Trump Administration Proposes End to Key Climate Pollution Data Program

The Trump administration has proposed significant changes to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations that would eliminate the requirement for large industrial facilities to report their greenhouse gas emissions. This potential move threatens to restrict public access to crucial information about climate pollution in the United States, which has been systematically collected since 2011 through the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program.

The proposed changes come amid ongoing debates about climate policy and have raised alarms among environmental activists and researchers. The data collected by the EPA has been vital for holding major polluters accountable and informing the public about their contributions to climate change. With the potential discontinuation of this program, communities would face challenges in accessing important tools necessary for environmental advocacy and accountability.

Michael Ash, a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), recently discussed the implications of these regulatory changes. PERI has utilized EPA data for years to produce its annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Index, which ranks the top polluters in the country. The latest edition, released for 2025, has gained renewed significance in light of the Trump administration’s proposal to end the reporting program.

Impact of the Proposed Changes on Emissions Tracking

According to Ash, the top emitters of greenhouse gases remain primarily fossil fuel-based electrical companies. The current leaders include Vistra Energy, Southern Company, and Duke Energy, collectively responsible for approximately 235 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent emissions, accounting for nearly 4 percent of total U.S. contributions to climate change.

The stability of these rankings highlights the entrenched nature of fossil fuel dependency. While companies may shift positions based on acquisitions or facility sales, the overall landscape of top emitters has remained consistent for years. This consistency underscores the ongoing challenges in reducing greenhouse gas emissions across the sector.

The proposed elimination of the reporting program is particularly concerning for understanding regional emissions and their impact on vulnerable populations. PERI has compiled state-specific data that shows significant disparities in pollution levels, particularly in states like Texas and Louisiana, where fossil fuel extraction is prevalent. In California, for instance, major refineries contribute heavily to greenhouse gas emissions, with companies like Marathon Petroleum and Chevron leading in pollution rankings.

Consequences for Environmental Justice

The issue of climate pollution intersects significantly with environmental justice. Communities of color often bear the brunt of pollution from nearby industrial facilities. According to PERI’s findings, many of the top greenhouse gas emitters have high percentages of residents of color living near their operations, further exacerbating health disparities. For example, companies like LyondellBasell and BP have populations nearby that are over 75 percent people of color.

As Ash points out, the local co-pollutants released alongside greenhouse gases contribute to serious health issues, including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Reducing these emissions could lead to immediate health benefits for affected communities, making the fight against climate pollution a pressing social justice issue.

The Trump administration’s approach to environmental regulation includes significant rollbacks of clean energy initiatives and a revival of coal industry interests. This shift raises questions about the incentives for U.S. corporations to reduce emissions in an increasingly lenient regulatory environment. With the potential discontinuation of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, the path forward for corporations appears uncertain, and the likelihood of increased emissions looms large.

Nevertheless, some states are taking proactive measures. Several have introduced Climate Superfund Bills, aimed at holding corporations accountable for the costs associated with climate change impacts. This legislative trend could provide a mechanism for state-level accountability, potentially incentivizing corporations to consider long-term liabilities in their operational decisions.

As the EPA prepares to phase out the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, environmental activists foresee challenges in their efforts to monitor and address corporate pollution. The loss of this data means stakeholders, including socially responsible investors and community advocates, will have less information to guide their actions, ultimately diminishing the public’s right to know about climate pollution.

In summary, the Trump administration’s proposed changes to the EPA’s reporting requirements represent a significant shift in U.S. environmental policy. The implications for climate accountability, public health, and environmental justice are profound, and the future of emissions tracking hangs in the balance as debates around climate policies continue.