EPA Targets Greenhouse Gas Reporting in Biggest Deregulatory Push Yet
Billed as the biggest climate rollback in U.S. history, the move to end emissions tracking for 8,000 facilities could obscure progress, critics warn.
The Trump administration is taking aim at one of the federal government’s main tools for tracking climate pollution. On Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed ending the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), a 15-year-old rule that requires more than 8,000 facilities—including power plants, refineries, and chemical manufacturers—to disclose their emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and other heat-trapping gases.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said the rollback could save companies up to $2.4 billion in compliance costs while “streamlining operations” and “cutting red tape.” He emphasized that the change would not weaken the Clean Air Act’s core protections.
But environmental and health experts warn the move would eliminate the nation’s most comprehensive emissions dataset—one used by policymakers, researchers, and investors to measure progress toward climate goals.
“Cutting the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program blinds Americans to the facts about climate pollution,” former EPA official Joseph Goffman told the Los Angeles Times. “Without it, communities and businesses cannot make sound decisions about how to cut emissions and protect public health.”
Why it matters
The GHGRP, created in 2009, was designed as a baseline: a way to measure emissions at their source and ensure accountability. Companies use it to verify progress toward climate commitments, and investors rely on the data to gauge long-term risk.
Ending the program would align with other Trump administration efforts to scale back climate reporting and research. Under the proposal, only certain fossil fuel facilities covered by the Inflation Reduction Act would still report emissions, and even then not until 2034.
Public health groups say delaying or scrapping reporting has real-world consequences. “Measuring and reporting climate pollution is a critical step in reducing the deadly impacts of climate-driven extremes that cause health emergencies and deaths,” said Will Barrett of the American Lung Association.
Why It MattersWhat Gets Measured Gets Managed
The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program hasn’t just been about data points hasn’t just been about data — it’s been about accountability.
For more than a decade, companies have tracked and disclosed their emissions because the government required it. Without that mandate, the incentive to prioritize climate goals could weaken.
Some firms with strong investor or customer pressure may continue voluntarily, but others may not. That risks creating a patchwork of reporting systems, making it harder to know whether billions in grid upgrades and carbon-cutting investments are actually moving the needle.
That matters because utilities and manufacturers are investing record sums — more than $170 billion last year alone — in grid upgrades, new power plants, and carbon-cutting technologies. Those projects are often justified by long-term emissions goals. Without a common federal system to measure progress, it becomes harder to know whether those investments are really moving the needle, or whether climate promises are quietly slipping off the priority list. For consumers, it raises a basic question: if no one is tracking the score, how can we know if the air is getting cleaner or if climate risks are truly being reduced?
The EPA will open a public comment period before finalizing the rule. Expect strong opposition from environmental groups, scientists, and some utilities that have built emissions targets around the federal dataset.
The Bottom Line
For now, the clash over reporting underscores a central tension of the energy transition: balancing short-term cost savings with long-term transparency, accountability, and trust. The EPA frames this rollback as a way to save businesses billions in reporting costs — savings that, in theory, could ease pressure on energy prices. But critics argue consumers are more likely to feel the downsides: less visibility into pollution, weaker accountability for climate pledges, and greater health and financial risks from climate-driven disasters. For everyday Americans, the tradeoff is uncertain: lower compliance costs may look good on paper, but whether those savings ever reach household energy bills is far less clear.