Deadline Approaching: SEC Seeks Industry Comments on Business and Financial Disclosure Requirements, Including Environmental and Climate Change Issues

Jun 8, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

Pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, all publicly traded companies must provide investors with information to make informed investment and voting decisions. Regulation S-K was adopted in 1977 to foster uniform and integrated disclosure for registration statements and periodic and current reports under both acts. Since Regulation S-K’s adoption, the SEC has revised the disclosure requirements on numerous occasions, often expanding the requirements to ensure that investors have sufficient, material information for their investment and voting decisions.

For example, pursuant to Item 101(c)(1)(xii) of Regulation S-K, a registrant must disclose the material effects that compliance with environmental laws may have on its capital expenditures, earnings and competitive position, as well as any material estimated capital expenditures for the remainder of the fiscal year, the succeeding fiscal year and such future periods that the registrant deems material. In its Concept Release, the SEC solicits information about whether such environmental disclosure continues to be important to investors, whether such disclosure obligations should be increased or reduced, and whether the SEC should implement a specific format for this environmental disclosure. The Concept Release also seeks input on whether bright-line disclosure obligations, such as for environmental proceedings exceeding $100,000, should be utilized or whether a “materiality” standard is more appropriate.

The SEC’s Concept Release acknowledges increased attention to climate change issues, contemplating potential amendments and/or expansion of the existing disclosure obligations. First, recognizing that registrants’ risk profiles are constantly evolving, the SEC is trying to determine whether the risk factor disclosure obligations (Item 503(c)) remain effective in capturing emerging risks, such as climate change and arctic drilling-related risks. Second, since interest in environmental, social or governance disclosure is growing, the SEC seeks input on the importance of sustainability and other public policy issues to investors. Among other things, the SEC requests input on whether the existing disclosure requirements are sufficient to enable investors to evaluate climate change risk or whether increased climate change and sustainability disclosure requirements are needed.

The SEC’s Concept Release offers an excellent opportunity for interested parties to help shape the climate change-related disclosure requirements with which they will need to comply.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.