Climate Accountability: Navigating California’s Climate Disclosure Laws

Sherwin Longasa
Sherwin Longasa

Manager, Technical Accounting

Climate Accountability: Navigating California’s Climate Disclosure Laws
As the world’s fourth-largest economy, California has taken proactive steps to combat climate change by mandating firms within its jurisdiction to report greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks starting in 2025.

On October 7, 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a groundbreaking climate disclosure law package including three key acts:
  • California Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253)
  • Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261)
  • Voluntary Carbon Market Disclosures (AB 1305)

SB 253 and SB 261 are the first general regulations in the US requiring companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks, while AB 1305 aims to prevent misleading claims about emissions, known as greenwashing. These laws mark a significant shift towards mandatory climate-related disclosure for companies operating in California.

Blog Graphics Graphs Charts 6
Blog Graphics Graphs Charts 7 1


AB 1305 applies to all public and private firms, irrespective of revenue. Moreover, the disclosure mandated by AB 1305 must be prominently displayed on the company’s website and updated at least annually. Failure to do so may result in civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day per violation, not exceeding $500,000.

While AB 1305 is set to take effect on January 1, 2024, Mr. Jesse Gabriel, the bill’s author, has clarified the timing of disclosures. In a letter addressed to the Chief Clerk of the Assembly, Mr. Gabriel indicated that while the bill does not explicitly outline the timeline for initial disclosures, he intends for the first annual disclosure to be published no later than January 1, 2025.

Looking for an Expert with Innovative Solutions for a Rapidly Changing ESG Landscape? Click here!


Blog Graphics Graphs Charts 8Sample

1. The term “doing business in California” is unclear in either bill. Further clarification regarding the definition of the term is expected in the future. However, it is defined by the State here.

2. Revenues are not required to be earned exclusively in California.

3. Note that a subsidiary is not required to prepare a separate climate-related financial risk report if consolidated reports are prepared. Furthermore, if a covered entity does not complete a report consistent with all required disclosures, the covered entity shall provide the recommended disclosures to the best of its ability, provide a detailed explanation for any reporting gaps, and describe steps the covered entity will take to prepare complete disclosures.

4. A nonprofit emissions reporting organization contracted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop a reporting program to receive and make publicly available disclosures that has experience with GHG emissions disclosure.


Following the Greenhouse Gas Protocol standards, companies must start working on identifying their GHG emissions sources, selecting an appropriate calculation approach, collecting data and determining emission factors, investing in calculation tools, and rolling up the data to corporate and reporting levels.

SB 261  requires disclosures following the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) guidelines, which requires the disclosures of the following key matters:
  • Governance - TCFD requires companies to describe their board’s oversight of climate-related risk and opportunities, including (a) the process and frequency the board is informed about climate-related issues, (b) whether climate-related issues are considered on board strategies and other business decisions, and (c) how the board monitors and oversees the process against goals and targets for addressing climate-related issues. Companies should also describe management’s role in assessing and managing climate-related risks and opportunities.
  • Strategy - Disclosures should include information about a company’s climate-related risks and opportunities over the short, medium, and long term, describe its impact on the company’s businesses, strategy, and financial planning, and describe the resilience of the company’s strategy, considering different climate-related scenarios.
  • Risk management - Companies should disclose their processes for identifying, assessing, and managing climate-related risks. This includes information on how the organization identifies and prioritizes climate-related risks, measures to mitigate them, and any associated financial implications.
  • Metrics and targets - TCFD requires companies to disclose specific metrics and targets related to climate-related risks and opportunities. This may include GHG emissions, energy consumption, water usage, and other relevant indicators. Companies should also disclose any targets they have set to address these issues and their progress towards achieving them.


Preparing for New Disclosures

All firms operating in California must start incorporating climate considerations into governance, risk management, and strategy. Establishing a cross-functional task force can ease the burden of organizing the company around the extensive impacts of the laws, which includes comprehensive data collection from both internal and external sources.

