What you should know about the EPA’s plan to stop collecting emissions data

A foundational data source that shapes the work of sustainability professionals across multiple sectors will disappear if the Trump administration goes ahead with plans to scrap the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, critics of the move warn.

The program, run since 2009 by the Environmental Protection Agency, requires around 8,000 oil refineries, power plants and other industrial facilities to submit annual emissions reports to the agency. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin proposed scrapping the program last month, describing it as “nothing more than bureaucratic red tape.”

Sustainability professionals see it differently. 

“The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program matters to everyone, not just the companies that report,” said Sean Hackett, senior manager for energy transition at the Environmental Defense Fund. “It’s the most comprehensive source of emissions data. It underpins investor confidence, regulatory oversight and supply chain accountability across the economy.”

“The corporate world has built sustainability and investment plans around all it does,” added John Milko, senior managing policy advisor at Carbon180, a carbon removal nonprofit.

Cascading impacts

Ending the program would trigger a cascade of negative impacts, they and others warn, because the program provides a standardized data set that feeds into work across the economy. This includes life-cycle assessments and product-carbon footprints, which rely on emissions data from facilities upstream in the value chain.

In construction, for example, companies building data centers and other facilities are increasingly demanding that low-carbon steel and concrete be used. “We want to move to a system that improves the calculations of that embodied carbon,” said Milko. “Shuttering the largest-scale program that is seeking to standardize that data is counterproductive to the sustainability goals of large corporations.”

The move also places billions of dollars of announced investments in carbon removal in jeopardy, including direct air capture projects and plans to capture and store emissions from industrial facilities. The economics of these projects rely on a tax credit known as 45Q, which was made more valuable in 2022. Projects totaling $77 billion in capital expenditures plan on making use of 45Q, but companies need to access data from the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program to claim the credit. 

“Canceling the greenhouse gas reporting program means you can’t get 45Q,” said Julio Friedmann, chief scientist at Carbon Direct, a carbon management firm. “Whether this is intentional or accidental, it’s very bad. It will chill investment, cost time and money and impair trade.”

Increased costs and complexity

Zeldin framed his proposal as a move that would save businesses billions of dollars by cutting regulatory burdens, but experts warn of increased costs to businesses that report to the program. Companies would still need to collect emissions data to comply with state regulations, demands from investors and requirements from countries they export to. “Without that federal baseline, companies would face a patchwork of state and voluntary programs that would increase costs, uncertainty and complexity,” said Hackett.

Companies wishing to comment on the EPA’s proposal have until Nov. 3 to share feedback. To learn more before commenting, Trellis recommends the following briefings:

• EPA fact sheet on the proposed rule.
• Official announcement in the Federal Register.
• Law firm Holland & Knight on implications for greenwashing litigation and other issues.
• Ben Cahill at the Center for Energy and Environmental Systems Analysis, University of Texas at Austin, on “Why the oil industry needs the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program,” (Published after Zeldin floated the idea but before a formal proposal was released.)
• Harvard Law School analysis of the legal justification for ending the program.