The bill creates two new bodies inside the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC): a permanent, staff-led Climate Financial Risk Committee for agency coordination and an external Advisory Committee on Climate Risk of up to 30 experts to advise FSOC. It requires FSOC to publish an initial assessment of climate-related threats to financial stability within 270 days and annual follow-ups, and it directs the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) to collect zip-code–level homeowners underwriting data and publish reports on climate impacts to insurance markets.
Beyond reporting, the bill directs supervisory and regulatory changes: federal banking agencies and the NCUA must update supervisory guidance so institutions with more than $50 billion in assets identify and mitigate climate-related credit, liquidity, market, operational, and reputational risks; FSOC must revise its nonbank SIFI designation guidance to incorporate climate risk; and agencies are instructed to coordinate data-sharing, research (via the Office of Financial Research), and international engagement on climate financial risk. These provisions formalize climate risk as an item of systemic-risk oversight and impose concrete data and process requirements on regulators and large financial firms.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill establishes a permanent staff-level Climate Financial Risk Committee inside FSOC and an external Advisory Committee of up to 30 appointed experts to advise FSOC; mandates an initial FSOC report within 270 days and annual reports thereafter; requires FIO to collect and publish zip code–level homeowners underwriting data for 2023–2024 and annually; and directs banking supervisors to update guidance for institutions with more than $50 billion in assets. It also orders FSOC to incorporate climate risk into nonbank SIFI designation rules.
Who It Affects
Large banks and bank holding companies with assets above $50 billion, nonbank entities potentially designated as systemically important, property-and-casualty insurers and their regulators, the Office of Financial Research and Federal Insurance Office, state insurance commissioners, and investor and insurer data users. Research institutions, consumer groups, and a range of industry stakeholders are eligible for advisory roles or will be affected by the data collection and coordination requirements.
Why It Matters
The bill moves climate risk from an ad hoc concern into the architecture of systemic-risk oversight by creating formal committees, binding reporting deadlines, and specific supervisory updates. That shifts expectations for regulator coordination, increases pressure on large financial institutions and insurers to quantify climate exposures, and creates new data flows that can alter risk assessments, capital planning, and insurance market regulation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill embeds climate-related financial risk into FSOC’s institutional structure. It creates a staff-led Climate Financial Risk Committee to coordinate across member agencies, compile public and agency data with help from the Office of Financial Research (OFR), and deliver periodic updates to the full Council.
The statute prevents simple internal termination or modification of that committee—only Congress can change it—making climate coordination a formal, long-lived function inside FSOC.
Complementing the staff committee, the bill creates an Advisory Committee on Climate Risk made up of up to 30 external experts appointed by specified agencies and FSOC leadership. The advisory body blends climate scientists, climate-economics and finance specialists, representatives from research institutions, consumer or labor advocacy, and investor advocacy groups; it excludes stakeholders from the oil and gas industry.
Appointments are staggered and members have statutory protections against unilateral removal, designed to secure continuity of expertise.On deliverables, the bill requires FSOC to publish an initial report on climate financial risk within 270 days and annual updates thereafter. Those reports must assess the effects of climate risks on financial stability, data gaps, coordination among federal and state regulators, insurance market impacts on housing finance and credit, and how U.S. disclosure regimes compare internationally.
The bill also directs FIO to produce a homeowners insurance underwriting dataset disaggregated by zip code for 2023 and 2024 and to release annual updates, with safeguards against publishing personally identifiable information.The legislative text imposes concrete supervisory and regulatory actions: federal banking agencies and the NCUA must update supervisory guidance to require firms with over $50 billion in assets to appropriately identify and mitigate climate-related credit, liquidity, market, operational, and reputational risks; FSOC must revise its nonbank SIFI designation guidance to account for climate risk; and the Financial Institutions Examination Council must coordinate the supervisory updates and share guidance with state regulators. The bill also signals that U.S. regulators should strengthen international cooperation by joining relevant international climate-finance bodies where consistent with law.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates a permanent FSOC Climate Financial Risk Committee and bars terminating or modifying it except by an Act of Congress.
The Advisory Committee on Climate Risk will have up to 30 members: 8 climate scientists appointed by Energy, EPA, and NSF designees, 8 climate-economics/finance experts appointed by the Council, plus designated slots for research institutions, consumer/labor groups, investor networks, and industry stakeholders—explicitly excluding oil and gas industry representatives.
FSOC must publish an initial climate financial risk assessment within 270 days of enactment and then publish annual reports assessing data gaps, insurance impacts on housing finance, coordination, and disclosure comparability with other countries.
Federal banking agencies and the NCUA must update supervisory guidance so supervised institutions with more than $50,000,000,000 in assets identify and mitigate climate-related credit, liquidity, market, operational, and reputational risks, with coordination through the Financial Institutions Examination Council.
The Federal Insurance Office must collect zip-code–level homeowners underwriting data (premiums, policies, claims, losses, limits, deductibles, non-renewals, cancellations) for calendar years 2023–2024 and publish an anonymized report within one year, then provide annual public updates thereafter.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates a permanent FSOC staff committee to coordinate climate risk
This section adds a Climate Financial Risk Committee inside FSOC composed of staff representatives from member agencies and led by the Council’s Deputy Assistant Secretary. It assigns operational roles: identifying priority areas, facilitating data and method sharing, collaborating with the OFR to assemble analytical tools and public/agency data, and briefing the Council on how agencies are incorporating climate risk into supervision. The prohibition on terminating or modifying the committee outside an act of Congress elevates climate coordination to a statutory, stable function rather than an administrative programmatic choice.
Establishes an external advisory committee with defined appointments and protections
Section 121B creates an Advisory Committee on Climate Risk of no more than 30 members and specifies appointment sources: Energy, EPA, and NSF appoint climate scientists; the Council appoints climate-economics and finance experts; other slots are allocated to research institutions, consumer/labor advocates, investor networks, and industry stakeholders (excluding oil and gas). Terms are three years and initially staggered; members enjoy removal protection requiring a two-thirds vote of FSOC heads. The mix of scientific, market, consumer, and investor perspectives is designed to feed technical expertise and stakeholder input into FSOC deliberations while the oil-and-gas exclusion is a statutory constraint that shapes the composition and viewpoints represented.
Mandates an initial and annual FSOC report assessing climate financial stability
This section compels FSOC to coordinate with both committees and publish an initial report within 270 days and annual updates. The required assessments are broad: potential financial stability impacts, agency expertise and coordination gaps, data quality and gaps, insurance-market effects on credit and housing finance, nonbank and large-bank risk management, and international and disclosure comparisons. Importantly, the statute ties assessment to actionable recommendations for federal and state regulators and Congress, shifting FSOC’s role from observer to a diagnostic body that must propose fixes.
Requires banking supervisors to integrate climate risk into guidance for very large institutions
This provision directs every federal banking agency and the NCUA to update supervisory guidance to include climate-related credit, liquidity, market, operational, and reputational risk for institutions with more than $50 billion in assets. It also requires the Financial Institutions Examination Council to ensure cross-agency coordination and distribution to state regulators. The requirement does not itself set new prudential limits or capital rules but compels supervisors to treat climate risk as an explicit component of examination and supervisory programs for very large firms.
Directs FSOC to incorporate climate risk into nonbank SIFI criteria
FSOC must update its Code of Federal Regulations guidance (12 C.F.R. part 1310, subpart B) to explain how climate financial risk will factor into nonbank systemic importance determinations. That update changes the criteria and transparency around potential systemic-risk designations for large nonbank financial firms, potentially exposing firms to new supervisory expectations and the prospect of heightened oversight based on climate-related exposures or interconnections.
Assigns FIO a time-bound report and an ongoing homeowners underwriting data collection
Section 5 requires FIO to publish, within one year, an assessment of climate risk to the insurance sector and implementation of earlier FIO recommendations. Section 6 mandates FIO collect zip-code–level homeowners underwriting data (premiums, policies, claims, losses, limits, deductibles, non-renewals, cancellations) for 2023 and 2024 directly from insurers under federal authority, to produce an anonymized report and to make annual updates thereafter. The statute allows sharing with Congress and relevant state insurance commissioners while prohibiting publication of personally identifiable information, creating a centralized federal dataset on insurance market climate exposures.
