Connect with us

California

California Moves To Delay Corporate Climate Reporting Requirement Until 2028

Published

on

California Moves To Delay Corporate Climate Reporting Requirement Until 2028


In September 2023, California passed legislation requiring large companies to file sustainability disclosures beginning in 2026. The move was part of a global trend of sustainability reporting and environmental, social and governance reporting focused on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. However, a new proposal by Governor Gavin Newsom will delay implementation by two years.

As international focus on climate change increased in the wake of the Paris Agreement, there was a simultaneous increase in pressure on businesses to be more accountable for their climate and environmental policies. This translated into a rise in ESG reports and sustainability reports created by companies to attempt to showcase their green initiatives.

Advertisement

Around 2020, the production of these reports became standard practice by both publicly traded and privately held companies. However, there was no standardization of content. Regulators scrambled to create sustainability reporting standards. This was generally done at a national or international level.

In 2021, the International Sustainability Standards Board drafted the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation’s Sustainability Disclosure Standards. The IFRS Standards were adopted in June 2023 as the global standard for sustainability and climate change reporting, including GHG emissions.

That same month, the European Union announced the adoption of the European Sustainability Reporting Standards. The ESRS incorporated the IFSR Standards for climate related disclosure

In March 2022, the SEC proposed the development of a Climate-Related Disclosure Rule. The final rule, adopted in March, 2024, required large publicly traded companies to disclose climate action, GHG emissions, and the financial impacts of severe weather events. The rule was initially set to go into effect in 2026.

Advertisement

In September 2023, California approved the Climate Accountability Package, a pair of bills aimed at creating sustainability reporting requirements. The bills require reporting standards far beyond the SEC standards.

Senate Bill 253 requires companies who do business in California and have an excess of $1 billion in revenue, defined as “reporting entities”, to submit an annual report for Scope 1 and Scope 2 starting in 2026. Scope 3 reporting will begin in 2027. The State Air Resources Board must create the details of the reporting requirement by January 1, 2025.

Senate Bill 261 requires companies who do business in California and an excess of $500 million in revenue, defined as “covered entities”, to submit a biennial climate-related financial risk report. The report is based on the work of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures, established by the Financial Stability Board.

Implementation of sustainability reporting standards has been bumpy at best. The drafting of the regulations was more complicated than lawmakers originally envisioned. The result has been delays in the implementation timelines as governments struggle to find a balance between the desire to require reporting and the complexities of a regulatory scheme. The EU has delayed parts of the ESRS to allow companies to adjust to the existing standards and to allow time for additional drafting.

This became even more problematic, especially in the U.S., as regulations were challenged in the courts. The SEC rule was delayed indefinitely as challenges work through the legal system.

Advertisement

The California requirements faced similar challenges. However, it was not the legal challenges that delayed implementation, but rather the inability to draft the details in time. This is not a new concern, and it is not surprising the Newsom is now pushing the delay.

Newsom signed the bill into law on October 7 but questioned the feasibility of implementation at the time. The Governor’s message with the bill singing, which becomes part of the official record, stated (in full).

“I am signing Senate Bill 253 which would require, among other things, the California Air resources Board (CARB), by January 1, 2025, to develop and adopt regulations requiring businesses with total annual revenues over $1 billion and operating in California to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions to an emissions reporting organization.

“This important policy, once again, demonstrates California’s continued leadership with bold responses to the climate crisis, turning information transparency into climate action. However, the implementation deadlines in this bill are likely infeasible, and the reporting protocol specified could result in inconsistent reporting across businesses subject to the measure. I am directing my Administration to work with the bill’s author and the Legislature next year to address these issues.

“Additionally, I am concerned about the overall financial impact of this bill on businesses, so I am instructing CARB to closely monitor the cost impact as it implements this new bill and to make recommendations to streamline the program. I look forward to working with the Legislature on these modifications to ensure we achieve this bill’s goals of ‘full transparency and consistency’.”

Advertisement

The proposal will delay Scope 1 and Scope 2 reporting until 2028. Scope 3 will be delayed until 2029. It is unclear if the delays will be adopted. However, given the global trend of delays in implementation, it is not unreasonable to assume that California will follow the same path.



Source link

California

How Trump’s tariffs ricochet through a Southern California business park 

Published

on

How Trump’s tariffs ricochet through a Southern California business park 


  • Tariffs impact businesses in Rye Canyon differently
  • Supreme Court may rule on Trump’s emergency tariffs soon
  • Some businesses adapt, others struggle with tariff costs

VALENCIA, California, Jan 9 (Reuters) – America’s trade wars forced Robert Luna to hike prices on the rustic wooden Mexican furniture he sells from a crowded warehouse here, while down the street, Eddie Cole scrambled to design new products to make up for lost sales on his Chinese-made motorcycle accessories.

Farther down the block, Luis Ruiz curbed plans to add two imported molding machines to his small plastics factory.

Sign up here.

“I voted for him,” said Ruiz, CEO of Valencia Plastics, referring to President Donald Trump. “But I didn’t vote for this.”

All three businesses are nestled in the epitome of a globalized American economy: A lushly landscaped California business park called Rye Canyon. Tariffs are a hot topic here – but experiences vary as much as the businesses that fill the 3.1 million square feet of offices, warehouses, and factories.

Advertisement

Tenants include a company that provides specially equipped cars to film crews for movies and commercials, a dance school, and a company that sells Chinese-made LED lights. There’s even a Walmart Supercenter. Some have lost business while others have flourished under the tariff regime.

Rye Canyon is roughly an hour-and-a-half drive from the sprawling Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. And until now, it was a prime locale for globally connected businesses like these. But these days, sitting on the frontlines of global trade is precarious.

The average effective tariff rate on imports to the U.S. now stands at almost 17%–up from 2.5% before Trump took office and the highest level since 1935. Few countries have been spared from the onslaught, such as Cuba, but mainly because existing barriers make meaningful trade with them unlikely.

White House spokesman Kush Desai said President Trump was leveling the playing field for large and small businesses by addressing unfair trading practices through tariffs and reducing cumbersome regulations.

‘WE HAD TO GET CREATIVE’ TO OFFSET TRUMP’S TARIFFS

Rye Canyon’s tenants may receive some clarity soon. The U.S. Supreme Court could rule as early as Friday on the constitutionality of President Trump’s emergency tariffs. The U.S. has so far taken in nearly $150 billion under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. If struck down, the administration may be forced to refund all or part of that to importers.

Advertisement

For some, the impact of tariffs was painful – but mercifully short. Harlan Kirschner, who imports about 30% of the beauty products he distributes to salons and retailers from an office here, said prices spiked during the first months of the Trump administration’s push to levy the taxes.

“It’s now baked into the cake,” he said. “The price increases went through when the tariffs were being done.” No one talks about those price increases any more, he said.

For Ruiz, the plastics manufacturer, the impact of tariffs is more drawn out. Valencia makes large-mouth containers for protein powders sold at health food stores across the U.S. and Canada. Before Trump’s trade war, Ruiz planned to add two machines costing over half a million dollars to allow him to churn out more containers and new sizes.

But the machines are made in China and tariffs suddenly made them unaffordable. He’s spent the last few months negotiating with the Chinese machine maker—settling on a plan that offsets the added tariff cost by substituting smaller machines and a discount based on his willingness to let the Chinese producer use his factory as an occasional showcase for their products.

“We had to get creative,” he said. “We can’t wait for (Trump) to leave. I’m not going to let the guy decide how we’re going to grow.”

Advertisement

‘I’M MAD AT HIM NOW’

To be sure, there are winners in these trade battles. Ruiz’s former next-door neighbor, Greg Waugh, said tariffs are helping his small padlock factory. He was already planning to move before the trade war erupted, as Rye Canyon wanted his space for the expansion of another larger tenant, a backlot repair shop for Universal Studios. But he’s now glad he moved into a much larger space about two miles away outside the park, because as his competitors announced price increases on imported locks, he’s started getting more inquiries from U.S. buyers looking to buy domestic.

“I think tariffs give us a cushion we need to finally grow and compete,” said Waugh, president and CEO of Pacific Lock.

For Cole, a former pro motorcycle racer turned entrepreneur, there have only been downsides to the new taxes.

He started his motorcycle accessories company in his garage in 1976 and built a factory in the area in the early 1980s. He later sold that business and – as many industries shifted to cheaper production from Asia – reestablished himself later as an importer of motorcycle gear with Chinese business partners, with an office and warehouse in Rye Canyon.

“Ninety-five percent of our products come from China,” he said. Cole estimates he’s paid “hundreds of thousands” in tariffs so far. He declined to disclose his sales.

Advertisement

Cole said he voted for Trump three times in a row, “but I’m mad at him now.”

Cole even wrote to the White House, asking for more consideration of how tariffs disrupt small businesses. He included a photo of a motorcycle stand the company had made for Eric Trump’s family, which has an interest in motorcycles.

“I said, ‘Look Donald, I’m sure there’s a lot of reasons you think tariffs are good for America,” but as a small business owner he doesn’t have the ability to suddenly shift production around the world to contain costs like big corporations. He’s created new products, such as branded tents, to make up for some of the business he’s lost in his traditional lines as prices spiked.

