On Feb. 10, 2026, the New York Senate passed Senate Bill 9072A, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, by a 40–22 vote. The vote fell along party lines, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.

The bill would apply to companies that do business in New York and generate more than $1 billion in annual revenue. It would require annual public disclosure of:

• Scope 1 emissions — direct emissions from company operations, beginning in 2028
• Scope 2 emissions — emissions from purchased electricity, steam, heating, or cooling, beginning in 2028
• Scope 3 emissions — indirect emissions from supply chains and product use, beginning in 2029

The measure now moves to the New York Assembly, where a companion bill has been introduced.

If enacted, the measure would require affected companies to formalize emissions tracking and disclosure practices in one of the country’s largest state economies. Businesses that operate in multiple states would need to coordinate reporting systems across jurisdictions if similar laws are adopted elsewhere.

The vote adds momentum to state-level climate reporting efforts and signals that large-market states may move forward with corporate disclosure requirements independent of federal rulemaking. New York’s proposal mirrors California’s Senate Bill 253, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, which Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed into law in October 2023. SB 253 requires companies doing business in California with more than $1 billion in annual revenue to disclose emissions. 

California also enacted Senate Bill 261, the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act, in October 2023. It required companies with more than $500 million in annual revenue doing business in California to disclose climate-related financial risks and mitigation strategies.

A coalition of business groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce challenged both California laws in federal court. In November 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit temporarily blocked enforcement of SB 261 while litigation proceeds. The order did not apply to SB 253’s emissions disclosure requirements.

The coalition argued the laws compel speech and impose broad burdens on companies, stating, “California’s unconstitutional efforts to slant public debate through compelled speech will take effect and inflict irreparable harm on thousands of companies across the country.”

Similar climate disclosure legislation has appeared in New York in recent years. Lawmakers introduced versions of the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act in 2022, 2024, and 2025, but those proposals did not advance beyond committee stages. Like the current bill, earlier versions would have required large companies doing business in the state to publicly report Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions.

Other states have also considered similar climate disclosure measures in 2026. In Illinois, lawmakers introduced multiple bills requiring climate-related financial risk reporting or emissions disclosures from large companies, with at least one advancing past introduction. New Jersey reintroduced its Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act in 2026 after a prior version failed last year. California legislators have proposed amendments and related measures tied to the state’s existing disclosure framework.

Ballotpedia tracks support for and opposition to the environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) investing movement. To learn more about arguments for, against, and about ESG, click here. For more information on reform proposals related to ESG policy, click here.