New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

U.S. Unveils New Rule Requiring Greenhouse Gas Reporting

The new registry will track emissions from all major industrial sources in the country

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

U.S. EPA today finalized a nationwide system to require large sources of greenhouse gases to report their emissions.

The new rule will require about 10,000 facilities that emit about 85 percent of the nation's greenhouse gases to begin to collect emissions data under a new reporting system, EPA said. Suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial greenhouse gases, motor vehicle and engine manufacturers and other facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of carbon dioxide equivalent will be subject to the new requirements.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson called the new rule a major step forward in efforts to address the heat-trapping gases.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"For the first time, we begin collecting data from the largest facilities in this country, ones that account for approximately 85 percent of the total U.S. emissions," Jackson said in a statement. "The American public, and industry itself, will finally gain critically important knowledge and with this information we can determine how best to reduce those emissions."

Most small businesses would fall below the 25,000-metric-ton threshold, EPA said, and would not be required to report their emissions. The only agricultural sources that are required to report their emissions are manure management systems at livestock operations where greenhouse gas emissions meet or exceed the 25,000-ton limit. About 100 livestock operations meet that threshold, EPA said.

Facilities are required to begin collecting emissions data on Jan. 1, 2010, and the first emissions reports will be due in March 2011. EPA will verify the data and will not require third-party verification. Prior to EPA verification, the facilities will be required to self-certify their data.

Many industry groups expressed concerns that EPA's draft rule, released in March, would impose significant costs and regulatory burdens. The American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce were among the groups that criticized the agency's draft regulations. Representatives from those groups were not immediately available to comment on the final rule.

Environmentalists applauded the new regulation, which is widely viewed as a major step toward informing future policy decisions on carbon dioxide regulations.

"The public has both a need and a right to know about the country's biggest emitters," said Mark MacLeod, director of special projects at Environmental Defense Fund. "The transparency provided today will inform smart policy that targets the biggest sources of heat-trapping emissions."

Said David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel at the Sierra Club, "I think it shows they're continuing to move along, and they've got a bunch of rules that they've got to get done."

Bookbinder said that the suite of greenhouse gas regulations pending at EPA could give the Obama administration some leverage in upcoming climate change negotiations.

President Obama touted the new reporting rule today at a U.N. climate change summit in New York. "I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history," he said, citing the reporting rule as one of the administration's achievements on that front.

White House clears GHG proposals

The White House yesterday finished its review of two draft regulations that are part of the suite of climate regulations expected to soon be proposed by EPA.

The Office of Management and Budget has cleared the agency's greenhouse gas "tailoring" rule, as well as its reconsideration of a George W. Bush administration policy on regulating emissions from coal-fired power plants.

The "tailoring rule" is expected to limit strict permitting requirements to industrial sources of more than 25,000 tons a year of carbon dioxide equivalent.

The White House also cleared a proposal that is expected to detail the Obama administration's reconsideration of the "Johnson memo," a document issued by former EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson asserting that the government should not regulate carbon dioxide emissions from new coal-fired power plants.

EPA has not yet released the text of the proposals.

Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe