US State Climate Disclosure Tracker: California, New York and Other States to Watch

When the SEC walked away from its climate disclosure rule in March 2025, voting to stop defending it in court, the assumption in some boardrooms was that mandatory emissions reporting had been shelved in the United States. What happened instead was that the job moved to the states, and the states do not coordinate.

That is the practical problem now. A company above a billion dollars in revenue selling into California, New York, and New Jersey is not looking at one climate disclosure obligation. It is looking at one that is already live, one that just cleared a legislative chamber, and one sitting in committee, each with its own thresholds, deadlines, assurance ladder, and penalty schedule. Most converge on the same architecture. The differences are in the timing, and timing is what determines your budget.

Here is where each state actually stands.

California: the Only One in Force

California is the benchmark because it is the only state where companies are filing this year.

Two statutes do the work. SB 253, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, reaches U.S.-formed entities with more than $1 billion in total annual revenue that do business in the state, and requires annual public disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions measured on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Scope 1 and 2 come first; Scope 3 begins in 2027. Its companion, SB 261, sets a lower bar, $500 million in revenue, and asks for a biennial narrative report on climate-related financial risk rather than an emissions inventory.

The first SB 253 report was due 10 August 2026. In late June, CARB deferred it to 10 November 2026, pulling its regulation back from final state review to make clarifying changes at the same time. Worth noting: as of mid-July the revised date had not completed the required comment period and administrative approval, so it is the working target rather than a locked one.

First-cycle expectations are deliberately modest. No third-party assurance is required for the 2026 filing, limited assurance on Scope 1 and 2 starts in 2027 and escalates to reasonable assurance by 2030. And under an enforcement notice CARB issued in December 2024, companies making a good-faith effort will not be penalised for incomplete reporting in year one, provided they retain the underlying data. Companies that were not collecting emissions data as of that date can file a short statement to that effect instead of a full inventory. Penalties, once the programme is fully operative, run to $500,000 per entity per reporting year.

The complication is legal. A coalition led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is challenging both statutes on First Amendment compelled-speech grounds in Chamber of Commerce v. Sanchez. In November 2025 the Ninth Circuit enjoined SB 261 pending appeal but declined to enjoin SB 253, which is why one law is paused and the other is proceeding. The court heard argument in January 2026 and had not ruled by mid-year. A decision could land before the November deadline.

New York: Passed the Senate, Waiting on the Assembly

New York moved in February, and the detail matters more than the headline.

Versions of a New York climate disclosure bill have been introduced since 2021 and died in committee each time. The 2025 vehicle, S3456, is still parked in Senate Finance. What actually advanced is S9072A, an amended 2026 bill sponsored by Senator Pete Harckham, which passed the Senate 40–22 on 10 February 2026 and went to the Assembly Codes Committee, with A4282 as its companion. It is not law. It needs a full Assembly vote and the Governor's signature.

And it has not moved. The legislature's own records show no action on the bill after 10 February, it was referred to Assembly Codes that day and has sat there since. Because New York's regular session runs to around the end of June, the practical position as of mid-July is that the Assembly did not take it up this session. That is not the end of the story: the same bill has been reintroduced in successive sessions since 2021 and gained ground each time, and 2026 was the first year it cleared a chamber. But nobody should be planning to a 2028 New York deadline on the strength of a Senate vote alone. Confirm the bill's status before you act on it.

If you have read summaries citing 2027 deadlines for New York, they are describing the older bill. The amended version pushed every date back by a year, and the bill text is unambiguous:

• The Department of Environmental Conservation must adopt implementing regulations on or before 31 December 2027.

• Public Scope 1 and 2 disclosure starts in 2028, for the prior fiscal year.

• Scope 3 starts in 2029.

• Limited assurance on Scope 1 and 2 begins in 2028; reasonable assurance in 2032. If DEC decides to require Scope 3 assurance, a decision due by January 2029, that would be limited assurance from 2032.

Scope is close to California's but not identical. It catches entities formed under U.S., state, or D.C. law that do business in New York and had more than $1 billion in total revenue in the preceding fiscal year, counting revenue from subsidiaries that do business in the state. A parent may file for consolidated subsidiaries. Emissions must follow the GHG Protocol.

Two provisions are worth flagging. The Attorney General can seek up to $100,000 per day for willful non-compliance, capped at $500,000 in a reporting year, but Scope 3 gets meaningful protection: no liability for misstatements made on a reasonable basis and in good faith, and between 2029 and 2032, Scope 3 penalties can only be assessed for not filing at all. And the bill explicitly lets you submit reports prepared for other states, the federal government, or international regimes, naming the ISSB standards, as long as they meet New York's requirements. That is a deliberate anti-duplication clause, and it is the clearest signal yet that states expect companies to reuse one inventory across jurisdictions.

Note also what New York's bill does not include: there is no equivalent of California's SB 261. It is an emissions law, not a climate-risk-reporting law.

The Comparison

The Ones that Stalled

Three more states put up serious bills. None advanced, but the drafting tells you where this is heading.

New Jersey's S4117, also called the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, was introduced in early 2025 and referred to Senate Budget and Appropriations, where it has sat since. It uses the same $1 billion threshold and the GHG Protocol, but structures its timeline relative to enactment rather than fixed years: reporting to the Department of Environmental Protection three years after passage, public Scope 1 and 2 at four years, Scope 3 at five. It hands the public registry to a nonprofit selected by the DEP rather than running it in-house, and, usefully, states outright that reports filed under California's SB 253 can satisfy New Jersey's requirements.

Illinois HB 3673 would have been the most aggressive on timing: Scope 1 and 2 due 1 January 2027 with Scope 3 within 180 days, and Secretary of State rulemaking by mid-2026. It remains assigned to committee and those dates are now unrealistic.

Colorado's HB25-1119 was postponed indefinitely in committee, effectively dead, but it is the most interesting draft of the group. It proposed Scope 1 and 2 from 2028 and Scope 3 from 2029, and it contained an explicit carve-out saying reporting entities would not be required to disclose anything in violation of their free speech rights, including freedom from compelled speech. That clause was a direct response to the constitutional challenge facing California, and it is the kind of defensive drafting you should expect to see reappear.

Bills have also surfaced in Washington, Maryland, and Minnesota. Treat those as watch items rather than planning assumptions.

What this Actually Means for a Multi-State Company

Look past the patchwork and the convergence is striking. Every serious bill uses a $1 billion revenue threshold, applies to companies doing business in the state regardless of where they are headquartered, mandates the GHG Protocol, phases Scope 3 in behind Scope 1 and 2, and escalates from limited to reasonable assurance over several years. The reporting entity definitions are close enough that the same inventory will substantially serve.

Where they diverge is where the money is: which year you first file, how fast assurance tightens, and what happens if you get it wrong. California penalises up to $500,000 a year. New York's daily-accrual structure reaches the same cap far faster. Colorado had proposed $100,000 a day.

Three practical consequences.

First, California sets your floor. If you are building for SB 253, you are substantially building for New York and New Jersey too, and both of those bills say so explicitly, permitting reports prepared for other regimes. Build one auditable inventory, not several.

Second, the assurance runway is shorter than the reporting runway. California's limited assurance starts in 2027 and New York's in 2028. Assurance capacity is finite, and every large company in scope, plus everyone caught by Europe's CSRD, will be shopping for the same providers. That constraint, not the filing deadline, is the one that bites.

Third, none of this is settled. The Ninth Circuit could reshape California's programme. New York's bill still needs an Assembly vote and a signature. The stalled bills can be reintroduced next session, and the Colorado draft shows how they will be redrafted if the courts rule against compelled disclosure.

Which is an argument for building the capability rather than the filing. Clean Scope 1 and 2 data, documented methodology, and a supplier-engagement process for Scope 3 are useful under every one of these regimes, and they take longer to stand up than any of the legislative timelines allow if you start late.

Tracker Checklist

1. Run the $1 billion revenue test for every state where you do business, headquarters location is irrelevant in all of these regimes.

2. Treat California SB 253 as your baseline build; confirm CARB's final deadline before you rely on 10 November 2026.

3. If you clear $500 million, keep an SB 261 climate-risk report ready in case the Ninth Circuit lifts the injunction.

4. Treat New York's 2028 (Scope 1 and 2) and 2029 (Scope 3) dates as contingent on enactment, and ignore the 2027 dates in older summaries of S3456 entirely.

5. Book assurance capacity early; limited assurance starts 2027 in California and 2028 in New York.

6. Use the anti-duplication provisions, New York and New Jersey both accept reports prepared for other jurisdictions.

7. Watch for New York's bill to be reintroduced next session, and for New Jersey, Illinois, Washington, Maryland, and Minnesota bills to return.

8. Follow Chamber of Commerce v. Sanchez; a ruling could alter California's programme and influence every state that copies it.

9. Build one inventory to the strictest standard you face rather than separate filings per state.

Position as of mid-July 2026. Several of these measures are pending legislation or subject to active litigation, and dates and requirements can change quickly. Confirm current status against each state's legislature, agency materials, and court dockets, and take professional advice for your own circumstances.

Sources

New York State Senate, FastDemocracy, Ballotpedia News, Watershed, Persefoni, Goldberg Segalla, California Air Resources Board, Davis Polk, White & Case, Jones Day, Squire Patton Boggs (frESH Law Blog), Blank Rome (Regulatory & Compliance), National Law Review, CSG Law, Duane Morris, New Jersey Legislature, Environmental Law Institute, ALL4

This article is intended for general professional information and does not constitute legal, financial, or investment advice.