As the US Environmental Protection Agency’s federal Greenhouse Gas Reporting Programme remains unresolved, states across the country are moving to strengthen their own reporting frameworks.
The EPA published a proposed rule in September 2025 that would eliminate reporting obligations under the longstanding federal Greenhouse Gas Reporting Programme for most source categories.
In February 2026, the EPA extended the reporting deadline for the 2025 reporting year from March 31, 2026, to October 30, 2026, but has not finalised the rule ending the programme.
The result is an uncertain federal landscape in which companies may need to preserve federal reporting readiness while also tracking state programmes that could maintain or expand their obligations.
The EPA received extensive comments on its proposal to repeal the programme, including numerous industry comments arguing that it should be retained at least in part.
If the EPA proceeds with full revocation of the federal programme, environmental groups, states, and businesses are widely expected to pursue litigation, which could extend uncertainty for years.
At least nine state reporting programmes incorporate aspects of the federal Part 98 regulations by formal or informal reference, creating significant vulnerability if federal rules are ultimately repealed.
States including Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Jersey reference Part 98 without specifying a version, which legal experts warn could render those state provisions obsolete should federal rules be eliminated.
New York moved proactively, with the state Department of Environmental Conservation finalising a mandatory GHG reporting programme on December 1, 2025, expressly designed in part to guard against anticipated federal rollbacks.
New York’s programme uses a 20-year time horizon for Global Warming Potential calculations, diverging from both California and the federal programme, which both use a 100-year time horizon.
California remains the most developed state GHG reporting jurisdiction, with the California Air Resources Board proposing amendments in January 2026 to its Mandatory Reporting Regulation and holding a hearing on May 28, 2026.
California’s landmark enterprise-level climate disclosure requirements under the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act require covered companies with more than one billion dollars in annual revenue to disclose Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 GHG emissions.
On June 24, 2026, CARB withdrew its regulation package implementing SB 253 and SB 261, promising to clarify certain requirements and delaying the Scope 1 and Scope 2 reporting deadline to November 10, 2026.
Enforcement of SB 261 remains paused due to a November 2025 injunction granted by the Ninth Circuit in Chamber of Commerce v. Sanchez, with oral argument already heard and a decision expected in coming months.
Washington announced a proposed rule on June 1, 2026, that would amend its greenhouse gas reporting regulations, including lowering the electric power entity reporting threshold to zero for the 2027 emissions year and beyond.
Colorado’s Regulation 22 continues to operate as a state backstop to the federal programme, though the state is still developing alternative reporting tools after the EPA’s electronic reporting system became outdated for most reporters.
Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality adopted amendments in 2026 to increase fees assessed to air-permitted facilities subject to GHG reporting requirements, with changes taking effect on June 12, 2026.
Virginia resumed participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, with reporting and compliance requirements restarting on July 1, 2026, including participation in the September and December auctions.
The New Mexico Environment Department stated in a December 2025 bulletin that “[r]egardless of federal actions on greenhouse gas emission reporting, New Mexico continues to require greenhouse gas emissions reporting.”
Companies should not assume that uncertainty at the federal level means reporting obligations are disappearing, as state programmes are simultaneously becoming more numerous and less uniform across jurisdictions.