In 2023, California approved the Climate Accountability Package, a pair of bills aimed at creating climate reporting requirements. Reporting is set to begin in 2026 for data collected during 2025. Companies need to determine now if they are required to report and establish the processes to collect the data. However, delays in drafting the standards and ambiguous language are making it difficult for businesses to determine if they qualify.

The Rise of Climate Reporting

California’s climate reporting regulation is part of a global movement to require companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions, climate policies, and to evaluate climate risks. Driven by the net zero 2050 goal of the Paris Agreement, jurisdictions around the world are looking to reduce GHG emissions.

The European Union has been leading the way with the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. Initially adopted in 2022, the CSRD requires climate and environmental, social, and governance reporting by most companies that operate within the EU. Reporting for large companies began in 2024. Reporting for non-EU companies and small and medium-sized enterprises has been delayed to 2026.

In the U.S., the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted a Climate-Risk Disclosure Rule in early 2024, only to delay implementation while it faced legal challenges. California and other states are moving forward with their own reporting requirements.

California’s Climate Accountability Package established the broad parameters for the reporting standards. The responsibility of drafting specific regulations and implementing the reporting standards was delegated to the California Air Resources Board. CARB was initially given until January 1, 2025 to draft the rules and processes. In September, the Legislature extended the deadline by six months to July 1.

The original legislation states that CARB shall develop and adopt regulations requiring for the reporting entity’s prior fiscal year.” Meaning, while the reporting does not take place until 2026, the data is from 2025. Businesses must determine before January 1, 2025 if they qualify as a reporting entity so they can begin collecting the required information.

Reporting requirements are divided into two categories, based on the total annual revenue of the company. Unlike the SEC, the California reporting requirements apply to both publicly traded and privately held companies. Only U.S. companies will have to report.

Reporting Entities

The highest level of reporting is required of large companies. Senate Bill 253 required 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.

Generally, Scope 1 GHG emissions are those that come directly from the company. Scope 2 are indirect GHG emissions from the company’s power source. Scope 3 are GHG emissions from the value chain, both from suppliers and consumers.

Scope 3 has been highly debated as it is considered by the business community as being overly burdensome. When the SEC implemented their rule, they chose to not require Scope 3. The EU requires it.

Covered Entities

Senate Bill 261 required 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.

Climate risk is defined as “material risk of harm to immediate and long-term financial outcomes due to physical and transition risks, including, but not limited to, risks to corporate operations, provision of goods and services, supply chains, employee health and safety, capital and financial investments, institutional investments, financial standing of loan recipients and borrowers, shareholder value, consumer demand, and financial markets and economic health.”

This is a much lower requirement as it does not include any level of GHG emission reporting.

What Classifies As “Doing Business in California”?

In the development and interpretation of law, words matter. Codes, ordinances, laws, and regulations typically begin with a list of definitions of key terms. Frequently, those definitions are prefaced with the phrase “for purposes of this section.” This allows lawmakers to define a term for limited use in that section of the law preventing new legislation from negatively impacting established law. Definitions bring clarity, allowing those subjected to the law, regulators, attorneys, and judges to know the exact intent of the lawmakers.

In the Climate Accountability Package, the phrases “covered entity” and “reporting entity” are both defined in their respective sections. The only notable distinction between the definitions is the annual revenue threshold. Both include the phrase “that does business in California.”

While the dollar amount thresholds are clear, there is a question as to what classifies as “doing business” in California. The definition varies by section of the state code and by state agency. The Climate Accountability Package amended the state’s Health and Safety Code, that does not have a definition of doing business.

Presumably, CARB will provide a clear definition when they release the standards in July. However, companies will need to determine by January 1 if they need to collect data. In the interim, there are two key definitions that help provide some guidance.

California Corporations Code

Section 191 (a) of the California Corporations Code gives a definition of “entering into repeated and successive transactions of its business in this state, other than interstate or foreign commerce.” However, that definition is for the phrase “transact intrastate business” and is only for “the purposes of Chapter 21”, requiring registration with the Secretary of State.

Notably, “a foreign corporation shall not be considered to be transacting intrastate business merely because its subsidiary transacts intrastate business.” This leaves raises a question as to if a subsidiary can trigger reporting by the parent company. The 2024 amendment clarified that a subsidiary does not have to file separate from the parent company, but did not address this question.

California Revenue and Taxation Code

Article 1, Section 23101(a) of the California Revenue and Taxation Code gives a definition of “doing business.” The California Franchise Tax Board interprets the definition to mean meeting one of five conditions. The board updates the dollar thresholds annually. A company is considered doing business in California if

1. The company is “actively engaging in any transaction for the purpose of financial or pecuniary gain or profit”;
2. The company is “organized or commercially domiciled” in the state;
3. The company has annual sales in California exceed the lower of $711,538 or 25% of the company’s total sales;
4. The company has real property or tangible personal property in California exceeds the lower of $71,154 or 25% of the company’s total; or
5. The company has payroll compensation in California exceeds the lower of $71,154 or 25% of the company’s total payroll.

The Struggle For Businesses

While there will likely be a delay in implementing California’s climate reporting requirements, companies have to decided soon how to respond. The choice comes with a hefty price tag. The SEC estimated compliance with their rule would cost a company approximately $1 million the first year. There is no reason to think California’s will be any different. As a result, companies are faced with a difficult decision – move forward with costly programs or hope for a delay.

There are a lot of unanswered questions while CARB drafts the climate reporting standards. However, given the current timeline, companies need to act now to evaluate if they meet the minimums and get their process in place by January 1.

OAKLAND, Calif. – You’re at your polling place. You’re excited about taking part in the democratic process. You want to document the moment and perhaps share it on social media. Can you take a selfie at your polling place? 

In California, the short answer is, “Yes.” 

But as long as you do not violate any other law. And elections officials and poll workers ultimately have the discretion to prohibit the selfie if they determine the action is causing disruption that requires a response. 

SEE ALSO: Nearly 50% of voters say deepfakes had some influence on election decision: Survey

State elections officials also note that the photos cannot result in the unauthorized sharing of and use of information relating to how a person has voted. 

They also stress that taking photos at the polling place cannot compromise the privacy of other voters casting a ballot. 

In addition, it’s illegal to intimidate other voters or interfere with the elections process or with the duties of elections workers.

So-called “ballot selfies” haven’t always been legal in California, and they’re not legal in all states. 

California’s law changed on Jan. 1, 2017, allowing voters to “voluntarily disclose how he or she voted if that voluntary act does not violate any other law.”  

Prior to that, the Secretary of State’s office historically took the position that the use of cameras and video equipment at polling places was prohibited.

Here’s a look at activities banned at California polling sites:

• DO NOT ask a person to vote for or against any candidate or ballot measure.
• DO NOT display a candidate’s name, image, or logo.
• DO NOT block access to or loiter near any ballot drop boxes.
• DO NOT provide any material or audible information for or against any candidate or ballot measure near any polling place, vote center, or ballot drop box.
• DO NOT circulate any petitions, including for initiatives, referenda, recall, or candidate nominations.
• DO NOT distribute, display, or wear any clothing (hats, shirts, signs, buttons, stickers) that include a candidate’s name, image, logo, and/or support or oppose any candidate or ballot measure.
• DO NOT display information or speak to a voter about the voter’s eligibility to vote.
• DO NOT engage in electioneering; photograph or record a voter entering or exiting a polling place; or obstruct ingress, egress, or parking

California is also one of about a dozen states and Washington, D.C. that has a complete ban on guns at polling sites, either open or concealed.

As for what voters should bring when going to cast their ballot, in some, but not most cases, a California voter may be required to show identification, according to the Secretary of State’s office. 

Voters casting their ballot for the first time after mailing in their registration to vote may need to show proof of ID if they did not provide their driver’s license number, California identification number or the last four digits of their social security number on their registration form.

Here’s a list of acceptable forms of voter identification to use at polling places. 

KTVU has compiled a comprehensive California voter guide with key information and election-related dates to help ensure your vote counts.

You can also find a link to our 2024 Election coverage here, where you can find information about candidates as well as state and local ballot measures.  

When it comes to presidential fundraising, California is a juggernaut.

The Golden State is home to a large group of uber-wealthy donors with some of the deepest pockets in the nation — money that could help swing the presidential election next week between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump.

Harris would be expected to have a clear fundraising advantage: she’s a California native who served as the state’s junior senator and attorney general. Trump has frequently bashed California and its leaders on a range of issues and in the 2020 presidential campaign lost the state by nearly 20 percentage points.

In 2020, President Joe Biden’s campaign raised more than $145 million from Californians, the most from any state in the nation, campaign finance disclosures filed with the Federal Election Commission showed.

While California is overwhelmingly Democratic, it is a major source of Republican campaign dollars — Trump raised $333 million in the state for his 2016 campaign committee, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Times analyzed federal election data to identify the biggest donors hoping to sway voters in this year’s race. The records reviewed include individual contributions from donors residing in California as of Sept. 30.

Not surprisingly, Harris supporters dominate the list of largest donors, taking up 89 of the top 100 spots. In fact, 48 of the top 50 givers from California all donated to pro-Harris fundraising committees.

Looking at her top 100 donors nationwide, Harris is getting a much larger share of support from big-time California contributors. Those state residents have collectively given more than $53 million — over half of the total $102 million received from her biggest donors.

It’s a completely different picture for those supporting Trump. Only nine of his top 100 donors were from California, giving over $8 million combined, or just 5% of the $161 million haul from his largest givers.

Here’s a closer look at some of the biggest donors in the state.

Megadonors come out strong for Harris

Haim Saban, Chairman/CEO of the Saban Capital Group: $1,852,599

Haim Saban

(Willy Sanjuan / Willy Sanjuan/invision/ap)

The Israeli American billionaire has been an outspoken supporter of Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas. In October, Saban said Harris was clearly the better choice for the US-Israel relationship and Israel’s safety and security.

“Kamala Harris has a stellar record throughout her career, strengthening this critical alliance,” he wrote in an opinion piece. “Unlike Trump, Harris has demonstrated a lifelong commitment to the American Jewish community and Israel. The choice for Jewish voters and all voters could not be more straightforward.”

The Hollywood media mogul has been a reliable ally for Democrats, hosting a Biden fundraiser at his sprawling Beverly Park estate in February. Tickets to the fundraiser cost up to $250,000 and actor Jane Fonda and comedian Greg Proops were reported to have attended.

Reid Hoffman, venture capitalist at Greylock: $1,682,600

Reid Hoffman

(Getty Images)

Advertisement

The LinkedIn co-founder has also donated $7 million to the Future Forward PAC, a Democratic super PAC. Hoffman drew criticism in July for calling for Harris to oust Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Lina Khan, who has brought antitrust cases against Big Tech and introduced rules to protect workers.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Hoffman explained his support for Harris and said he believes Trump’s plan for increased tariffs would hurt the economy.

“Tariffs and trade wars are terrible ideas for businesses, terrible for Silicon Valley,” Hoffman said. “I think stability and trying to actually have institutions and the rule of law are more important than a 2% cut in a tax rate.”

Steven Spielberg, filmmaker: $1,429,600

Steven Spielberg

(Charles Sykes / Invision / Associated Press)

Advertisement

The growing unease with Biden’s disastrous debate performance in June led some celebrities to call for him to drop out of the race. Once Harris took the Democratic mantle, Hollywood heavyweights began giving more to the vice president, including Spielberg who gave an additional $500,000 in late September, federal election data shows.

“We are all in for Kamala and have been since the moment she announced,” said Andy Spahn, a Los Angeles political consultant to Spielberg and other media moguls. “Tremendous excitement and energy here around Kamala’s candidacy. We are all in.”

Sean Parker, owner of Parker Media, LLC: $1,389,250

Sean Parker

(SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Advertisement

Parker is best known as the founder of Napster and first president of Facebook where he made his fortune. The Silicon Valley tech billionaire depicted in the film “The Social Network” is now a venture capital investor and has gotten more into traditional politics over the years.

In 2016, he hosted a fundraiser at his Los Angeles home that netted $1 million in donations for Hillary Clinton.

He used his tech influence to push for the creation of the Opportunity Zone program, an economic development tool that aimed to encourage investment in low-income communities through tax incentives. However, a Times report found it has instead generated billions of dollars’ worth of tax breaks for the wealthy often in pursuit of luxury high-rises, high-end hotels and swank office space.

Seth MacFarlane, founder of Fuzzy Door Productions: $1,023,000

Seth MacFarlane

(Dan Steinberg / Invision For The Television Academy)

The creator of “Family Guy” and “American Dad!” has been making big donations to Democrats in recent elections. In 2016, he gave more than $716,700 to two political action committees supporting Clinton’s presidential bid.

After MacFarlane contributed $2.5 million to Democrats in 2018, his company, Fuzzy Door Productions, was ranked second in Hollywood giving behind DreamWorks SKG, according to data from OpenSecrets.org, a nonprofit research group tracking money in U.S. politics.

