|
|
|
In another move aimed at rolling back federal environmental laws and regulations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on Sept. 12 that it was proposing to eliminate the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. This program, which began in 2009, requires about 8,000 large, mostly industrial polluters such as refineries, power plants, and landfills, to annually report their GHG emissions to the federal government.
This latest proposal, which follows the EPA’s announcement in July of a plan to overturn the 2009 finding known as the Endangerment Finding (covered in our August 1 newsletter), is the focus of our Top Stories this issue. The Associated Press reported that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin “called the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program ‘burdensome’ and unhelpful to improving human health and the environment,” claiming ending the program would save American businesses up in $2.4 billion in regulatory costs over 10 years.
The AP also reported that “experts say dropping the requirement… risks a big increase in emissions, since companies would no longer be publicly accountable for what they discharge into the air.” David Doniger, a senior strategist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the proposal “a cynical effort to keep the American public in the dark, because if they don’t know who the polluters are, they can’t do anything to hold them responsible.”
|
|
|
|
While the EPA is seeking to eliminate federal GHG reporting requirements, the Los Angeles Times reported that California is well positioned to continue monitoring GHG emissions in the state due to its own GHG emissions reporting program. According to the LA Times, “the California Air Resources Board (CARB) administers its own state-level greenhouse gas reporting program that in some ways exceeds that of the federal one that is now on the chopping block.”
CARB requires large stationary polluters that emit over 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent to annually report their emissions, compared with the EPA’s minimum of 25,000 metric tons. California’s program also includes additional reporting categories such as fuel suppliers and electricity importers that the EPA does not require.
The LA Times also reports that “unlike the federal program, California’s system also goes beyond data collection and is directly tied to compliance obligations.” This is because the reporting is integrated with the state’s cap-and trade program that sets limits on GHG emissions and allows large polluters to buy and sell unused emission allowances at quarterly auctions.
While California and other Democratic-led states may be better positioned to continue requiring large polluters to report GHG emissions, health and environmental groups say the country as a whole will be harmed by the Trump Administration’s proposals to eliminate federal reporting requirements. Will Barrett, assistant vice president at the American Lung Assn., was quoted in the LA Times saying, “measuring and reporting climate pollution is a critical step in reducing the deadly impacts of climate-driven extremes that cause more pollution, catastrophic weather events, health emergencies and deaths. Ignoring this reality is a deadly choice, and not one that EPA should be making for American families.”
The Environmental Defense Fund issued a statement vowing to “vigorously oppose the Trump EPA’s proposal to eliminate the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program,” saying “eliminating information about pollution will not make the problem of climate change go away, it will only make it more expensive and difficult to deal with.” The EPA is planning to publish the plan in the Federal Register in coming days, after which public comments on the proposal will be accepted for more than six weeks.
The EPA is currently taking public comments on its proposal to eliminate the Endangerment Finding through Sept. 22, and any actions taken are expected to be challenged in court by environmental and public health groups. The G&A team will continue to monitor developments on potential changes to emissions reporting requirements and we are available to answer your questions on how this may impact your organization’s sustainability reporting programs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Staying the Course
Positive stories showing that sustainability is alive and well
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sustainability Standard Setters & Policy Makers
SEC, ISSB, SASB, GRI, IIRC, FSB-TCFD…and more
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ESG / Sustainable & Responsible Investment
Asset Owners & Managers, Ratings Agencies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate ESG / Sustainability
Disclosure, Reporting, Corporate Initiatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sustainability Innovations / Technologies
Developments in Innovation and Technology
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stakeholders That Matter
Developments, Trends, Corporate Actions Affecting Stakeholders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sustainability Data in Focus
Developments in Data, Research, Trends
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Climate Action in Asia, Africa, & Oceania
News-Developments of Note
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Climate Action in North & South America
News-Developments of Note
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Climate Action in Europe
News-Developments of Note
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These feeds are provided for G&A Institute in partnership with 3BL. 3BL distributes press releases, blogs, videos, podcasts, reports, newsletters and more to the growing audience of stakeholders interested in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Sustainability.
Visit 3BL.com for more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
