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 (CalRecyle) 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

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized regulations impacting a large swath of refrigeration and cooling equipment industries. The new regulations are the most recent EPA action addressing the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), greenhouse gases often used to replace ozone-depleting substances for refrigeration and cooling, under the American Innovation

On April 19, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a pre-publication version of the long-awaited final rule designating two per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as “hazardous substances” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Cleanup, and Liability Act (CERCLA). This final rule comes right on the heels of EPA’s April 8

On March 11, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the long-awaited Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention Rule (Final Rule), which concluded a nearly decadelong process — spanning three administrations — to update EPA’s Risk Management Program (RMP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA).