California Air Resources Board

This comment is directed to CARB’s statement in the workshop that GHG reports would be due on June 30. At least for 2026 reporting, this is problematic for several reasons.

The August 21 workshop was the first time that CARB indicated that it would neither have an approved list of auditors nor require any particular certification for auditors to assure reports. The lack of this knowledge previously prevented prudent entities from contracting with auditors to provide assurance for scope 1 and 2 data, lest those auditors would later become unusable. Unless a company has a standing relationship with an auditor, it’s quite possible that an entity’s assurance could be buried among the many to be conducted by an auditor, pushed to the bottom of the pile.

As noted in verbal comments during the workshop and CARB’s own statements, SB 253 reporting will pull in many more entities than had previously been required to report under any legal requirements in the United States (federal or state). The number of available auditors may be limited, at least initially, and those with actual experience in assuring GHG emissions will definitively be limited. Auditors with limited GHG assurance experience are not as efficient at assuring emissions, so the assurance process takes longer. While the largest companies have honed their systems and audit trails over time, some entities may be doing this for the first time, requiring an iterative process to close findings and get assurance. Our first attempt at assurance took six months and several rounds of iteration to obtain limited assurance. The current proposed deadline is incompatible with such an iterative process.

It also remains to be seen whether the Board might revise some of the details that staff might propose and have mentioned in workshops. With final rules not contemplated before December 2025, there is virtually no certainty in the methods companies should use to calculate and document their emissions.

For these reasons, we would urge CARB to set a December 31 deadline to report assured GHG emissions in 2026. As companies gain experience in calculating their emissions, the roster of auditors grows over time, and learnings over time on both reporting entities and auditors makes the assurance process faster, the deadline could eventually be moved up. However, with the lack of certainty to date, the current proposed deadline will almost certainly be unworkable for a significant number of reporting entities.

We noted that one commenter during the workshop suggested having emissions reported by June 30 with assurance provided later in the year. While this sounds good in concept, we think it unworkable for the following reasons. As noted above, the assurance process, especially for those without a history of performing this, can be iterative to close findings, often changing the emission values. Thus, if reporting at one time and later assurance is adopted, there would have to be a safe harbor to revise reported emissions where revisions are done pursuant to the assurance process. Adding in a means to revise submissions makes the reporting platform much harder to build on CARB’s end and could introduce substantial confusion for both reporting entities and the public.

For these reasons, we urge CARB to adopt a ratcheted deadline for reporting assured GHG emissions. The deadline in 2026 (for 2025 data), should be December 31. That deadline could rachet back to September 30 in intermediate years (at least 2027 and 2028). Once CARB is satisfied there are sufficient auditors to timely assure data, that deadline could move to June 30. Due to the time needed to assure the data, the deadline should never be earlier than June 30. We also strongly urge CARB to provide in the regulation the additional 180 days mentioned in statute for scope 3 emissions to be provided after submission of scope 1 and 2 data, once scope 3 reporting becomes required in 2027.