Climate change solutions
We deliver game-changing environmental solutions that have a real impact for people around the globe.
California surpassed 2.5 million zero-emission vehicles years ahead of schedule. Nearly $12 billion in private-sector electric vehicle investments have been announced. EVs can now power homes during outages. Fleets can slash fuel costs by more than 60%. Many communities near ports breathe cleaner air. These aren’t projections – they’re results already delivering across California.
State leadership and targeted investments made this progress possible. As lawmakers finalize the budget amid federal attacks on California’s clean vehicle authority, the state’s clean transportation budget stands out as one of the most powerful tools to protect public health, lower costs, expand consumer choice and sustain economic momentum.
Environmental Defense Fund applauds the Governor’s proposed $200 million light-duty vehicle incentive and urges the Legislature to commit at least $1.5 billion to fund the full spectrum of clean vehicles and infrastructure (see our fact sheet for more recommendations).
After housing, a car is the second-largest household expense, and purchase prices remain a real barrier for families who want to choose cleaner vehicles. Incentive programs like Gov. Newsom’s proposed new light-duty incentive and Clean Cars 4 All help remove that barrier – especially for low- and moderate-income households replacing older, high-polluting cars with options that fit their budgets. Funding these programs in the final state budget is essential to keep clean transportation within reach for California families.
Once on the road, the savings continue. EV owners in California can save up to $1,500 in fuel and maintenance over a passenger vehicle’s lifetime, while heavy-duty truck operators can save up to tens of thousands of dollars per vehicle. With volatile fuel prices and rising living costs, those savings matter now. These state incentives for buyers deliver immediate relief at the point of sale and long-term affordability every month after.
Electric vehicles do more than move people. Bidirectional charging turns EVs into mobile batteries that charge from the grid and supply power back to homes during outages. One Santa Cruz-area family already powers their entire home with their electric pickup truck during frequent mountain blackouts.
They’re not alone. Across California, EV owners are running refrigerators, lights, phones and medical equipment when the grid fails. By 2045, this distributed battery network could deliver over $10 billion annually in grid savings by cutting peak demand, avoiding costly upgrades and lowering rates for all customers.
Despite significant progress, transportation remains California’s largest source of smog and climate pollution, with communities near ports, warehouses and truck routes bearing the heaviest health burden for decades. Clean truck investments are beginning to change that reality.
At the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, electric drayage trucks are replacing diesel vehicles that operate all day in nearby neighborhoods. California-based companies like Tradelink Transport are deploying zero-emission trucks that eliminate tailpipe pollution while dramatically lowering operating costs.
Replacing heavy-duty diesel vehicles could deliver up to $5.6 billion in statewide health and environmental benefits while modernizing California’s goods-movement system. Demand for the Clean Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project consistently exceeds available funding – clear evidence that fleets are ready to electrify when incentives exist. The Legislature should continue funding this essential cost-saving and public health program.
In Humboldt County, McKinleyville Union School District used California Climate Investments to purchase four zero-emission school buses, cutting fuel and maintenance costs by 60% while improving air quality for 250 students. In rural communities, the Funding Agricultural Replacement Measures for Emission Reductions (FARMER) program helps growers replace diesel equipment with cleaner alternatives, reducing both air pollution and fuel costs.
Yet despite its success, the current state budget left FARMER without funding – ignoring an urgent need among California’s agricultural communities that must be addressed this year.
Major corporations also see the value. In 2024, PepsiCo announced a major expansion of its California electric fleet, including 50 Class 8 Tesla Semi trucks and 75 Ford E-Transit vans to cut costs and carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. By energizing 20 trucks ahead of schedule, the company estimates it will avoid roughly 8,000 tons of CO₂ and save about $1 million in fuel costs. These projects support jobs across manufacturing, construction, utilities and technology – and they depend on stable, multi-year state investment to scale.
Federal rollbacks of national standards and the loss of key tax credits have rattled the ZEV market, triggering clean energy investment cancellations nationwide that wiped out 39,000 jobs and $29 billion in 2025, according to EDF analysis. California’s state transportation budget remains one of the Legislature’s most reliable tools to preserve momentum, protect affordability and deliver results. The Legislature should seize this opportunity.
These ZEV buyer incentives accelerate adoption now to lock in long-term savings, cleaner air, consumer choice and economic benefits for decades. Meanwhile, EV costs continue to fall rapidly across multiple segments. Passenger electric vehicles are nearing upfront price parity with gasoline models – and in some cases, they’re already cheaper.
California’s clean transportation investments are working – at homes, ports, schools, farms and businesses statewide. The question is whether California’s leaders will continue building on what’s already succeeding. The evidence from communities across California is clear: continued investment delivers real returns. Now is the time to double down.
Results were released today for the February 18 auction for the joint California–Quebec Cap-and-Invest market, the first of the year and the first since the California Air Resources Board (CARB) published its initial plans for updating this cornerstone climate program.
Today’s allowance prices, detailed below, signal lackluster demand and suggest there is ample room in the emissions market to tighten the cap in order to maximize program benefits for the achievement of California’s climate emissions reduction targets, cost of living and the state’s economy. With almost 88% of the allowances in this auction bought by compliance entities, it’s clear that the low prices are not just the result of financial interests’ speculation — there is real opportunity for tightening these allowance budgets and reducing emissions in the near-term. Modestly improving market confidence is important given that recent uncertainty leading up to last year’s program reauthorization through 2045 cost the state roughly $3 billion.
California’s Cap-and-Invest program serves as the state’s emissions backstop: a foundational policy to cap and reduce climate pollution, while generating critical revenue to invest in energy affordability, climate resilience, infrastructure, and more. And, California’s suite of climate policies produced one of the largest annual emissions reduction while California’s economy continues to grow. The latest data from CARB shows statewide greenhouse gas emissions fell another 3% in the most recent inventory — equivalent to taking more than 2.6 million gas-powered cars off the road for a year. Cap-and-Invest is a key part of that success. But there’s still more that California needs to do in order to make sure this program is really delivering reductions at the pace and scale required to meet its climate targets while also addressing household energy affordability.
With the formal rulemaking process now in motion, CARB has a pivotal chance to set the cap-and-invest program’s ambition at a level that truly meets this moment — both for cutting emissions and delivering tangible benefits to communities across California. EDF supports the adoption of a stronger emissions cap and stronger reductions in the cap compared to what CARB proposed in the Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR).
The allowance budget reductions outlined in the agency’s proposal reflect only the minimum needed to align with the 2030 emissions reduction targets, well below the stronger pathway CARB previously presented. The proposal would remove about 118 million allowances from 2027-2030 and set a post-2030 pathway to an 85% emission reduction by 2045. While this represents progress compared to the existing cap trajectory, deeper reductions before 2030 are essential to ensure the program drives near-term emissions cuts and maximizes benefits for households and communities across California.
Preliminary modeling conducted by Greenline Insights for EDF shows CARB could reduce emissions at a faster pace while maintaining cumulative cost savings for low- and moderate- income households.
With a growing list of states considering policies like California’s and seeking to join the state’s emissions market, the stakes could not be higher. California pioneered this policy and must show that it works. The relatively weak demand for allowances seen in today’s auction results — selling out current vintages, but at the price floor — illustrates a tighter cap and faster rate of emissions reduction are the most logical path forward to meet the affordability needs of households across California and the urgency for climate action at scale.
This blog is part of a series by EDF on the development of a regional electricity market in the West. Other blogs in the series explore the overall importance and benefit of a regional market, the impacts of market participation in Colorado and California, and opportunities unlocked via passage of California AB 825.
After decades of effort, a regional electricity market in the Western U.S. is taking shape. Recent legislation in California marked a critical step forward in a decades-long process to establish an independent, West-wide power market that will deliver cleaner, more affordable and more reliable electricity to consumers in the West. This new market could deliver real savings to Arizonans’ electricity bills. To fully realize these benefits, utilities must embrace regional cooperation.
Arizona’s largest electric utilities, including Arizona Public Service (APS), Salt River Project (SRP), and Tucson Electric Power (TEP), are all primed to join a regional “day-ahead market” within the next few years. They have two options: 1) the Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM), which will be governed by a new independent Regional Organization for Western Energy (ROWE) and operated by the California Independent System Operator, which is poised to be the largest and most resource-diverse market in the region; and 2) Markets+, another day-ahead electricity market that will be run by the Southwest Power Pool.
New analysis from Aurora Energy Research and EDF compares these two options and finds that APS could save its residential customers nearly $110 million annually more than projected under their current market selection if they instead went with the larger market option. For APS customers, that’s about $50 per year in savings. Additionally, if all Arizona utilities joined the larger market, they would collectively save $114.9 million per year more than the alternative market. These results underscore the significance of this decision for the utilities and their consumers in Arizona.
Arizona stands at a pivotal moment for its energy future. Last August, state utilities experienced record-breaking peak demand driven by high temperatures exceeding 110 degrees across Phoenix and Tucson. It follows a trend of electric demand exceeding summer forecasts as heatwaves become more common due to climate change.
At the same time, growing industrial demand for power, primarily from data centers, is reshaping the state’s energy landscape. If all proposed data center facilities are built, APS and Salt River Project, the state’s two largest utilities, could face up to 17,000 MW and 12,000 MW respectively in new demand by 2038, more than doubling their current peak capacity. These and other pressures are leading to significant cost increases for Arizonans; for example, last year APS proposed a rate increase of nearly 15% for residential consumers, outpacing the national consumer price index of 6.7% for electricity services.
With over 11,000 MW of installed solar capacity and projections to exceed 14,000 MW over the next five years, the state ranks among the top five nationally for solar generation. This could position Arizona as a leading exporter of cheap, clean power, when it produces more than it can use. Efficient regional structures that integrate and dispatch energy across state lines can generate new revenue while displacing more expensive power when needed.
Arizona needs solutions that can drive more efficient use of energy resources to limit cost increases wherever possible and ensure reliable electric service despite more strain on the grid. Expanding the use of markets to facilitate more trading between Arizona and its neighboring states is one such solution, and Arizona utilities are actively pursuing joining new markets to share energy resources and balance load growth. However, the choice of market matters in terms of the scope and scale of benefits both utilities and their customers can garner from trading efficiencies.
Utilities can already buy and sell power with each other via bilateral trading agreements, but markets create opportunities to optimize trading between many participants across a wider geography. In short, this benefits Arizonans by allowing their utilities to buy the cheapest power available and to sell their excess power to more customers when it’s not needed in Arizona. A wider market geography also means access to more diverse sources of power when Arizona needs its most, reducing the risk of reliability problems like brownouts at moments of grid stress.
Arizona’s utilities have already seen the benefits of regional markets through the Western Energy-Imbalance Market (WEIM), a voluntary real-time market launched in 2014 that lets utilities buy and sell power to manage near-immediate imbalances in supply and demand. By pooling their resources, WEIM participants access the cheapest energy available, which is a critical capability when localized shortages occur, like during heat waves when demand spikes. The 20 participating utilities have generated an estimated $7.82 billion in benefits, including about $128 million in savings for APS, TEP, and SRP in 2024 alone.
However, a real-time market like WEIM can only do so much — adding a day-ahead market, where utilities buy and sell power to serve forecasted needs a day in advance, would deliver even greater reliability and cost savings.
Since 2021, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), which runs WEIM, has been in the process of establishing the Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM) to provide a day-ahead service that would benefit the West. While many utilities, including those estimated to serve nearly 50% of load in the region, have already signed onto join EDAM, several others have been reluctant to join or have actively pursued participation in an alternative market. Among those seeking an alternative include Arizona’s APS, TEP and SRP.
One main concern with EDAM has been market governance — until just a few months ago, EDAM could not be governed by an independent entity per California law. To overcome that impasse, a group of utility regulators from several Western states, including Arizona, launched the Pathways Initiative in 2023 aimed at creating a market structure that would be independent of CAISO and represent the interests of the entire region. That effort marked a major success with the adoption of AB 825 in California last September, paving the path the for creation of an independent Regional Organization for Western Energy (ROWE) — one governed by a body representing Western state interests — that will have exclusive authority over both the WEIM and EDAM, as well as future market offerings that could improve the cost and reliability of electricity throughout the West.
Over the past several years, another competing day-ahead market by the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) — called Markets+ — has taken shape. While significantly smaller and less connected than the EDAM market footprint, several Western utilities have already committed to joining including APS, TEP, and SRP.
Both EDAM and Markets+ aim to deliver cheaper, more reliable electricity, but the choice between them will shape how Arizona utilities interact with neighboring states, manage growing demand, and maintain grid reliability. For a power market, the size and footprint matter. As utilities commit to one market or the other, the benefits of regional coordination — and the risks of fragmentation — become increasingly clear.
To evaluate the potential impacts for ratepayers in Arizona of utilities’ market choices, Aurora Energy Research evaluated the impacts of APS, TEP, and SRP’s participation in two different regional market options, both of which offer day-ahead market services beginning in 2026-2027:
There are currently 38 balancing authorities in the West, which are the organizations in charge of managing electricity supply and demand across a geographic area, handling the dispatch of power resources to ensure the lights stay on. Currently, ten balancing authorities, have either committed or publicly signaled their intent to join EDAM — we estimate this represents 45%-50% of total electricity demand across the West.
By comparison, eight balancing authorities, which we estimate to make up about 25%- 30% of total demand in the West — and, important to this analysis, includes APS, TEP and SRP — have signaled their intention to join Markets+. Other balancing authorities in the region have not yet decided and are most likely waiting to see which market structure will yield the most benefits at the lowest cost, while a few others have opted to join SPP’s RTO West, a market option offering full RTO services. It is worth noting that the percentages cited above are for committed entities; the map below includes those balancing authorities and accounts for others that Aurora Energy Research determined likely to join one market or another.
Understanding market participants is critical because a larger marketplace, with more diverse energy resource offerings, will yield greater benefits to participants.
To evaluate outcomes associated with participation in these two different market options, Aurora Energy Research used a production cost model to compare the revenues and costs associated with production and delivery of electricity for Arizona utilities.
The full APS Report from Aurora Energy Research provides significant additional information regarding this analysis, including primary drivers of these costs savings.
Our analysis suggests that the larger, more resource-diverse day-ahead market offered under EDAM stands to benefit Arizonans more than available alternatives. Precisely what next steps should be taken in Arizona’s path to market participation will be determined by the utilities and state regulators.
However, the choice of market will have consequences on electricity rates, reliability and emissions for decades to come. At the very least, this analysis warrants additional consideration — and perhaps further modeling — of market choice to ensure which one is ultimately accepted by Arizona utilities is in the best interests of Arizonans.
It takes time and extensive planning to build a new clean power plant in California. Figuring out how, where and when to generate clean electrons is a balance between ensuring that the energy transition is affordable, and that the state keeps the lights on.
California regulators recently issued a proposal that will do just that. There are a lot of things to like, but as with everything, getting the details right is essential to securing an affordable, reliable and clean energy future.
An Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) process is a recurring planning cycle that determines how California can meet future electricity needs. It evaluates electricity generation, transmission needs and demand forecasts to ensure the state can maintain reliability, control costs for ratepayers and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is the primary state agency that conducts this assessment. Recently, the CPUC released a new proposal through this process that has significant implications for the state’s clean energy transition.
Two major determinations are at stake. First, the CPUC outlines a portfolio of future electricity resources designed to achieve California’s climate goals without compromising grid reliability or imposing unnecessary costs on ratepayers. Once finalized, the assumptions will be handed to the state’s primary grid operator, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), which will determine the transmission infrastructure needed to deliver this clean energy efficiently across the state. Second, the CPUC proposes directing electricity providers to procure additional clean energy to meet growing demand. Because building power plants is expensive, determining that the generation is truly needed is a critical step to keeping rates just and reasonable.
While the CPUC’s most recent proposal gets several things right, it also misses the mark on details that could significantly affect the reliability, affordability and pace of California’s clean energy transition.
To deliver new clean energy generation, California will require significant upgrades to the transmission system. However, building transmission infrastructure takes time. To plan ahead, the CPUC develops a “base portfolio” — a proposed future mix of energy resources designed to meet reliability needs while meeting California’s emission goals. The base portfolio is then handed off to CAISO, which analyzes what transmission upgrades are needed to deliver it.
Offshore wind is a crucial piece of the puzzle to help clean the grid in an affordable and reliable manner. As a clean firm resource, offshore wind can supply electricity continuously or adjust output to meet peak demand. When paired with other clean energy resources such as solar and storage, offshore wind can help fill reliability gaps and meet emission reduction targets without compromising electricity availability.
Recognizing its importance, the CEC set a goal of developing 25 GW of offshore wind by 2045, and as directed by AB 1373, the CPUC directed the state’s Department of Water Resources (DWR) to centrally procure up to 7.6 GW of offshore wind in 2024. Yet the recent proposal only plans for 4.5 GW of new offshore wind by 2045, split between Morro Bay and Humboldt. Regulators also assume that offshore wind project timelines will slip, leading the CPUC to advise CAISO to delay the transmission upgrades needed to deliver power from the Humboldt site until 2036.
The CPUC points to recent federal uncertainty as the catalyst for these delays. Over the past year, the offshore wind industry has faced significant barriers, including five federal stop-work orders issued on East Coast projects in December based on ambiguous national security claims. Recent court decisions, however, have rejected the Trump administration’s flimsy assertions, greenlighting construction to resume in all five cases and helping restore industry confidence.
California’s energy transition should not be slowed down or negatively shaped by tenuous federal claims and uncertainty. Instead, the state should be a national leader on offshore wind development. Ratepayers will be best served by reducing risk and uncertainty, and being very clear about the state’s long-term planning timelines despite short-term political volatility is a critical step. Limiting the ceiling for offshore wind capacity now would send mixed signals to developers and undermine the industry’s ability to achieve economies of scale that could ultimately lower costs for ratepayers.
For the first time in a generation, California’s electricity demand is growing. According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), peak electricity demand is expected to increase by 53% by 2045. The surge is driven largely by data centers, building electrification and transportation electrification. Together, these trends mean California will need more electricity than previously modeled. To support this expanding electrified economy, electricity rates must remain both affordable and reliable.
The state is attempting to meet the moment. Recognizing growing risks to grid reliability and the potential for future blackouts, the CPUC is proposing that electricity providers procure additional clean power. The CPUC recommends buying 2,000 MW of capacity by 2030, followed by another 4,000 MW by 2032. That’s enough electricity to deliver power to 4 million Californian households during peak demand.
To encourage a mix of resources, the CPUC proposes limiting batteries, or short-duration electric energy storage, to no more than half of the new clean resources. Batteries are increasingly cost-effective and essential for balancing the grid, but they can only store energy for short periods and depend on sufficient generation to charge. Without adequate clean generation, the grid risks supply shortages during extreme weather events. Applying a storage limit across both tranches is critical to maintaining system stability as electricity demand continues to rise.
The IRP considers both statewide planning needs and local system constraints. While the CPUC proposes maintaining a greenhouse gas reduction target of 25 MMT by 2035, they must also ensure that local air quality pollution is eliminated. In areas with limited infrastructure to import power, dirty gas-fired plants often ramp up during peak demand, increasing emissions and threatening public health in these communities.
While a comprehensive local procurement planning process is eventually needed to fully retire gas plants, implementing a modest clean energy procurement requirement in the most overburdened communities would be a meaningful first step. This approach would allow the state to evaluate long-term solutions that reduce reliance on local gas dependence while improving air quality in affected areas.
It’s important to acknowledge that this proposal is just that — a proposal. While there is a lot to like, including clear signals for power and storage procurement and assumptions to upgrade our transmission grid, the success of the process will depend on getting the details right.
California has a real opportunity to lead boldly in the clean energy transition by accelerating clean firm power resources, like offshore wind, to build a grid capable of meeting the moment. Proactive leadership today can diminish reliance on fossil generation, reduce harmful pollution in vulnerable communities and help keep the grid affordable for all Californians.
One of the most harmful actions the Trump EPA took during its first term was undermining long-standing Clean Air Act safeguards that require industrial facilities like refineries and power plants to modernize their pollution controls when they are newly built or expanding in a way that increases overall pollution volumes. These protections are intended to ensure newly constructed facilities or refurbishing existing industrial facilities are good neighbors and install the best available pollution controls to mitigate the harms when their industrial activities are increasing pollution in our communities.
The Trump EPA granted polluters a long-sought pass that allowed facilities to evade these New Source Review protections – without the public or regulators even knowing that pollution-increasing projects were taking place.
Last November, EDF, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Sierra Club filed a brief in court challenging the Trump EPA’s adoption of this damaging policy, which is known as Project Emissions Accounting. The Trump EPA filed its brief this week.
Project Emissions Accounting allows industry to manipulate emissions calculations to avoid triggering requirements that would protect local air quality against large pollution increases.
Here are some more things you should know:
New Source Review is an essential safeguard for local air quality
For decades, New Source Review safeguards have applied whenever an industrial plant makes a change that increases its pollution. To ensure this excess pollution doesn’t compromise local air quality, New Source Review provides protections that include:
Project Emissions Accounting — an industry free pass to pollute
The Trump EPA’s “project emissions accounting” policy creates new loopholes that effectively grant industry near limitless ability to increase pollution significantly — like by building new power plants — without going through New Source Review.
Here’s how it works:
Sometimes existing plants make changes that result in both pollution increases and pollution decreases. For example, a manufacturing plant might increase production of a certain product, increasing its pollution, but at the same time cut production of another product line, decreasing its pollution from that process.
Previously, a plant could count these pollution decreases against the pollution increases to avoid being subject to New Source Review – but ONLY with certain conditions to ensure that the decreases were real, enforceable, and happened before the pollution increases. The Trump EPA did away with these critical safeguards.
Under the Trump EPA’s policy, facilities can avoid New Source Review by counting pollution decreases that are speculative, are not permanent, and are not projected to occur until years into the future. That means communities will suffer rises in noxious emissions with none of the protections of New Source Review.
No transparency about significant increases in air pollution
Sources that use Project Emissions Accounting to avoid New Source Review may still be subject to state permitting requirements, but this review is often insufficient to provide meaningful protection. The federal rules governing such programs are weak. They largely delegate to the states to determine how protective review of minor sources should be, and those requirements can vary widely from state to state.
Alarmingly, there is no requirement for sources to disclose when they have used Project Emissions Accounting to avoid New Source Review. Federal and state regulators themselves have no way of tracking which sources have decided they do not need to go through the full process. Facilities are not required to document or report their emissions decreases. The Trump EPA plan is based on industry self-regulation with no oversight.
The Biden administration had proposed adding guardrails to the use of Project Emissions Accounting – including requiring that emissions decreases be enforceable, and adding recordkeeping, reporting and monitoring requirements. That proposal was not finalized though, and the Trump administration last summer withdrew the proposal with little explanation.
Exploitation of a loophole for new gas power plants
The Trump administration adopted its policy in 2018 and formalized it in rulemaking in 2020. Since then, sources across the country have used it to evade New Source Review.
While we have no way of knowing exactly how widespread the use of Project Emissions Accounting is due to the lack of transparency, what we have found suggests a deeply alarming and inappropriate reliance on this policy to avoid New Source Review for large new sources of pollution.
One particularly egregious use is by some power companies that operate aging coal plants that they plan to retire. In certain cases, owners of these plants have avoided New Source Review for the construction of new gas power plants by siting them near the existing coal plants they had already planned to shut down – and claiming that pollution from the new gas plants, like dangerous nitrogen oxides (NOx) that contribute to smog, is offset by the pollution decreases from closing old coal plants.
This maneuver allows them to evade rigorous air pollution protections that would apply if the gas plant were sited anywhere else – including requirements to install modern controls for smog-forming NOx pollution and to consider cleaner alternatives. This is even true when the companies have made no enforceable commitment to permanently shut down the old coal plants before operating the new gas plants.
This is especially concerning because the Trump administration has finalized a weak NOx pollution standard for new gas plants — rejecting science-based standards achievable with the use of readily available modern pollution controls.
Under New Source Review regulators conduct individualized reviews and may require more protective controls than what is required by broadly applicable New Source Pollution Standards. But with new power plants able to manipulate Project Emissions Accounting to avoid New Source Review, this backstop is lost.
In total, EDF and partners identified at least 12 new or expanding facilities across eight states (Kentucky, Tennessee, California, Oklahoma, Michigan, Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina) that have exploited this loophole to evade New Source Review Safeguards.
Here are just two instances, both in North Carolina:
EDF and our partners will continue to vigorously oppose this damaging policy as the case continues in court.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed eliminating its Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) — a critical source of public data that shows the sources and scale of pollution that causes climate change, including from oil and gas facilities, landfills, large industrial and manufacturing facilities, and power plants. This data is widely used by policymakers, scientists, businesses, and communities to inform how to address climate pollution. In short, the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is the foundation for policies that make life safer, healthier and more affordable for all Americans.
The loss of reliable federal emissions data would be especially consequential for state and local governments who would lose access to information necessary for designing effective climate policies and tracking progress towards emissions goals.
As the federal government threatens to roll back emissions reporting requirements, states can step up to fill the gap, and several are already leading the way. California, Washington, Oregon and Colorado each established their own greenhouse gas reporting rules years ago to improve their ability to track emissions and reach their own climate targets. Just last month, New York joined this group by finalizing its own comprehensive reporting rule. High credibility emissions data is critical for effective climate action; it ensures that states can track progress, hold emitters accountable, and design policies that deliver meaningful reductions and tangible benefits to communities. For example, the existing emissions reporting programs in California and Washington are key to the integrity and success of their respective cap-and-invest programs.
Several states already operate robust greenhouse gas reporting systems which ensure transparency and accountability, providing blueprints for others.
| State | Rule | Rule First Adopted |
|---|---|---|
| California | Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (17 CCR 95100) | 2007 |
| Colorado | Colorado Greenhouse Gas Reporting (5 CCR 1001) | 2020 |
| New York | Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (6 NYCRR 253) | 2025 |
| Oregon | Oregon Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (340 OAR 215) | 2008 |
| Washington | Reporting of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases (173 WAC 441) | 2010 |
Many states, however, rely solely on data reported through the EPA’s GHGRP to inform design of their climate policies and track emissions progress. Without continued access to such information, they will need to swiftly enact policies to ensure continued operation, independent of the federal program.
On December 1, 2025, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation finalized regulations for its Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. As the first state to mandate emissions reporting since the EPA proposed rolling back the federal reporting program, New York has set a precedent for states to implement their own reporting mechanisms. The state’s rule will ensure continued transparency and access to up-to-date emissions data.
The rule requires reporting from greenhouse gas emitters across all sectors, including stationary sources (e.g. power plants and manufacturing facilities), fuel suppliers, and electricity importers and exporters. Third-party verification of reported emissions is required for the largest emitters. The rule applies to both emissions sources who have historically reported their emissions to the EPA as well as smaller sources, to give New York policymakers a comprehensive picture of emissions in the state. 2026 will represent the first year of data collection with initial reporting on emissions due mid-2027.
New York’s reporting rule not only ensures continued availability of emissions data amidst federal rollbacks, it will also be essential for measuring compliance with pollution reduction policies, most notably the Clean Air Initiative — New York’s emerging cap-and-invest program. As evidenced by California and Washington, accurate emissions reporting is essential to the reliability and success of market-based climate regulations. Regulators rely on this information to set the emissions cap, ensure polluters are complying with the cap by holding allowances equal to each ton of their emissions, and keep the program calibrated to the state’s climate goals over time. Without accurate reporting, the integrity of these programs could be in question, which is precisely why California and Washington have invested significant time and resources to ensure their programs are robust and polluters are required to report consistently and accurately.
New York has taken a critical step forward by finalizing its emissions reporting program. By fully implementing the Clean Air Initiative, the state can progress from tracking climate pollution to cutting climate pollution while delivering widespread economic opportunity and cost saving benefits to New Yorkers.
With federal attempts underway to dismantle the EPA’s reporting program, New York joins a group of states that have set an important example, advancing durable, science-based systems for greenhouse gas reporting. Other states seeking to protect their communities from the impacts of unchecked climate pollution amidst EPA rollbacks should follow suit. State policymakers should explore opportunities to advance commonsense greenhouse gas reporting requirements under existing authority or work to establish new laws — giving them the tools to put in place effective and comprehensive climate policies in the years ahead.
