The Sioux Falls, S.D., Argus Leader recently ran an article about South Dakota State University’s refusal to sign the American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment, in part because the university relies heavily on its coal-fired heating plant. Coal might be dirty, but it’s also cheap. Switching to natural gas, which would reduce the amount of pollutants emitted, would cost the university up to $1-million, the newspaper says.

“They always say, ‘It’s not about the money,’ but it’s about the money,” David Chicoine, the university president, told the Argus Leader. “We don’t want to sign it, then not be able to meet the commitment.”

The article appears just as there is increasing buzz in Washington about regulating greenhouse-gas emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency has been looking into declaring that greenhouse gases are pollutants, a move that would take the agency some steps closer to regulating greenhouse gases. In early March, Greenwire leaked an internal EPA document that seemed to show that the agency was reviewing scientific data to determine whether greenhouse gases were more likely to cause chaotic weather events, like droughts, heat waves, and coastal storms. Environmental activists took this as a sign of impending regulation.

The agency has also proposed mandatory reporting of greenhouse-gas emissions for large power generators, manufacturers, landfills, and other greenhouse-gas sources. The proposed rule would apply to universities, but only to the largest — those that emit greenhouse gases equal to 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide from a single source, rather than from the entire campus. With the proposed rules, the EPA is also requesting comment on greenhouse-gas measurement of purchased electricity and large vehicle fleets. To put this in perspective, 25,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent is about equal to 130 rail cars of coal or the annual power use of 2,200 homes.

If the Argus Leader‘s numbers are right, even South Dakota State’s coal plant, with its 22,000 metric tons of emissions, would not be subject to mandatory reporting. But it might be someday.

“It’s important to note that this is the first proposal for mandatory greenhouse-gas reporting from the EPA,” William N. Irving, chief of a policy branch in the climate-change division of the EPA, told The Chronicle in an interview. “EPA, if given direction at a later date, could expand the scope of reporting.”

Mr. Irving did not want to speculate about the possibility that the EPA would regulate greenhouse gases. “But clearly there is a lot of interest in a reporting program beyond just its informational value,” he said. Reported information could be used for regulation or for some kind of cap-and-trade system, which is also being discussed in Congress.

What does this mean for colleges? Sustainability advocates will tell you that they have long anticipated a day when the greenhouse gases would be monitored and regulated by government. Colleges that have signed the Presidents Climate Commitment, and therefore have begun to grapple with the problem of emissions, might be ahead of their peers.