SEC Adopts Interpretive Guidance on Disclosure Regarding Climate Change
As described in a previous alert, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") voted on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 to adopt an interpretive release to provide guidance on existing public company disclosure requirements as they apply to business or legal developments relating to climate change. The SEC has now distributed the interpretive release itself, which can be found here. The interpretive release indicates that its purpose is to provide guidance on how to interpret existing SEC disclosure rules and requirements as applied to business and legal developments associated with climate change. For our detailed alert on the subject, click here.
SEC Posts Climate Change Interpretive Release
Earlier today, the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) posted its climate change interpretive release, which can be found at http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/2010/33-9106.pdf. Our prior Blog on the subject is here, and our alert on the topic can be found here. Stoel Rives corporate securities partners Ron McFall and CJ Voss will be posting a follow up alert shortly.
If you'd like to sign up for our Energy Law Alerts, click here.
SEC Issues Interpretive Guidance on Greenhouse Gases
My partner Tom Wood circulated this preliminary alert this afternoon:
"Earlier today the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) approved interpretive guidance intended to inform public companies how climate change must be taken into account when applying existing disclosure requirements. Specifically, the SEC's interpretative guidance highlights the following areas as examples of where climate change must be considered in crafting disclosures:
· The direct effects of existing and pending environmental regulation, legislation and international accords and treaties on the company’s business, its operations, risk factors and in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (MD&A);
· The indirect effects of climate change legislation and regulation on a company’s business—this could include new opportunities or risks posed by legal, technological, political and scientific developments related to climate change; and
· The actual and potential effect on a company’s business and operations resulting from physical changes to the planet resulting from climate change.
"The interpretive guidance specifies that public companies must have adequate knowledge of their greenhouse gas emissions—a requirement that is consistent with recent EPA regulations requiring many (but not all) significant greenhouse gas emitters report their direct emissions starting in calendar year 2010. The SEC stated “management should ensure that it has sufficient information regarding the registrant’s greenhouse gas emissions and other operational matters to evaluate the likelihood of a material effect arising from the subject legislation or regulation.”
Unsurprisingly, the SEC said that registrants must weigh whether climate change related information is material or not. In doing so, they said that if it was a close question, the company should decide in favor of disclosure."
The complete language of the interpretive guidance has not yet been released. Corporate securities partners C. J. Voss and Ron McFall are reviewing the issue and will be issuing an Energy Law Alert on the topic. If you'd like to sign up for our Energy Law Alerts, click here.
EPA Issues Final GHG Reporting Rule
On the topic of Greenhouse Gas reporting, my partner Tom Wood recently circulated this "heads up" about EPA's final rule:
On September 22, 2009, EPA issued its final rule on greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting. Fossil fuel and industrial GHG suppliers, motor vehicle and engine manufacturers, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 equivalent per year will be required to report GHG emissions data to EPA annually.
Recordkeeping obligations commence on January 1, 2010 with the first report due in 2011 (for 2010 emissions). Relaxed requirements will apply for reporting year 2010 as EPA recognizes that not all monitoring can be implemented in the weeks remaining in this year.
In a blow to the consulting industry, third party verification is not being required; sources will be able to self-certify their emissions. EPA says that its program does not preempt state reporting programs, but our hope is that with a final rule the state and regional efforts will conform to EPA’s lead.
Look for more details as Tom gives the rule a more thorough review.
