Audit, Compliance and Risk Blog

On March 27, 2025 the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) voted to stop defending rules adopted in 2024 (during the Biden administration) that would have required selected “public companies” (i.e, listed on national securities exchanges) to provide “climate-related disclosures for investors” in their registration statements and annual reports. SEC had stayed these rules’ effectiveness after being sued by two energy companies, which were later joined by other plaintiffs as well as state and nonprofit supporters of the rules. The latest SEC decision ends the agency’s defense in that litigation.

Read More

Canada has established a goal of zero plastic waste by 2030, and has established a variety of regulatory and informational programs to pursue that goal. As part of these effort, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) has established the Federal Plastics Registry (FPR), along with accompanying regulations requiring reporting by targeted producers of plastic packaging, electronic and electrical equipment, and single-use or disposable products. These entities’ reporting requirements expand annually in three “phases,” beginning with Phase 1 reports starting with selected 2024 data due by September 29, 2025. (I wrote about ECCC’s proposal to establish the FPR, HERE). The remainder of this note summarizes Phase 1 requirements and identifies Phase 2-4 targets.

Read More

During 2024, at least five states considered legislation to enact “Climate Superfund” laws targeting fossil fuel companies, applying “polluter pays” principles enshrined in the US federal Superfund law (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA of 1980) and its many state counterparts. At least two states enacted such laws – Vermont and New York. The rest of this note provides brief summaries of these laws. 

Read More

In July, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the fifth edition of its periodic Climate Change Indicators report, focusing on Indicators related to the human health and societal impacts of climate change. While this 96-page report provides broad policy discussions, it applies data which calibrate ongoing changes that organizations can use to support evaluations of the possible impacts of these changes on their ongoing activities and future prospects. The remainder of this note summarizes EPA’s latest indicators, and how they can be relevant to organizational planning and decision-making.

Read More

On March 6, 2024 the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced new requirements that selected “public companies” (i.e, listed on national securities exchanges) provide “climate-related disclosures for investors” in their registration statements and annual reports. SEC is incorporating them into existing requirements to disclose “material information,” under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These new requirements are more limited than those proposed by SEC in March 2022 (which I wrote about HERE). The remainder of this note summarizes SEC’s new requirements.

Read More

Among its many provisions, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) creates several lists of “toxic substances,” and empowers Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) to revise the list. In 2021, ECCC add “plastic manufactured items (PMI)” to one of these lists, but was sued by manufacturers seeking to void the addition.  Extensive CEPA amendments were enacted in April 2023 (“Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act” (Bill S-5)), including revisions to the toxic substance lists – including recodification of the listing of PMI – and left ECCC’s authority over toxic substances relatively unchanged, so the litigation continued. In November 2023, the Federal Court ruled that the CEPA amendments did not moot the issues in the litigation, and ruled that ECCC had exceeded its statutory and constitutional authority when listing PMI.

Read More

On November 10, the Biden Administration announced a proposal to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to require “major federal suppliers” and “significant federal suppliers” to disclose their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and assessments of climate-related risks, and to set targets for GHG emission reductions. The rest of this note summarizes this proposal.

Read More

On September 17, 2022 the United States Senate voted 69-27 to ratify the 2016 Kigali Amendment to the United Nations-sponsored Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (which I wrote about here), establishing international agreement to phase down production and consumption of specified hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HFCs). Aye votes vote included all the Democratic Senators present, and 29 Republicans. These HFCs are used in refrigeration and air conditioning and fire suppression, and as foam blowing agents and solvents. Although the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) already administers rules with the same requirements, the ratification will return the US to the international table.

The US had been a major player in the drafting and enactment of the Kigali Amendment (during President Obama’s administration), but then withdrew its support (during President Trump’s administration). However, the US enacted Kigali-like requirements in the December 2020 coronavirus relief bill (American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 (AIM Act)), among the many provisions buried within its 5,593 pages; EPA finalized its rules in September 2021 (I wrote about these rules here).

The remainder of this note summarizes the situation.

Why are HFCs being phased down, and how?

