Increased attention to, and sometimes conflicting social expectations on, companies to address climate change and other environmental and social impacts, investor and societal expectations regarding voluntary ESG disclosures, and increased consumer demand for alternative forms of energy may result in increased costs, reduced demand for our products, reduced profits, increased investigations and litigation, and negative impacts on our unit price and access to capital markets. Increased attention to climate change and environmental conservation, for example, may result in demand shifts for oil and natural gas products and additional governmental investigations and private litigation against us. To the extent that societal pressures or political or other factors are involved, it is possible that such liability could be imposed without regard to our causation or contribution to the asserted damage, or other mitigating factors. Please read Part I, Items 1 and 2. "Business and Properties - Environmental Matters" for additional information on related developments that may affect us, our operators, and/or the oil and gas sector more generally.
Any new laws or regulations imposing requirements on our business related to the disclosure of climate-related risks may result in reputational harms among certain stakeholders if they disagree with our approach to mitigating climate-related risks, increased compliance costs, and increased costs of and restrictions on access to capital to the extent we do not meet any climate-related expectations of requirements of financial institutions. In March 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") finalized rules establishing a framework for the reporting of climate risks, targets, and metrics. However, the implementation of the rule has been stayed pending the outcome of legal challenges. Moreover, on February 11, 2025, SEC Acting Chairman Mark T. Uyeda requested that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit not schedule arguments in the case while the SEC reconsiders the finalized rules. While the SEC, under the new presidential administration, may seek to repeal or otherwise modify the rules, we cannot predict whether such action will occur or its timings. Relatedly, California has enacted laws requiring additional disclosure with respect to certain climate-related risks and GHG emissions reduction claims. Other states are expected to follow. Non-compliance with these laws may result in the imposition of substantial fines or penalties.
Relatedly, certain organizations that provide information to investors on corporate governance and related matters have developed ratings processes for evaluating companies on their approach to ESG matters. Such ratings are used by some investors to inform their investment and voting decisions. While such ratings do not impact all investors' investment or voting decisions, unfavorable ESG ratings may lead to negative investor sentiment toward us and to the diversion of investment which could have a negative impact on our unit price and/or our access to and costs of capital. Additionally, institutional lenders may decide not to provide funding for fossil fuel energy companies based on climate change related concerns, which could affect our access to capital.
Additionally, certain public statements with respect to ESG matters, such as emissions reduction goals, other environmental targets, or other commitments addressing certain social issues, have been subject to heightened scrutiny from public and governmental authorities related to the risk of potential "greenwashing," i.e., misleading information or false claims overstating potential ESG benefits. Any alleged claims of greenwashing against us or others in our industry may lead to increased litigation risks and foster negative sentiment and diversion of investments.
Finally, certain employment practices and social initiatives are the subject of scrutiny by both those calling for the continued advancement of such policies, as well as those who believe they should be curbed, including government actors, and the complex regulatory and legal frameworks applicable to such initiatives continue to evolve. We cannot be certain of the impact of such regulatory, legal and other developments on our business. More recent political developments could mean that we face increasing criticism or litigation risks from certain "anti-ESG" parties, including various governmental agencies. Consideration of ESG-related factors in our decision-making could be subject to increasing scrutiny and objection from such anti-ESG parties and increase litigation risks from private parties and governmental authorities.