Audit, Compliance and Risk Blog

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

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) administers reporting requirements for companies listed on national securities exchanges (“listed companies” or “public companies”), under federal securities laws including the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Some of the SEC’s requirements provide detailed specifications, such as financial reporting consistent with Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP). Others are less quantified, requiring reporting of information that might be “material” to investors’ evaluation of a public company. Over time, SEC has added topics subject to reporting of material information, and some of these generalized requirements have evolved into more specific ones. In the latest example of this evolution, in March 2022 SEC is proposing regulatory requirements for disclosures about “climate-related risks and metrics” by public companies, enhancing and standardizing existing agency guidance (I’ve written about these several times over the years, most recently HERE). The remainder of this note summarizes SEC’s proposal.

In September 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Division of Corporation Finance (Division) provided public companies with guidance about disclosures of climate-related information that SEC expects from public companies. This guidance appears in a newly-released template with sample comments the Division may issue to companies regarding failures to make adequate climate-related disclosure. The remainder of this note provides some context to the relevant SEC-administered provisions, and summarizes the Division’s new letter.

On September 23, 2021, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced final rules to phase down production and consumption of specified hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HFCs) (I wrote about the proposal HERE). These HFCs are used in refrigeration and air conditioning and fire suppression, and as foam blowing agents and solvents. These rules are consistent with directives included in the 2016 Kigali Amendment to the United Nations-sponsored Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (which I wrote about HERE). The US finally enacted statutory support for Kigali-like requirements in the December 2020 coronavirus relief bill (American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 (AIM Act)), which included dozens of unrelated provisions within its 5,593 pages.

Organizations around the world are responding to the latest climate-related risk assessment produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which replaced earlier cautionary information with an urgent warning that climate change is “widespread, rapid, and intensifying.” On August 31, the US Federal Insurance Office (FIO), an element of the Department of the Treasury, published a “Request for Information on the Insurance Sector and Climate-Related financial Risks” (RFI) in the Federal Register, posing 19 questions it will use to focus its application of climate-related risks to the domestic insurance sector. Insurers should obviously be interested in these questions and their answers, but any entity that buys insurance should consider them as well. The remainder of this note summarizes FIO’s questions.

On April 30, 2021, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed rules to phase down production and consumption of specified hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HFCs), consistent with directives included in the 2016 Kigali Amendment to the United Nations-sponsored Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. These rules were authorized by the massive coronavirus relief bill (American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 (AIM Act)) enacted in December 2020, which included dozens of unrelated provisions within its 5,593 pages.

President Biden is moving quickly to review and revise many of former President Trump’s administrative actions. As I discussed HERE, the fastest mechanisms for these reversals are executive orders (EOs) and slightly less formal executive memoranda from the President or his agency heads. One of the EOs signed on president Biden’s first day of office starts immediate action to review all Trump administrative actions. EO 13990 of January 20, 2021, “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis”, applies to all federal agencies but focuses on President Trump’s environmental actions. The remainder of this note discusses this particular EO. 

President Biden and the Democratic majorities in Congress have announced sweeping plans to reverse most of the Trump Administration’s environmental policies. The timing and practicality of these reversals depends very much on each of the targeted policy’s legal status – laws, regulations, Executive Orders, or guidance documents. The remainder of this note comments on each of these sets of situations, highlighting examples of each. I’ll discuss them in order ranging from quickest/easiest to most time consuming/difficult.

Even if the latest polar vortex has ended by the time you read this, employers in most parts of the continent should be worrying about protecting workers against winter weather. Occupational safety and health regulators include “environmental” hazards as those that may require employers to provide their employees with personal protective equipment (PPE), and employers also bear a “general duty” to protect workers against recognized hazards. These requirements cover potential harm from extreme temperatures including cold, as well as slippery surfaces and other hazards from frozen and melting snow or other precipitation.

Although carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the most common and most-discussed greenhouse gas (GHG), it is by no means the only one. And on a per-unit basis, it is by no means the most potent GHG either. Air quality agencies and climate change scientists also focus attention on so-called “short-lived climate pollutant (SLCP)” means an agent that has a relatively short lifetime in the atmosphere, from a few days to a few decades, and a warming influence on the climate that is more potent than that of carbon dioxide. Individual jurisdictions have addressed individual SLCPs, but comprehensive approaches have been limited.In 2014, California legislation assigned that state’s Air Resources Board (ARB) to adopt a SCLP Reduction Strategy (I wrote about the legislation and 2016’s draft strategy here).