The Trump administration is facing significant backlash from electricity and energy industry groups, oil and gas firms, and even some Republican members of Congress over its efforts to end a decadelong emissions reporting rule.
In mid-September, the Environmental Protection Agency said it was proposing to repeal the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which has required large polluters to report their greenhouse gas emissions since 2011. The EPA claimed at the time that the program was “burdensome” and “costly,” and has had “no material impact on improving health and environment.”
The move is part of the Trump administration’s broader agenda to end climate initiatives and policies established by previous administrations that do not align with President Donald Trump’s plans to bolster the fossil fuel industry.
While the fossil fuel industry and Republican Party have broadly backed these rollbacks, many are now breaking with the administration and asking the EPA to reverse course.
On Nov. 3, the EPA concluded a public comment period on its proposal to end the program, also known as GHGRP, which garnered more than 53,000 comments in support of and against the move.
Much of the pushback was expected, with environmentalist groups such as the Sierra Club arguing that ending GHGRP would undermine efforts to address climate change and weaken transparency within the polluting industries.
These left-of-center organizations have found unexpected allies among industry groups, as well as Republican members of Congress.
GOP support for the program
Earlier this month, Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) co-authored a letter of support for the program with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) that was sent to EPA administrator Lee Zeldin.
The senators said that the reporting program has become essential for those installing carbon capture, utilization, and storage systems who are also seeking to claim federal tax credits enhanced and extended under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed by Republicans and signed into law by Trump.
Many oil and gas firms in the U.S. have moved to embrace CCUS in recent years as a way to address their emissions while keeping up normal operations.
The senators also said the program directly benefits liquefied natural gas producers, as the federally compiled data gives fossil fuel firms a legal defense against those accusing them of failing to hit green commitment,s and gives the United States a competitive advantage in the global markets, particularly as the European Union is moving to require verifiable emissions data on imported fuels.
“Without authoritative reporting we can’t defend ourselves against other countries, trading partners, who are already doing that sort of thing,” Cramer told the Washington Examiner, pointing to the EU’s carbon tariff set to take effect in January 2026.
By ending the federally managed emissions reporting program, Cramer said, the U.S. could be put at a “competitive disadvantage” in carbon-intensive industries – such as energy, concrete, and aluminum – as the EU and others move forward with decarbonization efforts.
“We should have the advantage,” Cramer said. “At the very least, at the worst case scenario, be on par with any of our trading partners.”
Cramer’s support for the GHGRP has been echoed by other Republican leaders, including Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers and Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird.
Ethanol considerations
The two Republican attorneys general co-authored a public comment filed with the EPA earlier this month, highlighting risks to domestic ethanol producers and their ability to claim tax credits for carbon capture systems and clean fuel production.
They noted they do share the Trump administration’s commitment to reducing regulatory burdens, and acknowledged that repealing the program would help boost the domestic energy industry.
They said, though, that eliminating the reporting program in its entirety would block ethanol producers from claiming tax credits supported by the administration, as many firms “would have no way to verify their annual emissions data.”
“We agree with the Administration’s push to cut burdensome red tape but urge it to take a closer look at the effect that repealing the Subpart RR reporting program would have on the renewable fuels sector,” their public comment read, referring to the subpart of the reporting program focused on the geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide.
Cramer told the Washington Examiner on Wednesday that these concerns are starting to resonate with more Republicans, both in Congress and the private sector.
“There’s a very long list and a growing list of more traditional Republicans – pro-growth, pro-economic development players — that are saying, ‘no this is an important measure,’” he said. “And by the way, the interesting thing I think about this particular program is that the people that support it are the ones that are reporting.”
Dozens of energy and manufacturing groups have voiced their support for the program, including the American Petroleum Institute, the American Exploration and Production Council, LNG Allies, the Natural Gas Innovation Network, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Western Energy Alliance.
“While opportunities exist to reduce burdens associated with the GHGRP, the program benefits the U.S. oil and natural gas industry,” API, which represents nearly 600 oil and gas firms nationwide, said in a public comment. “It is unlikely that any alternative GHG reporting program could command the same combination of characteristics and produce the same slate of benefits in the absence of the GHGRP.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as oil and gas producers such as BKV Corporation, Shell, and Exxon, have asked the EPA to backtrack on the proposal, warning it could result in varying state-level reporting requirements – increasing reporting burdens – and threaten global market access.
“The importance of a robust and consistent federal greenhouse gas reporting framework cannot be overstated,” BKV Corporation, a natural gas producer, wrote in a public comment. “It serves as the backbone for ensuring data quality, market integrity, and international credibility, which are essential for U.S. energy producers competing against the broader international energy industry.”
The industry support was touted by the Environmental Defense Fund.
“It was very encouraging to see the broad showing of support across the entire economy, not just oil and gas sector, but we saw, helpful comments from the Chamber of Commerce, representing airlines, [and] utilities,” EDF’s senior manager of energy transition Sean Hackett told the Washington Examiner.
“I think the big benefit is that it’s provides that consistent federal baseline so companies don’t face a patchwork of state and voluntary programs which could increase their costs and uncertainty,” Hackett said.
Cramer said that the fact that the concerns are coming directly from those participating in the reporting program may resonate with more Republicans, and maybe even the administration.
When asked to respond to the concerns brought forth by fossil fuel and manufacturing industry groups as well as Republicans, the EPA did not offer any direct response.
Instead, the agency told the Washington Examiner that its public comment period ended on Nov. 3 and that it was now reviewing and responding to comments.
EPA MOVE TO END REPORTING RULES FOR MAJOR POLLUTERS RAISES OVERSIGHT CONCERNS
Cramer said he has not had any communication with the administration on this issue since he and Whitehouse sent their letter to both Zeldin and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
It remains to be seen whether the EPA will move forward in ending the emissions reporting program, and a final rule ending it could come as soon as the end of the year.
