Photo of Liz Glusman

Liz navigates clients through a variety of complex environmental compliance areas to manage risks, achieve strategic business goals, and stay ahead of the evolving regulatory landscape.

On September 24, 2025, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) published a list of entities it believes may be subject to the state’s climate disclosure laws, Senate Bill (SB) 253 and SB 261, which require companies “doing business in California” and meeting certain revenue thresholds to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions (SB 253) and climate-related financial risks (SB 261). Both laws require disclosing entities to pay CARB annual implementation fees. The preliminary list is “intended to support development of the fee regulation” according to CARB‘s announcement. However, the list is generating surprise and confusion among the regulated (and non-regulated) community, some of whom expected to find themselves on the list, and others who did not. Adding to the confusion, CARB made clear that the list includes entities that, at least under its initial staff concepts, would be exempt from the laws; the list also appears to include insurance companies that may be statutorily exempt from SB 261.

California’s drive toward a net-zero carbon economy by 2045 is sparking innovative solutions to harmonize environmental conservation with infrastructure development. Assembly Bill (AB) 550, sponsored by Assembly Member Petrie-Norris, aims to amend the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) by permitting renewable energy projects to take unlisted but “at-risk” species. The proposed legislation recognizes the dual imperative of advancing clean energy while conserving California’s biodiversity.

The California legislature continues to advance Senate Bill 601 (SB 601), the “Right to Clean Water Act,”[1] which aims to safeguard protections for California’s streams and wetlands that lost federal protection under the Clean Water Act (CWA) as a result of the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett v. U.S. EPA decision. If approved, SB 601 would expand enforcement to include citizen suits and increase penalties for unpermitted discharges to state waters.

On April 17, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (together Services) published a proposed rule to rescind the long-standing definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The proposal appears to be one of the first in response to President Trump’s April 9 Presidential Memorandum, “Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations,” which directs federal agencies to revise or rescind regulations that conflict with the plain meaning of the underlying statute. If adopted, it will significantly change the ESA’s implementation. The FWS and NMFS are taking comments on the proposed rule from April 17 through May 17.

Challenging a slew of state climate-related laws and programs, President Trump’s April 8, 2025 executive order (EO) set the stage for more legal fights between the federal government and states. In the new EO, “Protecting American Energy from State Overreach,” Trump took aim at state laws and programs that address greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), climate change, environmental justice, and environmental, social, and governance (ESG). Some states have already indicated they will oppose the Trump administration’s efforts.

In what should be welcome news to industry and others who generate hazardous waste in California (including contaminated soil), the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), through the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), released a Draft Hazardous Waste Management Plan: A Modern Approach to a Circular Economy (Plan) on March 15. As provided in the Plan, DTSC proposes to potentially simplify the characterization of hazardous waste, provide for alternative management standards for certain hazardous wastes, and adopt certain existing U.S. EPA recycling exemptions and exclusions.

On December 16, 2024, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) requested public feedback to “help inform its work to implement” the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261) (see our summary of these 2023 laws here). The “information solicitation” was issued shortly after California State Senator Scott Wiener and Senator Henry Stern, who authored the bills, penned a letter to CARB expressing their frustration with CARB’s apparent lack of momentum in advance of a July 2025 statutory deadline to adopt regulations governing the greenhouse gas (GHG) and climate risk disclosures that large entities “doing business in California” must make beginning in 2026. CARB is accepting comments in response to the solicitation for 60 days, through February 14, 2025.

Burrowing owl female with three owlets at Pawnee National Grasslands, Danita Delimont, Unsplash License

The western burrowing owl was just recently elevated to a “candidate species” under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). As a candidate species, the owl now has

What Happened

On Monday, October 14, 2024, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) opened a public comment period on changes to the previously proposed regulations implementing the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (Act). The 15-day written comment period runs through Tuesday, October 29, 2024.

The march toward mandated corporate disclosures for climate-related risks continues. Despite significant pushback and substantial legal challenges, state legislatures and regulators are continuing to advance laws and rules that will require disclosures of both greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate risks.

California Senate Bill (SB) 219, signed into law