The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed ending the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). The agency says this move could save businesses up to $2.4 billion in compliance costs over the next ten years.
If approved, about 8,000 large facilities would no longer be required to report their greenhouse gas emissions. These businesses currently have to share data if their emissions exceed 25,000 tons of CO₂ equivalent each year.
This proposal follows President Trump’s executive orders on his first day in office, which focus on cutting regulations and promoting energy production.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin explained that,
“Alongside President Trump, EPA continues to live up to the promise of unleashing energy dominance that powers the American Dream. The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is nothing more than bureaucratic red tape that does nothing to improve air quality. Instead, it costs American businesses and manufacturing billions of dollars, driving up the cost of living, jeopardizing our nation’s prosperity, and hurting American communities. With this proposal, we show once again that fulfilling EPA’s statutory obligations and Powering the Great American Comeback is not a binary choice.”
Turning Point for America’s Climate: EPA’s Bold Move to Scrap Greenhouse Gas Reporting
The EPA argues that the GHGRP creates “burdensome red tape” without helping improve human health or protect the environment. The agency says this data doesn’t directly lead to rules that regulate emissions or enforce climate action.
The proposed rule would remove reporting requirements for facilities across many industries—power plants, refineries, steel mills, cement factories, and landfills. The public would no longer have access to self-reported emissions data from these sources.
Reporting for petroleum and natural gas companies would also be suspended until 2034. This aligns with recent law changes that delayed methane fee collections. Only small parts of the petroleum sector would still be required to report emissions for future adjustments.
According to the EPA, this change would save between $2 billion and $2.4 billion over ten years. The agency believes that by reducing regulatory costs, companies can focus on real environmental improvements instead of filling out reports.
Background on the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
The GHGRP was created by Congress in 2008 and started collecting data in 2010. It requires 47 categories of sources to report their emissions each year. The goal was to improve transparency and track trends in pollution.
The Waste Emissions Charge (WEC) was added to the Clean Air Act in 2022. It imposed fees on methane emissions from petroleum and natural gas systems that exceeded certain limits. However, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” signed in 2025 delayed this charge until 2034, meaning those companies won’t report until then.
Earlier in 2025, the EPA announced it would reconsider the GHGRP as part of a wider effort to cut regulations and boost American energy.
However, Zeldin said that rolling back GHGRP would still meet the agency’s legal obligations under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
- ALSO READ: EPA Pushes Rollback on Carbon Rules for Fossil Fuel Plants — Is U.S. Net Zero Target at Stake?
What the Proposal Means
If the proposal is approved:
- Nearly all large polluters, like power plants, refineries, steel and cement makers, landfills, and others, will no longer report their emissions.
- Only small parts of the petroleum and natural gas sector will report, and even that is postponed until 2034.
- This means that nearly all U.S. greenhouse gas reporting would stop, making it harder for the government to track emissions.
Industry’s Reaction: Mixed Support, Strong Worries
Many scientists, economists, and environmental groups worry that this move will make it much harder to fight climate change. Environmental organizations argue it can significantly weaken efforts to hold polluters accountable.
Even some business groups that support deregulation warn that without reliable data, companies and investors won’t be able to manage climate risks.
- Loss of Transparency: The GHGRP is one of the country’s biggest sources of emissions data. Without it, governments, investors, and communities won’t know where pollution is coming from.
- Risk of “Blind Spots”: Policymakers will have fewer tools to track pollution and design solutions. This could slow down efforts to reduce emissions.
- Higher Long-Term Costs: Studies show that mandatory reporting has helped lower emissions by 20% since 2009. Without data, companies may pollute more, leading to greater health risks and economic costs later on.
- Weakening Climate Agreements: The U.S. shares emissions data with other countries. Without this reporting, global trust in U.S. climate commitments could fall.
Economists warn that while companies save money in the short term, the risks from extreme weather, regulatory uncertainty, and damaged public trust could lead to bigger problems down the line.
On the other hand, some industry groups support the rollback. They say reporting rules are expensive and outdated. Cutting them would free up money for more direct investments in cleaner technology.
They believe this proposal is part of a wider effort to reduce regulations, paperwork and encourage energy production. It will create jobs, boost the economy, and let businesses invest more in real environmental solutions.
Next Steps
The EPA will open a public comment period where citizens, businesses, and experts can share their views. Instructions will be available in the Federal Register and on the EPA website. Many expect fierce debate, and legal challenges are likely if the rule moves forward.
A Critical Choice for America’s Climate Future
The EPA’s plan to end the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is a major shift in U.S. climate policy. While it could lower costs for businesses, it also creates serious risks by making it harder to track pollution and protect the environment. As the public voices its opinions, this debate will help determine how the country balances short-term savings with long-term climate goals.
U.S. Emissions Set to Rise in 2025?
Overall, this deregulation decision could affect the U.S. globally. Other nations depend on American emissions data to measure progress and coordinate efforts. Without this information, the U.S. risks losing trust and influence in international climate discussions. In the end, it’s not just about cutting regulations. Ensuring accountability, leadership, and a cleaner future for all should also matter.
The post U.S. EPA’s $2.4 Billion Deregulation Plan: How Ending Greenhouse Gas Reporting Could Affect America’s Climate Future appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.
![]()
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测


