Audit, Compliance and Risk Blog

On September 27, 2024, California’s governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 219, amending greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reporting requirements for targeted organizations doing business in the state, enacted in 2023 (SB 253 (Wiener) (Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act) and SB 261 (Stern)) and initially scheduled to require compliance beginning January 1, 2025. (I wrote about them HERE) SB 219 revises and delays emissions reporting requirements. The revised requirements will still be administered by the California Air Resources Board (ARB), expanding its longstanding air quality and climate authority (GHG provisions center on the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 ((AB 32)). The remainder of this note discusses the revisions made by SB 219. 

On September 30, 2023, California’s governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 553, which expands the state’s workplace violence prevention (WVP) requirements, adding duties and rights for most employers in the state. Most importantly, SB 553 requires all non-exempt employers in the state to create WVP plans. These expanded requirements will be administered by California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH, but generally referred to as “Cal/OSHA”), which already administers WVP planning requirements for healthcare employers (which I wrote about HERE), and has been working on a general rule (I wrote about the latest draft HERE). The remainder of this note discusses SB 553, which takes effect on January 1, 2024 but remains subject to further rulemakings.

On October 7, 2023, California’s governor Gavin Newsom signed two important bills expanding climate-related reporting requirements for targeted organizations doing business in the state – SB 253 (Wiener) (Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act) and SB 261 (Stern). These requirements will be administered by the California Air Resources Board (ARB), which already includes most state greenhouse gas (GHG) regulatory requirements within its extensive air quality and climate authority (centered on the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). The remainder of these note discusses these new requirements.

Regulatory and market-based programs are steadily increasing opportunities for entities to contract with projects that reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs), and to claim credit for those “carbon offsets.” Some such claims are used to satisfy formal air quality and GHG reduction requirements, while others are touted to enhance entities’ “green” credentials. Programs around the globe compile such claims, and some provide third party validations – but possible “greenwashing” of unjustified claims remains a significant concern. To address these concerns, California has just enacted legislation to regulate Voluntary Cabon Market Disclosures and penalize noncompliance (Assembly Bill (AB) 1305, Gabriel). These requirements synthesize the most thorough voluntary disclosure programs, and are intended not only to protect California consumers but to codify disclosure standards. The rest of this note summarizes carbon offsets, and AB 1305 requirements.

Since 2021, occupational safety and health agencies have enacted a variety of rules addressing the workplace hazards of the COVID-19 pandemic. Agencies have generally used their emergency authority, which allow more administrative leeway to speed enactment but then require automatic expiration within months (although re-enactments are possible). I’ve written about a number of these efforts, including the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) “emergency temporary standard (ETS),” which was stymied by litigation (see HERE). Some states have enacted their own ETSs; California adopted its own ETS and then readopted it every 180 days in order to keep rules in force (see HERE).

On June 30, 2022, California governor Gavin Newsom signed state Senate Bill (SB) 54, enacting the “Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act.” The Act phases in a ban on non-recyclable single-use plastics by 2032, and requires that threshold proportions of single-use items sold as “recyclable” will actually be recycled. Its implementation will make use of “extended producer responsibility” mechanism similar to those used in California and elsewhere for other enhanced recycling programs (I’ve written about these before, most recently HERE and HERE). The new Act will be overseen by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). The new Act complements a variety of other state programs, many also overseen by CalRecycle. The remainder of this note discusses SB 54’s provisions.

As public and occupational health agencies around the world continuously reevaluating their responses to the developing COVID-19 pandemic, California has again weighed in on the side of continuing formal controls. Effective May 5, 2022, California has revised and extended its COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) until January 1, 2023. (I wrote about the most recent previous iteration adopted in February HERE). The ETS is presented as 5 rules, which are administered by California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH, but universally called Cal/OSHA). The remainder of this note summarizes these revised standards, which appear in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR):

Discharges of plastics into the environment are steadily increasing, both in aggregate amounts and in associated environmental and health concerns. The United Nations has estimated that plastic debris accounts for at least 85 percent of total marine waste; an estimated 11 million metric tons of plastic enter the world’s oceans annually, and on current trends this will triple by 2040. In response to these concerns, the state of California is creating laws and regulations intended to reduce plastics discharges in the state. In addition to plastics recycling requirements (the state “bottle bill” and others), California has created a focus on “microplastics.” In February 2022, the California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) adopted a new Statewide Microplastics Strategy (the Strategy); the rest of this note provides general background on California’s approaches to plastics and microplastics, and summarizes the Strategy.

Although the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) only recommends that employers create comprehensive safety and health programs, California and a handful of other states require employers to do so. (I wrote about OSHA’s latest recommendations HERE). The remainder of this note summarizes California’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) requirements, which are administered by the state’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH; known universally as Cal/OSHA).

Although the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has been forced by court action to convert its would-be “emergency temporary standard (ETS)” under which large employers would have been required to protect unvaccinated employees from COVID-19 infections into a proposal (I wrote about the initial ETS HERE), some states can and are moving ahead with similar requirements. Notably, California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH, but universally called Cal/OSHA) recently revised and renewed its own COVID-19 ETSs. The remainder of this note summarizes these standards, which cover five sections of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR):