US State Environmental Reporting Requirements: GHG Disclosure, EPR, Prop 65, and Compliance Guide

The United States has no single federal ESG disclosure mandate. What it has instead is a growing patchwork of state laws covering greenhouse gas reporting, product stewardship, toxic substance warnings, and environmental performance disclosure — each with its own scope, thresholds, deadlines, and enforcement regime. For companies selling into multiple states, the compliance picture is complex and evolving rapidly.

This guide maps the major state-level environmental and sustainability reporting obligations that affect US businesses in 2025 and beyond: GHG disclosure laws, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programmes, California Proposition 65, and other state environmental reporting requirements. For each, we identify who is covered, what must be reported, and when.

State-Level GHG Reporting Requirements

Three states have enacted standalone mandatory corporate GHG disclosure laws that go beyond federal EPA reporting. Additional states have climate commitment laws that set targets without directly mandating corporate disclosure.

California: SB 253 and SB 261 (2026 onward)

California's Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) requires companies with annual revenues exceeding $1 billion that do business in California to publicly disclose Scope 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions. Scope 1 and 2 disclosures begin for reporting year 2026 (first reports due 2027); Scope 3 reporting follows in 2027. Third-party assurance — limited at first, later reasonable — is required. SB 261 (Climate-Related Financial Risk Act) separately requires $500M+ companies to disclose climate-related financial risk biannually, beginning January 1, 2026. Penalties for SB 253 non-compliance can reach $500,000 per reporting year.

New York: Mandatory GHG Reporting

New York's mandatory GHG reporting programme requires facilities emitting 25,000 metric tons of CO₂e or more annually to report to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Unlike California's corporate-level disclosure requirement, New York's programme operates at the facility level. The state's Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) sets broader economy-wide emission reduction targets (85% below 1990 levels by 2050), though direct corporate reporting mandates are less prescriptive than California's. Full New York GHG reporting guide →

Washington: Climate Commitment Act

Washington's Climate Commitment Act (enacted 2021) established a cap-and-invest programme covering facilities and fuel suppliers emitting more than 25,000 metric tons CO₂e annually. Covered entities must obtain allowances for each ton of emissions and submit annual emissions reports verified by an accredited third party. Washington's programme operates alongside California's cap-and-trade, and the two systems are considering linkage.

The Broader US State GHG Landscape

Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Minnesota have each enacted climate-related legislation setting GHG reduction targets, though most stop short of direct mandatory corporate disclosure requirements equivalent to California's. For a full analysis of all state programmes, see our US state GHG disclosure requirements guide.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) by State

EPR laws make manufacturers and importers financially responsible for the end-of-life management of the products and packaging they place on the market. Seven US states have enacted comprehensive packaging EPR laws as of 2025, with more advancing through state legislatures. See our full guide: Extended Producer Responsibility: Requirements and State Laws.

Packaging EPR — Active Laws

• Oregon — Registration required by April 30, 2025. Sales restrictions apply July 1, 2025 for non-registered producers. Programme operated by Circular Action Alliance (CAA).
• Colorado — Registration deadline October 1, 2024. Sales restrictions July 1, 2025. PRO-administered.
• California (SB 54) — Permanent regulations in effect as of May 1, 2026. Producer registration deadline: June 1, 2026 — via Circular Action Alliance (CAA) for PRO participants, or CalRecycle's PEPRS portal for independent producers; small producer exemption available. EPS food service ware sales already prohibited since January 1, 2025. Recycling rate targets: 30% by 2028, 40% by 2030, 65% by 2032. Penalties up to $50,000/day.
• Minnesota — Registration deadline July 1, 2025. Sales restrictions from January 1, 2029.
• Washington — Registration deadline July 1, 2026. Sales restrictions March 1, 2029.
• Maryland — Registration deadline July 1, 2026. Programme details in rulemaking.
• Maine — Registration expected May 2026. Direct municipal reimbursement model (no central PRO).