He pulls out his phone to show the response he got back from the White House, via email. “It’s a form letter,” he said, noting that it talks about how the taxes make sense.

Meanwhile, Robert Luna isn’t waiting to see if tariffs will go away or be refunded. His company, DeMejico, started by his Mexican immigrant parents, makes traditional-style furniture including hefty dining tables that sell for up to $8,000. He’s paying 25% tariffs on wooden furniture and 50% on steel accents like hinges, made in his own plant in Mexico. He’s raised prices on some items by 20%.

Advertisement

Fearing further price hikes from tariffs and other rising costs will continue to curb demand, he’s working with a Vietnamese producer on a new line of inexpensive furniture he can sell under a different brand name. Vietnam has tariffs, he said, but also a much lower cost base.

“My thing is mere survival,” he said, “that’s the goal.”

Reporting by Timothy Aeppel; additional reporting by David Lawder
Editing by Anna Driver and Dan Burns

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Up to 20 billionaires may leave California over tax threat | Fox Business Video

Published

on

Up to 20 billionaires may leave California over tax threat | Fox Business Video




Source link

Continue Reading

California

California’s exodus isn’t just billionaires — it’s regular people renting U-Hauls, too

Published

on

California’s exodus isn’t just billionaires — it’s regular people renting U-Hauls, too


It isn’t just billionaires leaving California.

Anecdotal data suggest there is also an exodus of regular people who load their belongings into rental trucks and lug them to another state.

U-Haul’s survey of the more than 2.5 million one-way trips using its vehicles in the U.S. last year showed that the gap between the number of people leaving and the number arriving was higher in California than in any other state.

While the Golden State also attracts a large number of newcomers, it has had the biggest net outflow for six years in a row.

Advertisement

Generally, the defectors don’t go far. The top five destinations for the diaspora using U-Haul’s trucks, trailers and boxes last year were Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Texas.

California experienced a net outflow of U-Haul users with an in-migration of 49.4%, and those leaving of 50.6%. Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and Illinois also rank among the bottom five on the index.

U-Haul didn’t speculate on the reasons California continues to top the ranking.

“We continue to find that life circumstances — marriage, children, a death in the family, college, jobs and other events — dictate the need for most moves,” John Taylor, U-Haul International president, said in a press statement.

While California’s exodus was greater than any other state, the silver lining was that the state lost fewer residents to out-of-state migration in 2025 than in 2024.

Advertisement

U-Haul said that broadly the hotly debated issue of blue-to-red state migration, which became more pronounced after the pandemic of 2020, continues to be a discernible trend.

Though U-Haul did not specify the reasons for the exodus, California demographers tracking the trend point to the cost of living and housing affordability as the top reasons for leaving.

“Over the last dozen years or so, on a net basis, the flow out of the state because of housing [affordability] far exceeds other reasons people cite [including] jobs or family,” said Hans Johnson, senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California.

“This net out migration from California is a more than two-decade-long trend. And again, we’re a big state, so the net out numbers are big,” he said.

U-Haul data showed that there was a pretty even split between arrivals and departures. While the company declined to share absolute numbers, it said that 50.6% of its one-way customers in California were leaving, while 49.4% were arriving.

Advertisement

U-Haul’s network of 24,000 rental locations across the U.S. provides a near-real-time view of domestic migration dynamics, while official data on population movements often lags.

California’s population grew by a marginal 0.05% in the year ending July 2025, reaching 39.5 million people, according to the California Department of Finance.

After two consecutive years of population decline following the 2020 pandemic, California recorded its third year of population growth in 2025. While international migration has rebounded, the number of California residents moving out increased to 216,000, consistent with levels in 2018 and 2019.

Eric McGhee, senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, who researches the challenges facing California, said there’s growing evidence of political leanings shaping the state’s migration patterns, with those moving out of state more likely to be Republican and those moving in likely to be Democratic.

“Partisanship probably is not the most significant of these considerations, but it may be just the last straw that broke the camel’s back, on top of the other things that are more traditional drivers of migration … cost of living and family and friends and jobs,” McGhee said.

Advertisement

Living in California costs 12.6% more than the national average, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. One of the biggest pain points in the state is housing, which is 57.8% more expensive than what the average American pays.

The U-Haul study across all 50 states found that 7 of the top 10 growth states where people moved to have Republican governors. Nine of the states with the biggest net outflows had Democrat governors.

Texas, Florida and North Carolina were the top three growth states for U-Haul customers, with Dallas, Houston and Austin bagging the top spots for growth in metro regions.

A notable exception in California was San Diego and San Francisco, which were the only California cities in the top 25 metros with a net inflow of one-way U-Haul customers.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending