Committee advances corporate emissions reporting bill after removing scope‑3 requirements
Loading...
Summary
S679, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, was released from committee after amendments narrowed reporting to scope 1 and 2 emissions; industry groups praised the scope change but urged clearer thresholds and use of existing federal/global reporting, while environmental advocates pressed to keep scope 3.
The Senate Environment and Energy Committee on Monday released S679, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, after adopting amendments that remove scope‑3 reporting and limit required disclosures to scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions.
Committee staff described the amendments as clarifying subsidiary reporting — allowing a parent company to submit combined reports that include subsidiaries — and authorizing the use of an existing climate-risk disclosure survey from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to satisfy reporting requirements. "The amendments would remove the bill's requirements related to scope 3 emissions so that the bill would only impose requirements related to scope 1 and scope 2 emissions," staff counsel Eric explained.
Industry witnesses welcomed the removal of scope 3. Ray Cantor of the New Jersey Business and Industry Association said the change removed the largest portion of his group's objections and urged clearer definitions of what it means to "do business in New Jersey," citing California's economic tests as a model. Dennis Hart of the Chemistry Council and other business representatives cautioned that duplicative state reporting could impose significant costs and asked that existing federal and global reporting frameworks be accepted to avoid creating a separate system.
Advocates and environmental groups pushed to retain scope 3 reporting. Alex Amoros of New Jersey Policy Perspective and Taylor McFarland of the Sierra Club argued that comprehensive data — including supply-chain emissions — is necessary to identify the state's largest pollution sources and to hold major emitters accountable.
Chairman Smith acknowledged the tradeoffs and said the committee judged that removing scope 3 improved the bill's viability. After later floor scheduling and additional staff work on definitional issues, the committee recorded votes and released S679.
What’s next: Sponsors and staff said they will continue work on definitions of covered entities, thresholds and data-use protections as S679 proceeds through the legislative process.