HFCs were developed primarily as substitutes for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which are the principal ozone depleting substances (ODSs) targeted by the Montreal Protocol. HFCs have lower but non-zero ozone depleting potential, and are greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. Accordingly, nearly 30 years after the initial 1987 approval of the Montreal Protocol roughly 200 national and international parties negotiated HFC phase-downs. As adopted in Kigali, Rwanda these amendments divide countries into three groups with different schedules and targets:

• developed nations including the United States – cut consumption to 90% of 2011-2013 baseline of most HFCs (plus 15% of those already covered by the Protocol) by 2019, declining to 15% by 2036
• most developing nations, including China and over 100 others - consumption to peak in 2024 at 100% of 2011-2013 baseline of most HFCs (plus 25% of those already covered by the Protocol), declining to 20% by 2045
• 10 hot-climate developing countries (where air conditioning is particularly important), including India, Pakistan and some Gulf states - consumption to peak in 2028 at 100% of 2011-2013 baseline of most HFCs (plus 25% of those already covered by the Protocol), declining to 15% by 2047

After the Trump administration replaced the Obama administration, the US took no action on this agreement. During this period, however, other countries have moved forward to ratify and work to meet their commitments.

What HFC-related provisions did the AIM Act enact?

The massive coronavirus relief bill includes Division S (“Innovation for the Environment”), with section 103 (“American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020”). Without mentioning the Kigali Amendment, section 103 incorporates its requirements into US law:

• the legislation lists 18 specific HFCs, and authorizes EPA to designate additional formulations
• EPA was to calculate 2011-2013 production and consumption baselines for each, and to use these to calculate future phase-down levels ranging from 90% in 2020 to 15% in 2036 and thereafter
• EPA was to issue regulations with 270 days (by 9/23/21) to set phase-down requirements, with associated procedural requirements including allowances associated with each baseline amount, and reclamation and destruction methods

EPA’s rules are designed to meet these requirements. In addition, EPA has initiated or re-invigorated other programs to support the phase-down of HFCs and their replacement by refrigerants that are less harmful to global climate and the stratospheric ozone layer.

What now?

Ratification will become official once the US submits formal notification to the United Nations. The new rules took effect on November 4, 2021 and are progressing; EPA proposed 2024-reduction formulas on October 20, 2022.. While domestic requirements will not change from those enacted through the AIM Act, ratification returns the US to the center of international HFC-reduction efforts, and reinforces national commitments to the environment.

IImplementation Checklist

• Does the organization manufacture, import or use any ozone depleting substance (ODS) subject to the Montreal Protocol and/or CAA Title VI?
• If the phase-out date for any ODS has passed, do any of the organization’s activities qualify with applicable exceptions or essential uses?
• Does the organization manufacture, import or use any HFCs?
• Has the organization reviewed any such activity to identify alternatives for any HFC that is or may become subject to phase-down under US and international law?

Where do I go for more information?

Information available via the Internet includes:

● US legislation

Read More

When must organizations evaluate and disclose how climate change will affect their operations?

The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) provides a cooperative forum for Canada’s provincial and territorial securities regulators, including the development of model regulations and associated guidance. Last October, CSA took its latest step toward climate-related disclosure requirements, by proposing “National Instrument 51-107 – Disclosure of Climate-related Matters;” public comments were due by January 17, 2022. Assuming CSA moves ahead and finalizes this National instrument (NI), then securities regulators throughout Canada will enact equivalent requirements and establish compliance deadlines for companies they regulate.

Read More

On May 12, 2022, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) published an interim final rule that revokes a Trump-era prohibition against its attorneys’ use of payments to third parties, including via “supplemental environmental projects (SEPs)”, in settlements with violators of federal environmental laws. (I discussed Trump Administration policies several times, most recently HERE). In these cases, DOJ acts as the attorney for the agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), that enforce laws and regulations allegedly violated. This rule change would codify policy changes presented in a memorandum from Attorney General Merrick Garland to US attorneys. This change is designed to restore flexibility to DOJ’s US attorneys to trade penalty dollars for more rapid commitments by wrongdoers to undertake actions to offset harms caused by their violations.

Read More