Latest news with #GavinNewsom
Forbes
4 hours ago
- Business
- Forbes
California Board Gives Update On Climate Reporting, Wont Meet July Deadline
In 2023, California passed legislation requiring large companies to file climate disclosures beginning in 2026 for FY 2025. A year later, Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation that delayed the releasing of the implementation guidelines for climate reporting until July 1, 2025. As the deadline quickly approaches, the California Air Resources Board is still in the early stages of rulemaking, making the July 1 deadline unobtainable. A virtual workshop held on May 29 addressed concerns and floated early staff proposals for key aspects of the law. In September 2023, California approved the Climate Accountability Package, a pair of bills aimed at creating sustainability reporting requirements. Senate Bill 253 required companies that 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. Senate Bill 261 required companies that do business in California and have an excess of $500 million in revenue, defined as 'covered entities', to submit a biennial climate-related financial risk report. The report is based on the work of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures, established by the Financial Stability Board. 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. However, the process of drafting such complex regulations required more time. As a result, the Legislature gave CARB an additional six months to complete the drafting. Now, it is clear that deadline will also not be met. On May 29, CARB held a virtual workshop to update stakeholders on the progress of the rulemaking. Over 3,000 people from five continents attended the presentation. Senator Scott Wiener and Senator Henry Stern, the sponsors of the original Climate Accountability Package spoke on progress. Wiener made a point that, despite speculation in the media, reporting requirements will not be delayed and will go into effect in 2026. Under the current timetable, Scope 1 & Scope 2 reporting begin in 2026 for FY 2025. Scope 3 reporting will begin in 2027 for FY 2026. However, CARB used its authority to not enforce reporting requirements in 2026, as no reporting requirements exist. Stern acknowledged ongoing litigation and headwinds on sustainability reporting. He noted that it was his intent to work collaboratively with the European Union and their Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. He also noted they are watching the proposed changes by the International Sustainability Standards Board, the organization that drafted the international standards for sustainability reporting and filled the void after the TCFD was dissolved. The EU is currently engaged in a massive rewrite and simplification of the reporting requirements of the CSRD and its sister regulation, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. A strong green push back in the EU and internationally is causing the EU and other jurisdictions to rollback gains made in the past few years. Changes in the EU are expected by the end of the year. CARB is still in the informal pre-rulemaking phase. Once if moves to formal rulemaking, CARB will have one year to complete the process. It will include a 45-day comment period. If amendments are adopted, a second comment period will run for 15-days. Initial solicitation for comments opened in December 2024 and closed in March. CARB received 261 responses during that period. The themes of those responses focused on who qualifies as a 'reporting entity' in SB 253 or 'covered entity' in SB 261. "Reporting entity means a partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other business entity formed under the laws of this state, the laws of any other state of the United States or the District of Columbia, or under an act of the Congress of the United States with total annual revenues in excess of one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) and that does business in California. Applicability shall be determined based on the reporting entity's revenue for the prior fiscal year." "Covered entity means a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or other business entity formed under the laws of the state, the laws of any other state of the United States or the District of Columbia, or under an act of the Congress of the United States with total annual revenues in excess of five hundred million United States dollars ($500,000,000) and that does business in California. Applicability shall be determined based on the business entity's revenue for the prior fiscal year. 'Covered entity' does not include a business entity that is subject to regulation by the Department of Insurance in this state, or that is in the business of insurance in any other state." Themes were focused on the definition of 'doing business in California', revenue, and corporate relationships between parent and subsidiary companies. 