One transition scenario, a long-lived asset and a covenant-linked emissions metric
Coastal Utilities reports climate disclosures against the TCFD recommendations. The board has approved horizon definitions: short term of 0 to 3 years, matching the regulatory price-control period; medium term of 3 to 10 years; long term of 10 to 40 years, reflecting the 35-year operating life of its desalination plant. It has completed one scenario, an orderly 1.5 degrees Celsius transition with a carbon price of USD 75 per tonne from 2028, which shows a 6% reduction in 2035 EBITDA relative to the base case. The strategy committee wants to publish only that scenario, because it is the one regulators and investors ask about. The head of risk notes that the assets are exposed to sea-level rise and cyclone intensity, which the transition scenario does not capture, and that a high-warming scenario was started but downscaled physical projections are expensive. The group's revolving credit facility includes a 2030 emissions intensity covenant, and its largest customer, a smelter, has a 2040 net-zero target.
1. Is a single 1.5 degrees Celsius transition scenario sufficient under the TCFD recommendations? Explain your reasoning and what the disclosure must contain.
Read the worked answer
Framework test. The Strategy pillar asks the entity to describe the resilience of its strategy to different climate-related scenarios, including a 2 degrees Celsius or lower scenario. The wording contemplates more than one scenario, and the choice must be justified as fit for the entity's exposure.
Application. Coastal Utilities has two distinct risk channels: transition risk through carbon pricing and the regulatory settlement, and physical risk through storm intensity and sea-level rise at coastal assets with a 35-year life. The orderly 1.5 degrees scenario interrogates the first and largely assumes away the second. Publishing only it would leave the resilience conclusion untested on the risk that matters most for long-lived coastal infrastructure, and the reader would not know that the physical analysis is missing.
Conclusion. At minimum, add a second scenario that stresses physical risk, which may be qualitative or semi-quantitative in the first year, and state plainly what has and has not been modelled. Disclose the scenarios used and why, the key assumptions including carbon price, the time horizons and their link to asset life, the modelled effects on the business and the resilience conclusion. Uneven depth across pillars is defensible if labelled; a single favourable scenario presented as the answer is not.
2. Where do the covenant and the customer's net-zero target belong in the disclosure, and what do they change about the risk assessment?
Read the worked answer
Mapping. The covenant belongs in the Metrics and Targets pillar, because emissions intensity is a metric with a financing consequence, and in Risk Management, because it is the transmission channel through which transition risk reaches liquidity. The customer's target belongs in Strategy and Risk Management as a downstream transition risk affecting future revenue and contract terms. Both belong in Governance if remuneration or board committees are engaged.
Reasoning. A covenant converts many future emissions pathways into a financing event, tightening the entity's sensitivity to a carbon price well before the physical effects of climate change appear. The customer's public commitment indicates that demand for the entity's output may shift with the smelter's own decarbonisation, which is a revenue risk that a generic transition scenario may not capture unless the scenario plausibly models counterparty behaviour.
Implication. The risk register should record the covenant threshold, testing headroom under each scenario, and the customer concentration. The resilience conclusion should state whether the strategy remains financeable under the scenarios, not just whether EBITDA falls. Metrics disclosure should set out the covenant metric definition, the current value and the threshold, so users can trace the disclosed performance to the contractual consequence; without that link the numbers are decorative.
3. The committee questions why long-term horizons beyond the planning cycle are needed at all. Construct the argument for the horizon choice and for its connectivity to the financial statements.
Read the worked answer
Reasoning. TCFD expects horizons to reflect the life of the assets and the period over which climate risks crystallise, allowing an entity to align them with financial reporting periods where those are appropriate. Coastal Utilities runs a three-year price control, which naturally sets the short-term horizon, but its plant will operate for 35 years, and the carbon price path, licence conditions and coastal defences only become decisive after the current regulatory period ends.
Why the horizon is not discretionary. Truncating at three years would allow the entity to report no material climate effect by construction: the carbon price starts at USD 75 in 2028, the covenant binds in 2030 and the asset life runs to mid-century. The disclosure would be technically compliant and substantively empty.
Connectivity. The long-term analysis should connect to the financial statements through asset useful lives, impairment assumptions and provisioning for coastal protection or decommissioning, so a reader can see whether the audited cash flows and the scenario analysis rest on the same expectations. Where they diverge, say so. The resilience conclusion should state whether the strategy and the capital allocation plan are robust across the scenarios, and identify the trigger points at which the entity would change course.