The New York state attorney general's office, which told Peabody Energy this week to give investors more details about how its sales would suffer from measures to curb global warming, is now mulling whether the tactic it used with the coal firm could be applied to companies beyond the energy sector.

The state investigation into Peabody, which was settled on Monday, found that the company repeatedly denied in public filings it could predict how potential climate change regulations would affect its business, even though its internal studies showed revenue could tumble if coal were targeted in a carbon pollution crackdown.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman seized upon this discrepancy between public and private pronouncements as a violation of securities laws, arguing that material facts were withheld.

While the settlement will pressure other fossil fuel companies to bolster their climate change disclosures, it also could spawn new pressures on a range of companies facing regulatory risks over policy issues from obesity to soaring drug prices, according to corporate governance experts including James Cox, a law professor at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

"This is sweeping," Cox said. "I think there will be a ripple effect from this."

Schneiderman's office has considered the effects the Peabody settlement could have on disclosure practices for companies outside the energy industry, though no additional actions are planned at the moment, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters.

At least one other case similar to Peabody is in the works in New York, where Schneiderman's office last week was reported to have opened an inquiry into whether Exxon Mobil Corp misled shareholders about climate change risks.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure guidelines give companies considerable leeway to make their own judgments about the likelihood that future events, such as tougher regulations, will affect their valuations.

WHAT'S MATERIAL

The Peabody settlement, while not binding for corporate America, could prompt companies to reexamine what they are defining as material to shareholders, at a time when demands by investors for more robust disclosures are growing, corporate governance experts said.

For example, soda makers could see a crackdown on sugary drinks by governments worried about public health, or changes in insurance rules might result in lower drug prices paid to pharmaceutical companies, they said

"There is this horrible mismatch between what companies know about their own businesses and what they tell investors in mandatory public filings. That isn't okay," said Michael Guttentag, a law professor at Loyola Law School.

He said the New York settlement sets a precedent that could prod companies to make fuller disclosures, though others said firms would still have ample latitude under SEC rules, which they do not see changing.

Andrew Logan of Ceres, a group that advocates for more sustainable business practices, said companies will need to be more forthcoming with investors.

"The Peabody settlement ... should be seen as a shot across the bow to any company that faces regulatory risk in its core business, whether you produce junk food, high-priced pharmaceuticals or fossil fuels," he said.

When it announced on Monday it would amend its disclosures, Peabody said there was no admission or denial of wrongdoing and no financial penalty. It could not be reached for comment on Thursday.

Corporate officers are still digesting the settlement.

A handful of prominent food companies canvassed by Reuters said they were either unaware of the Peabody settlement or not yet prepared to address it. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America trade group said it would be premature to comment.

Meredith Cross, a former SEC official who now advises companies and their boards on disclosure and securities law as a partner at Wilmer Hale, warned against expecting companies to divulge even the smallest of facts or being asked to reliably predict regulatory changes in the future.

"I do not think it is a good idea to require companies to provide an encyclopedia of data and make people wade their way through it. That doesn't strike me as a reasonable approach," she said.


Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/13/climatechange-disclosure-idUSL1N1373PW20151113#3EyRFX8w16FaFWXD.99

---

Attached Files

The Australian Senate has passed the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), paving the way for implementation from January 1 next year that will help lower the import tariff on coal selling into China.

Australian media reported that the Customs Amendment (China-Australia Free Trade Agreement) Bill 2015 and the complementary Customs Tariff Amendment (China-Australia Free Trade Agreement) Bill 2015 passed the Senate on November 9, after being approved by the House of Representatives on October 22.

The agreement will come into effect after gaining approval from China’s legislative body.


China and Australia are important trade and investment partners. Australia is the second largest destination of Chinese overseas investment after Hong Kong. China is the largest trade partner of Australia, and its largest import and export destination.

If tariffs come down, there would be a 96.45% export tariff cut for Chinese products, totaling $1.6 billion yuan, in force for three years from ratification.

The CAFTA will benefit Australia’s exports of coking coal, thermal coal and aluminium oxide, enhancing Australian miners’ competitiveness in the seaborne market and cutting production cost for coal chemical, steel and aluminium producers of China.

