I should point
out that the references used for this post are from an anti-oil & gas
perspective and that I will write more from my own perspective.
The Trump
administration announced plans last year to repeal the federal government’s
greenhouse gas reporting system. The EPA is expected to discontinue the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) as well as the Biden-era methane
reporting rule, known as Subpart W. The oil & gas industry, however, simply
wants to delay implementation of Subpart W, while keeping the GHGRP intact.
Environmental groups blasted that idea as insufficient, even though it is a
rebuke of the Trump EPA’s plans.
“Multiple trade associations and companies including the
American Gas Association (AGA), the American Petroleum Institute (API), the
American Exploration & Production Council (AXPC), ExxonMobil, Shell, and
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce all submitted public comments in favor of
preserving the GHGRP. They called on the administration to “improve the program
rather than suspend it.”
The issue was brought to light by
the National Security Archive via the Freedom of Information Act.
“Oil and gas CEOs will always support weak rules they
already comply with rather than no rules at all,” Edward Maibach, a climate
change communication expert at George Mason University, said by email to the
National Security Archive and DeSmog. “Supporting no rules at all would prove
to everyone how untrustworthy they are.”
While the article in Esquire
called the CEOs cynical, I find the above quote even more cynical. If that
wasn’t cynical enough, how about this quote that demonizes fossil fuel
executives as death-causing and indifferent to humanity?
“Oil and gas CEOs know their business model is the
leading cause of preventable death and ill-health in the world today,” said
Maibach. “Their callous indifference to humanity is shocking.”
The article notes regarding
the Biden-era rule that:
“Finalized in 2024, those regulatory changes crucially
altered the ways companies were required to estimate methane pollution by
incorporating sources not previously covered by the program, such as super
emitter events and equipment regulating natural gas pressure and flow.”
“…emissions reported under the rule feed into a separate
methane tax on companies discharging over a certain pollution threshold
(although that regulation is currently delayed until 2034). This tax would
affect many of the nation’s low-producing marginal, or “stripper wells,” which,
recent studies show, generate around 6 percent of U.S. oil and gas output but
roughly half of its methane emissions.”
Right there above is the real
reason why they want to delay implementation of the rule: it would be difficult
for small operators with thin profit margins to comply with it. It is not
cynicism to want to protect small companies from potentially folding, as well
as decreasing U.S. oil & gas output and fast-tracking well-plugging
liabilities. Those companies need time to plan for something that could
severely affect their bottom line. I agree that implementation for them should
be delayed.
“While most industry groups say they don’t want the
program repealed, they did ask the EPA for more flexibility in estimating and
measuring methane emissions.”
“If finalized, it would exempt more than two-thirds of
the roughly 8,000 industrial facilities, including power plants, steel mills,
and refineries, from mandatory emissions reporting.”
Most companies want to know their
carbon, methane, and total GHG footprints, and they want to address them as
they are able.
The National Security Archive
stated that the rule and new methodology would cause companies to have to
report previously unreported greenhouse gas emissions, making them rise by
large amounts, but they also noted:
“…another consultant speaking to a gas group conference
warned that updated disclosure requirements would increase reported methane
emissions by roughly 16 percent. Last month, major gas producer EQT cited this
revised rule as one reason its reported methane emissions rose in 2025.”
16% is a pretty small increase by
one of the largest U.S. natural gas producers. Of course, EQT has done quite a
lot to decrease its GHG footprint and has led the U.S. in doing so. Smaller
companies with smaller budgets cannot do so nearly as easily.
Below are two groups’ responses to
the National Security Archive’s request for statements, one from the American
Petroleum Institute (API) and one from the Independent Petroleum Producers of
America (IPPA).
“API requested "that the EPA strike a balance
between reducing the burdens of information collection and reporting
requirements and advancing the benefits" of the GHGRP, such as its
"high quality data" for stakeholders, wrote Dustin Meyer, API Senior
Vice President of Policy, Economics, and Regulatory Affairs. The program's
cited benefits, ranging from "showcasing company and industry
progress" on emissions to supporting claims for carbon capture, hydrogen,
and biofuels tax credits, outweigh its costs, Meyer adds, particularly with
API's suggested changes to the methane reporting rule.”
“[IPAA’s] opposition results from the adverse effects the
definition creates for small business, low production well operators and its
inconsistencies with the Clean Air Act,” an IPAA representative wrote. “The
complexity of the 2024 Biden Administration Subpart W calculation process will
also likely force thousands of independent producers to incur significant costs
to just confirm they fall below reporting thresholds.” IPAA members include
many smaller companies operating stripper wells that it says current methane
rules threaten to make "unviable."
While some companies have stressed
that they prefer voluntary requirements rather than forced compliance, many are
fine with the rules, especially larger companies that produce from newer wells,
who are already largely in compliance.
Below is another reason the
industry wants to keep the GHGRP in place.
“The loss of standardized, robust methane reporting
requirements will put U.S. companies at a disadvantage with major trading
partners,” Rachel Cleetus with the Union of Concerned Scientists said by email.
She added that this could force companies toward expensive, uncertain
workarounds, such as third-party verifiers.”
Another reason they want to keep
the GHGRP rule is simply that it tracks their progress in meeting the
requirements and reducing their emissions. That makes sense to me.
“For years, EPA has compiled and published greenhouse
gas (“GHG”) emissions data and analysis that AGA and its members rely on to
demonstrate the incredible progress our industry has made in voluntarily
reducing methane emissions,” Parr wrote. “AGA encourages EPA to maintain these
information repositories.”
It makes sense to Environmental
Defense Fund too:
“For over 15 years, the GHGRP has delivered credible,
comparable emissions data,” said Edwin LaMair, Senior Attorney at the
Environmental Defense Fund, via email. “Its clear enforceable rules help ensure
consistent, reliable data, even as stakeholders debate the accuracy of
individual reporting methods and emissions estimates.”
Investors also want companies to
show their emissions reduction progress:
“Having the [Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program] and the
[Greenhouse Gas Inventory] available as centralized, commonly accepted sources
of GHG data allows AGA to proudly and unequivocally demonstrate that U.S.
natural gas distribution systems have reduced methane emissions,” Parr wrote in
the AGA letter. “Natural gas companies depend on this data to provide
information regularly sought by investors, customers, and stakeholders.”
“API's Sommers criticized the move {to drop the rule} at
the October 2025 Drake Energy Security Summit. "Regulatory certainty is a
huge issues for us," he said, adding that companies prefer more stringent
regulations over a decade or more of uncertainty -- and he says that reflects
their advocacy on this issue. "We want to continue to report. We know how
important emissions reduction is for our social license to operate."
Some outliers, including fracking
billionaire Harold Hamm's company, Continental Resources, and his trade
association, the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance, want to eliminate the
program entirely, but they are very much a minority.
“Discontinuing the GHGRP would create blind spots in our
collective understanding of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate
change,” Kimberly Barrett, a member of the Environmental Data and Governance
Initiative, said by email.
Eliminating GHGRP and the GHG
Inventory would make it harder for Europe to purchase U.S. LNG, which they
need, and could lead to other countries also abandoning any moves toward better
compliance.
“The rigor and transparency of the Inventory has made it
possible for the U.S. to pressure trade competitors such as China, India and
Brazil to disclose their emissions and ensure valid comparisons of performance
across countries,..”
References:
Oil
and gas companies are supporting government emissions reporting—just not for
the reason we’d hoped. Charles P. Pierce. Esquire. August 20, 2026. Oil and gas companies are supporting
government emissions reporting—just not for the reason we’d hoped
Inside
the Struggle to Dismantle America’s Greenhouse Gas Data. National Security
Archive. August 18, 2026. Inside the Struggle to Dismantle
America’s Greenhouse Gas Data | National Security Archive
Environmental
Protection Agency Presentation Slide Deck, “Greenhouse Gas Data Overview,”
Office of Air and Radiation Briefing, 4 February 2024, [Classification Unknown].
National Security Archive. Environmental
Protection Agency Presentation Slide Deck, “Greenhouse Gas Data Overview,”
Office of Air and Radiation Briefing, 4 February 2024, [Classification Unknown]
| National Security Archive
