Overview
Title
Federal Acquisition Regulation: Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate-Related Financial Risk
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government wanted to make a new rule for their big suppliers to talk about how they help with climate change, but they decided not to do it right now because they ran out of time and things are still changing a lot in the world.
Summary AI
DoD, GSA, and NASA have decided to withdraw a proposed rule that aimed to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) for disclosing greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks. The proposal stemmed from Executive Order 14030 and involved major Federal suppliers setting science-based reduction targets. The decision to withdraw is due to the lack of time in the Biden-Harris Administration to finalize the rule and evolving industry practices and standards. The agencies will continue to monitor and consider future actions concerning greenhouse gas disclosure.
Abstract
DoD, GSA, and NASA are withdrawing the proposed rule to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) titled: Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate-Related Financial Risk. Executive Order 14030, directed the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to consider amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) require major Federal suppliers to publicly disclose greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risk and to set science-based reduction targets. A proposed rule was published on November 14, 2022. The agencies lack sufficient time during the Biden-Harris Administration to finalize the proposal. In addition, the agencies' analysis of public comments indicates an evolving practices and standards in industry, and an evolving domestic and international regulatory landscape. Accordingly, this proposed rule is withdrawn, and the FAR case is closed.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The recent withdrawal of a proposed rule by the Department of Defense (DoD), the General Services Administration (GSA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) marks a significant moment in the ongoing dialogue about governmental transparency in matters of greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risk. The proposal was originally motivated by Executive Order 14030, which aimed to require major Federal suppliers to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and set targets for reduction based on scientific data. This withdrawal highlights several key issues worth considering.
General Summary
The document describes the withdrawal of a proposed amendment to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which was initially introduced with the intention of enhancing transparency and encouraging accountability among major Federal suppliers regarding their environmental impacts. The rule aimed to make these suppliers publicly disclose their greenhouse gas emissions along with any financial risks associated with climate change and to commit to reduction targets. However, the agencies involved have decided to retract this proposal, citing insufficient time within the Biden-Harris Administration to finalize the rule and an evolving set of standards and practices within the industry.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues arise from this decision. Firstly, the rationale of lacking sufficient time to finalize the rule suggests potential inefficiencies within the regulatory process, which could reflect broader operational challenges within these federal agencies. Additionally, while the document mentions evolving standards and practices, it could have provided more insight into how these changes might specifically render the proposal obsolete or impractical.
Moreover, terms like "science-based reduction targets," though crucial, are not explained in layman's terms, potentially alienating the general public who might not be familiar with such terminology. This lack of clarity extends to future plans, where descriptions of concrete next steps or timelines are notably absent.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, the withdrawal of this rule could lead to mixed reactions. Those concerned about climate change might view this as a setback in holding large Federal suppliers accountable for their environmental impact. It raises questions about the government’s commitment to transparency and environmental sustainability initiatives involving federal contracts.
Conversely, some may see this decision as a reflection of prudent policy-making, allowing more time to develop a robust regulatory framework that takes into account the latest industry standards and practices.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
The withdrawal positively impacts large Federal suppliers, at least in the short term, as they are relieved from the immediate pressure to disclose sensitive information and commit to specific environmental goals. This might also save these companies from potential immediate costs associated with compliance. However, it leaves uncertainty over what future obligations might look like.
On the flip side, stakeholders like environmental advocacy groups may express disappointment, seeing this as a lost opportunity for progressive environmental legislation. The absence of mandated disclosures could hinder their efforts to hold corporations accountable.
While the decision to withdraw the proposed rule closes this particular case, the implications highlight important discussions around environmental accountability and regulatory efficiency that will likely continue. The agencies have indicated that they will monitor industry practices, suggesting that similar initiatives might emerge in the future, shaped by the evolving landscape of both domestic and international regulations.
Issues
• The document mentions the withdrawal of a proposed rule involving significant environmental and financial implications, but does not elaborate on specific reasons beyond lack of time and evolving standards.
• The decision to withdraw the proposed rule due to 'insufficient time' may suggest inefficient use of resources or potential delays in the regulatory process.
• The document uses technical terms such as 'science-based reduction targets' without providing definitions or explanations in layman's terms, which may hinder understanding.
• Ambiguity exists around future plans for addressing greenhouse gas emissions disclosures and climate-related financial risks, as the text does not specify concrete next steps or timelines.
• The document does not provide clear information on how stakeholder comments were specifically analyzed and what findings influenced the decision to withdraw the proposed rule.
• There is no mention of estimated costs or savings related to withdrawing or implementing the proposed rule, which could help assess financial implications.