With Federal Greenhouse Gas Reporting in Limbo, States Expand GHG Reporting

Background

In September 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule that would eliminate reporting obligations under the longstanding federal Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for most source categories. For more information about that proposal, see our alert here. In February 2026, EPA extended the reporting deadline for the 2025 reporting year from March 31, 2026, to October 30, 2026, but it has not finalized the rule ending the program. The result is an uncertain federal landscape in which companies may need to preserve federal reporting readiness while also tracking state programs that may maintain or expand reporting obligations.

Key Takeaways

• The GHGRP remains in limbo. EPA received extensive comments on its proposal to repeal the program, including numerous industry comments arguing that it should be retained at least in part. EPA is not required to act before its deadline this fall, and it is not clear whether the agency will proceed with full revocation or change course. If EPA proceeds with full revocation, legal challenges are likely, prolonging uncertainty for companies.
• Stronger state reporting programs. Even if EPA eliminates the GHGRP, many states will retain GHG reporting requirements. Several states are moving to preserve or expand greenhouse gas (GHG) data collection. New York adopted a new mandatory GHG reporting program expressly designed, in part, to protect against anticipated federal reporting rollbacks.
• Source- and facility-level reporting vs. enterprise-level reporting. Different reporting regimes implicate different actors. Several jurisdictions require source- or facility-level GHG emissions reporting. California is moving ahead with mandatory enterprise-level GHG and climate-related financial risk reporting, and other states have proposed similar legislation.

Federal Reporting Still in Limbo

EPA has not yet issued a final rule following up on its September 2025 proposal to repeal the GHGRP. Current obligations under this program are set forth in 40 C.F.R. Part 98 (Part 98). Businesses submitted comments asking that EPA retain the GHGRP rule in whole or in part, flagging the rule’s advantages for various purposes, including complying with legal requirements imposed by foreign governments and demonstrating the low carbon intensity of U.S. businesses. There is no deadline for EPA action on revocation, but EPA will presumably need to take some action before the current reporting date of October 30, 2026. EPA recently added a rule to the 2026 Unified Agenda that appears intended to further postpone the reporting deadline, suggesting that EPA anticipates further delay. If EPA proceeds with full revocation, environmental groups, states, and businesses are likely to pursue litigation. Proceedings may take years, resulting in an extended period of uncertainty.

At least nine state reporting programs incorporate aspects of Part 98 by formal or informal reference. Maine and Hawaii reference Part 98 as helpful compliance guidance. Although some states are taking steps to provide an independent legal basis for their GHG reporting programs if federal regulations are revoked, others rely on periodic updates to the federal regulations. For example, New Jersey’s reporting obligations for natural gas public utilities explicitly incorporate by reference measurement methodologies in Part 98 without limiting their incorporation to a certain version. This means that if EPA eliminates the federal GHGRP, the New Jersey provisions could be rendered obsolete. Similar references with similar risks exist in regulations in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Minnesota. Conversely, California’s regulation specifies the promulgation dates for the Part 98 provisions it incorporates, locking in those provisions and protecting them from changes at the federal level. The programs in Colorado, New York, Oregon, and Washington also have provisions that insulate them from any Part 98 revisions or repeals. States are also jurisdictionally limited and cannot generally impose reporting requirements on companies lacking a sufficient nexus to that state.

California

California remains the most developed state GHG reporting jurisdiction. Its Mandatory Reporting Regulation (MRR) requires covered entities to submit annual emissions data reports and verifications, formally incorporating provisions from Part 98. In January 2026, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) proposed amendments to the MRR. CARB published an updated version in April 2026, following an initial comment period, and held a hearing on May 28, 2026. These amendments would expand the MRR’s coverage to new source categories and update the terminology.

California is also in the process of implementing enterprise-level climate disclosure requirements under the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253, Wiener, 2023) and SB 261, which CARB refers to as the Climate-related Financial Risk Reporting Program (SB 261, Stern, 2023). SB 253 requires covered companies doing business in California with more than $1 billion in annual revenue to disclose Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 GHG emissions, while SB 261 requires covered companies with more than $500 million in annual revenue to publish biennial climate-related financial risk reports. For more information on these laws, see our alert here.

CARB published proposed regulations implementing SB 253 and SB 261 in December 2025 (see our alert here) before submitting its regulation package to the Office of Administrative Law in May 2026. But on June 24, 2026, CARB withdrew the package, promising to clarify certain requirements and delaying the reporting deadline for Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions from August 10, 2026, to November 10, 2026.

SB 261 enforcement is paused due to a November 2025 injunction granted by the Ninth Circuit in Chamber of Commerce v. Sanchez, No. 25-5327. The court has heard oral argument, and a decision should follow in the coming months. Entities subject to these requirements should watch for developments both at the state level and in the Ninth Circuit. The outcome of Chamber of Commerce v. Sanchez will influence other states actively considering enterprise-level reporting regimes modeled on SB 253 and SB 261, including New York and states that introduced proposals in recent years (e.g., Illinois, Colorado, Washington).

New York

New York has responded directly to potential rollbacks of federal reporting requirements. On December 1, 2025, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) finalized 6 NYCRR Part 253, establishing a mandatory GHG reporting program for various source categories. New York’s regulation references specific versions of the federal Part 98 provisions. The states of Iowa and Missouri are challenging this rule before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in Iowa v. James, No. 4:26-cv-00752. Defendants’ answers are due by July 10, 2026, and additional briefing deadlines are set for August and September.

As states create their own programs, they sometimes diverge from the federal program and from other states’ programs, making reporting more complicated for reporting entities. For example, New York, California, and the federal program all rely on Global Warming Potential (GWP) in their reporting equations. But while California and the federal program use a 100-year time horizon, New York uses a 20-year time horizon. Reports will be submitted through a New York State electronic GHG reporting tool, and the first annua lreports are expected in June 2027 for 2026 emissions. DEC has emphasized that the rule will preserve critical air pollution information if federal reporting is rolled back.

This year, New York considered climate-disclosure legislation that is substantially similar to California’s enacted legislation. The Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, Senate Bill S9072A, would have required business entities with more than $1 billion in annual revenue to disclose Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions. The bill passed the Senate in February 2026. A separate bill, Senate Bill S3697A, would have required business entities with more than $500 million in annual revenue to report their climate-related financial risk; it defined such risk to include material harm from physical and transition risks. Neither bill was passed before the end of the New York legislative session on June 4, 2026. Because this marked the end of the term for both the Senate and the Assembly, these bills must be reintroduced during the 2027 legislative session.

Washington

Like the regulations in California and New York, Washington’s Reporting of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Rule, WAC 173-441, adopts Part 98 as it existed on a specific date. On June 1, 2026, Washington announced a proposed rule that would amend WAC 173-441 and the Climate Commitment Act Program Rule, WAC 173-446. Among various changes, the amended regulation would lower the electric power entity reporting threshold to zero for the 2027 emissions year and beyond, unless a federal power marketing administration assumes the compliance obligation. There was a public hearing on July 7, 2026, and a second is scheduled for July 13, 2026, with comments due on July 17, 2026. For more information, see our alert here.

Colorado

Colorado’s Regulation 22 continues to operate as an important state backstop to the federal GHGRP, as specifically contemplated by the enabling legislation, Senate Bill 19-096. Regulation 22 requires emissions reports from the sources covered by Part 98 and certain additional sources. Colorado’s regulation incorporates a specific version of Part 98, protecting the regulation from any changes at the federal level. For 2026 reporting, the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment has indicated that it will accept reports submitted after the March deadline because EPA’s electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT) is outdated for most reporters. The state is developing alternative reporting solutions, but only the Electric Utility Supplemental Data Form has been completed. That form was due on June 30, 2026. Supplemental forms for other source types are in development, so covered entities should pay close attention to avoid missing reporting deadlines. While the Electric Utility Supplemental Data Form used inputs from a federal database, later forms might diverge from reporting norms in other jurisdictions, increasing complexity for reporting entities.

Oregon

Oregon’s GHG reporting program continues to require reporting across major source and supplier categories. Similar to the states discussed above, Oregon incorporates the provisions of Part 98 as they existed on a specific date. In 2026, Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) adopted amendments to increase fees assessed to air-permitted facilities subject to GHG reporting requirements, including the GHG reporting activity fee. This increase took effect on June 12, 2026.

Virginia

Virginia has resumed participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a power-sector cap-and-invest program among Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states. Virginia’s reporting and compliance requirements resumed on July 1, 2026, and Virginia will participate in the September and December auctions. For more information on RGGI and other state carbon markets, see our alert here.

Other States With GHG Reporting Requirements

RGGI states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia, once it rejoins) require GHG reporting from power-sector sources, but requirements for other sectors vary by state. Maryland references Part 98 without specifying a version, which could make the state regulation vulnerable to obsolescence.

Massachusetts continues to implement GHG emissions reporting under 310 C.M.R. § 7.71. The regulation was amended in November 2024 to require heating fuel suppliers to report their emissions. As noted above, the Massachusetts regulation references Part 98 without specifying a version.

New Mexico continues to require GHG reporting through its emissions inventory program, which does not reference Part 98. In a December 2025 bulletin, the New Mexico Environment Department stated that “[r]egardless of federal actions on greenhouse gas emission reporting, New Mexico continues to require greenhouse gas emissions reporting.”

In New Jersey, under N.J.A.C. § 7:27-21, reporting of CO2 emissions occurs only at the facility level and only if the facility exceeds a reporting threshold for another pollutant. Methane, however, is given its own reporting threshold, and there are special reporting requirements for gas utilities and facilities with refrigeration systems. As noted above, New Jersey explicitly incorporates by reference provisions from Part 98 without specifying a version.

Hawaii, Illinois, and Minnesota also require some GHG emissions reporting for stationary sources, but there have been no recent developments. Minnesota’s regulation references the Part 98 GWP values as amended, rendering Minnesota’s definition of “subject to regulation” susceptible to obsolescence.

Conclusion

State programs are simultaneously becoming more numerous and less uniform. Companies should not assume that uncertainty at the federal level means reporting obligations are going away. Until EPA takes final action, the federal GHGRP remains in effect, and reporting obligations for the 2025 reporting year may still come due, either in full or in a modified form, on October 30, 2026, or on a later date.

Entities with potential reporting obligations should use this period to preserve reporting readiness. That includes collecting emissions data, maintaining internal records, and closely monitoring litigation and regulatory developments. Beveridge & Diamond’s Air and Climate Change practice group has extensive experience with GHG regulation and reporting requirements at both the state and federal levels.

Beveridge & Diamond’s Air and Climate Change practice helps clients navigate complex regulatory, litigation, and transactional matters involving greenhouse gas regulation, climate disclosures, and emissions reporting programs. We counsel companies across industry sectors on compliance strategies, regulatory advocacy, and sustainability initiatives, including voluntary and supply chain reporting. For more information, contact the authors.