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.' However, that phrases is not defined and was quickly identified as an issue. Initial proposals pointed to Article 1, Section 23101(a) of the California Revenue and Taxation Code 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 In the initial solicitation, stakeholders were asked 'Should CARB adopt the definition of 'doing business in California' found in the Revenue and Tax Code section 23101?' The presentation did not give the breakdown on responses, most likely because CARB admitted they had not fully reviewed all of them. The workshop included an initial staff concept. They propose using the tax board's definition, but with one change. Companies would need to meet requirement 1 AND any of requirements 2 - 5. This establishes a clearer standard for companies that would fall under the reporting requirements, but is so low that most companies will qualify. The workshop identified three questions that need to be addressed: The distinction in reporting requirements under SB 253 ad SB 261 are based on 'total annual revenue.' However, as was the issue with 'doing business in California', questioned remained as to what is used to calculate revenue. Specifically, if the thresholds are for the parent company or the subsidiary. Comments The initial staff concept defines revenue as 'For the purposes of determining whether an entity meets the annual revenue threshold in SB 253 and SB 261, 'total annual revenue' would be defined as gross receipts as set forth in California Revenue and Taxation Code § 25120(f)(2).' That section defines gross receipts as 'the gross amounts realized (the sum of money and the fair market value of other property or services received) on the sale or exchange of property, the performance of services, or the use of property or capital (including rents, royalties, interest, and dividends) in a transaction that produces business income, in which the income, gain, or loss is recognized (or would be recognized if the transaction were in the United States) under the Internal Revenue Code , as applicable for purposes of this part. Amounts realized on the sale or exchange of property shall not be reduced by the cost of goods sold or the basis of property sold.' The definition includes a list of exemptions. However, that still leaves unanswered the question as to if revenues are for the parent or the subsidiary. This is an important distinction that needs to be addressed. A subsidiary may only meet the lower reporting requirement, while the parent based in another jurisdiction may trigger the higher reporting requirements. In a simple world, a company is only liable for the actions of the company. However, companies are frequently established as subsidiaries, have institutional investors, and various other factors that make defining a company often times legally murky. This is posing an issue for CARB as they look at the relationship between a parent company and a subsidiary. The workshop pointed to three main questions that need to be addressed relating to corporate relationships. The initial staff concept is to leverage the Cap-and-Trade approach defining corporate relationships: CARB engaged the Montrose Environmental Group to conduct a comprehensive study on existing GHG accounting and reporting programs around the world. The study was presented by Mariah Gehle and Alexa Ambroseo. The presentation looked at the reporting requirements by Scope, if third party verification is required, and data availability. They noted that "Voluntary programs publish more emissions methodologies for Scope 2 and 3 emissions sources and allow flexibility in how they calculate and report the indirect emissions. Regulatory frameworks tend to cover Scope 1 emissions and may not provide guidance or methodologies for Scope 2 and 3 emissions." Yhe California Air Resources Board will continue to operate in the informal stage of rulemaking, holding discussions with stakeholders to address issues before the official process begins to make climate disclosure standards. Now is the time for interested parties to weigh in. Once the formal process begins, the template will be set. Expect the formal process to begin by fall, with a target of final approval by the end of 2025.
South China Morning Post
5 hours ago
- Entertainment
- South China Morning Post
Who is Dakota Johnson's stepmum, Kelley Phleger? The teacher and former debutante married Miami Vice star Don Johnson in 1999 and the pair have been going strong ever since
Fifty Shades of Grey star Dakota Johnson's father, Don Johnson , is a Hollywood legend in his own right. The Golden Globe-winning actor shares Dakota with his ex-wife, Oscar-nominated actress Melanie Griffith, whom he met when he was 22 and she was 14. The former couple started living together when Griffith was just 15 and got engaged as soon as she turned 18. They married in 1976, divorced the same year, remarried in 1989, and divorced again in 1994. By 1999, Johnson had moved on and was tying the knot with his now-wife Kelley Phleger, who is about 18 years his junior. Johnson is a father to five children, including Dakota Johnson and Jesse Johnson (whom he shares with Patti D'Arbanville). He welcomed his three youngest children, Atherton Grace, Jasper Breckenridge and Deacon Johnson with his current missus, Kelley Phleger. But what else do we know about the woman who made Don Johnson settle down? She's a teacher Kelley Phleger is a former debutante. Photo: @ Advertisement According to People, Kelley Phleger graduated from the University of California, Berkeley with a degree in fine arts. Soon after, she started working as a teacher at a Montessori nursery. She was also a 1986 Cotillion debutante and a well-known socialite in San Francisco, per Hollywood Life. How did she meet Don Johnson? Kelley Phleger's ex-boyfriend is the current governor of California, Gavin Newsom. Photo: @ When Johnson first met Phleger in 1996 through their mutual friend Jo Schuman Silver at a party, she was reportedly in a relationship with Gavin Newsom , the current governor of California. They allegedly broke up not long afterwards and she got together with Johnson. They've been together for 25 years Don Johnson and Kelley Phleger married in 1999. Photo: @ In a September 2024 Instagram post, Johnson gushed over his wife as he marked their 25th wedding anniversary with a beautiful picture of them matching in black outfits. 'My Best Gurl for 25 years !! Think I'll keep her,' he captioned the post along with a red heart emoji. Indeed, this is Johnson's longest marriage and the couple are clearly going strong. What are her children doing?
