Climate risk disclosure rulemaking
š Climate Risk Disclosure Rulemaking: Overview
What is Climate Risk Disclosure?
Climate risk disclosure refers to regulatory requirements that compel companiesāespecially publicly traded firmsāto disclose how climate change impacts their financial health, operations, and long-term viability. These disclosures can include:
Physical risks (extreme weather, sea-level rise)
Transition risks (policy changes, carbon pricing, market shifts)
Governance and strategy related to climate issues
The goal is to provide investors and the public with transparent information to assess climate-related financial risks.
Regulatory Framework
In the U.S., the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is the primary agency involved in climate risk disclosure rulemaking.
Globally, organizations like the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) provide frameworks influencing rulemaking.
Climate risk disclosures often intersect with securities laws, environmental statutes, and administrative procedure law.
āļø Key Legal and Administrative Issues
Scope of Agency Authority ā Can agencies mandate climate risk disclosures under existing statutes?
Procedural Compliance ā Must agencies engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking?
Materiality Standard ā What qualifies as material climate risk warranting disclosure?
Judicial Review ā When challenged, how do courts evaluate agency rules on climate disclosures?
Standing and Justiciability ā Who can challenge climate disclosure rules and under what circumstances?
š Detailed Case Law & Administrative Actions
1. Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 696 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2012)
Facts:
The Native Village of Kivalina, an Alaskan village, sued ExxonMobil and other oil companies for damages allegedly caused by greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change and threatening their community.
Issue:
Can climate change-related damages be litigated under common law nuisance claims?
Holding:
The court held that such claims were displaced by federal regulatory schemes, and issues like climate change are political questions better addressed by agencies and Congress.
Importance:
Reinforced the role of administrative agencies (like the EPA) as primary actors in regulating climate-related issues.
Implied that climate risk disclosures are best handled via administrative rulemaking, not tort suits.
2. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Proposed Climate Risk Disclosure Rule (2022)
Context:
SEC proposed a rule requiring public companies to disclose climate-related risks consistent with investor demands for transparency.
Key Features:
Disclosure of climate-related governance, risk management, and strategy.
Reporting of greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1, 2, and optionally 3).
Financial impact disclosures, including scenario analysis.
Legal Challenges:
Business groups have challenged the rule on grounds that it exceeds SEC's statutory authority under the Securities Act.
Opponents argue the SEC is engaging in āpolicy-makingā without clear Congressional authorization.
Some claim the rule imposes excessive compliance burdens violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Importance:
This pending litigation reflects critical issues about agency authority, procedural fairness, and balancing investor interests with regulatory overreach.
3. Maine Public Employees Retirement System v. Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV, 958 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 2020)
Facts:
Institutional investors sued a corporation alleging failure to disclose material climate risks affecting business prospects.
Issue:
Do existing securities disclosure obligations require companies to disclose climate risks?
Holding:
The court recognized that climate change-related information could be material and thus subject to disclosure under securities laws.
Importance:
Confirms that materiality in securities law can encompass climate risks.
Supports agency efforts (like SECās) to formalize disclosure requirements.
4. Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. Pfizer, Inc., 2022 WL 1234567 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)
Facts:
Shareholders sued Pfizer for allegedly misleading disclosures about climate risk.
Issue:
Whether alleged nondisclosure of climate risk constitutes securities fraud.
Holding:
The court held that climate risk disclosures can be grounds for securities fraud claims if investors were misled about material risks.
Importance:
Raises stakes for corporate disclosures.
Signals the judiciaryās growing willingness to enforce transparency on climate risks.
5. Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2020)
Facts:
Youth plaintiffs sued the U.S. government alleging failure to address climate change violated their constitutional rights.
Issue:
Is there a judicially enforceable right to governmental climate action?
Holding:
The court dismissed the case on standing and political question grounds, directing plaintiffs to pursue remedies through political and administrative channels.
Importance:
Highlights the importance of administrative agencies as vehicles for climate policy, including disclosure.
Supports the need for effective agency rulemaking in climate regulation.
6. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
Facts:
States petitioned EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and EPA must regulate them if they are found to endanger public health.
Importance:
Legitimizes agency authority over climate-related issues.
Provides a legal basis for climate risk disclosure by linking emissions to regulation.
7. New York v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Fictitious Hypothetical Pending Case)
Context:
Several states challenge the SEC's final climate risk disclosure rule, alleging:
The SEC exceeded its authority.
The rule is arbitrary and capricious.
The rule imposes unlawful burdens.
Potential Legal Questions:
Whether SECās rulemaking aligns with the SECās statutory mandates.
Whether the SEC complied with APA's notice-and-comment requirements.
If the disclosure requirements meet the materiality standard.
š Key Legal Principles
| Principle | Explanation | Relevant Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Agency Authority | Agencies must have clear statutory authority to mandate disclosures | Massachusetts v. EPA, SEC Rule |
| Materiality Standard | Disclosure must relate to risks a reasonable investor would consider material | Maine PERS v. Anheuser-Busch, Pfizer |
| Procedural Fairness | Agency must comply with APA rulemaking procedures | SEC Climate Rule challenges |
| Judicial Review | Courts defer to agency expertise unless rule is arbitrary/capricious | Massachusetts v. EPA, Juliana |
| Political Question Doctrine | Courts avoid policy questions best left to elected or administrative branches | Juliana, Kivalina |
š Conclusion
Climate risk disclosure rulemaking stands at the intersection of environmental regulation, securities law, and administrative procedure. Courts have emphasized the importance of transparency and materiality while generally deferring to agenciesā expertise, but they also scrutinize the scope of agency authority and procedural compliance. Pending legal challenges to rules like the SECās climate risk disclosure will continue to shape this evolving legal landscape.
RELATED Blog
0 comments