Oak Flat, a piece of land that the Ninth Circuit acknowledges is “a site of great spiritual value to the Western Apache Indians,” has been at the center of the dispute largely due to the significant copper ore deposits it sits on. Through the Land Transfer Act, Congress directed the federal government to transfer the land to Resolution Copper, which would then mine the ore. Apache Stronghold sued the government, seeking an injunction against the land transfer on the ground that the transfer would violate its members’ rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), and an 1852 treaty between the United States and the Apaches. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding that Apache Stronghold was unlikely to succeed on the merits on any of its three claims before the court.
First, the Ninth Circuit found that under the Supreme Court’s controlling decision in Lyng. There, the Supreme Court held that while the government’s actions with respect to “publicly owned land” would “interfere significantly with private persons’ ability to pursue spiritual fulfillment according to their religious beliefs,” it would also have no “tendency to coerce” them “into acting contrary to their religious beliefs.” The Ninth Circuit also found that the transfer of Oak Flat for mining operations did not discriminate against nor penalize Apache Stronghold’s members, nor deny them an “equal share of the rights, benefits, and privileges enjoyed by other citizens.”
Second, Apache Stronghold’s claim that the transfer of Oak Flat to Resolution Copper would violate RFRA failed for the same reasons because “what counts as ‘substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion’ must be understood as subsuming, rather than abrogating, the holding of Lyng.”
Finally, the court ruled that Apache Stronghold’s claim that the transfer of Oak Flat would violate an enforceable trust obligation created by the 1852 Treaty of Sante Fe because the government’s statutory obligation to transfer Oak Flat abrogated any treaty obligation.
The case demonstrates the difficulty Tribes have in stopping major development projects on federal land on religious grounds.
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) includes several tax credits to encourage investment in renewable energy projects, including an Investment Tax Credit (ITC) that is worth up to 30% of the overall project cost. The developer of a renewable energy project can receive a bonus of up to 10% on top of the ITC for a qualified facility that is located or placed in service in an “energy community.” One type of area that can qualify as an energy community under the IRA — the one most relevant to offshore wind projects — is an area that has significant employment or local tax revenues from fossil fuels and a higher-than-average unemployment rate.
In order to apply the criteria to offshore wind facilities, the US Department of Treasury initially proposed that an offshore wind project would be deemed to be located or placed in service at the place closest to the point of interconnection (POI) where there is land-based equipment that conditions the energy generated by the offshore wind project for transmission, distribution, or use.
Stakeholders in the offshore wind industry believed, however, that this approach did not adequately reflect the original intent of the IRA as it neglected to take into account the long-term benefits of activity related to offshore wind projects at locations, particularly ports, that were not at the POI.
Responding to stakeholder advocacy over the past several months, on March 22, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released updated guidance in IRS Notice 2024-30 (the Notice). The Notice permits projects with multiple POIs to qualify for the bonus credit, so long as one of the POIs is within an energy community. Stakeholders believe that this will be key in developing the shared transmission infrastructure that will be required for effective use of offshore wind energy.
Further, the Notice permits offshore wind facilities to attribute their nameplate capacity to additional property — namely, to supervisory control and data acquisition system (SCADA) equipment owned by the owner of the offshore wind project and located in an EC Project Port (as defined in the Notice). SCADA equipment is property that is used to remotely monitor and control the operations of the offshore wind project. The SCADA system is effectively the nerve center for an offshore wind project.
An “EC Project Port” is defined in the Notice as a port that is used either full or part time to facilitate maritime operations necessary for the installation or operation and maintenance of the offshore wind project, and that has a significant long-term relationship with the project’s owner by virtue of ownership or lease arrangements. The personnel based at the port need to include staff who are employed by, or who work as independent contractors for, the project’s owner and who perform functions essential to the project’s operations. Staff based at the port will be considered to perform functions essential to the project’s operations only if they collectively perform all the following functions: management of marine operations, inventory and handling of spare parts and consumables, and berthing and dispatch of operation and maintenance vessels and associated crews and technicians.
Finally, the Notice adds two industry codes from the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to those that are used to determine a community meets the IRA’s required percentage of its workforce who are employed in the extraction, processing, transport, or storage of coal, oil, or natural gas. These additional NAICS codes designate oil pipeline infrastructure and natural gas distribution infrastructure. These additional codes are intended to bring the benefits of the energy community bonus credit to more communities and the IRS has amended its list of energy communities accordingly.
Advocates note that the updated guidance in the Notice represents a more holistic approach to the energy communities bonus credit that will give offshore wind project developers more flexibility in identifying ports for their investment, The increased flexibility will bring the economic benefit of the offshore wind industry to more communities, which will ultimately reduce the cost burden to ratepayers.
What Is Happening? On March 14, 2024, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a final rule requiring certain facilities to develop Facility Response Plans (FRPs) for a potential worst-case discharge of Clean Water Act (CWA) hazardous substances, including planning for the threat of a worst-case discharge. Existing EPA regulations require FRPs where certain thresholds of oil are exceeded; the new rule extends the FRP requirement to cover CWA hazardous substances, among other changes. The rule takes effect on May 28, 2024, and has a 36-month implementation period. We anticipate challenges to the rule, but unless a court issues a stay, affected facilities should plan to implement the rule’s new requirements in this timeframe.
Who Is Impacted? Affected industries include many industrial and commercial sectors and facilities that handle hazardous substances at or above current reportable quantity thresholds. These may include manufacturing and chemical plants and storage operations located near navigable waters that have an inventory of CWA-listed hazardous substances at or above threshold amounts. Facilities associated with oil and gas extraction, mining, construction, utilities, crop production, animal production and aquaculture, and support activities for agriculture and forestry, among others, could also be affected.
What Should I Do? Facility owners and operators potentially affected by the rule should assess whether they are subject to the rule and then begin developing their facility response plans.
The rule requires Facility Response Plans for worst-case discharges of CWA hazardous substances from onshore non-transportation-related facilities that, because of their location, could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment by discharging into or on the navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or exclusive economic zone. Facilities already subject to requirements for Spill Prevention, Control Countermeasure Plans, or FRPs for oil under 40 CFR Part 112 should anticipate that they will fall within the scope of the new rule and plan for compliance.
Background
The final rule is EPA’s response to the settlement of a 2019 lawsuit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council and others. The lawsuit asserted that EPA failed to meet its statutory duty to issue regulations “requiring non-transportation-related substantial-harm facilities to plan, prevent, mitigate and respond to worst-case spills of hazardous substances.”
The Consent Decree required EPA to take final action on a rule addressing worst-case discharge plans for hazardous substances by September 2022. This final action represents EPA’s final action under the consent decree.
