EPA’s Delay in GHG Reporting

On March 1, EPA announced an extension of the deadline to begin reporting greenhouse gases, which was slated to begin on March 31. A new deadline has not been announced, but the reason behind the delay will be the determining factor in how long the extension lasts.

Like most modern technology, EPA’s online reporting system, Electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT), has not proven itself to be 100 percent e-GRRRREAT. According to Lisa Jaegar, associate at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, e-GGRT was not available during some periods leading up to the Jan. 30, 2011 deadline to submit the requisite Certificate of Representation. Now, delays continue as the “Geek Squad” at EPA tries to sort out the technical difficulties (no, they aren’t outsourcing to Best Buy, but it might not be a bad idea).

“The reason the deadline has been changed is that EPA is continuing to test the system,” said Liz Williamson, associate at Winston & Strawn LLP. “We’re anticipating that it will probably be this summer when the first reporting requirement will be under e-GGRT.”

As a resource to GHG-reporting entities, EPA has posted a list of Frequently Asked Questions on its web site. Additionally, EPA is offering a number of training sessions to assist with learning e-GGRT and the rulemaking (by the way, the next scheduled training session is March 9).

While the extension was welcomed, it offers only a partial relief to reporting entities. Many companies have already sought technical clarifications from EPA to ensure they are monitoring or calculating emissions appropriately, Jaegar said. One of the main challenges to reporting GHGs is not the CO2 component of the reporting, but the reporting of the other five GHGs involved in the rulemaking: methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

“The CO2 is a little more straightforward because we’ve been collecting this data for a long time. But for the other five GHGs, it’s much more of a chore to collect the baseline data,” said Jay Holloway, associate with Winston & Strawn LLP.

In the end, it’s likely that every state except Texas (and possibly Wyoming) will enter GHG data under an EPA-approved state plan when the new deadline comes around. But for companies calculating and entering GHG data, this is just another collision in the “train-wreck” of regulations the industry is encountering. For now, however, the GHG train has slowed a bit, and companies may have a chance to gain a better understanding of what is expected.