Climate-Focused Democrats Challenge EPA on Reporting Program
A coalition of environmentally conscious Democrats has addressed a letter to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, claiming that the agency is improperly working towards discontinuing a federal greenhouse gas tracking initiative. This program has been utilized by blue states to shape their own carbon tax and cap-and-trade frameworks.
The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), established during the Obama administration and funded by Congress, mandates major energy producers and other high-emission industries to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions.
Leading the charge is Rep. Sean Kasten from Illinois, an environmental energy engineer instrumental in the development of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which has garnered praise in some states but faced criticism from conservatives. In his capacity as vice chair of the House sustainable energy caucus, Kasten’s letter states, “I am writing to inform you that the Environmental Protection Agency is violating clear Congressional directives by proposing to end EPA’s greenhouse gas reporting program.”
For over a decade, this program has been pivotal in generating transparent, verifiable data on climate pollution at the federal level, and Kasten insists that the EPA has both the authority and the obligation to maintain it.
The letter, co-signed by other prominent figures in the Energy Coalition such as Reps. Donald Beyer (VA), Paul Tonko (NY), Mike Quigley (IL), and Doris Matsui (CA), warns that terminating this program would threaten “evidence-based governance” during a crucial time in addressing climate change.
Kasten’s group suggests that this move may reflect a broader pattern of “scientific data censorship” under President Trump’s administration, accusing the federal government of limiting, hiding, or defunding data-driven initiatives across various agencies.
In response to the letter, EPA officials acknowledged receipt and mentioned they will reply through appropriate channels. However, officials close to the situation contend that the GHGRP has minimal impact on human health or environmental protection. They argue that it represents yet another burdensome regulation for energy producers, who are primarily focused on efficiency for American consumers.
Critics of the program suggest that its removal could potentially save the private sector up to $2.4 billion in regulatory costs linked to reporting and legal obligations.
Both California and New York have state-level equivalents to this program. New York’s Department of Environmental Protection has noted that its version aims to facilitate a cap-and-trade tax structure.
Under existing regulations, facilities emitting more than 25,000 tons of CO2 annually are required to report emissions to the EPA. This often encompasses power plants, refineries, large-scale metallurgy facilities, and waste management landfills. Other reportable emissions could also include methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.