Applicability Criteria
EPA set forth a two-step process to determine whether the new rule applies to a facility. See 40 CFR 118.3. Specifically, the owner or operator of a covered facility must assess two screening criteria and, if both criteria are met, then assess the ability of the facility to cause substantial harm to the environment through the application of the substantial harm criteria. If an owner or operator determines that the covered facility meets one of the substantial harm criteria, the owner or operator must prepare a hazardous substance FRP in accordance with the new regulations.
Initial Screening. These screening criteria are to be assessed concurrently, with no implied order of priority:
Facility has a maximum quantity onsite of 1,000x the Reportable Quantity of CWA Hazardous Substances. The RQs published in 40 CFR Part 117 are based on a level of release of a hazardous substance that could potentially cause harm to waters. EPA’s decision to set the threshold criteria at 1000x rather than the initially proposed 10,000x the RQ represents a potentially significant expansion of the scope of the new rule.
Facility is within 0.5 miles of navigable water or conveyance to navigable water.
If a facility meets the two screening criteria, it must undergo an evaluation to determine whether it meets the substantial harm criteria.
Substantial Harm Criteria. If the two screening criteria are met, the next step is a substantial harm evaluation, which includes determining whether the facility meets one of the following four substantial harm criteria:
Ability to adversely impact public water system.
Ability to cause injury to fish, wildlife, and sensitive environments.
Ability to cause injury to public receptors.
Has experienced a reportable discharge of CWA hazardous substances that reached navigable water within the last five years.
These criteria are easily triggered under the FRP process for oil, which preexisted the new rule. For instance, an “injury” means any measurable adverse change, either long- or short-term, in the chemical or physical quality or the viability of a natural resource resulting either directly or indirectly from exposure to a discharge or exposure to a product of reactions resulting from a discharge. 40 CFR 112.2.
If both screening criteria and one or more substantial harm criteria apply, the facility must prepare and submit an FRP to EPA that includes information on each CWA hazardous substance above the threshold quantity onsite. The owner or operator must assess all substantial harm criteria.
Amendments from the Proposed Rule
In the final rule, the Agency determined that a 1,000x RQ multiplier, instead of the proposed 10,000x, will more appropriately screen for covered facilities that could cause substantial harm to the environment from a worst-case discharge. In response to comments, EPA indicated that the screening criteria, in conjunction with the substantial harm criteria, will appropriately target covered facilities that could cause substantial harm to the environment from a worst-case discharge of a CWA hazardous substance into or on the navigable waters. This change in scope from the proposed rule will likely significantly broaden the number of locations that must now complete the new assessment process for CWA hazardous substances.
As the basis for assessing risk to the environment, the new rule requires the use of the volume by the maximum quantity onsite inventory of hazardous substances above RQs, rather than the maximum onsite container capacity. EPA made this change in the final rule based on its view that this approach will more accurately reflect the hazard posed and is consistent with how oil is measured and regulated.
Once a facility determines it meets one of the substantial harm criteria, the owner or operator must now develop an FRP for all, not just one, of the CWA hazardous substances onsite above the threshold quantity. EPA made this adjustment by recognizing that the response and/or recovery actions may vary widely depending on which substance is released. Thus, the FRP must include information on each hazardous substance onsite that is above the threshold quantity.
EPA added § 118.4(a)(6) to the final rule, which requires a covered facility owner or operator to review and recertify their plan Agency every five years. EPA decided that this will ensure the FRPs remain up-to-date and owners or operators remain informed of their responsibilities. This requirement is consistent with oil FRP requirements.
EPA also added § 118.4(a)(7), requiring a facility owner or operator to evaluate or re-evaluate operations whenever EPA adds or removes a CWA hazardous substance from the list at 40 CFR 116.4 or adjusts relevant RQs as found in 40 CFR 117.3. EPA reasoned that such adjustments are made through a formal notice and comment rulemaking procedure; thus, regulated entities will have notice of these changes prior to them becoming final and effective.
Implementation and Enforcement
Facility Response Plan preparation, submission, and implementation timelines are subject to the effective date and an initial 36-month implementation period. EPA included this implementation period to allow covered facilities time to familiarize themselves with the rule requirements and prepare their plans.
Initially-regulated covered facilities. The owner or operator of a non-transportation-related onshore facility in operation on November 30, 2026, that satisfies the applicability criteria must implement the requirements of the new regulations by June 1, 2027.
Newly-regulated covered facilities. The owner or operator of a non-transportation-related onshore facility in operation after November 30, 2026, that satisfies the applicability criteria must comply within six months.
Newly-constructed covered facilities. Covered facilities starting operations after June 1, 2027, must comply prior to the start of operations, including a 60-day start-up period adjustment phase.
Appeals
Similar to current regulations for Oil FRPs, a facility that believes it is not subject to the new rule may appeal a decision by the EPA Regional Administrator determining the potential or threat of substantial harm or significant and substantial harm from a facility or, in the case of an FRP that has been prepared, the Regional Administrator’s disapproval of a CWA hazardous substance FRP. If warranted, that decision can then be appealed to the EPA Administrator.
Petitions
The public and other government agencies may also petition EPA to determine whether a CWA hazardous substance-covered facility should be required to submit an FRP to EPA. Given the breadth of the new rule relative to the long list of hazardous substances and the 1000x RQ threshold, this public participation opportunity is a significant consideration for facilities that may already be under community scrutiny for other reasons.
During the opening remarks of the two-day SEC Speaks Conference, Chairman Gensler failed to express any statement of support in connection with the SEC’s recently promulgated rule on mandatory climate disclosures. (Instead, his speech focused on a number of other topics, including clearinghouse rules and proposed regulations.) In contrast, Republican SEC Commissioner Uyeda devoted the entirety of his speech to offering critiques of the SEC’s newly enacted mandatory climate disclosure rule.
While most of Commissioner Uyeda’s criticisms had been previously voiced on other occasions, certain legal arguments achieved greater prominence in these remarks. In particular, Commissioner Uyeda emphasized the concept of materiality, noting that “[t]he significant changes in the final rule reflect a recognition that no disclosure rule that veers from materiality is likely to survive a court challenge,” and opining that “changes to selected portions of the rule text intended to mitigate legal risk do not necessarily convert a climate change activism rule to a material risk disclosure rule.” There was also a focus on procedural concerns, including a potential violation of the Administrative Procedure Act due to “the failure to repropose the rule” since “the changes were so significant,” and that “the fail[ure] to consider [the] rule’s economic consequences [renders] the adoption of the rule arbitrary and capricious.” Finally, Commissioner Uyeda compared the climate disclosure rule to the previously enacted conflict minerals rule (which was mandated by Congress), stating that “public companies and investors are stuck with a mandatory disclosure rule that deviates from financial materiality but fails to resolve the social purpose for which it was adopted.” Each of these arguments should be expected to feature in the upcoming litigation in the Eighth Circuit concerning the legality of the SEC’s climate disclosure rule.
Still, the failure by Chairman Gensler and his fellow Democratic Commissioners to offer a robust public defense of the climate disclosure rule may simply reflect a shifting of priorities now that the rule has been enacted. Notably, just a few days ago–on March 22, 2024–Chairman Gensler forcefully defended the SEC’s climate disclosure rule at a conference hosted by Columbia Law School, where his entire speech advocated the concept of mandatory disclosures and stated that the SEC’s climate disclosure rule “enhance[d] the consistency, comparability, and reliability of [climate-related] disclosures.” Moreover, it is altogether possible that a speech on the second day of the conference might offer a rejoinder to the varied critiques of the climate disclosure rule.
Unlike the conflict minerals rule, which was mandated by Congress, the Commission has acted on its own volition to adopt a climate disclosure rule that seeks to exert societal pressure on companies to change their behavior. It is the Commission that determined to delve into matters beyond its jurisdiction and expertise. In my view, this action deviates from the Commission’s mission and contravenes established law.
Yes. Weather insurance products, including parametric insurance, are taxed as insurance; and derivatives are taxed in accordance with the tax rules applicable to the particular type of derivative product held by the taxpayer. A business needs to carefully consider these tax differences to determine the best product or products to meet its weather risk management needs.
How is insurance taxed to a policyholder?
When a business buys weather insurance, it pays a premium to the insurance company so that the company assumes the business risks set out in the policy. Assuring the policy is purchased to manage a business’s legitimate weather-related risk, the premium is deductible under Internal Revenue Code (Code) § 162 as an ordinary and necessary business expense.
If insurance coverage is triggered and a policyholder receives a payout under the policy, the payout is not taxable up to the policyholder’s tax basis if the payment reimburses the policyholder for property damage or loss. In other words, payments under insurance policies are not taxable up to the policyholder’s tax basis because the payments simply restore (in whole or in part) the policyholder to the financial position it was in before it incurred the loss. If the reimbursement amount under the policy exceeds the policyholder’s tax basis, the amount it receives over its tax basis is treated as taxable income.[1]
Business interruption insurance covers losses (such as lost profits and ongoing expenses) from events that close or disrupt the normal functioning of the policyholder’s business. The payout amount is often based on past business results. Business interruption insurance proceeds are likely to be taxable to the policyholder because they compensate the policyholder for lost revenue.
To ensure that a policyholder receives the most favorable tax treatment, it must carefully document its business purpose for entering into the insurance, the amount of its tax basis, and receipt of the insurance proceeds.
How are derivatives taxed?
It depends on whether the taxpayer has entered into a futures contract, forward contract, option, swap, cap, or floor. The taxpayer must then consider its status in entering into each derivative: is it acting as a hedger, dealer, trader, or investor? The taxpayer must also determine whether it has made all the required tax identifications and elections. In dealing with derivatives, the taxpayer must go through this three-step process for each product it is considering. Hedgers and dealers receive ordinary income and loss on their derivative transactions, while traders and investors receive capital gain and loss.
Why might a taxpayer want to be treated as a hedger with respect to its weather derivatives?
A taxpayer seeking to use weather derivatives to manage its weather-related business risks typically wants to be treated as a tax hedger so that the gain or loss on its derivative transactions qualify as tax hedges. This would allow the taxpayer to match its derivative gains or losses with its weather-related income or losses. Because ordinary property generates ordinary income or loss, a business hedger typically wants to receive ordinary income or loss on its weather derivatives. In other words, a hedger wants to match the tax treatment it receives on its hedges with that of the items it is hedging. Many risk management transactions with respect to weather-related risks do not meet the hedge definition (see the discussed below). For a detailed discussion of the tax hedging rules, see the forthcoming Q&A with Andie, “Business Taxation of Hedging Transactions.”
What is required for a weather derivative to be treated as a tax hedge?
To qualify as a tax hedge, the transaction must manage interest rate fluctuations, currency fluctuations, or price risk with respect to ordinary property, borrowings, or ordinary obligations.[2] In addition to meeting the definition of a tax hedge, the taxpayer must comply with the identification requirements set out at Code §§ 1221(a)(7) and 1221(b)(2) and the tax accounting requirements set out at Treas. Reg. § 1.446-4.[3]
What is the tax analysis that a taxpayer should conduct to determine if its weather derivatives qualify as tax hedges?
When entering into a weather derivative, a taxpayer should conduct the following tax analysis: (1) is the transaction entered into in the ordinary course of its trade or business (2) primarily (3) to manage price risk (4) on ordinary property or obligations (5) held or to be held by the taxpayer. If the answer to all of these questions is “yes,” then the taxpayer has a qualified tax hedge if—but only if—it complies with all of the required identification rules set out in Code §§ 1221(a)(7) and 1221(b)(2) and as explained in Treasury Regulation § 1.1221-2. If the taxpayer cannot answer all of these questions with a “yes,” then the weather derivative transaction is not a tax hedge, and it is subject to the tax rules that apply to capital assets.[4] The requirement that a taxpayer must be hedging ordinary property, borrowings, or obligations means that favorable tax hedging treatment is not available for many legitimate weather risk management activities.
What types of assets, obligations, and borrowings qualify as ordinary property and ordinary obligations for purposes of the tax hedging rules?
Weather derivatives qualify as tax hedges if they can be tied to price risk with respect to ordinary assets or ordinary obligations. In many situations, however, weather derivatives are entered into to manage a taxpayer’s anticipated profitability, sales volume, plant capacity, or similar issues. These risks are not the transactions that receive tax hedge treatment.
Ordinary property includes property that if sold or exchanged by the taxpayer would not produce capital gain or loss without regard to the taxpayer’s holding period. Items included in a taxpayer’s inventory—such as natural gas or heating oil held by a dealer in those products—are treated as ordinary property that can be hedged. Qualifying hedges can also include hedges of purchases and sales of commodities for which the taxpayer is a dealer, such as electricity, natural gas, or heating oil. If a utility agrees to purchase electricity at a fixed price in the future, for example, the utility is exposed to price risk if it cannot resell the fixed-price electricity for at least the amount it paid to purchase that electricity. Accordingly, the utility could agree to sell electricity under a futures contract (short position) that would qualify as a tax hedge.
On the liability side of a business, the hedge could relate to a taxpayer’s price risk with respect to an ordinary obligation. An ordinary obligation is an obligation the performance of which (or its termination) would not produce a capital gain or loss. For example, a forward contract to sell electricity or natural gas at a fixed price entered into by a dealer is treated as an ordinary obligation. In addition, a utility that enters into a fixed price forward sales contract agreeing to sell electricity at a fixed price has an ordinary obligation to deliver electricity at that fixed price.
What sorts of weather derivative transactions are not tax hedges?
Many legitimate risk management activities do not qualify as tax hedges. Weather derivative transactions that protect overall business profitability (such as volume or revenue risk) are not directly related to ordinary property or ordinary obligations. As a result, weather derivatives entered into to protect a business’s revenue stream or its net income against volume or revenue risk are not tax hedges.
Many taxpayers in the normal course of their businesses enter into weather derivatives to manage volume or revenue risks of reduced demand for their products or services. These transactions are not tax hedges. The taxpayer is not managing a price risk (either current or anticipated) attributable to ordinary assets, borrowings, or ordinary obligations.
Take, for example, a ski resort or amusement park operator that enters into a weather derivative to protect itself against adverse weather conditions that are likely to result in a reduction in the number of skiers or amusement park visitors. The taxpayer’s risk management efforts in these cases either relate to its investment in its facility (which for the most part consists of real estate and business assets that are not taxed as ordinary assets) or to its expected revenue. Similarly, a power generator that hedges its plant capacity or its revenue stream with a weather derivative tied to the number of Cooling Degree Days would not meet the definition of a tax hedge.
Why don’t more weather derivatives qualify as tax hedges?
As part of Congress’ efforts to modernize the tax rules with respect to hedging, it specifically authorized the Treasury to issue regulations to extend the hedging definition to include other risks that the Treasury sets out in regulations.[5] The Treasury, unfortunately, has not proposed or issued any regulations extending the benefits of tax hedging. This means that weather derivative transactions entered into to manage weather-related volume or revenue risks do not qualify as tax hedges. In this situation, the taxpayer receives capital gain or loss on the derivative product.
What are some examples of weather derivatives that can qualify as tax hedges?
A weather derivative qualifies as a tax hedge if it manages the taxpayer’s price risks with respect to ordinary assets or obligations. Thus, a taxpayer entering into weather derivatives primarily to manage its price risk with respect to increased supply costs will meet the definition of a hedging transaction. Such a transaction manages the taxpayer’s price risks with respect to ordinary property.
If, for example, a commodity dealer buys a put option (or sells a call option) on a designated weather event to protect it against price risks with respect to its existing inventories or future fixed-price commitments, the dealer has entered into a qualified tax hedge, provided it meets the identification requirements.
A heating oil distributor with heating oil inventory (or forward contracts to purchase heating oil at a fixed price) might enter into a weather swap to protect itself from the risk of an unseasonably warm heating season. This swap should qualify as a tax hedge because the swap manages the distributor’s risk of a decline in the market price for its heating oil inventories (or a decline in its fixed-price forward contract purchase commitments) due to unseasonably warm weather.
If an electric utility enters into forward commitments to sell electricity at fixed prices for delivery in the summer cooling months, it may buy a call option on a designated weather event that would qualify as a tax hedge to the extent the option protects the utility against the risk of being unable to acquire or generate the electricity at a low enough price if the demand for electricity in the cooling season is higher than expected because of unseasonably warm weather resulting in higher electricity prices.
Conclusion
All organizations face weather and climate risks. As part of their enterprise-wide risk management, they have available to them a number of weather risk transfer tools. This series on weather and climate risk provides a detailed review of weather risk management. Organizations can look to standardized futures and option contracts traded on regulated commodity exchanges; they can enter into customized OTC weather derivatives designed with their specific weather risks in mind; they can put in place indemnity insurance; they can purchase parametric insurance; or they can mix and match multiple derivative products and insurance coverages to meet their specific organization’s needs. In Part I of this Q&A series on Weather & Climate Risk Management, we considered the landscape and context within which weather and climate decision making takes place, along with the overarching risk management approaches and principles that apply. In Part II, we looked at the details on the various weather risk management products. In Part III, we addressed the regulation of these products; and in Part IV, we reviewed the taxation of these various classes of products.
[2] Treas. Reg. § 1221-2 and Code §§ 1221(a)(7) and 1221(b)(2).
[3] For a detailed discussion of the tax hedging rules see my forthcoming Q&A with Andie, “Business Taxation of Hedging Transactions” due out in Spring 2024.
[4] If the taxpayer is a dealer or a commodity derivatives dealer, the weather derivative would be an ordinary asset in the taxpayer’s hands.
Last year, California became the first state to pass laws requiring companies to make disclosures about their greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions as well as the risks that climate change poses for their businesses and their plans for addressing those risks. These new laws now face funding and legal hurdles that are delaying their implementation.
While California’s new laws navigate these challenges, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted its own final climate disclosure rule on March 6. Formally entitled The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors (“SEC Rule”), it requires public companies to make disclosures about the climate-related risks that have materially impacted, or are reasonably likely to have a material impact on, a registrant’s business strategy, operations, or financial condition, and also to disclose their Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions. The SEC Rule is significantly scaled-back from what the SEC originally proposed in March 2022; most notably, it does not require disclosure of Scope 3 GHG emissions. It too faces legal challenges.
California’s New Laws[1]
On October 7, 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law two sweeping climate disclosure bills, Senate Bill 253 (“SB 253”), the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, and Senate Bill 261 (“SB 261”), the Climate-Related Risk Act.
Under SB 253, companies that do business in California and have more than $1 billion in annual revenue will be required to disclose emissions data to the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) each year, starting in 2026. The new law will affect more than 5,400 companies. Under the new law, CARB can levy fines of up to $500,000 per year for violations thereunder. The new reporting requirements apply to both public and private companies, unlike the SEC Rule, which applies only to certain public companies.
Under SB 261, companies with more than $500 million in annual revenue will be required to disclose on a biennial basis how climate change impacts their business, including reporting certain climate-related financial risks and their plans for addressing those risks. These disclosures also begin in 2026 and will affect roughly 10,000 companies.
Funding Hurdles
Funding is necessary for CARB to develop and implement regulations for both climate disclosure laws, as well as to review, administer, and enforce the new laws. To implement SB 253, CARB estimated that it required $9 million in the 2024-25 fiscal year and $2 million in the 2025-26 fiscal year. For SB 261, CARB estimated that it needed an aggregate of $13.7 million over the 2024-25 and 2025-26 fiscal years to identify covered entities, establish regulations, and develop a verification program.
Governor Newsom’s $291.5 billion budget proposal for the 2024-25 fiscal year did not allocate any funding for the implementation of the new laws. The sponsors of the two laws, SB 253’s Senator Scott Wiener and SB 261’s Senator Henry Stern, immediately released a statement sharply critical of this aspect of the Governor’s budget proposal.[2] With limited exceptions, the budget proposal defers all new discretionary spending decisions to the spring, pending input from the legislature, with a final spending plan expected in July of 2024.
The budget process in California can be a lengthy negotiation. The Governor proposes a budget, but then must work with the Legislature to develop the final budget. In this regard, it is important to note that Senator Wiener was appointed to chair the Senate Budget Committee earlier this year. Thus, it’s possible that funding will be provided to implement the laws, though CARB already faced an aggressive set of deadlines for developing the regulations.
Legal Challenges
Some companies, including tech giants like Apple and Salesforce, want the new rules implemented quickly. Large businesses may have an interest in implementing the legislation expeditiously for the benefit of operational certainty and because they have the resources to absorb costs that their smaller competitors cannot. Other companies view the new rules as needlessly burdensome and are committed to halting the legislation in its tracks.
In January, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce joined the American Farm Bureau Federation, California Chamber of Commerce, Central Valley Business Federation, Los Angeles County Business Federation and Western Growers Association in filing a lawsuit[3]in federal district court challenging the climate disclosure laws under the theory that they violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and are preempted by federal law.
According to the complaint, the climate disclosure requirements violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by “forc[ing] thousands of companies to engage in controversial speech that they do not wish to make, untethered to any commercial purpose or transaction…for the explicit purpose of placing political and economic pressure on companies to “encourage” them to conform their behavior to the political wishes of the State.” The plaintiffs argue that, in the event that the State seeks to compel a business to speak noncommercially on controversial political matters, such action shall be presumed by a reviewing court to be unconstitutional unless the government proves that it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The plaintiffs also allege that the new climate disclosure laws are not narrowly tailored to further any legitimate interest of the state, let alone a compelling one.
The lawsuit also contends that the federal Clean Air Act preempts California’s ability to regulate GHG emissions beyond its jurisdictional borders. According to the plaintiffs, the new laws seek to regulate out-of-state emissions “through a novel program of speech regulation.” The complaint further argues that, because the new disclosure requirements operate as de facto regulations of GHG emissions nationwide, they “run headlong” into the Dormant Commerce Clause and broader principles of federalism. The plaintiffs ask the court to enjoin California from implementing or enforcing the new rules, thereby making them null and void.
A more serious preemption challenge may be that the California climate disclosure laws are preempted by the SEC Rule. The issue was addressed during the March 6 SEC hearing (discussed below), and it’s been reported that SEC General Counsel Megan Barbero answered that “nothing” in the Rule “expressly preempts any state law.” However, she added that the issue could arise as a question of “implied preemption,” which “would be determined by a court in a future judicial proceeding.” The question would be whether the SEC has “occupied the field” to such an extent that it preempts state rules in the space. Those would be questions of fact largely turning on how the climate laws are being applied and enforced, and thus any such challenge is likely to await CARB’s implementation of the laws.
The SEC Rule
On March 6, 2024, the SEC adopted the final SEC Rule which will require public companies to include certain climate-related disclosures in registration statements and annual reports. The final SEC Rule requires registrants to disclose material climate-related risks, activities undertaken to mitigate or adapt to such risks, information regarding the board of directors’ oversight of climate-related risks and management of material climate-related risks, and information about climate-related targets or goals that are material to the company’s business, operations, or financial condition.
To add transparency to investors’ assessments of certain climate-related risks, the SEC Rule also requires disclosure of material Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions, the filing of an attestation report in connection thereof, and disclosure of impacts that severe weather events and other climate-related conditions have on financial statements, including costs and losses. The final SEC Rule includes a phased-in compliance period for all registrants, with compliance dates ranging from fiscal year 2025-26 to 2031-32, depending on the registrant’s filer status and the content of the disclosure. In general, the SEC Rule requires less than the California climate disclosure laws, as Senator Wiener observed[4].
Key Takeaways
Implementation and/or enforcement of SB 253 and SB 261 is delayed for the time being due to a lack of funding, and thus the roll-out of the regulatory regime for the two laws appears likely to slip, such that the laws’ 2026 compliance deadlines may also slip.
The lawsuit challenging SB 253 and SB 261 adds some uncertainty to the process of ensuring compliance with climate disclosure requirements, and may cause further delay.
The delayed implementation of the new laws affords companies additional time to develop a compliance strategy. Due to the lessened scope of the SEC Rule, companies that are prepared to comply with the California laws are likely to be prepared to comply with the SEC Rule. And implementation of the SEC Rule may be delayed by legal challenges as well, thereby creating more time for companies to develop a compliance strategy.
FOOTNOTES
[1] A prior article describing these laws in more detail is here.
[3] Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. v. Cal. Air Resources Board, et al. (Cal. Central Dist., Western Div.) (Case No. 2:24-cv-00801).
We reported extensively on the landmark legislation passed in Maine in 2021 and Minnesota in 2023, which were at the time the most far-reaching PFAS ban in the United States. Other states, including Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have subsequently introduced legislation similar to Maine and Minnesota’s regulations. While we have long predicted that the so-called “all PFAS / all products” legislative bans will become the trend at the state levels, it is significant to note that California, the world’s sixth largest economy, recently introduced a similar proposed PFAS ban for consumer products.
The California proposed legislation, coupled with the existing legislation passed or on the table, will have enormous impacts on companies doing business in or with the state of California, as well as on likely future consumer goods personal injury lawsuits. The California PFAS ban must therefore not be overlooked in companies’ compliance and product development departments.
California PFAS Ban
California’s SB 903 in its current form would prohibit for sale (or offering for sale) any products that contain intentionally added PFAS. A “product” is defined as “an item manufactured, assembled, packaged, or otherwise prepared for sale in California, including, but not limited to, its components, sold or distributed for personal, residential, commercial, or industrial use, including for use in making other products.” It further defines “component” as “an identifiable ingredient, part, or piece of a product, regardless of whether the manufacturer of the product is the manufacturer of the component.”
While the effective date of SB 903’s prohibition would be January 1, 2030, the bill gives the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) the authority to prohibit intentionally added PFAS in a product before the 2030 effective date. It also allows DTSC to categorize PFAS in a product as an “unavoidable use”, thereby effectively creating an exemption to the bill’s ban, although California exemption would be limited to five years in duration. Similar carve outs were also included in the Maine and Minnesota bans. In each instance, certain information must be provided to the state to obtain an “unavoidable use” exemption. In California, an “unavoidable use” exemption would only be granted if:
There are no safer alternatives to PFAS that are reasonably available.
The function provided by PFAS in the product is necessary for the product to work.
The use of PFAS in the product is critical for health, safety, or the functioning of society.
If a company sells a products containing PFAS in the state of California in violation of the proposed law, companies would be assessed a $1,000 per day penalty for each violation, a maximum of $2,500 per day for repeat offenders, and face possible Court-ordered prohibition of sales for violating products.
Implications To Businesses From The Minnesota PFAS Legislation
First and foremost of concern to companies is the compliance aspect of the California law. The state continues to modify and refine key definitions of the regulation, resulting in companies needing to consider the wording implications on their reporting requirements. In addition, some companies find themselves encountering supply chain disclosure issues that will impact reporting to the state of California, which raises the concern of accuracy of reporting by companies. Companies and industries are also very concerned that the information that is being gathered will provide a legacy repository of valuable information for plaintiffs’ attorneys who file future products liability lawsuits for personal injury, not only in the state of California, but in any state in which the same products were sold.
It is of the utmost importance for businesses along the whole supply chain to evaluate their PFAS risk. Public health and environmental groups urge legislators to regulate these compounds. One major point of contention among members of various industries is whether to regulate PFAS as a class or as individual compounds. While each PFAS compound has a unique chemical makeup and impacts the environment and the human body in different ways, some groups argue PFAS should be regulated together as a class because they interact with each other in the body, thereby resulting in a collective impact. Other groups argue that the individual compounds are too diverse and that regulating them as a class would be over restrictive for some chemicals and not restrictive enough for others.
Companies should remain informed so they do not get caught off guard. Regulators at both the state and federal level are setting drinking water standards and notice requirements of varying stringency, and states are increasingly passing PFAS product bills that differ in scope. For any manufacturers, especially those who sell goods interstate, it is important to understand how those various standards will impact them, whether PFAS is regulated as individual compounds or as a class. Conducting regular self-audits for possible exposure to PFAS risk and potential regulatory violations can result in long term savings for companies and should be commonplace in their own risk assessment.
On March 6, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) adopted regulations[1] that will require public companies to file mandatory climate-related disclosures with the SEC beginning in 2026. First proposed in March 2022, the climate-related disclosure rules were finalized after consideration of over 24,000 comment letters and active lobbying of the SEC by business and public interest groups alike. These new rules are aimed at eliciting more consistent, comparable, and reliable information for investors to make informed decisions related to climate-related risks on current and potential investments.
The new rules require a registrant to disclose material climate-related risks and activities to mitigate or adapt to those risks; information about the registrant’s oversight of climate-related risks and management of those risks; and information on any climate-related targets or goals that are material to the registrant’s business, results of operations, or financial condition. In addition, these new rules require disclosure of Scope 1 and/or Scope 2 greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions with attestation by certain registrants when emissions are material; and disclosure of the financial effects of extreme weather events.
Unlike the initial proposal, the EU Climate Sustainability Reporting Directive (“CSRD”) and the California Climate Data Accountability Act, the new rules do not require disclosure of Scope 3 GHG emissions. The new rules require reporting based upon financial materiality, not the double-materiality (impact and financial) standard utilized by the EU under the CSRD. Whether registrants will ultimately be required to comply with the new rules depend upon the outcome of anticipated challenges, such as the challenge to the SEC’s authority to promulgate the rule filed in the Eleventh Circuit on March 6th by a coalition of ten states.
Highlights of the New Rule
In the adopting release, the SEC notes that companies are increasingly disclosing climate-related risks, whether in their SEC filings or via company websites, sustainability reports, or elsewhere; however, the content and location of such disclosures have been varied and inconsistent.[2] The new rules not only specify the content of required climate-related disclosures but also the presentation of such disclosures.
The new rules amend the SEC rules under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), creating a new subpart 1500 of Regulation S-K and Article 14 of Regulation S-X. As a result, registrants, companies that are registered under the Exchange Act, will need to:
File climate-related disclosures with the SEC in their registration statements and Exchange Act annual reports;
Provide the required climate-related disclosures in either a separately captioned section of the registration statement or annual report, within another appropriate section of the filing, or the disclosures may be included by reference from another SEC filing so long as the disclosure meets the electronic tagging requirements; and
Electronically tag climate-related disclosures in Inline XBRL.
The rules require a registrant to disclose:
Climate-related risks that have had or are reasonably likely to have a material impact on the registrant’s business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition;
The actual and potential material impacts of any identified climate-related risks on the registrant’s strategy, business model, and outlook;
Specified disclosures regarding a registrant’s activities, if any, to mitigate or adapt to a material climate-related risk including the use, if any, of transition plans, scenario analysis, or internal carbon prices;
Any oversight by the board of directors of climate-related risks and any role by management in assessing and managing the registrant’s material climate-related risks;
Any processes the registrant has for identifying, assessing, and managing material climate-related risks and, if the registrant is managing those risks, whether and how any such processes are integrated into the registrant’s overall risk management system or processes;
Information about a registrant’s climate-related targets or goals, if any, that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’s business, results of operations, or financial condition. Disclosures would include material expenditures and material impacts on financial estimates and assumptions as a direct result of the target or goal or actions taken to make progress toward meeting such target or goal;
For large accelerated filers (“LAFs”) and accelerated filers (“AFs”) that are not otherwise exempted, information about material Scope 1 emissions and/or Scope 2 emissions;
For those required to disclose Scope 1 and/or Scope 2 emissions, an assurance report at the limited assurance level, which, for an LAF, following an additional transition period, will be at the reasonable assurance level;
The capitalized costs, expenditures expensed, charges, and losses incurred as a result of severe weather events and other natural conditions, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, drought, wildfires, extreme temperatures, and sea level rise, subject to applicable one percent and de minimis disclosure thresholds, disclosed in a note to the financial statements;
The capitalized costs, expenditures expensed, and losses related to carbon offsets and renewable energy credits or certificates (“RECs”) if used as a material component of a registrant’s plans to achieve its disclosed climate-related targets or goals, disclosed in a note to the financial statements; and
If the estimates and assumptions a registrant uses to produce the financial statements were materially impacted by risks and uncertainties associated with severe weather events and other natural conditions or any disclosed climate-related targets or transition plans, a qualitative description of how the development of such estimates and assumptions was impacted, disclosed in a note to the financial statements.
Highlights of what did not get adopted
In its adopting release, the SEC described various modifications it made to its March 2022 proposed rules. The SEC explained that it made many of these changes in response to various comment letters it received. Some of the proposed rules that did not get adopted are:[3]
The SEC eliminated the proposed requirement to provide Scope 3 emissions disclosure.
The adopted rules in many instances now qualify the requirements to provide certain climate-related disclosures based on materiality.
The SEC eliminated the proposed requirement for all registrants to disclose Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions in favor of requiring such disclosure only by large accelerated filers and accelerated filers on a phased in basis and only when those emissions are material and with the option to provide the disclosure on a delayed basis.
The SEC also exempted emerging growth companies and smaller reporting companies from the Scope 1 and Scope 2 disclosure requirement.
The SEC modified the proposed assurance requirement covering Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions for accelerated filers and large accelerated filers by extending the reasonable assurance phase in period for LAFs and requiring only limited assurance for AFs.
The SEC eliminated the proposed requirements for registrants to disclose their GHG emissions in terms of intensity.[4]
The SEC removed the requirement to disclose the impact of severe weather events and other natural conditions and transition activities on each line item of a registrant’s financial statements. The SEC now requires disclosure of financial statement effects on capitalized costs, expenditures, charges, and losses incurred as a result of severe weather events and other natural conditions in the notes to the financial statements.
The adopted rules are less prescriptive than certain of those that were proposed. For example, the former now exclude in Item 1502(a) of Regulation S-K negative climate-related impacts on a registrant’s value chain from the definition of climate-related risks required to be disclosed. Similarly, this definition no longer includes acute or chronic risks to the operations of companies with which a registrant does business. Also, Item 1501(a) as adopted omits the originally proposed requirement for registrants to disclose (a) the identity of board members responsible for climate-risk oversight, (b) any board expertise in climate-related risks, (c) the frequency of board briefings on such risks, and (d) the details on the board’s establishment of climate-related targets or goals. Along the same lines, Item 1503 as adopted requires disclosure of only those processes for the identification, assessment, and management of material climate-related risks as opposed to a broader universe of climate-related risks. The rule as adopted does not require disclosure of how the registrant (a) determines the significance of climate-related risks compared to other risks, (b) considers regulatory policies, such as GHG limits, when identifying climate-related risks, (c) considers changes to customers’ or counterparties’ preferences, technology, or market prices in assessing transition risk, and (d) determines the materiality of climate-related risks. In the same vein, the adopted rules, unlike the proposed rules, do not require disclosure of how the registrant determines how to mitigate any high priority risks. Nor do the new rules retain the proposed requirement for a registrant to disclose how any board or management committee responsible for assessing and managing climate-related risks interacts with the registrant’s board or management committee governing risks more generally.
The SEC eliminated the proposal to require a private company that is a party to a business combination transaction, as defined by Securities Act Rule 165(f), registered on Form S-4 or Form F-4, to provide the subpart 1500 and Article 14 disclosures.
Timing of Implementation
The new rules will become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Compliance with the rules will not be required until much later, however.
Consistent with its earlier proposal, and in response to comments that the SEC received concerning the timing of implementing the proposed rule, the new rules contain delayed and staggered compliance dates that vary according to the registrant’s filing status and the type of disclosure.
The below table from the SEC’s new release summarizes the phased-in implementation dates.[5]
FILING STATUS
Large Accelerated Filers (“LAFs”)—a group whom the SEC believed most likely to be already collecting and disclosing climate-related information—will be the first registrants required to comply with the rule. The earliest that an LAF would be required to comply with the climate-disclosure rules would be upon filing its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, which would be due no later than March 2026.[6]
Accelerated Filers (“AFs”) are not required to comply with the new rules for yet another year after LAFs. Climate-related disclosures for AFs must be included upon filing a Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2026, due no later than March 2027. Smaller Reporting Companies (“SRCs”), Emerging Growth Companies (“EGCs”), and Non-Accelerated Filers (“NAFs”) have yet another year to meet the first compliance deadline for climate-related disclosures. These types of filers need not include their climate-related disclosures until filing their Form 10-Ks for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2027, which, again, would be due no later than March 2028.
TYPES OF DISCLOSURES
The new rules also phase in the requirements to include certain disclosures over time. The requirements to provide quantitative and qualitative disclosures concerning material expenditures and material impacts to financial estimates or assumptions under Items 1502(d)(2), 1502(e)(2), and 1504(c)(2) are not applicable until the fiscal year immediately following the fiscal year in which the registrant’s initial compliance is required. LAFs, for example, are not required to report these qualitative and quantitative disclosures until filing a Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2026, due in March 2027. That should be one year after an LAF files its first Form 10-K with climate-related disclosures. The SEC adopted this phased-in approach to respond to commentators’ concerns regarding the availability (or current lack thereof) of policies, processes, controls, and system solutions necessary to support these types of disclosures.
Likewise, the new rules provide for a further phased-in compliance date for those registrants required to report their Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions and an even later date for those filers to obtain limited or reasonable assurance for those emissions disclosures. An LAF, for example, is not required to disclose its Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions until filing its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2026, due in March 2027. And those disclosures would not be required to be subject to the limited-assurance or reasonable-assurance requirements until filing the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2029 or December 31, 2033, respectively.
In accordance with the table above, AFs, SRCs, EGCs, and NAFs have even more time to meet these additional disclosure requirements, if they are required to meet them at all.
It should be noted that the SEC recognized that registrants may have difficulty in obtaining GHG emission metrics by the date their 10-K report would be due. As a result, the rule contains an accommodation for registrants required to disclose Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, allowing domestic registrants, for example, to file those disclosures in the Form 10-Q for the second fiscal quarter in the fiscal year immediately following the year to which the GHG emissions disclosure relates. This disclosure deadline is permanent and not for a transition period.
Liability for Non-Compliance
In the introduction to the adopting release, the SEC explains that requiring registrants to provide certain climate-related disclosures in their filings will, among other things, “subject them to enhanced liability that provides important investor protections by promoting the reliability of the disclosures.”[7] This enhanced liability stems from the treatment of the disclosures as “filed” rather than “furnished” for purposes of Exchange Action Section 18 and, if included or otherwise incorporated by reference into a Securities Act registration statement, Securities Act Section 11.[8] According to the SEC, “climate-related disclosures should be subject to the same liability as other important business or financial information” that registrants include in registration statements and periodic reports and, therefore, should be treated as filed disclosures.[9]
In an attempt to balance concerns about the complexities and evolving nature of climate data methodologies and increased litigation risk, the SEC, in the adopting release, emphasizes certain modifications made in the new rules including:
limiting the scope of the GHG emissions disclosure requirement;
revising several provisions regarding the impacts of climate-related risks on strategy, targets and goals, and financial statement effects so that registrants will be required to provide the disclosures only in certain circumstances, such as when material to the registrant; and
adopting a provision stating that disclosures (other than historic facts) provided pursuant to certain of the new subpart 1500 provisions of Regulation S-K constitute “forward-looking statements” for the purposes of the PSLRA safe harbors.[10]
Registrants are subject to liability under Securities Act Section 17(a), Exchange Act Section 10(b), and/or Rule 10b-5 for false or misleading material statements in the information disclosed pursuant to the new rules.[11]
Observations
Consistent with its recent trajectory, the SEC continues to be a kinder, gentler regulator on climate disclosure requirements. Although the new rules will apply broadly to publicly traded companies, their scope is less demanding than the requirements under recent similar laws enacted in California or the EU. Under the California Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (the “CCDA”), companies with annual revenues in excess of $1 billion and “doing business in California”[12] will be required to publicly disclose Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions beginning in 2026, and Scope 3 emissions beginning in 2027. And because the California law applies to all companies, not just those that are publicly traded, it is also more broadly applicable and will trigger assessments and compliance for companies that are not subject to the SEC’s rule. The CCDA is currently the subject of legal challenge that includes questions of whether the required disclosures violate the First Amendment right to free speech, as well as possible federal preemption. As a result, there is a chance that the CCDA may yet be diluted or found unconstitutional. But in light of the imminent timeline for compliance, many companies subject to the CCDA are already developing programs to facilitate and ensure timely compliance with the requirements.
