Events
Jenny Speck to Speak on BARBRI Webinar
Partner Jenny Speck will speak on BARBRI’s live video CLE program, “Tax Credit Insurance for Energy Projects: PFE Exclusions, Recapture, …
November 19, 2026
November 19, 2026 • 1-minute read
Insight
Articles
April 9, 2026 • 4-minute read
On March 23, 2026, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) held a public workshop to preview and take feedback on its upcoming rulemaking to develop further regulations implementing the California Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (“SB 253”). The workshop focused on the agency’s proposals for reporting Scope 3 greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, which included proposals for how such emissions might be calculated and what entities will be required to report come 2027. CARB’s proposals reflect an interest in providing flexibility to the regulated community, but feedback from reporting entities is crucial to ensuring the final regulations are balanced and reasonable. Comments on the proposal are due April 13, 2026.
SB 253 requires U.S. companies with over $1 billion in annual revenue doing business in California to disclose their Scope 1, 2, and 3 GHG emissions. CARB approved an initial set of draft regulations implementing SB 253 and the California Climate-Related Financial Risk Reporting Act (“SB 261”) in late February 2026. Those draft regulations set forth key terms that define the scope of reporting obligations, including “doing business in California,” “revenue,” “parent,” and “subsidiary” and set an August 10, 2026 deadline for initial Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions reports. CARB’s workshop focused on a number of proposals aimed at providing greater certainty for upcoming emissions reporting deadlines and provided a four-step framework for emissions reporting.
First, companies would set organizational boundaries to help determine the scope of operations included within reporting. Second, companies would classify these operations into Scope 1, 2, or 3 GHG emissions. Third, companies will then calculate emissions for each category, with Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions calculations due in August 2026 and Scope 3 GHG emissions due beginning in 2027. Fourth, beginning in 2027, companies must obtain limited assurance for Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions.
The format for emissions reporting has been subject to much controversy, as CARB’s reporting guidelines are unclear about exactly what needs to be reported and how. To try and resolve this uncertainty, CARB will be proposing a reporting template that all reporting entities must use beginning in 2027.
With Scope 3 GHG emissions reporting on the horizon, CARB is beginning to flesh out the specifics of how such emissions will be calculated and reported. CARB sets forth a number of proposals that would define how companies calculate Scope 3 GHG emissions.
Organizational boundaries define the extent and scope of the entities, assets, and operations that will be included in each scope of a company’s emissions reporting. CARB proposes that companies would be able to select either an equity share or control approach. Under an equity share approach, emissions are reported in proportion to ownership stake in an operation. Under the control approach, companies would report emissions based on either financial or operational control over an operation. Companies would be required to document and explain their selection of organizational boundaries for emissions reporting purposes.
After organizational boundaries are set and emissions divided into Scopes 1, 2, and 3, companies will be tasked with quantifying emissions in each category. Calculation of Scope 3 GHG emissions is notoriously difficult, as they include upstream and downstream emissions from activities and operations over which a company has no control and often, little information or means of obtaining that information. CARB is proposing a number of accounting methods to calculate these emissions:
| Method | Description |
|---|---|
| Spend-Based | Product of financial value of purchased goods or services at the emissions value per unit of currency spent |
| Activity-Based | Product of physical measures of activity and relevant emission factors |
| Supplier-Specific | Product of certain activity data or metrics and a supplier-specific emissions factor for that activity |
| Hybrid | Use an activity-based or supplier-specific calculation method where available and spend-based for the remainder |
Integral to GHG emissions accounting is identifying the proper emissions factor, or value that quantifies the amount of GHG emissions released per unit of activity. CARB is proposing to allow companies to use a variety of defined sources for emissions factors for Scope 3 GHG emissions, including various U.S. Environmental Protection Agency databases and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Emissions Factor Database.
Though SB 253 requires that companies begin reporting Scope 3 GHG emissions in 2027, CARB has flexibility in determining how to implement this requirement. CARB’s workshop set forth three proposals that the agency is considering for upcoming reporting obligations.
Under this option, all reporting entities would report on emission from all Scope 3 categories. However, companies would have the discretion to not report categories of emissions that they deem de minimis so long as they provide an appropriate explanation.
Under this option, Scope 3 reporting would initially only be required from the transportation and industrial sectors, with a focus on transportation, technology and energy, cement production, and other manufacturing activities that CARB states are responsible for the largest share of statewide emissions. Reporting from other sectors would be phased in at a later date.
Under the final option, initial Scope 3 reporting would require reporting of only those categories that are easiest for companies to calculate, including business travel, purchased goods and services, fuel and energy, employee commuting, and waste generation. Emissions reporting for other categories that are more difficult to calculate, such as upstream and downstream transportation emissions and use of sold products, would initially be voluntary and required at a later date.
CARB is seeking comment on which approach it should adopt. Companies that will be subject to SB 253 reporting obligations should consider submitting a public comment to ensure CARB has accurate information regarding how each option would impact industry.
Although enforcement of SB 253’s companion law, SB 261, has been stayed due to ongoing litigation in the Ninth Circuit, initial reports under SB 253 are due August 10, 2026. Starting in 2027, companies must also provide assurance at a limited assurance level for their Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions, with CARB proposing to allow a limited set of assurance standards. Scope 3 reports will also be due starting in 2027.
CARB is accepting public comments on its proposal through April 13, 2026, including on a number of discrete issues relating to reporting and accounting methods, assurance standards, and the economic burden of the regulations. Companies required to report under SB 253 should consider submitting a comment to ensure CARB has a robust understanding of the issues at play in finalizing its proposal.
We will continue to track developments related to California’s climate reporting laws. Please reach out to your Vinson & Elkins team to discuss these matters and their implications for your business.
This information is provided by Vinson & Elkins LLP for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended, nor should it be construed, as legal advice.
Discover our latest:
Events
Jenny Speck to Speak on BARBRI Webinar
Partner Jenny Speck will speak on BARBRI’s live video CLE program, “Tax Credit Insurance for Energy Projects: PFE Exclusions, Recapture, …
November 19, 2026
November 19, 2026 • 1-minute read
Events
Kathy Pakenham and Adriana Wirtz to Speak at TEI’s IRS Roundtable
Partners Kathy Pakenham and Adriana Wirtz will examine how a leaner, more data-driven IRS is selecting and conducting large business …
November 19, 2026
November 19, 2026 • 1-minute read
Client Alerts
Single v Multi Contracts in Nuclear Projects: The Size of the Burden
Introduction The construction of nuclear energy projects is complex and capital-intensive, and the contracting structure can significantly affect project delivery, …
November 13, 2026
November 13, 2026 • 6-minute read
Articles
State Attorneys General Widen the Antitrust Battlefield
State attorneys general are moving to the center of antitrust enforcement, with bipartisan coalitions attacking merger settlements, information-sharing arrangements, labor-market …
November 13, 2026
November 13, 2026 • 4-minute read
Events
Jenny Speck to Speak at Lockton U.S. Energy Risk Summit
Partner Jenny Speck will speak at Lockton’s U.S. Energy Risk Summit on November 12, 2026, in Houston, Texas. The summit …
November 12, 2026
November 12, 2026 • 1-minute read
Media Coverage
Vinson & Elkins Partner Joyce Adetutu joined CorpGov on the inaugural episode of Beyond the Boardroom, a new series co-produced …
November 9, 2026
November 9, 2026 • 1-minute read
Deals & Cases
Vinson & Elkins Advises Underwriters on Enterprise Products’ $1.5 Billion Senior Notes Offering
Vinson and Elkins advised the underwriters in connection with Enterprise Products Operating LLC’s (“EPO”) public offering of $1.5 billion aggregate …
November 6, 2026
November 6, 2026 • 1-minute read
Media Coverage
Aubrey Bishai Explains Responsible Vibe Coding and AI Innovation in Law.com
Vinson & Elkins Chief Innovation Officer Aubrey Bishai was featured in Law.com’s coverage of LegalTech Connect’s 2026 Knowledge Management & …
November 5, 2026
November 5, 2026 • 1-minute read
Deals & Cases
Vinson & Elkins Advises Southern Realty Trust Inc. in Merger with Sunrise Realty Trust, Inc.
Vinson & Elkins advised Southern Realty Trust Inc. in connection with its entry into a definitive merger agreement with Sunrise …
November 5, 2026
November 5, 2026 • 1-minute read
Deals & Cases
Vinson & Elkins represented Select Water Holdings LLC, a subsidiary of Select Water Solutions, Inc., in connection with a new …
November 4, 2026
November 4, 2026 • 1-minute read
Articles
Innovation and Investment: The Next Frontier in Aerospace and Defense
Vinson & Elkins Partners Sebastian Tiller and Ben Heriaud sit down for a conversation on the firm’s Aerospace and Defense …
November 3, 2026
November 3, 2026 • 6-minute read
Articles
Law Is a Practice. So Is Business Development.
Randi Revisore, Lauren Alford, and DeAnna Englezos reflect on two years of success leading BD Lab — Vinson & Elkins’ …
July 14, 2026 • V&E+ | Values
July 14, 2026 • 7-minute read
Articles
Data Center Dealmakers: A New Era of Power and Compute
Vinson & Elkins Partners Creighton Smith and Milam Newby share the story behind a groundbreaking AI infrastructure transaction — and …
June 15, 2026 • V&E+ Ventures
June 15, 2026 • 5-minute read
Client Alerts
Mid-Level Mindset: Empowering Lawyers Through a Pivotal Career Stage
Vinson & Elkins’ inaugural Mid-Level Associate Summit brought lawyers from across the firm to Houston for three days of learning …
March 31, 2026
March 31, 2026 • 5-minute read
Client Alerts
Pro Bono at Vinson & Elkins: Lawyers Changing Lives
Pro Bono Counsel Parker Cragg reflects on a life dedicated to service, returning to Vinson & Elkins, and wisdom he has picked up along the way.
October 20, 2025 • V&E+ Values
October 20, 2025 • 6-minute read
Thoughts or questions? Send us a note, and we’ll connect you with the right person.
our People
Please note that any communication with Vinson & Elkins via e-mail through this website does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship with V&E. Please do not send any confidential information. A conflicts-of-interest procedure must be completed by V&E prior to establishment of an attorney-client relationship. When you execute an engagement letter from V&E you will be our client, and you may then exchange information freely with a V&E attorney.
By clicking “Accept,” you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if it is highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.