Scooter Braun, founder of SB Projects: $519,600

Scooter Braun

(Richard Shotwell / Richard Shotwell/invision/ap)

The former music manager has worked with pop stars including Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande and Taylor Swift. He also famously feuded with Swift over the rights to her master recordings.

After Swift endorsed Harris for president in September, Trump posted “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!” on his social media site Truth Social. Braun quickly made his own endorsement on Instagram: “Shake It Off Donald,” he wrote. “Kamala 2024.”

Trump’s biggest boosters

Barbara Grimm-Marshall, former co-owner of Grimmway Farms: $1,256,600

Barbara Grimm-Marshall

(Alex Horvath / The Californian)

The Bakersfield resident is the former co-owner of the world’s largest grower of carrots. In 2020, half of all baby carrots consumed in the U.S. were processed by Grimmway Farms, which was later sold. She is the founder and CEO of the Grimm Family Education Foundation, which aims to help students in underserved communities of Kern County.

Grimm-Marshall also donated $350,000 to back Trump in the 2020 election.

Douglas Leone, founder of Sequoia Capital: $1 million

Boasting a net worth of $8 billion, the venture capitalist supported Trump in the 2020 contest but renounced his support after the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, according to a statement issued shortly after: “After last week’s horrific events, President Trump lost many of his supporters, including me,” Leone said. “The actions of the President and other rally speakers were responsible for inciting the rioters.”

But this summer he changed his tune again, endorsing Trump in a post on X.com: “I have become increasingly concerned about the general direction of our country, the state of our broken immigration system, the ballooning deficit, and the foreign policy missteps, among other issues,” he wrote. “Therefore, I am supporting former President Trump in this coming election.”

Leone made the $1-million donation to America PAC, started by former California resident Elon Musk, who has been feverishly campaigning for Trump recently, even appearing with him at rallies in Butler, Pa. and at Madison Square Garden.

Ranked by Forbes as the richest person in the world, Musk has given almost $75 million to America PAC — the super PAC he created this summer. In the past three months, America PAC has spent more than $100 million to support Republican candidates, according to federal election data.

Carl Barney, founder of a for-profit college chain: $924,600

Barney, who operated a group of for-profit colleges for years, is a noted proponent of Ayn Rand’s philosphy of objectivism.

On his website, Barney said he supports Trump because he approaches the job of president “as a businessman, not a politician.”

“Based on his actions in his first term as President, I judge that Donald Trump’s assets far outweigh his liabilities,” he wrote. “I especially like that President Trump wants to work with Elon Musk to reduce spending, regulations, waste, and fraud in the federal government. As Mr. Musk predicts, it will lead to an era of great prosperity. I agree.”

Marc Andreessen, founder of Andreessen Horowitz: $844,600

Marc Andreessen, left, stands next to his longtime business partner, Ben Horowitz.

(Paul Sakuma / Associated Press)

Advertisement

The tech venture capitalist hasn’t been shy about supporting Trump and Republican candidates in general. His venture firm has given $44 million to Fairshake, the leading crypto campaign fund supporting Republican candidates.

Formerly a vocal Democrat, Andreessen has shifted to the right in recent years because of a belief that Trump could help remove regulations that could stifle innovation in artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency. He has criticized investigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission into crypto startups and the hurdles crypto businesses face in getting financing from banks.

“This is a brutal assault to a nascent industry that has never happened before,” Andreessen said on “The Ben & Marc Show” podcast, acknowledging that his firm is one of the largest cryptocurrency investors in the world.

Geoffrey Palmer, owner of G.H. Palmer Associates, $819,600

Real estate developer Geoffrey Palmer

(Los Angeles Times)

A billionaire real estate developer and prominent donor to Republican causes, Palmer hosted a Trump fundraiser in 2019 at his Beverly Hills mansion, where tickets cost as much as $100,000 per couple, according to an invitation. Palmer also hosted a fundraiser in 2017 for former Vice President Mike Pence at the same mansion.

According to Forbes, Palmer is worth $2 billion. His G.H. Palmer Associates is one of the largest owners of apartments in California, according to commercial real estate firm CoStar. Palmer’s massive L.A. apartment complexes include the Orsini and the Lorenzo.

Deborah Magowan, Retired: $711,600

The wife of the late San Francisco Giants owner Peter Magowan, she donated more than $200,000 to Trump in the 2020 campaign, a Times analysis found. She also gave $100,000 to Republican candidates in the 2022 midterm elections.

Times staff writer Gabrielle LaMarr LeMee contributed to this report.