Rescinded, Required, Pending: Mapping U.S. Climate Disclosure Rules in 2026

Three words capture U.S. climate disclosure rules as of August 31, 2026, and each points in a different direction:

• Rescinded: The Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") has proposed rescinding its March 2024 climate rules, with the comment period closed as of August 3, 2026.
• Required: California's SB 253 greenhouse gas ("GHG") reporting mandate, the only such obligation now moving toward implementation, requires its first report in 2026—currently targeted for November 10, pending completion of the implementing regulation.
• Pending: Bills modeled on California's laws in New Jersey, New York, and Illinois remain pending, none having crossed the finish line.

The result is a fragmented landscape where the federal regime is retreating, one state is advancing, and the rest are stalled.

Rescinded: Federal Rollback Proposed, Not Final

The SEC's 2024 climate disclosure rules never took effect—and now appear unlikely to survive. Stayed in April 2024 amid Eighth Circuit challenges (Iowa v. SEC, No. 24-1522), the rules languished as the agency abandoned its defense in March 2025. By September 2025, the court held the case in abeyance, awaiting the Commission's reconsideration. That process began on May 29, 2026, when the Commission announced the proposed rescission (Release No. 33-11421), published thereafter in the Federal Register, which drew a heavy and polarized response: more than 19,000 comments filled the docket, the bulk of them being form-letter submissions across three templates, alongside several hundred individually drafted letters, reflecting viewpoints both for and against rescission. In a status report filed August 31, 2026, the SEC advised the Eighth Circuit that the rulemaking remains underway and that it is reviewing the comments received. Until a final rule effectuating rescission is adopted, the 2024 climate disclosure rules remain stayed and the SEC's 2010 interpretive guidance continues to apply.

Required: California's Two Rulemakings, One Deadline

While the federal regime retreats, California is pressing forward—though not without complications. SB 253 requires U.S.-formed entities with over $1 billion in annual revenue doing business in California to report Scope 1 and 2 emissions beginning in 2026 and Scope 3 in 2027. The California Air Resources Board ("CARB") approved its initial regulation on February 26, 2026, and submitted it to the Office of Administrative Law ("OAL") on May 20, 2026, only to withdraw it on June 23, 2026, for clarifying changes. Modified text was released July 27, 2026, for a 15-day comment period. As of August 31, 2026, CARB had not yet resubmitted the package to OAL.

The practical consequence: the statutory reporting obligation is already law, but the regulation that supplies the mechanics, definitions, fees, and deadlines remains pending. November 10, 2026, is the working target for first-year Scope 1 and 2 reports, though that date depends on OAL approval, as does the fee-determination notice, now slated for December 10, 2026. On September 1, 2026, CARB issued first-cycle reporting guidance and opened a voluntary online intake platform for Scope 1 and 2 submissions. Companies that were neither collecting nor planning to collect emissions data as of CARB's December 2024 enforcement notice are asked to submit an explanatory statement on letterhead instead.

Looking ahead, a parallel rulemaking is already shaping 2027 and beyond. At a July 21, 2026, workshop, CARB staff previewed proposed concepts for a "Subsequent Regulation" that would require GHG Protocol alignment, mandate five Scope 3 categories, impose limited assurance for Scope 1 and 2, establish an annual November 10 deadline, and remove the current insurance-company exemption. These remain staff proposals—the formal 45-day package has not yet been issued—but for companies building compliance infrastructure now, they signal where California's regime may be headed. Stakeholder input is being gathered through sector listening sessions running August 5 to September 9, 2026, with the formal notice expected this fall.

California's companion law, SB 261, requiring entities with over $500 million in revenue to publish biennial climate-risk reports, faces a different obstacle: litigation. The Ninth Circuit granted an injunction pending appeal on November 18, 2025, in Chamber of Commerce v. Sanchez (No. 25-5327). Oral argument was heard on January 9, 2026, but as of August 19, 2026, no decision had issued. In a December 1, 2025, Enforcement Advisory, CARB confirmed it will not enforce SB 261 while the injunction stands, though its docket remains open for voluntary submissions. Critically, the injunction does not reach SB 253, so the GHG reporting mandate continues on track regardless of the Sanchez outcome.

Pending: State Bills in the Balance

Since 2021, six states have introduced entity-level GHG disclosure bills targeting large companies (generally over $1 billion in revenue), and two have introduced SB 261-style climate-risk reporting bills (generally at a $500 million threshold). Yet only California has formally enacted such laws, and only on its second attempt, after SB 260 failed on the Assembly floor in 2022. The pattern is cyclical: bills are introduced, stall, or die at the end of a term, and return the next session under new numbers (e.g., New York's emissions bill is on its fourth iteration since 2022). Outside California, no such state bill has passed more than a single chamber in five years of attempts.

Mapping U.S. Climate Disclosure Rules, 2021–2026

The table below maps federal and state bills from first introduction to current status:

What to Watch

For companies that fall under the scope of SB 253, the path forward is clear, even if the regulatory details are not: continue building toward anticipated report submittal on November 10, 2026, while monitoring CARB's resubmission of implementing regulations to OAL, CARB's September 1, 2026, guidance, and the Ninth Circuit's Sanchez decision.

The larger picture is one of divergence. The federal specialized disclosure regime is heading toward rescission. California's statutory reporting regime is moving toward implementation despite unfinished rulemaking. And the remaining states span the spectrum from pending (New Jersey) to dormant (New York, Illinois) to failed (Colorado, Washington).

For multistate companies, the operational takeaway is simple: compliance infrastructure built for California is, for now, the national baseline and the only one there is.