Incorporator The Journal of U.S. Formation
Start Free Quiz
Editorial 6 MIN READ

The SEC climate disclosure rule, as proposed

What Release 33-11042 would actually require, and who needs to read it now

The Editors
Staff, Incorporator.org
6 min read Updated
Contents 7 sections
  1. What the proposal would require
  2. The TCFD skeleton
  3. Attestation, phased in
  4. Phased compliance dates
  5. Who this matters to right now
  6. What remains unsettled
  7. Sources

he SEC climate disclosure rule has been sitting in proposed form for seventeen months. More than 14,000 comment letters are on the docket, the Commission has reopened the comment window twice, and the rule is still unadopted. If you run a private company that expects to touch the public markets in the next two years, this is the draft you need to read now, not the adopting release you hope to skim later.

Release 33-11042 was published March 21, 2022. The initial comment period closed June 17, 2022. On October 7, 2022 the Commission reopened comment after a technical problem with its EDGAR submission system lost an unknown number of letters. The spring 2023 regulatory agenda had the final rule listed for October 2023; it has since slipped again. The proposal, for now, is the text that matters.

What the proposal would require

The rule would add a new subpart to Regulation S-K (Items 1500 through 1507) and parallel amendments to Regulation S-X. In operational terms it asks registrants to do four things.

First, describe climate-related risks. Item 1502 would require disclosure of physical risks (acute events like hurricanes and floods; chronic shifts like sea level or mean temperature) and transition risks (policy, legal, technological, market, and reputational consequences of moving to a lower-carbon economy), with a stated time horizon of short, medium, and long term. Registrants would have to explain how they identify those risks, how material they are, and how they affect strategy, business model, and outlook.

Second, disclose governance. Item 1501 would require a description of the board's oversight of climate risk (which committees, which directors, how often they meet on it) and management's role (which officer, what expertise, what reporting lines).

Third, disclose greenhouse gas emissions. Item 1504 would require Scope 1 (direct) and Scope 2 (purchased electricity) emissions from all registrants. Scope 3 (upstream and downstream value chain) would be required only where material, or where the registrant has set a Scope 3 target. Emissions would be reported in absolute terms and in intensity terms, broken out by constituent greenhouse gas, with a methodology statement. Smaller reporting companies would be exempt from Scope 3 entirely.

Fourth, disclose financial-statement effects. The Regulation S-X amendments, codified as proposed Article 14, would require a new note to the audited financials capturing climate-related impacts on line items above a one-percent threshold. That is a low bar. It would also require disclosure of expenditures on transition activities and on climate-related events, again at one percent.

If the registrant has issued any public climate targets, scenario analysis, or internal carbon price, Item 1506 would require the underlying assumptions and progress against the target. This is the provision that would pull a large pile of voluntary sustainability marketing into regulated disclosure.

The TCFD skeleton

The structure is not invented from scratch. The Commission has explicitly modeled the proposal on the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework, which organizes climate risk around four pillars: governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets. The proposing release cites TCFD roughly 500 times. If your sustainability team has been reporting to CDP or publishing a TCFD-aligned report, the qualitative disclosures will feel familiar. The quantitative disclosures, and the attestation that comes with them, will not.

Attestation, phased in

Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions disclosures would be subject to third-party attestation. Large accelerated filers would need limited-assurance attestation starting the second fiscal year after the rule's effective date, upgraded to reasonable-assurance attestation by the fifth year. Accelerated filers would follow a slower path. This is the provision that has drawn the most industry pushback: reasonable assurance is the same standard used for financial-statement audits, and the supply of qualified GHG attestation providers is small.

The attestation requirement is also why private companies eyeing an IPO should care. A registrant cannot stand up Scope 1 and 2 measurement systems on the timeline the proposal contemplates unless those systems existed in substantially auditable form the year before the S-1. The lead time is measured in fiscal years, not quarters.

Phased compliance dates

The proposal contemplated a staged compliance schedule keyed to filer status and to fiscal year. Large accelerated filers were proposed to begin in fiscal year 2023; accelerated and non-accelerated filers in 2024; smaller reporting companies in 2025. Scope 3, where applicable, would come a year after the other GHG disclosures. Those dates have quietly become unreachable with every month the final rule slips, and the adopting release, whenever it arrives, will almost certainly push them.

Who this matters to right now

Three audiences should be reading the proposed text this quarter.

The first is any private company considering an IPO or a registered debt offering in 2024 or 2025. If the final rule lands close to the proposal, a registration statement filed after the rule's effective date will need climate disclosures in the S-1 itself. Beginning to measure Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions now, with an eye to attestation later, is cheaper than discovering at the S-1 stage that your utility invoices for 2022 and 2023 need to be reconstructed.

The second is any registrant already subject to foreign climate rules. The EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive was adopted in November 2022 and begins phasing in for fiscal year 2024 filings; its reporting standards are broader than the SEC proposal and include mandatory double-materiality analysis. U.S. subsidiaries of EU parents will be inside CSRD before they are inside Release 33-11042. The proposal's Scope 3 carve-outs, if retained, will not match CSRD's scope, and the difference will have to be bridged.

The third is any California-nexus company watching the state's climate bills. SB 253, which would require Scope 1, 2, and 3 reporting for companies doing business in California with more than $1 billion in revenue, was introduced in January 2023 and passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee this summer; it is expected to reach the governor's desk in September. SB 261, on climate-related financial risk, is moving alongside it. Neither bill carves out private companies. If either becomes law, a large chunk of the SEC proposal's private-company audience will face mandatory GHG reporting regardless of what the Commission ultimately adopts.

What remains unsettled

Three open questions in the proposal will shape the final rule, and they are worth watching in the comment file.

Scope 3 is the largest. Industry commenters have argued that value- chain emissions are inherently estimated, uncontrollable by the registrant, and ill-suited to securities-law liability. Investor commenters have argued the opposite: that Scope 3 is precisely where the transition risk lives, and that excluding it would gut the rule. The Commission's choice here will decide whether the final rule is a modest extension of existing risk-factor disclosure or a genuine structural change.

The one-percent financial-statement threshold is the second. At that level, the Article 14 note would capture routine weather events, minor remediation costs, and insurance recoveries, producing a noisy disclosure with uncertain materiality. A higher threshold, or a materiality gate, would quiet the note considerably. Several large accounting firms have filed comment letters asking for one.

The third is the First Amendment challenge that any final rule will attract. Commenters have argued that mandatory disclosure of controversial climate metrics is compelled speech beyond the Commission's materiality-based authority under the 1933 and 1934 Acts, citing NIFLA v. Becerra and the line of compelled-speech cases it builds on. The Commission will have to carry a record that the disclosures are factual, non-ideological, and tied to investor protection. How carefully the adopting release does that will determine whether the rule survives its first trip to the Fifth Circuit.

For now, the text to read is the proposing release itself. A private company planning for the public markets should treat it as a floor, not a ceiling: whatever the Commission adopts, the measurement systems the proposal describes will be expected of you by someone, somewhere, within two fiscal years.

Sources

Keep reading

More from the journal.