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).
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.
On January 9, 2023, the Council for Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) published interim National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change (hereafter, “guidance” or “GHG Guidance”).1 CEQ intends for agencies to apply the guidance now even as CEQ seeks public comment on it.2 The guidance aims to establish best practices to ensure that Federal agencies conduct detailed analyses of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change when evaluating proposed major Federal actions in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and CEQ’s Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA.3 The guidance states that these analyses should (1) quantify a proposed action’s GHG emissions; (2) place GHG emissions in appropriate context and disclose relevant GHG emissions and relevant climate impacts; and (3) identify alternatives and mitigation measures to avoid or reduce GHG emissions.
The long-awaited GHG Guidance does not set a numerical threshold for significant impact under NEPA, but it emphasizes achievement of national and other climate objectives. The guidance also stresses monetization of climate-related impacts (social cost of carbon) and consideration of alternatives to fossil energy production and transport, mitigation of climate-related impacts, and resilience and adaptation to climate-related vulnerability. Also prominent in the guidance is consideration of disparate impacts to environmental justice communities.
GHG Guidance
Quantifying a Proposed Action’s GHG Emissions
The guidance explains that agencies should quantify the reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect GHG emissions of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives (including the no-action alternative) to ensure that each agency adequately considers the incremental contribution of its action to climate change. CEQ recommends that agencies quantify gross emissions increases or reductions (including direct and indirect emissions) individually by each GHG, as well as aggregated in terms of total CO2 by factoring in each pollutant’s global warming potential (“GWP”). CEQ further recommends that agencies quantify the proposed action’s total net GHG emissions or reductions (both by pollutant and by total CO2 emissions) relative to baseline conditions. Finally, CEQ recommends that “[w]here feasible . . . [agencies] should present annual GHG emissions increases or reductions, as well as net GHG emissions over the projected lifetime of the action, consistent with existing best practices.”4 CEQ emphasizes that agencies should be guided by the rule of reason when quantifying emissions. The guidance does not set a “significance” threshold that would trigger the requirement to prepare an EIS.
Disclosing and Providing Context for a Proposed Action’s GHG Emissions and Climate Effects
In the eyes of CEQ, quantifying emissions and summarizing this information in a NEPA document is not sufficient. Agencies should also disclose and provide context for GHG emissions and climate effects to help decision makers and the public understand a proposed action’s potential GHG emissions and climate change effects. CEQ provides a list of best practices for disclosing and contextualizing quantified GHG emissions:5
Use the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (“SC-GHG”) to estimate the dollar value of impacts associated with each type of GHG emission;
Explain how the proposed action and alternatives would help meet or detract from achieving climate action goals and commitments, and discuss whether and to what extent the proposal’s reasonably foreseeable GHG emissions are consistent with GHG reduction goals;
Summarize and cite to available scientific literature to help explain the real-world effects associated with an increase in GHG emissions that contribute to climate change; and
Provide accessible comparisons or equivalents to help the public and decision makers understand GHG emissions in more familiar terms (i.e., household emissions per year, annual average emissions from a certain number of cars on the road, etc.).
CEQ explicitly states that monetizing the “social cost” of GHG emissions as recommended does not require the agency also to monetize the social benefits of the proposed action, nor does it have to compare estimated costs and benefits.6 The guidance also emphasizes the use of “substitution analysis” to discern the GHG-related changes associated with shifting energy sources if the proposed or alternative actions occurred.7
Identifying Reasonable Alternatives and Potential Mitigation Measures
The GHG Guidance directs agencies to use the NEPA process to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize GHG emissions or climate change effects. CEQ recognizes that reasonable alternatives must be consistent with the purpose and need of the proposed action, and that agencies are not required to select the alternative with the lowest net GHG emissions or climate costs or the greatest net climate benefits.8 However, “in line with the urgency of the climate crisis,” agencies should identify the alternative with the lowest net GHG emissions or the greatest net climate benefits among the alternatives they assess and should “use the NEPA process to make informed decisions grounded in science that are transparent with respect to how Federal actions will help meet climate change goals and commitments, or alternately, detract from them.”9 When quantifying reasonably foreseeable emissions associated with the proposed action or alternatives, CEQ directs agencies to include reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect GHG emissions of their proposed actions. CEQ provides that processing, refining, transporting, and end-use of the fossil fuel being extracted, including combustion of the resource to produce energy, would constitute indirect emissions of fossil fuel extraction.10
CEQ encourages agencies to mitigate GHG emissions “to the greatest extent possible.”11 It instructs agencies to consider potential mitigation measures by determining whether impacts from a proposed action or alternatives can be avoided, considering whether adverse impacts can be minimized, and rectifying or requiring compensation for residual impacts where unavoidable. CEQ considers available mitigation that avoids, minimizes, or compensates for GHG emissions and climate change effects to include measures like renewable energy generation and energy storage, carbon capture and sequestration, and capturing GHG emissions such as methane.12
Examples
The guidance provides a number of examples as to how it would work in specific scenarios. For example, the guidance notes that “absent exceptional circumstances,” construction of renewable energy projects “should not warrant a detailed analysis of lifetime GHG emissions.”13 CEQ uses natural gas pipelines as an example of consideration of indirect effects, stating that they create the “economic conditions for additional natural gas production and consumption, including both domestically and internationally, which produce indirect (both upstream and downstream) GHG emissions that contribute to climate change.”14 When discussing the need to analyze the effects of climate change on a proposed action (and not just the impacts of the proposed action on climate change), CEQ gives as an example a project that may require water from a source with diminishing quantities available and advises the agency consider such issues to “inform decisions on siting, whether to proceed with and how to design potential actions and reasonable alternatives, and to eliminate or mitigate effects exacerbated by climate change.”15
Conclusion
Robust comments are likely to be filed to further inform CEQ’s effort on the GHG Guidance. Nevertheless, CEQ has directed agencies to apply the guidance to all new proposed actions and to consider applying it to proposed actions that are currently under NEPA review. Comments on the interim guidance are due March 10, 2023.
FOOTNOTES
1. CEQ, National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas, 88 Fed. Reg. 1,196 (Jan. 9, 2023), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-01-09/pdf/2023-00158.pdf (“GHG Guidance”).
2. Id.
3. Note that CEQ has announced its intention to further revise its existing NEPA regulations in 2023, after having issued an earlier round of regulatory amendments in 2022. See CEQ Fall 2022 Regulatory Agenda, National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations Revisions Phase 2, RIN No. 0331-AA07, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202210&RIN=0331-AA07; CEQ, National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations Revisions, 87 Fed. Reg. 23,453 (Apr. 20, 2022), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-04-20/pdf/2022-08288.pdf.
4. GHG Guidance at 1,201.
5. Id. at 1,202-03.
6. Id. at 1,203, 1,211.
7. Id. at 1,205.
8. Id. at 1,204.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 1,206.
12. Id.
13. Id. at 1,202.
14. Id. at 1,204 n.86.
15. Id. at 1,208.
For more Environmental and Energy News, click here to visit the National Law Review.
The SEC has already undertaken steps to enact these proposed updates to its disclosure requirements for public companies. Notably, this past March it proposed draft climate disclosure rules, which provoked a significant response from the public–including widespread criticism from many companies (as well as praise from environmental organizations). The fact that the SEC chose to highlight these rules in its (draft) five-year strategic plan indicates the depth of the commitment it has made to these draft climate disclosures, and further suggests that the final form of the climate disclosures is unlikely to be significantly altered in substance from what the SEC has already proposed. This statement reinforces the commitment of Chairman Gensler’s SEC and the Biden Administration to financial disclosures as a method to combat climate change.
“The markets have begun to embrace the necessity of providing a greater level of disclosure to investors. From time to time, the SEC must update its disclosure framework to reflect investor demand. Today, investors increasingly seek information related to, among other things, issuers’ climate risks, cybersecurity hygiene policies, and their most important asset: their people. In order to catch up to that reality, the agency should continue to update the disclosure framework to address these areas of investor demand, as well as continue to take concrete steps to modernize the systems that support the disclosure framework, to make public disclosures easier to access and analyze and thus more decision-useful to investors. . . . Across the agency, the SEC must continually reassess its risks, including in new areas such as climate risk, and document necessary controls.”
In the words of Miss Frizzle, “Okay bus—do your stuff!”1 A favorable regulatory environment, direct subsidy, private investment, and customer demand are driving an acceleration in electric vehicle (EV) bus adoption and the lane of busiest traffic is filling with school buses. The United States has over 480,000 school buses, but currently, less than one percent are EVs. Industry watchers expect that EV buses will eventually become the leading mode for student transportation. School districts and municipalities are embracing EV buses because they are perceived as cleaner, requiring less maintenance, and predicted to operate more reliably than current fossil fuel consuming alternatives. EV bus technology has improved in recent years, with today’s models performing better in cold weather than their predecessors, with increased ranges on a single charge, and requiring very little special training for drivers.2 Moreover, EV buses can serve as components in micro-grid developments (more on that in a future post).
The Investment Incline
Even if the expected operational advantages of EV buses deliver, the upfront cost to purchase vehicles or to retrofit existing fleets remains an obstacle to expansion. New EV buses price out significantly more than traditional diesel buses and also require accompanying new infrastructure, such as charging stations. Retrofitting drive systems in existing buses comparatively reduces some of that cost, but also requires significant investment.3
To detour around these financial obstacles, federal, state, and local governments have made funding available to encourage the transition to EV buses.4 In addition to such policy-based subsidies, private investment from both financial and strategic quarters has increased. Market participants who take advantage of such funding earlier than their competitors have a forward seat to position themselves as leaders.
You kids pipe down back there, I’ve got my eyes on a pile of cash up ahead!
Government funding incentives for electrification are available for new EV buses and for repowering existing vehicles.5 Notably, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act committed $5 billion over five years to replace existing diesel buses with EV buses. Additionally, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act provided $18.7 million in rebates for fiscal year 2021 through an ongoing program.
In 2021, New York City announced its commitment to transition school buses to electric by 2035. Toward that goal, the New York Truck Voucher Incentive Program provides vouchers to eligible fleets towards electric conversions and covers up to 80% of those associated costs.6 California’s School Bus Replacement Program had already set aside over $94 million, available to districts, counties, and joint power authorities, to support replacing diesel buses with EVs, and the state’s proposed budget for 2022-23 includes a $1.5 billion grant program to support purchase of EV buses and charging stations.
While substantial growth in EV bus sales will continue in the years ahead, it will be important to keep an eye out for renewal, increase or sunset of these significant subsidies.
Market Players and Market Trends, OEMs, and Retrofitters
The U.S is a leader in EV school bus production: two of the largest manufacturers, Blue Bird and Thomas Built (part of Daimler Truck North America), are located domestically, and Lion Electric (based in Canada) expects to begin delivering vehicles from a large facility in northern Illinois during the second half of 2022. GM has teamed up with Lighting eMotors on a medium duty truck platform project that includes models prominent in many fleets, and Ford’s Super Duty lines of vehicles (which provide the platform for numerous vans and shuttle vehicles) pop up in its promotion of a broader electric future. Navistar’s IC Bus now features an electric version of its flagship CE series.
Additionally, companies are looking to a turn-key approach to deliver complete energy ecosystems, encompassing vehicles, charging infrastructure, financing, operations, maintenance, and energy optimization. In 2021, Highland Electric Transportation raised $253 million from Vision Ridge Partners, Fontinalis Partners (co-founded by Bill Ford) and existing investors to help accelerate its growth, premised on a turn-key fleet approach.7
Retrofitting is also on the move. SEA Electric (SEA), a provider of electric commercial vehicles, recently partnered with Midwest Transit Equipment (MTE) to convert 10,000 existing school buses to EVs over the next five years.8 MTE will provide the frame for the school uses and SEA will provide its SEA-drive propulsion system to convert the buses to EV.9 In a major local project, Logan Bus Company announced its collaboration with AMPLY Power and Unique Electric Solutions (UES) to deploy New York City’s first Type-C (conventional) school bus.10
Industry followers should expect further collaborations, because simplifying the route to adopting an EV fleet makes it more likely EV products will reach customers.
Opportunities Going Forward
Over the long haul, EV buses should do well. Scaling up investments and competition on the production side should facilitate making fleet modernization more affordable for school districts while supporting profit margins for manufacturers. EVs aren’t leaving town, so manufacturers, fleet operators, school districts and municipalities will either get on board or risk being left at the curb.
A number of conservative-leaning states, particularly those with a significant fossil fuel industry (e.g., Texas, West Virginia), have begun implementing polices and enacting laws that penalize companies which “pull away from the fossil fuel industry.” Most of these laws focus on precluding state governmental entities, including pension funds, from doing business with companies that have adopted policies that take climate change into account, whether divesting from fossil fuels or simply considering climate change metrics when evaluating investments.
This trend is a troubling development for the American economy. Irrespective of the merits of the policy, or fossil fuel investments generally, there are now an array of state governments and associated entities, reflecting a significant portion of the economy, that have adopted policies explicitly designed to remove climate change or other similar concerns from consideration when companies decide upon a course of action. But there are other states (typically coastal “blue” states) that have enacted diametrically opposed policies, including mandatory divestments from fossil fuel investments (e.g., Maine). This patchwork of contradictory state regulation has created a labyrinth of different concerns for companies to navigate. And these same companies are also facing pressure from significant institutional investors, such as BlackRock, to consider ESG concerns when making investments.
Likely the most effective way to resolve these inconsistent regulations and guidance, and to alleviate the impact on the American economy, would be for the federal government to issue a clear set of policy guidelines and regulatory requirements. (Even if these were subject to legal challenge, it would at least set a benchmark and provide general guidance.) But the SEC, the most likely source of such regulations, has failed to meet its own deadlines for promulgating such regulations, and it is unclear when such guidance will be issued.
In the absence of a clear federal mandate, the contradictory policies adopted by different state governments will only apply additional burdens to companies doing business across multiple state jurisdictions, and by extension, to the economy of the United States.
“Republicans and right-leaning groups fighting climate-conscious policies that target fossil fuel companies are increasingly taking their battle to state capitals. Texas, West Virginia and Oklahoma are among states moving to bar officials from dealing with businesses that are moving to ditch fossil fuels or considering climate change in their own investments. Those steps come as major financial firms and other corporations adopt policies aligned with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
On March 25, 2020, Governor Jay Inslee signed HB 2528 into law which recognizes the contributions of the state’s forests and forest products sector as part of the state’s global climate response.
Relying on recent climate reports recognizing the importance and function of working forests, the law states that sustainable forest management and forest products could be used to increase carbon sequestration by expanding forestland base, or reducing emissions from land conversation to nonforest use. For example, the hundreds of trees on a working forest can store carbon dioxide, which can help mitigate the effects of climate change. However, if the working forest is converted into agricultural, residential, or industrial land—all nonforest uses—then there is no longer the ability to store carbon.
The law recognizes that one way to satisfy Washington State’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals articulated in RCW 70.235.020, can occur by supporting the economic vitality of the sustainable forest products sector and other business sectors capable of sequestering and storing carbon. Other sectors included in the law are working forests and the necessary manufacturing sectors that support the transformation of stored carbon into long-lived forest products.
The law then establishes a number of policies regarding the recognition of the forestry and forest products sectors as a climate solution:
It is the policy of the state to support the contributions of all working forests and the synergistic forest products sector to the state’s climate response. This includes, but is not limited to, landowners, mills, bioenergy, pulp and paper, and other sectors necessary for forestland owners to continue the rotational cycle of carbon capture and sequestration in growing trees.
It is the policy of the state to support the participation of working forests in current and future carbon markets, strengthening the state’s role as a valuable contributor to the global carbon response
The legislature intends to recognize and support industry sectors that can act as sequesterers of carbon, such as Washington’s working forests and associated forest products industry.
The enactment of this law provides an opportunity for the forestry and forest products sector to expand its services and contribute to the state’s climate goals. Specifically, it encourages the planting of trees, which supports carbon sequestration; it supports the entire supply chain of the forest products sector, which in turn supports rural communities; and it encourages healthy forest management, which can mitigate the risk of wildfires.
Understanding the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues of today’s business world are key to understanding the discussion of sustainability and climate change (a sub-topic of each ESG and sustainability). For example, a sustainable business that demonstrates strong ESG planning, will often include climate change risk management.
Today’s press informs that mounting pressure from the United Nations participants continues to build a focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The UN’s 25th Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP25) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was held in Madrid from December 2 – 13. The U.S. filed a notification of withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on November 4, 2019. The U.S. State Department has announced it will continue to participate in ongoing climate change negotiations and meetings, such as COP25, to ensure a level playing filed that protects U.S. interests. Also, the UN released its report noting the emissions gap they observe that demonstrates the difference between amounts of carbon dioxide emitted now and lower levels predicted as necessary to stop global warming. The question being asked is whether there are missed opportunities to achieve GHG reduction goals.
Domestic and international companies are in the process of reviewing their ESG reports to assess last year’s accomplishments and in setting goals and action items for the new year of 2020 and beyond. Climate change and other sustainability concerns like waste management are clearly on the minds of many. There is no single formula for a well-developed ESG strategy and report, since each is as unique as the individual company about which the report speaks. There are common ESG themes, however. The UN Sustainability Goals provide a convenient list of well-refined issues against which a company (or individual) can assess their opportunities and vulnerabilities. The goals set forth a number of environmental, social, and governance topics worthy of note to include: poverty, hunger, good health, education, gender equality, clean water, affordable and clean energy, decent work and economic growth, industry/innovation/infrastructure, reduced inequality, sustainable cities/communities, responsible consumption and production, climate action, life below water, peace and justice, and partnership to achieve the goal. These are the types of issues to consider when exploring ESG and sustainability. Consultation of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) can also assist. Keep in mind that there is no one gold standard metric against which to measure ESG ratings or accomplishments. The reason for that is simple, each company has a different complement of skills, talents, and opportunities or stated differently, ESG risks and solutions.
If you were to review a few ESG reports found on corporate websites, it will become apparent the differences and unique qualities of each reporting company. Geographic locations of operations can define the ESG goals. If operating in major metropolitan cities as opposed to emerging countries, the corporate responsibilities are quite varied. If manufacturing consumer products, packaging is an attractive target for reduction in waste. However, if manufacturing items used in the value chain, perhaps an ESG goal is managed through energy consumption during manufacturing or delivery of products. If providing medical services, the ESG goals can be energy, water, supply chain, waste, etc. Just as each of us possess capabilities and assets we can use to invest in our future, the same is true for companies. We must acknowledge the unique accomplishments and actively invite the benefits gained from a collective effort.
The final item listed by the UN Sustainability goals is partnership, meaning the efforts and benefits should be shared. We all must work together to achieve the change we need. All contributions must be welcomed to build the sense of common good.
On July 25, 2019, U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) introduced the Zero Waste Act, which intends to create a federal grant program to invest in solutions that address waste. The bill, if passed, will go towards recycling infrastructure or the creation of partnerships with local businesses focused on waste reduction. Representative Omar believes the bill will not only create jobs, but also reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, grow domestic manufacturing, clean waterways, save energy, ensure safety from health hazards, and grow the U.S. economy.
Omar’s bill has been endorsed by several organizations, including the City of Minneapolis, Eureka Recycling, Climate Generation, and Surfrider Foundation, among others. Presenting this bill through the lens that waste is an environmental justice issue, Representative Omar stated that “[a]ddressing the waste crisis is critical to preventing further damage to our climate—it is integral to racial justice and a clean, equitable future.” At a time where climate change debates have been of high interest to the U.S. population, in particular as the presidential candidate debates continue, it will be interesting to see whether this bill is passed. The full text of the bill can be accessed here.
On January 12, 2017, USDA released a report on the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) balance of corn ethanol, titled “A Life-Cycle Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Corn-Based Ethanol.” The study reviewed industry and farm sector performance over the past decade and found that in the United States corn-based ethanol generates 43 percent less GHG emissions than gasoline. Compared to previous studies, the lifecycle GHG benefits were greater due to improvements in corn production efficiency, conservation practices, and ethanol production technologies. The report also presented two projected GHG emissions profiles for corn ethanol in 2022, with one assuming a continuation of observable trends and the other analyzing additional improvements that could further reduce the GHG emissions.