Key initial steps to take include:
  • Assessing and refining materiality determination: Once companies identify which law applies to them and review the required data, they need to shift their focus to relevant ESG topics, considering the needs of their internal and external stakeholders. Additionally, companies should evaluate their existing climate-specific or industry-specific disclosures, prepared under established standards and frameworks such as the GHG Protocol or TCFD, adapting them as necessary.
  • Identifying gaps: Companies must review the new regulatory requirements and timelines to determine the necessary changes and evaluate existing preparedness. This information facilitates coordinated data requirements with relevant internal stakeholders and process owners, including the board and C-suite leaders.
  • Evaluating processes, controls, and readiness: Entities can scrutinize their current internal control and data governance systems to assign roles and responsibilities for data ownership. Boards can develop oversight and top-down accountability mechanisms to support a controlled environment, enabling leaders to efficiently address climate, GHG disclosure, and control gaps. These measures can expedite ESG reporting within the Form 10-K filing timeline.
  • Investing in education, upskilling, and action: Providing training and other learning opportunities for the board and executive levels enhances the organizational capabilities necessary for assurance preparedness. Networking with relevant stakeholders, such as financial reporting and sustainability teams, can aid in drafting and finalizing disclosures related to climate and ESG emissions.


How Scrubbed Can Help

Given the comprehensive scope and timing considerations of the bills, planning for ESG regulation compliance now is a must. Establishing a multidisciplinary team comprising seasoned experts proficient in ESG accounting and regulatory nuances is necessary to help your company speed up aggregating, structuring, and formulating the required reporting protocols. 

Partnering with an outsourced accounting team like Scrubbed can give you access to to specialized ESG reporting services without the burden of hiring in-house. Reach out to Scrubbed today to harness the knowledge of our ESG professionals and streamline your organization’s compliance journey toward seamless adherence to regulatory mandates. 

Disclaimer: The information contained herein is general and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. It is not intended to be relied upon as accounting, tax, or other professional services. Please refer to your advisors for specific advice. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act upon such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.
*Disclaimer: Services being offered do not require a state license.**Special thanks to Sharole Gay Hael for her valuable contribution to this article.

How Scrubbed can Help


Stay ahead of changing ESG regulations with confidence. Contact Scrubbed today to learn how our experienced professionals can help you prepare accurate climate disclosures, strengthen your reporting processes, and achieve compliance with California's new reporting requirements.

CONTACT US
How Scrubbed can Help

Related Content

Blogs

Decoding the Digital Ledger: Navigating FASB’s New Standards for Crypto Assets and Intangibles (ASU 2023-08)

Decoding the Digital Ledger: Navigating FASB’s New Standards for Crypto Assets and Intangibles (ASU 2023-08)

In a groundbreaking move reflecting the swift evolution of the financial landscape, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has taken a significant step with the release of the final Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2023-08 titled “Accounting for and Disclosure of Crypto Assets.” This authoritative guidance specifically addresses Crypto Assets within the Intangibles—Goodwill and Other category, marking a crucial advance in establishing standardized accounting practices for these assets. Bridging the Gap: A Brief Background The rise of digital assets, from cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum to unique non-fungible tokens (NFTs), has challenged traditional accounting norms. Without specific Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) guidance, accounting professionals relied on analogies and interpretations, resulting in a diverse patchwork of practices.  Our article “Rise of Digital Assets in Business” explored the evolving landscape, highlighting the AICPA Practice Aid titled “Accounting for and Auditing of Digital Assets” as a crucial guide within the constraints of the existing accounting framework. We are witnessing a groundbreaking shift with the finalized FASB’s ASU on Crypto Assets, effective December 15, 2024, which will change how the world sees crypto assets. Who Will Be Affected? The new ASU applies to a wider range of entities than you might think. Any entity holding crypto assets that meet specific criteria will be impacted. These criteria include: Meet the definition of an intangible asset. Do not grant enforceable rights or claims on underlying goods, services, or assets. Exist on a blockchain-based distributed ledger or similar technology. Are secured using cryptography. Are fungible. Are not created or issued by the reporting entity or its related parties. Crypto assets falling within these criteria must be measured at fair value, with changes in value recognized in their income statement each reporting period. Moreover, transaction costs incurred in acquiring these assets, such as commissions and related fees, will be expensed unless other industry-specific guidance dictates otherwise. A Closer Look at the New ASU  Mandating Relevance: Fair Value Measurement  The update mandates the fair value measurement of crypto assets at each reporting period. This focus on fair value measurement stems from the belief that fair value offers investors more relevant information about the assets’ sale value and changes in that value. The Board rejected historical cost and net realizable value as alternatives due to limitations in reflecting downward and upward price movements. The existing guidance in Topic 820 was deemed sufficient for fair value measurement, given its applicability to other assets and current use by reporting entities. As financial reporting evolves, organizations offering ESG reporting services may also need to consider how such valuation updates intersect with broader transparency and sustainability disclosure requirements. Beyond Annual Assessment: Recognizing Both Gains and Losses Unlike the existing ASC 350 model, which mandates an annual assessment of crypto asset value that only recognizes gains upon sale, the update embraces a more dynamic approach. The new method captures both negative and positive market movements, addressing longstanding concerns about the traditional model’s failure to reflect the true and current economic nature of crypto assets at each reporting period. As well as providing a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying economics and an entity’s financial position, the shift signifies a progressive step toward a more responsive and accurate representation of the financial impact of market fluctuations on digital holdings. Enhancing Transparency: Disclosure Requirements The ASU prioritizes transparency, incorporating detailed disclosure requirements for asset categorization, impairment considerations, and, notably, the separate presentation of crypto assets from other intangible assets in the statement of financial position. Entities must disclose the following for annual and interim reporting periods: 1. Details of significant and less significant crypto asset holdings, including name, cost basis, fair value, and quantity. 2. Information on restricted crypto assets, covering fair value, nature, the remaining duration of restrictions, and circumstances for the potential lapse. For annual reporting periods, additional disclosures are required: 1. A roll forward of crypto asset activity, including additions, dispositions, gains, and losses. Specify the income statement line item for unrecognized gains and losses if not presented separately. 2. Detail dispositions of crypto assets, including sale price, cost basis difference, and relevant activities. 3. The method used to determine the cost basis of crypto assets. These changes enhance transparency and understanding of crypto asset holdings, ensuring comprehensive disclosure for annual and interim reporting periods. Nevertheless, entities immediately converting crypto assets received as noncash consideration or contributions into cash are exempt from the above annual additional disclosures. The Countdown Begins: Timeline and Adoption The final standard takes effect for all entities in reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2024, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted, allowing entities to embrace the changes ahead of the mandated timeline. However, early adopters must use a modified retrospective approach, requiring recording a cumulative effect adjustment to equity (or net assets) from the commencement of the adoption year. What Lies Ahead: Implications for the Future The issuance of the finalized ASU 2023-08 represents a proactive response to the growing significance of crypto assets in today’s financial landscape. The finalized ASU is a significant milestone in our journey toward a standardized and transparent future for crypto asset accounting, offering consistency in financial reporting across diverse industries engaged with crypto assets. The FASB’s move acknowledges the need for accounting standards that keep pace with technological advancements and reflect the realities of the modern economy. Stay tuned for further developments. How Scrubbed Can Help You? Navigating the opportunities and challenges of crypto assets demands expertise, whether you’re an individual investor or a business. At Scrubbed, our comprehensive range of services empowers you to stay ahead: • Compliance Experts: Navigate crypto regulations effortlessly with our seasoned professionals. From taxes to reporting, we’ve got your compliance needs covered. • Rock-Solid Controls: Establish secure systems and ensure compliance with the latest financial reporting standards like GAAP and IFRS. • Innovative Strategies: Beyond the numbers, we offer strategic insights about market tren ds and help you make wise decisions. As we collectively pioneer a new era of financial reporting, Scrubbed is committed to bridging the gap between traditional accounting norms and the groundbreaking shifts introduced by the FASB on Crypto Assets. Our Technical Accounting Group is ready to assist your business in decoding the digital ledger, ensuring effective operations, and maintaining compliance with evolving regulations. We also provide specialized biotech accounting services, supporting organizations in highly regulated industries with tailored financial reporting solutions. For a comprehensive consultancy assessment tailored to your specific needs, reach out to [email protected].

