Over the past two weeks the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has taken notable steps in its larger effort to address and develop a uniform framework for automated vehicles (AVs). Last week NHTSA published a request for public comment on an exemption application which, if granted, would exempt certain AVs from safety requirements and…

In a lengthy published opinion filed March 5, 2026, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 6) affirmed the trial court’s judgment adopting a “physical solution,” to be implemented by a watermaster, in a multiparty, three-phase litigation adjudicating competing groundwater rights in a Ventura County basin pursuant to the procedures of Code of Civil Procedure section 830 et seq.  Los Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition v. Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 et al. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 1170.  While the constitutional, statutory, regulatory, and judicial water law rules and principles discussed and applied in the case are important and interesting, I’m not going to write further about them here; rather, in keeping with this blog’s subject matter, I’ll stick to the two paragraphs of the Court’s 45-page opinion that disposed of the novel CEQA arguments raised by a dissatisfied plaintiff and appellant.

At its February 26, 2026 meeting, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) approved a key step in implementing California’s landmark climate disclosure laws. CARB adopted the long-awaited California Corporate Greenhouse Gas Reporting and Climate Related Financial Risk Disclosure Initial Regulation (“Initial Regulation”) implementing the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261). The Initial Regulation establishes the administration and implementation fee structure for SB 253 and SB 261 and sets the first emissions reporting deadline under SB 253: August 10, 2026. Notably, compliance with SB 261 remains voluntary after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit enjoined enforcement of that law.

Our previous, in-depth analysis of these two laws can be found here. In general, SB 253 and SB 261 require large companies doing business in California to disclose climate-related information, including Scope 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions and climate-related financial risks. SB 253 applies to companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue, while SB 261 applies to companies with more than $500 million in annual revenue. As clarified in the Initial Regulation, these revenue thresholds are tied to entities’ gross receipts as reported to the California Franchise Tax Board.

The UK is moving forward with its ambition to become a “world leader for sustainable finance” with two connected projects designed to increase the availability of “high‑quality, decision‑useful” sustainability‑related information for investors and other users of financial statements and sustainability reports.  First, the UK government has officially endorsed new voluntary standards for sustainability reporting.  Second…

The “prior converted cropland” exclusion exempts certain agricultural lands from Clean Water Act regulation. The 2025 “waters of the United States” proposed rule seeks to clarify and update this exclusion, making it easier for farmers to demonstrate that their prior converted cropland is not subject to the Clean Water Act. If finalized, the proposal could…

At a public hearing held February 26, 2026, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a resolution to adopt initial regulations implementing California’s landmark climate reporting and disclosure laws, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261), which will require private and public companies whose revenues exceed certain thresholds to report greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and disclose climate-related financial risks, respectively. In its resolution, CARB largely adopted the regulations proposed by staff in December 2025.