GSA Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy

July 26, 2016

MEMORANDUM FOR LINDA NEILSON DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEFENSE PROCUREMENT

THRU: LORIN S. CURIT DIRECTOR FEDERAL ACQUISITION POLICY DIVISION OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTWIDE ACQUISITION POLICY

FROM: HADA FLOWERS DIVISION DIRECTOR REGULATORY SECRETARIAT DIVISION

SUBJECT: FAR Case 2015-024; Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals--Representation; Proposed rule

Attached are the comments received on the subject FAR case published at 81 FR 33192, on May 25, 2016. The comment closing date was July 25, 2016. Seventeen comments were received.

Response Date Commenter Organization Number Received

2015-024-1 07/01/2016 Warren Lavey Univ. of Illinois

2015-024-2 07/07/2016 Christopher Bangs Not Identified

2015-024-3 07/08/2016 Jeffrey Eric Grant Not Identified

2015-024-4 07/09/2016 Roger Prince Not Identified

2015-024-5 07/14/2016 Jack McChesney Applied Research Assoc.

2015-024-6 07/18/2016 Lance Pierce Carbon Disclosure Proj.

2015-024-7 07/25/2016 Brian Johnson Greenpeace

2015-024-8 07/25/2016 Nancy Young Airlines for America U.S. General Services Administration 1800 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20405 www.gsa.gov

2015-024-9 07/25/2016 Gretchen Goldman Union of Concerned Scientists

2015-024-10 07/25/2016 Colleen Morgan Corporate Sustainability Advisors, LLC.

2015-024-11 07/25/2016 Jim Bruce UPS Global Public Affairs

2015-024-12 07/25/2016 Jimmy Christianson Associated General Contractors of America

2015-024-13 07/25/2016 Andriy Shvab American Fuel & Petrochemical ManufacturersFPM

2015-024-14 07/25/2016 Christine Keck/ Energy Systems Group Gregory Collins

2015-024-15 07/25/2016 Howard Feldman American Petroleum Institute

2015-024-16 07/25/2016 Himani Phadke/ Sustainability Accounting Jean Rogers, Ph.D. Standards Board

2015-024-17 07/25/2016 Jim Coburn Ceres

Attachments

2 7/1/2016 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006482062bde&format=xml&showorig=false FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #1 As of: 7/1/16 8:27 AM Received: June 23, 2016 PUBLIC SUBMISSION Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k0­8qd3­pchi Comments Due: July 25, 2016 Submission Type: Web

Docket: FAR­2015­0024 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Comment On: FAR­2015­0024­0001 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Document: FAR­2015­0024­DRAFT­0002 Comment on FR Doc # 2016­12226

Submitter Information

Name: Warren Lavey Address: 3104 Countrybend Lane Champaign, IL, 61822 Email: [email protected] Phone: 3122598868

General Comment

See attached file(s)

Attachments

WGLFAR

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006482062bde&format=xml&showorig=false 1/1 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #1

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Proposed Rule: Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals-Representation (FAR Case 2015-024) Comments to the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration Warren G. Lavey June 23, 2016

Introduction

I file these comments as an individual with relevant expertise. I am an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois. My experience in environmental disclosures and environmentally preferred purchasing includes: co-authored a report “Oil Shift: The Case for Switching Federal Transportation Spending to Alternative Fuel Vehicles” (American Clean Skies Foundation, 2012); submitted comments on the GSA-led procurement of domestic delivery services (DDS3) in 2012-14; contributed recommendations as part of the working groups for Powering Forward: Presidential and Executive Agency Actions to Drive Clean Energy in America (Center for the New Energy Economy, 2014) and the Climate Friendly Purchasing Toolkit (West Coast Climate & Materials Management Forum, 2015-16); drafted the purchasing goals and strategies in the University of Illinois’ Climate Action Plan (2015); presented purchasing strategies to the Illinois Green Governments Coordinating Council (2013-14); advised the Sustainable Purchasing Leadership Council (2014-16); and wrote an article on disclosing material environmental purchasing practices in Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings (The Environmental Forum, March/April 2016).

I support the proposed rule on public disclosure of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and reduction goals by suppliers to the federal government. Additionally, I support the proposed approach on public disclosure of risks faced by suppliers to the federal government as a result of extreme weather and other effects of climate change. Both proposals would be improved

1

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #1

through small changes in the response options and additional details clarifying the terms. The following discussion provides policy analysis and suggested wording revisions.

Policies and Precedent As the Notice correctly observes, the proposed representations would help the agencies implement Executive Orders 13693 and 13653. The proposal would also strengthen compliance with the SEC’s guidance on disclosing climate risks.

Section 15(a) of E.O. 13693 provides that the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) shall annually identify and publicly release an inventory of major Federal suppliers using publicly available Federal procurement information, including information as to whether the supplier has accounted for and publicly disclosed, during the previous calendar year, annual scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emission data and publicly disclosed a greenhouse gas emission reductions target (or targets) for 2015 or beyond.

With the issuance of E.O. 13693, the Administration released a Scorecard to publicly track self- reported GHG emissions disclosure and emissions targets for Federal suppliers with total USG contracts in FY 2014 exceeding $1 billion.1 The Scorecard reflected three levels of supplier performance for disclosure or targets: green (disclosed at minimum Scope 1 and 2 emissions in 2014; has a current GHG goal or target); yellow (commitment to disclose emissions in 2016; commitment to set a target in 2016); and red (no disclosure; no target). The White House statement observed that the Scorecard served “to encourage continued progress across the Federal supply chain”.

In June 2015, CEQ provided instructions for implementing Section 15(a) of E.O. 13693:2 Supplier greenhouse gas inventories should be conducted in accordance with the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard or similar standard. Public disclosure means that the information is available and accessible to the general public, for example, by posting the information on the company's

1 CEQ, “Federal Supplier Greenhouse Gas Management Scorecard”; The White House, “FACT SHEET: Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Federal Government and Across the Supply Chain” (Mar. 19, 2015). 2 CEQ, “Implementing Instructions for Executive Order 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade” at 68 (June 10, 2015).

2

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #1

website; through a company sustainability report, annual report, or similar document; or by reporting annual emissions and/or targets to an emissions reporting program or registry.

As for E.O. 13653, two sections focus on identifying suppliers’ vulnerability to extreme weather and other climate change risks, and encouraging suppliers to assess and mitigate these risks. Section 5(a) requires agencies to develop Agency Adaptation Plans, which evaluate significant climate change risks to operations and missions, and outline agencies’ actions to manage these vulnerabilities. In particular, the agencies must describe how they will consider the need to improve climate adaptation and resilience with respect to agency suppliers and supply chain. In addition, Section 4(a) directs DOD, NASA and other agencies to “develop and provide authoritative, easily accessible, usable, and timely data, information, and decision-support tools on climate preparedness and resilience”.

Finally, the Notice refers to the SEC’s 2010 Guidance Regarding Disclosure Related to Climate Change. This Guidance was intended to assist registrants’ management determine whether climate change-related issues were material, and confirmed that, if material, registrants should provide climate change-related disclosures.3 According to comments filed with the SEC4 and a New York Times article in 2016,5 there are widespread concerns from institutional investors, legislators, state authorities, and others that registrants are not adequately addressing climate change risks. The SEC appears to be doing little to encourage companies to assess, manage and disclose climate change risks; the SEC issued 49 comment letters to companies addressing the adequacy of their climate change disclosures in the two years after releasing the Guidance, but only three such letters in 2012 and none in 2013.6 In contrast, the FAR Notice observed the “growing Federal and public interest in better understanding operational and supply chain risks facing agency suppliers and steps those suppliers are taking to identify and manage those risks.”

3 SEC, “Business and Financial Disclosure Required by Regulation S-K; Concept Release” at 38 (2016). 4 Id. at 208. 5 Gelles, D., “S.E.C. Is Criticized for Lax Enforcement of Climate Risk Disclosure”, N.Y. Times (Jan. 23, 2016). 6 Id,

3

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #1

The proposed FAR revisions would strengthen disclosures related to climate change, by SEC registered companies and other federal suppliers. Under the proposal, all major Federal suppliers would provide representations stating whether they assess risks they face as a result of extreme weather and other effects of climate change, and whether they disclose such risks. These representations would reach a broader set of companies than SEC registrants. The Federal agencies’ attention to these risks would likely lead more companies to assess and disclose them, whether in SEC filings or otherwise. For some SEC-registered companies, these representations would also help them recognize that these risks are material and should be disclosed in SEC filings to comply with the SEC’s Guidance. Moreover, unlike the SEC’s Guidance, these representations would allow Federal agencies and others to distinguish between (a) companies that don’t assess such risks and (b) companies that assess such risks and decide that they are not material for investors.

Revised Response Options and Wording of GHG Representations The proposed GHG representations would benefit from six revisions in the response options and clarifications of the terms. Revised language for these representations reflecting all these suggestions is shown at the end of this section.

1. The proposed representation refers to “the results of a greenhouse gas inventory”. In contrast, E.O. 13693 requires information on whether the supplier publicly disclosed “annual scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emission data”. The representation should add these details, which would avoid a supplier marking “does” even if it solely performed a single scope 1 accounting five years ago. Similarly, a relevant GHG reduction target should cover annual scope 1 and 2 emissions.

2. The proposed representations on GHG emissions and goals would offer two options, does and does not. In contrast, CEQ’s Scorecard issued in March 2015 provided three categories, does, committed to disclose in the next year, and does not. The White House noted that the Scorecard served “to encourage continued progress across the Federal supply chain”, in part by

4

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #1

allowing companies to reflect commitments to improve their practices in the next year. The proposed representations should be revised to offer the option of “commits to disclose in the next 12 months” as in the CEQ’s Scorecard. Along these lines, some Federal procurements include forward-looking commitments to improve the suppliers’ GHG accounting and reduce their emissions.7

3. Furthermore, the proposed representation on goals should add an option to help identify suppliers with serious reduction targets. E.O. 13693’s target for the Federal Government is to reduce its emissions by 40 percent below 2008 levels by 2025. Instead of lumping together all suppliers that disclose a quantitative GHG emissions reduction goal, the representation should allow each supplier to identify whether it discloses a goal of reducing more than 20 percent from a relevant baseline. The response option with this standard would signal that suppliers should aspire to serious reduction targets (not just 5 percent over 20 years). This option would not tie all suppliers to baselines of 2008 levels or targets for 2025.

4. The proposed list of examples for “publicly accessible Web site” is less descriptive than the CEQ’s Implementation Instructions for Section 15(a) of E.O. 13693. In particular, the CEQ in 2015 pointed to annual reports. Integrating GHG reporting into the most respected, widely- read vehicles for communicating company information and strategy has many advantages for Federal agencies and others.8 The list of examples for both GHG emissions and goals should include SEC filings and annual reports. These additions would highlight these respected vehicles for company communications, but not preclude other means of public disclosure. The new sentence should be stated for both representations covering GHG emissions and goals.

7 GSA, “GSA Includes New Environmental Features in Next-Generation Parcel Delivery Contracts”; Ela, J., “GSA Assists Contractors in Making Strides Toward Sustainability” GSA Enterprise Governmentwide Acquisition Contract (GWAC) Division (Nov. 1, 2015) (“While not all Alliant GWAC Industry Partners are participants in the Supply Chain pilot, 51% are already publicly disclosing sustainability information. Many Contractors, including both Alliant Industry Partners and others involved in the pilot program, have found that active management of GHG emissions can increase operational efficiencies and reduce business risks related to climate change, often generating cost savings and other forms of financial value. We definitely will see many more of our Alliant GWAC Industry Partners providing sustainability information on the next generation GSA GWAC.”). 8 Eccles, R. and Krzus, M., One Report: Integrated Reporting for a Sustainable Strategy (2010); Williams, C., “The Securities and Exchange Commission and Corporate Social Transparency”, 112 Harvard L. Rev. 1197 (1999).

5

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #1

5. The term “via a recognized, third-party greenhouse gas emissions reporting program” is vague. The representation should identify one or more examples of acceptable reporting programs (such as Global Reporting Initiative) and note “or equivalent program”. Alternatively, the rule should clarify the source of this recognition (perhaps CEQ or GSA). This sentence should be repeated for the rule on disclosure of GHG goals.

6. Finally, the proposed language for the GHG emissions disclosure refers to “makes available on a publicly accessible Web site the results of a greenhouse gas inventory, performed in accordance with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Standard or equivalent standard.” This provision on public access as well as a standard methodology should be repeated in the language for GHG reduction goals.

These changes are shown in the following revised representations. (1) The Offeror (itself or through its immediate owner or highest-level owner) publicly [ ] does, [ ] commits to in the next 12 months, or [ ] does not disclose annual scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions, i.e., makes available on a publicly accessible Web site the results of a greenhouse gas inventory, performed in accordance with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Standard or equivalent standard. A publicly accessible Web site includes the supplier's own Web site (through an annual report, filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or other document) or via a recognized, third-party greenhouse gas emissions reporting program (such as Global Reporting Initiative or equivalent). (2) The Offeror (itself or through its immediate owner or highest-level owner) [ ] does, with a target for reducing more than 20 percent from a relevant baseline, [ ] does, with a target within 20 percent of a relevant baseline, [ ] commits to in the next 12 months, or [ ] does not disclose a quantitative annual scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal, i.e., a target to reduce absolute emissions or emissions intensity by a specific quantity or percentage, performed in accordance with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Standard or equivalent standard. The disclosure should be made available on a publicly accessible Web site. A publicly accessible Web site includes the supplier's own Web site (through an annual report, filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or other document) or via a recognized, third-party greenhouse gas emissions reporting program (such as Global Reporting Initiative or equivalent).

6

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #1

(c) If the Offeror checked “does” in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this provision respectively, the Offeror shall provide the publicly accessible Web site(s) where greenhouse gas emissions and/or reduction goals are reported:___.

Revised Response Options and Wording of Climate Change Risk Representations The proposed climate change risk representations would benefit from additional response options and several wording revisions described below. Revised language for these representations reflecting all these suggestions is shown at the end of this section.

1. The representation should clarify the term “assess risks” to align with E.O. 13653. a. As for scope of risks, the representation should point to risks to the supplier’s facilities and operations, including its supply chain. To be clear with regard to climate change risks, the description of supply chain should refer to energy, water, and other products and services. b. The representation should distinguish between a supplier that performed a careful, serious compilation of information and analysis versus a company that gave only cursory consideration to climate change risks. in the absence of a standard methodology for assessing climate change risks, the representation should ask about preparation of a report or other written document that analyzed climate change risks and was reviewed by the supplier’s senior management. c. Furthermore, the Agency Adaptation Plans prepared pursuant to E.O. 13653 go beyond assessing climate change risks to analyze how to manage vulnerabilities associated with climate change risks. The representation should ask whether suppliers have undertaken analysis of how to manage vulnerabilities associated with climate change.

2. The representation on disclosure should provide the details discussed above in connection GHG emissions information on Web sites – adding references to annual reports and SEC filings, with a link to the relevant Web site.

7

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #1

3. As discussed above, an option of “commits to in the next 12 months” would be helpful on both the assessment and disclosure representations.

4. The representation on assessment of climate change risks should clarify that this is an ongoing (not one-and-done) process, with changing climate-related risks to assess and manage. The assessment should have been performed within the past 36 months. If the supplier’s assessment is older than 36 months, the response options should encourage the supplier to perform a new analysis within 12 months.

5. The representation on disclosure in an SEC filing should clarify that climate change risk was discussed in the most recent annual filing pursuant to Regulation S-K, such as a Form 10-K report.

These changes are shown in the following revised representations. The Offeror, or its immediate owner or highest-level owner, [ ] did within the past 36 months, [ ] commits to in the next 12 months, or [ ] does not assess risks it faces as a result of extreme weather and other effects of climate change, including physical impacts and risks to its facilities, operations, and supply chain. Assessment involves a report or other written document that analyzed its climate change risks and managing its related vulnerabilities, and was reviewed by its senior management. Supply chain involves energy, water, and other products and services.

The Offeror, or its immediate owner or highest-level owner, publicly [ ] does, [ ] commits to in the next 12 months, or [ ] does not disclose risks it faces as a result of extreme weather and other effects of climate change, including physical impacts and risks to its facilities, operations, and supply chain, i.e., an analysis made available on a publicly accessible Web site. A publicly accessible Web site includes the supplier's own Web site (through an annual report, filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or other document). If the Offeror checked “does”, provide the publicly accessible Web site(s) showing this disclosure:___.

8

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #1

. If the Offeror files with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Offeror's most recent annual filing pursuant to SEC Regulation S-K (such as a Form 10-K report) or that of its immediate owner or highest-level owner [ ] does, or [ ] does not discuss the risks it faces as a result of extreme weather and other effects of climate change, including physical impacts and risks to its facilities, operations and supply chain..

Conclusion

The proposed rule on public disclosure of GHG emissions and reduction goals by suppliers to the federal government would advance the agencies’ ability to implement the requirements of E.O. 13693 as well as the policies of that order. Similarly, the proposed approach on public disclosure of risks faced by suppliers to the federal government as a result of extreme weather and other effects of climate change would promote the agency planning required by E.O. 13653. The information that would be solicited is not presently available from most major suppliers to the federal government, such as in compliance with the SEC’s Guidance.

Each of the draft representations would be strengthened by the revisions described above, addressing the addition of response options and clarifying the terms. In particular, the response options should distinguish companies that set serious GHG reduction goals (exceeding 20 percent), assessed climate change risks within the past 36 months, and commit to actions in the next 12 months. The clarifications should note that climate change assessments consider facilities, operations and supply chain, analyze how to manage vulnerabilities, and be written reports reviewed by senior management. Other clarifications should point to disclosures in annual reports, SEC filings, or through programs like the Global Reporting Initiative.

Respectfully submitted,

Warren G. Lavey 3104 Countrybend Lane Champaign, IL 61822 [email protected]

9

7/8/2016 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006482092732&format=xml&showorig=false

As of: 7/8/16 8:14 AM Received: July 07, 2016 PUBLIC SUBMISSION Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k0­8qmi­7u7h Comments Due: July 25, 2016 Submission Type: API

Docket: FAR­2015­0024 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Comment On: FAR­2015­0024­0001 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Document: FAR­2015­0024­DRAFT­0003 Comment on FR Doc # 2016­12226

Submitter Information

Name: Christopher Bangs Address: 1537 Windcrest Dr Pittsburgh, PA, 15206 Email: [email protected] Phone: 4127708370

General Comment

I strongly support this rule, but it should be strengthened to require these contractors to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions.

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006482092732&format=xml&showorig=false 1/1 7/14/2016 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006482098e0b&format=xml&showorig=false FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #3 As of: 7/14/16 8:53 AM Received: July 08, 2016 PUBLIC SUBMISSION Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k0­8qn9­2gih Comments Due: July 25, 2016 Submission Type: Web

Docket: FAR­2015­0024 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Comment On: FAR­2015­0024­0001 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Document: FAR­2015­0024­DRAFT­0004 Comment on FR Doc # 2016­12226

Submitter Information

Name: Jeffrey Eric Grant Address: 34 Newgate Road Oxford, CT, 06478 Email: [email protected] Phone: 475­444­3288

General Comment

I actually believe that the necessity for government intrusion into the choices that companies make concerning the energy they use is unwarranted. The companies pay for the energy used (regardless of source). If the Federal government needs information on energy use, they should query existing information sources, such as the Department of Energy. All information should be at the macroscopic level, rather than at the microscopic level.

Therefore, I suggest this proposed regulation be scrapped.

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006482098e0b&format=xml&showorig=false 1/1 7/14/2016 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006482099855&format=xml&showorig=false FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #4 As of: 7/14/16 8:54 AM Received: July 09, 2016 PUBLIC SUBMISSION Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k0­8qnw­yi9e Comments Due: July 25, 2016 Submission Type: Web

Docket: FAR­2015­0024 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Comment On: FAR­2015­0024­0001 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Document: FAR­2015­0024­DRAFT­0005 Comment on FR Doc # 2016­12226

Submitter Information

Name: Roger Prince Address: 87 Perryville Rd Pittstown, NJ, 08867 Email: [email protected]

General Comment

This proposal is just plain silly ­ the problem is not the companies that sell fuels, it is the users who consume them. What we need is a predictably increasing, revenue neutral, carbon tax that gradually increases the cost of carbon emission so that consumers begin to price this in their life plans.

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006482099855&format=xml&showorig=false 1/1 7/26/2016 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=09000064820b0430&format=xml&showorig=false FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #5 As of: 7/26/16 8:38 AM Received: July 14, 2016 PUBLIC SUBMISSION Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k0­8qr8­y49u Comments Due: July 25, 2016 Submission Type: API

Docket: FAR­2015­0024 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Comment On: FAR­2015­0024­0001 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Document: FAR­2015­0024­DRAFT­0006 Comment on FR Doc # 2016­12226

Submitter Information

Name: Jack McChesney Address: Applied Research Associates, Inc. 4300 San Mateo Blvd NE Suite A220 Albuquerque, NM, 87110 Email: [email protected]

General Comment

see attached comments

Attachments

Comments on FAR Case 2015­024, Greenhouse Gas Emissions

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=09000064820b0430&format=xml&showorig=false 1/1 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #5

Concerning the proposed representation at 52.223-ZZ, section (a) notes that a response is optional if the Offeror received less than $7.5M in federal contract awards in the preceding fiscal year. While this is correctly aimed at reducing burden on small business concerns, there is a more direct approach to targeting the representation to industries that generate greenhouse gas emissions. Recommend that the NAICS codes used to categorize small businesses be specifically identified by industry classification thereby omitting small businesses that provide products or services unrelated to greenhouse gas emissions. If a contract dollar threshold is retained for obtaining representations, at least gather the applicable NAICS code(s) for the respondents so that costs and benefits may be compared.

The second objective of the FAR case discusses an approach to disclosures of climate change and extreme weather effects and to project those risk assessments into impacts on Federal facilities, operations, and missions. The "does/does not" survey combined with variability of definitions of climate change and difficulties in assessing impacts on Federal operations and missions will likely render the data of little value towards furthering the objectives of the proposed changes. 7/26/2016 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=09000064820c64ef&format=xml&showorig=false FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #6 As of: 7/26/16 8:43 AM Received: July 18, 2016 PUBLIC SUBMISSION Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k0­8qtw­4ne3 Comments Due: July 25, 2016 Submission Type: Web

Docket: FAR­2015­0024 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Comment On: FAR­2015­0024­0001 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Document: FAR­2015­0024­DRAFT­0007 Comment on FR Doc # 2016­12226

Submitter Information

Name: Lance Pierce Address: 127 West 26th Street Suite 300 New York, NY, 10001 Email: [email protected] Phone: 2123782086

General Comment

See attached file(s)

Attachments

ZTA FAR comment_CDP July 18

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=09000064820c64ef&format=xml&showorig=false 1/1 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #6

July 2016 Response from CDP to: FAR Case 2015-024 – Federal Acquisition Regulation: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals-Representation:

Contact: Lance Pierce, President, CDP North America, [email protected]

To Whom It May Concern,

CDP, formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project, welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposed Federal Acquisition Regulation Rule for the Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals-Representation.

We would like to first express our strong support for the proposed rule. We believe transparency makes the market work better, and the results of our work over the past 15 years have shown that adequate disclosure of GHG emissions and related reduction goals by corporations benefits those institutions, their investors and the public alike.

CDP Overview:

CDP is a global non-profit organization with offices across the world, including in New York and San Francisco. CDP began requesting large, multinational, publicly traded organizations disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and their efforts to reduce them in 2001. Since then we have asked increasing numbers of companies to disclose this information annually on behalf of a collaboration of investors, which today represents the largest collaboration of investors on any single issue in history. In 2016, the investor authority behind CDP’s annual request for climate-related disclosure was 822 investors with approximately $100 trillion in assets, which equates to roughly 1/3 of the total invested assets in the world. These investors are typically known as CDP’s signatory investors and they are a mix of financial service practitioners, investors, wealth managers and others.

In 2008 CDP launched our supply chain program with the support of Walmart and other large purchasers who were looking for an established platform to gather data to help them better understand the risks climate change presented within their supply chains. CDP’s supply chain program follows a similar approach to our investor program, in that we use a single, standardized set of questions on behalf of a large collective authority. In 2016 our supply chain members totaled 89 companies (including the US General FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #6

Services Administration and the US Department of the Navy) with a combined purchasing power of $2.7 trillion. They use the CDP disclosure platform to query their top tier suppliers on their climate risk strategies and their GHG emissions and use the resulting data to inform their procurement decision-making.

As a result of these efforts, over 5,600 companies globally (60% of global market capitalization) answer CDP’s standardized set of questions on climate change, which include questions on GHG emissions and GHG emission reduction targets. Most of the responses are publicly available and CDP now holds the most comprehensive reference repository globally of primary corporate environmental data.

During the past 15 years, we have worked directly with multinational companies headquartered both within and outside the United States, including many of the companies likely to be affected by the proposed rule, to facilitate improved climate- related disclosure. Our comment below is based on this experience.

CDP comment the proposed rule:

The proposed rule states “Public disclosure of GHG emissions and reduction goals or targets has become standard practice in many industries, and companies are increasingly asking their own suppliers about their GHG management practices.” This is in large part due to the key role CDP has played in leveraging our established disclosure platform for the benefit of large purchasers seeking to better understand climate-risk within their supply chains as part of our supply chain program. These organizations span a variety of industries and include the US General Services Administration, US Department of the Navy, Northrop Grumman, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, Intel Corporation, TD Bank, Bank of America, Walmart, Kellogg’s, The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, Ford Motor Company and General Motors.

The mainstreaming of disclosure CDP seeded among some of the best-known brands in the country has many benefits in addition to its fundamental value-add of providing the marketplace with real-life, real-time raw data on the business response to climate change. Companies that consistently participate in CDP’s supply chain program increase their investments to reduce carbon emissions and achieve increasingly greater carbon and financial savings as well. For example:

 Suppliers responding to CDP demonstrate an increased awareness of environmental risk and are taking action to mitigate it – the perception of climate risks among suppliers grew from 78% in 2013 to 84% in 2015,

 Suppliers with an emissions reduction target grew from 50% in 2013 to 56% in 2015,

 Suppliers reporting on their gross global GHG emissions increased from 68% in 2013 to 85% in 2015,

 46% of suppliers disclosing via CDP in 2015 provide incentives to individuals for FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #6

the management of climate change issues,

 Suppliers reported a combined total of $6.6 billion in savings annually as a result of GHG reduction projects in their 2015 disclosures,

 Around three quarters of suppliers disclosing via CDP for at least the past three years have climate risk management procedures in place and are actively reducing emissions, compared to less than half of the first-time responders,

 Repeat participants achieve an average of US$1.5 million in annual savings for each carbon-cutting project; first-time disclosers only realize an annual savings of US$900,000 per initiative.

These data points contained within some of our key reports, which are based on the data disclosed by over 4,000 suppliers, all speak to the great benefit of public disclosure. Put simply, disclosure works.

Public disclosure of GHG emission and reduction targets is already the norm, not the exception. The White House CEQ revealed through public CDP data in the Federal Supplier Greenhouse Gas Management Scorecard that many key contractors are already well on their way to effectively managing their greenhouse gas footprints. This corresponds with our most recent analysis of the largest 500 companies by market capitalization in the United States (the S&P 500), in which seventy percent of the S&P 500 companies disclosed via CDP. Within that response group:

 Two thirds have their GHG emissions data (both scope 1 and 2 – direct and indirect) independently verified,

 Board or senior management responsibility for climate change increased from 80% in 2010 to 94% in 2015,

 Companies providing incentives for the management of climate change within their organizations rose from 47% on 2010 to 75% in 2015,

 Companies with active emissions reduction initiatives shot up from 47% in 2010 to 89% in 2015.

The proposed rule states: “The President has made GHG emissions reduction a priority and E.O. 13693 establishes a strategy to reduce GHG emissions across Federal operations and the supply chain that is rooted in developing an inventory of contractor GHG management practices... Unfortunately, there is currently no single place where this information can be easily evaluated and no established method to collect this information.” FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #6

CDP’s extensive database of corporate disclosure on GHG emissions and emissions reduction targets sits on our website and is also funneled to investors via Bloomberg terminals. CDP’s process of facilitating a robust disclosure exchange between the investor and purchasing authorities we represent and the requested corporations via a secure online response system has become the most established method of collecting climate-related disclosure from corporate entities. CDP is investing heavily in improving the quality and quantity of responses we receive to our annual questionnaires, and also in the accessibility of the resulting data for our wide user-base.

By participating in our supply chain program, two branches of the government with tremendous buying power are already contributing to the further establishment of CDP’s platform, and to building our database of information designed for the public good.

When Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus attended CDP North America’s workshop at Google in April, he said: “We’re going to get our major suppliers – and we buy a lot of stuff – to participate [in CDP], to disclose what their carbon footprint, their carbon management practices are, as they sell to us. It’s already in use by 85 global purchasing organizations to collaborate with their suppliers. And I hope that by bringing an organization as big as the Department of the Navy in will help to accelerate that.

We’re really glad to be part of this. We’ve got an interest in this. We’ve got skin in this game. [……] So what CDP is doing, what you’re all doing is helping to have an impact on climate change. So on behalf of the Navy, thank you for taking a leadership role in this. We’ll be where we’ve always been: out front, in front of energy change, in front of innovation”.

The Navy’s participation in CDP follows the lead of the US federal government’s largest procurer of goods and services, the US General Services Administration, which began utilizing the CDP disclosure platform in 2015 to better understand the risks climate change places on its supply chain. “By disclosing through CDP supply chain, GSA’s private sector partners can prepare themselves to do business with us in the future, as the agency continues to incorporate carbon disclosure goals and performance criteria into specific contracts” said Kevin Kampschroer, the GSA’s Chief Sustainability Officer.

We note the rule is careful to explain that “the disclosure will apply only to major Federal suppliers who have been awarded contracts totaling more than $7.5 million in goods and services in the prior Government fiscal year. Based on Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 data, the FAR Council expects this requirement will cover approximately 5,500 unique entities, including about 2,700 small businesses.” This is notable in that it extends well beyond the electricity sector (covered under the EPA’s Clean Power Plan) and heavy-emitting facilities, which are required to report under the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. It rightfully recognizes that companies of all sectors, sizes and geographies have an obligation to manage their direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions, and each has a role to play in driving the innovation that will unlock the low-carbon economy.

In 2015 almost 1,000 small and medium-sized enterprises disclosed through CDP, and a few earned a spot alongside their larger peers on The Supplier Climate A List, which FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #6 identifies companies leading on climate action and GHG reductions.

CDP is also encouraged to see that the proposed rule focuses not just on greenhouse gas mitigation, but also on strengthening the disclosure of climate risk information, specifically citing that “agency suppliers that are public companies are already subject to requirements to disclose material risks, including relevant risks associated with climate change, per Securities and Exchange Commission Interpretation: Commission Guidance Regarding Disclosure Related to Climate Change (Release Nos. 33-9106; 34-61469; FR-82).” Since our first request for corporate disclosure, CDP has been asking companies to consider their regulatory, physical and reputational risks from the impacts of climate change, and to disclose the magnitude, likelihood and financial implications of those risks. There is growing acceptance that climate change is a mainstream investment issue, echoed in the recent SEC Concept Release on the business and financial disclosure required by regulation S-K. Companies are increasingly including climate change-related information in mainstream corporate reports, using a recognized international framework such as the Climate Disclosure Standard Board’s Climate Change Reporting Framework.

The proposed rule recommends sharing this information with agencies to better inform their own risk management strategies. CDP and our stakeholders have been steadily proving that disclosure works for fifteen years. We believe the proposed rule will further clarify the significance of climate-related disclosure in a marketplace that is already thriving on the information CDP has provided. Climate disclosure is good for business, good for investors and good for the public. Transparency illuminates the path to innovation and helps deliver sustainable economies. 7/26/2016 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006482119fc2&format=xml&showorig=false FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #7 As of: 7/26/16 8:45 AM Received: July 25, 2016 PUBLIC SUBMISSION Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k0­8qye­huq5 Comments Due: July 25, 2016 Submission Type: API

Docket: FAR­2015­0024 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Comment On: FAR­2015­0024­0001 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Document: FAR­2015­0024­DRAFT­0018 Comment on FR Doc # 2016­12226

Submitter Information

Name: Brian Johnson Address: 702 H Street NW Ste. 300 Washington, DC, 20001 Email: [email protected] Phone: 443­536­5310 Organization: Greenpeace

General Comment

See attachment.

Attachments

Public Comment_Federal suppliers_Greenpeace

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006482119fc2&format=xml&showorig=false 1/1 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #7

PUBLIC COMMENT

Re: Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Proposed Rule: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals- Representation (FAR Case 2015-024)

Submitted by Greenpeace July 25, 2016

Greenpeace appreciates that DoD, GSA and NASA have proposed this rule. The rule would expand upon the Federal Supplier Greenhouse Gas Management Scorecard put out by the CEQ, continuing an important trend in the government’s tracking of its scope 3 emissions--an important step in reducing the government’s overall emissions as outlined by E.O. 13693.

At the same time, Greenpeace appreciates the government’s understanding of the role the government can play in impacting the larger market. The federal government is the single largest consumer of energy in the nation. By encouraging transparency around emissions and emissions goals of suppliers, the government can utilize its purchasing power to encourage companies to reduce their scope 1 and 2 emissions.

However, Greenpeace advocates that the government strengthen the rule, such that the FAR would not only require vendors to indicate whether their emissions and emissions goals are reported publicly, but require government agencies to take into consideration vendor emissions and goals when selecting bids.

Adding this element to the FAR follows through on the intention of E.O. 13693 to “build a clean energy economy,” “fostering innovation” through agency leadership. It is a natural extension of the E.O.’s requirement that the seven largest procuring agencies plan “at least five new procurements annually in which the agency may include, as appropriate, contract requirements for vendors or evaluation criteria that consider contractor emissions and greenhouse gas emissions management practices.” And it matches precedents already set by agencies, such as GSA, when in 2014 it considered greenhouse gas intensity in its bid selection for multi-million dollar delivery services.

While it is true that disclosure in and of itself is a critical aspect of managing emissions, disclosure only goes as far as the decisions it engenders around bid selection. Requiring agencies to consider emissions and emissions goals when selecting bids is critical to fully leveraging the government’s purchasing power to reduce the emissions of its suppliers.

Greenpeace understands the critical nature of such a requirement based on its own advocacy. Since 2011, our organization has been campaigning on internet companies to commit to powering their data centers with 100% renewable energy.1 A number of companies have made this commitment, including Facebook, Apple and Google, and as a result have already been working with their utilities to provide more renewable options.

1 http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/click-clean/ FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #7

In North Carolina, Google, Apple and Facebook have successfully pushed for local utility Duke Energy to create a renewable energy access program.2 Not long after, Google employed the program to provide renewable power to an expansion of its data center.3 In Virginia, Dominion Resources is creating a special rate program for Amazon Web Services in order to help the company toward its commitment to becoming 100% renewably powered.4 (An important caveat is that Amazon has yet to publicly report data about the company’s emissions, so it cannot be known whether the company is truly meeting its emissions goals.)

In these instances, utility suppliers adjusted their energy sourcing in order to meet the commitments of important customers. Suppliers to the federal government are similarly keen to meet the parameters of government agencies--but only if the government holds itself accountable to reducing the emissions of its supply chain. Now is the opportunity for the government to close the loop on its scope 3 emissions, and requiring agencies to consider supplier emissions and emission goals when selecting bids is the additional step that is needed.

*****

Contact:

Brian Johnson Climate & Energy Campaigner Greenpeace (443) 536-5310 [email protected]

2 http://www.wired.com/2013/11/green-source-rider/ 3 http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/energy/2015/11/google-taps-duke-energy-pilot- program-to-provide.html 4 http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Amazon-and-Dominion-Power-Forge-a-New- Renewable-Energy-Path-in-Virginia 7/26/2016 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648211aba7&format=xml&showorig=false FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #8 As of: 7/26/16 8:47 AM Received: July 25, 2016 PUBLIC SUBMISSION Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k0­8qye­291y Comments Due: July 25, 2016 Submission Type: Web

Docket: FAR­2015­0024 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Comment On: FAR­2015­0024­0001 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Document: FAR­2015­0024­DRAFT­0019 Comment on FR Doc # 2016­12226

Submitter Information

Name: Nancy Young Address: 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 1300 Washington, DC, 20004 Email: [email protected] Phone: 202­626­4000

General Comment

Please see the attached document with the comments of Airlines for America (A4A) on FAR Case 2015­ 024.

Attachments

A4A Comments_FAR­GHG Disclosure­7­25­16

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648211aba7&format=xml&showorig=false 1/1 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #8

July 25, 2016

Filed Electronically: http://www.regulations.gov

Re: Airlines for America (A4A) Comments on “FAR Case 2015-024; Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals—Representation”

To Whom It May Concern:

Airlines for America® (A4A), the principal trade and service organization of the U.S. airline industry,1 appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Proposed Rule presented in “FAR Case 2015-024; Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals— Representation,” 81 Fed. Reg. 33,192 (May 25, 2016). As the record of the A4A carriers demonstrates, although the U.S. airlines contribute only two percent to our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) inventory and the world’s airlines contribute only two percent of the global carbon dioxide (CO2) inventory, we take our role in controlling GHG emissions very seriously. We also support appropriate reporting and disclosures of environmental information, including information on GHG emissions and efforts to limit and reduce such emissions. However, as detailed below, we do not support the current proposal to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation to require the proposed disclosures, as the proposal is overreaching and unduly vague and the use to which the reported information would be put is unclear and problematic.

We set forth our comments below, after a preface on our GHG emissions record and commitments.

Overview – Commercial Aviation’s Strong GHG Emissions Record

An important preface to A4A’s comments on the Proposed Rule is that A4A and its members have a strong GHG emissions record and are committed to continuing to improve on that record. Over the past several decades, commercial airlines have dramatically improved fuel and GHG efficiency by investing billions of dollars in fuel-saving aircraft and engines, innovative technologies that improve aerodynamics, and cutting-edge route optimization software. As a result of these efforts, although U.S. airlines comprise 5 percent of U.S. economic activity, they account for only 2 percent of the GHG emissions in the nation’s GHG inventory.2 The industry has improved fuel efficiency over 120 percent since 1978, saving 4 billion metric tons of CO2, the equivalent to taking 23 million cars off the road in each of those years.3 Further, the U.S.

1 A4A’s members are: Alaska Airlines, Inc.; American Airlines Group; Atlas Air, Inc.; Federal Express Corporation; Hawaiian Airlines; JetBlue Airways Corp.; Southwest Airlines Co.; United Continental Holdings, Inc.; and United Parcel Service Co.; Air Canada, Inc. is an associate member. 2 See Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014 (April 2016).

3 Fuel savings facts are from data from the U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Carbon dioxide savings and equivalencies were calculated using EPA tools at: www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html.

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #8 FAR Case 2015-024 July 25, 2016 Page - 2

airlines carried 24 percent more passengers and cargo in 2015 than they did in 2000 while emitting 6 percent less CO2, improving their fuel efficiency by 31 percent over this time period alone.

At the same time, commercial aviation is vitally important to local, national, and global economies, supporting a large percentage of U.S. economic output. To put that in perspective, a 2014 study by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) made a number of critical findings regarding the incredible extent to which the national economy is dependent on commercial aviation, which is directly or indirectly responsible for nearly $1.5 trillion in U.S. economic activity (gross output), an estimated 11.8 million jobs, and $459 billion in earnings.4 Comparing the U.S. airlines’ economic output to their GHG output, it is clear that commercial aviation is an extremely GHG-efficient economic engine.

Despite the industry’s strong record to date, A4A and our members are not stopping there. A4A and its members are part of a global aviation coalition that has committed to emissions reduction goals and measures that will continue to reduce aviation’s climate impact going forward. Our coalition has committed to 1.5 percent annual average fuel efficiency improvements through 2020 and carbon neutral growth from 2020, subject to critical aviation infrastructure and technology advances achieved by government and industry. Our focus is on getting further fuel efficiency and emissions savings through new aircraft technology, sustainable alternative aviation fuels and air traffic management and infrastructure improvements.5 To the extent we are not able to meet our targets through concerted industry and government investments in these measures, the global aviation sector position is that a properly designed market-based measure (MBM) – in the form of a carbon offset program – could be used to “fill the gap.”

In sum, the initiatives the U.S. airlines are undertaking to further address GHG emissions are designed to responsibly and effectively limit the industry’s fuel consumption, GHG contributions, and potential climate change impacts, while allowing commercial aviation to continue to serve as a key contributor to the U.S. and global economies.

4 See FAA, The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy (June 2014), available at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/2014-economic-impact-report.pdf.

5 We are keenly focused on these advances. For example, the U.S. airlines are partnering to modernize the air traffic management system and to reinvigorate research and development in aviation environmental technology. Further, A4A and its members are working in partnership with others on the development of commercially viable, sustainable alternative aviation fuel, which could further reduce aviation’s GHG emissions while enhancing U.S. energy independence and security. A4A is a founding member of the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative® (CAAFI), a public-private partnership with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other stakeholders that is working to hasten the development and deployment of such fuels. Among other accomplishments, CAAFI helped lead the effort for specifications certifying five alternative jet fuels. Having helped lay the technical and regulatory groundwork for these fuels, A4A members have already begun to use bio-jet fuel on commercial flights. Moreover, we supported the International Civil Aviation Organization’s development of a CO2 certification standard for new type design and newly manufactured aircraft, which was touted by the White House as an important “part of a comprehensive approach by the United States and other ICAO countries to reduce carbon emissions from aviation through technology development, air traffic improvements, alternative fuels, and market mechanisms.” See White House Fact Sheet at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press- office/2016/02/08/fact-sheet-us-leadership-securing-first-ever-global-carbon-emissions.

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #8 FAR Case 2015-024 July 25, 2016 Page - 3

Comments on the Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Requirement for Notification of Public Disclosure Regarding GHG Emissions

Although A4A and our members are committed to continuing to reduce the industry’s GHG emissions footprint and to appropriate disclosure requirements in that regard,6 we have serious concerns about the Proposed Rule. As we understand it, the primary proposal is to establish a requirement that companies that contract with the U.S. government (via NASA, DoD or GSA, collectively referred to herein as “the Agencies”) to inform the federal government of “if and where they publicly disclose GHG emissions and GHG reduction goals or targets.” 81 Fed. Reg. at 33,192. This would be mandatory for those who received $7.5 million or more in federal contract awards and “voluntary” for those under that threshold. The specific representations that would be required are set forth in proposed 48 CFR Section 23.803 and proposed 48 CFR Section 52.212-3(s) (81 Fed. Reg. at 33,195).

While appreciating the government’s interest in continuing to address supply chain emissions, the proposal is overreaching, unduly vague and otherwise highly problematic in multiple respects. First, to the extent that the federal government (via the Agencies) seeks – as the Federal Register notice asserts – “accurate, up-to-date information on its suppliers,” it is unclear why public disclosure of that information would be a necessary prerequisite. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has adopted various rules requiring an array of industries to make GHG disclosures, consistent with underlying legal authorities and demonstrated environmental benefit. The current Proposed Rule appears to extend GHG reporting beyond that, without the necessary industry-by-industry analysis about the appropriate means to do so.

Second, the Proposed Rule does not sufficiently define what would be considered “public disclosure” and “publicly accessible.” Proposed 48 CFR Section 52.212-3(s) suggests that making GHG emissions disclosures “available on a publicly accessible Web site” including “the supplier’s own web site or via a recognized, third-party greenhouse gas emissions reporting program” is expected, but neither the proposed regulatory text nor the Federal Register discussion provide any further detail on placement, what constitutes “access” or other details. By way of example, some A4A members participate in the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). The CDP makes certain data available to the public upon request, although registration is required. Access to companies’ data for business uses requires a separate access protocol. In A4A’s view, CDP would be one of the many ways that disclosure and public access might be handled consistent with the Proposed Rule. However, the Proposed Rule is unclear in this regard.

Third, the Proposed Rule is unduly vague regarding the nature of the GHG inventory that would satisfy the disclosure requirement and does not provide support for the limited guidance on the

6 Note that the U.S. airlines have long been subject to the world’s most comprehensive aviation-related data reporting obligations under the provisions of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 and Title 14 of U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 241 (14 CFR 241),which include fuel consumption reporting requirements from which airline CO2 emissions can be and is derived. Airlines must report the fuel consumption data to the Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) under reporting protocols commonly referred to as “Form 41.” In turn, the BTS makes this information publicly available. See http://www.transtats.bts.gov/fuel.asp. Also, given that Form 41 also includes air passenger, cargo and other data, airline fuel efficiency data can readily be calculated from this database.

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #8 FAR Case 2015-024 July 25, 2016 Page - 4

inventory that is provided. Proposed 48 CFR Section 52.212-3(s)(2)(i) asserts an expectation that the GHG emissions disclosure would be “the results of a greenhouse gas inventory, performed in accordance with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Standard or equivalent standard.” Yet there is no guidance provided on what would be deemed “equivalent.” Moreover, this provision raises a question of whether and, if so, how the federal government would review the underlying inventory to determine if it was “in accordance with” such a standard. Further, the Agencies provide no support for choosing the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Standard as the model for this requirement, as opposed to other such standards, making the proposal appear arbitrary. In addition, the Agencies do not specify – as they should – the scope of emissions to be captured in the inventory and reporting for purposes of the federal procurement representations. In this regard, A4A respectfully submits that – should the Agencies go forward with this rulemaking – the Agencies should clarify that the GHG emissions that would be relevant to such a disclosure are only those that the company directly emits, rather than those up or downstream. Otherwise, there will be duplicative reporting across companies and sectors.

Fourth, A4A urges the Agencies to withdraw the proposal to add nitrogen trifluoride to the definition of “greenhouse gases.” The Federal Acquisition Regulations currently define “greenhouse gases” to include the six primary GHGs, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, which EPA has recognized as posing potential endangerment to human health and the environment for GHG regulatory purposes under the Clean Air Act.7 These gases are long-lived, well-mixed, and are understood to have a high global warming potential. Furthermore, all six gases are directly emitted as GHGs. Because these GHGs are the direct result of human activity, they can be identified and quantified for reporting purposes, and, where warranted, subject to appropriate controls. Nitrogen trifluoride, on the other hand, does not have these characteristics.

Fifth, we are concerned about the vagueness in the representation proposed with respect to forward-looking GHG emissions goals. The only guidance on what may be expected appears to be in the wording in proposed 48 CFR Section 52.212-3(s)(2)(ii), which asks whether the company discloses “a quantitative greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal, i.e., a target to reduce absolute emissions or emissions intensity by a specific quantity or percentage.” However, there is no further guidance on this, such as timeframes, metrics, whether the goals must be company-specific or whether collective goals would qualify, etc. For example, as noted, A4A and its members are part of a global aviation coalition that has adopted goals to improve fuel efficiency (and hence GHG emissions efficiency) by an annual average of 1.5% through 2020 and to achieve carbon neutral growth from 2020, subject to critical aviation infrastructure and technology advances achieved by government and industry. Would such goals be deemed to satisfy the requirement? In A4A’s view, they should. But, in any event, given the lack of specific criteria for expressing forward-looking goals, the information the Agencies would receive under this requirement would be a mixed bag, such that its value to the Agencies would be highly questionable.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the Proposed Rule is unduly vague about – and raises significant concerns regarding – what the Agencies might do with the information in the required disclosures. The Federal Register notice describing the Proposed Rule implies that the Agencies will use the information to “help the Government assess supplier GHG management

7 See 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009) (Clean Air Act Section 202 endangerment finding).

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #8 FAR Case 2015-024 July 25, 2016 Page - 5

practices and assist agencies in developing strategies to engage with contractors to reduce supply chain emissions.” 81 Fed. Reg. at 33,192. Yet, neither the proposed regulatory language nor the Federal Register discussion explains how this might work in practice. Of even greater concern, particularly given the vague nature of the disclosure requirements and the variability of the information likely to be reported, are suggestions that the Agencies may use the information to compare among companies and as a basis for procurement decisions.

When the Proposed Rule was released, a statement posted to the White House website, titled “Making Federal Acquisitions Climate-Smart,” stated that the Proposed Rule “leverages the Federal Government’s purchasing power to push for this type of unprecedented disclosure.”8 That statement also cited an example where the GSA “factored-in greenhouse gas intensity (paired with estimated damages from those emissions) to make multi-million dollar contract awards.” The Federal Register notice itself states that “[b]y asking suppliers whether or not they publicly report emissions and reduction targets, the Federal Government will have accurate, up- to-date information on its suppliers.” 81 Fed. Reg. at 33,192. These statements imply that the Agencies intend to use disclosed GHG data to drive comparisons across companies and as a basis for procurement decisions, but no detail is provided on how this might be accomplished. Thus, A4A has significant concerns that this might be done on an ad hoc basis, raising significant process and fairness concerns. Moreover, as the Agencies apparently do not have the statutory authority to require a common approach to GHG inventories, goals and disclosures across or even within particular sectors (and, hence, have provided only vague guidance on compliance as noted above), the information that the Agencies are likely to get will have differing scopes and metrics, making comparisons unwieldy, unreasonable and inappropriate.

Further, while the Proposed Rule proposes to allow for both “does” and “does not” answers with respect to whether a company publicly reports GHG emissions and/or GHG emissions goals in accordance with the representations in proposed 48 CFR Section 52.212-3(s), the Proposed Rule does not specify what the result of a “does not” answer will be. To the extent the Agencies intend to make procurement decisions based on the required representations, it appears that the Agencies might preclude a company from a procurement opportunity based on a “does not” answer, even if the company is not otherwise required to prepare and publish a GHG emissions inventory or does so based on standards or requirements not clearly meeting the Section 52.212-3(s) representation requirements. Without underlying statutory authority and/or sector- specific rulemaking to require specific reporting, such an outcome would be questionable as a matter of law and due process.

Relatedly, although appreciating that the Proposed Rule asserts that GHG emissions disclosures would be “voluntary” for those with less than $7.5 million of annual contracting business with the government, we are concerned that a company’s choice not to volunteer such information could well be held against them in procurement decisions. Again, this would be inappropriate.

In sum, A4A has serious concerns regarding the Agencies’ proposal for GHG emissions disclosures and urges the Agencies to withdraw the proposal. If the Agencies choose to proceed with the proposal, significant revisions and clarifications would be needed to address

8 The statement is available at the following web link: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/05/25/making-federal-acquisitions-climate-smart.

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #8 FAR Case 2015-024 July 25, 2016 Page - 6

current flaws and an additional opportunity for notice and comment should be provided on any revised proposal.

B. Potential for SEC-Related Representations

Along with the proposals for GHG emissions disclosures, the Agencies indicated that they are considering requiring a disclosure statement as to whether the vendor company “does/does not assess risks they face as a result of extreme weather and other effects of climate change, including physical impacts and risks,” whether the vendor company discloses those risks to the public and whether they are included in the company’s SEC disclosures. 81 Fed. Reg. at 33,193. The Agencies set forth draft representation language to this effect, including as to whether such information is provided in the company’s SEC Regulation S-K filing.

While respecting that climate change and its impacts should be addressed,9 A4A does not support the potential climate change impacts disclosure requirement and/or SEC-related disclosure representation as means of doing so. As an initial matter, there are not agreed metrics for assessing and reporting on climate change risks and impacts at a company-specific level. Further, there is no broad-based requirement for assessing and reporting such risks and impacts, such that the potential disclosure anticipated in this regard would generate wholly new regulatory burdens. Further, to the extent the materiality requirements in the SEC disclosure rules could trigger such reporting, that is a matter for the SEC regulatory and guidance process, not for the Agencies to attempt to regulate by fiat. In sum, A4A does not support including climate change risks and impacts in the procurement representations required by the Agencies.

* * * * * * *

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding them.

Sincerely yours,

Nancy N. Young Vice President, Environmental Affairs

9 As A4A (then named the “Air Transport Association of America”) noted in a letter to Senator Boxer in 2009, a solid testimonial and scientific record has been established indicating that the world climate is warming and human-caused emissions of CO2 and other GHGs are a contributing factor in that warming. The science indicates that the impacts of a significantly warmer planet would be severe. It is through this lens and with the keen understanding that reducing fuel burn also is critical to our airlines’ bottom line that we have relentlessly pursued means of improving our fuel efficiency and reducing emissions.

7/26/2016 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648211aacc&format=xml&showorig=false FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #9 As of: 7/26/16 8:51 AM Received: July 25, 2016 PUBLIC SUBMISSION Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k0­8qye­tzgp Comments Due: July 25, 2016 Submission Type: API

Docket: FAR­2015­0024 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Comment On: FAR­2015­0024­0001 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Document: FAR­2015­0024­DRAFT­0020 Comment on FR Doc # 2016­12226

Submitter Information

Name: Gretchen Goldman Address: 1825 K St NW Ste 800 Washington, DC, 20006 Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists

General Comment

See attached file of a letter signed by 908 experts in the sciences organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Attachments

UCS_Scientists_Letter_FAR Case 2015­024

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648211aacc&format=xml&showorig=false 1/1 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #9

July 25, 2016 General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB) ATTN: Ms. Flowers 1800 F Street NW., 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20405-0001 RE: FAR Case 2015-024

Dear White House Acquisition Regulatory Council:

Thank you for proposing a new rule that would ask government suppliers to provide more information about their climate change-related disclosures. The proposed rule is a great start and it could be made better if you required disclosure from companies instead of only asking them about their disclosure.

As professionals and researchers in the sciences, we think this is an important issue for several reasons.1 First and foremost, climate change is real and poses serious risks for businesses. Climate change impacts, such as sea level rise, changes in precipitation patterns, and extreme heat, pose physical risks for companies and their supply chains.2 A 2015 Union of Concerned Scientists report found that five major oil companies faced immediate risks from sea level rise and storm surge, at their low-lying oil refineries.3

Second, investors and the public want this information. This year many public companies faced shareholder resolutions asking them for better consideration and disclosure of their greenhouse gas emissions and plans to reduce them. Investors want to know how companies plan to protect their assets in a carbon-constrained world. In fact, more than 160 companies have committed to reduce their emissions in line with the international climate agreement made in Paris last December. Requiring disclosure puts a spotlight on climate-related risk and can encourage companies to take actions to reduce their risks and reduce their emissions.

