Within the effort to break down America’s greenhouse gas data

Washington, D.C., August 18, 2026 – Recent records from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), obtained via a freedom of information request, reveal that the fossil fuel sector is attempting to soften methane reporting rules while simultaneously striving to protect the federal emissions database it depends on for legitimacy.

Last year, when the Trump administration announced plans to dismantle the federal greenhouse gas reporting system, instead of welcoming this move, many oil and gas firms publicly pushed the EPA to retain it. Nevertheless, for over a year, behind the scenes, the industry has sought to dilute one of the program’s most significant reporting components.

The oil and gas sector is apprehensive about Biden-era revisions to the methane reporting guidelines under Subpart W, which would require them to reveal much higher pollution levels—some of which had previously been concealed. These worries, which have been simmering for years, escalated into a stronger opposition that eventually influenced the Trump EPA’s anticipated revision of both the methane rule and the broader Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), the country’s most detailed system for monitoring greenhouse gases, as documented in industry feedback and public files.

During a private industry meeting in 2023, an energy analyst described the updated methane rule as a “major PR headache” for oil and gas companies. He questioned how they could present the situation to their investors, noting that emissions that were once potentially ignored would now need to be declared.

In 2025, an industry consultant forecasted that under the new measurement methods, some companies might report methane emissions increasing by a factor of four to ten. More recently, at a gas industry conference in the spring, another consultant warned that updated disclosure standards could elevate reported methane emissions by about 16 percent. Last month, EQT, a significant gas producer, cited the revised rule as a factor in its 2025 methane emissions increase.

Documents disclosed by the National Security Archive through the Freedom of Information Act and shared with DeSmog outline industry efforts to relax federal methane pollution reporting standards while urging the U.S. government to retain the GHGRP. This federal system, which provides the public with emissions data crucial for policymaking, is currently targeted by the Trump administration. Changes to these rules could have significant consequences for the U.S.’s ability to address the rapidly intensifying climate emergency at local and international scales.

Edward Maibach, a climate communication specialist at George Mason University, told the National Security Archive and DeSmog by email, “Oil and gas CEOs will always support weak rules they already comply with rather than no rules at all. Supporting no rules at all would prove to everyone how untrustworthy they are.”

Measuring the Methane Problem

The methane regulation called Subpart W is one among many reporting standards that target emissions from industry sources under the GHGRP. This rule pertains to extensive petroleum and natural gas operations, encompassing onshore and offshore drilling locations, pipelines, compressor stations, and LNG terminals. By 2023, it applied to nearly 2,300 facilities releasing 322 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, including methane, CO2, and nitrous oxide.

Methane, which is a potent short-term heat-trapping pollutant surpassing carbon dioxide, makes up most of natural gas. Apart from CO2, it forms the majority of the climate pollutants reported by these sites. According to the EPA, the oil and gas industry constitutes the largest methane emitter in the U.S., with gas utilities particularly anxious about future disclosures and perceptions regarding these emissions.

Though Subpart W has existed since 2010, the Biden administration introduced crucial updates in 2023 that alarmed the fossil fuel sector, triggering fears of a “major PR headache” and ultimately setting the stage for weakening the rule when President Trump returned to office. Finalized in 2024, these changes required companies to include sources not previously accounted for, like super emitter events and equipment that controls gas pressure and flow. Many industry groups objected to these updates, comments that later underpinned efforts to weaken the rule again during the Trump administration.

The rule’s intended aim is to guide regulatory efforts by providing detailed emissions measurements—first understanding the problem, then addressing it. For example, the methane data feeds into a methane tax imposed on companies exceeding pollution limits, although this tax rollout has been postponed until 2034. The tax would largely affect smaller “stripper wells,” which, research shows, produce roughly 6 percent of U.S. oil and gas but nearly half of the nation’s methane emissions.

Following the implementation of the Biden-era amendments on January 1, 2025, industry groups filed lawsuits against the changes, though these legal challenges are currently paused.

Within two months of Trump’s return to the presidency, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin launched a sweeping deregulatory campaign, proposing to eliminate the entire GHGRP, labeling it as excessively “burdensome” and expensive. Concurrently, the EPA sought to revise the methane reporting rule.

This initial EPA proposal to end the GHGRP sparked fierce backlash from numerous environmental organizations, but interestingly, the fossil fuel industry also opposed the move.

