New York Post, on Climate, 30 October 2026

3.0out of 10Minor

Exclusive | Little-known California climate rule , feds warn

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.4 findings

President Donald Trump’s administration told California regulators Thursday that forcing businesses to detail their carbon emissions should not apply to banks — or consumers could face stiff consequences. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, under the US Treasury Department, sent a warning to the California Air Resources Board over two first-in-the-nation climate reporting laws passed in 2023 over the objections of many corporations.

The disclosure laws “are likely to decrease competition, drive up prices, and reduce Californians’ access to financial services, all of which will harm residents and main street businesses,” the letter read. 3 could even force some banking firms to ditch the state, according to the letter from the US Treasury Department. Getty Images The costly rules could even force some banking firms to ditch the state, according to the letter.

Explore More Looking for a new credit card? 4 different types to consider I’m a billionaire entrepreneur at 34 — this is my easy secret to success Most Americans think you need to earn almost $500K to feel rich The laws in reference are Senate Bill 253, which requires companies with $1 billion revenue or more to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions, and Senate Bill 261, which mandates businesses with $500 million-plus revenue to publish a biennial report on climate-related financial risk.

Dubbed the “California Climate Accountability Package,” California Dems pushed the bills in an effort to help the state lead on reducing carbon emissions and make large corporations more accountable. Business groups eventually sued both laws, arguing they were compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment and also violated interstate commerce rules. 3 California Democrats want more transparency on carbon emissions. Getty Images A federal appeals court last year temporarily blocked enforcement of Senate Bill 261 but let the other law remain active as the case is pending.

As a result, the Air Resources Board is in the process of writing regulations to implement emission disclosures. Businesses argue that the required disclosures are an unreasonable hassle. They say they’ll be forced to spend time and money on an immense logistical and financial task of tracking emissions and conducting third-party audits. The OCC said that burden would fall on banks as well — potentially leading to higher costs, reduced services or “withdrawal” from the market entirely. 3 Businesses argue they’ll be forced to spend time and money on an immense logistical and financial task of tracking emissions and conducting third-party audits.

Bloomberg via Getty Images “Smaller banks may withdraw from doing business in the state. Banks that cannot withdraw, including banks headquartered in California, will be disadvantaged,” the federal office said. “They will face substantial compliance obligations that could materially affect their operations.” However, federally regulated banks are under its jurisdiction, the OCC claimed, and they told the state agency to exempt the disclosure laws on the banks.

“Federally chartered banks are governed by a robust framework of federal laws that preempt conflicting state laws by operation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution,” the OCC said. Not respecting that authority, the OCC added, would hurt the banking system in the US and “distract” banks from if they spend resources on tracing emissions. Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters California Post News : Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , X , YouTube , WhatsApp , LinkedIn California Post Sports Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , YouTube , X California Post Opinion California Post Newsletters : Sign up here!

California Post App : Download here! Home delivery : Sign up here! Page Six Hollywood : Sign up here!

Read the original article on nypost.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (4)

The New York Post reports a federal banking regulator's letter urging California to exempt banks from its climate disclosure laws, and describes the laws accurately. In its own voice it calls them "woke" and "costly", and its headline drops the body's qualifier that only smaller banks may leave. It ends on the regulator's claim that tracking emissions distracts from "actual" financial risks, with no reply from California.

  1. Dismisses climate action with a label

    Minor

    “woke state laws”

    Why this matters
    The Post calls California's climate disclosure laws "woke" in its own voice, in the opening line of a news report.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes the laws as ideological posturing before learning what they require.
    The context
    The article's own description shows the laws require large companies to report emissions and climate-related financial risk, passed to cut carbon emissions and make corporations accountable. Nothing in the article supports the label.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“help the state lead on reducing carbon emissions and make large corporations more accountable”
    • Elsewhere in the article“requires companies with $1 billion revenue or more to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions”

    Show it in the article

  2. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “California’s costly rules”

    Why this matters
    The Post calls the rules "costly" in its own voice. The attribution to the letter covers only the claim that banks could leave.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes it as settled that the rules impose heavy costs.
    The context
    The article itself presents the burden as something businesses argue and the OCC asserts. It gives no figure for the cost.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“Businesses argue that the required disclosures are an unreasonable hassle”

    Show it in the article

  3. Headline goes beyond the article

    Minor

    “could drive banks out of the state”

    Why this matters
    The headline says the rule could drive banks out of California, with no qualifier.
    The impression it gives
    A reader expects that banks in general may leave the state.
    The context
    The body and the letter it quotes speak only of smaller banks or some banking firms possibly withdrawing.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“Smaller banks may withdraw from doing business”
    • Elsewhere in the article“could even force some banking firms to ditch the state”

    Show it in the article

  4. Gives a contested claim the last word

    Minor

    “paying attention to actual financial risks”

    Why this matters
    The Post closes on the OCC's claim, in its own paraphrase, that tracing emissions distracts banks from "actual" financial risks. Nothing follows it.
    The impression it gives
    A reader is left thinking that climate-related risk is not a real financial risk for banks.
    The context
    One of the two laws exists precisely to require reporting on climate-related financial risk. Warming is making hot extremes, heavy rainfall, drought and fire weather more frequent or more severe, and those carry financial consequences. The article carries no response from the Air Resources Board or the laws' backers.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“publish a biennial report on climate-related financial risk”
    • On the recordThat warming has made hot extremes, heavy rainfall, agricultural and ecological drought, fire weather and intense tropical cyclones more frequent or more severe.ipcc.ch (opens in a new tab)

    Show it in the article

What it gets right

  • “Senate Bill 253, which requires companies with $1 billion revenue or more to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions, and Senate Bill 261, which mandates businesses with $500 million-plus revenue to publish a biennial report on climate-related financial risk”

    It tells the reader exactly what each law requires and whom it covers.

  • “A federal appeals court last year temporarily blocked enforcement of Senate Bill 261 but let the other law remain active as the case is pending”

    It gives the accurate legal status of each law rather than lumping them together.

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from New York Post

  1. 29 OctEco-friendly myths busted, from tote bags to paper straws and electric cars7.3
  2. 28 OctLA pushes oil drilling shutdown despite industry warnings of lawsuits, gas price hikes3.0
  3. 28 OctPopular SoCal pub keeps the beer flowing despite flooding, high tides along boardwalk0.0
  4. 28 OctApocalyptic Super El Niño map shows where most people will die from record-breaking calamity6.0
  5. 27 OctCalifornia coast hit with monster tides, flooding streets as forecast calls for even more chaos3.0

Everything we scored from New York Post