the program would "blind Americans to the facts about climate pollution," impairing the ability of decision-makers to cut emissions and protect public health.

David Doniger, a senior strategist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the proposal "a cynical effort to keep the American public in the dark," noting that public access to emissions data has prompted corporate accountability and voluntary emissions reductions even in advance of stricter federal standards. Critics also warned that rolling back reporting comes as the agency is reducing other air quality monitoring activities, a combination they said could hinder efforts to track and respond to pollution trends.

Zeldin has framed the move as part of a broader deregulatory agenda, calling for reductions in regulatory costs to help industry focus on what he described as "actual, tangible environmental benefits." The proposal follows earlier commitments by the administration to scale back federal regulations affecting industry.

The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program covers 47 source categories and has provided a publicly accessible dataset that states, localities, researchers and advocacy organizations have used to analyze emissions patterns and target mitigation efforts. Supporters of the program say the transparency fosters accountability and informs local and state-level policy choices when the federal government does not set or enforce stricter standards.

The EPA said it will accept public comments on the proposal for more than six weeks after the plan is published in the Federal Register, which the agency said is expected in the coming days. The agency did not provide a timeline for final action on the proposal.

The move highlights a debate over the role of federal data collection in climate policy: proponents of rolling back reporting emphasize cost savings and reduced paperwork for industry, while opponents emphasize the public and policy value of continuous, standardized emissions information. As the rulemaking proceeds, stakeholders from industry, environmental groups, state governments and affected communities are expected to participate in the public comment process and potentially challenge the proposal through legal or administrative avenues.