SCOTUS to Determine Legitimacy of Obama GHG Emissions Policy

Companies preparing to comply with California’s landmark climate disclosure regime now have a slight reprieve. On June 24, 2026, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) announced that it intends to defer the first reporting deadline for Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under SB 253 from August 10, 2026 to November 10, 2026, while the agency makes “limited” revisions to the related implementing regulations.

On March 23, 2026, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) held a public workshop on implementation of the Corporate Climate Data Accountability Act (SB 253), as companies prepare to comply with initial greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting requirements later this year. The workshop followed CARB’s February 2026 adoption of initial regulations under SB 253 and SB 261, which we discussed here, and focused largely on potential future rulemakings, particularly with respect to Scope 3 emissions, GHG accounting methodologies, assurance and organizational boundary setting.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) recently finalized a narrowly crafted, initial set of implementing regulations (Regulations) for California’s climate‑reporting statutes (i.e., SB 253 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reporting) and SB 261 (climate‑related financial risk disclosures).¹ As adopted, the Regulations largely mirror the proposal issued in December 2025, without material changes. The Regulations provide a limited set of foundational compliance mechanics, but defer many consequential issues to future rulemaking initiatives, particularly in relation to how Scope 3 GHG emissions are to be reported under SB 253.

On February 18, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its final rule repealing the greenhouse gas (GHG) “endangerment finding.” EPA’s leadership has characterized the repeal as a return to a narrower reading of the statute in light of scientific, technological and policy developments since 2009. The move significantly attempts to reshape the federal climate regulatory landscape and promptly drew legal challenges.