EPA GHGRP · reporting year 2023 · Power Plants

AIM Development USA - lower-footprint GHGRP parent

According to the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), a smaller reporting parent: 9K MT CO₂e from 1 site in 1 state (2023).

MT CO₂e (latest facility reports)
9K
Reporting facilities
1
States covered
1
Overall rank
#2215
Watchlist RSS for this company

Data updated May 2026

9K MT CO₂e · 2023

According to the EPA GHGRP, AIM Development USA reported 9K MT CO₂e in 2023 across 1 facility in 1 state (ranks #2,215 of 2,289 U.S. corporate GHG emitters by total reported CO₂e) Emissions decreased 99% over the tracked period.

  • Overall rank #2215 of 2,289
  • #442 in Power Plants
  • -98.9% since 2011

AIM Development USA vs all U.S. GHGRP parent companies

Where this parent's reported Scope 1 CO₂e sits among every EPA GHGRP-reporting company

9,334 2215th of 2289 higher than 74 of 2,289 companies

GHGRP parent companies, banded by reported CO₂e (MT)

Each bar is a band; taller bars hold more companies. The dashed line + filled bar mark this entry. Hover or tap any bar for its full count and share, and where it sits relative to this entry.

Source EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program · 2023

How AIM Development USA spreads its footprint vs Power Plants peers

Facility count against total reported CO₂e for 21 Power Plants companies. A company can lead its sector from one concentrated site or from many smaller ones; the split below uses the median of this peer group (19 facilities, 26.77M MT).

Median split: 19 facilities, 26.77M MT CO₂e among Power Plants peers. 2×2 strategic matrix plotting 21 entities by Reporting facilities (X) and Total CO₂e (million MT) (Y), with a crosshair dividing the plot into four quadrants. Large & distributedFew sites, outsized footprintMany sites, modest footprintSmall & concentrated 01020304050 0M20M40M60M80M100M Reporting facilities Total CO₂e (million MT) Facility count vs. total reported CO₂e, Power Plants
Median split: 19 facilities, 26.77M MT CO₂e among Power Plants peers.

You are here: AIM Development USA.

Power Plants peer footprint table: AIM Development USA, 1 facilities, 0.01M MT CO2e. Vistra, 40 facilities, 86.32M MT CO2e. The Southern, 26 facilities, 78.01M MT CO2e. Duke Energy, 39 facilities, 65.01M MT CO2e. CPN Management, 43 facilities, 47.58M MT CO2e. Nextera Energy, 19 facilities, 45.57M MT CO2e. American Electric Power CO, 22 facilities, 44.72M MT CO2e. Berkshire Hathaway, 27 facilities, 39.8M MT CO2e. US Government, 21 facilities, 38.21M MT CO2e. Entergy, 23 facilities, 33.86M MT CO2e. Xcel Energy, 28 facilities, 29.03M MT CO2e. PPL, 6 facilities, 26.77M MT CO2e. Dominion Energy, 22 facilities, 25.19M MT CO2e. DTE Energy, 12 facilities, 22.31M MT CO2e. NRG Energy, 14 facilities, 22.1M MT CO2e. Ameren, 11 facilities, 19.88M MT CO2e. Evergy, 12 facilities, 19.87M MT CO2e. Lightstone Generation, 4 facilities, 19.14M MT CO2e. Talen Energy, 11 facilities, 17.72M MT CO2e. Associated Electric Cooperative, 7 facilities, 15.57M MT CO2e. Aes, 8 facilities, 15.45M MT CO2e.

EPA GHGRP inventory plate

Parent aim-development-usa · 2023 #2215 · 9K MT

CO2E-THIN · BOTTOM-DECILE · PHOTO-FINISH · FAC-SINGLE · SPAN-HOME · SECTOR-POWER-PLANTS · TREND-CUT · BOOK-RICH

  • CO2E-THIN 9K MT
  • BOTTOM-DECILE #2215/2289
  • PHOTO-FINISH Shenandoah County Vir… · Waste
  • FAC-SINGLE 1 facility
  • SPAN-HOME 1 state
  • SECTOR-POWER-PLANTS Power Plants
  • TREND-CUT −99% since 2011
  • BOOK-RICH 7/8 fields

Nearest CO₂e peer: Shenandoah County Virginia · Waste (±12 MT)

Lower-footprint parent stamps from this GHGRP rollup, comparative context only, not a compliance rating.

2023 nearly all-CO₂ parent book

This parent's 2023 facility book is almost entirely CO₂ (99.9% of 9K MT CO₂e). CH₄ and N₂O together are only 0.1%, a CO₂-shaped GHGRP profile, not a methane story. Component shares sum this parent's facility CO₂ / CH₄ / N₂O rows for that year, not a corporate Scope 1-3 inventory.

CO₂
99.9%
9K MT
CH₄
0.1%
5 MT
N₂O
0.1%
6 MT

CO₂e neighbourhood around AIM Development USA

Lowest and highest poles plus nearest reported parents by CO₂e, not a full GHGRP corpus board reprint.

Vistra · Power Plants · high…86.3MMelvin E Judkins · Waste · n…9KCounty of Madison New… · Was…9KHecla Greens Creek Mi… · Oth…9KAIM Development USA · Power …9KShenandoah County Vir… · Was…9KPelican Renewables · Other ·…0
EPA GHGRP parent CO₂e · neighbourhood around AIM Development USA · May 2026

Emissions decline across reporting years

AIM Development USA - declining annual GHG

EPA GHGRP 2011–2023 · million metric tons CO₂e

Reported CO₂e in 2023
9K MT
13 annual EPA GHGRP reporting records
0M0.2M0.4M0.6M0.8M1M 2011201320152017201920212023 0.01M

AIM Development USA annual reported GHG emissions, 2011–2023

Source: EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) As of Reporting year 2023

AIM Development USA reported 9K MT CO₂e in 2023, compared with 831K MT in 2011 - a decline of 98.9% across the EPA GHGRP reporting record.

Facilities (1)

Facility Emissions (MT CO2e)
BUCKSPORT GENERATION LLC
Power Plants
BUCKSPORT, ME
9K

Nationwide peers for a lower-footprint parent

Comparison paths for a smaller GHGRP parent: nearest CO₂e totals, similar facility counts, and intensity neighbors beyond Power Plants browse pages.

Source: EPA GHGRP Data is based on facility self-reporting. Not environmental compliance advice

What to do with this

Using AIM Development USA's emissions profile

  • AIM Development USA runs low-intensity per facility (9K MT CO₂e/site); see how it stacks up against the rest of the Power Plants sector on the Power Plants industry page.
  • It ranks #2215 of 2,289 reporting parents nationwide, compare it directly against specific peers on the compare tool.
  • Not sure how to read a total-CO₂e figure or a per-facility intensity number, the how-to-read guide walks through what each field means and what it doesn't.

Related reading: How to read an emissions profile · Power Plants emitters · Methodology

Disclaimer: This information is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice. Data is sourced from the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). Consult a qualified professional before making decisions based on this data.