EPR for Other Product Categories

• Electronics (e-waste) — 25+ states have producer-funded take-back and recycling obligations for computers, monitors, televisions, and related equipment.
• Paint — PaintCare stewardship programmes operate in 40+ states under state product stewardship laws, funded by a fee on architectural paint sales.
• Batteries — California SB 1215 requires lithium battery manufacturers to fund take-back via CalRecycle. Several other states have battery recycling requirements.
• Mattresses, pharmaceuticals, pesticide containers — State-specific take-back or deposit-return requirements in various jurisdictions.

California Proposition 65

Proposition 65 — formally the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 — requires businesses to provide "clear and reasonable" warnings before knowingly exposing Californians to chemicals listed as known causes of cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. The list currently contains more than 900 chemicals, maintained by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).

Who Must Comply

Any business with 10 or more employees that causes a knowing exposure to a listed chemical must provide a warning before that exposure occurs. Critically, this applies to products sold into California — including by companies with no California physical presence. Online sellers, importers, and manufacturers all face potential exposure if covered products are shipped to Californian consumers.

What Is Required

• Product warnings: labels, hang tags, or packaging inserts for consumer products containing listed chemicals above safe harbour levels.
• Environmental exposure warnings: for facilities, car parks, hotels, or other locations where listed chemical exposure may occur.
• Internet purchase warnings: for online sales into California, warnings must appear prior to purchase (not just on the shipped product).

Safe Harbour Levels and Reformulated Warnings

OEHHA establishes "safe harbour" levels for many listed chemicals — exposures below these levels do not require a warning. Above safe harbour, a warning is required using specific OEHHA-approved language (reformulated in 2018). The current short-form warning requires a yellow triangle with an exclamation mark and the phrase "WARNING: This product can expose you to [chemical name], which is known to the State of California to cause [cancer / birth defects or other reproductive harm]."

Penalties and Enforcement

Civil penalties up to $2,500 per day per violation. Enforcement is primarily through private attorney general actions ("bounty hunter" suits) under California's unfair competition law — making Prop 65 one of the most litigation-intensive product compliance laws in the US. Companies face litigation risk even from small oversights in warning language or placement.

Key Risk Areas

• Consumer electronics (lead, cadmium, phthalates)
• Furniture (formaldehyde, PFAS, flame retardants)
• Dietary supplements and foods (acrylamide, lead, arsenic)
• Jewellery and accessories (lead, cadmium)
• Building materials and paints (VOCs, crystalline silica, lead)

Other State Environmental Reporting Laws

Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) — Federal with State Implications

The federal EPA Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) programme — established under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) — requires facilities in specific industry sectors that manufacture, process, or otherwise use listed toxic chemicals above threshold quantities to report annual releases to the EPA. While federal, TRI data is publicly accessible and state environmental agencies use it for enforcement and permit review. States including California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have supplementary state-level toxic substance reporting requirements that extend beyond federal TRI scope.

California Air Resources Board (CARB) Reporting

California's Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting regulation (title 17, CCR §95100–95133) requires facilities emitting 10,000 metric tons CO₂e or more annually to report to CARB — a lower threshold than federal EPA reporting. CARB reporting forms the data foundation for California's cap-and-trade programme and feeds into SB 253 corporate-level aggregation.

New Jersey Environmental Justice Law

New Jersey's Environmental Justice Law (P.L. 2020, c.92) requires new or expanded facilities in "overburdened communities" to prepare an environmental justice impact statement and obtain approval from the NJ Department of Environmental Protection. It does not require disclosure reporting by companies generally, but affects permitting and expansion decisions for manufacturers and logistics operators with NJ facilities.

Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA)

Massachusetts's GWSA requires the state to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, with sector-specific limits. The act imposes direct obligations on utilities and certain large facilities under state DEP regulations. Manufacturers and commercial operations in Massachusetts face reporting obligations through the DEP's air quality permitting framework, though broader corporate disclosure requirements similar to California SB 253 are not yet enacted.

State-by-State Reference: Key Obligations

The following covers the primary environmental reporting and compliance obligations for companies operating in each major US commercial state. This is a summary — always verify current requirements with state agencies or legal counsel.

