In the United States, no comprehensive climate change legislation has been implemented at the federal level. However, following the U.S. Supreme Court finding that GHG emissions constitute a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has adopted regulations that, among other things, establish construction and operating permit reviews for GHG emissions from certain large stationary sources, require the monitoring and annual reporting of GHG emissions from certain petroleum and natural gas system sources in the United States, impose new standards reducing methane emissions from oil and gas operations through limitations on venting and flaring and the implementation of enhanced emission leak detection and repair requirements, and together with the United States Department of Transportation, implement GHG emissions limits on vehicles manufactured for operation in the United States. The federal regulation of methane emissions from oil and natural gas facilities has been subject to considerable attention in recent years. In December 2023, the EPA finalized new and updated rules for both new and existing sources. The final rules make existing regulations more stringent, expand the scope of source types covered by the rules and require states to develop plans to reduce methane and volatile organic compound emissions from existing sources. These new rules will likely be subject to legal challenges. As a result, we cannot predict the scope of any final methane regulatory requirements or the cost to comply with such requirements. However, given the long-term trend toward increasing regulation, future federal GHG regulations of the oil and natural gas industry remain a significant possibility.
Governmental, scientific, and public concern over the threat of climate change arising from GHG emissions has resulted in increasing political risks in the United States, including climate change related pledges made by certain candidates elected to public office. President Biden has issued several executive orders focused on addressing climate change, including items that may impact costs to produce, or demand for, oil and gas. There are also increasing financial risks for fossil fuel producers as shareholders currently invested in fossil-fuel energy companies may elect in the future to shift some or all of their investments into other sectors. Institutional lenders who provide financing to fossil-fuel energy companies also have become more attentive to sustainable lending practices and some of them may elect not to provide funding for fossil fuel energy companies. For example, at COP26, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero ("GFANZ") announced that over 450 firms in the financial sector across 45 countries committed to net zero goals. The various sub-alliances of GFANZ generally require participants to set short-term, sector-specific targets to transition their financing, investing, and/or underwriting activities to net zero emissions by 2050. There is also a risk that financial institutions will be pressured or required to adopt policies that have the effect of reducing the funding provided to the fossil fuel sector. President Biden signed an executive order calling for the development of a "climate finance plan" and, separately, the Federal Reserve has joined the Network for Greening the Financial System ("NGFS"), a consortium of financial regulators focused on addressing climate-related risks in the financial sector. In November 2021, the Federal Reserve issued a statement in support of the efforts of the NGFS to identify key issues and potential solutions for the climate-related challenges most relevant to central banks and supervisory authorities. Limitation of investments in and financings for fossil fuel energy companies could result in the restriction, delay or cancellation of drilling programs or development or production activities.
Additionally, in March 2024, the SEC issued a final rule that requires a public company to disclose, among other things, material climate-related risks, activities to mitigate or adapt to such risks, information about the company's board of directors' oversight of climate-related risks and management's role in managing material climate-related risks, and information on any climate-related targets or goals that are material to the company's business, results of operations, or financial condition. The final rule also requires, on a phased-in basis, disclosure of Scope 1 and/or Scope 2 GHG emissions by certain larger public companies, which currently would not apply to Empire given its size, when those emissions are material and the filing of an attestation report covering the required disclosure of such company's Scope 1 and/or Scope 2 emissions. The new rule is already subject to legal challenges. Although the ultimate impact of the new rule on our business is uncertain given such legal challenges, compliance with the new rule, if upheld, may result in additional legal, accounting and financial compliance costs.
The adoption and implementation of new or more stringent international, federal or state legislation, regulations or other regulatory initiatives that impose more stringent standards for GHG emissions from the oil and natural gas sector or otherwise restrict the areas in which this sector may produce oil and natural gas or generate GHG emissions could result in increased costs of compliance or costs of consuming, and thereby reduce demand for, oil and natural gas. Additionally, political, litigation and financial risks may result in us restricting or cancelling production activities, incurring liability for infrastructure damages as a result of climatic changes, or having an impaired ability to continue to operate in an economic manner. One or more of these developments could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
As a final note, climate change could have an effect on the severity of weather (including hurricanes, droughts and floods), sea levels, water availability and quality, and meteorological patterns. If such effects were to occur, our development and production operations have the potential to be adversely affected.
Potential adverse effects could include damages to our facilities from powerful winds, extreme temperatures, or rising waters in low-lying areas, disruption of our production activities either because of climate related damages to our facilities or in our costs of operation potentially arising from such climatic effects, less efficient or non- routine operating practices necessitated by climate effects or increased costs for insurance coverage in the aftermath of such effects. Significant physical effects of climate change could also have an indirect effect on our financing and operations by disrupting the transportation or process-related services provided by midstream companies, service companies or suppliers with whom we have a business relationship. Additionally, changing meteorological conditions, particularly temperature, may result in changes to the amount, timing, or location of demand for energy or the products we produce. We may not be able to recover through insurance some or any of the damages, losses or costs that may result from potential physical effects of climate change. At this time, we have not developed a comprehensive plan to address the legal, economic, social or physical impacts of climate change on our operations.