New York is Latest State to Finalize Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rules for 2026

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) finalized its long-awaited Mandatory Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program (Part 253), which implements GHG reporting requirements for businesses in New York consistent with directives under the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) and aids the State in meeting obligations under the northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).  The final rule is, in part, the result of an October 2025 court order that required NYDEC to promulgate regulations addressing climate change after NYDEC initially failed to issue the regulations by the CLCPA deadline.  Part 253, as finalized, largely conforms with the draft regulations NYDEC proposed in 2025 but includes revisions to address some of the concerns raised by industry stakeholders.  New York becomes the fourth state to implement a GHG reporting program after California, Washington, and Oregon.

Under the Reporting Program, obligated parties are required to report annual GHG emissions as calculated based on emission factors provided in the rule.  Obligations begin with the 2026 calendar year, with the first annual report due June 1, 2027 and verification of emissions due December 1, 2027.

Who Are Obligated Parties?

• Owners and operators of facilities, including energy-generating facilities and other infrastructure, in New York that emit 10,000 metric tons (MT) or more of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) per year;
• Fuel suppliers delivering to an end user in New York that generates any amount of GHG emissions, which includes suppliers of natural gas, liquid fuels, petroleum products, and coal;
• Waste haulers and transporters (exporters) of solid waste that emit over 10,000 MT of CO2e per year;
• Electric power entities, both in- and out-of-state, that generate any GHG emissions into the state;
• Licensed distributers of agricultural lime and fertilizer that supply a quantity of these products large enough to generate any amount of GHG emissions per year; and
• Facilities that store liquid waste or rely on anaerobic digestion (e.g., wastewater treatment facilities and concentrated animal feeding operations), where wastes imported to or generated at the facility would generate more than more than 10,000 MT of CO2e per year.

Scope of Reporting

Like the first iteration of California’s emissions disclosure programs in 2007, New York’s Reporting Program—at least for now—targets a limited set of large industrial facilities within the state’s borders and focuses on direct source (i.e., Scope 1) emissions.  Although California’s program has evolved over the past 20 years to include a much broader range of sectors and expanded source of emissions sources, including Scope 2 (indirect) and Scope 3 (indirect from upstream/downstream GHG emissions), New York is charting a narrower pathway.  Despite the narrower scope, Part 253 still requires comprehensive emissions data tracking to ensure reporting readiness.  The specific data that must be reported varies by the type of entity, but it generally includes total GHG emissions, the amount of fuel delivered into the state, and GHG emissions produced outside of New York that are directly associated with the generation of electricity and fuel imported into the state.

To best prepare, companies should first assess whether they qualify as an obligated party, identify any industry-specific requirements with upcoming deadlines, begin tracking emissions and emissions sources, and familiarize themselves with NYDEC’s existing GHG reporting tools, such as NYS e-CGRT.  Companies should also begin to develop emissions monitoring and GHG-monitoring plans, which are due September 1, 2026 and December 31, 2026.

Sidley has decades of experience helping companies become compliant with evolving state mandates for climate disclosures. Sidley regularly counsels industrial clients in formulating compliance plans, creating methods for compiling reporting data, weighing corporate restructuring costs, and generally navigating substantial regulatory uncertainty across jurisdictions for Scope 1 emissions reporting.

This post is as of the posting date stated above. Sidley Austin LLP assumes no duty to update this post or post about any subsequent developments having a bearing on this post.