• California: SB 253 GHG disclosure ($1B+ revenue, from 2026), SB 261 climate risk disclosure ($500M+, from 2026), Prop 65 warnings, SB 54 packaging EPR (permanent regulations in effect May 2026, registration deadline June 1, 2026), CARB GHG reporting (facilities ≥10,000 tCO₂e), CalRecycle battery EPR, electronics e-waste take-back.
• New York: Facility-level mandatory GHG reporting (≥25,000 tCO₂e), CLCPA economy-wide targets, electronics e-waste take-back law, pharmaceutical take-back requirements.
• Washington: Climate Commitment Act cap-and-invest (facilities ≥25,000 tCO₂e), SB 5284 packaging EPR (registration 2026, sales restrictions 2029).
• Oregon: SB 582 packaging EPR (Oregon already active — sales restrictions July 1, 2025), electronics e-waste take-back law.
• Colorado: HB 22-1355 packaging EPR (sales restrictions July 1, 2025), electronics e-waste programme.
• Minnesota: HF 3911 packaging EPR (registration July 2025, sales restrictions 2029), electronics e-waste take-back.
• Maryland: SB 901 packaging EPR (registration 2026, rulemaking pending).
• Maine: LD 1541 packaging EPR (municipal reimbursement model, registration 2026).
• New Jersey: Environmental justice permitting law, TRI supplement, pharmaceutical take-back requirements.
• Massachusetts: GWSA emission reduction framework, DEP facility reporting, pharmaceutical and e-waste take-back.
• Illinois: Climate and Equitable Jobs Act emission reduction targets, SB 1591 environmental justice reporting requirements.
• Texas, Florida, Georgia, and others: No standalone corporate ESG disclosure or comprehensive packaging EPR laws as of 2025, but federal TRI reporting applies to qualifying facilities.

What Multistate Operators Need to Do

1. Map your state-level obligations. Identify which states you sell into, which thresholds you meet (revenue, emission volume, packaging volume), and which laws apply. The threshold structure means that a $900M company may be exempt from California SB 253 but face EPR obligations in Oregon and Colorado.
2. Register for EPR before sales restrictions hit. Oregon and Colorado impose sales restrictions on July 1, 2025 for non-registered producers of covered packaging. This is not a future risk — it is imminent.
3. Audit Prop 65 product exposure. If you sell consumer products containing any of 900+ listed chemicals into California, review whether warnings are required and whether current warning language meets the 2018 reformulated standard. Litigation risk from missed warnings is significant.
4. Collect packaging composition data from your supply chain. EPR reporting for multiple states requires granular material composition data (resin type, weight, recycled content) for every unit of covered packaging. Build supplier data collection into your procurement workflow.
5. Consolidate reporting infrastructure. GHG reporting (SB 253, CARB), EPR supply reports, and TRI reporting all require product and operational data from the same underlying sources. Companies that build a single ESG data collection infrastructure rather than managing each programme in isolation will reduce reporting burden substantially.
6. Monitor legislative developments. New Jersey, Illinois, and others are advancing packaging EPR bills. Additional states may enact SB 253-style disclosure requirements. Treat this landscape as one that will expand, and build compliance systems that can accommodate new jurisdictions without a rebuild.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does California SB 253 apply to foreign companies selling into California?

Yes, if the company has annual revenues exceeding $1 billion and "does business in California" — a standard that includes selling products or services to California customers, even without a physical California presence. Many multinational companies will be caught by this definition.

Is there a federal EPR law in the US?

No comprehensive federal EPR law exists as of 2025. The Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act has been introduced in Congress multiple times but has not passed. Federal EPR legislation remains unlikely in the near term, meaning the state-by-state patchwork will continue to be the primary compliance reality.

How does Prop 65 enforcement work in practice?

Prop 65 is primarily enforced through private attorney general actions under California's Unfair Competition Law — meaning any person or organisation can bring a lawsuit on behalf of the public, without needing to demonstrate personal harm. Enforcement organisations and plaintiffs' law firms actively monitor product listings and test products for listed chemicals. Companies receive a 60-day notice of violation before a lawsuit can be filed, during which they can cure the violation.

Do EPR obligations apply to B2B packaging?

Most state packaging EPR laws focus on consumer-facing packaging, but definitions vary. Oregon and Colorado cover a defined list of "covered materials" that may include some B2B packaging categories. Always review the statutory definition in each jurisdiction.