Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Politics

California’s Next Climate Frontier: Corporate Disclosure

The state assembly is about to vote on legislation that would force companies to reveal their emissions and climate risks. Here's why that matters.

A disaster form.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Corporate sustainability is a mess. For consumers, investors, employees, and anyone else trying to wrap their heads around a business’ greenhouse-gas emissions, it’s hard to know where to look for information or how one company stacks up against another. The businesses that share data publicly do so on a number of different forums and in wildly different formats. Then there are still many that don’t disclose any info at all.

“It's like a climate ‘Tower of Babel,’” Steven Rothstein, a managing director at the nonprofit Ceres, which advocates for market-based climate solutions, told me.

But the tower is close to crumbling. Two landmark bills that passed the California State Senate in May and head to a vote in the Assembly this week or next could finally put systems and standards in place, with wide-reaching effects, as California is the fifth largest economy in the world.

One would require companies doing business in the state with annual revenues over $1 billion to report their greenhouse gas emissions each year. It would cover an estimated 5,300 U.S. corporations, according to Ceres.

The second bill orders businesses with revenues of more than $500 million to produce annual assessments of their exposure to climate-related risks, and what they are doing about those risks. More than 10,000 companies would have to report on whether heat waves that idle outdoor workers could hurt their profits, for example, or how vulnerable their facilities are to wildfires and floods.

Though the federal Securities and Exchange Commission is considering similar disclosure rules, the California bills go further by applying to privately-owned firms in addition to public-traded companies. About 73% of the companies that would have to report their emissions to California are private, according to Ceres.

Proponents of the policies say investors don’t currently have enough information to understand how exposed their investments are to the effects of global warming or to future climate-related policies.

“If I'm an investor, or I'm going to go work for a company and I want to think about how they're going to grow, knowing what they're doing will affect your decision making,” said Rothstein. “This is really a financial disclosure bill. It's really helping people understand more about the safety and soundness of those companies.”

These new disclosure laws would also ripple through the currently opaque practice of environmental, social, and governance, or ESG investing, making it easier to scrutinize claims made by index fund providers. As Madison Condon, a Boston University law professor summed it up to me, “How is Blackrock supposed to report on the emissions of its S&P 500 portfolio if the S&P 500 companies have not been required to report their emissions?”

But many believe these types of laws would be useful beyond Wall Street and help unlock more progress on climate change.

“Put plainly, it is difficult to imagine a successful approach to the climate challenge that does not have widespread mandatory disclosure as its foundation,” wrote the authors of a recent study on corporate emissions published in the journal Science. They argue that reliable measurement and credible data is an essential prerequisite for both market-based policies, like a carbon tax, and more straightforward regulations on carbon.

The data would also empower outside groups to hold firms accountable to their climate claims. Suddenly, it would be relatively easy to compare the carbon emitted by Uniqlo versus Gap, In-N-Out versus Taco Bell, or Amazon versus Walmart, for example. Legal scholars Michael Gerrard of Columbia University and Eric Orts of University of Pennsylvania expect advocacy groups will also rank companies by their emissions, as many do with the limited data available today, which could lead firms to try and improve their ranking.

The Science study I referenced earlier illustrates the opportunity there. The authors analyzed voluntarily reported emissions data for nearly 15,000 publicly traded companies. After normalizing the data by calculating it as a fraction of those firms’ operating profits, emissions varied widely even within each industry, with medians that were much lower than the means. They found that if all firms with emissions above their industry’s median made reductions to achieve the median, total emissions would decline by more than 70%.

A number of companies have come out in support of the California bills, like Microsoft, Ikea, and some of the biggest trade groups representing American clothing brands. There has also been intense opposition from agricultural and food businesses, airlines, cement companies, chambers of commerce, and the Western States Petroleum Association, which represents the oil and gas industry. Opponents have spent more than $7 million on lobbying efforts, according to an analysis by The Lever’s Rebecca Burns.

But it seems that even if the California bills don’t pass, it’s only a matter of time before companies face similar requirements elsewhere. The European Union is close to finalizing standards for emissions disclosure that will apply to some 50,000 companies, including many headquartered in the United States, beginning in 2024. In the U.S., the Biden administration’s “Buy Clean” initiative requires the government to procure building materials that meet certain carbon thresholds, meaning manufacturers will have to measure and report their emissions. A number of states have passed or are contemplating similar programs. There are also the upcoming SEC rules I mentioned earlier.

“When you take a step back, it is an unequivocal trend that the world is moving to more mandatory climate disclosure,” said Rothstein.

Read more about climate data:

The Climate Data Wars Are Just Beginning

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Q&A

The Renewable Energy Investor Optimistic About the Future

A conversation with Mary King, a vice president handling venture strategy at Aligned Capital

The Q&A subject.
Heatmap Illustration

Today’s conversation is with Mary King, a vice president handling venture strategy at Aligned Capital, which has invested in developers like Summit Ridge and Brightnight. I reached out to Mary as a part of the broader range of conversations I’ve had with industry professionals since it has become clear Republicans in Congress will be taking a chainsaw to the Inflation Reduction Act. I wanted to ask her about investment philosophies in this trying time and how the landscape for putting capital into renewable energy has shifted. But Mary’s quite open with her view: these technologies aren’t going anywhere.

The following conversation has been lightly edited and abridged for clarity.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Democratic Climate Hawk Fights Battery Storage Project

And more news around renewable energy conflicts.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Nantucket County, Massachusetts – The SouthCoast offshore wind project will be forced to abandon its existing power purchase agreements with Massachusetts and Rhode Island if the Trump administration’s wind permitting freeze continues, according to court filings submitted last week.

  • SouthCoast is a crucial example of a systemic dilemma I reported on months back: Wind projects the Biden administration said it fully permitted will likely still be delayed by a blanket permitting freeze because wind energy requires such large infrastructure that projects need regular green lights from the federal government for new activities.
  • In case you missed it, the anti-wind permitting freeze has been a continued issue for SouthCoast and has led to scrapped negotiations on future power deals with Massachusetts.

2. Tippacanoe County, Indiana – This county has now passed a full solar moratorium but is looking at grandfathering one large utility-scale project: RWE and Geenex’s Rainbow Trout solar farm.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Spotlight

The Trump Solar Farm Slowdown

Permitting delays and missed deadlines are bedeviling solar developers and activist groups alike. What’s going on?

Donald Trump and solar panels.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

It’s no longer possible to say the Trump administration is moving solar projects along as one of the nation’s largest solar farms is being quietly delayed and even observers fighting the project aren’t sure why.

Months ago, it looked like Trump was going to start greenlighting large-scale solar with an emphasis out West. Agency spokespeople told me Trump’s 60-day pause on permitting solar projects had been lifted and then the Bureau of Land Management formally approved its first utility-scale project under this administration, Leeward Renewable Energy’s Elisabeth solar project in Arizona, and BLM also unveiled other solar projects it “reasonably” expected would be developed in the area surrounding Elisabeth.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow