The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to permanently remove mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reporting from 46 different sources until 2034, a move that could reshape how emissions are tracked in regions like North Texas.
Texas emits higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions than any other state at 381 million metric tons, according to data collected by the EPA.
Louisiana, the country’s second-highest greenhouse gas emitter, outputs significantly less than Texas at 144 metric tons.
The Houston metro area makes up the largest portion of Texas’ output, but the Dallas-Fort Worth area contributes about 12% at 48 million metric tons without factoring in transportation contributions.
According to the EPA, North Texas’ total carbon dioxide equivalent, including transportation, exceeds 103 million metric tons a year. That does not include other greenhouse gases like methane or nitrous oxide.
Most of the carbon dioxide emitted comes from energy production and transportation as the top contributing sectors, according to most recent figures.
The move to deregulate comes after President Donald Trump signed an executive order nicknamed “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” in January. The order is a part of a larger push to eliminate “unnecessary regulatory burdens” in the energy sector, according to the administration, which estimates businesses can spend more than $300 million a year in reporting.
The EPA says it can still track greenhouse gas emissions through data collected from local and state entities without hearing from companies directly.
These greenhouse gases can contribute to rising global temperatures as they concentrate in the Earth's atmosphere trapping heat.
The EPA has tracked the data since 2010, during which time emissions slowly dropped.
While the EPA has not formalized the regulatory proposal, as it still has a few hurdles to clear before implementation, the order would remove reporting for electricity generation, cement, iron and steel production, petroleum refineries and more.
The agency hosted a virtual public meeting Wednesday where speakers overwhelmingly opposed the rule change, largely citing public health concerns.
Sarah Bucic, a registered nurse, said she worries deregulation will open the door for companies to emit more greenhouse gases, impacting traditionally under-resourced communities.
"As nurses, we see on a daily basis the devastating impacts of climate change," Bucic said. "Removing emissions-tracking requirements for greenhouse gas emissions for large facilities like refineries will grossly distort the big picture of what is occurring in our environment, and will weaken our ability to anticipate and respond to risks to public health."
According to the EPA, elevated greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, leads to adverse health impacts in communities near emitters.
Environmentalists fear once companies are no longer required to report their emissions, they will not be incentivized to reduce their greenhouse gas contributions.
“You just can't ever trust a business whose primary interest is making money to then corrupt their own ability to make funds,” Caleb Roberts, executive director of the North Texas-based Downwinders at Risk, told KERA News. “It's just too much of a public health hazard to be put in the hands of individual businesses."
As a result, Roberts believes the communities surrounding these emitters will face the most harm.
“There's people right next door to these polluters who have been impacted, who will continue to be impacted,” Roberts said. “There are people here in the Dallas community, DFW at large and Texas that will be suffering because of this and we don't have to go globally to see that impact.”
But critics of the regulation say it puts too much of a burden on businesses, and eliminating the greenhouse gas rule will be good for Texans as energy demand continues to rise.
They also argue eliminating the rule would particularly help smaller energy companies, which face a "much larger relative burden to track their mission,” according to Brent Bennett, policy director for the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s energy initiative Life:Powered.
"The whole program is being really set up as a prelude to imposing taxes on these facilities," Bennett said. "We think, in general, trying to impose taxes on these emissions is not good for our economy or for particularly the energy business that's so important to Texas."
He added the rule does little to address pollution on a large scale.
"We’re talking 1-to-100th of a degree less," Bennett said. "It's not measurable in the global context. If the goal is to reduce CO2 emissions, the effort should be focused on other things rather than just on kind of ‘tiki-tac’ items."
Roberts with Downwinders disagrees, arguing that framing the issue solely on a global scale disenfranchises those who live in communities near emitters.
"I think the framing of that is wrong," Roberts said. "We're not worried about a global scale here. What I'm talking about are people right next door to these polluters. It's an easy thing to spread the harm out over the world. Is this going to impact things locally?"
Emmanuel Rivas Valenzuela is KERA's breaking news reporter. Got a tip? Email Emmanuel at erivas@kera.org.
KERA News is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, consider making a tax-deductible gift today. Thank you.
