Photo of Shawn Zovod

Shawn Zovod

Subscribe to Shawn Zovod's Posts

Shawn’s practice focuses on sophisticated environmental and natural resources law and strategy, with deep experience in the Clean Water Act (CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and their California counterparts, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, California ESA, and Lake and Streambed Alteration program. She is well versed in the preparation of environmental documents under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and advises clients on Environmental, Social and Governance and climate-related reporting.

Follow:Read more about Shawn ZovodShawn's Linkedin Profile

On October 14, 2025, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) quietly announced it was delaying its release of a proposed rulemaking on California’s climate laws.

While the rules were originally mandated by January 1, 2025, a statutory amendment in 2024 pushed that deadline to July 1, 2025. As that date came and went without any proposed rulemaking, CARB announced its intent in a public workshop on August 21, 2025, to publish proposed rules on October 14. On that date, CARB instead posted a sentence on the “resources” section of its website that read, “CARB is proposing an updated timeline for bringing the initial rulemaking (including the fee-related provisions) to the board in Q1 2026.”

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.

As the January 1, 2026, deadline to make the first required disclosure under California’s landmark climate laws approaches, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has announced that it will host another virtual public workshop on August 21 to discuss its ongoing efforts to develop regulations implementing California Senate Bills (SBs) 253 and 261. SB 253 (updated by SB 219) and SB 261, which are now codified in Sections 38532 and 38533 of the California Health and Safety Code, mandate certain entities to disclose climate-related financial risks by January 1, 2026, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by a date to be determined later in 2026. As CARB announced in its May 29, 2025, workshop, the agency does not intend to issue draft regulations until the end of the year, despite SB 219’s July 1, 2025, deadline. This has left many companies potentially affected by those regulations in the dark regarding whether they will be required to make disclosures. CARB’s August 21 workshop may finally provide clarity on some of the key applicability questions that remain unanswered as these 2026 disclosure deadlines loom.

On July 9, 2025, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a series of frequently asked questions (FAQs) related to its efforts to implement California’s landmark climate disclosure laws, SB 253 (requiring reporting of GHG emissions) and SB 261 (requiring disclosure of climate-related financial risks). Although draft implementing regulations are not anticipated before December 2025, public and private companies subject to the laws’ requirements face their first compliance deadlines beginning January 1, 2026.

On Monday, June 9, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) opened a short, 30-day public comment period soliciting information and comments to, “improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness” of Section 10(a) take permitting under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). If it seems like Section 10(a) just underwent a comment period not too long ago, that’s because it did. In 2023, under the Biden Administration, FWS solicited comments on proposed revisions to the regulations implementing that section, which were finalized last April. Now, the Trump Administration is seeking suggestions on how to further revise its ESA permitting rules.

On May 29, 2025, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) held a virtual public workshop to review and discuss its rulemaking response to California Senate Bills (SBs) 253, 261, and 219, which require companies that “do business in California” and meet certain revenue thresholds to publicly disclose their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and material climate-related financial risks. Although CARB staff presented some “initial staff concepts” concerning CARB’s approach to implementing SBs 253 and 261, CARB asked more questions than it provided answers. The clear takeaway from the workshop was that CARB has a long way to go before it is ready to issue a formal notice of proposed rulemaking on SBs 253 or 261, and there is still an open question of whether CARB will issue guidance or regulations for SB 261, which is self-implementing.

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.