New Draft Tennessee Multi-Sector General Permit for Industrial Stormwater

The Tennessee Multi-Sector General Permit (TMSP) is intended to authorize industrial stormwater discharges to waters of the State of Tennessee from industrial facilities. The TMSP expires on June 30, 2025 and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) has prepared a replacement permit and published the draft for public comment. This draft permit is subject to change prior to the final issuance.

If your Facility currently has TMSP coverage, you do not have to do anything as of right now. Information about submitting a digital Notice of Intent (NOI) form via My TDEC Forms will be sent to active permittees when the new permit is issued. If your Facility does not have coverage under the previous TMSP and operations will begin before June 30, 2025 your Facility will need to submit a completed NOI and stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). More information on TMSP coverage can be found on the TDEC website.

What’s New?

The TMSP draft replacement permit is a hybrid between the current TMSP and the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA) 2021 multi-sector permit. The replacement permit includes what is deemed to be the most effective language and permitting mechanisms from both permits in a single document as well as new benchmark data, a new Sector for soil harvesting, and a new requirement for electronic submission of forms.

Benchmark Data

The TMSP requires analytical monitoring for the industry sectors or subsectors that demonstrate potential to discharge pollutants at concentrations of concern. To determine when such analytical monitoring is required, U.S. EPA established benchmark concentrations for the pollutant parameters on which monitoring results had been received. The benchmarks are the pollutant concentrations above which the U.S. EPA determined represents a level of concern, at which a stormwater discharge could potentially impair or contribute to impairing water quality or affect human health from ingestion of water or fish. TDEC will use the values to determine if a stormwater discharge from any given facility merits further monitoring to ensure that the facility has been successful in implementing a SWPPP. The benchmark concentrations are not effluent limitations as they represent a target concentration for a facility to achieve through implementation of pollution prevention measures at the facility. TDEC will assign further monitoring at their digression. TDEC collected large amounts of stormwater runoff monitoring data to provide the summary of that data, interpret information with respect to compliance benchmarks, and cross-reference information with respect to surface water quality. This analysis along with new proposed parameters are shown in the TMSP Rationale.

Sector AF: Stormwater Discharge Associate with Industrial Activity from Borrow Pits, Soil harvesting Sites and Spoil Piles

Businesses with borrow pits, soil harvestings, and spoil piles that are not associated with a single construction site and are considered industrial activities will require coverage under the replacement TMSP as proposed. Neither a construction stormwater permit nor any of the other sectors in the previous TMSP were a good fit for soil harvesting activities. Section AF is a new sector customized for this type of business. You can read more on Sector AF in the 2025 Draft TMSP.

eReporting Requirements

The replacement permit includes a requirement to submit either of the forms, the NOI and Notice of Termination (NOT), electronically in order for a person to comply with certain requirements, including, but not limited to, making reports, submitting monitoring results and applying for permit coverage. The TDEC Forms may be found here.

TDEC will hold a public hearing on the issuance of the draft TMSP on May 21, 2025. Comments will be received at least 10 days after the last hearing. Please see the Notice of Public Hearing for more information. ALL4 will follow the development of this permit and will publish an update to this article once the permit is finalized.

If you need assistance determining how the new TMSP may impact your facility operations or need help developing an SWPPP or NOI, please reach out to Peyton Rodgers at prodgers@all4inc.com for assistance.

Oregon’s Climate Protection Program 2.0 – November 2024 Changes

Oregon’s Climate Protection Program (CPP) aims to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) throughout the state by implementing a declining cap and trade system codified under Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340 Division 273. The program is designed to reduce GHG emissions from fossil fuels in Oregon by 50% by 2035 and 90% by 2050. To achieve these GHG emissions reductions the CPP will require certain companies to obtain a CPP permit or CPP addendum to their current Title V permit.

What is the status of Oregon’s Climate Protection Program 2.0?

In November 2024, the State of Oregon issued Administrative Order DEQ 18-2024, which included the CPP’s new rules as well as permanent rule amendments to others. The stated goals of the CPP are to significantly reduce GHG emissions, achieve co-benefits from other air contaminant reductions, and to enhance public welfare for Oregon communities, especially environmental justice (EJ) communities.