Finally, the rule should encourage companies to be more transparent about how they consider climate change. Today, many companies fail to disclose publicly details of how climate change will affect their business and how they plan to reduce emissions, leaving investors and the public in the dark. Disclosure requirements from the White House will be influential in encouraging companies to seriously consider and plan for climate change.

1 Goldman, G. Should Climate Change Disclosure Be Required for Companies? Government Suppliers Are About to Find Out. The Equation, Union of Concerned Scientists. Online at http://blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/should-company-climate- change-disclosure-be-required-for-government-suppliers, accessed July 25, 2016. 2 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. 2010. Commission Guidance Regarding Disclosure Related to Climate Change. Online at https://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/2010/33-9106.pdf, accessed July 25, 2016. 3 Carlson, C., G. Goldman, and K. Dahl. 2015. Stormy Seas, Rising Risks. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA. Online at ucsusa.org/risingrisks, accessed July 25, 2016 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #9

As you finalize the proposed new rule, we encourage you to make it even stronger by requiring disclosure. You can't manage what you don't measure. The more information we have about the private sector's climate change-related risks, emissions, and business plans, the better our society can address climate change in smart ways.

Signed By (Count: 908 signatories): FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #9

ALASKA Tony Marmont, Ph.D. William F. Avrin, Ph.D. Casa Grande, AZ San Diego, CA Wendy H. Arundale, Ph.D. Fairbanks, AK Gary E. Mechler, Ph.D. David Baca Tucson, AZ Berkeley, CA Martha K. Raynolds, Ph.D. Fairbanks, AK Pascal Mickelson, Ph.D. Gary Baxel Tucson, AZ Cathedral City, CA Lynn Wilbur, Ph.D. (candidate) John Nickum, Ph.D. Gary R. Bea, M.S. Sitka, AK Fountain Hills, AZ Sunnyvale, CA

ALABAMA Ivar Sanders, M.S. Alan R. Beals, Ph.D. (candidate) Riverside, CA Robert Miles, M.S. Tucson, AZ Huntsville, AL Sherry Bendall, Linda Smith Schermer, Aliso Viejo, CA David L Smith, M.D. M.P.H. Spanish Fort, AL Sedona, AZ Douglas Benedict, M.S. Santa Monica, CA James Tucker, Ph.D. Martha Stampfer, Ph.D. Cullman, AL Willcox, AZ Davide Bergamasco, Ph.D. Sunnyvale, CA ARKANSAS Gerald M. Swatez, Ph.D. Tucson, AZ Rd Bowlus, Ph.D. Loren Loberg Los Osos, CA Hot Springs Village, AR Jack S. Tuber Paradise Valley, AZ Theresa L. Bucher, Ph.D. ARIZONA Tarzana, CA Richard Ward, Ph.D. Loren Albert Phoenix, AZ Nancy Burley, Ph.D. Tucson, AZ Irvine, CA Barbara H. Warren, M.D. William Chopak, Tucson, AZ Ana Cadavid, Ph.D. Oracle, AZ Culver City, CA T. Stephen Cody, M.A. Cathy Williams, M.S. Tucson, AZ Donna Carr, M.D. Tucson, AZ Encinitas, CA CALIFORNIA William R. Ferrell, Ph.D. Coralie A. Carraway, Ph.D. Tucson, AZ David Abramis, Ph.D. Auburn, CA Santa Monica, CA Juan C. Gallardo, Ph.D. Edward G. Cavasian Tucson, AZ Jon Armstrong, Ph.D. Palo Alto, CA Los Angeles, CA Ron Hubert, M.S. Ted Cheeseman, M.S. Flagstaff, AZ Roger M. Avery Saratoga, CA San Ramon, CA FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #9

David H. Chittenden, Ph.D. Michel Dedeo, Ph.D. Michael Essex, J.D. Orange, CA Oakland, CA El Dorado Hills, CA

W. Gilbert Clark, Ph.D. Franklin P. DeHaan, Ph.D. Kai K. Ewert, Ph.D. Los Angeles, CA Sun Valley, CA Ojai, CA

Ruth Clifford, Ph.D. Stanley Deser, Ph.D. Gary A. Falxa, Ph.D. San Jose, CA Pasadena, CA Eureka, CA

Julia Coates, Ph.D. Key Dismukes, Ph.D. Josan Feathers (candidate) San Jose, CA La Mesa, CA Ventura, CA Donald Dodge, M.S. Albert Fite, M.D. Natalie S. Cohen, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA Pacific Palisades, CA Pasadena, CA Timothy Donaghy, Ph.D. Scott Forrest Alicia Connor, M.A. Oakland, CA Half Moon Bay, CA San Francisco, CA John T. Donlin, M.S. Katherine Forrest, M.D. Jon Conway, Ph.D. La Canada Flintridge, CA Mountain View, CA Santa Cruz, CA Jim Dooley, M.B.A. John Fowler, Ph.D. Scott W. Cookson, Ph.D. Fallbrook, CA Santa Monica, CA Encinitas, CA David Dorn, Ph.D. Martin E. Frost, M.S. Helen M. Cox, Ph.D. Livermore, CA Half Moon Bay, CA Thousand Oaks, CA James Doyle, Ph.D. Jed Fuhrman, Ph.D. Tony P. Crabb Davis, CA Topanga, CA Healdsburg, CA Steven Dudgeon, Ph.D. Sharma Gaponoff, M.S. S.R. Craig, M.S. Northridge, CA Grass Valley, CA Glendale, CA Glenda Dugan, M.S. David Garfield, Ph.D. Scott Crass, Ph.D. Walnut Creek, CA (candidate) Long Beach, CA Albany, CA Stephen Eittreim, Ph.D. Erin Creel, Ph.D. (candidate) Palo Alto, CA John O. Garvey, M.A. Albany, CA Redondo Beach, CA Jeff Ellis Alan Cunningham, Ph.D. Santa Ana, CA John L. Gasperoni, Ph.D. Carmel Valley, CA Berkeley, CA Russell J. Erickson, M.D. Jennifer Cushnie, M.A. Pleasant Hill, CA Catherine Gautier, Ph.D. Santa Barbara, CA Santa Barbara, CA Lee D. Erman, Ph.D. Bruce Daniels, Ph.D. Mountain View, CA David Gieseker, Ph.D. Capitola, CA Los Angeles, CA FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #9

Robert Godes Ivan Huber, Ph.D. Celia M. Kutcher, M.A. Berkeley, CA Los Angeles, CA Capistrano Beach, CA

Gary B. Griggs, Ph.D. Kathleen Hynes, M.S. Ronald M. Lanner, Ph.D. Santa Cruz, CA San Francisco, CA Placerville, CA

Henriette Groot, Ph.D. Robin D. Ikeda, M.S. Joyce Lashof, M.D. Los Osos, CA Ontario, CA Alameda, CA

T. Daniel Gros, Veronica C. Jacobi J Leong Los Gatos, CA Santa Rosa, CA San Leandro, CA

Mark S. Grossman, M.S. Karen Jacques, Ph.D. George M. Lewis, Ph.D. (candidate) Sacramento, CA Los Osos, CA Palo Alto, CA Barbara J. Javor, Ph.D. Gigi Lin, Ph.D. (candidate) Judy Haggard, M.A. San Diego, CA Stanford, CA McKinleyville, CA V. & B. Jones Laurie Litman, M.S. Virginia Harrigan, Ph.D. Torrance, CA Sacramento, CA Irvine, CA Andrew Jones, Ph.D. Richard H. Lozier, Ph.D. James S. Harris, Ph.D. Fresno, CA San Francisco, CA Stanford, CA Martin J. Joye, M.D. Joan Ludlam, M.A. Elizabeth Herbert, Ph.D. Davis, CA Oakland, CA Santa Cruz, CA Peter D. Karp, Ph.D. Lawrence Lundeen Valerie J. Herr, Ph.D. San Mateo, CA Ventura, CA Berkeley, CA Peter A. Kerr, Ph.D. Ruby MacDonald, Ph.D. John Hessel, Ph.D. Davis, CA El Cerrito, CA Portola Valley, CA Shabad S. Khalsa, M.S. Alex M. Madonik, Ph.D. Ward M Hinds, M.D. Sacramento, CA Berkeley, CA Concord, CA Yael Kisel, Ph.D. Cara Nichole Maesano, Ph.D. Christine Hlavka, M.S. Valley Village, CA San Clemente, CA Los Altos, CA Arthur C. Knutson, M.S. Janet Maker, Ph.D. Rendon Holloway Sacramento, CA Los Angeles, CA San Jose, CA Art Krakowsky, M.A. Francis W. Mangels, M.S. John Holtzclaw, Ph.D. Livermore, CA Mt Shasta, CA San Francisco, CA Tim Krantz, Ph.D. John R. Manning, Ph.D. Edward Huang, Ph.D. Redlands, CA San Francisco, CA Arcadia, CA FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #9

Francis W. Martin, Ph.D. Thomas B. Newman, M.D. Linda Remy, Ph.D. Newbury Park, CA San Carlos, CA Mill Valley, CA

Andrew Maverick, Ph.D. Donna L. Norquist, M.D. Rod Repke, M.A. Los Angeles, CA Petaluma, CA Oakland, CA

Kevin Mazzocco Rollin Odell, M.D. Frank and Sally Richards, Auberry, CA Orinda, CA Ph.D. Redlands, CA James A. McCammon, Ph.D. Mark S. Ogonowski, M.S. La Jolla, CA Ventura, CA Bruce A. Richman, Ph.D. San Mateo, CA Nancy Mead, M.S. James M Orr, Ph.D. Santa Cruz, CA Fresno, CA Fredric J. Ridel, M.S. Walnut Creek, CA Mario Milch, M.D. Elizabeth Patterson, M.D. Los Angeles, CA Ojai, CA Bob Rosenberg Kentfield, CA Donald C. Miller, M.S. William Pearce, M.S. Newbury Park, CA San Diego, CA Stephen Rosenblum, Ph.D. Palo Alto, CA Don Miller, Ph.D. David A. Pearson, Ph.D. Bel Tiburon, CA San Diego, CA Kathy Ruppel, M.D. Stanford, CA Berton Moldow, M.B.A. Michael A. Pelizzari, Ph.D. Laguna Woods, CA Milpitas, CA Milton H. Saier, Ph.D. Encinitas, CA Louise Monahan, M.S. Lon Peters, Ph.D. Cloverdale, CA Pasadena, CA David J. Saperia, M.D. Santa Monica, CA James R. Monroe, M.S. Mary F. Platter-Rieger, M.S. Concord, CA San Diego, CA Dale Sartor, M.B.A. Oakland, CA Henry Morgen, M.S. Stephen Pollaine, Ph.D. Los Angeles, CA Occidental, CA Jayant Sathaye, Ph.D. Moraga, CA Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D. Kenneth S. Post, M.S. Santa Cruz, CA Newport Coast, CA Eric Sawyer, Ph.D. (candidate) Joseph Mueller, M.S. Gregory Quist, M.A. La Jolla, CA Kentfield, CA Oakland, CA Jack Schlotte Richard Nelesen, Ph.D. Judith D. Radovsky, M.A. Fallbrook, CA La Mesa, CA South Pasadena, CA William J. Schoene Sherman E. Nelson, Ph.D. Gregory A. Reichert, M.S. Santa Monica, CA Berkeley, CA Alameda, CA Peter Schwartz, Ph.D. San Luis Obispo, CA FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #9

David Seaborg, M.A. Leonard F. Thomas, M.A. COLORADO Walnut Creek, CA Antelope, CA Douglas Beltman, M.S. John Sefton, Ph.D. Lawrence H. Thompson, Boulder, CO Trabuco Canyon, CA Ph.D. Livermore, CA Daniel Birkenheuer Harold E. Segelstad, M.S. Lakewood, CO Woodside, CA Jeff Tolhurst, Ph.D. Columbia, CA Jerri H. Bucknam, M.S. Fredrick J. Seil, M.D. Parker, CO Berkeley, CA Jerry Torrance, Ph.D. Portola Valley, CA Martha Bushnell, Ph.D. Yevgenya Shevtsov, Ph.D. Louisville, CO Valley Village, CA Mike Trivich Ventura, CA Robert C. Cifelli, Ph.D. Joseph R. Shinnerl, Ph.D. Boulder, CO Santa Clara, CA Neal J. Turner, Ph.D. Pasadena, CA Darrell Coons, Ph.D. Priya Shukla, M.S. Broomfield, CO Fremont, CA Susan L. Ustin Doyle, Ph.D. Davis, CA John Cornely, Ph.D. Michael Sixtus, M.S. Littleton, CO Santee, CA Patrice M. Warrender Sebastopol, CA Jeff Elison, Ph.D. Ramin A. Skibba, Ph.D. Alamosa, CO San Diego, CA Kendall Webster, M.A. Berkeley, CA Rhea Esposito, Ph.D. Shaun Snyder Boulder, CO Carpinteria, CA Henry Weinberg, Ph.D. Santa Barbara, CA Leslie Glustrom, M.S. Richard H. Solomon, Ph.D. Boulder, CO Oakland, CA Dean Weiss, M.D. Encino, CA Gary Granat Dylan K Spaulding, Ph.D. Palisade, CO Davis, CA Russell Weisz, M.S. Santa Cruz, CA David Gurarie, Ph.D. Richard Stein, Ph.D. Boulder, CO Irvine, CA Stephen L. Weitz, Ph.D. Oakland, CA Eric Hintsa, Ph.D. Anne Swanson, Ph.D. Boulder, CO Campbell, CA Mel and Gail Werbach, M.D. Camp Nelson, CA Elisabeth Holland, Ph.D. Ria Tanz Kubota, M.A. Longmont, CO El Sobrante, CA Lindsay M Whalin, M.S. Alameda, CA Mark L. Houdashelt, Ph.D. Varykina Thackray, Ph.D. Fort Collins, CO San Diego, CA Mindi White, M.D. Los Angeles, CA William E. Lewis, M.S. Aurora, CO FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #9

Leland Long, M.S. John Schuenemeyer, Ph.D. Kevin S. Malone Denver, CO Cortez, CO Trumbull, CT

Gordon Macalpine, Ph.D. John Shepherd, M.D. Suzanne O'Connell, Ph.D. Estes Park, CO Boulder, CO Middletown, CT

Pat Martin, Ph.D. Jillian Flint Shewmaker Chandrasekhar Fort Collins, CO golden, CO Roychoudhuri, Ph.D. Storrs Mansfield, CT Robert W McAllister, Ph.D. Tim Towns, M.S. Denver, CO Longmont, CO Michael Steven Sherber, M.S. Gordon McCurry, Ph.D. Rodney C. Tuenge Avon, CT Boulder, CO Lafayette, CO John S. Strauss, M.D. Larry Miloshevich, M.S. Angie J. Unruh New Haven, CT Lafayette, CO Aurora, CO James Williams, Ph.D. Lee O'Brien, Ph.D. Jerry D. Unruh, Ph.D. Danielson, CT (candidate) Manitou Springs, CO Fort Collins, CO Jon R. Zirn, M.D. Marie Venner, M.S. Weston, CT George N. Oetzel, Ph.D. Lakewood, CO Boulder, CO DISTRICE OF Steven M. Wallace, M.S. COLUMBIA Randall O'Reilly, Ph.D. Lafayette, CO Boulder, CO Jasmin Gonzalez, M.S. Martin Wong, Ph.D. (candidate) Michael L. Paterson, M.D. Boulder, CO Washington, DC Evergreen, CO CONNECTICUT Molly Rauch, M.P.H. Rhonda Peters, Ph.D. Washington, DC Lakewood, CO William Corcoran, Ph.D. Windsor, CT Fritz Von Fleckenstein, Ph.D. Eric Punkay, Ph.D. Washington, DC Denver, CO T. J. Cumberbatch, Ph.D. Monroe, CT DELAWARE Eliot Quon, Ph.D. Boulder, CO Eugene A. DeJoannis Mary C. Lo, M.D. Manchester, CT Wilmington, DE Philip Rowe Boulder, CO Philip Dooley Andrea Potocny, Ph.D. Tolland, CT (candidate) George Saum, M.S. Newark, DE Agate, CO John Grady-Benson, M.D. Farmington, CT Liz Tymkiw, M.S. Maggie Schafer, Ph.D. Newark, DE (candidate) Robert Heimer, Ph.D. Boulder, CO New Haven, CT FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #9

Elizabeth Zarek, M.S. Rachel Nostrom, M.A. John Barton, M.D. Wilmington, DE (candidate) Athens, GA Safety Harbor, FL FLORIDA Charles Sr. Brexel, M.S. Elmer Phillippi, M.S. Woodstock, GA Raymond E. Bellamy, M.D. Altamonte Springs, FL Tallahassee, FL Debi Combs, M.P.H. Thomas L. Poulson, Ph.D. Decatur, GA Ira Brinn, Ph.D. Jupiter, FL Hollywood, FL Claude Crider, M.S. David Rogers, M.S. Waleska, GA Landis Crockett, M.D. Port St. Lucie, FL Quincy, FL A. Vernon Dixon, M.D. Robin Sekerak, M.D. Hiawassee, GA Antoinette S. Emch-Deriaz, Deland, FL Dr. P.H. Richard Foreman, Ph.D. Gainesville, FL Copley H. Smoak, M.S. Albany, GA Bonita Springs, FL Robert C. Fleck, Ph.D. Joyce King, Ph.D. Port Orange, FL Rod Stokes, M.S. Augusta, GA Valrico, FL Michael Gabriel, Ph.D. James Nolan Saint Augustine, FL James C. Swaner, M.S. Lawrenceville, GA Miami Shores, FL Robert C Gillespie, Ph.D. HAWAII Saint Augustine, FL Gerald C. Swanson, Ph.D. New Smyrna Beach, FL K. Chung, M.P.H. Lawrence Hall, Ph.D. Honolulu, HI Tampa, FL Gloria Tavera, M.S. Longwood, FL Donald Mark Erway, M.S. Stan Hill (candidate) Coral Gables, FL Walter K. Taylor, Ph.D. Kailua Kona, HI Winter Park, FL Scott Jantz, M.S. Neil Frazer, Ph.D. Gainesville, FL John S. Thompson, M.S. Kailua, HI Seminole, FL Stephen E Jens-Rochow, Frederick A. Harris, Ph.D. M.A. Alicie Warren, Ph.D. Kailua, HI Fort Lauderdale, FL Homestead, FL Sterling Keeley, Ph.D. Dena Leavengood, M.A. Norris H Williams, Ph.D. Honolulu, HI Tampa, FL Gainesville, FL Javier Mendez-Alvarez, Nancy E. Lowell, M.A. Tau Zhang Ph.D. (candidate) Tampa, FL Gainesville, FL Honolulu, HI

Drew Martin, M.B.A. GEORGIA Mark A. Nokes, Ph.D. Lake Worth, FL Honolulu, HI FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #9

Alina Patterson, M.A. Linda M. Seaverson, Ph.D. Donald Fournier, Ph.D. Hilo, HI Ames, IA (candidate) Champaign, IL Tom A Ranker, Ph.D. Margot H. Tollefson, Ph.D. Kailua, HI Stratford, IA Jason A. Koontz, Ph.D. Rock Island, IL Johannes Seidel, M.S. Henry Walker, Ph.D. (candidate) Grinnell, IA Carol Krohm, M.D. Captain Cook, HI Harvard, IL IDAHO IOWA David W. Larsen, M.S. Stephan D. Flint, M.S. Dekalb, IL Shawn Blaesing-Thompson, Moscow, ID M.S. Ernesto Lopez Ames, IA Lisa A. Hecht, Plainfield, IL Boise, ID Cindy L. Borske, M.A. Marvin W Makinen, Ph.D. New Hampton, IA Mark Shapley, Ph.D. Chicago, IL Pocatello, ID Amy S. Bouska, M.S. Dale Mohr, M.S. Cresco, IA Karl J. Stoszek, Ph.D. Naperville, IL Moscow, ID Rivka Fidel, Ph.D. Mary Muraski-Stotz, M.S. (candidate) Art K. Trenholme, Ph.D. Westchester, IL Ames, IA Orofino, ID Alicia Olave-Pichon, M.D. Jo Anna Hebberger, Ph.D. ILLINOIS Chicago, IL Des Moines, IA James Bachman, M.S. Thomas Olmsted Fred Kirschenmann, Ph.D. Saint Charles, IL Chicago, IL Ames, IA Geoffrey Bodwin, Ph.D. Pru Rice, Ph.D. Erwin E E. Klaas, Ph.D. Woodridge, IL Carbondale, IL Ames, IA Clark Bullard, Ph.D. McLouis Robinet, M.S. Donald E. Laughlin, M.S. Urbana, IL Oak Park, IL Iowa City, IA Douglas E. Burke, Ph.D. Sylvia Schade, Ph.D. Joseph Luchman, Ph.D. Oak Park, IL Riverside, IL Iowa City, IA Patricia Chelmecki, Ph.D. Peter F. Schultz, Ph.D. David W. Lynch, Ph.D. (candidate) Downers Grove, IL West Des Moines, IA Elburn, IL Sherri Sheftel, M.P.H. John R Menninger, Ph.D. Leslie Duram, Ph.D. Highland Park, IL Iowa City, IA Carbondale, IL Maryann G. Strain, M.S. Richard Schultz Evanston, IL Charles City, IA FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #9

Laurie Walter Kenneth Barclay Armitage, Ben Carden, M.S. Chicago, IL Ph.D. Boston, MA Lawrence, KS Raymond Yurkewycz, M.S. Robert W. Case, Ph.D. Palatine, IL Tomas Green Boston, MA Lawrence, KS INDIANA Gib Chase, M.S. Robert E. Rutkowski Northborough, MA Alex Bazan, M.S. Topeka, KS Hammond, IN Anthony D. Cortese, Ph.D. Brock Ternes, Ph.D. Cambridge, MA Alice S. Bennett (candidate) Muncie, IN Lawrence, KS S. Lawrence Dingman, Ph.D. Eastham, MA Kevin P Brown, Ph.D. KENTUCKY Clarksville, IN Sara Donahue, Dr. P.H. Richard Boyce, Ph.D. Jamaica Plain, MA Scott C. Bruins, M.D. Highland Heights, KY Indianapolis, IN David Dow, Ph.D. Timothy Stephen Hare, Ph.D. East Falmouth, MA Dain Kavars, Ph.D. Morehead, KY Muncie, IN Eileen Entin, Ph.D. Jill B. Harmer, Ph.D. Lexington, MA Jeremy Kirkman, M.S. Louisville, KY Indianapolis, IN John W. Farrington, Ph.D. John W. McClain, Ph.D. Falmouth, MA Silvia Leahu-Aluas, M.S. Bowling Green, KY Indianapolis, IN Edward Ganshirt Monica Unseld, Ph.D. Lexington, MA Karl Lohrmann Louisville, KY Whiting, IN John N. Gau, Ph.D. Edmund Zimmerer, Ph.D. Worcester, MA Lawrence S. Moss, Ph.D. Dexter, KY Bloomington, IN Arthur T. Gionti, M.D. LOUSIANA Amherst, MA Glenn D. Pratt, M.S. Indianapolis, IN Howard Walter Mielke, Grace Hall, M.S. Ph.D. Somerville, MA Arndt Schimmelmann, Ph.D. New Orleans, LA Bloomington, IN Dudley Herschbach, Ph.D. MASSACHUSETTS Cambridge, MA Gail Stamps, M.S. Evansville, IN William S. Beckett, M.D. Donald Hnatowich, Ph.D. Watertown, MA Brookline, MA KANSAS Joel Berger, Ph.D. Philip Hurzeler, Ph.D. Judith Abel, Ph.D. Boston, MA Newburyport, MA Mc Louth, KS FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #9

Douglas Johnson, M.D. Monroe S. Rabin, Ph.D. Jeffrey Friedhoffer, Ph.D. Springfield, MA Amherst, MA Columbia, MD

Ileana Z. Jones, M.S. Leonard M. Rubin, Ph.D. Gretchen T. Goldman, Ph.D. Cambridge, MA S Hamilton, MA Takoma Park, MD

Steven Keleti, Ph.D. Peter A. Sampou, Ph.D. Marc Imlay, Ph.D. Malden, MA West Barnstable, MA Bryans Road, MD

Mark Knowles Philip Scarbro, M.S. Eugenia Kalnay, Ph.D. Rehoboth, MA Acton, MA Greenbelt, MD

Nathaniel Kuhn, Ph.D. Jean Sideris, M.A. Jacob Lebowitz, Ph.D. Belmont, MA Cambridge, MA Bethesda, MD

Charlotte Lehmann, M.S. Elske V.P. Smith, Ph.D. David Liewehr, Ph.D. Ayer, MA Lenox, MA (candidate) Silver Spring, MD James H. Loehlin, Ph.D. Charles Stover, M.A. Wellesley, MA Newton, MA Edward Maibach, Ph.D. Potomac, MD John MacDougall, Ph.D. Guy Williamson, M.S. Cambridge, MA Natick, MA Dominador J. Manalo Silver Spring, MD Suhas Malghan, M.S. Nancy Woolley, J.D. Melrose, MA Stoughton, MA John Martin, M.S. Beltsville, MD Richard S. Marcus, M.S. Marc J. Zimmerman, Ph.D. Randolph, MA Hudson, MA Monica A. Maynard, M.S. Annapolis, MD Philip A. Marrone, Ph.D. MARYLAND Wayland, MA Allison McDaniel, M.S. Jonathan Brier, M.S. Germantown, MD Gary & Karen Martin, Ph.D. Hyattsville, MD Boxford, MA Kenneth J. Mitchell, Ph.D. Alan Bromborsky, M.S. Davidsonville, MD Alex C. Neubert, M.S. Silver Spring, MD Northampton, MA Harriette L. Phelps, Ph.D. Robert M. Brown, Ph.D. Greenbelt, MD Joyce Palmer Fortune, Ph.D. (candidate) So. Deefield, MA Parkville, MD Chris Rea, Ph.D. Bethesda, MD Robert Allen Petersen, M.D. Barbara Carr, M.S. Cambridge, MA Kingsville, MD Gerald Share, Ph.D. Silver Spring, MD Laura Punnett, Ph.D. Harvey Eisen, Ph.D. Medford, MA Bethesda, MD Ronald S. Sheinson, Ph.D. Silver Spring, MD FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #9

Linda G. Silversmith, Ph.D. Onur Agirseven, Ph.D. Laura Kaufman, M.S. Rockville, MD (candidate) Chelsea, MI East Lansing, MI Lex B. Smith, M.D. Sara Irene Kennedy, M.S. Columbia, MD Heidi Auman, Ph.D. Ann Arbor, MI Frankenmuth, MI Judy Stone, M.D. Leah Knapp, D.V.M. Cumberland, MD Catherine E. Badgley, Ph.D. Marshall, MI Chelsea, MI Stephen C. Weber, M.D. Leslie Kuhn, Ph.D. Silver Spring, MD Robert Bailey, M.S. Haslett, MI Plymouth, MI Heather Whitney Price, Ph.D. Richard Lawrence, M.S. Greenbelt, MD Goran Blomberg, Ph.D. Whitmore Lake, MI Lansing, MI MAINE David Less, M.S. Robyn J. Burnham, Ph.D. Dewitt, MI Bill D. Briggs Chelsea, MI Windham, ME Jed Maker, M.D. Greg Collins Beulah, MI Christopher Bryan Coopersville, MI Fairfield, ME David Marckini, M.A. John Erickson, M.S. Holland, MI Shirley L. Davis, M.S. Southgate, MI Orono, ME Claudio Mazzoleni, Dr. P.H. Ted R. Feldpausch, Dr. P.H. Houghton, MI Ellen Dohmen, M.S. Fowler, MI Bar Harbor, ME Philip P. Micklin, Ph.D. Gerald Gardner, Ph.D. Kalamazoo, MI John P. Grillo, M.A. Ann Arbor, MI Orono, ME Roger M Mills, M.D. Richard Han Dexter, MI Vinnedge M. Lawrence, Ann Arbor, MI Ph.D. Thomas Moore, Ph.D. West Baldwin, ME Rebecca Heindl, M.Ed. Ann Arbor, MI Farmington Hills, MI Janet E. Ordway, M.D. Larry D. Nooden, Ph.D. Old Orchd Bch, ME Robert L. Henderson, M.S. Ann Arbor, MI Mason, MI John Peck, Ph.D. Robert M. Railey, Ph.D. Brunswick, ME Lloyd Douglas Johnston, Marquette, MI Ph.D. Bryce E. Smith, Ph.D. Pinckney, MI William Saenz Dedham, ME Brownstown, MI Larry Junck, M.D. Richard Thomas, Ph.D. Ann Arbor, MI Alvin Saperstein, Ph.D. Waterville, ME Detroit, MI David N. Karowe, Ph.D. MICHIGAN Kalamazoo, MI FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #9

Michael Sklar, M.S. John Robert Nelson Phil Monroe, M.D. Huntington Woods, MI Champlin, MN Springfield, MO

Richard Skochdopole, Ph.D. Richard A. Newmark, Ph.D. Douglas R. Rushing, Ph.D. Midland, MI woodbury, MN Kansas City, MO

Jeffrey Spruit, M.S. Parker Quammen, Ph.D. Edward Martin Spevak, Otsego, MI Zumbrota, MN Ph.D. Saint Louis, MO Susan A. Starr, M.S. Curtis N Rhodes Jr, Ph.D. Pinckney, MI Minneapolis, MN Alison Sullivan Saint Louis, MO Dorothy J. Wolf William K. Steele, Ph.D. Alto, MI Bovey, MN Chezna Warner, M.S. Saint Louis, MO MINNESOTA MISSOURI Alexandra Welsko, J.D. Gilbert G. Ahlstrand, M.S. Jane Brawley, D.V.M. Saint Louis, MO (candidate) Plattsburg, MO Minneapolis, MN MISSISSIPPI Joan R. Butcher, M.D. Cindy K. Angerhofer, Ph.D. Saint Louis, MO James Lazell, Ph.D. Circle Pines, MN Jackson, MS Don Crozier, M.S. David L. Clapper, Ph.D. O Fallon, MO MONTANA Duluth, MN Harold L Dickherber, M.S. Norman Bishop, M.S. David L. Councilman, M.D. Columbia, MO (candidate) St Louis Park, MN Bozeman, MT Willem H. Dickhoff, Ph.D. Lorraine Delehanty, M.S. Saint Louis, MO Kathleen A. Johnson, Ph.D. Saint Paul, MN Missoula, MT Robert Hedges, Ph.D. Bright Dornblaser, M.S. St. Louis, MO Ron Plakke, Ph.D. Edina, MN Stevensville, MT Dwight R. Ittner, M.S. William Skip Wayne Noel, MO Cathy H. Ream, Ph.D. Dykoski, Ph.D. Clinton, MT New Brighton, MN David H. Klassen, Ph.D. Hannibal, MO Scott Samuels, Ph.D. Evan B. Hazard, Ph.D. Missoula, MT Bemidji, MN Richard Laval, Ph.D. Columbia, MO NORTH CAROLINA Stacy Miller, M.S. Eagan, MN Jeannne N. Mihail, Ph.D. Richard E Bilsborrow, Ph.D. Columbia, MO Durham, NC Ah-li Monahan, M.S. Columbia Heights, MN Lopamudra Mohanty, M.A. Peter A. Brezny, M.S. Saint Peters, MO Asheville, NC FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #9

John W. Bromer Christine Voss, Ph.D. Wolfgang Benz, Ph.D. Arden, NC Morehead City, NC West Orange, NJ

Philip Buchanan, Ph.D. Alison Woomert, Ph.D. Anthony Castellano Chapel Hill, NC Chapel Hill, NC Freehold, NJ

Susan Edelstein, Ph.D. Rachael Wooten, Ph.D. Richard Chapas, Ph.D. Cary, NC Raleigh, NC Swedesboro, NJ

Tracy Feldman, Ph.D. Susan Yarnell, Ph.D. Mark J Chopping, Ph.D. Durham, NC (candidate) West Orange, NJ Chapel Hill, NC Rosanne W. Fortner, Ph.D. Edward Cohen, Ph.D. Oak Island, NC NEBRASKA Mount Laurel, NJ

Marcia Harris-Owens, M.D. William Wayne, Ph.D. Marian Glenn, Ph.D. Charlotte, NC Lincoln, NE Summit, NJ

Nathan Holder Christopher Wenzel, Ph.D. Hans-Joachim Gossmann, Raleigh, NC (candidate) Ph.D. Morrill, NE Summit, NJ Di Inscoe, D.V.M. Wilmington, NC Marlene Wilken, Ph.D. Anita Gould, Ph.D. Omaha, NE Highland Park, NJ Stephen A. Jurovics, Ph.D. Raleigh, NC James A. Williams, Ph.D. Cheryl F Harding, Ph.D. Bennet, NE Stanton, NJ William Kastern, Ph.D. Randleman, NC NEW HAMPSHIRE Karen Kolz, M.S. Union, NJ BJ Klein, Ph.D. Paul H. Carr, Ph.D. Hendersonville, NC Bedford, NH Robert Laumbach, M.D. Fanwood, NJ Miramanni Mishkin, Ph.D. Michael Fleming, M.S. Cashiers, NC Lee, NH Robert Mason, Ph.D. Lambertville, NJ Lewis Patrie, M.D. Daniel Hubbard, Ph.D. Asheville, NC Rochester, NH Timothy McBride Hackensack, NJ Heather Payne, J.D. Anne R. Kapuscinski, Ph.D. Chapel Hill, NC Hanover, NH Howard J. Mead, M.S. Cinnaminson, NJ Will Robin NEW JERSEY Hickory, NC Steven G. Miller, M.S. Thomas Barringer, Ph.D. Middletown, NJ Edhriz Siraliev-Perez, Ph.D. Stockton, NJ (candidate) Glenn Patterson, M.D. Chapel Hill, NC David Bendich, M.D. Pompton Plains, NJ Little Falls, NJ FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #9

Alan M. Rosan, Ph.D. Jean Catherine MacPhail, Susan Hastings, Ph.D. Madison, NJ Ph.D. Reno, NV Santa Fe, NM Marc Rubin, M.A. D. James Lawrie, M.D. Hamilton Square, NJ Todd C. Monson, Ph.D. Reno, NV Albuquerque, NM John Ruhl, M.S. William Schaffer, Ph.D. Flemington, NJ Mick Nickel, M.A. Las Vegas, NV Santa Fe, NM William H. Silverman, M.A. Richard F. Sigal, Ph.D. Morganville, NJ Beth Perry, Ph.D. Las Vegas, NV Jemez Springs, NM Ronald Sverdlove, Ph.D. M Wayne Wilson, Ph.D. Princeton, NJ Anthony Ricketts, Ph.D. Reno, NV Santa Fe, NM Hemant Vora, M.S. NEW YORK East Windsor, NJ Hugh Roberts, Ph.D. Rio Rancho, NM Bill Altman, Ph.D. Ellie Whitney, Ph.D. Binghamton, NY East Windsor, NJ Gary T. Skiba, M.S. Aztec, NM Laura Anderson, Ph.D. Todd Wolf, D.V.M. Johnson City, NY Parsippany, NJ Peter D Smith, M.S. Santa Fe, NM Enzo Bard, Ph.D. NEW MEXICO North Baldwin, NY Michael Smith, Ph.D. Hamilton B. Brown, M.D. Santa Fe, NM George Brown, M.D. Arroyo Seco, NM New York, NY Alex Stavrides, Ph.D. William C. Buss, Ph.D. Albuquerque, NM Mark Cane, Ph.D. Corrales, NM New York, NY Rebecca M. Summer, Ph.D. Gene J Chorostecki, M.D. Silver City, NM Patricia Cohen, M.S. Santa Fe, NM New Rochelle, NY Paul Joseph Watson, Ph.D. Jeff Clark, M.A. (candidate) Albuquerque, NM Andrew Conn, Ph.D. Santa Fe, NM Mount Vernon, NY Mary F C Westerlund, M.S. Norton Kalishman, M.D. Albuquerque, NM Margaret M. Craven, M.D. Albuquerque, NM Voorheesville, NY Charles G. Wright, M.S. James Kwak, Ph.D. Dixon, NM Frederick R. Cross, Ph.D. Albuquerque, NM New York, NY NEVADA Daniel J. Levenson, D.V.M. Gerrit V. Crouse, Ph.D. Corrales, NM William C. Belknap, M.S. Nyack, NY Boulder City, NV William Davis, Ph.D. Bearsville, NY FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #9

Steve R Dickman, Ph.D. Donald W. Henderson, Ph.D. Chrys Papadopoulos, M.S. Vestal, NY Ithaca, NY Napanoch, NY

Christopher Duffner, M.A. Harold Hodes, Ph.D. Diane H. Peapus, Ph.D. Hauppauge, NY Ithaca, NY Buffalo, NY

Naomi Eliezer, Ph.D. Elizabeth B. Kauffman, Barbara Regan, M.A. Mount Vernon, NY Buffalo, NY New York, NY

Wallace Elton, Ph.D. Peter Klosterman, Ph.D. Bill Rosenthal, Ph.D. Saratoga Springs, NY New York, NY Rego Park, NY

Barbara Esposito Gerald S. Kolbert, M.D. Eleanor Saunders, Ph.D. Rock Stream, NY Larchmont, NY Hillsdale, NY

Rosemary Faulkner, Ph.D. Karen Krause, D.V.M. Robert Shorin New York, NY Albany, NY Syosset, NY

Stephanie Feyne, M.A. Pauline L. Kuyler, M.D. Ronald L. Stewart, Ph.D. New York, NY Fresh Meadows, NY Elmira, NY

Raymond A. Firestone, Ph.D. William L. LaBine, M.S. Steven Ungar, Ph.D. New York, NY Avon, NY New York, NY

Kenneth Foster, Ph.D. Gerson T. Lesser, M.D. Scott Van Pelt, Syracuse, NY Bronx, NY Tarrytown, NY

Catherine W. Genna Elaine Livingston, M.S. Danica Warns, M.A. Woodhaven, NY Vestal, NY Massapequa, NY

Jack M. Gorman, M.D. William J. Makofske, Ph.D. Martin S. Weinhous, Ph.D. Bronx, NY Warwick, NY Bellmore, NY

Peter B. Gradoni, M.S. Beth Mitchell, Ph.D. Casey Youngflesh, Ph.D. Alfred, NY Syracuse, NY (candidate) Stony Brook, NY Michael E. Green, Ph.D. Jean Marie Naples, Ph.D. New York, NY West Haverstraw, NY Tanya Zelevinsky, Ph.D. New York, NY Cathy Greene, M.D. Charles A. Nelson, Ph.D. Rock Hill, NY Vestal, NY OHIO

Karlene K. Gunter, Ph.D. Don Obrien Daniel B. Baer Rochester, NY Hamlin, NY Worthington, OH

Anshul Gupta, Ph.D. Thomas Overbye, M.S. Mark Cosgriff, M.A. Valhalla, NY Staten Island, NY Lakewood, OH FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #9

Arnold J. Dahm, Ph.D. James D. Wagner, M.S. Mike Higgins, M.A. Cleveland, OH Westerville, OH Halfway, OR

Chantal Dothey, M.D. Chadwick L. Wright, M.D. Don Jacobson Cleveland, OH Lewis Center, OH Portland, OR

Dr. Daniel Eck, Ph.D. Herbert D. Zeman, Ph.D. David Paul Janos, Ph.D. Ohio City, OH Cincinnati, OH Corvallis, OR

Steven R. Federman, Ph.D. Sean Zuckerman, Dr. P.H. Sandra K. Joos, Ph.D. Ottawa Hills, OH Lakewood, OH Portland, OR

Paula Gonzalez, Ph.D. OKLAHOMA Alan R.P. Journet, Ph.D. Cincinnati, OH Jacksonville, OR William T. Cunningham, John Richard Haught, Ph.D. M.A. Jack Keyes, Ph.D. Springboro, OH Oklahoma City, OK Portland, OR

William E. Katzin, M.D. Michael White, M.S. Edward J. Kushner, Ph.D. Cleveland, OH Mustang, OK Portland, OR

Lisa Ann Kavanaugh OREGON Michael Martinez Oberlin, OH Portland, OR Norman Albers, M.S. Carl N. McDaniel, Ph.D. Grants Pass, OR Robert L. McDonnell, M.S. Oberlin, OH Salem, OR Marc Anderson, P.E., M.S. John Miller, Ph.D. (candidate) Donlon McGovern, Ph.D. University Heights, OH Tualatin, OR Portland, OR

Arthur R. Murdoch, Ph.D. Dominique Bachelet, Ph.D. Walter C. Mintkeski, M.S. Atwater, OH Corvallis, OR Portland, OR

Susan P. Righi, M.D. Nola M. Becket, M.S. Tomm H. Pickles New Marshfield, OH Portland, OR Portland, OR

Dan Saks, M.S. Demelza Costa, M.S. William D. Rizer, M.S. Springfield, OH (candidate) Carlton, OR Sweet Home, OR Jane Toth, M.A. Adam Roske South Euclid, OH Nicholas De Morgan, M.D. Cottage Grove, OR Portland, OR Robert Tucker, Ph.D. Robert Lloyd Stebbins, Ph.D. Delaware, OH Shinann Earnshaw, M.A. Corvallis, OR Bend, OR Pamela Unger, Lpcc, Ph.D. Alvin Collin Steele (candidate) Eldon Haines, Ph.D. Portland, OR Columbus, OH Portland, OR FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #9

Dennis P. Sweeney, M.D. Marilyn J. Jordan, Ph.D. Eduardo Schroder, Ph.D. Portland, OR Bethlehem, PA Mayaguez, PR

Mary Vorachek, M.D. Norma Kline, M.S. Sheila Ward, Ph.D. Salem, OR Meadville, PA San Juan, PR

PENNSYLVANIA Rayshiang Lin, M.S. RHODE ISLAND Hershey, PA Michael Balsai, Ph.D. Lynne M Carter, Ph.D. Philadelphia, PA John F. Nagle, Ph.D. Barrington, RI Pittsburgh, PA Joseph Blanc, Ph.D. Kevin M. Dushay, M.D. Philadelphia, PA Wilfred G. Norris, Ph.D. Bristol, RI Huntingdon, PA Diane Bridge, Ph.D. Marian Falla, M.S. Elizabethtown, PA Dewey Odhner, M.A. Jamestown, RI Horsham, PA Bobb Carson, Ph.D. Allen Laliberty Coopersburg, PA Paul Palla Middletown, RI Greencastle, PA Joan Chinitz, M.D. SOUTH CAROLINA Fort Washington, PA Tim Pearce, Ph.D. Pittsburgh, PA Michael Luciano, M.A. John M. Comella, Ph.D. Hanahan, SC Philadelphia, PA Alan S. Peterson, M.D. Willow Street, PA Frank Papp John N. Cooper, Ph.D. Indian Land, SC Lewisburg, PA Daniel Safer, Ph.D. Philadelphia, PA TENNESSEE Elizabeth Crisfield, Ph.D. Boalsburg, PA Vivian Schatz, Dr. P.H. Alexandra Johnson Philadelphia, PA Chattanooga, TN Lee Dietterich, Ph.D. (candidate) Judith Shapiro, Ph.D. Greg Loflin Philadelphia, PA Bryn Mawr, PA Knoxville, TN

Margaret S. Goodman, Ph.D. William Simpson, Ph.D. Joan Mitchell, M.P.H. (candidate) Lewisburg, PA Hermitage, TN Glen Mills, PA Nicholas J. Sippl Mary C. Moore, Dr. P.H. Phil Gordon, Ph.D. Wshngtn Xing, PA Clarksville, TN Cheyney, PA Eric Stein, M.D. Noah Moot Robert Griffith, M.S. Villanova, PA Ashland City, TN Erie, PA Brent Turner, Ph.D. TEXAS Scott Huber Media, PA John Calomeni, M.D. Ligonier, PA PUERTO RICO Lajitas, TX FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #9

Kevin W. Floyd, Ph.D. Tracy Musgrove, M.A. Suzanne Stensaas, Ph.D. El Paso, TX Canton, TX Salt Lake City, UT

Manuel A. Garcia Rael Nidess, M.D. James Viney, M.D. Austin, TX Marshall, TX Salt Lake City, UT

Todd T Hahn, M.S. R Palm, Ph.D. Thomas Yuill, Ph.D. Sugar Land, TX D.S., TX Mapleton, UT

Peter Hawxhurst, M.S. Joanna Podrasky, M.P.H. VIRGINIA Houston, TX Dallas, TX Pamela Barton, M.S. Patrick Kenny Fred Ponder, Ph.D. Falls Church, VA Houston, TX Houston, TX Scott C. Bartos, M.A. Karl Kibler, M.A. Kevin Rolfes, M.S. Arlington, VA Round Rock, TX Austin, TX Keith F. Brill, M.S. Troy Ladine, Ph.D. Phil Shephard, M.S. Arlington, VA Marshall, TX Round Rock, TX Richard Chapman, Ph.D. Steven M. Lucas, M.S. Richard Stemple Jr, Ph.D. Alexandria, VA (candidate) San Antonio, TX Austin, TX Deana M. Crumbling, M.S. Isaac Stoddard, M.S. Alexandria, VA D Main Houston, TX Houston, TX Becky Daiss, M.S. Ray C. Telfair Ii, Ph.D. Arlington, VA James H. Mareck, Ph.D. Whitehouse, TX Austin, TX Norman E. Dowling, Ph.D. James Walker Blacksburg, VA Gregory Martin, Ph.D. New Braunfels, TX College Station, TX Joseph Edwards Michael D. Zuteck, M.S. Shipman, VA Ron Masters, Ph.D. Clear Lake Shores, TX Sugar, TX Felicia Etzkorn, Ph.D. UTAH Blacksburg, VA Paul Mayer, M.D. Livingston, TX Jule A. Caylor, M.S. Quentin Fischer, Ph.D. West Jordan, UT Roanoke, VA Teresa Mayorga, M.S. Kingsville, TX Brian Moench, M.D. Kenneth A. Gigliello, M.S. Salt Lake City, UT Centreville, VA T Mikus, Ph.D. Houston, TX Nicola Nelson, M.S. Jose Goity, Ph.D. Bountiful, UT Yorktown, VA Daniel Moulton, Ph.D. Addison, TX Brian Oney, Ph.D. Judith Hinch, M.S. Ogden, UT Chesapeake, VA FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #9

Emmanouil Kargiantoulakis, David And Ann Cordero, Steve Kohl, M.D. Ph.D. M.S. Seattle, WA Charlottesville, VA Longview, WA Peter Lauritzen, Ph.D. Kashka Kubzdela, Ph.D. Mr. Shelley Dahlgren, Ph.D. Port Townsend, WA Oakton, VA Issaquah, WA Jason Lim, M.S. Judith C. Lang, Ph.D. Stephanie Develle, M.D. Seattle, WA Ophelia, VA Kirkland, WA Ronald Lindsay, M.S. Gamaliel Lodge Therese N. Dowd, Ph.D. Seattle, WA Charlottesville, VA University Place, WA Mark Linsey, M.S. John Mill, Ph.D. David Dunn, M.S. Seattle, WA White Stone, VA Olympia, WA Greg Malmberg Robert L Nadeau, Ph.D. Ola M. Edwards, Ph.D. Wenatchee, WA Fairfax Station, VA Seattle, WA Daniel O. Molnar, Ph.D. Mary Picardi, M.D. April & Joseph Wayne Redmond, WA Virginia Beach, VA Faires, M.A. (candidate) Puyallup, WA Robert T. Moore, Dr. P.H. Philip Rubin, Ph.D. Seattle, WA Vienna, VA Richard H. Gammon, Ph.D. Shoreline, WA Erin E. Moore, M.S. Glenn D. Shean, Ph.D. Bellingham, WA Williamsburg, VA Steve D. Gary, M.S. Seattle, WA Bryan Nelson, M.D. Melisande Smith, M.D. Yelm, WA Falls Church, VA Bob L Gillespie, Ph.D. Wenatchee, WA Rudi Nussbaum, Ph.D. Steven Ward, M.S. Seattle, WA Manassas Park, VA Timothy R. Gould, M.S. Seattle, WA Resa Eileen Raven, Ph.D. VERMONT Olympia, WA Lise Grace, M.S. Monika Ivancic, Ph.D. Bellingham, WA Arnold Reich, M.D. Burlington, VT Mercer Island, WA Lyman W. Griswold, M.S. WASHINGTON Eastsound, WA Fred M. Reinman, Ph.D. Fox Island, WA Norman Baker, Ph.D. Tim C. Hesterberg, Ph.D. Sequim, WA Seattle, WA Peter G. Rimbos, M.S. Maple Valley, WA John H. Casseday, Ph.D. Dorothy Jordan, D.V.M. Seattle, WA Lynden, WA Tom Saxton, M.A. Sammamish, WA David Kerlick, Ph.D. Seattle, WA FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #9

Robert Sextro, M.S. Thomas Schuppe, Ph.D. Sequim, WA Fond Du Lac, WI

James Soares, M.S. Richard V. Smythe, Ph.D. Everson, WA Sister Bay, WI

Darlene Townsend, Ph.D. Richard Spindler, Ph.D. Spokane, WA Eau Claire, WI

Robert Von Tobel, M.S. John M. Stewart, Ph.D. (candidate) Washburn, WI Bellevue, WA John P. Stoltenberg Louis A. Vontver, M.D. Elkhart Lake, WI Seattle, WA Mary V. Upshaw Joe Wiederhold, M.S. Fitchburg, WI Bellingham, WA Mary Wade, M.S. M.Marian Wineman, M.S. Washington Island, WI Seattle, WA John W. Williams, M.S. Yonit Yogev, M.A. Madison, WI Camano Island, WA WEST VIRGINIA WISCONSIN Carla Beaudet Lynn E. Abbott, M.A. Green Bank, WV Green Bay, WI Amy Hessl, Ph.D. John W. Berge, Ph.D. Morgantown, WV Racine, WI John Thomas Peterson, M.S. Matthew De Mars Kingwood, WV Madison, WI Harold Totten Kay C. Gabriel, M.A. Charleston, WV Madison, WI

Bernadine Hoeft, M.S. Milwaukee, WI

Bruce Krawisz, M.D. Marshfield, WI

Gloria Morgan Green Bay, WI 7/26/2016 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648211b469&format=xml&showorig=false FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #10 As of: 7/26/16 8:55 AM Received: July 25, 2016 PUBLIC SUBMISSION Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k0­8qyh­sojc Comments Due: July 25, 2016 Submission Type: API

Docket: FAR­2015­0024 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Comment On: FAR­2015­0024­0001 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Document: FAR­2015­0024­DRAFT­0021 Comment on FR Doc # 2016­12226

Submitter Information

Name: Colleen Morgan Address: Arlington Arlington, VA, 22205 Email: [email protected] Organization: Corporate Sustainability Advisors, LLC

General Comment

See attached comments in support of the proposed rule making.

Attachments

Proposed­FAR_GHG­Disclosure_CorporateSustainabilityAdvisorsLLC­Comment

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648211b469&format=xml&showorig=false 1/1 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #10

July 25, 2016 General Services Administration Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB) Attn: Ms. Flowers 1800 F Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20405-0001

Re: Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): FAR Case 2015-024, Docket No. 2015-0024, Sequence No. 1. Proposed FAR: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and Reduction Goals-Representation

Dear Ms. Flowers,

I am pleased to submit these comments individually and on behalf of Corporate Sustainability Advisors, LLC. We support the federal government’s efforts to reduce its operational costs and environmental impacts and those of its supply chain. If finalized, the proposed FAR additions will help the government implement Executive Order (EO) 13693 and begin to help the government realize cost and environmental savings. The cost savings associated with the government’s and its supply chains’ energy, water, and other resource efficiency programs—along with the reduced environmental impacts—help strengthen the country, the economy, and reduce taxpayers burden.

The faster the government addresses its supply chains’ emissions and reductions more substantively (i.e., beyond the basic disclosure requirements proposed in these FAR provisions) the sooner it will benefit from cost savings and a reduction in its Scope 3 emissions. We encourage the government to increase the rate of its incremental approach to stimulating energy efficiency and emissions reductions from its supply chain. For example, the government should consider promulgation of an additional FAR representation provision that mirrors the requirements in Section G.25 of GSA’s unrestricted Alliant 2 government wide acquisition contract (GWAC), currently open for bid.

Notwithstanding our desire to see more direct steps to reduce energy use and GHG emissions from the government’s supply chain, we support this proposed rule on public disclosure of Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions and reduction goals by suppliers to the federal government. The proposed rule is a necessary first step to comprehensively addressing the government’s Scope 3 emissions. Additionally, we support the proposed approach on public disclosure of risks faced by suppliers to the federal government as a result of extreme weather and other effects of climate change.

A. Commenters Background—Corporate Sustainability Advisors, LLC I have been an environmental and sustainability professional for nearly 30 years in a variety of roles as: • a lawyer representing public agencies, trade associations, Fortune 500 companies, and other businesses to achieve their transactional, regulatory, and litigation goals on environmental, land use, transportation, and energy matters (e.g., utilize eminent domain laws to acquire property for rural electric utility, reduce regulatory burdens to tank truck carriers under Clean Air Act, minimize settlement contributions of potentially responsible parties to remediate Superfund sites), • a government contractor supporting energy, environmental, and health missions (e.g., US Environmental Protection Agency’s Brownfields and Climate Leaders programs and other federal agency’s sustainability mandates under federal laws such as the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and Executive Orders such as 12898, 13423, 13415, 13693), and

Corporate Sustainability Advisors, LLC © 2016 All rights reserved. 1

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #10

• founder and President of Corporate Sustainability Advisors, LLC.

Between 2010-2016, I served as SRA International's first Corporate Sustainability Director, including the initial planning to integrate the sustainability programming efforts of CSRA after the merger of SRA and CSCGov in November 2015.

I founded Corporate Sustainability Advisors, LLC in 2016 to help our clients operate more efficiently and manage to the triple bottom line. We provide a range of sustainability services to for-profit businesses, non-profit corporations, and other organizations. We specialize in working with federal contracting firms, law firms, and other professional services businesses. We are certified under the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business (EDWOSB) program.

B. Sustainability Disclosures: Corporate America Trends More than ever, sustainability-related issues present challenges, especially energy use and potential climate impacts and opportunities, to the long-term prospects of private and publicly traded corporations. Corporate America, especially multi-national companies, have increasingly embraced sustainability practices and disclosures. Many companies have found that focusing on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues contributes to improved operational efficiency, innovations, and revenue growth. For decades, anecdotal evidence has indicated that positive financial impacts arise from companies addressing sustainability issues, including climate change.

Now, historical and trending research support this previously assumed positive correlation between ESG practices and corporate financial performance (CFP). See, e.g., Gunnar Friede, Timo Busch & Alexander Bassen, “ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies,” Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment (2015); and Deutsche Asset & Wealth Management and Hamburg University (2015), ESG and Financial Performance: Aggregated Evidence From More Than 2,000 Empirical Studies. Researchers have assessed more than 2,000 empirical studies and found that the majority of studies show a positive connection between ESG and CFP (below is Figure 3 from the Deutsche report).

Recognizing the critical role supply chains play in their corporate ESG management, the likes of Nike and Wal-Mart have been leaders in supply chain engagement. As noted by the CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project)—“without supplier action, purchasers cannot effectively mitigate their supply chain risks . . . . However, many companies, purchasers, and suppliers are behind where they need to be.”

Corporate Sustainability Advisors, LLC © 2016 All rights reserved. 2

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #10

Disclosure of GHG emissions and reduction goals is becoming a standard practice in many industries, and companies are increasingly asking their own suppliers about their GHG management practices. According to the CDP, last year for example, companies representing more than 50% of the combined market capitalization of the G20 reported climate-related data to CDP. According to a recent study by the Conference Board, overall sustainability disclosure is increasing. 2014-2013 saw big jump in the smallest publicly traded companies (i.e., under US$1B). In a sampling of S&P Global 1200 companies with revenue under US $1B, 25% reported total GHG emissions in 2013; 47% reported total GHG emissions in 2014.

In 2010, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) stuck its toe into the climate change pool in 2010 with its “Guidance Regarding Disclosure to Climate Change.” The 2010 guidance provided interpretation of existing requirements for disclosing material issues— clarifying that companies must disclose material impacts that business or legal developments related to climate change may have on their business. In its April 2016 Concept Release (a precursor to a potential proposed rule) on Regulation S-K, the SEC has sought additional input about what further steps it should take, if any, to regulate climate change or other sustainability disclosures from publicly traded companies.

Despite these trends, disclosure on sustainability issues is inconsistent and doesn’t provide companies nor their investors or other stakeholders with information to make decisions on. For example, more than half of the 20 largest US-listed companies have disclosed no or limited data about the risks they face from climate change in their regulatory filings with the SEC according to a study by Influence Map. According to studies by the SASB and others, many that do disclose risks report them using boilerplate provisions which many investors have said are inadequate to provide investment-grade information upon which they can make decisions.

In response to demands by a large segment of institutional investors for more information and other drivers, hundreds of GHG and other reporting surveys, standards, and platforms have been created, including, for example: the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) GHG Reporting Protocol and reporting database, CDP, the Climate Registry (TCR), the Sustainability Accounting and Standards Board (SASB), the International Integrated Reporting Coalition (IIRC). Indices report on publicly accessible and privately obtained data including: the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, CSRHub, Newsweek’s annual Green ratings.

Other ongoing initiatives are also seeking more transparent and consistent ESG disclosure, including for example: • The UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) that are signed by more than 1,500 investors and managers representing more than $60 trillion in assets. PRI represents a growing majority of the investor community that want more transparent and consistent reporting on GHG emissions and other ESG issues. • Early in July 2016, a coalition of more than 15 state attorneys general began investigating the adequacy of public companies’ statements to their investors and the public about potential impacts of climate change on their businesses. • Recently, the US Department of Labor revised its ERISA guidance to say explicitly that consideration of ESG concerns is a part of the pension plans’ fiduciary duty. • The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (convened by the Financial Stability Board based on a request from G20 countries) headed by Michael Bloomberg, who recently stated: “It’s critical that industries and investors understand the risks posed by climate change, but currently there is too little transparency about those risks.” • The CDP now represents more than 800 members reflecting more than US $100 trillion in assets.

Corporate Sustainability Advisors, LLC © 2016 All rights reserved. 3

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #10

The proposed FAR is in step with these trends that seek mandatory and standardized disclosure about corporate ESG information for buyers and other investors to assess supply chain performance and/or inform investment decisions.

C. Sustainability Practices and Impact Disclosures: US Federal Government Trends During the last 15 years, the federal government has been taking steps to reduce its operating costs and environmental impacts. The 2005 enactment of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) was a key step in launching the government’s current efforts to increase the energy efficiency of its operations. Additional requirements and more ambitious targets were Congressionally established, for example, in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Farm Bill), the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) and, most recently, in the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015.

A series of Executive Orders issued during the Bush (e.g., EO 13211 in 2001, EO 13423 in 2007) and Obama (e.g., EO 13514 in 2009, EO 13653 in 2013) administrations have supplemented these legislative actions and increasingly created a more strategic sustainability program across all federal operations as outlined in the proposed rulemaking.

During this timeframe and prior to EO 13693, the government also took many actions to reduce the environmental footprint from its supply chain primarily through FAR additions (e.g., 52.223-17, 52.204-4, 52.223-1, 52.223-2) and updates to contractor reporting in the System for Award Management (SAM) (e.g., per FAR Clause 52.223-2).

The government has also used contract-specific terms to seek voluntary disclosure of contractor’s sustainability practices and impacts (e.g., GSA’s OASIS unrestricted and small business GWACs include clauses H.8 and H.13 encouraging the contract holders to publicly disclose environmental impacts on their OASIS contract webpage).

For several years, GSA and other agencies have also conducted informal data collection and assessments about contractor’s GHG management and other sustainability practices and disclosures (e.g., informally asking contractors about their GHG inventories and goals during audits, the EO 13514 Section 13 workgroup that produced the Vendor and Contractor GHG Emissions report in April 2010).

Executive Order 13693 issued in March 2015, marked a new chapter in the government’s attempts to address supply chain GHG emissions, particularly through Section 15. Section 15 reflects an important evolution based on years of analysis and contractor engagement. Key requirements of Section 15, including those further detailed in the EO’s Implementing Instructions (June 2015), include:

1. The CEQ is required to conduct and publish an annual Federal Supplier Greenhouse Gas Management Scorecard. CEQ published the first annual Federal Supplier Greenhouse Gas Management Scorecard. The 43 suppliers scored in 2015 represented $187+ billion in federal spending (more than 40% of all federal contracts). As illustrated in Figure 1, more the 65% of the largest federal contractors publicly disclose a GHG inventory, but just 42% publish a GHG reduction goal.

Corporate Sustainability Advisors, LLC © 2016 All rights reserved. 4

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #10

Figure 1: CEQ’s 2015 Survey Of Federal Contractor GHG Management Disclosure

2. Beginning in FY17, the seven (7) largest procuring agencies must each develop an annual Procurement Plan to Reduce Supply Chain Emissions that identifies a minimum of five (5) solicitations or contracts in which they will address supply chain GHG emissions.

Several EO 13693 Section 15 pilot initiatives have been undertaken during this current federal fiscal year, including this proposed FAR and two other notable actions: 1. Requests to voluntarily respond to the CDP’s Climate Change Supply Chain information request. Last year, GSA invited 115 of its largest suppliers to respond to the 2015 CDP Climate Change Supply Chain Questionnaire. According to GSA’s summary in the 2016 CDP Supply Chain Report, 63 of the 115 invited suppliers voluntarily responded to the request. This year, GSA has invited nearly twice as many, 220 suppliers, to voluntarily respond to the 2016 CDP Supply Chain Climate Change Questionnaire. In addition, the Navy has invited more than 100 of its top suppliers to respond to the 2016 CDP survey. 2. GSA released the Alliant 2 GWAC in June. The contract’s terms (Section G.25) require awardees to report on their sustainability programming per a detailed schedule. Importantly, Alliant 2 contractors will be evaluated in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) for these required impact disclosures and milestones. The annual Alliant 2 Sustainable Practices and Impact Disclosures (SPID), include: a. Within 12 months after notice to proceed: first SPID, make publicly available all initially filed and all future disclosures. b. Within 12 months of the first SPID (approximately two years after the notice to proceed): must complete a GHG inventory. c. Within 24 months of the first SPID: must have a GHG reduction target. d. Within 36 months of the first SPID: must report on progress towards the GHG reduction target.

D. The proposed FAR to require federal supply chain disclosure of Scope 1 and 2 GHG management disclosures is an important, incremental step for the government to take. We applaud the government’s effort to continue its efforts to address supply chain emissions through these additions to the FAR. We have directly experienced the claim made in the proposed rule, “Performing a GHG inventory provides insight into operations, spurs innovation, and helps identify opportunities for efficiency and savings that can result in both environmental and financial benefits.”

Corporate Sustainability Advisors, LLC © 2016 All rights reserved. 5

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #10

Because of the close association between energy use (e.g., purchased electricity, natural gas, automotive fuel) and Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions, most organizations that reduce their emissions do so by cutting electricity and other energy usage (and associated costs).

More specifically, we offer the following points in support of the proposed rule. We also provide a few suggestions to modify the draft provisions to better align with the goals and other government initiatives to address supply chain GHG emissions.

1. Disclosure of contractor’s Scope 1 and 2 GHG management disclosure is a needed, initial step to enable the government to assess and reduce its Scope 3 emissions. For the many reasons cited in the proposed rule and outlined above with regard to the broader commercial market, buyers and other stakeholders benefit from having information about the environmental practices and impacts of its supply chain. Pursuant to GHG accounting protocols, the government’s supply chain contributes, in part, to the government’s Scope 3 emissions that it is seeking to reduce.

Currently, there is little public GHG management information about the vast majority of federal contractors. As evidenced by CEQ’s first Federal Supplier Greenhouse Gas Management Scorecard in March 2015, many of the largest contractors do not currently disclose their GHG emissions inventory and even fewer disclose reduction goals.

Pending publication of CEQ’s 2016 scorecard, we conducted our own survey of the top 80 contractors (from FPDS-NG, FY15 dollars obligated). As anticipated, when a larger pool of contractors are surveyed, the percent that disclose either Scope 1 and 2 GHG inventories or goals decreases even more than shown in CEQ’s 2015 survey. As illustrated in Figure 2, less than 50% of the top 80 contractors disclose their GHG inventory and less than 30% disclose GHG goal information.

Figure 2: Corporate Sustainability Advisor’s 2016 Survey of Federal Contractor GHG Management Disclosure

This level of disclosure is insufficient to achieve the policy’s goals. While some of the information sought by the proposed rule can be compiled at this time by the government and other interested stakeholders, it takes considerable effort to do so and the results aren’t necessarily comparable. Requiring contactors to report the disclosures, or lack thereof, is more efficient, fair, and useful for comparison purposes and to achieve the ultimate goal of reducing the government’s Scope 3 emissions.

Corporate Sustainability Advisors, LLC © 2016 All rights reserved. 6

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #10

Further, an information gap does exist for those companies that publicly disclose their Scope 1 and 2 GHG inventory and/or goal. It is not always possible to ascertain to which standard (if any) the inventory or goals were developed. The proposed rule’s language about minimum reporting standards is critical to fill this gap and help assess the consistency of inventory management programs.

Filling these information gaps in an efficient and fair manner is a necessary, but a very preliminary step for the government to address its Scope 3 emissions.

At this point since the rule addresses only disclosure about disclosures, we feel that parent company reporting should be acceptable as long as the vendor’s emissions are included within the parent’s Scope 1 and 2 inventory boundary. When and where the government requires and secures contractor emissions data, we encourage the government to seek emissions data that is allocated to the services provided to the government, whether from the vendor directly or rolled up through a parent company.

2. Mandatory disclosure requirements are needed to ensure transparency, comparability, and fairness. The prior and ongoing efforts by the government to seek voluntary disclosure of supply chain sustainability practices and impacts were helpful to assess the state of the market’s practices, but are insufficient for the transparency needed and for the government to determine its Scope 3 emissions, much less seek reductions of the emissions.

Companies are less likely to respond to voluntary requests than mandatory ones. According to our research, for example, only a small number of OASIS GWAC contractors publish any information about their environmental impacts on their OASIS contract (or other) webpages as “encouraged” by the contract terms.

We were pleased to see a 50+% response rate to GSA’s 2015 invitations to respond to the CDP Supply Chain questionnaire, but feel that this level is still insufficient to achieve the policy’s goals. Among other benefits, mandatory disclosure requirements will help level the playing field among contractors and provide the government and other stakeholders the ability to compare the contracting community against minimally acceptable standards.

The mandatory prescription is aligned with what some in the private sector are calling for. For example, Paul Polman, Chief Executive Officer of Unilever, recently tweeted that all companies should be forced to disclose to shareholders any risk that climate change might pose to their business.

Corporate Sustainability Advisors, LLC © 2016 All rights reserved. 7

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #10

3. Using the SAM is an efficient and effective mechanism for federal supply chain GHG and other sustainability impacts disclosures. The SAM is an effective tool to efficiently and comprehensively compile GHG management disclosure information from federal contractors. We also suggest the government consider utilization and modification of FPDS-NG and/or CPARS to help ensure the requirements get reflected and evaluated in other relevant procurement systems of record. We support having the representations made at the company level rather than the contract level. As part of the government’s incremental approach to address GHG emissions from the supply chain, it is prudent at this time to exclude contractors whose level of work with the federal government does not trigger SAM registration.

4. The information collection request burden estimate seems reasonable. Each contractor will require only minimal time and cost to assess if (and where, as applicable) it publicly discloses information about its Scope 1 and 2 GHG inventory and/or associated reduction goals. To the extent that the reporting representative is not aware of such disclosures, it should not take much time to track down whether such disclosures are made. In those instances, this request provides the additional benefit of increasing employee awareness and engagement about its employer’s GHG management program (or lack thereof).

5. The proposed threshold level of $7.5M for mandatory disclosure covers approximately 90% of the contracted dollars through the supply chain. As a small business, we appreciate the government’s incremental approach and sensitivity to the potential impacts on small businesses in its supply chain. We feel that given the very small time to determine and make the representations, the $7.5 million in annual federal contract awards is a reasonable minimum threshold for the mandatory disclosure.

As noted in the proposed rule, this $7.5 million threshold “represents approximately 3.5 percent of total entities that did business with the Federal Government in FY 2015.” While a small percent by number, according to our estimation, the dollar value these entities reflect is approximately 90% of federal contracting. To move forward in reducing the government’s supply chains’ emissions, the government must better understand, through such disclosures, the current state of a material amount of its Scope 3 emissions. 90% seems a sufficient initial segment.

We encourage the government to include in the final rulemaking the total of contracted dollars (and percentage it represents of all contracted dollars) covered by whatever final threshold is set for mandatory disclosure.

We also encourage the government to provide two specific clarifications regarding the $7.5 million level. (1) More precisely define how the threshold dollar level is calculated. For example, does “awarded contracts totaling more than…” reflect the contract ceiling amount, the amount of dollars obligated, or the amount of dollars spent during the fiscal year? (2) Clarify which, if any, subcontracted amounts contribute to the $7.5 million threshold level.

The government should also continue to encourage voluntary representations by those companies doing less than $7.5 million annually in federal contract awards. The very low burden to disclose about disclosures has outsized benefits. It prompts conversations and sends a signal that this is important to the government.

Corporate Sustainability Advisors, LLC © 2016 All rights reserved. 8

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #10

6. Sellers of commercial items and COTS should not be excluded from the mandatory representations. As assessed by the FAR council, if sellers of commercial items and COTS are exempted from the disclosure requirements, the rule’s benefits will be sub-optimal. Given the minimal burden of the proposed representations and the current and evolving state of GHG disclosures in the broader commercial markets, such an exemption is not supported by any rational assessment.

7. Additional factors for the government to consider as it finalizes and implements the proposed GHG management disclosure representation rule. As the government proceeds to finalize and implement the rule, we suggest several elements we think will further advance the rule’s ability to achieve the stated policy objectives. a. The proposed list of examples for “publicly accessible Web site” is less descriptive than in other federal supply chain disclosure requests and requirements (e.g., the CEQ’s Implementation Instructions for Section 15(a) of EO 13693, Alliant 2 Section G.25). Similarly, the term “via a recognized, third- part greenhouse gas emissions reporting program” is vague. For example, in 2015 the CEQ pointed to annual reports. The Alliant 2 solicitation identifies the CDP, GRI, or the contractor’s web site as viable online reporting portals. We urge the government to consider more consistency in describing the minimally acceptable disclosure platforms and online disclosure mechanisms, while allowing for flexibility for evolving standards and tools, including, for example, integrated reporting of sustainability and financial performance in SEC filings and The Climate Registry. • Any such changes should be made to both the inventory disclosure and goal disclosure representations, as applicable. b. As the government has done in the EO 13693 Implementing Instructions, it should consider specifying in the final FAR language that ISO 14064 is an acceptable standard by which GHG inventories would be acceptable for purposes of disclosure representations. c. GSA (and/or other implementing agencies) should conduct random checks to confirm if the SAM representations are accurate. To be effective in advancing the policy objectives, such disclosures must be credible and reliable. We further encourage the government to raise awareness and capacity of GHG management and disclosures within the federal contracting community, especially the small businesses that will be required to make mandatory disclosures. d. Further, we encourage the government to publish all data from the SAM representations as part of CEQ’s annual Supplier GHG Management Scorecard. This will increase transparency and enable taxpayers and other stakeholders to efficiently access such information.

8. The draft language should not be revised to add an option of “commits to disclose in the next 12 months” as suggested in other comments to the proposed regulation. We agree that it is important to strive for consistency with the other federal efforts to address supply chain emissions. As noted above, we further agree that the government must continue to encourage emissions disclosures and reductions across the supply chain.

We think that an aspirational “commits to” disclose option, however, will only muddy the waters and not necessarily lead to results. In our research, for example, none of the suppliers that made such commitments in the March 2015 CEQ survey have actually followed through on their commitments (i.e., to either publicly disclosed their inventories and/or their reduction goals). It is better to incorporate and publish the proposed disclosures into CEQ’s future annual scorecards. The government and the public will be

Corporate Sustainability Advisors, LLC © 2016 All rights reserved. 9

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #10

able to assess, year-to-year, actions rather than aspirations. The preamble language and other requirements can and should continue to emphasize that the government desires both disclosure and actual emissions reductions.

9. The proposed language of the FAR provisions should be modified to better align with ongoing disclosure requests and requirements under EO 13693 and other drivers. The following modifications, or their equivalents, will improve reporting consistency with other federal sustainability practices and impacts disclosure requests and requirements. a. Insert “within the last 12 months” or other temporal equivalent to contextualize the representation period with the GHG disclosure timeframe. b. Insert “Scope 1 and 2” to precede “greenhouse gas emissions” in each of the applicable proposed FAR representation provisions. c. For those contractors that represent that they have publicly disclosed an inventory and/or a reduction goal, in addition to providing the URL where the information is disclosed, the organization should be required to submit a headline level, quantitative description of the inventory and/or goal.

The preamble (and SAM instructions) should describe the level of detail required. For example, the inventory information should include: 1. Indication of which scope(s) are covered by the inventory [minimum of Scope 1 and 2], 2. Quantity and unit of carbon dioxide equivalents in each scope, and 3. Reporting period covered.

The goal disclosure details should include: 1. Indication of which scope(s) the goals cover, 2. Percent or quantity of reduction sought for each goal, 3. Base year and target year for each goal, and 4. Indication if the goal is absolute or normalized (and, if normalized, on what basis).

For example, add language to the effect of: • FAR 23.804(d) If the Offeror checked “does” in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this provision respectively, the Offeror shall provide a brief, quantitative summary of the publicly disclosed Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions and/or reduction goals.

While this additional data point may slightly increase the contractor’s time to respond to the information request, it greatly reduces the burden on the public and government to search for the data and increases the ability to (i) compare emissions and goals and (ii) develop a crude quantification of the aggregate supply chain emissions and potential reductions from disclosing suppliers.

E. The federal supply chain should also be required to disclose climate risk analysis. The proposed FAR should be modified or a separate FAR representation provision promulgated to require disclosure of climate risk analysis by the federal supply chain as described in Section II of the proposed rule. The disclosure thresholds and exemptions should be the same as the GHG management disclosure requirements. As with the GHG disclosure, it should take little time to determine whether a company does or does not disclose any climate analysis.

Promulgating such a rule may, in part, help inform the extent to which climate risks are material to federal contractors that are publicly traded companies (i.e., if major clients are asking for climate risk analysis disclosure and/or GHG emissions/goal), it is more likely to be considered material for Regulation S-K reporting purposes.

Corporate Sustainability Advisors, LLC © 2016 All rights reserved. 10

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #10

In conclusion, we commend the government’s continuing efforts to address its own energy efficiency and GHG management and that of its supply chain. We encourage prompt finalization of this proposed rule.

Thank you for your consideration,

Colleen Morgan

Colleen Morgan Corporate Sustainability Advisors, LLC

Corporate Sustainability Advisors, LLC © 2016 All rights reserved. 11

7/26/2016 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648211d574&format=xml&showorig=false FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #11 As of: 7/26/16 9:02 AM Received: July 25, 2016 PUBLIC SUBMISSION Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k0­8qyj­kiai Comments Due: July 25, 2016 Submission Type: Web

Docket: FAR­2015­0024 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Comment On: FAR­2015­0024­0001 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Document: FAR­2015­0024­DRAFT­0022 Comment on FR Doc # 2016­12226

Submitter Information

Name: Jim Bruce Address: UPS Global Public Affairs 316 Pennsylvania Avenue SE Suite 400 Washington, DC, 20003­1173 Email: [email protected] Phone: 202­675­3344

General Comment

See attached file(s)

Attachments

Filed Comments of UPS on FAR Case 2015­024 (DoD GSA NASA) mkjb comments

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648211d574&format=xml&showorig=false 1/1 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #11 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #11 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #11 7/26/2016 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648211d676&format=xml&showorig=false FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #12 As of: 7/26/16 9:08 AM Received: July 25, 2016 PUBLIC SUBMISSION Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k0­8qyj­mga0 Comments Due: July 25, 2016 Submission Type: Web

Docket: FAR­2015­0024 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Comment On: FAR­2015­0024­0001 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Document: FAR­2015­0024­DRAFT­0023 Comment on FR Doc # 2016­12226

Submitter Information

Name: Jimmy Christianson Address: 2300 Wilson Blvd Suite 300 Arlington, VA, 22201 Submitter's Representative: Jimmy Christianson Organization: Associated General Contractors of America

General Comment

See attached file(s)

Attachments

AGC Comments on Proposed FAR Rule on GHG Reporting

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648211d676&format=xml&showorig=false 1/1 MARK KNIGHT, President FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #12 ART DANIEL, Senior Vice President B.E. STEWART, JR., Vice President SCOTT WILLIAMS, Treasurer STEPHEN E. SANDHERR, Chief Executive Officer DAVID LUKENS, Chief Operating Officer

July 25, 2016

Ms. Hada Flowers General Services Administration Regulatory Secretariat 1800 F Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, D.C. 20405

RE: FAR Case 2015—024: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals—Representation

Dear Ms. Flowers,

On behalf of the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC), thank you for soliciting comments on this Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Council proposed rule on public disclosure of federal contractor greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. AGC has a number of concerns with this proposal and the end-use for the information sought therein.

AGC is the leading association for the construction industry, representing both union and non- union prime and subcontractor/specialty commercial construction companies. AGC represents more than 26,000 firms including over 6,500 of America’s leading general contractors and over 9,000 specialty-contracting firms. More than 10,500 service providers and suppliers are also associated with AGC, all through a nationwide network of chapters. AGC contractors are engaged in the construction of the nation’s commercial buildings, shopping centers, factories, warehouses, highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, waterworks facilities, waste treatment facilities, dams, water conservation projects, defense facilities, multi-family housing projects, site preparation/utilities installation for housing development, and more.

AGC holds that the best approach to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions is a market-based approach. By offering carrots rather than sticks through various regulatory reforms, pragmatic tax incentives, and reasonable construction owner and developer initiatives, the federal government is more likely to reduce its GHG emissions in a cost effective and productive manner than simply by adding layer upon layer of regulation upon construction contractors.

It is with that sentiment in mind that AGC puts forth in these comments the role its contractors have in reducing GHG emissions, the limited, direct impact construction contractor operations have on GHG emissions, and the association’s concerns with the proposed rule.

______2300 Wilson Blvd., Suite 300 • Arlington, VA 22201-3308 Phone: 703.548.3118 • Fax: 703.837.5400 • www.agc.org FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #12

I. The Construction Industry is a Vital Partner in the Effort to Reduce GHG Emissions

Construction contractors, and our partners in the building professions, have responded to the call to utilize the latest innovations in construction methods to reduce the impact of our built environment on our national environment. AGC members build environmentally efficient, green buildings; incorporate recycled materials into roadways, bridges and buildings; create more efficient transportation systems that cut congestion and reduce wasted fuel; upgrade water treatment facilities; repair waterways; restore wetlands; clean polluted sites; and revitalize blighted areas.

The construction contracting industry has met the environmental building requirements owners—public and private—have put forth for decades. AGC members remain interested and integral partners in working with federal agency owners to build upon the successes of the past to continue to improve environmental initiatives for the future. As partners, AGC expresses its sincere hope that the federal government will not place barriers to constructing such environmentally conscious facilities and infrastructure on its members, as the construction industry itself is responsible for a diminutive portion of total GHG emissions in the U.S.

II. The Construction Industry Itself has a Limited, Direct Impact on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The operation of the existing U.S. residential and nonresidential building stock accounts for approximately 12 percent of GHG emissions generated.1 Non-residential, commercial buildings represent less than half of energy consumption that generates GHG emissions.2 Meanwhile, the construction industry—across all sectors, including building, transportation and so forth— accounts for slightly over one percent of all U.S. manmade greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions according to the latest analysis of federal environmental data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).3 The data show the relative efficiency of today’s more than 650,000 construction firms that currently employ more than 6 million workers and create nearly $1 trillion worth of structures each year.

1 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, SOURCES OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: INVENTORY OF U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND SINKS 1990-2014 (2016) available at: https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/commercialresidential.html 2 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, 2011 BUILDINGS ENERGY DATA BOOK (2012) available at http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/ 3 U.S. EPA recently released its Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014 that provides an assessment of GHG emissions for 2014 – the most recent year for which data are available. EPA’s estimates put total U.S. GHG emissions for 2014 at 6,870 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, while emissions from construction and mining equipment amount to only 1.2 percent of the total emissions for that year. Notably, construction equipment emissions are often combined with those from the mining industry, so it is difficult to identify and quantify those GHG emissions attributed solely to construction equipment.

2

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #12

a. Participation of Construction Contractors in a Building’s Lifecycle is Limited

As the statistics reflect, there is a stark dichotomy between the construction phase and the operations phase of a building’s lifecycle when it comes to energy use. According to Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor John Ochsendorf, the real opportunities for reducing total life-cycle energy use—and in turn, emissions from energy generation—are in operation of buildings, rather than in their initial construction.4 Actual construction of a typical office building, for example, may take as short as several months and as long as several years. However, the occupancy and operation of that facility could last for several decades.5 During those decades, the users and owners of those facilities—not the construction contractors—are controlling the heating, cooling and electrical systems, which expend the greatest amounts of energy during the building’s lifetime. Ultimately, the building owners, not the construction contractors, have the final say as to the specific brands and types—energy efficient or not—of systems installed in the buildings.