Several trade groups and corporations—including the American Gas Association (AGA), American Petroleum Institute (API), American Exploration & Production Council (AXPC), ExxonMobil, Shell, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—submitted public statements urging the administration to retain the GHGRP and instead “improve the program rather than suspend it.”

Though most in the industry oppose scrapping the program, they have requested more leniency in how methane emissions are measured and reported. Responding to these calls, in September, Zeldin announced the EPA’s plan to repeal the GHGRP and weaken methane reporting requirements, with deadlines deferred until 2034.

The EPA is anticipated to soon release its final rule regarding the GHGRP. If approved, this would exempt over two-thirds of about 8,000 industrial facilities—such as power plants, steel mills, and refineries—from mandatory emissions reporting, with the agency projecting annual savings of $303 million. However, a March study published in Nature estimates that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions spanning 1990 to 2020 inflicted $3 trillion in domestic damages and another $7 trillion worldwide, with those figures expected to rise.

In addition, the EPA is set to propose a revised methane pollution disclosure rule for the oil and gas sector.

The Battle Over Methane

Shortly before President Trump’s second inauguration, the AGA’s Deputy General Counsel, Timothy R. Parr, sent a letter to the EPA transition team outlining the trade association’s “top priority recommendations.” (Document 1) The AGA represents U.S. natural gas utilities, significant methane emitters.

Within Parr’s letter was a technical yet vital request: increased use of company- and facility-based emission factors and advanced methane measurement technologies in Subpart W. Essentially, the AGA encouraged the EPA to relax federal oversight and grant companies more discretion in reporting methane emissions, risking a looser reporting standard.

Not long after, just before Zeldin’s deregulatory announcement, AGA contacted the EPA to request a staff-level meeting to discuss its environmental and energy concerns, specifically regarding methane disclosures, according to public records. (Document 4)

Records obtained by the industry watchdog Fieldnotes and seen by the National Security Archive and DeSmog indicate that the AGA was not alone in seeking EPA meetings about methane reporting reform last year. The API, which has historically led opposition to federal greenhouse gas regulations since at least 1999, met with EPA staff multiple times in 2025 to discuss the rule and sought additional consultations.

The American Exploration & Production Council, representing U.S. independent oil and gas producers, and the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) also met with the EPA multiple times to discuss methane reporting.

In May 2024, AXPC laid out desired changes concerning the EPA’s Super Emitter Program, which addresses large methane leaks from sources like malfunctioning wells or tanks. Studies underscore the outsized climate impact of such leaks, and Biden-era regulations established a program certifying third-party groups to detect and mitigate these leaks using technologies like satellites.

AXPC’s stance on this program has fluctuated. In May 2024 comments, it recognized the program’s “important function” but suggested it should not “trigger mandatory actions” such as repairs or reporting, raising concerns about legal liabilities—a theme reiterated in their May 2025 presentation to the EPA.

By 2025, under Trump, AXPC reversed its position on the Super Emitter Program, describing it as a “significant strain on resources,” prone to litigation, and lacking transparency, according to public documents obtained by Fieldnotes. It recommended eliminating the program entirely or modeling it after the EPA’s Natural Gas STAR program, a voluntary effort that has historically experienced very low participation rates.

API shared a response with the National Security Archive and DeSmog attaching their original petition for reconsideration and a comment letter co-signed by AXPC.

In the letter, API requested that the EPA “strike a balance between reducing the burdens of information collection and reporting requirements and advancing the benefits” of the GHGRP, highlighting its “high quality data” as valuable for stakeholders, stated Dustin Meyer, API Senior Vice President of Policy, Economics, and Regulatory Affairs. According to Meyer, the program’s advantages, which include showcasing progress on emissions and supporting claims for carbon capture and clean energy tax credits, outweigh the costs, especially with their proposed alterations to methane reporting.

IPAA also submitted a comment letter expressing opposition, citing harms to small businesses, low-output well operators, and discrepancies with the Clean Air Act. A representative noted the complexity of the 2024 Subpart W calculations would impose significant costs on many independent producers just to clarify whether they meet reporting thresholds. IPAA members include many smaller firms operating stripper wells, which they argue the current methane rules threaten to make “unviable.”

The EPA stated in an email that it is reviewing public feedback on its GHGRP proposal. By publication, AGA and AXPC had not responded.

