Climate change solutions
We deliver game-changing environmental solutions that have a real impact for people around the globe.
California is building a vital corporate climate disclosure program that will foster greater transparency and economic resilience. The decisions made now will determine how clearly investors, companies and the public can understand where greenhouse gas emissions occur, how risks and opportunities are evolving and where solutions can scale.
In comments recently submitted to the California Air Resources Board regarding its March 2026 workshop, Environmental Defense Fund offered views on these important issues. The goal is simple: deliver disclosures that are consistent, credible and useful for real-world decisions. CARB is accepting further input on its workshop concepts through June 1, with rulemaking to follow.
Evidence shows that standardized climate disclosure creates real economic value. It helps investors better understand risk and make more informed decisions, which in turn protects workers’ and retirees’ savings. Stronger disclosures can also lower companies’ cost of capital by reducing uncertainty and improving transparency, while helping businesses identify opportunities to cut costs and emissions.
Align with established practices to reduce cost and improve usability
The good news is that California is not starting from scratch. Many companies already report greenhouse gas emissions using widely accepted frameworks. For example, nearly 90% of S&P 500 companies report Scope 1 and 2 emissions data, with nearly 70% already reporting Scope 3 as well.
Maximizing alignment with the GHG Protocol and the International Sustainability Standards Board disclosure standards will reduce duplication, lower costs and make disclosures more comparable across markets and interoperable across reporting systems. It will also allow companies to use the same disclosures globally, improving consistency for investors while minimizing unnecessary reporting burden.
State law already points in this direction. California’s corporate GHG reporting statute (SB 253) requires companies to measure and report emissions in conformance with the GHG Protocol, reinforcing alignment with established standards. The focus now is on rigorous yet practical implementation, ensuring companies build on existing systems to deliver valuable information without adding unnecessary complexity.
Pair flexibility with transparency to protect data integrity
CARB has proposed a workable on-ramp that allows companies to make good-faith efforts in early years while building toward stronger reporting over time. That flexibility is important, but it must be paired with transparency on methods and inputs to protect the integrity of the data and ensure disclosures remain useful for investors and the public.
Companies should clearly disclose how they measure or estimate emissions and explain any changes from year to year. When methods shift, they should disclose and, if relevant, quantify the impact of those changes so investors and other stakeholders can still track progress. For significant updates, companies should recalculate base-year emissions and report results using both old and new methods during a transition period. CARB should also allow companies flexibility in selecting among established approaches to setting organizational boundaries but should require parent companies and subsidiaries to use consistent approaches.
Emissions factors are another component of the reporting methodology where flexibility is appropriate, but transparency is needed to contextualize the data. Methane from oil and gas operations is a clear example, where a growing body of peer-reviewed research shows that real-world emissions are often 1.5 to 2 times higher than conventional estimates based on standard emissions factors.
California should require companies to provide information about emissions factors used, encourage companies to use the most accurate emissions factors possible – such as measurement-based, basin-specific emissions data where available for oil and gas methane – and continue updating the set of permissible emissions factors over time.
Require Scope 3 reporting that reflects the full picture
Scope 3 emissions – indirect emissions associated with upstream and downstream activities in a company’s value chain – account for 70-90% of total emissions in many sectors. Scope 3 data is therefore essential for investors trying to understand transition risk exposure and for companies working to manage it.
CARB has outlined three potential paths for Scope 3 reporting, which is required to begin in 2027 under SB 253:
EDF supports Option 1 because it delivers what markets actually need, and what many companies are already set to provide under other reporting regimes: a view of the most relevant emissions and risks for each reporting company across sectors. Requiring full value chain reporting from the start (with justified exclusions) will produce more useful data, strengthen reporting capabilities and better align with how many companies already report.
Keep costs in perspective and focus on value
California’s disclosure program is positioned to deliver substantial economic benefits at a reasonable cost. Disclosure does require investment, especially in early years, but the evidence shows these costs are manageable and even tend to decline over time as systems mature and processes become more efficient.
For the companies California’s program covers – those making $1 billion or more per year – the estimated compliance costs amount to at most .02% of annual revenue. And for many companies already reporting GHG emissions voluntarily or under other programs, incremental costs will be far lower than for setting up an entirely new reporting system.
A durable standard that supports better-informed decisions
California has a chance to establish a durable standard that works for reporting companies and end-users of data alike. That means aligning with global frameworks, requiring transparency, improving accuracy over time and ensuring disclosures reflect the full picture of emissions.
When data on climate risk and opportunity is clearer, more comparable and more actionable, investors, consumers and the public can make better-informed decisions. That helps protect both our environment and our financial security.
The Trump EPA recently made the deeply damaging decision to repeal the Endangerment Finding — the foundational scientific determination that climate change harms public health and welfare. To justify that decision, it relied on new and deeply flawed analysis that the American public never got a fair chance to examine.
Environmental Defense Fund led a group of 16 environmental and public health groups in filing a petition that calls on EPA to reopen its decision and let people comment on the new material. This is a core rule of fair decision-making, and it is especially important now, as the Trump administration races ahead to abandon scientific consensus and repeal a decade-and-a-half of protective standards.
The Endangerment Finding supports commonsense safeguards to cut pollution, protect health, and save money
The Endangerment Finding is EPA’s bedrock protection against the climate pollution that endangers people’s health and well-being. It’s also the legal basis for limits on climate pollution from cars and trucks. The Trump EPA’s
repeal attempts to remove this bedrock finding along with all federal limits on vehicle climate pollution.
EDF, along with hundreds of thousands of concerned stakeholders — individuals, business representatives, state and local officials, and public health and medical associations — filed public comments opposing this unlawful rollback, and we have done extensive analysis that shows the enormous stakes for Americans.
Repealing these climate protections could:
All those damages are on top of $1.4 trillion in additional fuel costs — a cost estimate that was based on cheaper gas prices, predating the current high prices at the pump.
(See EDF’s new interactive maps for more about how climate change is already raising costs for families and how the administration’s attack on the Endangerment Finding will make that worse.)
Totally new and flawed analysis
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to disclose the factual basis and methodology for a proposed rule so the public has a real chance to respond. However, EPA is attempting to repeal these foundational protections based on totally new and flawed analysis that did not exist at the time of the public comment period — so no member of the public could ever critique it.
The biggest problem involves EPA’s new so-called “futility” analysis, which claims that the agency can’t regulate climate pollution from cars and trucks because their impacts on health and welfare are so small as to be meaningless. This is particularly cynical given that the U.S. transportation sector is the largest source of climate pollution in the U.S. and one of the largest sources in the world.
In its earlier proposal for the repeal, EPA leaned heavily on a draft Climate Working Group report to justify this conclusion — a report written by a small group of handpicked climate skeptics that was inconsistent with overwhelming scientific evidence. Following a lawsuit brought by EDF and the Union of Concerned Scientists, a federal court found that draft was secretly created in violation of federal sunshine laws.
In its final rule, EPA said it was no longer relying on that report. Instead it switched to a completely new and different technical approach — modeling claiming to show how U.S. vehicle carbon dioxide emissions impact global temperature and sea level rise. That analysis was never put before the public for comment, and it’s wrong — slanted in countless ways that make the impacts look artificially small.
For instance, EPA begins its modeling in 2027, after more than fifteen years of greenhouse gas protections have already reduced pollution and delivered cleaner technology into the vehicle market. It’s like examining a patient after medicine has lowered a fever and saying the medicine must have been pointless because the temperature is lower now. EPA’s choice of starting point takes credit for years of pollution protections and then uses that already-improved baseline to claim the pollution protections do not matter.
EPA also chooses to focus on only two climate indicators — global average temperature and global sea level rise. EPA itself admits these numbers “are not themselves the adverse impacts on health and welfare.” They are middle steps, not the final harm people actually experience.
EPA then takes its artificially small temperature and sea level impacts and just divides them in half to make them look even smaller. EPA admits that its method “pairs some analytic tools not intended for this purpose with other tools in the literature” and “cannot be assumed to translate with precision directly to specific adverse health or welfare impacts.” In other words, EPA admits it used a method not intended for this purpose and the results do not represent what the agency claims.
EPA goes on to compare its slanted calculations of temperature and sea level impacts to three yardsticks against which it claims climate pollution does not measure up:
According to EPA, if its modeled temperature and sea level changes fall below these yardsticks, then they’re so small as to be meaningless. But these are the wrong yardsticks — and the wrong conclusions.
To begin with, the agency uses measurability and variability even though those metrics do not speak to the impacts that result from reducing climate pollution from cars and trucks. For example, say the average global temperature in 2030 is 60 degrees plus or minus two degrees, for a temperature band of 58-to-62 degrees. If we reduce temperatures by one degree, that would reduce the average temperature to 59 degrees, and the entire temperature band to 57-to-61 degrees. The whole world would be one degree cooler, a meaningful change.
In addition, EPA doesn’t explain how it derived its measurability and variability figures. In one case, it doesn’t reveal the figure at all. The government websites EPA cites do not contain the agency’s numbers, and in trying to reconstruct EPA’s work we found numerus math errors which, when corrected, produce figures as much as 85% lower. This is an especially serious problem when those flawed numbers are so central to EPA’s conclusions in the final rule.
When we apply more rigorous methods to estimate both the impacts and the thresholds for measurability and variability, we find that the impacts far exceed these thresholds. Our modeling shows that U.S. cars and trucks produce so much climate pollution that they could
cause sea level rise almost 36 times the size of measurement uncertainty. They could also cause temperature impacts 24times the size of measurement uncertainty and almost 14 times the size of variability (all through 2200).
EPA’s one percent threshold is even more revealing. EPA suggests that if an impact is around one percent of total projected global warming or sea level rise it is too small to count. The agency tries to justify this based on a string of court cases, only one of which talks about a one percent threshold but does so in an entirely different context. But context matters. One percent of a problem as vast as climate change is not a rounding error — it translates into real illnesses, real deaths, real dollars.
Overwhelming scientific evidence supports the imperative for climate action and highlights that every single ton of climate pollution matters for protecting human health and welfare. In this case, when we assess the climate pollution harms from U.S. cars and trucks through 2200, they range up to $52.5 trillion in damages – almost twice the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the entire American economy in 2024.
Another major problem is EPA’s decision to treat public health benefits from reducing deadly soot and smog as worth zero dollars. For decades, the agency has assigned dollar values to the health benefits of reducing these pollutants that worsen asthma, trigger heart and lung disease, and cause premature deaths. These monetized benefits are supported by robust scientific assessments developed across decades of empirical research and countless studies. EPA offers no new science to support its deeply damaging conclusion to assign no value to the tremendous health benefits of reducing soot and smog pollution.
EPA is trying to support its sweeping rollback of climate and public health protections with deeply flawed analysis, without giving the public a chance to vet the agency’s work. Our petition argues that the agency must follow the law by allowing the public to see and respond to EPA’s choices before EPA locks them into place.
Read more:
Petition
Accompanying technical appendices
Erratum
Press release
You can also read more about the lawsuit challenging EPA’s repeal of its Endangerment Finding. This petition for administrative reconsideration is separate from and in addition to that lawsuit.
Last year, California took a major step forward in its climate leadership when the Legislature reauthorized the Cap-and-Invest program and directed the California Air Resources Board to ensure it delivers the emissions reductions needed to meet the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate targets.
CARB’s most recent proposal for implementing the program, however, does the opposite: it guts the most essential part of the program — the emissions cap — by making it possible for millions of more emission allowances above the cap to come into the market.
This sudden backsliding proposed by CARB not only blows a hole in the emissions cap — it also threatens the household affordability benefits that make Cap-and-Invest such a powerful tool for California families. CARB needs to fix this before it goes to a Board vote this spring.
Cap-and-Invest works by putting a firm, declining limit on how much pollution covered entities can emit. That limit — the cap — is enforced by issuing a limited number of allowances equal to the cap. Each allowance represents one ton of emissions under the cap, and polluters must turn in allowances to cover their emissions. Since fewer allowances are issued each year, emissions go down as the cap declines. That’s why the level — and integrity — of the cap is the bedrock of this program.
When CARB issued its first formal draft for this rulemaking, they proposed removing 118 million allowances from the 2027-2030 allowance budgets. This is the bare minimum required for California to meet its 2030 target, and a figure not driven by increased policy ambition but by a methodological update to the greenhouse gas emissions inventory.
But in CARB’s April proposal, it claims to remove 118 million allowances from the 2027-2030 budget, then creates an additional 118 million compliance instruments — beyond allowances in the ‘budget’ — to fund a new “Manufacturing Decarbonization Incentive” (MDI) for industry. The result is that the near-term cap, on net, is simply status quo: the reductions CARB needs to make to stay on target are canceled out, allowance-for-allowance, by this new stream of compliance instruments created above the cap. That means covered polluters would be able to emit higher pollution than the cap, and thus the binding, declining limit on emissions which gives this program the greatest possible certainty of meeting our climate targets is in jeopardy.