The greatest opportunity for mitigating energy and emissions during a building’s lifetime comes before actual construction, during the development and design phase. Building owners generally specify the requirements they need met before ultimately taking the keys to the facility. Those requirements can include sustainable building systems—i.e., energy saving appliances, green roofs, etc—or the use of more environmentally friendly materials or products, all of which manufacturers—not construction contractors—produce. The contractor’s role is simply to install those systems and follow those requirements in a safe and efficient manner. Owners, in this case federal agencies, can specify which systems they would like contractors to install. The federal agencies, however, should include those requirements for consideration during design, rather than after actual construction has commenced, as a means to ensure that those systems are properly accounted for in consideration with the overall design of the building.

b. Marine Sources of Emissions Account for a Miniscule Portion of Emissions

According to the EPA, the transportation sector represents approximately 26 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions.6 Within the transportation sector, marine emissions represents merely two percent transportation emissions, among the lowest percentage of any transportation means. Cumulatively, water transportation has a relatively minor effect on air quality, consumes much less energy (and as a result, produces less air pollution) per ton-mile of freight carried than either rail or truck.7

Marine contractors working on locks, dams, levees as well as dredging our nation’s ports and harbors and inland waterway transportation system use marine construction equipment— dredges, barges, boats, etc.—in their daily work. As noted above, marine sources of emissions

4 David L. Chandler, Improved buildings could make a big dent in climate change, MIT NEWS (Aug. 31, 2011) available at: http://news.mit.edu/2011/concrete-buildings-0831 5 The average age of commercial buildings in the U.S. is 41.7 years. Institute for Market Transformation, Existing Buildings, http://www.imt.org/codes/existing-buildings (last visited July 25, 2016). 6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fast Facts: U.S. Transportation Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1990- 2014, (2016) available at http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100ONBL.pdf 7 Inland Rivers Ports and Terminals, Inc., Environmental Advantages of Inland Barge Transportation, http://www.irpt.net/information/environmental-advantages/ (last visited July 25, 2016).

3

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #12

produce extremely low amounts of GHG relative to the transportation sector. And, the work of marine contractors to ensure the safe, efficient and reliable transportation of goods on the waterways allows for a more environmentally friendly alternative form of transportation than other modes.

c. Construction Contractors Comply with Federal & State Emissions Regulations and Utilize Programs to Cut Emissions

Construction contractors use equipment—i.e., off-road vehicles, like cranes and excavators—that generate emissions. As it stands, there are a host of federal and state regulations that govern emissions from off-road construction equipment. For example, the EPA has set stringent emissions standards (Tier IV) to significantly reduce emissions from new off-road equipment that will reduce emissions by more than 90 percent.8 Construction contractors continue to take advantage of the EPA’s Diesel Emission Reduction Program, which helps fund the purchase or retrofitting of diesel-powered vehicles and pieces of equipment. California, for instance, also regulates diesel emissions from in-use construction equipment and has regulations that will result in a 74 percent reduction of particulate matter and a 32 percent reduction of NOx by 2020.9

In addition, programs to replace existing construction equipment have made inroads. Take the federal Diesel Emission Reduction Program as an example. More than 50,000 older diesel powered engines were upgraded or replaced between 2008 and 2010 because of this program.10 Increasing funding and expanding programs like these could further help the industry cut emissions, as costs of “retrofitting”11 or replacing equipment are high and prohibitive, especially for the many small businesses that make up the construction industry.

III. AGC’s Concerns with this FAR Council Proposal

AGC appreciates the FAR Council providing it with the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule. The association also thanks FAR Council for not requiring the disclosure of non- public, proprietary data concerning federal contractor GHG emissions data.

8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nonroad Diesel Engines, https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/nonroad-diesel.htm (last visited July 25, 2016). 9 Union of Concerned Scientists, California's Clean Construction Regulation: California Cleans Up Dirty Diesel Construction Equipment, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/california-and-western-states/californias-clean- construction-regulation#.V5DPe_mANBc (last visited July 25, 2016). 10Steve Hansen, New EPA Report to Congress Highlights National Success in Clean Air Benefits and Fuel Savings of Diesel Emissions Reduction Program, DIESEL TECHNOLOGY FORUM, April 29, 2013 available at http://www.dieselforum.org/news/new-epa-report-to-congress-highlights-national-success-in-clean-air-benefits-and- fuel-savings-of-diesel-emissions-reduction-program 11 There is a misconception that construction equipment can always be retrofitted with new, more fuel efficient engines. That is not the case. Older, existing construction vehicles and equipment, like cranes and excavators, where not made with retrofitting in mind and often have limited space and flexibility for the installation of new engines. Not all engines necessarily fit the same way into the equipment. In addition to environmental concerns, construction contractors must take into account the relative safety of the equipment their employees or others operate. How an old engine fits into old equipment is a considerable safety concern, especially if the engine is exposed in any manner.

4

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #12

While the proposal on its face appears innocuous, AGC puts forth several concerns it hopes that the FAR Council and administration will consider: (1) prior to issuing a final rule; and (2) as it analyzes the data generated through this information request for the purposes of devising future policies and requirements for federal construction contractors.

a. Limit the Reporting Requirement to only the Entity Acting as the Offeror

The proposed rule would require many federal contractors to represent whether they as offerors, or their immediate owners or highest level owners do or do not disclose GHG emissions and quantitative GHG emissions reduction goals. If such items are disclosed, then the offeror must provide the addresses of publicly accessible websites where the information is available. AGC firmly holds that the rule should limit its inquiry and reporting requirement to only the offeror, not to its immediate owner or highest level owners.

Today’s construction firm marketplace continues to consolidate and change.12 That consolidation activity includes complex business deals across varying business entities, many of which may not be traditional construction companies. Many holding companies and private equity firms are buying construction companies to diversify their portfolios. While these larger entities may have some form of corporate policy on GHG emissions, that policy may not be indicative of what is possible for a construction company or the work it performs. AGC fears that this data could be misused and misapplied in the context of the greater construction industry and new requirements in federal construction contracts.

That stated, the data from construction company offerors may be limited and may not reflect the practices of the industry or the GHG emission reduction possibilities industry-wide. AGC cautions the administration in its use of such data if and when it seeks to develop policies and requirements concerning GHG emissions. GHG policies and requirements should be based on sound and robust scientific, industry, and economic data.

b. The Data Collected May Provide an Incomplete Picture as to Industry-Wide GHG Emissions Initiatives, Policies, and Possibilities, which could Negatively Impact Policies Formed Using Only that Data

AGC appreciates that the FAR Council is attempting to gather data from industry to better formulate federal procurement policies and requirements regarding GHG emission reduction efforts. We strongly hold that government regulations based on a sound understanding of and feedback from the construction industry are better than those formed without construction industry input, data or review. With that in mind, AGC is deeply concerned that the information generated under the FAR Council’s proposal will provide a skewed analysis of the construction industry’s efforts and ability to reduce GHG emissions.

12 Building Design and Construction, Megadeals drive mergers and acquisitions in engineering and construction industry: FMI report, http://www.bdcnetwork.com/megadeals-drive-mergers-and-acquisitions-engineering-and- construction-industry-fmi-report (last visited July 25, 2016).

5

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #12

i. Variations between the Sizes of Firms in the Construction Industry Must Be Considered when the Administration Conducts its Analysis

The U.S. construction industry includes more than 650,000 construction firms, of which the vast majority—98 percent—are small businesses with fewer than 20 employees. And, even more than 98 percent of construction companies are not public companies, but rather closely held. Of the several thousand federal construction contractor companies that are AGC members, only a handful—at best—are public companies. While the proposed rule notes that public companies are already subject requirements to disclose risks associated with climate change, the fact remains that a substantial number of federal construction companies are not public companies. Consequently, few construction companies are required to document such risks or have climate change plans and few do. In a search for publically available sustainability reports/documentation that detail contractor GHG emissions data and/or goals from the Engineering News Record top 400 contractors list of 201513—which includes contractors in the top 100 with gross annual revenues from $672 million to $28 billion—AGC found that the majority of the top 100 contractors do not disclose internal corporate efforts or operational goals regarding greenhouse gas emissions.

The vast majority of federal construction contractors have gross annual revenues well below $672 million, as they are very often small construction contracting businesses. Under U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) regulations, a general construction contractor is a small business if it has gross annual revenues of $36.5 million or less—generally speaking—and a specialty contractor is a small business if those revenues of $15 million or less—some of which would have to report under this requirement in accordance with the $7.5 million threshold. While federal government-wide small business prime contractor and subcontractor contract award goals are set at 23 percent and 34 percent, respectively, federal agencies emphasize and expand these goals for construction procurement. Federal agencies often exceed these small business goals in their construction contracts. With a heavy federal interest in hiring small businesses, the creation of policies that act as barriers to market entry must be considered in any and all federal regulatory initiatives. Consequently, AGC reviewed several websites of small construction company businesses to determine what the administration may learn from small businesses that must comply with this request. AGC found no small business contractors with publically disclosed information regarding GHG emissions.

Based on the information above, AGC believes that the data gathered through the System for Awards Management (SAM) and analyzed by the FAR Council and the Council on Environmental Quality will not sufficiently inform the government’s likely end goal of mandating contractor greenhouse gas requirements in federal contraction contracts. The association fears that federal government will use the limited information generated by the most sophisticated and financially well-off companies to draw up requirements for the entire federal construction contracting industry. The impact of such an approach could significantly inhibit open and fair competition that benefits federal agencies and taxpayers as well as provide steep barriers to small businesses seeking participation in the federal marketplace.

13 Engineering News-Record, ENR 2015 Top 400 Contractors 1-100, http://www.enr.com/toplists/2015_Top_400_Contractors1 (last visited July 25, 2016).

6

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #12

ii. The Construction Industry is Diverse, like its Market

Unlike manufactured goods and commodities—i.e., pens, paper, so forth—construction services are project-specific and inherently variable. Each construction services contract is subject to the unique demands of the project, including: the geography—including but not limited to site conditions, the seasonality of certain construction activities, project proximity to major suppliers, and site ingress and egress in conjunction with other landowners, the unique local energy sources available—the needs, requirements, personnel and budgetary criteria of the owner, specific and unique design features, construction requirements and parameters, and the composition of the project team.

The construction industry builds vertical buildings and facilities, roads and bridges, sewer systems and power facilities, locks, dams and flood control infrastructure and dredges the nation’s ports, harbors and inland waterways to name only a few construction project types. The needs of the project will often dictate the materials and equipment necessary to build the facility or infrastructure in a safe and efficient manner. As such, any data or information the administration collects and analyzes must be considered in the context of not only the construction company, but also the construction project. The administration must not and should not attempt to apply a one-size fits all GHG emissions requirements to an industry that is as diverse as the projects on which it works, let alone any additional requirements to the ones already imposed at the state and federal levels.

IV. Conclusion

Again, AGC thanks the FAR Council for providing an opportunity to comment on this proposal. AGC and its construction contracting industry members perform much of the work necessary to meet GHG emissions goals throughout the nation on various types of projects. As the FAR Council and the administration review these comments, AGC requests that they: (1) limit this information request to only offerors; and (2) understand the limitations of the data collected if and when considering future GHG emissions policies and regulations. Thank you for your consideration of AGC, its members and the construction industry.

Sincerely,

/S/

Jimmy Christianson Regulatory Council Associated General Contractors of America

7

7/26/2016 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648211ddb0&format=xml&showorig=false FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #13 As of: 7/26/16 9:14 AM Received: July 25, 2016 PUBLIC SUBMISSION Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k0­8qyk­ptqo Comments Due: July 25, 2016 Submission Type: Web

Docket: FAR­2015­0024 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Comment On: FAR­2015­0024­0001 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Document: FAR­2015­0024­DRAFT­0027 Comment on FR Doc # 2016­12226

Submitter Information

Name: Andriy Shvab Address: 1667 K Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC, 20006 Submitter's Representative: Andriy Shvab Organization: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers

General Comment

See attached file(s)

Attachments

AFPM Comments on Proposed Rule on Climate Disclosure 07252016

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648211ddb0&format=xml&showorig=false 1/1 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #13 American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers

1667 K Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006

202.457.0480 office 202.457.0486 fax July 25, 2016 afpm.org

Attn: Ms. Flowers General Services Administration Regulatory Secretariat 1800 F Street NW., 2nd floor Washington, DC 20045

RE: FAR Case 2015-024: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals—Representation

Dear Ms. Flowers,

The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) submits the attached comments on the proposed amendments to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) on “Public Disclosures of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals – Representation (FAR Case 2015-024). 81 FR 101, 33192 (May 25, 2016).

AFPM is a national trade association representing nearly 400 companies that encompass virtually all U.S. refining and petrochemical manufacturing capacity. AFPM members annually file reports as part of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program.

AFPM does not support the current rule as written considering the ambiguous goal of the rule and the uncertainty it places on potential contractors as to how this rule should affect their behavior.

Upon review of the proposed revisions to FAR, AFPM and its members have identified the following key issues:

 The proposed amendment would duplicate the requirements of the EPA GHG reporting program and therefore imposes a regulatory burden with no concomitant societal benefit. To the extent the GSA desires this information, it may obtain it from its sister agency.  The rule’s purpose is ambiguous and creates uncertainty for contractors, who are unable to determine how their responses might affect their ability to win contracts.

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #13

I. Background

The General Services Administration (GSA), along with the Department of Defense (DoD) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), are seeking to implement the directive of Executive Order (E.O.) 13693 which requires the seven largest procuring agencies to implement procurements that take into consideration contractor GHG emissions and to release an annual inventory of major suppliers. The proposed implementation is ambiguous and may present challenges in applying for federal contracts. The stated intent of this rule is to consider “approaches to make disclosures of climate change risk analyses from government suppliers available to agencies to help inform agency inventory and management of climate change related risks to Federal facilities, operations, and missions, including supply chains.”1 The preamble makes it clear that this rule is designed as a precursor to future initiatives that take into account GHG emissions in the supply chain when contracting. More evidence of this comes directly from the EPA, in which it claims that “suppliers should be afforded the opportunity to phase in GHG emissions reporting....”2 However, such a strategy is flawed for a variety of reasons detailed below.

Our comments touch upon what AFPM believes to be the goal of the rule, and provide some comments about procurement decisions based on GHG emissions before turning to the actual language of the proposed rule.

II. AFPM Members Already Provide Information on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Through the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, AFPM members have been submitting detailed information since 2011 on the greenhouse gas emissions from each refinery and petrochemical facility. EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting website includes the following description of reported GHG emissions:

The refinery sector consists of facilities that produce gasoline, gasoline blending stocks, naphtha, kerosene, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants, or asphalt (bitumen) by the distillation of petroleum or the re-distillation, cracking, or reforming of unfinished petroleum derivatives. GHG process emissions from this sector include emissions from venting, flares, and fugitive leaks from equipment (e.g., valves, flanges, pumps). In addition to emissions from petroleum refining processes, the sector includes combustion

1 Federal Acquisition Regulation: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals – Representation, 81 Fed. Reg. 33192, 33193 (May 25, 2016). 2 https://www.fedcenter.gov/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item_id=15392&destination=ShowItem at 3.1.1.4.

2

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #13

emissions from stationary combustion units located at these facilities. Process emissions from hydrogen production plants and petrochemical manufacturing facilities located at refineries are included in the chemical manufacturing sector.3

In addition, all owners or operators of petroleum refineries and importers and exporters of petroleum products must report the GHG emissions that would result from the complete combustion or oxidation of the products they supply.

If independent agencies like DoD, GSA, and NASA do ultimately decide to proceed with using emissions data in their procurement decisions, then we urge the data used by these entities to be identical to EPA’s reporting requirements and need not be re-submitted under this program.

III. Procurement Based on Carbon Emissions is a Bad Idea for Numerous Reasons:

A. Collecting and Reporting Carbon Data is Onerous According to EPA, GHG reporting “requires the most effort because [companies need] to locate the required data and learn the inventory calculation process.”4 As stated above, our member companies already report their GHG emissions in accordance with EPA regulations, which require companies to disclose emissions data at the refinery level. This rule would require that companies take into account emissions of all their operations, domestically and internationally, adding time and expense.

B. Procurement Based on Carbon Emissions Would Lead to Protests and Delays A secondary concern relates to how the proposal will increase the number of bid protests leading to litigation and long delays in the procurement process. Companies not awarded contracts based on an opaque decision making process that takes into account GHG emissions would lead to bid protests at the agency level,5 through the U.S. Court of Federal Claims,6 or through the Government Accountability Office.7 The sheer number of protests would be overwhelming and create delays for the entire procurement process. The GAO, for example, would have to consider any protest, which would result in the imposition of an automatic stay pending a 100-day period allotted for GAO’s consideration of the protest. A federal court may issue an injunction to enjoin procurement or performance, adding to the length of time for the performance of a contract to begin.

3 https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgrp-2014-refineries 4 https://www.fedcenter.gov/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item_id=15392&destination=ShowItem at 3.1.1.4. 5 FAR 33.103. 6 See generally FAR 33.105. 7 FAR 33.104.

3

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #13

C. Procurement Decisions Based on Carbon Emissions Are Ambiguous Using carbon data that does not implicate actual cost-benefit analysis would be a disservice to the taxpayer. In the spirit of fairness and transparency, government contracting has always followed general standards for procurement, including: specifications dealing with how offerors will be evaluated, specifications detailing how an offer will be evaluated, among other considerations.8 Uniformity in the procurement process ensures fairness, and the proposed rule’s admission that suppliers represent emissions in accordance “with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Standard or equivalent standard,”9 is not a verifiable mechanism for ensuring uniformity. There are many greenhouse gas emission reporting services purporting to do the same thing as the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Standard:

 Carbon Trust Standard  The CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme (formerly known as the Carbon Reduction Commitment, now CRC-EES)  Dow Jones Sustainability Indices  Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme  FTSE4Good Index  Global Reporting Initiative  Bilan Carbone  PAS 205010 Moreover, we oppose the use of third party carbon emission inventory services that do not provide companies with the ability to determine how they calculate inventories. For example, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol website admits that “GHG accounting is not a static field,” which requires updates to the definition of greenhouse gases as that institution sees fit.11 It would not make sense for US companies to be tied to a non-governmental organization’s determination of what constitutes greenhouse gases without any mechanism for petitioning if there is disagreement.

D. Emissions Reporting Could Result in the Disclosure of Trade Secrets The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exempts agencies from releasing or disclosing “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.”12 FAR has previously provided unwavering protection to contractors against the

8 Steven L. Schooner, Desiderata: Objectives for a System of Government Contract Law, 11 PUB. PROCUREMENT L. REV. 103, 105. 9 81 Fed. Reg. 33192. 10 https://ecometrica.com/platform/reporting; http://www.internatenergy.com/index.php/en/sustainability- consulting/greenhouse-gas-reduction-strategies.html 11 In 2012, GHG Protocol made an invitation to comment on the expansion of the definition of greenhouse gases. http://www.ghgprotocol.org/feature/invitation-comment-proposed-addition-gases-reported-ghg-protocol-standards 12 Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec 552(b)(4).

4

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #13

disclosure of information that may be deemed trade secrets, confidential, or commercial or financial information in bids.13 Despite this, contractors would feel compelled, for now, to disclose such information about trade secrets such as their greenhouse reduction targets. As stated above, companies are already required to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions, which was a recent development considering the confidential nature of emissions productions. Even the Federal Trade Commission submitted a comment in response to EPA’s proposed rule to compel disclosures in which they agreed that disclosure of GHG emissions could result in price fixing that would ultimately harm consumers.14 But this rule goes further and requires reporting about emission reduction strategies. This is problematic because a company that reports a plan to reduce emissions by 25 percent in a short timeframe, for example, could signal to the industry that they will experience an anticipated site closure, raising concerns over the distribution of sensitive industry information.

IV. Specific Comments by Section

A. Emissions Reporting Scope The rule is silent on what constitutes proper emissions reporting. The rule should specify the scope of the emissions being represented, from scopes 1-5 or any combination as long as it is clear. As it now stands, the rule allows the representations to be manipulated to appear like a company is not emitting as much as it actually does. A company may only represent its scope 1 emissions, while other disclosing companies may report scopes 1 and 2 emissions.

While we do seek clarity on which scope of emissions to represent, we do have concern about reporting scope 3 emissions. As GSA stated previously, scope 3 emissions “necessitates the disclosure of business data between companies,” and it “could have unanticipated competitive consequences.” In addition, companies that operate internationally or have foreign suppliers may encounter trade regulation issues due to the sharing of GHG emissions information.15 The issue with regulating this scope is that, even among the EPA’s own admission, there may be trade secret issues or trade secrets with foreign governments that may be implicated.16

Furthermore, the proposed rule is unclear as to the scope of company operations that should be included in any assessment of either GHG emissions or GHG reduction goals. Within a single company, different business units may or may not be involved in providing services or materials.

13 See, e.g., 41 U.S.C. Sec 2102; FAR 3.104-3; FAR 9.105-2; FAR 9.105-3. 14 Federal Trade Commission, Comment Letter Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Data Required Under the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas OAR-2009-0924 Reporting Rule and Proposed Amendment to Special Rules Governing Certain Information Obtained Under the Clean Air Act, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0924 (Sept 30, 2014), https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/oira_2060/2060-06252013-4.pdf. 15 General Services Administration, Executive Order 13514: Recommendations for Vendor and Contractor Emissions, April 2010, https://www.fedcenter.gov/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item_id=15392&destination=ShowItem 16 Id.

5

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #13

The proposal is unclear as to how these disclosures are intended to apply across an entire company, regardless of the relevance of the potentially myriad business units, or whether emission reductions and goals are limited to the factory, process, or business unit which is actually contracted. Lacking in this capacity, responses from contractors will not be comparable and thus not a legitimate gauge by which to award contracts.

The EPA notes that suppliers can gain a “competitive advantage” with their federal customers by disclosing GHG emissions.17 The fact that this potential advantage is yet to be determined makes informed comment on this proposal impossible.

B. Emissions Reduction Strategies References to “reduction goals” found throughout the proposed rule should be eliminated. Reduction goals cannot be assigned a value when it comes to contracting decisions, rendering it unnecessary to catalogue or disclose reduction goals in the first place. In fact, giving weight to reduction goals does more harm than good. First, no meaningful assurances can be extracted from reduction goals because they can always change depending on a company’s technological and financial limitations. Second, it is highly uncertain that “emissions reductions strategies” would be a factor in consideration of procurement.

The history of the greenhouse gas emission reporting regime demonstrates the concern that industry and regulators have about the disclosure of emissions data leading to the disclosure of confidential business information.18 And, as noted above, if a contractor confirms that it plans to reduce emissions at a particular refinery, or to reduce emissions in general, it may signal to the industry that a certain refinery is going offline or will experience a turnaround, typically regarded as an anticompetitive gesture.

C. Section 52.212-3 AFPM suggests the following to the proposed change to 52.212-3: (b)Representation. (i) The Offeror (itself or through its immediate owner or highest-level owner) publicly [ ] does, [ ] does not disclose greenhouse gas emissions, i.e., makes available on a publicly accessible Web site the results of a greenhouse gas inventory, in accordance with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Standard or equivalent standard. A publicly accessible Web site includes the supplier's own Web site or via a recognized, third-party greenhouse gas emissions reporting program.

17 Id. at 3.1.1.4. 18 See, e.g., Confidentiality Determinations for Data Required Under the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Amendments to Special Rules Governing Certain Information Obtained Under the Clean Air Act, 76 Fed. Reg. 30782 (2011).

6

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #13

As stated above, we believe that using the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Standard, or its “equivalent” invites differing standards for carbon reporting and may lead to varying results. There is no indication of what an “equivalent standard” consists of, which creates an inherent ambiguity as to what standard a contactor may be using and how it compares to other reporting methodologies. The above change would also provide flexibility to companies to decide how best to inventory greenhouse gas emissions based on their industry’s needs and goals. Moreover, it would free companies from the prospect that non-governmental organizations would change the definition of greenhouse gases after it has engendered reliance on their services.

D. Section 23.000 We do not support an amendment to section 23 that would remove paragraphs (a) through (g). We would keep the list as currently written: This part prescribes acquisition policies and procedures supporting the Government's program for ensuring a drug-free workplace, for protecting and improving the quality of the environment, and to foster markets for sustainable technologies, materials, products, and services, and encouraging the safe operation of vehicles by-- (a) Reducing or preventing pollution; (b) Managing efficiently and reducing energy and water use in Government facilities; (c) Using renewable energy and renewable energy technologies; (d) Acquiring energy-efficient and water-efficient products and services, environmentally preferable (including EPEAT(R)-registered, and non-toxic and less toxic) products, products containing recovered materials, biobased products, non-ozone-depleting products, and products and services that minimize or eliminate, when feasible, the use, release, or emission of high global warming potential hydrofluorocarbons, such as by using reclaimed instead of virgin hydrofluorocarbons; (e) Requiring contractors to identify hazardous materials; (f) Encouraging contractors to adopt and enforce policies that ban text messaging while driving; and (g) Requiring contractors to comply with agency environmental management systems.

The above list should be unchanged because it prescribes the means by which acquisitions based on “improving the quality of the environment” would be made, among other things. Eliminating this enumerated list would create uncertainty and lead to subjective decisions based on the agency’s evolving opinions of what constitutes “protecting and improving the environment.”

7

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #13

If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me at [email protected] or (202) 457-0480.

Sincerely,

David Friedman Vice President Regulatory Affairs

8

7/26/2016 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648211e10f&format=xml&showorig=false FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #14 As of: 7/26/16 9:17 AM Received: July 25, 2016 PUBLIC SUBMISSION Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k0­8qyk­2799 Comments Due: July 25, 2016 Submission Type: Web

Docket: FAR­2015­0024 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Comment On: FAR­2015­0024­0001 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Document: FAR­2015­0024­DRAFT­0028 Comment on FR Doc # 2016­12226

Submitter Information

Name: Christine Keck Address: 4655 Rosebud Lane Newburgh, IN, 47630 Email: [email protected]

General Comment

Please see attached comments for FAR Case 2015­024

Attachments

Comments FAR Public Disclosure of GHG Emissions and Reduction Goals July 2016

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648211e10f&format=xml&showorig=false 1/1 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #14 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #14 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #14 7/26/2016 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648211eb5c&format=xml&showorig=false FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #15 As of: 7/26/16 9:20 AM Received: July 25, 2016 PUBLIC SUBMISSION Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k0­8qym­g1ed Comments Due: July 25, 2016 Submission Type: Web

Docket: FAR­2015­0024 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Comment On: FAR­2015­0024­0001 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Document: FAR­2015­0024­DRAFT­0030 Comment on FR Doc # 2016­12226

Submitter Information

Name: Howard Feldman Address: 1220 L St NW American Petroleum Institute Washington, DC, 20005 Email: [email protected] Phone: 2026828340 Fax: 2026828270 Organization: American Petroleum Institute

General Comment

Please see the attached comments on FAR Case 2015­024, submitted by Howard J. Feldman on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute.