Read More >
Blogs

The ESG Translation Gap: Why Good Accounting Data Fails Sustainability Audits

The ESG Translation Gap: Why Good Accounting Data Fails Sustainability Audits

If I had to name the first common mistake I see growing companies make when they tackle ESG reporting, it is foundational: They don’t know if the data they are using is complete and accurate. More than that, they often don’t even know if it is the data they should be using. For years, ESG reporting was largely voluntary, a way to answer the public’s demand for accountability and show investors you were responsible. But as optional guidelines transition into emerging laws and requirements, the landscape shifts. Investors and regulators no longer want marketing campaigns. They want accurate data provided with assurance. This brings us to a harsh reality I share with teams newly subject to these regulations: If you are required to file a report in 2027 based on 2026 data, and you wait until 2026 to start preparing, you are already late. Leaders often assume their existing accounting systems are naturally ready to handle ESG reporting. They almost never are. The Illusion of Alignment I see leadership teams fall into this trap constantly. They look at their organizational chart, see a separate Finance team and a separate ESG team, and assume they are covered. But in practice, these two teams are working in silos, speaking entirely different languages. I see this pattern constantly with companies that have been publishing ESG reports voluntarily for a number of years. As they prepare for mandated regulatory reporting, leadership feels secure because their ESG team is getting the exact reports they requested from Finance. But the moment you dig into the architecture and bridge the two teams, the gaps become obvious. Here is how the breakdown usually happens: The Ask: The ESG team needs data to calculate emissions, so they ask Finance for certain reports. The Hand-off: Finance, wanting to be helpful, pulls the data and hands it over. The Gap: Finance teams are wired to be compliant with accounting standards, but they aren’t trained to understand ESG reporting. ESG teams are great at translating finance data into emissions, but they don’t have the concept of an audit. Because the ESG team didn’t have an audit background, they didn’t know how to establish completeness and accuracy. They didn’t know how to look for certain accounting transactions that would otherwise be considered emission or non-emissive (i.e., advance or duplicate payments, reversed entries in the vendor reports). They were running calculations on raw data. The people didn’t fail: the structure simply wasn’t built to translate between the two departments. The Reality of Retroactive Cleanup The true operational complexity of ESG reporting reveals itself when you try to force accounting data into sustainability buckets. Take something as standard as a growing portfolio of leased facilities. From a purely financial perspective, a company might have these perfectly recorded. But you cannot translate that 1:1 to ESG data. For ESG, you have to review the business structure to see who actually holds ‘operational control’ so you can assign those facilities to the proper emissions categories.. When a company’s data architecture isn’t set up for this level of granularity, teams are forced to go back and manually revisit hundreds of outstanding contracts. What should take a minute to encode upfront easily turns into a multi-month project just to find the proper data sources. When you wait to build the system, you force your teams to look backward instead of forward. What You Need to Check Today The fix is actively bridging the technical gap. You need professionals who can translate complex sustainability metrics into an accounting standard, and vice versa. If you are a CFO or sustainability leader reading this today, before making your next public ESG commitment, take a hard look at your architecture. Ask yourself these three questions: Are my on-book activities scoped properly? Check if all financial transactions have been mapped to the appropriate ESG requirement. Are my off-book activities accounted for? Ensure your people management, technology, and operational data are fully captured. Are all stakeholders involved? If ESG reporting is falling entirely on your Finance team, or solely on your ESG team without Finance’s oversight, you have a translation gap. Operations, HR, and Tech must understand the why and the how of the data they are providing. A calm, predictable reporting cycle is designed, never improvised. Build the data architecture a year or two before the regulations hit, and ensure your financial execution naturally supports confident sustainability reporting.

