Guidance for New York Domestic Insurers on Managing the

1 
 
  
 
Guidance for New York Domestic Insurers on 
Managing the Financial Risks from Climate 
Change 
 
November 15, 2021 
 
Table of Contents  
1.  Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 
2.  Financial Risks from Climate Change .................................................................................................... 4 
2.1.  Physical and Transition Risks ........................................................................................................ 4 
2.2.  Distinctive Nature of Climate Risks ............................................................................................... 5 
3.  DFS Expectations ................................................................................................................................... 5 
3.1.  Proportionate Approach ............................................................................................................... 5 
3.2.  Materiality ..................................................................................................................................... 6 
3.3.  Time Horizon for Consideration of Climate Risks in Business Decisions ...................................... 7 
3.4.  Uncertainty and Data Gaps ........................................................................................................... 8 
3.5.  Timeline for Implementation ........................................................................................................ 9 
3.6.  Risk Culture and Governance ........................................................................................................ 9 
3.7.  Business Models and Strategies .................................................................................................. 11 
3.8.  Risk Management ....................................................................................................................... 12 
3.9.  Scenario Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 19 
3.10.    Public Disclosure ......................................................................................................................... 21 
 
1. Introduction 
1.  As one of the most critical risk-management issues of our generation, climate change poses wide-
ranging and material risks to the financial system.  This is especially true for the insurance industry, 
where the physical and transition risks resulting from climate change affect both sides of insurers’ 
balance sheets—assets and liabilities—as well as their business models.  Climate change also presents 
tremendous opportunities for insurers, which play a critical role in the management of climate risks as 
risk managers, risk carriers, and investors, and are uniquely qualified to understand the pricing of risks.  

These opportunities include helping communities be more resilient through inclusive and affordable

insurance, contributing to climate change adaptation and mitigation, and enhancing the insurability of

climate-related risks. To continue to thrive in the face of global competition, it is essential that New

York insurers both manage the financial risks and take advantage of the opportunities arising from

climate change.

2. The Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) states that

“[t]he scale of recent changes across the climate system as a whole and the present state of many

aspects of the climate system are unprecedented over many centuries to many thousands of years.”

Climate-related risks present unique challenges and require a strategic response by the insurance

industry, including the acquisition of new knowledge, expertise, and tools. At the same time, general

principles and approaches of good governance and risk management laid out in the New York Insurance

Law and related regulations, and the guidance manuals of the National Association of Insurance

Commissioners (“NAIC”), apply to climate risks in the same way as other risks that may be more familiar

to insurers.

3. To support New York domestic insurers (“insurers”) in managing the financial risks from climate

change (“climate risks”), the New York State Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) solicited

comments on a proposed version of this guidance on March 25, 2021. DFS received detailed comments

from 45 parties, including industry trade groups, insurance companies, consumer advocates, climate

experts, rating agencies, financial regulators, and individual citizens. This final guidance reflects DFS’s

careful consideration of all comments received.

4. This guidance is informed by DFS’s ongoing dialogue with the insurance industry over the past year,

analysis of the potential climate risk exposure of insurers’ assets, and collaboration with international

and other U.S. regulatory bodies. This guidance also reflects DFS’s review of insurers’ enterprise risk

reports, Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (“ORSA”) summary reports, NAIC Climate Risk Disclosure

Survey responses, and other voluntarily filed disclosure materials, including Task Force on Climate-

related Financial Disclosures (“TCFD”) reports, sustainability reports, and disclosure questionnaires.

Based on this review, there is a wide range of levels of maturity and sophistication among insurers in

terms of understanding and managing climate risks, with larger insurers typically more advanced than

smaller ones, which in some cases have not yet considered climate risks.

5. This guidance builds on relevant provisions of the New York Insurance Law, NAIC Financial Condition

Examiners Handbook 2020 (“Handbook”), and NAIC ORSA Guidance Manual as of December 2017

(“ORSA Manual”). It is also modeled on publications, guidance, and supervisory statements issued by

international regulators and networks, such as the Bank of England Prudential Regulation Authority

(“PRA”), the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (“IAIS”), the Sustainable Insurance Forum

(“SIF”), the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (“EIOPA”), the European Central

Bank (“ECB”), the Network for Greening the Financial System (“NGFS”), and the Dutch Central Bank. DFS

is profoundly grateful for their work.

6. At a high level, international regulators’ expectations on managing climate risks are consistent,

including similar components, a focus on proportionality and long-term analysis, and the expectation of

an increasing level of sophistication over time. To ensure consistency across jurisdictions, international

regulators have engaged in meaningful collaboration and coordination to develop international best

IPCC, Sixth Assessment Report – Headline Statements from the Summary for Policymakers, August 9, 2021.

practices. DFS intends to continue to work closely with international and other U.S. regulators to reduce

the compliance burden on insurers.

7. Although no one is spared from the impact of climate change, it disproportionately affects

disadvantaged communities, including low-income communities and communities of color, and feeds

into the vicious circle of social inequality. DFS is committed to supporting fair, safe, and stable insurance

markets for the benefit and protection of all New Yorkers. While this guidance is focused on the

financial stability of insurers in the face of climate change, it is also crucial for insurers to do their part to

contribute to the low-carbon transition and climate adaptation efforts; support communities’ resilience

to climate change, especially in disadvantaged communities that would be even more vulnerable to

climate change if insurers stop insuring or investing in these communities; and work with the public

sector to find ways to close the protection gap and ensure that insurance is available and affordable

throughout the State.

8. DFS expects this guidance to serve as a basis for supervisory dialogue and to help insurers familiarize

themselves with climate risks and develop their capacity and processes for managing them in

accordance with the timelines specified in the guidance. DFS intends to monitor insurers’ progress in

implementing the expectations in this guidance.

9. DFS will continue to develop its supervisory approach to managing and disclosing climate risks,

considering U.S. federal and state regulatory developments as well as evolving practices in the industry

and in the national and international supervisory community. Over time, DFS expects its approach to

shift from supporting insurers’ progress in implementing DFS’s supervisory expectations in accordance

with the timelines specified in this guidance, to active supervision against those expectations.

Overview of DFS Supervisory Expectations

10. As explained in more detail below, DFS expects insurers to take a strategic approach to managing

climate risks that considers both current and forward-looking risks and identifies actions required to

manage those risks in a manner proportionate to the nature, scale, and complexity of insurers’

businesses. Specifically, an insurer should:

I. Integrate the consideration of climate risks into its governance structure at the group or insurer

entity level. The insurer’s board should understand climate risks and maintain oversight over

the management team responsible for managing them. The roles of the board and

management should be reflected in the company’s risk appetite and organizational structure.

II. When making business decisions, consider the current and forward-looking impact of climate-

related factors on its business using time horizons that are appropriately tailored to the insurer,

its activities, and the decisions being made.

III. Incorporate climate risks into the insurer’s existing financial risk management, including by

embedding climate risks in its risk management framework and analyzing the impact of climate

risks on existing risk factors. Climate risks should be considered in the company’s ORSA.

To assist insurers that are in the early stages of this work, examples are provided to illustrate the expectations in

this guidance, which should not be viewed as mandatory.

IV. Use scenario analysis to inform business strategies and risk assessment and identification.

Scenarios should consider physical and transition risks, multiple carbon emissions and

temperature pathways, and short-, medium-, and long-term horizons.

V. Disclose its climate risks and engage with the TCFD and other initiatives when developing its

disclosure approaches.

2. Financial Risks from Climate Change

2.1. Physical and Transition Risks

11. Physical risks arise from the increasing frequency, severity, and volatility of acute events, such as

hurricanes, floods, and wildfires. They also stem from chronic shifts in weather patterns, such as rising

sea levels resulting in more flooding and coastal erosion, droughts disrupting agriculture production,

and intensifying heat waves which are responsible for more annual deaths than any other weather-

related hazards.

Climate change has increased heat and precipitation extremes across the globe, as

well as the likelihood of multiple perils occurring at once (e.g., concurrent heat waves and droughts,

flooding caused by storm surge and extreme rainfall).

These risks directly affect property/casualty

insurers’ liabilities and the long-term viability of certain business lines. As the effects of climate change

continue to unfold, physical risks will likely become more complex and harder to model, further

challenging insurers’ attempts to manage those risks. Climate-related natural disasters can also cause

business disruption, destruction of capital, increased costs to recover from disasters, stress on

infrastructure, reduced revenue, and migration. In turn, these can lead to lower residential and

commercial property values, lower household wealth, lower corporate profitability, and stress on social

and economic systems, translating into financial and credit market losses that affect insurers’ assets.

12. Transition risks arise from society’s transition towards a low-carbon economy, driven by policy and

regulations (such as the potential introduction of a carbon tax or carbon allowances), low-carbon

technology advancement, and shifting sentiment and societal preferences. This transition can lead to

stranded assets in the fossil-fuel industry and carbon-intensive infrastructure, real estate, and

vehicles. It can also result in costs to reinvest in and replace infrastructure, and increased litigation

against fossil-fuel companies. Transition risks can lead to corporate asset devaluation, lower corporate

profitability, lower property values, and lower household wealth. In turn, related financial and credit

market losses will affect insurers’ assets, while increased litigation will impact insurers’ liabilities and the

long-term viability of certain business lines. Sectors with high transition risks include coal mining, oil and

gas (including drilling, pipelines, refineries, and services), utilities, transportation, chemicals, trucking

and leasing, auto manufacturing, cement, and mining.