Attachments

API comments to GSA proposal 7­25­16

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648211eb5c&format=xml&showorig=false 1/1 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #15

Howard J. Feldman Senior Director Regulatory and Scientific Affairs 1220 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-4070 USA Telephone 202-682-8340 Fax 202-682-8270 Email [email protected] www.api.org

July 25, 2016

Ms. Hada Flowers General Services Administration Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB) 1800 F Street NW., 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20405-0001

Re: FAR Case 2015-024: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals—Representation

Dear Ms. Flowers:

In a proposal dated May 25, 2016, the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to create an annual representation within the System for Award Management for vendors to indicate if and where they publicly disclose greenhouse gas emissions and greenhouse gas reduction goals or targets. In response, the American Petroleum Institute (“API”) submits the following comments on the proposed rule. API represents over 650 oil and natural gas companies, leaders of a technology-driven industry that supplies most of America’s energy, supports more than 9.8 million jobs and 8 percent of the U.S. economy, and, since 2000, has invested nearly $2 trillion in U.S. capital projects to advance all forms of energy, including alternatives.

API and its member companies consider climate change a very important issue and are engaging constructively and positively to address the challenges of climate change. However, the proposal is significantly flawed and thus should be withdrawn, given the following key points.

1. The proposed rule is duplicative of existing reporting obligations and will add little value to agency decision-making with respect to government contract awards. Most companies already engage in EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting program and/or voluntary reporting programs such as the Carbon Disclosure Project. The reported information is publicly available and can be accessed by any agency during the course of bid evaluation for government contracts.

FAR Case 2015-024 CommentJuly 25 ,#15 2016 Page 2

2. The $7.5 million threshold for reporting under the proposed rule is unreasonably low. It will impose new reporting obligations on companies with relatively modest government contract awards that have relatively modest associated GHG emissions. The proposed $7.5 million threshold likely will cover many small businesses that are not required to report emissions to EPA or other organizations, and will have to invest in significant new resources to assess compliance.

3. The Agencies must not use the proposed rule as an entry point to impose substantive emission reduction requirements on federal contractors in the future. The Agencies assert that the proposed rule will not impose any new substantive obligations on reporting entities because they are only required to provide notice of existing reports prepared for other purposes. However, there is significant concern that the Agencies may attempt to use the proposed rule as a stepping stone to impose substantive emissions reduction requirements as a condition of federal contract awards in the future, whether explicitly or otherwise. Not only would the agencies lack any statutory authority to impose such emissions reduction requirements, but API opposes any effort to make GHG emissions reductions a mandatory condition or factor in federal contracting.

4. The proposed rule may disadvantage companies based on whether they voluntarily disclose GHG emissions information. The Agencies’ stated purposes in this rulemaking include identifying “opportunities to reduce supply chain emissions [and] develop and implement procurements that incorporate consideration of those emissions.” As stated above, the government should not use GHG emissions information as a factor or consideration in federal contracting. To the extent that the Agencies intend to use GHG information collected under the proposed rule to inform agency decision-making with respect to awarding federal contracts, there may be selection biases in favor of companies that either report information under EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting program, SEC’s reporting requirements or through voluntarily reports, or in favor or against companies depending on the scope of such emissions. This will create an un-level playing field for various companies based on whether they do or do not disclose such information and the scope of such information. Again, the lack of criteria, as discussed above, could greatly contribute to bid confusion and bias. Moreover, if voluntary reporting of GHG information is perceived as a de facto threshold requirement for obtaining federal contracts, companies will feel compelled to voluntarily disclose such emissions information. As a result, the proposed rule could have the effect of making “voluntary” disclosure of GHG emissions information mandatory for federal contractors.

5. Finally, the proposed rule is not supported by adequate legal authority. The proposal concedes that “the rule is not based in statute.” 81 Fed. Reg. at 33194. The rule must be based on a grant or rulemaking authority from Congress. E.g., Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 302 (1979). Further, there is no adequate nexus between the proposed rule and any rulemaking authority granted by Congress. Indeed, the proposal has no demonstrated or reasonable relation to the goals underlying federal procurement by the federal government. E.g., Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Friedman, 639 F.2d 164 (4th Cir. 1981).

FAR Case 2015-024 CommentJuly 25 ,#15 2016 Page 3

In conclusion, because the proposed rule is significantly flawed and without legal authority, it should be withdrawn.

Sincerely,

Howard J Feldman

7/26/2016 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648211ef92&format=xml&showorig=false FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #16 As of: 7/26/16 9:21 AM Received: July 25, 2016 PUBLIC SUBMISSION Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k0­8qyp­kumu Comments Due: July 25, 2016 Submission Type: API

Docket: FAR­2015­0024 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Comment On: FAR­2015­0024­0001 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Document: FAR­2015­0024­DRAFT­0031 Comment on FR Doc # 2016­12226

Submitter Information

Name: Himani Phadke Address: 1045 Sansome Street, Suite 450 San Francisco, CA, 94111 Email: [email protected] Submitter's Representative: Himani Phadke Organization: Sustainability Accounting Standards Board

General Comment

See attached file(s)

Attachments

SASB Letter ­ Federal Govt ­ FAR Case 2015­024 ­ 25July2016_FINAL

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648211ef92&format=xml&showorig=false 1/1 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #16

Jean Rogers, Ph.D., P.E. CEO & Founder

Himani Phadke Director of Research

1045 Sansome, Suite 450 San Francisco, CA 94111 USA

www.sasb.org

July 25, 2016

General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), ATTN: Ms. Flowers, 1800 F Street NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405–0001.

Re: FAR Case 2015–024: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals—Representation

Dear Ms. Flowers:

We write on behalf of the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. SASB issues sustainability accounting standards that guide public companies in the disclosure of material sustainability information in regulatory filings. SASB’s provisional standards—developed following a robust due process with significant market input—are designed to be cost-effective and work within the framework of the U.S. securities laws. They help registrants effectively disclose material sustainability-related information and comply with regulatory obligations. SASB’s full set of provisional sustainability accounting standards for 79 industries in 10 sectors was published in March 2016 for use by the capital markets.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed amendment to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) by the Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (collectively, the “federal agencies”). This letter will discuss two main topics: improving the usefulness of the proposed amendment through consideration of other climate-relevant disclosures besides greenhouse gas emissions; and recommending that the FAR amendment include a reference to the use of SASB standards by vendors as a credible resource for public disclosure of those climate change-related risks and opportunities.

------

Recommendation

We commend the federal agencies for proposing to use publicly available information to increase transparency and improve the management of the federal government’s supply chain, rather than creating additional, specific reporting requirements for companies. Because of SASB’s approach, with its emphasis on due process and use of the U.S. securities laws as its framework, we believe FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #16

it would be appropriate for the federal government to include in its FAR amendment (or to otherwise acknowledge) (i) a reference of the SASB standards and metrics as a credible resource that can be used by companies for public disclosure of climate-related risks and opportunities and (ii) a representation within the System for Award Management of whether and where such disclosure is made. Further, we believe that disclosure additional to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and reduction targets is necessary for the federal government to achieve its objectives, and that SASB standards are uniquely suited to provide these disclosure elements on an industry-specific basis, resulting in a more useful set of information available to the federal government.

------GHG emissions reporting

The federal agencies state that through the FAR amendment the government aims to obtain the data needed to responsibly manage its supply chain, including to better assess supplier practices, manage GHG emissions and achieve emissions reductions in the federal government’s direct operations as well as supply chain, and address climate risks. However, we contend that representation from vendors regarding public disclosure simply on GHG emissions and reduction targets will not provide the required data and information to achieve these objectives.

The proposed changes to the FAR mention GHG emissions of suppliers, but do not clarify the scope of these emissions. It is common for GHG emissions to be separated into Scope 1, 2, or 3 emissions, depending on the scope of operations included in the calculation.1

Data on direct (Scope 1) emissions for vendors across industries is of limited use. An industry or vendor’s greatest influence regarding climate change may lie in its demand for purchased electricity or the energy efficiency of the products and infrastructure it supplies to the federal government and other customers. Or it may lie in the vendor’s ability to adapt its operations or provide adaptation measures in its products and services for the physical impacts of climate change. A supplier’s management strategies for these factors will not be reflected in the reporting of direct GHG emissions from operations.

For vendors that are not large emitters of direct GHG emissions, marginal GHG reduction efforts may be less influential in achieving the government’s policy objectives than efforts in these other areas. Such reduction efforts may also not be significant for the vendor to mitigate business risk or innovate to create new opportunities.

The annual inventory of whether vendors publicly disclose GHG emissions could potentially penalize vendors with low direct GHG emissions and vendors for which GHG reduction efforts may not make financial sense. (If the government chooses to retain the representation regarding GHG emissions and reduction targets as currently outlined in the proposal, the government should clarify how it plans to use this information).

An understanding of the varied sources and influencers of GHG emissions is important for climate change mitigation actions. At the same time, adaptation strategies for the physical effects of climate change on the environment and economy are inevitably needed. Physical climate risks are expected to manifest themselves in economic impacts across sectors, including food systems, water supply, real estate, and healthcare, among others. A company’s management of its specific climate risks is important to achieve climate mitigation and adaptation while protecting and enhancing the company’s long-term value.

The SASB Standards

SASB’s industry-specific approach to the development of sustainability accounting standards is

1 Greenhouse Gas Protocol. http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools/faq. FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #16

able to capture the variety of climate change sources, their mitigation potential, and key economic sectors that would be impacted the most by climate change. SASB standards provide a roadmap for which climate-related factors are relevant for specific industries and vendors, and therefore the type of information that is needed to assess and manage related risks and opportunities.2

SASB metrics are designed to give insight into company performance on, and resulting financial impacts from, sustainability issues such as climate change, thereby providing decision-useful information for investors as well as policymakers.

 For industries that directly burn fossil fuels, and those where direct GHG emissions result from manufacturing or other processes and land use, SASB standards cover the Scope 1 GHG emissions and reduction targets of companies.  For transport-related industries or industries where companies typically own large fleets, fuel management and fleet fuel economy are identified for disclosure.  For industries that are the largest consumers of electricity, SASB standards cover energy management strategies by companies, including energy efficiency and energy mix.  For industries that manufacture energy-consuming products, energy efficiency in the use phase of products is covered through metrics related to product design and lifecycle management (for example, for energy-efficient technology hardware).  Depending on the industry and type of impact, SASB standards also cover disclosure on different types of climate change adaptation strategies, including how companies assess and manage climate risk.  Furthermore, the financial markets play an important role in climate change mitigation and adaptation. Equity and fixed income portfolios as well as individual investments are likely to be affected by the factors discussed above. What the financial sector does in terms of its advice, services, and investments to manage the risks and opportunities presented by climate change is relevant not only for mitigation and adaptation throughout the economy, but can also have significant repercussions for the financial returns of portfolios and individual investments, affecting the bottom line of financial institutions. For industries in the financial sector, SASB standards identify disclosure on investment strategies, products, and services that integrate climate change risk and opportunity considerations.

The federal government’s largest vendors include companies in the following industries: Aerospace and Defense, Software and IT Services, Engineering and Construction Services, and Managed Care.3 None of these industries are significant direct (Scope 1) emitters of greenhouse gases. Rather, their influence on climate change relates to the purchase of electricity to power operations (resulting in Scope 2 emissions), use-phase emissions of aircraft and other products, data center energy and water efficiency, the structural integrity of infrastructure to be resilient to climate impacts, system-wide disruptions from the physical impacts of climate change on data center and software operations, and impacts on human health from climate change.4

We recommend therefore that the amendment to the FAR include a representation of whether and where companies are publicly disclosing information on climate-related factors relevant to their industry. These factors may relate to (Scope 1) GHG emissions and reduction targets for direct operations, fuel management and fleet fuel economy for transportation products and services, energy management for industrial processes requiring significant purchased electricity,

2 SASB released a working draft of a Climate Risk Bulletin in January 2016, for use by investors and companies, which outlines three risk categories for companies and investors from climate change: Physical Effects, Transition to a Low-Carbon, Resilient Economy, and Climate Regulation. Appendix I to this letter discusses the bulletin further. 3 Information obtained from the Federal Procurement Data System. https://www.fpds.gov/fpdsng_cms/index.php/en/reports.html. 4 Appendix 1 to this letter provides further details on these industries, including industry-specific disclosure topics and metrics related to climate change mitigation and adaptation included in SASB standards. The appendix also points to other useful resources that can provide more information on relevant standards for vendors in other industries. FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #16

energy-efficiency in the use phase of products, climate change adaptation strategies, and/or integration of climate risks and opportunities in financial services, as outlined above.

Furthermore, because of SASB’s approach, with its emphasis on due process and adherence to U.S. securities law, we believe it would be appropriate for the federal government and the DoD, GSA, and NASA to acknowledge SASB standards, once they become final, as an acceptable framework for companies to use in their public disclosures regarding climate change.

Several of the federal government’s largest vendors are publicly-listed, and therefore required to report material information regarding climate change in their annual SEC filings. The FAR amendment proposal acknowledges that “Agency suppliers that are public companies are already subject to requirements to disclose material risks, including relevant risks associated with climate change, per Securities and Exchange Commission Interpretation: Commission Guidance Regarding Disclosure Related to Climate Change (Release Nos. 33– 9106; 34–61469; FR–82), including impacts to personnel, physical assets, supply chain and distribution chain.” The SEC’s climate change guidance is not limited to physical impacts from climate change, but rather, sets expectations for companies to report on material regulatory, physical, and indirect risks and opportunities related to climate change.5

SASB standards are uniquely suited to help public companies make the expected disclosures.6

Additionally, the representation on climate risks as worded in the FAR amendment proposal may not be sufficient to indicate to the government what the supplier is doing to manage those risks; SASB’s research shows that currently in SEC filings, public companies provide boilerplate reporting of climate risks that does not provide investors or other users with decision-useful information (Appendix 2).

SASB standards are designed to provide decision-useful information on climate and other sustainability risks and opportunities, and as such, acknowledging these standards could improve the quality of reporting by companies. Federal agencies could therefore use information disclosed according to SASB standards to more efficiently and effectively manage their supply chain.

SASB’s approach is principles-based. Our standards are voluntary, and companies themselves must decide whether to make disclosures consistent with SASB standards. SASB merely provides the tools for companies to make better disclosures consistent with SEC requirements. The standards provide suitable criteria for assurance by independent third parties and allow investors and policymakers to obtain reliable, benchmarkable data on material sustainability factors.

Description of SASB: SASB was founded in 2011 as an independent 501 (c)(3) standards-setting organization in order to advance research initially conducted at the Initiative for Responsible Investment (IRI) in the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. The SASB board of directors, currently chaired by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is distinguished by the level of regulatory and securities law expertise of its members. Former SEC Chair Mary

5 “SEC Issues Interpretive Guidance on Disclosure Related to Business or Legal Developments Regarding Climate Change,” press release, Securities and Exchange Commission. https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-15.htm. 6 On July 1, 2016, SASB submitted a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission, in response to the Commission’s request for comment on its Regulation S-K Concept Release (Business and Financial Disclosure Required by Regulation S-K; Concept Release (“Concept Release”), 81 Fed. Reg. 23916 (April 22, 2016)). The letter is available on the SEC’s website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-06-16/s70616-25.pdf. SASB’s comments to the SEC focus primarily on the need for improved disclosure of sustainability-related matters. Other comments to the SEC include comments from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In the letter, the EPA notes, “[…]SEC may wish to consider helpful standards (such as designed by SASB) for disclosing sustainability information in mandatory 10-K reporting that provides relevant, sector-appropriate, market-specific, and material information.” The letter is available on the SEC’s website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-06-16/s70616-176.pdf. FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #16

Schapiro is vice chair of SASB’s board. Former SEC Chair Elisse Walter, former SEC Commissioner Aulana Peters, and former FASB Chair Robert Herz have served on SASB’s board for several years. Alan Beller, former Director of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance and Senior Counselor to the SEC, joined SASB’s board in June 2016.7 SASB’s staff, which now numbers 30, is made up of professionals with backgrounds in finance, accounting, sustainability, and law. The standards setting function is organized by industry and staffed by analysts with sector experience and quantitative analysis skills. SASB is headed by CEO and founder Dr. Jean Rogers, a former Loeb Fellow at Harvard University who holds a Ph.D. in environmental engineering and has more than 20 years’ experience in sustainability and management consulting across a wide range of industries, including utilities, extractives, financials, and real estate.

These are some of the most significant attributes of SASB standards relevant to the FAR amendment:  SASB provisional standards are the result of intensive research and dialogue over the past five years, in what has been the most comprehensive analysis of the relationship between sustainability information and the disclosure requirements of federal securities laws ever performed. Over 2,800 individuals participated in SASB’s Industry Working Group process through which provisional standards were developed and issued.8 One third of the participants were issuers; one-third of the participants were investors and analysts; and one-third were intermediaries, academics, and NGOs. SASB staff obtained input from asset owners, industry analysts, issuers, academics, and sustainability subject-matter experts, and built on decades of work by others.

 A SASB standard for a given industry has several components: disclosure topics, performance metrics associated with each topic, and a technical protocol for each metric, as well as industry specific activity metrics which can serve as normalizing factors for analysts to evaluate sustainability-related performance. On average, SASB standards include five topics and 13 metrics per industry. 80 percent of the metrics are quantitative, and 20 percent are qualitative or descriptive. The technical protocol provides guidance on what information to collect and how to report it (e.g., boundaries and units of measurement). Each industry standard also contains disclosure guidance, e.g., disclosure of sustainability topics in SEC filings, accounting of sustainability topics, and reporting format.9 SASB has developed provisional standards for 79 industries in 10 sectors and is now in a process of deep consultation with interested parties, who are encouraged to submit comments and other materials relating to the standards. SASB

7 Other SASB board members are: Audrey Choi, CEO Morgan Stanley’s Institute for Sustainable Investing; Jack Ehnes, CEO CalSTRS; Steven Gunders, Partner, Deloitte & Touche LLP (retired); Dan Hanson, Partner and Head of US Equities, Jarislowsky Fraser Global Investment Management; Erika Karp, CEO, Cornerstone Capital Inc.; Shawn Lytle, President Delaware Holdings, Inc.; Ken Mehlman, Member and Global Head of Public Affairs, KKR; Clara Miller, President, F.B. Heron Foundation; Catherine Odelbo, Executive Vice President, Corporate Strategy and Partnerships, Morningstar, Inc.; Kevin Parker, CEO, Sustainable Insight Capital Management; Arnie Pinkston, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Allergan (retired); Curtis Ravenel, Global Head, Sustainable Business and Finance Group, Bloomberg; Laura Tyson, Director, Institute for Business and Social Impact at the Haas Business School, University of California (Berkeley); and, Ted White, Managing Partner, Fahr, LLC. 8 A full list of SASB Industry Working Group participants can be found here: http://www.sasb.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/06/SASB-Industry-Working-Group-Participants-Final.pdf. SASB Industry Working Group Due Process Reports are available for each of 10 sectors. These reports can be found under the Sectors tab on SASB’s website – www.sasb.org. An example of one such report can be found here: http://www.sasb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/NRRDueProcessReview_forSC.pdf. Please also refer to the SASB Blog, INDUSTRY EXPERTISE INFORMS SASB TOPICS AND METRICS, December 9, 2015. http://www.sasb.org/industry-expertise-informs-sasb-topics-metrics/. 9 SASB standards can be downloaded free of charge at http://www.sasb.org/standards/download/; the Standards Navigator is a comprehensive resource for using and viewing SASB Standards, and for downloading industry-specific resources including Industry Briefs, Mock 10-Ks, and Technical Bulletins. This tool provides SASB’s industry-specific disclosure topics, metrics, and technical protocols in an accessible and easy-to-use way. Access to the Standards Navigator is provided here: http://www.sasb.org/standards-navigator/. FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #16

plans to finalize the standards for all 79 industries within the next 18 months.

 Any topics identified as likely being material and included in SASB standards have undergone a rigorous analysis of the likelihood and magnitude of their effect on the financial condition or operating performance of a company, or on the entire industry. Direct evidence was sought to establish a link between performance on the sustainability- related factor and financial performance. Actual or potential financial impacts were characterized by their impact on revenues, costs, assets, liabilities, and the cost of capital.

 SASB standards are cost-effective, identifying the minimum set of disclosure topics likely to constitute material information for companies in an industry. On average, there are just five topics per industry included in the standards. Whenever possible, if those metrics adequately characterize performance on material factors, SASB references metrics already in use by industry, from roughly 200 entities, such as CDP, EPA, OSHA, GRI, and industry organizations such as IPIECA, EPRI, and GRESB.

 Also, SASB standards are industry-specific. The advantages of this approach have been noted by the SEC itself: “The benefits associated with disclosing certain items of information may be greater in some cases than in others, such as when an item of disclosure reflects an important part of one registrant’s operations but an immaterial part of another’s. In this context, it may be important to consider various approaches to trigger disclosure where it is more likely to be important, rather than in all cases. It may also be useful to have disclosure requirements, or guidance in fulfilling these requirements, that are specific to certain industries or other subsets of registrants.”10

In the FAR amendment proposal, the federal agencies state: “by promoting GHG management and emissions reductions in its supply chain, the Federal Government will encourage supplier innovation, greater efficiency, and cost savings, benefitting both the Government and suppliers and adding value to the procurement process.” We believe that to achieve supplier innovation, efficiencies, and cost savings, while benefiting the government in its policy objectives and operations, representation of disclosure beyond GHG emissions and reduction targets is important, and such representation could be based on public disclosure using SASB standards. We appreciate your consideration of our comments.

Sincerely,

Jean Rogers, Ph.D., P.E. CEO & Founder Sustainability Accounting Standards Board

Himani Phadke Director of Research Sustainability Accounting Standards Board

10 Concept Release, 81 Fed. Reg. at 23919. FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #16

APPENDIX 1:

Aerospace & Defense

Climate change topic in SASB standard Related metric in SASB standard Energy Management  Total energy consumed, percentage grid electricity, percentage renewable Fuel Economy & Emissions in Use-Phase  Revenue from alternative energy-related products  Discussion of strategies and approach to address fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions of products

Software & IT Services

Climate change topic in SASB standard Related metric in SASB standard Environmental Footprint of Hardware  Total energy consumed, percentage grid Infrastructure electricity, percentage renewable energy  Total water withdrawn, percentage recycled, percentage in regions with High or Extremely High Baseline Water Stress  Description of the integration of environmental considerations to strategic planning for data center needs Managing Systemic Risks from Technology  Number of (1) performance issues and (2) Disruptions service disruptions; total customer downtime  Discussion of business continuity risks related to disruptions of operations

Engineering & Construction Services

Climate change topic in SASB standard Related metric in SASB standard Structural Integrity & Safety  Amount of defect- and safety-related rework expenses  Amount of legal and regulatory fines and settlements associated with defect- and safety- related incidents Climate Impacts of Business Mix  Backlog for (1) hydrocarbon-related projects and (2) renewable energy projects  Amount of backlog cancellations associated with hydrocarbon-related projects  Backlog for non-energy projects associated with climate change mitigation Lifecycle Impacts of Buildings & Infrastructure  Number of (1) commissioned projects certified to a multi-attribute sustainability standard and (2) active projects seeking such certification  Description of process to incorporate operational-phase energy and water efficiency considerations into project planning and design

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #16

Managed Care

Climate change topic in SASB standard Related metric in SASB standard Climate Change Impacts on Human Health  Description of the strategy to address the effects of climate change on business operations and how climate change is incorporated into risk models. Discussion of specific risks presented by changes in the geographic incidence, morbidity, and mortality of illnesses and diseases.

Other Resources  SASB’s Materiality Map provides a cross-sectoral view of sustainability risks and opportunities, based on SASB standards.  SASB’s Standards Navigator is a comprehensive resource for using and viewing SASB Standards for 79 industries in 10 sectors, and for downloading industry-specific resources including Industry Briefs, Mock 10-Ks, and Technical Bulletins. This tool provides SASB’s industry-specific disclosure topics, metrics, and technical protocols in an accessible and easy-to- use way. The Industry Briefs provide information on the link between the disclosure topics and financial performance, including relevant evidence.  SASB’s working draft of a Climate Risk Bulletin highlights the findings that have surfaced from SASB’s work, offering a big-picture view of how and where climate risk is present, a more granular analysis of its industry-specific impacts and their financial implications, and a breakdown of how SEC registrants have addressed—and could more usefully address—material climate risk in their disclosures to investors. Table 3 of the bulletin (pages 17 through 50) provides recommended SASB climate risk disclosures by industry.

FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #16

APPENDIX 2:

SASB Disclosure Analysis on Physical Climate Risks SASB analyzed disclosures on climate change by the top publicly-listed companies across 79 industries in their SEC filings such as the Form 10-K and 20-F.

 Only 5% of disclosure items analyzed were quantitative metrics.

 Narrative on the physical effects of climate risk was found in almost 66% of disclosure items: 39% of the total was boilerplate.

 29% of the items analyzed provided no disclosure on the physical effects of climate change.

State of Disclosure in Annual SEC Filings on SASB Climate Risk Factors

Physical Effects

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% No disclosure Boilerplate Industry-specific Metrics

7/26/2016 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=09000064821207f4&format=xml&showorig=false FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #17 As of: 7/26/16 9:23 AM Received: July 25, 2016 PUBLIC SUBMISSION Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k0­8qyq­ulw3 Comments Due: July 25, 2016 Submission Type: API

Docket: FAR­2015­0024 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Comment On: FAR­2015­0024­0001 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals­ Representation (FAR Case 2015­024)

Document: FAR­2015­0024­DRAFT­0032 Comment on FR Doc # 2016­12226

Submitter Information

Name: Jim Coburn Address: Ceres, Inc. 99 Chauncy St., 6th Fl. Boston, MA, 02111 Email: [email protected] Phone: 6172470700 Organization: Ceres, Inc.

General Comment

See attached file(s)

Attachments

Ceres comment on proposed federal rule FAR Case 2015­024 7­25­16

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=09000064821207f4&format=xml&showorig=false 1/1 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #17

BY ELECTRONIC FILING

General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB) ATTN: Ms. Flowers 1800 F Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20405-0001

Re: Comments of Ceres on Federal Acquisition Regulation: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals-Representation (FAR Case 2015-024)

July 25, 2016

Ceres appreciates the opportunity to provide the following comments in support of the proposed rule, published May 25, 2016, Federal Acquisition Regulation: Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals-Representation (FAR Case 2015-024).

Summary of Ceres Comments on Proposed Rule

Ceres’ comments focus on how the proposed rule serves to protect the public, investors, and taxpayers. The proposed rule is a crucial element of federal efforts to reduce the impacts of climate change on public health, our environment, weather and water resources because of the critical role companies must play to help societies make rapid progress to address climate change. The proposed rule is also important as an element of government efforts to protect retail investors, who, as beneficiaries of federal and state public pension funds or investors with their retirement savings in mutual funds or other retirement accounts, are as much threatened by the financial risks of climate change as institutional investors.

For each element of the final rule, we recommend SEC filings as the preferred location for disclosure in cases in which this information is material under current SEC rules, and the company’s website as an alternative location, using a reference to the GRI Content Index to encourage standardization and comparability. Encouraging mandatory (SEC) reporting of climate risks is critical, for while voluntary reporting mechanisms provide valuable information to investors and the public, the lack of standardization and quality control make it impossible to obtain comparable, consistent, metrics based information.

