Insights

California Assembly Bill 1603 amends the Food and Agricultural Code by directing DPR to take several concrete steps no later than January 1, 2028 to identify and disclose PFAS pesticide ingredients in California-registered pesticides.  DPR must now flag whether each registered pesticide contains PFAS pesticide ingredients in its online pesticide use reporting database, designate PFAS as a searchable category of interest within that database, and incorporate PFAS pesticide use trends into its annual pesticide use report and related reporting documents on an ongoing basis. Separately, DPR must compile and publish on its website a complete list of all registered pesticides containing PFAS pesticide ingredients and deliver that list to every county agricultural commissioner in California. After the initial publication, DPR is required to update the list and redistribute it to all county commissioners within 60 calendar days whenever a new PFAS-containing pesticide is registered.  

In a significant and unanimous ruling, the D.C. Circuit upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) final rule designating perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (“PFOS”) as “hazardous substances” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), denying the petitions of seven industry groups seeking to overturn that designation.[1] CERCLA, also known as the “Superfund Statute,” allows EPA to require potentially responsible parties to fund cleanup of hazardous substances.

On March 10, 2026, the Department of Justice released the first-ever Department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (the “Department-wide CEP” or “Policy”), which applies to all non-antitrust corporate criminal cases across the Department. The new policy has been anticipated since December 2025, when Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the Department’s plans to release a new, single corporate enforcement policy for all criminal matters. According to the Department, the new policy is designed to “help ensure consistency across the Department” and “transparently describe the Department’s policies and decisionmaking.”

After hosting a series of workshops and issuing multiple rounds of materials, including enforcement notices, checklists, templates, and other guidance, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has proposed regulations to implement the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261) (both as amended by SB 219), which require large U.S.-based businesses operating in California to disclose greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate-related risks. CARB also published a Notice of Public Hearing and an Initial Statement of Reasons along with the proposed regulations. While CARB’s final rules were statutorily required to be promulgated by July 1, 2025, these are still just proposals. CARB’s proposed rules largely track earlier guidance regarding how CARB intends to define compliance obligations, exemptions, and key deadlines, and establish fee programs to fund regulatory operations.

As we have reported previously, California has enacted a pair of climate-related reporting laws that apply to large entities doing business in California (SB 253 and SB 261, as modified by SB 219). This alert provides an update on only the most recent events; please see previous alerts for a broader overview of the laws’ requirements.

E&E News reported that EPA will continue to operate during the shutdown relying on “carryover funds.” Carryover funds generally are unspent and unobligated funds from a previous budget period that are carried forward to cover allowable costs in a future budget period. There is no indication how long EPA’s carryover funds will allow all EPA employees to continue working versus those that are “exempted” or “excepted” personnel, meaning they can continue to work either because they are separately funded (“exempted) or must continue to work because of their position (“excepted), such as emergency responders or criminal agents.

As of midnight on September 29, 2025, the U.S. government has entered a shutdown, triggering furloughs across many agencies that regulate the import and export of wildlife and wildlife products. For businesses and organizations engaged in international wildlife trade, this development raises urgent questions about inspections, permitting, and compliance. These delays impact not only entities engaged in the transfer of live animals but also companies involved in selling products in brick-and-mortar stores as well as e-commerce online stores, covering everything from food, jewelry, skincare and cosmetics to art supplies, home décor and furniture – many of which contain imported or exported wildlife products. 

On September 24, 2025, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) issued a preliminary list of reporting/covered entities under California’s climate disclosure laws SB 253 (the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act) and SB 261 (the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act) (the “Climate Disclosure Laws”) (both as modified by SB 219).

In 2023, California passed two landmark laws—SB 253, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act; and SB 261, the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act—that will require large public and privately-held entities doing business in California to comply with sweeping disclosure requirements regarding their direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions and their climate-related financial risks. California subsequently passed SB 219, which updated certain deadlines and requirements of the laws (collectively, the “Climate Disclosure Laws”).

The Supreme Court declined to hear two key federal environmental enforcement cases, effectively leaving in place lower court rulings that allow for broad private citizen enforcement under the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. Because of the Court’s denials, citizen plaintiffs remain free to pursue enforcement cases in the absence of governmental enforcement, thus companies remain at risk of being sued by active watchdog citizen groups.

Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) are voluntary, environmental or public health projects that parties subject to environmental enforcement proceedings can propose as part of an administrative, civil, or criminal settlement. SEPs are unique and used specifically in environmental enforcement cases in part because (1) many environmental law statutes do not require a showing of harm to prove a violation; thus, redressing harm, outside of equitable relief, is not usually statutorily required; and (2) pollution is a public harm that is hard to redress, both individually and collectively.