Upon implementation, China would scrap the existing 3% import tariff on coking coal, and lower the current 6% import tariff on thermal coal to 4%, and gradually reduce to zero in 2017.

This will directly improve profitability of Chinese holding companies or subsidiaries in Australia, such as Yancoal Australia.

Half of China’s imported coking coal comes from Australia. Over January-September, China imported 19.59 million tonnes of coking coal from Australia, down 6.1% on year, accounting for 53.8% of China’s total coking coal imports, customs data showed.

During the same period, China’s imports of thermal coal -- including bituminous and sub-bituminous coals -- from Australia fell 25.8% on year to 33.89 million tonnes, taking 53.3% of China’s total thermal coal imports, the data showed.

http://en.sxcoal.com/0/134802/DataShow.html

China’s power consumption stood at 449.1 TWh in October, edging down 0.2% on year and down 1.58% on month, showed data from the National Energy Administration (NEA) on November 16.

Power consumption by the residential segment was 56.6 TWh, rising 4.7% from the year prior but down 17.3% from September.

For the non-residential segment, the primary industries – mainly the agricultural sector – used 7.3 TWh of electricity in October, rising 6.6% on year but down 28.4% on month.

The secondary industries – mainly the industrial sector – consumed 329.8 TWh of electricity, falling 1.9% on year but up 5.43% from September.

The industrial sector specifically, consumed 324.5 TWh of electricity in October, decreasing 1.9% from the year before but up 5.77% from September, with the heavy industry accounting for 83.4% or 270.5 TWh, dropping 1.5% year on year but up 8.46% on month.

Power consumption by tertiary industries – mainly the services sector – reached 55.4 TWh in October, increasing 4.6% year on year and 14.8% lower from the month prior.

Over January-October, China consumed a total 4,584 TWh of electricity, up 0.7% from the same period last year, the NEA said.

Power consumption by the residential segment amounted to 614 TWh during the same period, gaining 4.6% from the previous year.

Under the non-residential segment, the primary industries used 87.9 TWh of electricity, up 3% year on year; the secondary industries used 3,285.8 TWh of power, down 1.1% year on year, with the industrial sector at 3,228.5 TWh, down 1%; while the tertiary industries consumed 595.9 TWh, up 7.1%.

Meanwhile, the average utilization of power generating units across the country dropped 7.56% year on year to 3,279 hours over January-October this year.

Hydropower plants logged average utilization of 2,989 hours during the same period, dropping 3.67% from the previous year; while thermal power plants logged average utilization of 3,563 hours, falling 7.86% from a year ago.

China added 82.57 GW of power generating capacity from January to October, including 12.58 GW of new hydropower capacity and 43.36 GW of new thermal power capacity.

http://en.sxcoal.com/0/134961/DataShow.html

---

Attached Files

Chinese firm to invest $2.15b in Mexico's energy sector: report
 
China National Corporation for Overseas Economic Cooperation (CCOEC) is set to invest $2.15 billion in Mexico's energy sector, it was announced at a bilateral trade forum which ended in Mexico City on Thursday, Xinhua News Agency reported on Saturday.

The government of Mexico's northern state of Durango signed the agreement with the Chinese partner as part of the 2015 China-Mexico Trade and Investment Expo and Forum, which took place in Mexico City through November 10-12.

The project, in which the CCOEC will be the main investor, calls for the construction of what is known as a combined cycle plant with capacity of 1,500 megawatts.

The plant "will be built over three different stages of 500 (MW) each," said Durango's Secretary of Economic Development, Ricardo Navarrete Gomez.

"Each stage will be developed over a two-year period, generating 1,500 direct jobs," he explained.

China is supplying 85 percent of the investment needed, with the remaining 15 percent coming from Mexican sources, he said. "This is quite a large investment for Durango, but it opens up future investment" possibilities.

President of CCOEC, Huo Xuejun, noted bilateral business in various fields has been "steadily" strengthened.

http://en.chinamining.com.cn/Investment/2015-11-16/1447636437d74494.html