Read More >
Blogs

Sustainable Spaces: From Compliance to Commitment

Sustainable Spaces: From Compliance to Commitment

Climate change is a pressing issue, and the building and construction sector is a major contributor. A staggering 40% of energy-related CO2 emissions come from buildings, and, according to the UN Environment Programme’s 2022 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction, the industry falls short of decarbonization targets, with CO2 emissions currently reaching new highs. From materials used to construction practices and daily operations, traditional methods take a toll on the environment. Sustainable building—architecture focusing on environmental responsibility—offers a solution. Looking for Innovative Solutions for a Rapidly Changing ESG Landscape? Click here! Building Green: A New Approach Sustainable design is about creating buildings that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Its key principles include: Eco-friendly materials: Responsibly harvested wood, recycled steel, and locally sourced materials reduce embodied carbon and transportation emissions. Innovations like carbon-neutral concrete further reduce environmental impact. Energy-efficient glasses in façades minimize heat gain and reliance on cooling and lighting. Passive & active design strategies: Passive strategies utilize natural elements for energy efficiency and comfort. Daylighting, natural ventilation, and well-insulated walls and roofs improve energy efficiency and resource optimization. On the other hand, active design utilizes technologies like solar panels and wind turbines to generate electricity, working alongside passive strategies for a more sustainable future. Water conservation: Rainwater harvesting systems, low-flow fixtures, and efficient irrigation minimize freshwater demand and water wastage, preserving resources and cutting costs. Sustainable Leaders Around the Globe Many companies are embracing sustainable practices, showcasing the power of green building. Some prominent examples are: Apple Park (Cupertino, California): Features one of the largest on-site solar installations globally, alongside natural cooling systems and extensive green spaces. Googleplex (Mountain View, California): Utilizes solar power, recycled water for irrigation, and a building management system that monitors energy use. Pixel Building (Melbourne, Australia): Australia’s first carbon-neutral office building boasts efficient daylighting, wastewater processing, and a recycled aluminum façade. Bank of America Tower (New York City, New York): Uses 32% less energy than a typical office tower. Abundant daylighting, district-chilled water for cooling, and a green roof prioritize energy efficiency and resource conservation. The Edge (Amsterdam, Netherlands): Cutting-edge energy efficiency and occupant comfort technologies include a “digital ceiling” with sensors optimizing lighting and an aquifer-based temperature regulation system. Global Standards and Certifications Transitioning to sustainable spaces can unlock exciting opportunities, such as attracting investment from environmentally conscious businesses and consumers. Sustainable building practices are not just good for the planet but also good for business and several frameworks exist to guide the design and construction of sustainable spaces: LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design): A comprehensive framework for designing, constructing, and operating green buildings. It evaluates energy efficiency, water conservation, and indoor environmental quality. BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) : Evaluates energy, materials, ecology, and water usage, promoting sustainable material usage and energy-efficient systems. WELL Building Standard: Prioritizes air and water quality, user well-being, and environmental sustainability for healthier buildings. Living Building Challenge: The most rigorous standard for sustainability, it emphasizes regenerative design principles, reducing energy consumption, and promoting on-site water harvesting. By prioritizing sustainable design principles, utilizing innovative materials and technologies, and adhering to global green building standards, we can transform our physical environment into a responsible and regenerative force for a healthier planet. This transition not only benefits the environment but fosters economic growth in new and innovative ways.

Read More >

Links

Contact Information

SF Bay Area Headquarters
111 Anza Boulevard, Suite 320, Burlingame, CA 94010, United States

Phone: (800)837-5160
Email: [email protected]

"Scrubbed" is the brand name under which Scrubbed Advisory, LLC and Scrubbed Assurance, LLP provide professional services. Scrubbed Advisory, LLC and Scrubbed Assurance, LLP practice in an alternative practice structure in accordance with the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct and applicable law, regulations, and professional standards. Scrubbed Assurance, LLP is a licensed independent CPA firm that provides attest services to its clients, and Scrubbed Advisory, LLC provides tax, finance, and support services to its clients. Scrubbed Advisory, LLC is not a licensed CPA firm.

Copyright © Scrubbed. All rights reserved.