Regarding the GHG emissions section of the final rule, Ceres suggests adding disclosure of whether the following items are publicly reported: 1, methodology used to measure emissions, 2, the calendar year the greenhouse gases were emitted, and 3, whether the reporting is aligned with the companies’ annual financial reporting cycle.

We support including emissions reductions goals disclosure in the final rule, as a separate representation from emissions disclosure. We also encourage you to provide supporting guidance aligned with the FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #17

IGCC/IIGCC/Ceres expectations for corporate setting of emissions reduction goals, discussed on pages 10-11 of our submission.

We strongly support including the topic of extreme weather and the physical impacts and risks of climate change in the final rule, including the suggested representations in the proposed rule: does/does not assess these risks, does/does not disclose these risks, and does/does not discuss the risks in its SEC Regulation S-K filings.

Background on Ceres

Ceres is a non-profit organization that works with a substantial number of the world’s largest investors and companies on strategies for addressing increasing climate change, water scarcity and other global sustainability risks and related opportunities. Ceres coordinates the Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), a group of 120 institutional investors managing more than $14 trillion in assets. These investors are committed to addressing climate change and other key sustainability risks to their portfolios while building low-carbon investment opportunities.

Additionally, nearly 70 companies representing more than 20 industries are members of Ceres, and are focused on environmental and social sustainability issues that pose potential risks for their businesses and on strategies to achieve competitive advantage by integrating sustainability considerations into their business. In our work with companies, we find that corporate sustainability leadership requires board oversight and commitment to follow through into management systems and processes that integrate sustainability into day-to-day decision making.

Importance of Corporate Disclosure of Climate Risks

Corporate climate risks and opportunities disclosure is about much more than just GHG emissions and GHG emissions reduction goals (“reduction goals”), a fact recognized by investors, corporations, governments,1 and NGOs around the world. Companies are much more likely to assess their GHG emissions and set and meet science-based reduction goals if the other elements of a comprehensive climate risk and opportunity strategy are in place. These include elements such as assessing and disclosing physical and regulatory climate risks and opportunities; sustainability governance, including board responsibility for these issues; and management processes, including executive compensation regarding sustainability issues.

Climate disclosure is critical to giving investors the information they need to make sound long-term investment decisions. For example, 45 institutional investors managing over $1.1 trillion in assets wrote to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on July 20, 2016, stating that based on their experience with climate risk and other sustainability issues, “we believe it is critical for the SEC to improve reporting of material sustainability risks in issuers’ SEC filings, both because such disclosure is

1 For example, In August 2015, France became the first country to pass a law requiring mandatory climate related reporting by institutional investors. See https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/eli/decret/2015/12/29/2015-1850/jo/texte; http://www.ipe.com/countries/france/france-aims-high-with-first-ever-investor-climate-reporting-law/10011722.fullarticle.

2 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #17

mandated by current law and because we need it to make informed investment and proxy voting decisions.”2 A report released jointly by Ceres and other investor groups focused on climate change spells out the types of climate reporting investors expect in SEC filings, financial filings in other countries, and annual reports:

Disclose in annual reports and financial filings, the company’s view of and response to its material climate change risks and opportunities, including those arising from carbon regulations, and physical climate change risks.

A large number of companies now report their carbon emissions and assessment of climate change risks and opportunities in their public reports, regulatory filings, and to the Carbon Disclosure Project – including the sector- specific disclosure modules developed for the Electricity utilities, Oil and Gas, and Automobiles sectors. They also report on related topics via other investor-led disclosure projects relating to water and forests impacts, and make use of reporting standards such as the Global Reporting Initiative to prepare comprehensive sustainability reports. Some companies are integrating such sustainability (ESG) data into their annual financial reports, and there appears to be a trend towards integrated reporting.

Such reporting enables investors to identify any material financial implications associated with climate change and to include this information in their investment decisions. Many investors also use this information as the basis for discussion with company managers and boards. It is important that the data reported to investors is reliable, whether via external assurance or internal processes. It is also very useful for data reported on an equity basis to be segmented by region, business activity or unit. This allows for a more precise assessment of risk. Finally, it is helpful to investors for companies to quantify where feasible the costs of and returns on their investments in energy efficiency, GHG emission reductions and climate-related business opportunities.3

In the context of the proposed rule, disclosure of GHG emissions, targets, and other risks associated with climate impacts also help to protect taxpayers. To the extent that certain federal contractors face risks associated with climate change impacts or future regulations high enough to impact the ability of the contractor to fulfill its obligations to the federal government, additional federal revenue may be required to execute those obligations.

2 https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-06-16/s70616-174.pdf. 3 Investor Group on Climate Change, Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, Investor Network on Climate Risk: a project of Ceres, Institutional investors’ expectations of corporate climate risk management (January 2012) , page 6, available at https://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/institutional-investors-expectations-of-corporate-climate-risk- management/view.

3 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #17

Status of Current Climate Disclosure Regimes and Frameworks

Corporate reporting of climate risks and opportunities has accelerated in the last 10 years, and has been developing over at least 25 years. Public disclosure of GHG emissions and quantitative GHG emissions reductions goals are critical elements of a larger range of climate risk and opportunity information that institutional investors have sought over this time. They have sought this information both to improve their investment decisions and to protect their portfolios over the long term through corporate engagement.

It is helpful to understand how this proposed rule fits into the current climate risk disclosure landscape, since reporting under this rule sets up the expectation that contractors refer federal agencies to a website address to obtain information on their GHG emissions and emissions reduction goals. The success of this rule will be improved if the information disclosed by contractors is provided in a comparable, consistent fashion that is easier for federal agencies to analyze, which is difficult to achieve if disclosure is provided voluntarily on the Web without clear standards for reporting.

Currently, thousands of companies worldwide voluntarily disclose climate risk and opportunity information. That information includes quantitative and qualitative information on a range of topics important to investors: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; GHG emissions reduction targets; strategies, governance and risk management related to climate change; discussion of physical, regulatory and other climate risks and opportunities, including their current and projected financial impacts on the company; and other factors.

This information is important to members of Ceres’ Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), hundreds of additional institutional investors, such as members of our partner groups in the Global Investor Coalition on Climate Change4: IIGCC (Europe), INCR (North America), IGCC (Australia and New Zealand) and AIGCC (Asia), and many of the 1,300 asset owners and investment managers who have signed on to the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) and have pledged to seek appropriate disclosure on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues by the entities in which they invest.5

The most common non-governmental frameworks for reporting this broad range of climate risks and opportunities information, including data on GHG emissions and emissions reduction goals, are the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), used by over 10,000 corporations and other organizations worldwide, and CDP, used by thousands of companies globally. GRI’s reporting standards are used by government and market regulators around the world that require or recommend corporate sustainability reporting.6

Other organizations focus on greenhouse gas emissions reporting. For example, in the U.S. and Canada, The Climate Registry, which has more than 300 members, designs and operates voluntary and

4 http://globalinvestorcoalition.org/. 5 https://www.unpri.org/about/the-six-principles. 6 A list of initiatives by region or type of initiative is available at https://www.globalreporting.org/information/policy/initiatives-worldwide/Pages/default.aspx.

4 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #17

compliance GHG reporting programs, and assists organizations in measuring, reporting and verifying the carbon in their operations in order to manage and reduce it.

The quality and breadth of climate risk information reported voluntarily, using GRI, CDP and other frameworks, varies based on the degree to which a company has committed to reporting using all the relevant indicators and other factors, such as whether a company has its climate disclosure audited and its emissions disclosures verified. Many medium and small corporations, and a percentage of the largest publicly traded companies, do not report climate risk information using these frameworks. While these reporting mechanisms provide valuable information to investors, the weaknesses of voluntary disclosure make it impossible for investors to obtain comparable, consistent, information through that means alone.

Disclosure of Climate Risks and Opportunities in SEC Filings

Voluntary reporting is helpful – but Ceres’, and many of its investor members, position is that robust mandatory reporting of climate risks is essential. In response to these challenges with voluntary climate reporting, Ceres has worked with INCR members since 2003 to improve corporate disclosure of material climate change risks and opportunities in Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings. That has included, for example, petitioning the SEC to issue interpretive guidance on climate risk disclosure (which the SEC issued in February 2010), providing corporations guidance on improving their reporting, producing research reports, and co-founding an international collaboration to develop global standards for reporting in financial filings, the Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB). In July of this year a number of INCR members, Ceres, and a group of 45 investors representing over $1.1 trillion each sent letters to the SEC emphasizing the need for improved climate risk disclosure by publicly traded companies.7

Other developments in recent years have demonstrated the rising importance of improving climate risk disclosure in SEC filings and securities filings in other nations. A discussion of the numerous developments is beyond the scope of this submission, but several key examples follow. Two nonprofit organizations, the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), were founded with the aim of improving the disclosure of sustainability information, including climate risk issues, in financial filings.8 Last year, in response to a request from G20 nations, the Financial Stability Board formed the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures9 (TCFD), whose mission is:

[To] develop voluntary, consistent climate-related financial risk disclosures for use by companies in providing information to investors, lenders, insurers, and other stakeholders.

7 See, for example, letters from INCR members available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-06-16/s70616.htm; https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-06-16/s70616-214.pdf; https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-06-16/s70616-174.pdf. 8 The IIRC’s mission goes beyond traditional definitions of sustainability or ESG issues to encompass “integrated reporting” on six forms of capital: financial, manufactured, intellectual, human, social and relationship, and natural. See http://integratedreporting.org/what-the-tool-for-better-reporting/get-to-grips-with-the-six-capitals/. 9 https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/.

5 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #17

The Task Force will consider the physical, liability and transition risks associated with climate change and what constitutes effective financial disclosures across industries.

The work and recommendations of the Task Force will help companies understand what financial markets want from disclosure in order to measure and respond to climate change risks, and encourage firms to align their disclosures with investors’ needs.10

In addition, 188 institutional investors and corporations have made a public commitment to using and providing (respectively) climate risk information in mainstream financial filings, such as SEC filings.11 It is worth reproducing this commitment in its entirety, in order to demonstrate how many investors see it as part of their fiduciary duty to analyze climate risks, many companies and investors agree that climate risk poses significant financial risks to them, and mandatory disclosure is an important part of the solution to providing investors the information they require.

Fiduciary duty & climate change disclosure12

Climate change is occurring. It has important implications for economic activity and therefore corporate performance. The effects of climate change are beginning to play out within and among industries and regions. They are likely to grow in significance in the years to come, becoming an increasingly important factor in the relative performance of firms, industries and investment portfolios.

We are a group of companies and investors sharing a concern that financial markets do not yet take sufficient account of climate-related corporate performance, risks and opportunities relevant to future shareholder value because of a lack of comprehensive and comparable information in “mainstream” corporate reports for the investment community. This information gap undermines the efficiency by which markets are able to allocate capital to its most productive uses over the medium to long term — a crucial enabler of strong and sustainable economic growth.

For this reason, we have decided to produce and make use of such information on a common basis through the [CDSB] Climate Change Reporting Framework, or other comparable framework, whether or not required by current regulation. We take this step primarily out of a sense of fiduciary responsibility. We believe shareholders and plan beneficiaries have an inherent interest in the completeness and comparability of climate-related information available in annual and other mainstream corporate reports, because the economic effects of climate change are tangible and have implications for the relative prospects of firms, industries and investment portfolios.

We encourage executive teams, board members and trustees of other companies and investors to consider joining us in this effort to improve the allocative efficiency of our financial system.

10 https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/about/. 11 http://www.wemeanbusinesscoalition.org/content/report-climate-change-information-mainstream-reports-fiduciary-duty. 12 The full statement and list of signatories is available at http://www2.cdsb.net/fiduciarystatement/statement.

6 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #17

Ceres recommends SEC filings as the preferred location for disclosure in the final rule in cases in which this information is material under current SEC rules, and the company’s website as an alternative location, using a GRI Content Index13 to enhances comparability of the data.

Current Climate Disclosure Trends Among the Largest Federal Contractors

Ceres reviewed voluntary climate-related disclosure by the top 20 federal contractors in Fiscal Year 2015, according to data from the Federal Procurement Data System (See Table I). We surveyed disclosures using two common means of reporting: on corporate websites, often using the GRI sustainability reporting indicators, and in response to the CDP climate change questionnaire.14

Table I: Voluntary climate risk disclosure by the top 20 federal contractorsi

Company name CDP CDP GHG or GHG Web address for GHG/GHG disclosure performance reduction reduction disclosure score band disclosure?

AECOM Yes http://www.aecom.com/content/wp- content/uploads/sites/2/2015/08/AECOM_2013_Susta inability_Report.pdf BAE Systems Plc 88 D Yes http://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/our- company/corporate-responsibility/working- responsibly/environment-sustainability/carbon- footprint Bechtel Group Inc. Yes http://www.bechtel.com/sustainability/performance- data/ Boeing Co. 99 B Yes http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/prin ciples/environment/pdf/2016_environment_report.pdf Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Yes http://www.boozallen.com/content/dam/boozallen/doc Corp. uments/2016/04/Carbon_Footprint.pdf Computer Sciences Corp. 88 C Yes http://assets1.csc.com/cr/downloads/CSC_CorporateR esponsibilityReport.pdf General Dynamics Corp. Info provided http://www.generaldynamics.com/sites/default/files/re ports/sustainability_2015.pdf Health Net Inc. Info provided http://www.centene.com/who-we-are/green-friendly/ Hewlett-Packard Co. 100 A Yes http://www8.hp.com/us/en/hp- information/environment/footprint.html Humana Inc. 100 B Yes https://www.humana.com/about/corporate/healthy- planet Huntington Ingalls Industries L-3 Communications Holdings Leidos Holdings, Inc. Yes https://www.leidos.com/about/corporate- responsibility/gri-index Lockheed Martin Corp 100 A- Yes http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/who-we- are/sustainability/gri-index.html McKesson Corp. Info provided http://www.mckesson.com/about- mckesson/corporate-citizenship/environmental- sustainability/ Northrop Grumman Corp. 100 A- Yes http://www.northropgrumman.com/CorporateRespons ibility/Documents/pdfs/2014-noc-cr-report.pdf

13 https://www.globalreporting.org/services/preparation/G4_Content_Index_Tool/Pages/default.aspx. 14 https://www.fpds.gov/fpdsng_cms/index.php/en/reports.html.

7 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #17

Company name CDP CDP GHG or GHG Web address for GHG/GHG disclosure performance reduction reduction disclosure score band disclosure? Raytheon Co. 98 A Yes http://www.raytheon.com/responsibility/rtnwcm/grou ps/public/documents/content/raytheon_crr.pdf Science Applications Yes http://www.saic.com/about/about-saic/citizenship/ International Corp. United Technologies Corp. 97 A Yes http://www.utc.com/Corporate- Responsibility/Environment-Health-And- Safety/Pages/Default.aspx UnitedHealth Group Inc. 99 C Info provided http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/socialresponsibilit y/Environment.aspx

We found that nearly three quarters of these contractors publicly disclose GHG emissions, GHG emissions reduction goals, or both. At least 8 of 20 contractors provided highly rated disclosure, according to CDP, on a wider range of topics such as climate risks, opportunities, governance and strategies. Our findings echo those from many other reports that show significant progress has been made towards improved climate reporting by larger companies, but much more progress is needed even among those companies, reinforcing the importance of the finalizing and strengthening the proposed rule.

We reviewed whether these federal contractors disclosed information on GHG emissions or GHG emissions reduction goals on their website. This information was provided either in a sustainability report available on the company’s website—often created using the GRI sustainability reporting indicators—or directly on the website. Of the 20 companies:

• 14 provided information on GHG emissions data, GHG emissions reduction goals, or both; • 4 provided some information about environmental sustainability issues; and • 2 provided no sustainability information at all.

Of the 20 federal contractors Ceres surveyed:

• 10 answered the 2015 CDP climate change questionnaire; and • 8 provided disclosure ranked by CDP of at least 97 out of 100 points, for quality and comprehensiveness of the information provided.

While our research reviewed the 20 largest federal contractors, based on our experience with climate risk disclosure generally, it is likely that a lower percentage of smaller federal contractors, compared to the 20 largest contractors, have publicly disclosed GHG emissions, emissions reduction goals or other climate risk information.

Comments on Proposed Rule

Ceres has three primary sets of comments on the proposed rule. The first and second comments are related to how the relevant agencies can help to standardize reporting of GHG emissions and reduction goals, respectively. The third set of comments offers suggestions on how to strengthen and expand the

8 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #17

proposed rule to incorporate disclosure of specific risks and opportunities associated with extreme weather events and the physical impacts and risks of climate change.

1. Standardizing Reporting of GHG Emissions

Ceres suggests adding disclosure of whether the following items are publicly reported to the proposed rule: 1, methodology used to measure emissions, 2, the calendar year the greenhouse gases were emitted, and 3, whether the reporting is aligned with the companies’ annual financial reporting cycle.

Investors have worked for several decades to encourage companies to assess their GHG emissions and set reduction goals. More recently, calculating and reducing the amount of GHG emissions in investors’ own portfolios has become increasingly important. 120 investors with over $10 trillion in assets under management have signed the Montreal Pledge15, committing to measure and publicly disclose the carbon footprint of their investment portfolios on an annual basis. Successful measurement of portfolio emissions by investors depends on reliable, accurate disclosure by their portfolio companies of their emissions.

Investors are interested in the methodologies used to calculate GHG emissions, in order to enhance the opportunity to compare emissions between companies. Currently, a number of different methodologies are in use in the U.S. and worldwide, although many of them are based on the GHG Protocol’s corporate reporting standard.16 CDP’s reporting system allows companies to select from among 77 emissions reporting methodologies in use around the world.17 CDP’s Guidance for companies reporting on climate change on behalf of investors & supply chain members 201618 states:

CC7.2: Please give the name of the standard, protocol or methodology you have used to collect [greenhouse gas] activity data and calculate Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions

There are a variety of standards, methodologies and protocols available which you may use to aid in the collection and reporting of GHG data, but the large majority refer to the GHG Protocol as their basic reference. CDP encourages companies to review the GHG Protocol, where national standards are not specified.

In addition, as the data underlying Table I illustrate, not all companies that calculate their GHG emissions assess and publicly release that data on an annual basis, which is the timetable investors prefer. Investors also prefer, generally, that sustainability reporting is aligned with financial reporting timelines:

Financial and ESG data are often reported using different timeframes or reporting cycles and it is important that both sets of disclosures be aligned in the future to avoid confusion and inaccurate analytics. For example, investors often prefer to normalize ESG data points to market

15 http://montrealpledge.org/. 16 http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/corporate-standard. 17 https://www.cdp.net/Documents/Guidance/2016/CDP-2016-Climate-Change-Reporting-Guidance.pdf, 18 Available at https://www.cdp.net/Documents/Guidance/2016/CDP-2016-Climate-Change-Reporting-Guidance.pdf.

9 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #17

capitalization, revenue, or other measures in order to avoid unduly penalizing large companies; having the ESG information in the same time window as the financial information is therefore desirable.19

With our global investor group partners, we have published expectations for corporate disclosure of GHG emissions that are relevant to the proposed rule:

Prepare and report comprehensive inventories of greenhouse gas emissions; data should be presented to allow trends in performance to be assessed and it should include projections of likely changes in future emissions.

In order to manage carbon emissions effectively it is important to have an inventory of their sources within the business. There are established standards for constructing such inventories (GHG Protocol Corporate Standard and ISO 14064). It is important that companies construct accurate inventories of their direct (Scope 1) and indirect energy (Scope 2) emissions. Many companies also construct estimates of indirect emissions (Scope 3) arising from products, supply chains and other activities related to the business.

Leading companies segment their carbon inventories by business unit, region and business activity. This enables more targeted action plans and risk assessments.

In order to plan ahead and anticipate future risks, leading companies forecast their expected future emissions trends.20

2. Standardizing Reporting of GHG Emissions Reduction Goals

Currently, the proposed rule recommends disclosure by contractors about “whether they publicly disclose greenhouse gas emissions and/or a quantitative greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal, and provide the Web site for any such disclosures.”

We support including emissions reductions goals disclosure in the proposed rule, as a separate representation from emissions disclosure. We also encourage you to provide supporting guidance aligned with the IGCC/IIGCC/Ceres expectations for corporate setting of emissions reduction goals:

19 Ceres and the Investor Network on Climate Risk, Investor Initiative for Sustainable Exchanges, Investor Listing Standards Proposal: Recommendations for Stock Exchange Requirements on Corporate Sustainability Reporting, March 2014, available at https://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/investor-listing-standards-proposal-recommendations-for-stock- exchange-requirements-on-corporate-sustainability-reporting/view. 20 Investor Group on Climate Change, Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, Investor Network on Climate Risk: a project of Ceres, Institutional investors’ expectations of corporate climate risk management (January 2012) , page 5, available at https://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/institutional-investors-expectations-of-corporate-climate-risk- management/view.

10 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #17

Goals. Make commitments to mitigate climate change risks, define key performance metrics and quantified and time-bound goals to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In order to reduce their carbon emissions, many companies with emissions intensive activities have made a public commitment to reduce their absolute carbon emissions or carbon emissions intensity over time. In many cases published targets for energy efficiency and emissions reduction back this. Good targets are far enough into the future to allow the mobilisation of sustained investment in carbon reduction; but close enough to be within the time horizons of current managers. Very long-term targets (e.g. 30 years) or very short-term ones (1 year) have more limited value. Good targets have explicit baselines, timelines, and quantities and cover the majority of the company’s activities. Most companies express targets in terms of carbon intensity or energy efficiency, but many have committed to absolute reductions. In order to achieve their targets, many companies create subsidiary goals which are allocated to individual business units. To be effective, targets should be integrated into the company’s performance management system, and affect the performance pay of relevant staff.21

Currently a number of companies, especially in the electric power sector, report GHG emissions, methodologies used to calculate emissions, and progress towards meeting reduction goals in SEC filings. For example, AES Corporation, in its SEC annual (10-K) filing submitted in 2016, stated:

In 2015, the Company's subsidiaries operated businesses which had total CO2 emissions of approximately 67.6 million metric tonnes, approximately 27.4 million of which were emitted by businesses located in the U.S. (both figures ownership adjusted). The Company uses CO2 emission estimation methodologies supported by "The Greenhouse Gas Protocol" reporting standard on GHG emissions.22

NRG Energy, Inc., in its 10-K filing submitted in 2016, stated:

By 2030, the Company's goal is to reduce its CO2 emissions by 50%, using 2014 as a baseline. From 2014 to 2015, the Company's CO2 emissions decreased from 102 million metric tons to approximately 86 million metric tons, representing a 16% reduction year over year. Factors leading to the decreased emissions include reductions in fleetwide annual net generation due to an overall decrease in market demand and a market-driven shift towards increased generation

21 Investor Group on Climate Change, Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, Investor Network on Climate Risk: a project of Ceres, Institutional investors’ expectations of corporate climate risk management (January 2012) , page 5, available at https://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/institutional-investors-expectations-of-corporate-climate-risk- management/view. 22 See AES Corp. Climate Risk Disclosure Report, Fiscal Year Ending Dec 31, 2015, which is an excerpt of climate change- related disclosure from the company’s latest 10-K filing, available from the Ceres/CookESG Research SEC Sustainability Disclosure Search, https://www.ceres.org/resources/tools/sec-sustainability-disclosure.

11 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #17

from natural gas over coal. The Company's goal is to reduce its CO2 emissions by 90% by 2050.23

3. Expanding the Scope of Reporting Requirements to Extreme Weather and Physical Impacts and Risks of Climate Change

Page 33193 of the proposed rule, columns 1 and 2, discuss the development of means and methods to enable agencies to evaluate and reduce climate related risks and vulnerabilities as a result of extreme weather and other effects of climate change, including physical impacts and risks. 24

We strongly support including these topics in the final rule, including the suggested representations in the proposed rule: does/does not assess these risks, does/does not disclose these risks, and does/does not discuss the risks in its SEC Regulation S-K filing.

Understanding, as a baseline, which companies in which industries assess and disclose these risks is very important to improving the capacities of federal contractors to assess and reduce the physical risks of climate change and extreme weather, and in turn improving the abilities of agencies to assess and reduce these risks. This is especially true because in some ways, physical risks reporting is at a less advanced stage than regulatory risk reporting, due to challenges such as lack of corporate awareness of how climate change will impact them, difficulty accessing and using climate data, and uncertainty about the nature, timing and magnitude of climate impacts.25

Ceres’ research on the disclosure of weather events and physical impacts and risks in SEC filings illustrates the lack of information currently available. We found that about half of S&P 500 companies, and slightly more than one-third of Russell 3000 companies, disclosed the physical impacts or risks of climate change, or extreme weather risks, in SEC 10-K filings in 2015.26 If the three representations listed above are added to the final rule, that will allow agencies to better track which companies are assessing and disclosing these risks and discussing them in SEC filings.

Concluding Comments

In summary, the proposed rule is well designed to meet its objective: enabling the Government to better understand the GHG emissions and emissions reductions related to Federal activities. We hope you will consider our suggestions for strengthening the rule in order to provide more decision-useful information to Federal agencies.

23 See NRG Energy, Inc. Climate Risk Disclosure Report, Fiscal Year Ending Dec 31, 2015, available at https://www.ceres.org/resources/tools/sec-sustainability-disclosure. 24 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 25 See, for example, United Nations Global Compact, UNFCCC, UNEP and partners, Corporate Adaptation: Strengthening Private Sector and Community Resilience, A Caring for Climate Report (December 2015), page 20. 26 Searches conducted for the topics “sea level rise”, “climate and weather”, and “intensified weather events” in 10-Ks filed in 2015 found 260 S&P 500 companies and 1,260 Russell 3000 companies reported on one or more of these topics. https://www.ceres.org/resources/tools/sec-sustainability-disclosure

12 FAR Case 2015-024 Comment #17

i Methodology for Table I: Company names are listed alphabetically. Blank cells in the table indicate that no disclosure was provided for that item. Data for the top 20 federal contractors in 2015 was obtained from the Top 100 Contractors Report available at https://www.fpds.gov/fpdsng_cms/index.php/en/reports.html. GHG emissions and emissions reduction goals disclosure was obtained through Internet searches. One of the most common sources for corporate disclosure of GHG emissions, GHG emissions reduction goals and other climate risk information is corporate sustainability reports, many of which are created using the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) Sustainability Reporting Standards, https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/Pages/default.aspx. Links to GRI-based sustainability reports from over 9,300 organizations is available at GRI’s Sustainability Disclosure Database: http://database.globalreporting.org/. The GHG or GHG reduction column indicates whether the company provided information on GHG emissions, GHG emissions reduction goals, or both on its website. “Info provided” indicates a company provided environmental sustainability information, but neither GHG emissions data nor GHG emissions reduction goals. CDP disclosure scores and performance bands are publicly available data obtained from the CDP website, www.cdp.net. CDP’s methodologies for their scoring system is available at https://www.cdp.net/en-US/Pages/guidance-climate- change.aspx. CDP disclosure and performance scores are also publicly available on the Google Finance website, on a company’s main page, listed as “CDP score” in the “Key stats and ratios” section; for example, see https://www.google.com/finance?q=aecom&ei=t7CTV7jVFdWpeIXLi9gF.

13