Incorporator The Journal of U.S. Formation
Start Free Quiz
Editorial 6 MIN READ

California's SB 260 and the coming climate-disclosure squeeze

A $1 billion revenue threshold, Scope 3 reporting, and an SEC proposal running in parallel

The Editors
Staff, Incorporator.org
6 min read Updated
Contents 5 sections
  1. What SB 260 would actually require
  2. The Assembly path and what happens if it stalls
  3. The SEC proposal running on a parallel track
  4. What operating companies should be doing right now
  5. Sources

he California Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, carried as SB 260 by Senator Scott Wiener, would require every public and private company doing business in California with annual revenue above $1 billion to disclose its Scope 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse-gas emissions. The bill cleared the Senate last year 26 to 9 and is now pending in the Assembly as the 2022 session enters its final six weeks.

SB 260 is the domestic half of a two-front disclosure push. The Securities and Exchange Commission proposed its own climate-disclosure rule on March 21, 2022 (Release 33-11042), with a public comment period that has already been extended once and remains open. If either instrument lands in its current form, the practical effect on mid-cap and privately-held operating companies with California footprints is larger than anything in the ESG rulebook to date.

What SB 260 would actually require

The bill's operative threshold is "total annual revenues in excess of one billion dollars" for the prior fiscal year, combined with "doing business in California" under Revenue and Taxation Code § 23101. That second test is easier to satisfy than most out-of-state counsel assume. Under § 23101(b), an entity is "doing business" in California if it has California sales over roughly $690,000 (the indexed 2022 figure), or California property or payroll above parallel thresholds. The $1 billion revenue bar is global, not California-sourced. A Delaware C-corp with $1.2 billion in worldwide revenue and a single leased sales office in San Francisco falls in scope.

Covered entities would file, through an emissions registry designated by the California Air Resources Board, an annual greenhouse-gas inventory that covers the three scopes as the Greenhouse Gas Protocol defines them: Scope 1 (direct emissions from sources the company owns or controls), Scope 2 (indirect emissions from purchased electricity, steam, heat, and cooling), and Scope 3 (all other indirect emissions across the value chain, including upstream supply, business travel, and downstream use of sold products). The disclosures would be third-party assured at the "reasonable assurance" level for Scopes 1 and 2, and at "limited assurance" for Scope 3, on a phased schedule beginning the year after the bill's implementation regulations clear.

The reporting taxonomy is aligned to the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), the Financial Stability Board scaffolding that also underpins the UK's mandatory listed-company regime adopted in April 2022 and the SEC's own proposal. Penalties under the current SB 260 draft run up to $500,000 per reporting year for failure to file, with a lower tier for incomplete filings. The Air Resources Board would be the enforcing authority.

The Assembly path and what happens if it stalls

SB 260 passed the Senate on May 26, 2021 by a 26 to 9 margin that tracked party lines with a small number of Democratic defections. It then sat in the Assembly during the interim between the 2021 and 2022 halves of the two-year session. It moved through Assembly Natural Resources this spring and is now before Assembly Appropriations, which is where bills with a meaningful fiscal note tend to die in August.

The Appropriations calendar is the short version of the story. The suspense file hearing is set for mid-August. Bills held on suspense do not advance. Bills pulled off suspense face a floor vote before the constitutional recess deadline. If SB 260 clears Appropriations and the Assembly floor, it goes back to the Senate for concurrence in any Assembly amendments, and then to the Governor's desk. The Governor has until the end of September to sign or veto.

The California Chamber of Commerce has SB 260 on its "job killer" list, joined by the California Business Roundtable. The environmental coalition is led by Ceres and the Environmental Defense Fund. The decisive constituency is the Assembly moderate caucus. If SB 260 does not make it through this year, the underlying policy question does not go away; a version of this bill has been introduced in every session since 2018, each closer to passage than the last.

The SEC proposal running on a parallel track

On March 21, 2022, the SEC released proposed rule "The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors" under Release 33-11042. The comment period originally closed May 20, 2022, and has been extended to June 17, 2022. (The Commission reopened the record in June after the original comment file topped 14,000 submissions, which is a volume that historically signals a multi-year finalization timeline.)

The SEC proposal would add a new Subpart 1500 to Regulation S-K requiring registrants to disclose Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions on an absolute and intensity basis, with Scope 3 disclosure required only when "material" or when a registrant has set a Scope 3 emissions target. Phased compliance would start for large accelerated filers in fiscal year 2023, with a separate timeline for Scope 3 and for the assurance requirements. The proposal also mandates a new climate-risk section in Form 10-K covering governance, strategy, risk management, and targets, tracked to the four pillars of TCFD.

The differences between SB 260 and the SEC proposal matter. SB 260 covers private companies; the SEC rule does not. SB 260 requires Scope 3 for everyone in scope; the SEC rule makes Scope 3 conditional on materiality or a target. SB 260 uses a global revenue threshold; the SEC rule covers all domestic registrants plus foreign private issuers with the same disclosures. For a public company with California operations and over $1 billion in revenue, both regimes would apply, and the California filing would be the stricter of the two on Scope 3.

Litigation risk attaches to the SEC proposal in a way it does not to the California bill. Expect a major-questions-doctrine challenge once the rule is final; the Supreme Court's forthcoming opinion in West Virginia v. EPA, argued February 28 and expected any day now, will reshape the ground on which any such challenge is fought.

What operating companies should be doing right now

Three things, none of them speculative.

First, establish a baseline inventory. A Scope 1 and Scope 2 count, even one that is rough and internal-only, is cheap to produce and valuable to have when an external disclosure is demanded on a compressed timeline. Companies that begin this work when a rule is final have historically needed twelve to eighteen months to get to a first filing. Companies that begin when the proposal drops have needed six.

Second, map the Scope 3 exposure. Scope 3 is where the work is. Category 1 (purchased goods and services) and Category 11 (use of sold products) together account for most of the emissions inventory for most operating companies outside heavy industry, and both require cooperation from suppliers and customers who may not have their own data yet. The supplier-engagement piece in particular tends to be a multi-quarter project, not a multi-week one.

Third, designate an owner. Most in-scope companies do not have a Chief Sustainability Officer, and the work is split across legal, finance, operations, and investor relations with no one accountable for the output. Consolidate that ownership somewhere. The choice of department matters less than the choice of any single point of accountability.

Readers watching the California ESG fight from the other coast should also track the state-level ESG bans emerging in Florida, Texas, and elsewhere, which point the disclosure regime in the opposite direction for companies with public-fund contracts in those states. The cross-pressure is real and is not going to resolve cleanly in this legislative cycle or the next.

A final observation. The disclosure regime California is building, whether through SB 260 this year or its successor next year, is not primarily a California regulatory project. It is a federalism wedge. California wants the disclosure floor set at its level; the SEC, under the current Chair, largely agrees; the private-company gap that only state law can reach is where the California bill does its work. If you are a CFO at a company that just crossed the billion-dollar mark, the practical question is not whether you will be disclosing. It is which regime you will be disclosing under, and how soon.

Sources

Keep reading

More from the journal.