CARB can and should be doing more than the bare minimum here: modeling shows that removing 180 million allowances from the near-term cap would deliver greater cumulative emissions reductions while still delivering meaningful affordability benefits to California households. Instead, CARB’s April draft moves in the opposite direction by eroding even the bare minimum 118 million reductions that are needed.
In addition to reducing pollution, Cap-and-Invest returns billions of dollars in benefits to California households by raising revenue when allowances are sold at auctions and reinvesting the funds into affordability strategies. For example, California households have already received over $17 billion in utility bill credits through the California Climate Credit — funded by Cap-and-Invest revenues. Cap-and-invest also funds investments in clean energy, public health, and climate resilience through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), which gets revenue from the quarterly auctions of emissions allowances.
Those revenues depend on a healthy allowance market. When the cap is calibrated correctly and allowances are in demand, auctions raise more revenue, GGRF investments grow, and households see bigger credits on their utility bills through the Climate Credit. When the market is flooded with excess allowances, prices fall, revenue dries up, and those benefits erode. Over the past year, auction prices have dropped sharply — they have hovered at the price floor for a year, with one of the last auctions failing to sell out. That means covered polluters are literally paying the lowest possible price for their emissions, and the GGRF is losing revenue, with an estimated $3 billion in lost revenue in 2025 as a result.
CARB’s April proposal makes this problem significantly worse. Forthcoming modeling from Greenline Insights finds that creating 118 million additional compliance instruments above the cap would flood the market, further depressing demand and prices and further reducing the revenue available for GGRF investments and Climate Credit bill savings.
For example, Greenline Insights finds the program is modeled to deliver over $6 billion in net savings to households earning $100,000 or less each year — if CARB preserves the integrity of the cap and actually removes 118 million allowances. But if the new manufacturing incentive creates an extra 118 million allowances, above the cap, those household savings are cut in half. That’s because adding another 118 million allowances to the market is projected to create an oversupply of allowances and result in more undersubscribed auctions.
When auctions don’t sell out, Californians lose the revenue that would have been used to lower their utility bills. A separate analysis from UC Santa Barbara’s Environmental Markets Lab confirms that adding 118 million more allowances to the program via the MDI would reduce funding to the California Climate Credit and the GGRF. If the MDI is fully utilized over the next four years, the study found auction revenues could be cut by $4 billion.
CARB’s April proposal to add extra allowances to the program doesn’t just weaken the cap — it also puts in jeopardy the program’s affordability revenues. At the exact moment California needs to be strengthening this program, CARB is proposing to give billions in additional free allowances to industry at the expense of households.
The good news is that CARB has real options to fix this problem, but it must act fast. The simplest approach is to remove the Manufacturing Decarbonization Incentive from this rulemaking package and take it up properly in the next rulemaking, a process which CARB has already stated will be necessary to deal with post-2030 allowance allocations. Revisiting the MDI in the next rulemaking would give CARB and stakeholders the time needed to design this new feature in a way that helps — rather than hurts — emissions reductions. Given the urgency of finalizing the current rules promptly so they can be implemented this fall, this is the option most likely to result in a final rule that meets the emissions requirements of this program and is implemented on schedule.
If CARB keeps the MDI in this rulemaking, it must be restructured so that the allowances funding the incentive are drawn from under the cap, not created above it.
The clock is ticking for CARB issue an updated proposal with a credible emissions cap aligned with California’s climate targets. That is the program California needs, and CARB should deliver it.
As New Yorkers face rising utility bills and unmanageable prices at the pump driven by volatile fossil fuel markets, now is the moment for New York to hit the accelerator on the clean energy transition promised by the state’s landmark climate law.
Despite this, Governor Hochul has proposed changes to the climate law that would slow progress, putting billions in clean energy investments and health benefits for New Yorkers at risk. These proposals would mean further delay for cap-and-invest, one of the most powerful policies at the state’s disposal to reduce dependence on price-volatile fuels and expand stable, clean energy sources.
Analysis after analysis shows how a strong, well-designed cap-and-invest program — a centerpiece of implementing the law — will cut costs for New York’s working families while cutting climate and air pollution. As discussions on the climate law continue, the questions lawmakers should be asking is how soon New York can stand up a cap-and-invest program to deliver these benefits to their constituents.