The CPP journey began back in 2021 and changed over time. In 2023, the CPP was invalidated by the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) had to go back to the drawing board. ODEQ conducted workshops and received feedback on the CPP before proposing the 2024 version of the program. The main differences in the new 2024 CPP are:

• Two-year compliance period (instead of three-year)
• Periodic survey to determine if the CPP has affected natural gas customer rates significantly
• Direct regulation of emissions-intensive and trade exposed (EITE) sources
• Additional fee for Community Climate Investment (CCI) credits
• Additional inclusion of EJ communities in the CCI program
• Removal of best available emission reduction approach

So now that the CPP is official – who needs to take action?

The CPP is now codified in OAR 340-273. This section outlines the CPP structure, emissions caps, compliance requirements, and regulatory oversight.

There are some entities that are affected by the CPP:

• Supplies of liquid fuels and propane that exceed certain thresholds of covered emissions.
• Local natural gas distribution companies.
• A stationary source that meets the definition of EITE: facilities with certain North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes that have emitted 15,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO₂e) or more annually since 2020. The sectors include:
  • Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing
  • Basic Chemical Manufacturing
  • Cement and Concrete Product Manufacturing
  • Foundries
  • Fruit and Vegetable Preserving and Specialty Food Manufacturing
  • Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing
  • Iron and Stell Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing
  • Lime and Gypsum Product Manufacturing
  • Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Production and Processing
  • Nonmetallic Mineral Mining and Quarrying
  • Other Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
  • Other Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing
  • Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
  • Plastics Product Manufacturing
  • Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills
  • Sawmills and Wood Preservation
  • Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
  • Veneer, Plywood, and Engineered Wood Product Manufacturing
• A stationary source that meets the definition of a direct natural gas (DNG) source – facilities that meet the following three criteria:
  • Not defined as EITE above.
  • Have emitted 15,000 MT CO₂e or more annually since 2020.
  • Uses natural gas distributed to the source by an entity other than a local distribution company.

The first compliance period started January 1, 2025 and goes until the end of 2027. Companies will first have to demonstrate compliance in December 2028.

Compliance

Facilities or businesses subject to the CPP requirements must apply for CPP Permits according to OAR 340-273-0150. Those permits will come with reporting and recordkeeping requirements. ODEQ will notify some facilities required to apply for CPP’s, but facilities must also evaluate if they are required to apply themselves. Applications will require facility information, process flow diagrams, air permits (if applicable), and product information including amount produced over the past 5 years, the proposed metric of emissions intensity, and the calculation of greenhouse gas emissions for those 5 years.

ODEQ distributes compliance instruments each year, which are determined by the GHG emissions cap. These instruments allow a facility to emit 1 metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO₂e). Companies can trade compliance instruments or can contribute to the Community Climate Investment (CCI) fund to satisfy compliance. For 2025, ODEQ is adding additional compliance instruments for fuel suppliers and will use emissions data to evaluate annual emissions against a benchmark of 81,003,850 MT CO₂e. If the total emissions for the permitted facilities are at least 10,000 MT CO₂e below the benchmark, ODEQ will provide additional compliance instruments to facilities.

How to prepare:

1. Understand the GHG emissions generated by your facility and start the data collection process.
2. Determine if your facility or business is subject to the CPP based on your facility type and/or your facility-wide GHG emissions.
3. Strategize the best way for your facility or business to comply and prepare budget for permitting, compliance, fees, and data management resources.

How ALL4 can help:

ALL4’s sustainability experts can help companies strategize compliance with Oregon’s CPP. For companies that have already started preparing for the CPP, ALL4 can help you strategize sustainability goals and long term efforts and collect and curate data to support analysis and reporting. For companies addressing the CPP for the first time, ALL4 can help develop and partner with company leaders to develop sustainability strategies and get into compliance with Oregon’s CPP. For more information, please contact Madison Jones at mjones@all4inc.com or 678-293-9435, or check out ALL4’s contact page.

Air Toxics Regulatory Update

During the previous administration, we saw a flurry of revisions to air toxics regulations under 40 CFR Part 63. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) revised several National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) to include standards for additional hazardous air pollutants (HAP), additional emissions sources, and more stringent requirements for sources of ethylene oxide. Several sectors were affected by significant rule changes including coke ovens, integrated iron and steel, tire manufacturing, lime manufacturing, taconite ore processing, copper smelting, and chemical manufacturing. Under the current administration and according to various press releases, the pendulum has shifted towards regulatory reform and deregulation. In March 2025, the current administration signaled that they will reconsider each of the above referenced NESHAP and encouraged the use of an existing Clean Air Act mechanism under Section 112(i)(4) to request a two-year compliance extension via a presidential waiver. U.S. EPA has already issued a 90-day administrative stay of the 2025 compliance dates in the integrated iron and steel NESHAP, signaling a pending proposed reconsideration rule.

U.S. EPA also announced their intention to reconsider air toxics and other regulations that impact the utility sector. Almost 50 power plants recently received a two-year extension of compliance with the more stringent Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) limits. Four executive orders were issued in April that are geared toward promoting coal-fired power generation. While U.S. EPA had been working on updates to the combustion turbine NESHAP, it is not likely that we will see that proposal while they are working on the long list of items that the current administration wishes to reconsider, given the focus on deregulation instead of new requirements.

In addition, U.S. EPA is conducting a review of the brick and clay products manufacturing NESHAP under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to determine whether the rule should continue unchanged, be amended, or be withdrawn. The following factors will be considered: (1) The continued need for the rule; (2) the nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule; (3) the complexity of the rule; (4) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other federal, state, or local government rules; and (5) the degree to which the technology, economic conditions or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule. Comments must be received on or before May 30, 2025. It will be interesting to see whether the review results in any changes, especially given the complicated history of the rule.

Before all the announcements by the current administration, we had expected to see proposed changes to the NESHAP for industrial boilers and process heaters (Subpart DDDDD) in 2025 to address a recent court decision regarding the 2022 changes to the standards for new sources. However, this is not likely a priority given the resources available and the extended list of deregulatory actions announced in the last few months. Hopefully U.S. EPA will provide some guidance on the appropriate emissions limits for boilers constructed between June 4, 2010 and August 24, 2020.

One of the last regulatory actions released around the time of the administration change was a proposal to update the Chemical Manufacturing Area Source (CMAS) air toxics rule. The comment deadline for that rule got extended along with other proposed actions that were issued late in the previous administration. This proposal was interesting because U.S. EPA does not typically perform a risk review for area source standards, but the proposed CMAS updates included more stringent standards for ethylene oxide as a result of the risk assessment. The comment period recently closed and the final rule is due to be signed by January 15, 2026.

One thing to watch for with the announced NESHAP reconsideration actions and the final CMAS rule is a revised approach from U.S. EPA with respect to the Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) court decision that resulted in the gap-filling actions we have seen for NESHAP rules since mid-2020. In the gap-filling rules that we’ve seen since the LEAN decision, the agency has included many new requirements for additional HAP and additional equipment, even where the results of the residual risk review were acceptable and additional controls are not cost effective. Will either U.S. EPA or the court determine that additional standards should only be established if they are necessary to address risk and/or are cost effective to implement? How will the record for these rules reflect the change in interpretation? Will U.S. EPA simply invoke President Trump’s April 9 order to repeal rules that do not comport with recent decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)?

There are many questions surrounding the current air toxics-related activities announced and being undertaken by U.S. EPA. One of those is what will get done with a reduced budget? The regulated community is also wondering what changes will be durable. Will the next administration simply put all the rescinded requirements back into place? Will the court determine that certain deregulatory actions that U.S. EPA undertakes are illegal?

What should industry be doing? Follow what’s happening, evaluate the impacts of changes, decide what is important to your company and sector, engage with your industry association, and participate in the public comment process. ALL4 is monitoring U.S. EPA air toxics regulatory activity and can help you or your industry association develop technical comments on regulatory proposals or evaluate impacts of rule revisions on your facility or industry. Please contact your ALL4 project manager or Amy Marshall for assistance.

North Carolina Takes Decisive Action in Regulating PFAS in Wastewater

On September 11, 2024, the Water Quality Committee of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s (NCDEQ) Environmental Management Commission (EMC) approved a motion to establish per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) monitoring for “every industrial and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit,” including indirect discharges from significant industrial users (SIU) to publicly owned treatment works (POTW). On February 14, 2025, the NCDEQ held an online seminar session hosted by the North Carolina Manufacturers Association (NCMA) to present to current association members on upcoming PFAS monitoring and minimization rules aimed at manufacturing and industrial wastewater dischargers. NCDEQ anticipates it will be six to 12 months for the PFAS monitoring and minimization rules to be published and then a further 60 days after publication for the rules to take effect.

NCDEQ’s current minimization concept is a three-phase approach. The first phase is the monitoring of PFAS from all industrial wastewater dischargers – both direct and indirect. Initial PFAS monitoring is anticipated to be on a quarterly basis and to last for one year with continued monitoring implemented on a case-by-case basis pending the results at each facility. The second phase, which is currently unclear whether NCDEQ intends to make contingent upon detections of PFAS at the facility, is minimization plans for facilities to implement best management practices (BMPs) to lower PFAS concentrations in their discharge. The third phase is the implementation of reduction strategies over a two-to-three-year period for facilities that require a more intensive approach to lower PFAS concentrations below the yet to be published PFAS concentration levels. Industry advocates at the February 2025 meeting expressed unease with the lack of regulatory discharge limits published for PFAS at the state or federal level which, in their opinion, could leave discretion for requiring the implementation of costly BMPs solely with NCDEQ. An implementation of a standardized approach would allow facilities to compare the analysis of their own PFAS discharges, or lack thereof, against such an approach. This would lead to more effective analysis from facilities to implement the proper level of additional BMPs or treatment technologies.

NCDEQ plans to utilize the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Method 1633 (Rev. 3) for PFAS compounds, which includes monitoring for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and GenX chemicals. The initial characterization monitoring will be conducted at a facility’s effluent discharge point. Samples are to be conducted quarterly. NCDEQ is considering a requirement to collect composite samples exceeding the typical 24-hour period, and to instead be required over a period between one to five days. Further maintenance monitoring is expected to be completed on a semi-annual basis until such time as either NCDEQ for NPDES permittees or the POTW for SIUs agrees that such monitoring is no longer necessary.

Minimization plans to lower PFAS concentrations must include best management practices, such as product substitution, process changes, pollution prevention, or good housekeeping practices. Minimization plans are to be reviewed and authorized by NCDEQ or the POTW. After a period of at least two years minimization plans will again come under review and authorization by NCDEQ or the POTW, it will also provide a summarized status of implementation, proposed revisions to the minimization plan, and reductions in the amount of PFAS discharged achieved during the implementation of the minimization plan to date.

To assist with these efforts, NCDEQ will provide technical assistance to small POTWs and direct dischargers. NCDEQ will also hold training for NCMA members on BMPs, pollution prevention, discharge treatment, and minimization plans.

How Can ALL4 Help?

ALL4 actively tracks NCDEQ water quality rulemaking and regulatory actions, and are ready to help your facility understand and comply with evolving PFAS requirements. With years of experience designing and implementing sampling and minimization plans for industrial facilities, ALL4 can guide you through the upcoming NCDEQ PFAS Monitoring and Minimization Plan requirements. If you have questions or concerns, please contact Alex Ges at ages@all4inc.com or A.J. Golding at agolding@all4inc.com.

Washington State Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions SB-6092 2023-2024

The Washington Senate Bill 6092 (SB 6092), known as the Washington Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, introduces greenhouse gas (GHG) disclosure requirements for large companies operating within the state. The bill would mandate businesses with over $1 million in annual revenue and conducting substantial activities in Washington to report their GHG emissions to the Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDE).

The reporting requirements will primarily focus on Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. Scope 1 emissions include direct emissions from activities and sources under an entity’s control, such as emissions from company-owned vehicles or on-site natural gas turbines. Scope 2 emissions refer to indirect emissions resulting from the consumption of energy purchased, like electricity or steam from a utility provider. Scope 3 emissions also represent indirect emissions but specifically include those that occur across a company’s value chain and are not captured under Scope 1 or 2. These can encompass emissions from suppliers, product transportation, employee commuting, or end-of-life product disposal. Because Scope 3 emissions rely heavily on third-party data and span a wide range of activities, they are significantly more difficult for companies to track and verify.

What is the status of the Bill?

Washington SB 6092 was first introduced in January 2024 and passed the Washington Senate a month later. As of March 7, 2024, the bill was sent back to the Senate Rules Committee for a third reading by the House. The bill directs the WSDE to research and develop policy recommendations based on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) climate-related disclosure rule and to provide guidance on how Washington can align its reporting requirements. However, the SEC’s recent withdrawal of its climate disclosure rules has shifted greater responsibility to states like Washington to lead on climate transparency. WSDE had intended to align SB 6092 with the SEC framework to minimize duplicative reporting for companies. In light of the federal regulatory uncertainty, WSDE may increasingly look to California’s SB 253, also known as the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (CCDAA),  and internationally recognized frameworks to inform its policy development and implementation timeline.

The original deadline for this guidance was January 1^st of 2025, but it has since been extended to July 1, 2025, under a second substitute. If the bill is finalized in July of 2025, Washington would become the second state, after California, to mandate economy-wide disclosure of all GHG emissions for large businesses.