13. Physical and transition risks can give rise to climate-related claims under liability policies, such as

directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policies,

as well as direct actions against insurers for failing to

Extreme Heat, Ready.Gov, accessed on October 19, 2021.

IPCC, Sixth Assessment Report – Headline Statements from the Summary for Policymakers, August 9, 2021. IPCC,

The concept of risk in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report: a summary of cross-Working Group discussions –

Guidance for IPCC authors, September 4, 2020.

PRA, Supervisory Statement, SS3/19, Enhancing banks’ and insurers’ approaches to managing the financial risks

from climate change, April 2019.

manage climate risks.

These liability risks are not identified in this guidance as a separate risk factor,

but rather are part of the discussion of physical and transition risks.

2.2. Distinctive Nature of Climate Risks

14. Climate risks present unique challenges and require a strategic approach to financial risk

management. Climate risks are:

a. Far-reaching in breadth and magnitude: Not only does climate change affect all aspects of our

economy globally, but its impact may also be non-linear, correlated, and irreversible.

b. Uncertain but foreseeable: Climate-driven change is inevitable, even though its exact

manifestations and timing are uncertain. The concentration of greenhouse gases in the

atmosphere will continue to increase in the short term, leading to more extreme and chronic

weather events. Over time, certain physical risks could become uninsurable if the low-carbon

transition happens too slowly or too late. Some insurers are already limiting coverage, or exiting

the market entirely, in regions that experience frequent climate-related natural disasters.

Governments and society more broadly are responding by ramping up efforts to mitigate

climate change. The low-carbon transition could be orderly, with minimum negative impact on

the economy, or disorderly, which would disrupt the economy and financial markets. If

significant action is taken but too late to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global

warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the resulting financial

disruption could be severe.

c. Dependent on short-term actions: The ultimate impact of climate change depends in large part

on the nature and extent of the actions taken in the near term by governments, corporations,

and individuals and communities around the world to fight climate change.

d. Hard to predict based on past experience: Certain physical and transition risks are unlikely to be

adequately captured in historical data given their unprecedented and long-term nature. Given

the forward-looking nature of climate risks and the inherent uncertainty of both the physical

impact of climate change and resulting societal responses, past experience will not necessarily

be a good indicator of future conditions.

3. DFS Expectations

3.1. Proportionate Approach

15. DFS expects each insurer to take a proportionate approach to managing climate risks that reflects its

exposure to climate risks and the nature, scale, and complexity of its business. Climate change affects

each insurer in different ways and to different degrees depending on the insurer’s size, complexity,

geographic distribution, business lines, investment strategies, and other factors. Not all insurers have

the same level of resources to devote to managing climate risks and some insurers will take longer than

others to develop and implement appropriate practices. However, all insurers, regardless of size, are

expected to analyze their climate risks on both the underwriting and investment sides of their balance

sheets. Small insurers are not necessarily less exposed to climate risks because they may have

IAIS and SIF, Application Paper on the Supervision of Climate-related Risks in the Insurance Sector, May 2021.

PRA, Supervisory Statement, SS3/19, Enhancing banks’ and insurers’ approaches to managing the financial risks

from climate change, April 2019.

concentrated business lines or geographies that are highly exposed to climate risks without the benefit

of diversification available to larger insurers.

16. As an insurer’s expertise and understanding of climate risks develop, DFS expects the insurer’s

approach to managing these risks to mature. Over time, an insurer’s analysis of climate risks and

assessment of their materiality for its business should shift from a qualitative approach to an approach

that is both qualitative and quantitative for risks that can be quantified.

While a qualitative assessment

may be based on simple models and a small set of risk factors, a quantitative assessment should seek to

quantify those risks based on increasingly sophisticated tools like geospatial data and climate modeling,

and a broader set of relevant risk factors, including those described in the Handbook (i.e., credit, legal,

liquidity, market, operational, pricing and underwriting, reputational, and strategic risks).

17. An insurer that is developing a climate risk approach or model may need more time to incorporate it

into its risk management function, or to establish an adequate control environment. The insurer should

start by qualitatively analyzing the impact of climate risks on the risk factors described in the Handbook

for its business lines and assets. In addition, it should assess how its business (both assets and liabilities)

may perform under various scenarios and time frames. Scenarios could include: (1) an orderly

transition that phases out fossil fuel-based energy and transportation with minimum financial market

disruption and a limited increase in natural disasters; (2) a disorderly transition with a large financial

market disruption and a limited increase in natural disasters; (3) a disorderly transition with a drastic

increase in natural disasters; and (4) no transition (as the economy continues to use the same amount of

fossil fuel) with a drastic increase in natural disasters.