Auto Blog
6 hours ago
- Automotive
- Auto Blog
California's Ban on Gas-Powered Cars is Dead
Senate Republicans pull a rarely used lever Senate Republicans last Thursday voted to repeal California's rule banning the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035. The 51-44 vote, pushed through using the Congressional Review Act, nullifies a waiver granted under the Clean Air Act — something Congress has never done in the law's 50-year history. California's rule was part of an aggressive plan to shift the auto market toward electric vehicles, and 11 other states had intended to adopt it. Together, those states represent about 40% of U.S. auto sales. The decision marks a major victory for the oil and gas industry and a setback for climate advocates hoping to use state-level policy to push the national market toward cleaner technologies. Democrats cry foul as legal battle begins Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta said the state would sue the Trump administration over what they called an 'unlawful' congressional action. 'This is about our economy, it's about our health, it's about our global competitiveness,' Newsom said. 'It is, Donald Trump, about our national security, and it's about our ability to continue to innovate and outpace competition all across the globe.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta and California Governor Gavin Newsom. — Source: Getty Legal experts argue that the Congressional Review Act should not apply to California's waivers, which only affect one state. But Republicans said California's standards essentially dictated national policy, given how many automakers follow them. More votes, more damage to California's climate agenda The Senate also voted to block California rules requiring half of new trucks sold by 2035 to be electric and limiting emissions of nitrogen oxide, a key contributor to smog. All three measures passed the House earlier this year and are expected to be signed into law by President Trump. In response, Senator Alex Padilla of California placed a hold on several EPA nominees and warned of future retaliation. 'All bets will be off' next time Democrats hold a majority, he said. With two Rivian R1S SUVs in the background, a sign reading 'Vehicle Charging only' is seen in front of a charger that is part of the Rivian Adventure Network charging station on May 10, 2025, in Buttonwillow, California. While some automakers, like Ford and Honda, had agreed to California's emission standards, the industry as a whole pushed back against the 2035 mandate. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation said the targets were 'never achievable,' citing infrastructure gaps and market readiness. Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan was the lone Democrat to vote with Republicans, pointing to concerns from automakers in her state. A Ford F-150 Lightning electric pickup truck is displayed for sale at a Ford dealership on August 21, 2024, in Glendale, California. — Source:Final thoughts The ruling leaves California scrambling to revise its climate strategy. Officials may look to cut emissions from factories and refineries or increase incentives for EV purchases. They may also consider penalties for gas car usage, such as higher registration fees. But a clause in the Congressional Review Act prevents California from adopting any rule 'substantially the same' as the one just repealed — a potential legal roadblock that could tie the state's hands for years. 'We're going to have to think pretty innovatively,' said Dean Florez of the California Air Resources Board. 'But there will still be a massive hole.'
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Skittles removes titanium dioxide from ingredients list amid health concerns
Skittles will no longer be made with titanium dioxide, a color additive, according to multiple media reports. Mars Wrigley, the parent company of Skittles, confirmed to BBC that it stopped using the color additive for Skittles sold in the country last year. KTLA reached out to Mars Wrigley for a statement but didn't hear back in time for publication. The move comes after years of criticism about the presence of titanium dioxide in the candy. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s recent 'Make America Healthy Again' report also pointed out the harms of including the additive in foods. Gov. Gavin Newsom's press office welcomed the news in a post on X, pointing out that the Golden State was the first to ban certain additives used in processed food sold in the state. Assembly Bill 418 prohibits the manufacture and sale of any products that contain Red Dye No. 3, potassium bromate, brominated vegetable oil, or propyl paraben. Those chemicals have already been outlawed in 27 nations in the European Union, according to the bill's author, Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino). The bill previously sought to include language also to prohibit the use of titanium dioxide, but that chemical was removed from the banned additive list in its latest revision. In 2016, Mars announced that it would remove 'all artificial colors' from its food products, citing evolving consumer preferences. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Gas prices could soar with refineries closing in California
WALNUT CREEK, Calif. (KRON) — California is bracing for the closure of two major oil refineries, including one in the Bay Area. State lawmakers are sounding the alarm on what that could mean for gas prices. At just under $5 per gallon in Walnut Creek, some drivers are forking out over $100 to fill up the tank. With two refineries preparing to shut down, that's expected to drive up prices. In the East Bay, the Valero Benicia Refinery is expected to close in April 2026. Down in Southern California, owners of the Phillips 66 refinery are also planning to stop operations in the next year. California Governor Gavin Newsom wants to phase out fossil fuels. He set a goal to ban the sale of gas-powered cars in the state by 2035 to cut down on emissions. But the U.S. Senate is blocking that goal. Oakland residents blast city's removal of self-installed speed bumps Either way, fewer refineries will mean higher prices. It's a simple case of supply and demand. That has some state lawmakers concerned about the future. Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine) said, 'If all we're doing here in California is reducing our emissions, which are 1% global emissions, it doesn't matter a damn. I would argue again that when we're thinking about climate leadership, we need to make sure that the policies that we're implementing here in California are affordable and accessible for all Californians. I know that what climate leadership does not look like, and that is $10 gas.' The head of California's energy commission is telling lawmakers that the closure of two refineries could force the state to import more gas. So far, there has been no action from the assembly. One estimate from the University of Southern California shows gas prices could jump by 75 percent when the refineries close. That would add up to more than $8 a gallon next year. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
