U.S. EPA proposal risks undermining climate transparency and decarbonisation investment

The Biden-era goal of steering capital into American industry through clearer regulation and data is under threat after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed ending the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), a move that industry groups, investors and analysts warn would damage transparency, competitiveness and investment flows into decarbonisation.

According to the original report, the GHGRP has for more than 15 years provided the only standardised, facility-level greenhouse gas dataset in the United States, making it possible for researchers, policymakers and market participants to track emissions trends, compare facilities and direct capital to cleaner technologies. The EPA established the programme following the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act and currently requires roughly 8,000 large facilities , including power plants, refineries, chemical plants and major fuel and industrial gas suppliers , to report annual emissions, with data made public each October. The agency’s own guidance notes the programme’s role in identifying opportunities to cut pollution, improve operational efficiency and support local and state climate policy.

On 12 September 2025 the EPA published a proposal that would remove reporting obligations for most large facilities, fuel and industrial gas suppliers, and CO₂ injection sites. The agency framed the change as a deregulatory measure intended to reduce burdens on industry and to save businesses as much as $2.4 billion in compliance costs. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said the agency views the GHGRP as an information collection that “imposes significant costs” without directly improving air quality. The proposal is open for public comment and further details have been set out in the Federal Register and EPA materials.

That rationale has failed to reassure a broad swathe of the private sector. Industry groups that are typically supportive of lighter regulation , including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute and the National Association of Manufacturers , told the EPA during the public comment period that dismantling the GHGRP would complicate their members’ ability to attract capital, manage supply-chain emissions and compete in markets that increasingly demand verified carbon-intensity information. Speaking to market observers, these organisations warned that replacing a single federal dataset with a patchwork of state and local reporting rules would increase compliance costs and administrative complexity rather than reduce them.

Private investors and financial institutions have come to rely on the GHGRP’s standardised data when pricing climate risk and allocating capital. Industry data shows that transparency on emissions enables corporate buyers and financiers to distinguish between higher- and lower-intensity suppliers, channel investment to decarbonisation technologies, and manage transition risk. Without a trusted federal dataset, market participants say U.S. companies could become less attractive to global investors who are under pressure to demonstrate the carbon credentials of their portfolios.

The implications extend to trade and industrial policy. Several of the United States’ large export sectors , notably steel and liquefied natural gas , face rising requirements in overseas markets to demonstrate lower carbon intensity. The lead article noted that removing federal emissions data could expose U.S. producers to non-tariff barriers and dampen demand for American materials if foreign buyers lack confidence in carbon accounting.

Emerging decarbonisation technologies would also be affected. Federal tax credits and incentives for carbon capture, direct air capture and similar projects are often calibrated against measured emissions reductions. Industry consultees have argued that the ability to verify emissions performance is essential for project financing and for securing the economic benefits of those incentives; losing the GHGRP’s standardised dataset, they say, would complicate eligibility assessments and investment modelling. One analysis cited in industry comments projects substantial employment and market-share consequences if the United States loses its edge in these nascent industries.

The move has drawn bipartisan concern in Congress and sharp commentary from independent analysts who note a tension at the heart of the proposal: while the administration states an objective to spur private-sector investment, removing a high-quality data source could make it harder for investors to identify and back U.S.-based decarbonisation opportunities. “Investment goes where the data leads,” the lead article observed, urging the EPA to reconsider.

The EPA’s public materials defend the proposal as an efficiency measure and a correction of what the agency sees as an information collection that is not tied directly to an enforceable Clean Air Act regulatory programme or to demonstrated air-quality benefits. Yet the counterargument from business groups, investors and many state and local authorities is that GHGRP’s value lies precisely in its transparency, comparability and role in enabling both regulation and market-based decisions.

For companies involved in industrial decarbonisation , whether deploying carbon capture, retrofitting heavy industry, or supplying low-carbon feedstocks , the dispute is not abstract. Standardised, facility-level emissions data underpins risk assessment, procurement decisions and the financial modelling that underwrites large capital projects. Removing that backbone would force firms to rely on self-reported disclosures, heterogeneous state rules, or proprietary data sets , all of which raise the cost of due diligence and reduce the clarity investors prize.

As the public comment window runs its course, the debate crystallises into a broader policy question about how the United States balances regulatory burden with the need for credible, comparable information in a global market that is increasingly carbon-aware. Government figures and EPA materials make clear the agency is prioritising removal of perceived burdens; industry responses and market signals suggest the consequence could be to shrink the pool of capital available for U.S. decarbonisation and to complicate supply-chain strategies for manufacturers.

Ultimately, the outcome will determine whether the GHGRP remains a national infrastructure for climate transparency , supporting investment, trade and the nascent low-carbon industries the U.S. seeks to grow , or whether policymakers will accept a system where data fragmentation reshapes how and where capital flows in the transition to lower emissions.