Aaron Szabo, EPA assistant administrator and former oil and gas lobbyist with ties to the America First Policy Institute, has been engaging oil industry stakeholders since 2025 to soften methane rules, including those applying to stripper wells, according to ProPublica reporting.

While the oil and gas sector has nuanced views on mandatory federal reporting, most major companies consistently push to scale back or eliminate methane regulations. Some claim that compulsory methane measurement and control are unnecessary due to existing voluntary programs like The Environmental Partnership, an API-led initiative aiming to reduce methane, volatile organic compounds, and flaring.

However, a 2024 congressional investigation revealed that this partnership’s real objective was to delay and limit federal regulations. Senior BP executive David J. van Hoogstraten described the initiative’s inaugural 2017 meeting, stating, “The hope – but far from the certainty – is to stave off future regulation.”

He added, “This program alone…may not stave off regulation, but it would provide the industry with ammunition to help us better mitigate/mold regulation when it does come. You begin by doing things voluntarily and then that (and not much more) becomes the regulation.”

BP did not comment and apparently did not submit its own public statements to the EPA. It remains an API member.

Some companies advocate for a federal regulatory framework to safeguard their public reputation, and in API’s case, to maintain influence over emerging rules. Just two days after President Biden took office in 2021, API publicly endorsed federal methane regulation, with API President Mike Sommers stating in a member email, “API needs to be at the table as [the Biden administration] quickly shifts federal regulatory policy.”

When Trump returned to power, the industry gained a more receptive audience for weakening methane regulations through appointees like Szabo.

Environmentalists caution that diluting methane rules risks significant underreporting or distortion of U.S. emissions data, harming American companies’ standing abroad. The European Union’s landmark climate legislation, which currently faces attacks from the U.S. oil lobby, pressures firms to be transparent about methane emissions, promoting products as “lower carbon” or “responsibly sourced.”

Rachel Cleetus of the Union of Concerned Scientists warned by email that losing consistent, robust methane reporting would leave U.S. companies disadvantaged with key trading partners and push them to costly, uncertain alternatives like third-party verification.

Even if some methane reporting elements survive the Trump administration’s overhaul, they will likely reflect a prolonged industry effort to reshape these regulations in their favor.

Such shifts will have serious consequences for federal policy, public health, and climate outcomes.

Maibach noted, “Oil and gas CEOs know their business model is the leading cause of preventable death and ill-health in the world today. Their callous indifference to humanity is shocking.”

A 2023 British Medical Journal study estimated that more than 5 million excess deaths from air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels could be avoided through a transition to renewable energy. These deaths result primarily from heart disease—which is the leading cause of death worldwide—as well as stroke, respiratory infections, and other illnesses.

Preserving the Greenhouse Gas Framework

If the fossil fuel sector is so intent on diluting methane emission monitoring, why does it want the GHGRP to persist?

Parr, the AGA lawyer, explains part of the logic in his January 2025 letter to the EPA transition team.

“For years, EPA has compiled and published greenhouse gas (‘GHG’) emissions data and analysis that AGA and its members rely on to demonstrate the incredible progress our industry has made in voluntarily reducing methane emissions,” Parr wrote. “AGA encourages EPA to maintain these information repositories.”

The GHGRP collects detailed emissions data from the largest U.S. facilities releasing greenhouse gases. Its complementary Greenhouse Gas Inventory estimates total emissions—including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide—across all sectors. This paired data informs policies at local, state, and federal levels, supports collaboration with international organizations like the United Nations, and helps the public and policymakers grasp emission sources and implications.

Edwin LaMair, Senior Attorney at the Environmental Defense Fund, stated via email, “For over 15 years, the GHGRP has delivered credible, comparable emissions data. Its clear, enforceable rules help ensure consistent, reliable data, even as stakeholders debate individual reporting methods and estimates.”

Growing scrutiny over greenhouse gas emissions has led environmental groups, consultants, and especially investors, to demand more transparent emissions and sustainability data from companies. For industry groups, this program is vital to satisfy such demands.

“Having the [Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program] and the [Greenhouse Gas Inventory] as centralized, commonly accepted GHG data sources allows AGA to proudly and unequivocally demonstrate that U.S. natural gas distribution systems have reduced methane emissions,” Parr noted. “Natural gas companies depend on this data for information frequently requested by investors, customers, and stakeholders.”

