Introduction
On September 12, 2025, the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") proposed to effectively put an end to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program ("GHGRP"), which currently requires certain industrial facilities in the U.S. to measure and report greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions to EPA (the "Proposal"). The proposal would remove reporting obligations for all but one source category in the current rule (petroleum and natural gas systems). This alert explains the Proposal and comments on its potential effect on certain affected industries.
Background
The Clean Air Act ("CAA"), the main federal law in the United States that governs air pollution,1 sets out a comprehensive regulatory framework administered largely by EPA but implemented in partnership with state governments to improve air quality and regulate sources of air pollution. The CAA was first enacted in 1970 and received its last significant overhaul in 1990. The CAA did not expressly provide EPA with the authority to regulate the emission of carbon dioxide or other GHGs, but Congress and the EPA have still tried to use it to that end.
EPA created the GHGRP in 2009.2 The GHGRP requires large GHG emitters to monitor and report their annual GHG emissions to EPA, and thus functions as an information-collection and transparency program. According to the Proposal, approximately 8,200 facilities, suppliers, and CO2 injection sites submit annual data under the GHGRP. Over time, EPA has expanded the GHGRP to cover 47 different industries, ranging from petroleum and natural gas systems to landfills and manure management facilities. EPA estimates that compliance with the program costs affected industries $303 million annually ($256 million of which is incurred by companies in the petroleum and natural gas industries).
EPA issued the rule under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act. Section 114 states (in relevant part) that the EPA Administrator may require owners or operators of emissions sources, equipment manufacturers, or others subject to the CAA to make reports to the EPA for the purpose of (i) developing implementation plans, standards, and regulations, (ii) determining whether any person is in violation of such plans and standards, or (iii) carrying out any provision of the CAA other than a provision of Title II (relating to motor vehicle emissions).
The Proposal
The Proposal seeks to completely eliminate reporting obligations for 46 of the 47 industries required to report under the GHGRP (referred to as source categories). The Proposal does not remove those obligations for most petroleum and natural gas systems, as the data collected from those systems under the GHGRP are necessary to calculate the waste emissions charge enacted in 2022 as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. However, because the collection of the waste emissions charge was postponed until 2034 by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the Proposal suspends the reporting requirements for affected systems until that time.
The Proposal points back to the express terms of Section 114 of the CAA as the legal basis for the repeal of the GHGRP. As previously discussed, Section 114 authorizes EPA to require regulated entities to submit information necessary for EPA to carry out certain responsibilities under the CAA. In the Proposal, EPA asserts that its authority under Section 114 is not unlimited, and that the agency must show that any information it requires is relevant to EPA's actions or obligations under the CAA. The Proposal points out that data collected under the GHGRP (from 47 source categories over more than 10 years) has rarely been used by EPA to inform new source performance standards. Moreover, the Proposal expressly states that EPA is not planning to develop any such regulations at this time. The Proposal therefore concludes that EPA lacks authority to continue to collect GHGRP data under Section 114 because the reporting requirements do not serve any underlying statutory purpose.
Alternatively, the Proposal characterizes the GHGRP as discretionary under Section 114, since the statute says that EPA "may" collect information. Current EPA leadership thus argues that it can simply terminate the GHGRP on the grounds that the Administrator no longer considers the information necessary to carry out the requirements of the CAA. The Proposal states that, if information submitted under the Program is needed for any purpose, the Administrator could simply issue a new information request under Section 114, as done for other purposes under the CAA.
What does the Proposal mean for companies?
The practical effect of the repeal of the GHGRP is expected to be fairly limited for most industries. The Proposal notes that $256 million of the total $303 million annual cost of the program are concentrated in the petroleum and natural gas industries. For all other industries subject to the program, the total annual cost of the program is only approximately $50 million. When that figure is spread across all of the companies required to report, the total annual cost of the program appears to be fairly modest for most of the regulated industries.
Arguably, larger companies are less likely to be affected by the Proposal. Those companies often collect and disclose GHG emissions data for reasons unrelated to U.S. federal law. For example, those companies may have foreign legal obligations, internal and/or publicly-stated ESG commitments, and buyer/supplier demands for greener products that require them to calculate and report their GHG emissions on a regular basis. Thus, we do not expect many larger companies to cease tracking and reporting of GHGs based solely on the Proposal. Some smaller and domestic entities, however, such as municipal landfills and wastewater treatment plants, have fewer competing obligations. Those entities may therefore see some practical benefit from no longer having to collect and report GHG emissions data to EPA.
The Proposal also notes that some 20 U.S. states implement state-level greenhouse gas reporting that either incorporates 40 CFR Part 98 by reference or relies on data collected under the GHGRP. Facilities in those states may continue to have an obligation to collect and report their data to state regulators. The administration's proposal to repeal federal data collection requirements may also spur additional states to pass their own programs that apply within their borders.
Since the data collected by the GHGRP is used for a variety of purposes, we also expect to see some impacts on other federal regulatory programs. The Proposal notes that the data is used to inform the phase down of hydrofluorocarbons under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, and in the implementation of federal tax credits for carbon dioxide sequestration (45Q) and clean hydrogen production (45V). EPA acknowledges that the data collected by the GHGRP is important for those programs, but argues that those benefits are not required to carry out the Agency's functions under the CAA, and should be collected in different, more efficient ways. If the Proposal goes through, we would anticipate further regulatory action will be required by EPA, the Treasury Department and some state governments to implement new reporting specific to those programs.
Repeal of the reporting requirements would also lead to the loss of detailed information about GHG emissions in the United States beyond 2024. That information is currently collected by the Electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT) and made available to the public through the Envirofacts and Facility Level Information on Greenhouse Gases Tool ("FLIGHT"). The Proposal states that EPA does not intend to "maintain the electronic functionality of the information collection system" after repeal, so it is unclear whether the GHG data in those systems will remain available. That information is widely used by researchers and policymakers to track, inform, and evaluate policy regarding GHG emissions. While that information can be collected through other means, the loss of that information may impact policy making in the future.
Broader context
The Trump administration has not hidden its skepticism about climate change and the risk it poses to human health and the environment. In July 2025 the Department of Energy ("DOE") issued a report titled "A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate." According to the DOE's website, one of the key findings of the report is that "carbon dioxide (CO2)-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and that aggressive mitigation strategies could be more harmful than beneficial." The administration has taken several steps that are consistent with that view, including (a) withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement, (b) proposing to repeal the 2009 "endangerment finding" which found that certain GHGs cause or contribute to air pollution that endangers public welfare (and thus established the need to regulate GHGs under the CAA), (c) proposing to repeal all GHG emissions standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants, and (d) announcing its intent to spend $625 million to expand power generation fueled by coal and open 13 million acres of federal land for coal leasing. Those actions, plus the proposed repeal of the GHGRP, demonstrate that the current administration has committed to reduce, if not eliminate, GHG regulation at the federal level in the U.S.
Next steps
The EPA is collecting comments on the Proposal until November 3, 2025. For more information on the Proposal and instructions on how to comment, please see EPA's fact sheet.
If adopted, the final language of the Proposal would take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register. The Proposal states that, if implemented, 2024 would be the final reporting year, meaning affected entities would not need to submit 2025 data in 2026.
The Proposal may face legal challenges. Potential challengers include environmental advocacy groups, states, and local governments or tribes that rely on GHGRP data for policymaking and enforcement. Litigation may focus on EPA's interpretation of its authority under the CAA (particularly Section 114) or the consistency of the Proposal with the CAA's statutory purposes. Plaintiffs may also seek to stay implementation of the rule once finalized, pending judicial review.
[1] Clean Air Act, 42 USC § 7401 et seq.
[2] See 40 CFR Part 98
White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.
This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.
© 2025 White & Case LLP
