July 2026 Updates on California’s Climate Disclosure Laws: SB 253 Rulemakings and Another CARB Workshop

California’s climate disclosure regime continues to advance despite regulatory delays, pending litigation, and lingering questions about first-year compliance and more. On July 21, 2026, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) held another in its series of public workshops related to the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, SB 253 and Climate-Related Financial Risk, SB 261, (both as amended by SB 219; together, the “SB 200s”). At the July workshop, CARB updated stakeholders on its recently withdrawn regulatory proposal for 2026 reporting (the “Initial Rulemaking”) and previewed its plans for a broader reporting framework for 2027 and beyond (the “Subsequent Rulemaking”). While the details continue to evolve, and an injunction continues to apply only as to SB 261, businesses in the scope of SB 253 continue to prepare in anticipation of a 2026 reporting deadline for Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions data.

The July Workshop in Context

SB 253 requires U.S.-based entities doing business in California with annual revenues exceeding $1 billion to publicly disclose their greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions in conformance with the GHG Protocol, a globally recognized framework for measuring and reporting GHG emissions. SB 253 requires Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions reporting to begin in 2026 and Scope 3 emissions reporting to begin in 2027, and CARB is tasked with developing the regulations to implement the program, including data assurance requirements to be phased in over time.

The July workshop came at an especially tumultuous time. On November 18, 2025, the Ninth Circuit preliminarily enjoined CARB from enforcing SB 261, under which companies faced a January 1, 2026 reporting deadline, while SB 253 remained in effect, with CARB planning an August 10, 2026 initial reporting deadline. Litigation regarding the SB 200s remains pending, but CARB continues to work towards implementation, including opening a public docket for entities wishing to voluntarily publish their SB 261 reports, developing the SB 253 Initial Regulation, and preparing to propose the SB 253 Subsequent Regulation.

Just weeks before the July workshop, on June 24, 2026, CARB withdrew its proposed Initial Regulation, which it had submitted to the California Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) in May 2026 in order to make additional clarifying revisions, as discussed below. Against that backdrop, the July workshop focused on CARB’s proposed Subsequent Regulation for 2027 reporting requirements and beyond, illustrating the uncertainty companies continue to navigate.

Workshop Insights on the  Initial Regulation

CARB confirmed its plans to resubmit the Initial Regulation for a 15-day comment period and defer the first reporting deadline from August 10 to November 10, 2026, giving reporting entities additional time after formal adoption of the revised regulation. CARB also reiterated enforcement flexibility for good-faith first-year submissions.

Although CARB has indicated that the forthcoming revisions are intended to be limited in scope, the withdrawal has created additional uncertainty for companies preparing for their first reporting cycle. To further support reporting entities, CARB plans to release supplemental guidance materials by September 1, 2026. These materials are expected to include:

• A voluntary online reporting platform
• A guidance document addressing 2026 reporting
• Instructional materials

These materials will support the 2026 reporting year, while future reporting requirements will be addressed through the subsequent rulemaking process.

Workshop Insights on the Subsequent Regulation

The workshop largely served as a preview of CARB’s proposed regulatory concepts for the Subsequent Regulation that will govern reporting beginning in 2027 and beyond and to solicit feedback from stakeholders to be incorporated into the proposed regulation to be published by CARB.

Key themes emphasized by CARB during the workshop included:

• Alignment with Global Reporting Frameworks: CARB repeatedly emphasized that its proposed approach is intended to align closely with the GHG Protocol while maximizing interoperability with other climate disclosure frameworks, including IFRS S2 and the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (“CSRD”). Companies already reporting under those frameworks may be able to leverage existing systems, methodologies, and governance processes. The proposal would require reporting entities to prepare emissions inventories in accordance with the GHG Protocol’s Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, Scope 2 Guidance, and Scope 3 Standard, with California-specific clarifications.
• Limited and Practical Scope 3 Reporting: One of the workshop’s most significant announcements involved CARB’s proposed approach to Scope 3 reporting. In response to stakeholder concerns regarding cost, feasibility, and data availability, CARB is proposing to require disclosure of only five Scope 3 categories beginning in 2027: Purchased Goods and Services (Category 1); Fuel- and Energy-Related Activities (Category 3); Waste Generated in Operations (Category 5); Business Travel (Category 6); and Employee Commuting (Category 7). CARB selected these categories because they are most frequently reported under existing regulatory frameworks and are supported by mature methodologies and available data sources. Companies would be able to voluntarily report additional Scope 3 categories if they already collect such information for other reporting programs.
• CARB is Raising the Bar on Data Quality: The workshop highlighted CARB’s increasing focus on the quality and reliability of reported emissions data. Beginning with reports submitted in 2027, CARB proposes requiring limited assurance for Scope 1 and Scope 2 disclosures from qualified independent third-party assurance providers. The proposal would recognize several established assurance standards, including AICPA, ISAE, ISSA, AA1000, and ISO-based frameworks. CARB also proposed detailed requirements for quantification methods, measurement uncertainty, missing data procedures, methodology changes, recalculations, and disclosure of primary versus secondary data sources. The proposed framework indicates that CARB’s focus is increasingly on the depth, transparency, and defensibility of emissions data rather than simply expanding reporting categories.

Further details are available on CARB’s website, including materials from CARB’s Meetings and Workshops, as well as additional Resources.

Practical Takeaways

The July workshop reinforces that California’s climate disclosure program is moving forward despite delays and uncertainty, and companies need strategies that are both robust and agile. In that context, below are a few practical takeaways for affected companies to consider:

1. It is important to continue preparing for compliance while monitoring important developments, including CARB’s revised Initial Regulation, the anticipated September 2026 guidance documents, future rulemaking proposals, and ongoing litigation. Waiting for complete regulatory certainty may leave entities with insufficient time to prepare for compliance.
2. With CARB’s emphasis on data quality, reporting entities may benefit from evaluating their current emissions reporting capabilities, strengthening internal controls and documentation practices, and developing audit-ready reporting systems.
3. Entities with concerns regarding CARB’s proposed approach for the revised Initial Regulation and the new Subsequent Regulation may wish to participate in upcoming stakeholder engagement opportunities and public comment periods.
4. Companies uncertain about the applicability of the SB 200s, including the treatment of complex organizational structures, as well as broader preparedness of their corporate governance frameworks, may wish to consult counsel sooner rather than later. Strategy development in this space often requires conversations and coordination with various stakeholders, including Sustainability and Finance teams, and allowing adequate time is key to ensuring a measured approach.

Clark Hill’s ESG & Sustainability team consists of attorneys and professionals throughout the U.S., Mexico, and Ireland representing a range of primary practice areas intersecting with ESG and sustainability issues. If you have questions or would like to discuss this alert, please contact the authors directly or your usual Clark Hill contact.

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author(s) only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.