After the Trump EPA announced potential repeal of the emissions program, API’s Sommers criticized the move at the October 2025 Drake Energy Security Summit. He emphasized regulatory certainty as a major concern for companies, asserting a preference for stable regulations over prolonged uncertainty. “We want to continue to report. We know how important emissions reduction is for our social license to operate,” he said.

Before Trump’s term, internal EPA materials from February 2024 showed the agency regarded the GHGRP as essential for environmental monitoring, international trade, regulation development, and industry credibility. (Document 2)

Satellite and aerial data suggest the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory substantially underestimates methane emissions. A 2024 Stanford-led study found U.S. oil and gas facilities emit about three times more methane than EPA reports suggest. By incorporating large methane releases known as super-emitter events, the updated methane rules would help address these critical gaps.

Filling a Data Hole the Size of the U.S.

Both government and industry consider the greenhouse gas program unmatched in its collection of climate pollution data.

“While there are other reporting options—including voluntary efforts, sector-specific protocols, and state or international systems—none match the comprehensive reach of the GHGRP,” said LaMair. “Repealing the program would hinder efforts by governments, communities, academia, and businesses to understand and reduce the pollution driving climate change.”

An EPA briefing from 2025 expressed concern that if the GHGRP ended, outside organizations such as the Environmental Defense Fund, World Resources Institute, or Rhodium Group might produce separate inventories. However, these alternative efforts would lack the “same level of transparency, peer review, stakeholder inclusion, or documentation.” (Document 3)

The gas industry has voiced worries about reporting emissions to multiple entities with varying rules. Parr’s letter warned that other federal agencies had encroached on greenhouse gas regulation under Biden, and he urged EPA to maintain “primacy” to avoid a “byzantine” patchwork of conflicting mandates.

An exception among fossil fuel actors is fracking billionaire Harold Hamm’s company, Continental Resources, and its association—the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance—which recently merged with the IPAA. They have advocated eliminating the entire program, according to public comments. Conversely, groups like the Ohio Oil and Gas Association suggested keeping the GHGRP but making participation voluntary. Their comments reflect industry divisions over regulation.

At the University of Texas at Austin, a researcher hopes to develop a robust, voluntary “bridge program” to fill the void if the EPA dismantles the GHGRP. At an April natural gas methane conference in Virginia, Senior Training Specialist Jen Snyder revealed multiple parties have approached her about this effort. The UT Austin Center for Energy and Environmental Systems Analysis is currently building the “Open GHGRP” program.

It remains unclear how much involvement fossil fuel companies will have in establishing this initiative. Snyder did not respond to a request for comment.

Impacts of Losing the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

Experts warn that without a program like the GHGRP and related Inventory, the U.S. risks losing vital insight into its environment and climate dynamics.

“Ending the GHGRP would leave significant gaps in our collective understanding of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change,” said Kimberly Barrett from the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative via email.

Barrett predicts these gaps would cause serious issues for state-level policymaking. For example, Texas lacks independent greenhouse gas reporting mandates, yet EPA data reveals it emits more greenhouse gases than any other state.

Moreover, states ranging from Iowa to North Carolina depend on GHGRP data for their own mandated greenhouse gas inventories. The EPA briefing indicates that without this data, “double-counting and omissions in emissions estimates” would be inevitable, particularly concerning mobile sources and fugitive methane emissions. (Document 3)

Slashing the U.S. federal reporting system could further disadvantage American companies in foreign markets. The EU’s methane regulations demand high-quality, verified carbon intensity data for imports. Without these systems, the EPA states the U.S. could lose leverage and economic advantages.

“The rigor and transparency of the Inventory has enabled the U.S. to pressure trade competitors like China, India, and Brazil to disclose their emissions and ensure valid performance comparisons between nations,” reads a draft internal EPA memo labeled “DELIBERATIVE – DO NOT CITE.” (Document 3)

As the Trump administration decides how to reshape the reporting program and methane rule, the world’s largest oil companies have reaped $93 billion in quarterly profits despite ongoing war, record heatwaves, and devastating wildfires exacerbated by climate change.

“This administration is entirely focused on shielding fossil fuel interests, even as these companies amass huge profits while causing costly climate damage worldwide,” Cleetus said.

Ashley Braun contributed reporting for this story.

The Documents