What Does this Mean for Companies in Washington State?

​Currently in Washington, businesses that emit 10,000 metric tons or more of CO₂ equivalent greenhouse gases annually are required to report their emissions to the Department of Ecology. This mandate applies to both facilities and fuel suppliers. Additionally, entities emitting 25,000 metric tons or more are subject to the Cap-and-Invest Program under the Climate Commitment Act, which includes third-party verification requirements starting with 2023 emissions data.

Companies doing business in Washington State can expect the following requirements:

• Report Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions for the 2025 calendar year by October 1, 2026, and each year thereafter.
• Report Scope 3 emissions for the 2026 calendar year by October 1, 2027, in addition to the Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions.
• Each report will require third-party verification to ensure completeness and accuracy.

Once the bill passes, WDSE is expected to develop and publish a web-based platform to make the emissions reports easily accessible to the public for review and comment. However, the bill may not go into effect until the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has completed its rulemaking process, following a related California ruling on corporate emissions reporting. Both the California Act and Washington SB 6092 use the same foundational emissions accounting standards for companies to develop one set of emissions data that can be applied in both states, reducing redundancy. Washington’s SB 6092 aims to complement, rather than duplicate, the framework laid out within California’s Act.

How to Prepare:

Companies located in or operating in Washington State should assess whether they will be subject to Washington’s SB 6092 and begin reviewing their climate strategies and existing reporting policies. It may be beneficial to consider implementing or enhancing systems to track GHG emissions to streamline future compliance. While Washington’s SB 6092 has not yet been officially enacted, the passage of other climate disclosure laws, such as the CCDAA, indicates a continued trend toward increased climate-related regulations at the state level, even as the new administration threatens to relax its rules. The good news is that larger corporations already preparing for CCDAA may not need an entirely new system for Washington, but rather an expansion of their current processes. However, companies operating in both California and Washington may still face challenges, particularly when it comes to accounting for Scope 3 emissions, due to the difficulties in collecting the necessary data to calculate them. This is why it is important for companies to start the process sooner rather than later.

How ALL4 Can Help:

ALL4’s sustainability experts are prepared to support companies as they assess and respond to Washington’s SB 6092. Our team can assist in aligning climate strategies with anticipated reporting requirements, developing processes to track Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, and expanding existing programs to ensure regional compliance. Whether a company is already preparing for similar regulations or is evaluating for the first time, ALL4 provides tailored support to meet disclosure obligations and advance long-term sustainability goals.

For inquiries about how ALL4 can support your organization in preparing for Washington’s SB 6092 and broader climate disclosure requirements, please contact Cambre Codington at ccodington@all4inc.com.

U.S. EPA’s “Largest Deregulatory Announcement in U.S. History” and What it Means for Power Plants

Introduction

The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA) new administrator, Lee Zeldin, was confirmed by the Senate on January 29^th, 2025. Since his nomination Zeldin has made swift action and on March 12, 2025 he announced several proposed changes in “the largest deregulatory announcement in U.S. history.” This announcement included the repeal or modification of several environmental regulations, most notably a group of deregulations on power plants including the following:

• Reconsideration of wastewater regulations for oil and gas development to help unleash American energy (oil and gas effluent limitation guidelines or ELG)
• Reconsideration of limitations, guidelines, and standards (ELG) for the Steam Electric Power Generating Industry to ensure low-cost electricity while protecting water resources (Steam Electric ELG)
• Reconsideration of Mercury and Air Toxics Standards that improperly targeted coal-fired power plants (MATS)
• Reconsideration of regulations throttling the oil and gas industry (OOOO b/c)
• Reconsideration of regulations on power plants (Clean Power Plan 2.0)

What This Means

While Zeldin’s announcement is just a plan for review and revision, U.S. EPA has the authority to propose these revisions. For a proposed regulation or deregulation, in this case, to pass it must go through the following:

• Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review;
• Public comment period;
• Congressional review where “major” (economic impact of ~$100 million or more) rules go through a 60-day review window;
• Presidential veto consideration;
• Potential judicial oversight, in the case of lawsuits, where court rulings can overturn regulations.

The following regulatory changes can be expected if the proposed revisions pass.

