This April 2, 2010, file photo, shows a Tesoro Corp. refinery, including a gas flare flame that is part normal plant operations, in Anacortes, Washington.

(AP Photo/Ted S. Warren, File)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced Thursdaythat fossil fuel companies no longer need to botherreporting their emissions of certain greenhouse gasses.

Oil and gas industry groups quickly applauded the move.Conservationists called it a"big mistake."

Last year under the Obama administration, more than 15,000 oil and gas companies to providemeasurements of methane and other emissions. Now, under the Trump administration and intentions to slash the EPA's budget by a quarter, the agency toldcompanies not to bother.

Methane is particularly worrisome to climate scientists, who contend the gas has a significantly greater warming effect than other greenhouse gasses, including a global warming potential of more than 25 times greater than that of carbon dioxide.Levels in the nation have risen due to an increase in domestic natural gas production. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, than previous estimates.

"It's absurd that one of Scott Pruitt's first acts is to refuse information on a dangerous pollutant," Melinda Pierce, legislative director for the Sierra Club told weather.com. "Just because he doesn't want to hear the truth on the dangers of methane from oil and gas operations, doesn't make it any less dangerous to the millions of Americans that are forced to breathe this pollutant in on a daily basis."

The abrupt change in policy is reportedly a response to sent to new EPA head Scott Pruitt on Tuesdayfrom fossil fuel-producing states –Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana, among them– asking him to withdraw the former administration's requirement. It also signals the "undermining of ," notes the Washington Post.

"By taking this step, EPA is signaling that we take these concerns seriously and are committed to strengthening our partnership with the states," Pruitt . "Today's action will reduce burdens on businesses while we take a closer look at the need for additional information from this industry."

Mark Brownstein, vice president of climate and energy at the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement to weather.com that before taking office, Pruitt worked withthe same group of state attorneys general that asked EPA to rescind the data request.

"His overnight response to these requests raises the same concerns aboutPruitt’s commitment to EPA’s core function of protecting public health and the environment that were raised during his confirmation hearings," said Brownstein.“The EPA administrator is telling oil and gas companies to withhold vital data about pollution from the publicand depriving local communities across the country of their right to know what’s going on in their own backyards. It’s a slap in the face for operators that followed the rulesand a reward for those that held back. This is precisely the kind of cozy collaboration with the worst actors in the oil and gas industry that dogged Pruitt throughout his controversial confirmation process.”

Industry groups praised the move.

In a , the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) said it "welcomes today’s announcement as it brings meaningful relief to independent producers across the nation and demonstrates that creating American jobs anddeveloping U.S. energy is a high priority for the Trump administration.”

The organization said the EPA directive under Obama"imposed significant costs on companies to produce additional paperwork and added unnecessary burdens on producers’ technical teams to prepare and submit rushed comments under enormous time constraints."

Conservation groups, on the other hand, were just as quick to condemn the decision and the new administrator.

"It's a big mistake," Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, said in an email to weather.com. "The Obama administration EPA's decision to collect information about these emissions is a necessary first step in understanding the scope of the problemand defining an appropriate solution. The decision to back away just shows Scott Pruitt's continued denial of the very real risks posed by climate change, and very real need to address them."

Michael Gerrard,director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, noted that methane is "a powerful greenhouse gas and in high enough concentrations, it can pose a risk of explosion."

"It is deeply disturbing that EPA, now under new management, is tossing aside an important way to protect health, safety and the environment," Garrard said. "This order is a very bad sign of what is coming."