Rulemaking

Subscribe to Rulemaking via RSS

As the longest federal government shutdown on record continued earlier this week, EPA stayed busy putting the finishing touches on one of its PFAS-related priorities — enabling EPA to “smartly collect” information about PFAS substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as required by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. Early signs of EPA’s desire to simplify the TSCA PFAS reporting rule, which was finalized by the Biden EPA in 2023, were evident in the agency’s April 2025 announcement of “Major Actions to Combat PFAS Contamination” discussed here, where EPA committed to implement the required information collection “without overburdening small businesses and article importers.”

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.

Much has been written in recent weeks about how the renewable energy industry in Texas dodged a bullet — several bullets actually — when three high-profile bills targeting the industry failed to pass in the recent legislative session that ended June 2. Indeed, each of those bills, S.B. 819, S.B. 388, and S.B. 715, would have had a substantial negative impact on renewable energy projects in Texas. For all the attention those bills garnered, however, and the justifiable relief felt by the industry after all three failed to pass, seemingly little attention has been paid to another bill, H.B. 3556, that did pass and was signed into law by Governor Abbot on June 22. This new law poses a serious threat to the prospects for future wind projects along the Texas coast.

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.

On May 29, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado that dramatically changes the way courts scrutinize federal agencies’ environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for a five-justice conservative majority (with Justice Neil Gorsuch abstaining), held that (a) courts must afford federal agencies “substantial judicial deference” regarding both the scope and contents of their environmental analyses; and (b) courts do not need to consider the effects of the action to the extent they are “separate in time or place” from the proposed project. The ruling gives federal agencies permission to greatly streamline their NEPA analyses at a time when those agencies are rapidly being drained of their resources and facing increasing pressure to expedite lengthy permitting processes.

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.

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.…