What matters to me today is: Climate Chaos: Federal Deregulation and California Dysfunction
Climate regulation is increasingly difficult to follow—let alone comply with.
At the federal level, U.S. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has taken two significant steps toward eliminating federal greenhouse-gas regulation of fossil-fueled power plants. EPA has finalized repeal of most of its 2024 Carbon Pollution Standards while separately proposing that Clean Air Act Section 111 does not authorize regulation of power-plant emissions in response to global climate change.
That position creates substantial tension with Massachusetts v. EPA, where the Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases fall within the Clean Air Act’s broad definition of “air pollutant” and rejected EPA’s rationale for declining to regulate motor-vehicle emissions. The new EPA position will undoubtedly generate another chapter of climate litigation.
Meanwhile, California offers uncertainty of a different kind.
SB 261’s January 1, 2026, climate-risk reporting deadline was halted by a Ninth Circuit preliminary injunction. A requested injunction against SB 253 remains pending. CARB, meanwhile, withdrew its proposed SB 253 regulations from the Office of Administrative Law, revised its approach and moved the proposed 2026 reporting deadline to November 10. Yet before those regulations are final, CARB has issued “guidance” establishing a voluntary reporting portal and describing how companies may submit reports.
Federal withdrawal. State implementation uncertainty. Ongoing litigation.
For regulated businesses trying in good faith to comply, climate regulation increasingly presents a fundamental problem: which rules, exactly, govern—and for how long?
That’s what matters to me today in 250 words or less. What matters to you? I’d really like to know.