18. An insurer that is part of a group can utilize policies, procedures, and processes developed at the

group level for managing climate risks if: (1) the risks considered at the group level include those facing

the insurer; (2) the policies, procedures, and processes developed at the group level are implemented at

the level of the insurer and address the insurer’s material climate risks; and (3) the insurer has

appropriate access to relevant climate-related resources and expertise centralized at the group level. If

these conditions are met, references in this guidance to an insurer’s board can also mean the board of

the group of which the insurer is a part. If an insurer’s policies, procedures, or processes differ

meaningfully from those of the group, the insurer should document and provide a justification for those

differences in its risk management reports.

3.2. Materiality

19. This guidance, which includes several references to materiality or to material risks or exposure, is

intended to address material climate risks faced by insurers. The quantification of climate risks is still a

developing area with uncertain or, in some cases, unavailable data and models. However, this does not

preclude insurers from making informed judgments about the significance of climate risks to their

businesses. For insurers early in the process of managing climate risks or with limited resources, a

materiality assessment may be based on qualitative information, and on an analysis of portfolio

exposure to certain sectors or geographies in underwriting or investments. Over time, when qualitative

analyses demonstrate the probability of material climate risks, this assessment should include

Examples of quantitative metrics can be seen in Section 3.8.1.2 (“Risk Appetite, Tolerances, and Limits”).

quantitative analyses and rely on methods such as scenario analysis and stress testing that include

relevant sectors and geographies.

20. The Handbook provides guidance for determining materiality in the examination context.

When

assessing the materiality of climate risks, insurers may use the Handbook’s materiality benchmarks (e.g.,

5% of surplus or one-half of 1% of total assets), subject to adjustment based on professional judgment

and circumstances. A risk may also be considered material where knowledge of the risk could influence

the decisions or judgment of an insurer’s board, management, regulators, or other relevant

stakeholders.

These types of risks could include exposure to natural disasters that are strongly

influenced by climate change for property/casualty insurers, and investment exposure to geographies

and sectors that have high transition or physical risks for life insurers.

21. Insurers should regularly assess their materiality assumptions.

Depending on the nature, scale,

and complexity of its business, an insurer should conduct this assessment at least annually, and in the

event of a significant change, such as a material regulatory development or material change to its

internal climate modeling.

3.3. Time Horizon for Consideration of Climate Risks in Business Decisions

22. A strategic response to climate change requires a longer-term view than the typical business

planning horizon of three to five years. The time horizon for analyzing financial risks and opportunities

related to climate change should gradually go beyond the standard three to five years to a medium-term

(e.g., five to ten years) and ultimately long-term (e.g., ten to 30 years) view. DFS’s expectation for the

timing of this progression will depend on the situation of each insurer, with insurers with the most

developed climate-related risk profiles or the most material climate risks expected to start

experimenting with the long-term horizon now and other insurers in the next two to three years.

23. When making a specific business decision, each insurer should consider climate risks based on a

time horizon that is tailored to its business and activities and the nature of that decision. For example, a

property/casualty insurer’s consideration of climate risks in underwriting and pricing policies, or

determining an appropriate risk transfer strategy, may be based on a relatively short time horizon (one

to five years).

By contrast, given the long-dated nature of life insurers’ liabilities, the impact of climate

change on their investment portfolios may materialize over an extended period of time and therefore

impact either the value of or expected cash flows from their financial assets only in the long-term.

However, as transition risks can materialize suddenly, all insurers should think about how climate risks

and opportunities might affect their investment strategies now.

Handbook, SECTION 1 – GENERAL EXAMINATION GUIDANCE, III. General Examination Consideration, B.

MATERIALITY, Pages 61-63.

EIOPA, Opinion on the supervision of the use of climate change risk scenarios in ORSA, April 19, 2021.

One example of a tool that insurers can use for the assessment is the mapping of climate risks to existing risk

factors as shown in Annexes 3 and 4 of EIOPA’s Opinion on the supervision of the use of climate change risk

scenarios in ORSA, April 19, 2021.

PRA, A framework for assessing financial impacts of physical climate change – A practitioner’s aide for the

general insurance sector, May 2019.

IAIS and SIF, Application Paper on the Supervision of Climate-related Risks in the Insurance Sector, May 2021.

24. When developing a new product, assessing a possible merger or acquisition, or determining the size

or composition of their product portfolios for a region or business line, insurers may need to consider

climate risks over the medium term (five to ten years). By contrast, other decisions, such as those

relating to risk management, risk appetite setting, or financial reporting, may require a medium to an

even longer (more than ten years) time horizon. Climate risks may not materialize within the traditional

time horizon of insurers’ risk appetite statements, which tends to be one to five years. Insurers should

therefore formulate risk appetite statements that consider climate risks over a longer period.

25. Similarly, when developing a public policy engagement strategy or preparing TCFD-aligned

disclosures, a long-term view is necessary to consider potential adaptation measures that may mitigate

issues of future insurability or affordability. For example, a 30-year time horizon, with interim science-

based targets and milestones, may be appropriate for net zero investment or underwriting

commitments made by some insurers.

Decisions may be recalibrated over time as additional

information becomes available or models and strategies change.

3.4. Uncertainty and Data Gaps

26. Many aspects of climate change, and governments’ and society’s evolving response to climate

change, are still uncertain or unknown, but uncertainty and data gaps do not justify inaction.

27. To address the unique challenges posed by climate change, insurers must adapt their traditional

tools for identifying, monitoring, and managing risks. Even when short-term average outcomes like the

average loss from a natural peril over a year have not shifted significantly, climate change has increased

the likelihood of extreme events.

Prudent risk management requires that insurers look at the full

range of potential future outcomes and consider forward-looking data. The risk to insurers is in

underestimating extreme weather events or not fully capturing the connections between physical and

transition risks that lead to higher losses from these events.

28. There has been significant advancement in areas like climate science, methodology, and disclosure

as evidenced by the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC, the NGFS climate scenarios, and the increasing

adoption of TCFD. Technology exists today – provided by rating agencies, asset managers, and specialty

service providers – to quantitatively assess the resilience of investment portfolios to transition and

physical risks under a range of scenarios.

29. Many expectations in this guidance are not affected by uncertainty or data gaps and can be

implemented with relative speed and confidence. For example, insurers should establish board

governance and an organizational structure that supports the effective management of climate risks and

develop their expertise and capacity to assess and manage climate risks on both sides of their balance

sheets. By contrast, the implementation of other expectations, such as setting risk tolerance and limits,

may require a more iterative approach, with insurers updating or refining their decisions as new

Bank of England Climate Financial Risk Forum, Climate Financial Risk Forum Guide 2020 – Risk Management

Chapter, June 2020.

UN-convened Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance Member List, Net Zero Insurance Alliance Members.

For example, climate change has increased both the mean and variance of temperature, resulting in much more

record hot temperature. IPCC, Climate Change 2001 – Synthesis Report, 2001.

information is obtained. Climate scenario analysis should be exploratory, focus on understanding

potentially material climate risks, and avoid creating a false sense of security and precision in the results.

30. Insurers should also consider whether and how their model vendors and third-party investment

managers manage uncertainty and data gaps. Insurers that rely on vendor models for underwriting or

third-party managers for investments are still the ultimate owners of the risks and are encouraged to

engage with their vendors and third-party managers to understand their assumptions and limitations,

consider the potentially large uncertainty in those assumptions, and design business models and

mitigation strategies (such as re-evaluation of risk appetite for certain perils, reinsurance retention and

limits, or focus on customer engagement) accordingly.

31. Insurers can proactively contribute to reducing uncertainty and filling data gaps by collecting data

from their customers, requesting or requiring climate disclosure from the companies in which they

invest, and collaborating with peers, academics, and regulators on the subject of climate risks.

3.5. Timeline for Implementation

32. Implementing the expectations in this guidance involves varying levels of difficulty. DFS expects

insurers to implement its expectations relating to board governance (Section 3.6.1), and to have specific

plans in place to implement the expectations relating to organizational structure (Section 3.6.3), by

August 15, 2022. More complex expectations, such as those relating to risk appetite, analysis of the

impact of climate risks on existing risk factors, reflection of climate risks in the ORSA, scenario analysis,

and public disclosure, may take longer to implement. DFS will issue further guidance on the timing for

implementation of these more complex expectations and encourages insurers to start working on them

now.

3.6. Risk Culture and Governance

3.6.1. Board Governance

33. An insurer’s board of directors is ultimately responsible for overseeing the management of risks,

including climate risks. The Handbook lays out the components of an effective corporate governance

program.

Consistent with the Handbook, DFS expects an insurer’s board of directors (or appropriate

committee(s) thereof) or, if there is no board, the governing entity (“board”), to understand relevant

climate risks and oversee their management within the insurer’s overall business strategy and risk

appetite. The board’s approach should reflect an understanding of the distinctive nature of climate risks

as well as their long-term impact beyond the standard three- to five-year business planning horizon. To

ensure that the board can properly oversee the company’s management of climate risks, an insurer may

determine that having a board member with climate expertise is necessary.

34. DFS expects each insurer to designate a member or committee(s) of its board as responsible for the

oversight of the insurer’s management of climate risks. If an insurer is a part of a group, this can be

done at the group level, provided that the designated board member or committee(s) at the group level

has appropriate access to the insurer’s board or management and the risk appetite, processes, and

framework developed by the group’s board are implemented at the insurer level.

Handbook, SECTION 2 – RISK-FOCUSED EXAMINATION PROCESS, Phase 1, B. Part 2: Understanding the Corporate

Governance Structure, Page 184.

35. DFS also expects each insurer to designate one or more members of its senior management as

responsible for the insurer's management of climate risks. For example, the insurer’s chief underwriting

officer may be charged with embedding climate risks in underwriting decisions. As climate change could

impact multiple business units and require expertise from multiple functions, the designated member(s)

of senior management may delegate responsibility to those business units and functions, provided that

such member or members of senior management continue to oversee any such delegation of duty.

Another option is to have a cross-functional committee of senior management charged with

understanding the changing risk landscape and identifying potential ways to address climate risks.

36. An insurer may determine, after a thorough assessment, that climate risks are not currently material

to its business. However, because of the evolving nature of those risks, the insurer should still designate

a member or committee(s) of its board as responsible for overseeing the insurer’s management of

climate risks. For example, the concentration of an insurer’s investments in companies considered

vulnerable to transition risks in the current regulatory environment might be below the materiality

threshold set by an insurer. But that threshold could easily be met if there is a breakthrough in a low-

carbon technology or the adoption of a meaningful national carbon tax (e.g., $200/ton CO

-equivalent).

The board and senior management should stay abreast of evolving climate risks, and regularly assess the

assumptions and materiality of, and the company’s exposures to, those risks.

37. The insurer’s board should also oversee management’s progress toward meeting any announced

climate commitments and ensure that related strategies are being employed and evaluated for

effectiveness. Material climate commitments that would meaningfully impact capital spending should

be built into the insurer’s risks and controls systems, clearly reflected in the insurer’s financial

statements, and overseen by the insurer’s board or its audit committee.

3.6.2. Risk Appetite

38. DFS expects an insurer to have a written risk policy adopted by its board

describing how the

insurer monitors and manages material climate risks in line with its risk appetite statement. The policy

should include the insurer’s risk tolerance levels and limits for financial risks, and consider factors

beyond market conditions, regulatory changes, and technological advancements, such as:

a. long-term financial interests of the insurer, and how decisions today affect future financial risks,

b. results of scenario analysis and potentially stress testing for short-, medium-, and long-term

horizons,

c. uncertainty around the timing and channels through which climate risks may materialize, and

d. sensitivity of both sides of the balance sheet to changes in key climate risk drivers and external

conditions.

The impact of climate change on the insurer’s risk tolerance levels and limits can be reflected in existing

risk factors (Section 3.8.2).

IAIS and SIF, Application Paper on the Supervision of Climate-related Risks in the Insurance Sector, May 2021.

Section 82.2(a)(2) of 11 NYCRR 82.2.

PRA, Supervisory Statement, SS3/19, Enhancing banks’ and insurers’ approaches to managing the financial risks

from climate change, April 2019.

39. While quantifying these factors is challenging in light of evolving methodologies and data, insurers

should nevertheless start the process, beginning with qualitative assessments and moving towards

quantitative assessments over time.

3.6.3. Organizational Structure

40. DFS expects insurers to:

a. Manage climate risks through their existing enterprise risk management functions, including risk

assessment, compliance, internal control, internal audit, and actuarial functions

(collectively,

“control functions”).

b. Ensure that their organizational structure clearly defines and articulates roles, responsibilities,

and accountabilities, and that such organizational structure is reinforced by a risk culture that

supports accountability in risk-based decision-making in setting climate risk limits and

overseeing their implementation.

c. Implement reliable risk management processes across lines of business, operations, and control

functions, with clear steps to ensure the effectiveness and adequacy of climate risk integration.

d. Explicitly consider climate risks (like other material risks) in risk management processes,

including in enterprise risk reports and ORSA summary reports, and in the decision-making

processes of senior management.

e. Conduct objective, independent, and regular internal reviews of the functions and procedures

for managing climate risks, report the findings of the reviews to the board, and adapt insurers’

functions, procedures, roles, and resources for managing climate risks as necessary.

f. Develop the skill, expertise, and knowledge required for the assessment and management of

climate risks at the level of the board and employees, including senior management. This can be

done through new hires, internal training, and/or the use of external consultants. The board

and senior management should support resource allocation to this effort.

g. Consider implementing remuneration policies to align incentives with the strategy for managing

climate risks and with performance against climate metrics.

3.7. Business Models and Strategies

41. Along with many other risks that are expected to have a material impact on the business

environment in which they operate, insurers are already exposed to climate risks and can take

advantage of related opportunities. DFS expects insurers to be aware of potential changes in their

business environment and to address these risks strategically. Insurers should consider questions such

as: which business areas are exposed to physical or transition risks; the materiality of the risks; whether

affected areas should be continued, scaled back, or adapted; and whether climate risks require

IAIS and SIF, Application Paper on the Supervision of Climate-related Risks in the Insurance Sector, May 2021.

Handbook, SECTION 1 – GENERAL EXAMINATION GUIDANCE, XI. REVIEWING AND UTILIZING THE RESULTS OF AN

OWN RISK AND SOLVENCY ASSESSMENT, C. Review of Section I – Description of the Insurer’s Risk Management

Framework, Page 157.

Examples of climate metrics include progress on migrating investment portfolios to more climate-friendly

holdings and the development of new products that expand the availability and affordability of insurance or

enhance climate resilience and mitigation.

consideration across all business areas and processes based on their materiality, or only those business

areas and processes that are particularly exposed.

42. The time horizon for considering how climate risks affect business strategy should go beyond the

standard three to five years to a medium-term (five to ten years) and ultimately long-term (more than

ten years) view. Certain physical and transition risks are unlikely to be adequately captured in historical

data given their unprecedented and long-term nature. Therefore, it is crucial for insurers to consider

forward-looking risks in developing their business strategy.

43. Insurers should ensure that their business strategy is effectively communicated to, and

implemented by, all their relevant entities, individual business units, and product lines. Where

qualitative analyses determine that climate risks are potentially material, insurers are expected to use

scenario analysis and stress testing to help set business models and strategy. Further guidance on

scenario analysis and stress testing is covered in Section 3.9. Insurers are encouraged to set and

monitor clear key performance indicators for quantifiable risk factors.

44. DFS expects an insurer to document how its business environment analysis, scenario analysis, and

stress testing (if applicable) are considered in its strategy-setting process, risk appetite framework, and

risk management and compliance processes. These processes and frameworks should evolve over time

and be developed in a coordinated manner.

45. Insurers can also play an active role in supporting the low-carbon transition. DFS encourages

insurers to develop strategies to engage with their customers and the companies in which they invest on

climate and sustainability issues and to urge those customers and companies to develop transition plans

with science-based targets, adapt to climate-related risks, and move toward climate-resilient business

models.

3.8. Risk Management

3.8.1. Risk Management Framework

46. The Handbook describes the key principles of an effective risk management framework

that

should be applied when assessing climate risks. Insurers and other entities that are required to have

enterprise risk management (“ERM”) functions

are expected to:

a. address climate risks through their existing ERM functions and in line with their board-approved

risk appetites, including considering how climate risks affect the branded risk factors set forth in

the Handbook;

b. identify, assess, monitor, manage, and report on their exposure to these risks in a manner that

is appropriate for the nature, scale, and complexity of the risk and their businesses;

NGFS, Guide for supervisors: integrating climate-related and environmental risks into prudential supervision,

May 2020.

Handbook, Section 1 – GENERAL EXAMINATION GUIDANCE, XI. REVIEWING AND UTILIZING THE RESULTS OF AN

OWN RISK AND SOLVENCY ASSESSMENT, C. Review of Section I – Description of the Insurer’s Risk Management

Framework. Pages 156-162.

An insurer subject to § 82.2 of 11 NYCRR 82 (Insurance Regulation 203) and an entity, as defined in § 82.1(d) of

Regulation 203, are expected to have ERM functions.

Section 82.2(a) of 11 NYCRR 82 (Insurance Regulation 203).

c. document in their written ERM and board risk reports the material climate risks considered,

including their transmission channels,

and their impact on existing risk factors, and update

existing risk management policies to reflect climate risks if needed; and

d. manage and monitor these risks using time horizons that are appropriately tailored to the type

of insurer, the insurer’s activities, and the business decisions being made, and review their

analysis on a regular basis.

3.8.1.1. Risk Identification and Prioritization

47. Insurers should have a process in place that identifies and prioritizes all reasonably foreseeable and

relevant material risks, including climate risks. Information on these risks from internal and external

sources should be systematically gathered and maintained, climate-related risks and opportunities

should be documented and reported to senior management, and climate risk indicators and metrics

should be periodically reviewed by the board that oversees the insurer’s management of climate risks.

As discussed in more detail in Section 3.9, where qualitative analyses determine that climate risks are

potentially material, insurers should use scenario analysis and stress testing to inform the risk

identification and prioritization process and should understand the short- and long-term climate risks to

their business models. Insurers are also expected to go beyond using historical data to inform their risk

assessment and to consider future trends.