New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act’s (CLCPA) remains one of the strongest climate laws in the country, promising to scale clean, affordable energy and position the state as a leader in cutting climate pollution. The urgency of deploying these solutions couldn’t be more acute. In just the last two months, New Yorkers have spent an additional $900 million on gasoline and diesel.
New York is years behind schedule in implementing this law and, at the precise moment New York should be moving forward, Governor Hochul has proposed changes that would weaken and further delay implementation as part of the state’s budget negotiations. A cap-and-invest program was identified in the state’s Scoping Plan as the most affordable and effective approach to reducing pollution in line with the CLCPA’s targets and raising billions for clean energy and community investments.
The program — which the state previously spent years developing and then shelved — is a central policy tool to slash pollution while cutting costs for the vast majority of New Yorkers. It does this by putting a price on pollution and then investing billions annually to lower costs through utility bill credits, weatherizing homes, expanding heat pumps, EVs, public transit and more.
However, in February, a memo was shared from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), outlining projected cost impacts from a modeled version of a cap-and-invest program that has never been on the table and appears to omit key policy design features that would ensure the program supports affordability for New Yorkers. By presenting misleading cost assumptions — without including the associated analysis — tied to a hypothetical program design, the analysis presents unrealistic impacts.
Analysis from Greenline Insights finds that over its first decade, a cap-and-invest program, as previously designed by DEC and NYSERDA, would generate $6.9 billion in cumulative net savings for households earning $200,000 or less — roughly $1,060 per household. Nearly 85% of New Yorkers fall within this income range. The report also finds that the program would result in $47.5 billion in statewide economic growth and more than 300,000 new jobs.
In February, a report was released further exploring the cost-savings and community benefits of this program. It finds that cap-and-invest would turbocharge a range of efficiency and clean energy programs that further drive down costs. For example, a cap-and-invest program would help families upgrade to heat pumps and rooftop solar, saving them up to $3,300 annually.
Both reports build on a strong, established body of research, from both independent sources and from the state itself, which demonstrates that a thoughtfully designed cap-and-invest program would ensure the vast majority of New Yorkers break even or see net savings as a result of the program — a stark contrast from NYSERDA’s most recent memo.
By making polluters pay for their emissions, a cap-and-invest program would raise significant funds for investment in direct rebates on bills, clean energy upgrades and energy efficiency programs that deliver tangible economic and health benefits to households. Many such programs exist today and could be substantially scaled and expanded with cap-and-invest, helping more New Yorkers realize these benefits.
For instance, programs like Empower+ and the Green Small Buildings Program provide energy efficiency and clean energy upgrades. One Bronx resident enrolled in the program reported that, thanks to free upgrades like weatherization and insulation through Empower+, their heating bills have been cut in half. A cap-and-invest program would enable hundreds of thousands more New Yorkers to experience the same comfort and bill saving benefits provided through programs like Empower+ and others.
Beyond economic gains, climate action would deliver profound public health benefits across the state. Analysis from DEC and NYSERDA finds that by slashing health-harming pollution, a cap-and-invest program would deliver up to $13 billion in annual health benefits by 2035 and prevent over 1,000 deaths and 1,800 emergency room visits from asthma.
Cap-and-invest is a proven policy, familiar to New York. As a result of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, New York ratepayer savings are expected to reach nearly $12 billion, representing a six-to-one return on approximately $2 billion invested to date. These savings benefits would scale with a statewide program. And from Virginia rejoining RGGI, to California extending its program through 2045, to Washington voters defending their program at the ballot box by a 24-point margin, there is no shortage of examples on how well-designed programs are effective and popular.
New Yorkers recognize the benefits of investing in clean energy and climate action. Recent polling found that the majority of New Yorkers in competitive districts from Long Island to Buffalo support cap-and-invest. What’s more, the majority of those surveyed also expressed that in upcoming elections they’d be more likely to vote for a state legislator who voted to continue implementing New York’s clean energy laws. With cleaner air, more jobs and lower energy bills on the line, it’s no surprise that New Yorkers support scaling up clean energy.
With a thoughtfully designed cap-and-invest program, New York can cut energy bills and generate billions in economic activity — all while cutting pollution and delivering cleaner air for the Empire state. Lawmakers in New York can cement these benefits for their constituents by ensuring that any amendments to the climate law require cap-and-invest regulations in the next year.
New Yorkers: Tell your state leaders to stand firm on climate!
Cap-and-Invest is California’s most cost-effective program to reduce climate-altering pollution while keeping costs down for families. Meeting this responsibility in the near-term falls on the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) rulemaking process.
Modeling shows CARB can deliver:
✅ Pollution cuts — 180 million tons of emissions between 2027-2030
✅ Affordability gains for working Californians — $2.8 billion for families earning $70,000 or less
✅ Funding to support the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund — $1.4 billion more through 2045
The price of emissions per ton in the Cap-and-Invest allowance market have hovered at or slightly above the price floor this past year, showing a tighter cap is the logical next step to recalibrate benefits from Cap-and-Invest.
The extension of Cap-and-Invest through AB 1207 last year requires the program, at a minimum, to align with the achievement of California’s emissions reduction targets for 2030 and 2045. In 2024, CARB estimated 265 million tons in pollution cuts were necessary to align with the 2022 Scoping Plan — nearly double the amount now proposed.
California has a proven track record of reducing emissions while growing the state’s economy. From 2000-2023, the state’s emissions fell 21% while the California economy grew 81%. As federal leaders double down on failed policies deepening our reliance on volatile energy sources that squeeze our wallets and fuel the climate crisis, California can continue showing another way is possible.
California just took a vital step to increase transparency around corporate climate risks, helping investors and consumers make more informed decisions in a changing climate. Better information helps markets price risk more accurately, protects people’s retirement savings and rewards companies that are better prepared for a low-carbon future.
On February 26, the California Air Resources Board unanimously approved initial rules implementing the state’s landmark climate disclosure laws. The laws require large companies doing business in California to publicly report their greenhouse gas emissions and disclose the financial risks climate change poses to their operations. The first emissions reports are due August 10, 2026.
California’s disclosure program addresses a growing market problem: amid intensifying climate impacts, investors, regulators and consumers often lack reliable information about companies’ greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related risks and opportunities. That matters not just for markets in the abstract, but for people’s real financial security — including pension funds and 401(k)s that depend on sound investment decisions. By requiring consistent reporting from large companies operating in the state – the world’s fourth-largest economy – California is providing better information for investors, clearer expectations for businesses and stronger protections for Californians.
Millions of Americans rely on financial markets for retirement security. Pension funds and 401(k)s invest trillions in companies, but without reliable data, investors cannot accurately price climate-related risks or opportunities. Recent events highlight the stakes:
As climate impacts accelerate – and markets respond – investors need clear information to distinguish between companies facing rising financial risks and those positioned to succeed by leading on clean solutions and resilience. Climate disclosure standards help close that gap. Better information allows markets to price climate risk more accurately, helping investors make well-informed decisions and protecting the retirement savings of millions of workers and families.
Knowing that many consumers prefer climate-friendly businesses, companies are marketing themselves accordingly. But these claims are not always reliable. In one anonymous survey of corporate executives, a majority acknowledged their companies had engaged in some form of greenwashing. Disclosure standards help change that by enabling consumers to vet marketing claims with comparable, verifiable data.
Many major companies already disclose detailed emissions data and climate strategies because transparency builds trust with customers, investors and employees. California’s rules create consistent expectations for all large companies operating in the state, creating a more level playing field and rewarding real leadership.
Transparency doesn’t just inform markets – it can drive action. Research consistently shows companies tend to reduce emissions once they begin measuring and publicly reporting them. When emissions data becomes visible:
We have seen this dynamic before. When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency created the Toxics Release Inventory in the 1980s, companies sharply reduced toxic pollution once emissions data became public. Other disclosure programs around the world have produced comparable results.
California designed its disclosure program around frameworks many companies already use. The rules align with established standards such as the Greenhouse Gas Protocol and the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, giving investors and consumers consistent data to evaluate corporate climate performance and progress.
The rules also align with existing reporting timelines and requirements in California, reducing duplication for businesses. CARB built flexibility into the first year of implementation, allowing companies to demonstrate “good-faith efforts” to comply using available data while they strengthen reporting systems. For companies already leading on climate, greater transparency becomes a competitive advantage.
As climate disasters cause increasing destruction across the United States and the transition to clean, affordable technologies continues, California is stepping up to provide the clarity investors, companies and consumers need. Thousands of the largest companies doing business in the state will now report consistent data on their greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks. That transparency strengthens markets, rewards responsible companies and helps investors manage risk in a rapidly changing climate.