Sense of Congress on international cooperation
This nonbinding section urges federal financial regulators and Treasury (including FIO) to join international groups such as the Network for Greening the Financial System and the Basel Committee task force, and to coordinate with international regulators on climate financial risk where consistent with law. While advisory, it signals congressional intent for U.S. engagement in global climate-finance standard-setting and could influence agency prioritization of cross-border coordination.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- FSOC member agencies and OFR — gain a permanent, resourced vehicle for cross-agency data sharing and joint analysis that can improve early detection of system-wide climate exposures.
- State insurance regulators and FIO — receive a federal, zip-code–level dataset and FIO analysis to inform market oversight, rate review, and solvency assessment across jurisdictions.
- Climate scientists and research institutions — the advisory committee creates formal appointment slots and a direct channel to influence regulatory analysis and data priorities, increasing the policy impact of academic and applied research.
- Investors and asset managers focused on climate risk — clearer regulatory signals and richer, standardized insurance and supervisory data improve portfolio stress-testing and disclosure comparability.
- Homeowners and housing-market participants in climate-exposed areas — federal collection and visibility into underwriting trends (non-renewals, premiums, cancellations) can drive policy responses to insurance affordability and housing finance implications.
Who Bears the Cost
- Large banking organizations and bank holding companies (> $50B) — will face added supervisory expectations, potential exam findings, and compliance costs to integrate climate risk into risk management, stress testing, and disclosure processes.
- Property-and-casualty insurers — must deliver granular underwriting data directly to FIO and may face increased regulatory scrutiny and possible market consequences as data reveal localized pricing or availability problems.
- State insurance departments and FIO — collecting, processing, and analyzing massive zip-code–level datasets will require staff time and technical resources; federal-state coordination may impose implementation and legal burdens.
- Nonbank financial firms — those facing potential SIFI designation could see increased regulatory overhead and supervisory costs if climate exposures factor into systemic importance determinations.
- Industry stakeholders providing data or participating in advisory roles (excluding oil/gas) — will bear engagement costs, and certain firms may incur competitive or reputational effects once granular market data and analyses enter the public or regulator domain.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is procedural and substantive: Congress directs regulators to treat climate change as a systemic financial threat—requiring intrusive, granular data collection and new supervisory expectations—yet leaves critical choices about measurement, thresholds, and remedies to agencies; that tension forces a trade-off between rapid, centralized action to protect financial stability and careful rulemaking that respects legal limits, state roles, industry burden, and methodological uncertainty.
The bill creates a durable federal architecture for treating climate change as a systemic financial risk, but it leaves several implementation choices open that could determine its ultimate effect. The statute mandates data collection and supervisory updates but does not prescribe specific risk measurement methodologies, stress-test designs, or disclosure standards; agencies must develop those tools.
That gap creates both flexibility and uncertainty: agencies can tailor approaches to their supervisory regimes, but market participants face a period of shifting expectations while methods are defined. The OFR and FIO data tasks are technically demanding — assembling and anonymizing zip-code–level underwriting data across insurers, aligning varied state reporting standards, and ensuring data quality will require funding, legal coordination with states, and robust IT systems.
The bill also balances stakeholder representation in the advisory body while statutorily excluding oil and gas industry stakeholders, which reduces the chance of direct industry influence but raises questions about perceived bias and whether perspectives from carbon-intensive sectors that are financially exposed will be sufficiently represented. The removal protections for advisory members and the statutory permanence of the staff committee provide independence but could create friction with agency leadership during policy disagreements.
Finally, the instruction to update nonbank SIFI guidance to include climate risk introduces a potentially novel path to heightened supervision for large nonbank firms, but criteria and thresholds will be contested and could spark litigation or political pushback if industry actors view the standards as vague or overbroad.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.