3.8.1.2. Risk Appetite, Tolerances, and Limits

48. Insurers should consider climate risks in setting their risk appetite, tolerances, and limits. Insurers

may apply appropriate quantitative tools and metrics and qualitative statements to help establish clear

boundaries and expectations for risks that are hard to measure.

For example, tools and metrics can be

used to monitor exposures to physical or transition risks caused by changes in the concentration of an

insurer’s investment portfolios (such as the percentage of real estate investments exposed to climate-

related flood risk or the amount of investments in fossil fuel companies that do not have a credible

transition plan), or to measure the potential impact of physical risks on supply chains. Examples of

quantitative tools and metrics include: a 200-year value-at-risk or probable maximum loss for a natural

catastrophe peril region, tolerances on investment and/or underwriting exposure to sectors or

companies exposed to high climate risks, limits on investment exposure to geographies with high

physical risks, and carbon footprints

of investment portfolios.

Insurers may use these metrics to

For example, transmission channels may include investments in real estate that are at high risk of climate-

related natural disasters and public policies that encourage the low-carbon transition and reduce the profits of

insurers’ customers.

Capital adequacy standards in relation to climate risks are not yet sufficiently developed to include in this

guidance.

Handbook, Section 1 – GENERAL EXAMINATION GUIDANCE, XI. REVIEWING AND UTILIZING THE RESULTS OF AN

OWN RISK AND SOLVENCY ASSESSMENT, C. Review of Section I – Description of the Insurer’s Risk Management

Framework, Page 158.

Handbook, Section 1 – GENERAL EXAMINATION GUIDANCE, XI. REVIEWING AND UTILIZING THE RESULTS OF AN

OWN RISK AND SOLVENCY ASSESSMENT, C. Review of Section I – Description of the Insurer’s Risk Management

Framework, Page 159.

A portfolio’s carbon footprint is the sum of a proportional amount of each portfolio company’s emissions

(proportional to the amount of stock held in the portfolio).

Given that insurers are not large carbon emitters, Scope 1 and Scope 2 emission targets are helpful to set but do

not address the most relevant climate risks that insurers face.

compare and report actual assessed risk versus risk tolerances/limits, and track progress against their

overall business strategy. DFS expects that these tools and metrics and qualitative statements will

evolve and mature over time.

49. In light of the rapidly evolving nature of climate risks, an insurer’s established risk appetite should be

periodically examined and updated. An insurer should also identify circumstances that would trigger

additional review of its strategy for addressing climate risks.

3.8.1.3. Risk Management and Controls

50. Managing risks, including climate risks, is an ongoing ERM activity, operating at many levels within

the organization, which requires a collaborative, enterprise-wide approach.

If the potential impacts of

climate risks are determined to be material, DFS expects insurers to demonstrate how they will mitigate

those risks and to develop a credible plan or policies for managing those risks, including reducing their

concentration. These plans and policies should reflect the distinctive nature of climate risks. If climate

risks are determined to be immaterial, insurers should document their assessment of immateriality,

along with its qualitative and, if applicable, quantitative basis.

51. To inform their risk management, insurers should seek to understand the potential current and

future impacts of physical and transition risks on their customers and counterparties, as well as the

companies in which they are invested or considering investing. If an insurer does not have the

necessary information to understand these impacts and that information is considered material to the

insurer’s own risks, the insurer is expected to engage with these entities and consider using data from

publicly available sources or working with external experts to collect the data.

52. DFS expects an insurer’s control functions, including risk management, information technology,

compliance, internal audit, and actuarial functions, to be integrated for purposes of managing climate

risks, to report climate risk issues in a coordinated manner, and to have the appropriate resources and

expertise to support their consideration of climate risks. Insurers can use the “Three Lines of Defense”

model described in the Handbook or a similar system of checks and balances that is effective and

integrated into the insurer’s material business processes.

The control functions should identify,

measure, monitor, and report on the insurer’s climate risks, assess the effectiveness of the insurer’s risk

management and internal controls, and determine whether the insurer’s operations, business results,

and climate risk exposures are consistent with the risk appetite statement approved by the board.

For

example, the compliance function should consider the insurer’s legal and reputational risks stemming

from climate change (e.g., failure to appropriately disclose information on climate-related exposure) and

ensure that internal policies and control procedures are compliant with the standards, directives,

charters, or codes of conduct related to environmental, social, and governance principles that the

insurer is committed to respect. The actuarial function should consider the availability, quality, and

completeness of climate-related data and, where historical data may not be sufficient to appropriately

Handbook, Section 1 – GENERAL EXAMINATION GUIDANCE, XI. REVIEWING AND UTILIZING THE RESULTS OF AN

OWN RISK AND SOLVENCY ASSESSMENT, C. