In a joint letter submitted by Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers and Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, the two states support keeping Subpart RR, the section of the GHGRP that verifies carbon sequestration for Section 45Q and 45Z tax credits. They argue that EPA’s plan to remove nearly all GHGRP requirements and suspend the remaining provisions until 2034 would “create an immediate verification gap” that jeopardizes billions in planned carbon capture investments tied to ethanol.
The attorneys general note that ethanol producers rely on Subpart RR as the only federally recognized measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) framework for qualifying for carbon storage incentives. “Without a valid MRV pathway,” they caution, “projects will lose access to credits and stall deployment.”
They urge EPA either to:
By contrast, a coalition of 18 states, the District of Columbia, and the cities of New York and Chicago strongly oppose EPA’s rollback. Their 50+ page comment argues that the GHGRP—first mandated under the Clean Air Act Section 114—is essential to both federal and state climate programs and provides the foundation for consistent, facility-level greenhouse gas (GHG) data nationwide.
The coalition, led by California, Washington, and Colorado, asserts that EPA has “no legal or scientific basis” to eliminate the GHGRP, calling the move “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act. They emphasize that the reporting system serves as the backbone for:
Several states estimate that replacing EPA’s e-GGRT reporting platform would cost at least $3 million to build and $250,000 annually to maintain—an expense they say will fall on taxpayers if the federal program disappears.
The coalition also underscores that GHGRP data underpins the EPA’s State Inventory Tool (SIT), which 33 states use for annual GHG inventories. Ending federal reporting, they warn, would force states to develop inconsistent methods and impose higher compliance costs on industries operating across multiple jurisdictions.
The split highlights two competing visions of climate data governance.
Nebraska and Iowa argue that EPA’s deregulatory agenda should maintain Subpart RR to protect ethanol CCS projects that support rural economies and energy independence. Their position narrows GHGRP’s value to a tool for verifying carbon sequestration under specific tax incentives.
In contrast, the multi-state coalition frames the GHGRP as a public accountability framework—a foundational dataset that ensures consistent emissions tracking across government, industry, and finance. They warn that its removal would fragment data, weaken state climate authority, and undermine confidence in U.S. reporting at a time when federal programs increasingly rely on accurate carbon accounting.
EPA’s final decision on the GHGRP reconsideration is expected in early 2026. The agency faces growing pressure from both sides—Midwestern states emphasizing economic stability for ethanol CCS, and coastal and urban states defending federal oversight and data integrity. The outcome will determine whether the nation’s longest-running greenhouse gas reporting system remains a cornerstone of U.S. climate policy or becomes a voluntary, industry-driven framework.
