The Strategic Reckoning: Why California's Climate Rules Are Now a National Standard
Updated: November 2025

You can listen to it here.

California’s new climate disclosure mandates—Senate Bill 253 (GHG emissions) and Senate Bill 261 (climate-related financial risk)—have fundamentally shifted the US corporate sustainability landscape. They are not merely state rules; they are regulatory shockwaves that, by design, compel thousands of public and private companies across the country to adopt audit-ready, standardized climate accounting.

As of late 2025, companies face a critical dual challenge: navigating ambitious, near-term reporting deadlines while operating under continued regulatory and legal uncertainty. The message, however, is clear: preparing for compliance is no longer optional.

The Unwavering Deadline Amidst Regulatory Delays

Despite pressure from industry groups and a fresh, high-profile legal challenge, the key compliance dates remain fixed:

• January 1, 2026 (SB 261): First biennial climate-related financial risk report due, aligning with frameworks like TCFD or ISSB. This must be based on the prior fiscal year’s data.
• Mid-2026 (SB 253): Proposed deadline (June 30) for the first annual disclosure of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions (2025 data), requiring limited assurance.

Crucially, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the enforcement body, has delayed issuing its final implementing regulations until Q1 2026, citing a high volume of public feedback. While CARB has promised “enforcement discretion” for entities making a good-faith effort in the initial year, the statutory deadlines stand, forcing companies to make significant operational decisions based on incomplete regulatory guidance.

1. The Scope 3 Avalanche: A Technical Tsunami

The most profound compliance challenge, and the greatest differentiator from earlier federal disclosure attempts, is the mandated reporting of Scope 3 emissions under SB 253.
Scope 3 encompasses all indirect emissions across a company's entire value chain—from purchased goods and services to employee commuting, product use, and waste disposal. For many organizations, this category represents 70% to 90% of their total carbon footprint.

• The Data Dilemma: Measuring Scope 3 requires companies to collect data from hundreds or thousands of non-regulated third parties (suppliers, logistics providers, waste handlers). This shifts the compliance burden far beyond the reporting company’s fence line, demanding unprecedented supply chain engagement and data transparency.
• Assurance Bottleneck: SB 253 introduces a progressive assurance requirement. While limited assurance on Scope 1 and 2 is due in 2026, the law phases in reasonable assurance (the standard for financial audits) for Scope 1 and 2 by 2030. Furthermore, Scope 3 assurance is slated to begin in 2030 (with CARB considering accelerating this requirement). The current lack of a large, qualified assurance provider market capable of handling the sheer volume and complexity of these disclosures is a major strategic risk. Companies must now begin establishing internal controls and data infrastructure to meet audit-grade standards years in advance.

2. The Legal Front: Uncertainty Escalates

The implementation of the laws has been met with persistent legal opposition. While a coalition led by the US Chamber of Commerce failed to secure a preliminary injunction against the laws in August 2025, a new and potentially more potent challenge has emerged.

In late October 2025, ExxonMobil filed a separate, direct lawsuit against the statutes. This challenge focuses heavily on two constitutional claims:

1. Compelled Speech: Arguing that requiring companies to report emissions using the GHG Protocol and TCFD framework violates their First Amendment rights by forcing them to "speak" with an ideological message they may oppose.
2. Federal Preemption: Claiming that the state laws infringe upon the SEC's domain by regulating financial disclosures better suited for federal securities law.

The existence of dual litigation creates significant uncertainty, but corporate counsel is universally advising clients to continue their preparation efforts. The potential for penalties (up to $500,000 for emissions and $50,000 for risk reports) outweighs the gamble of non-compliance, particularly since CARB has promised leniency only for good-faith attempts.

3. A De Facto National Mandate
The reach of SB 253 (>$1B revenue) and SB 261 (>$500M revenue) extends far beyond California’s borders because of the deliberately broad "doing business in California" definition. This effectively nationalizes the standards.

Any major corporation that sells products, maintains significant property, or engages in transactions for financial gain within the state is captured. This means thousands of US-based entities—including major private equity firms, real estate funds, and manufacturers—are now subject to the most stringent climate reporting in the nation, regardless of whether they are publicly traded.

For these companies, compliance is no longer a bolt-on regulatory exercise but a strategic imperative that requires integration of climate data into core financial and operational systems. The leaders in this space are using these compliance efforts not just to check a box, but to gain competitive advantage through improved supply chain resilience and lower long-term transition risk.

The next few months, leading into the Q1 2026 rulemaking, will be pivotal. Companies that wait for the legal smoke to clear or for CARB to finalize every detail risk being left behind. The only tenable strategy is full speed ahead on data collection, governance, and securing assurance capacity now.