Similarly, the EU has broader reporting obligations under the CSRD than the SEC’s new rules. Compliance with the CSRD is required for both public and private EU companies as well as for non-EU companies with certain net annual turnovers, certain values of assets, and a certain number of employees. Under the CSRD, companies must publish information across a wide spectrum of subjects, including emissions, energy use, diversity, labor rights, and governance. Initial reporting under the CSRD begins to phase-in in 2025.
A key takeaway here is that although the SEC rules may have taken a lighter approach to climate disclosures, many large companies are likely to be subject to more stringent requirements under either the CCDA or the EU CSRD. And as some companies begin to comply to provide this information and data, the market may drive demand and an expectation that other companies, not otherwise subject to these various reporting regimes, follow suit. While the SEC rules may be a slimmed down version of what could have been, it is likely that the trend toward transparency and disclosure will continue to be driven by other regulatory bodies and market forces alike.
[1] Securities and Exchange Commission, Final Rule The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors, 17 CFR 210, 229, 230, 232, 239, and 249, adopting release available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/final/2024/33-11275.pdf.
[2] Id. at 48.
[3] Id. at 31-33.
[4] Id. at 225.
[5] Id. at 589.
[6] The new rules’ compliance dates apply to annual reports and registration statements. But, in the case of registration statements, compliance is required beginning with any registration statement that is required to include financial information for the full fiscal year indicated in the table above.
[7] Id. at 13.
[8] Id. at 584. At a high level, Section 18 imposes liability for false and misleading statements with respect to any material fact in documents filed with the SEC under the Exchange Act and Section 11 imposes liability for material misstatements or omissions made in connection with registered offerings conducted under the Securities Act.
[9] Id.
[10] Id. at 803.
[11] Id.
[12] A term which is not defined in the law, but is likely intentionally very broad, and is expected to be interpreted in that way.
This is likely to be one of the most consequential rulemakings of Chairman Gary Gensler’s tenure given the prioritization of addressing climate change as a key pillar for the Biden administration. However, given the significant controversy associated with this rulemaking effort, the final rules are likely to face legal challenges and congressional oversight in the coming months. As such, it remains unclear at this point whether the final rules will survive the forthcoming scrutiny.
WHAT IS IN THE RULE?
According to the SEC’s fact sheet:
“The final rules would require a registrant to disclose, among other things: material climate-related risks; activities to mitigate or adapt to such risks; information about the registrant’s board of directors’ oversight of climate-related risks and management’s role in managing material climate-related risks; and information on any climate-related targets or goals that are material to the registrant’s business, results of operations, or financial condition.
Further, to facilitate investors’ assessment of certain climate-related risks, the final rules would require disclosure of Scope 1 and/or Scope 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on a phased-in basis by certain larger registrants when those emissions are material; the filing of an attestation report covering the required disclosure of such registrants’ Scope 1 and/or Scope 2 emissions, also on a phased-in basis; and disclosure of the financial statement effects of severe weather events and other natural conditions including, for example, costs and losses.
The final rules would include a phased-in compliance period for all registrants, with the compliance date dependent on the registrant’s filer status and the content of the disclosure.”
NEXT STEPS
The final rules are likely to face significant opposition, including legal challenges and congressional oversight. It is expected that there will be various lawsuits brought against the final rules, which are likely to receive support from several industry groups, or potentially GOP-led state attorneys general who have been active in litigating against environmental, social and governance (ESG) policies and regulations. It is also possible that the final rules could face criticism from some climate advocates that the SEC did not go far enough in its disclosure requirements.
Further, it is expected that the House Financial Services Committee (HFSC) will conduct oversight hearings, as well as introduce a resolution under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), to attempt to block the regulations from taking effect. HFSC Chairman Patrick McHenry (R-NC) indicated that the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee will hold a field hearing on March 18 and the full Committee will convene a hearing on April 10 to discuss the potential implications of the rules. If a CRA resolution were to pass the House and garner sufficient support from moderate Democrats in the Senate to pass, it would likely be vetoed by President Biden.
Ultimately, the SEC climate risk disclosure rules are unlikely to significantly change the trajectory of corporate disclosures made by multinational companies based in the U.S., most of whom have already been making sustainability disclosures in accordance with the Financial Stability Board’s Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures. The ongoing problem for investors is that such disclosures are not standardized and therefore are not comparable. Consequently, many of these large issuers may continue to enhance their sustainability disclosures in accordance with standards issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board and the Global Reporting Initiative as an investor relations imperative notwithstanding the SEC’s timetable for implementation of these final rules.
A more detailed analysis of the SEC rules is forthcoming from our Corporate and Asset Management and Investment Funds practices in the coming days.
On February 29, 2024, President Biden nominated three new commissioners of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). The nominations will be reviewed and voted on by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and are subject to confirmation by the full Senate. If approved, the nominees will provide FERC with a full slate of five commissioners, including three Democrats and two Republicans.
Judy Chang is the Managing Principal of the Analysis Group in Boston and former Undersecretary of Energy and Climate Solutions of the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources. She is a Democrat and will succeed Commissioner Allison Clements with a term ending June 30, 2029. Commissioner Clements has announced that she would not serve a second term, but she may remain on FERC after June 30, 2024, until replaced or through December 31, 2024. Ms. Chang was the keynote speaker at Pierce Atwood’s 2022 Energy Infrastructure Symposium.
Lindsay See is the Solicitor General of the State of West Virginia. Ms. See is a Republican, recommended to the President by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and will succeed former Commissioner James Danly with a term ending June 30, 2028. Ms. See has represented West Virginia in many multi-state legal coalitions on a variety of national issues, including energy and environmental rules and policies.
David Rosner is a member of the FERC staff, an energy industry analyst who has been on loan to the majority staff of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which is chaired by Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Mr. Rosner will succeed former Chairman Richard Glick with a term ending June 30, 2027.
All three nominations have been received by the Senate and referred to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which will hold a hearing on each nominee. The Committee has not yet scheduled any hearings.
FERC Chairman Willie L. Phillips was designated as chairman on February 9, 2024. He was previously acting chairman. His term ends June 30, 2026. Commissioner Mark C. Christie’s term ends on June 30, 2025.
