For more from Tim Mohin, sign up for his newsletter here

California made headlines in March 2023 when the legislature sent Governor Gavin Newsom three new climate laws. He signed all three into law with a cautionary message that implementing rules and adequate funding would be needed. In the intervening 18 months, the state is still struggling to implement these policies, and this week, the state Senate introduced a possible solution in the form of yet another climate bill: SB 219. 

Setting the context: The California “Accountability Package” included three separate bills: SB 253 (Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions disclosures), SB 261 (climate risk disclosure), and AB 1305 (voluntary carbon market—VCM—disclosures). 

 In June of this year, Governor Newsom proposed delaying the implementation of the emissions and risk policies (SB 253 and 261) by two years – meaning companies would start reporting in 2028. This was met with some pushback: The architect of SB 253 (emissions disclosure), Senator Scott Weiner, said the “law already has a 6-year phase-in.”AndDave Jones, director of the University of California Berkeley’s Center for Law, said, “There really is no reason for the delay. Both bills have timelines that are attainable. 

As the deadline for the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to issue the implementing rules approaches (January 2025), Senator Weiner released an updated, consolidated version of the two bills under SB 219. This bill gives CARB an additional six months to make the rules and keeps the current deadlines for company reports—starting in 2026.

The new bill also allows companies to consolidate their reporting requirements for SB 253 and SB 261 at the parent company level. Additionally, CARB has the option, though not the obligation, to collaborate with an outside organization to produce a climate risk report and to develop a program for making the required disclosures public. 

Related Article: Tim Mohin: Investors Rally Behind SEC Climate Rule

To help address concerns about the costs of compliance, SB 219 eliminates the fees companies were expected to pay under SB 253 and SB 261. However, there is no clarification on how these costs will be covered. Given the current state budget deficit, this will be an issue.

Budget negotiations conclude on August 31st, so stay tuned for next week’s newsletter for a more definitive answer on the fate of these important climate policies. 

And, we did not forget the often overlooked AB 1305, which requires disclosure of voluntary carbon credits. This bill had the most ambitious timeline, expecting companies that use or sell carbon credits to report on the validity, verification, and progress of those carbon credit projects back in Jan 2024.

In February of this year, AB 1305 was postponed and became the amended AB 2331. The most notable change was delaying the effective date to Jan 1st, 2025. Another change said that “renewable energy certificates issued through an accounting system of a governmental regulatory body” would not be considered part of the voluntary carbon market and are not covered. This exempted carbon trading under California’s regulated emissions trading scheme 

On August 23rd, the bill was amended again, pushing the reporting deadline back an additional six months to July 2025. This amended bill has passed through every committee so far resoundingly and is expected to move through the legislative process with ease.