EPA GHGRP · reporting year 2023 · Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems
IKAV Impact USA - top-third GHGRP parent
According to the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), an upper-third Scope 1 reporter: 5 facilities across 1 state (1.4M MT CO₂e in 2023).
- MT CO₂e (latest facility reports)
- 1.4M
- Reporting facilities
- 5
- States covered
- 1
- Overall rank
- #262
Data updated May 2026
According to the EPA GHGRP, IKAV Impact USA reported 1.4M MT CO₂e in 2023 across 5 facilities in 1 state (ranks #262 of 2,289 U.S. corporate GHG emitters by total reported CO₂e) Emissions decreased 39% over the tracked period.
- Overall rank #262 of 2,289
- #19 in Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems
- -39.5% since 2011
IKAV Impact USA vs all U.S. GHGRP parent companies
Where this parent's reported Scope 1 CO₂e sits among every EPA GHGRP-reporting company
1,446,596 262nd of 2289 higher than 2,027 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 IKAV Impact USA spreads its footprint vs Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems peers
Facility count against total reported CO₂e for 20 Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems 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 (23 facilities, 2.84M MT).
You are here: IKAV Impact USA.
Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems peer footprint table: IKAV Impact USA, 5 facilities, 1.45M MT CO2e. Cheniere Energy, 5 facilities, 9.73M MT CO2e. Energy Transfer, 129 facilities, 8.89M MT CO2e. Hilcorp Energy, 18 facilities, 8.26M MT CO2e. Kinder Morgan, 169 facilities, 8.24M MT CO2e. Enterprise Products Partners, 43 facilities, 7.79M MT CO2e. Enbridge (us), 80 facilities, 5.72M MT CO2e. The Williams Cos, 59 facilities, 5.48M MT CO2e. Transcanada Pipeline USA, 76 facilities, 4.45M MT CO2e. Dominion Energy, 5 facilities, 3.26M MT CO2e. Venture Global LNG, 1 facilities, 2.84M MT CO2e. Sempra Energy, 5 facilities, 2.77M MT CO2e. Berkshire Hathaway, 56 facilities, 2.3M MT CO2e. Targa Resources, 21 facilities, 2.22M MT CO2e. GIP Pilot Acquisition Partners, 26 facilities, 2.08M MT CO2e. Loews, 41 facilities, 1.94M MT CO2e. Occidental Petroleum, 19 facilities, 1.55M MT CO2e. Enlink Midstream, 11 facilities, 1.5M MT CO2e. Oneok, 23 facilities, 1.44M MT CO2e. Ecoelectrica, 1 facilities, 1.43M MT CO2e.
EPA GHGRP inventory plate
Parent ikav-impact-usa · 2023 #262 · 1.4M MT
CO2E-MID · UPPER-Q · PHOTO-FINISH · FAC-PAIR · SPAN-HOME · SECTOR-PETROLEUM-AN · TREND-CUT · BOOK-RICH
- CO2E-MID 1.4M MT
- UPPER-Q #262/2289
- PHOTO-FINISH Advansix · Other
- FAC-PAIR 5 facilities
- SPAN-HOME 1 state
- SECTOR-PETROLEUM-AN Petroleum and Nat…
- TREND-CUT −40% since 2011
- BOOK-RICH 7/8 fields
Nearest CO₂e peer: Advansix · Other (±1K MT)
Upper-third parent rollup stamps: CO₂e band, corpus rank, peer, facility book, state span, sector, trend. Not an EPA grade.
2023 nearly all-CO₂ parent book
This parent's 2023 facility book is almost entirely CO₂ (99.9% of 1.4M 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%
- 1.4M MT
- CH₄
- 0%
- 681 MT
- N₂O
- 0.1%
- 811 MT
CO₂e neighbourhood around IKAV Impact USA
Lowest and highest poles plus nearest reported parents by CO₂e, not a full GHGRP corpus board reprint.
Largest sites in a top-third parent book
IKAV Impact USA - top sites (MT CO₂e)
IKAV Impact USA's largest facilities by latest available reported CO₂e
Emissions decline across reporting years
IKAV Impact USA - declining annual GHG
EPA GHGRP 2011–2023 · million metric tons CO₂e
- Reported CO₂e in 2023
- 1.4M MT
- 13 annual EPA GHGRP reporting records
IKAV Impact USA annual reported GHG emissions, 2011–2023
IKAV Impact USA reported 1.4M MT CO₂e in 2023, compared with 2.4M MT in 2011 - a decline of 39.5% across the EPA GHGRP reporting record.
Multi-site facilities (5)
| Facility | Location | Emissions (MT CO2e) |
|---|---|---|
| Aera Energy Belridge Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems McKittrick, CA | McKittrick, CA | 1.3M |
| MIDWAY-SUNSET COGENERATION CO. Power Plants FELLOWS, CA | FELLOWS, CA | 99K |
| Aera Energy Wier Gore Maxwell Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems Fellows, CA | Fellows, CA | 39K |
| Aera Energy Metson Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems Maricopa, CA | Maricopa, CA | 22K |
| Aera Energy Buena Fe Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems Maricopa, CA | Maricopa, CA | 2K |
IKAV Impact USA's reported CO₂e by EPA sector
Top sector Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems is 93.2% of this parent's facility CO₂e (4 sites) ; Power Plants follows at 6.8% . Sector labels are EPA GHGRP facility industry_sector values.
IKAV Impact USA reported facility CO₂e by EPA industry sector
Nationwide peers for a top-third GHGRP parent
Three EPA GHGRP peer sets for a top-third parent (1.4M MT): nearest totals, facility-book size, then per-facility intensity.
Similar reported CO₂e
Nearest parent totals (1.4M MT here).
Similar facility book
Nearest reporting-facility counts (5 here).
Similar per-facility CO₂e
Nearest average MT per facility (289K MT here).
Source: EPA GHGRP Data is based on facility self-reporting. Not environmental compliance advice
What to do with this
Using IKAV Impact USA's emissions profile
- IKAV Impact USA runs high-intensity per facility (289K MT CO₂e/site); see how it stacks up against the rest of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems sector on the Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems industry page.
- It ranks #262 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 · Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems 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.