• ELGs which could see relaxed standards include oil and gas as well as steam electric generators. Relaxation of ELGs would mean facilities would not have to comply with the previously proposed ELGs which would require increased treatment technologies and testing.
• The reconsideration of MATS could potentially relax the current emissions limits on mercury and other toxic pollutants for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (EGUs). U.S. EPA is also considering a two-year compliance exemption under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for affected facilities during the rulemaking process.
• Zeldin is proposing a large deregulatory push in the oil and gas industry. Proposed changes could lighten the requirements in 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOOO for Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) and methane emissions standards.
• Deregulation could remove the requirements to implement carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), low-greenhouse gas (GHG) hydrogen co-firing, and natural gas co-firing to help plants meet emissions standards.

What Can I Do?

Regulatory actions posed by Administrator Zeldin are merely a plan of action. While this is in line with the Trump administration’s overarching regulatory agenda and push for more energy production in the U.S., there is still a legal process to be followed for these regulations to be rolled back.

In the meantime, keep an eye out for any updates from U.S. EPA or your state environmental agency to stay abreast of ever-changing environmental regulatory climate. ALL4 will continue to track these changes. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your facility compliance strategies, please do not hesitate to reach out to Evan Mia at emia@all4inc.com.

Emerging State Greenhouse Gas Regulations

Introduction

On March 12, 2025 newly appointed United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced potential federal rollbacks of greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting requirements. Zeldin’s announcement came with a flurry of other regulatory promises and was self-described by Zeldin as “the largest deregulatory announcement in U.S. history”. Zeldin’s announcement suggests that the potential removal or relaxation of the federal requirements for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) codified as 40 CFR Part 98 are likely. Currently all facilities that emit over 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) are required to report GHG emissions from specific equipment by March 31^st of each year. Despite the deemphasis on GHG reporting at the federal level, several states are continuing the process of developing their own GHG reporting requirements, including California, New York, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington.

What Are the States Doing?

The aforementioned states have proposed the following GHG reporting requirements:

New York – SB-S3456: Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act

On January 27, 2025 New York introduced SB 3456 which would require companies within the state with over $1 billion in annual revenue to report Scope 1 and 2 emissions starting in 2027 and Scope 3 starting in 2028. Scope 1 emissions are direct emissions from the facility while Scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions from purchased electricity or steam. Scope 3 emissions are all other indirect emissions that occur upstream and downstream of the facility, such as employee commuting, purchased goods and services, business travel, processing, and use of sold products. Currently the bill is referred to theenate Environmental Conservation Committee for review.

Illinois – HB-3673: Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act

Illinois General Assembly Bill HB-3673 was filed on February 7, 2025. This bill would require reporting entities with over $1 billion in annual revenue to report Scope 1 and 2 emissions by January 1^st of each year, and Scope 3 emissions 180 days later. Scope 1 and 2 emissions would be required to report starting on January 1, 2027, and therefore Scope 3 emissions would be reported June 30, 2027. This bill is currently stalled at the state House of Representatives as of March 21, 2025.

Oregon – DEQ-18-2024: Climate Protection Program 2024

On November 21, 2024, the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) adopted rules to establish the Climate Protection Program 2024. The Climate Protection Program sets a declining cap on GHG emissions generated from fossil fuels. This rule’s goal is to reduce overall state GHG emissions by 50% by 2035 and 90% by 2050. Oregon currently requires fuel suppliers and in-state producers to report emissions from combustion of all fuel supplied in accordance with Oregon Administrative Rule 340-215-0110.

Washington State – SB-6092 – 2023-24: Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

On January 9, 2024, Washington State announced SB 6092 that would require companies doing business in Washington State with over $1 billion in revenue to report Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by October 1, 2026, and Scope 3 emissions by October 1, 2027. As of March 7, 2024, the bill was sent back to the Senate Rules Committee for a third reading. Washington State currently requires facilities emitting more than 10,000 metric tons of CO₂e per year in Washington State to report GHG emissions, which is more stringent than the GHGRP.

California – SB-253: Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act

In October 2023, California signed into law SB-253. This law requires all companies doing business in California with over $1 billion in annual revenue are required to report Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions starting in 2026 and Scope 3 emissions starting in 2027. For more details, please see Lauren Coca’s 4 the Record Article posted on January 6, 2025.

What Can You Do?

If your facility operates in one of these states, staying on top of GHG requirements is crucial to stay in compliance. ALL4 will continue to publish blogs regarding GHG reporting requirements and mandates. If you have any questions or need help with your facility’s GHG reporting compliance do not hesitate to reach out to an ALL4 specialist. You can contact Evan Mia or Louise Shaffer on this topic.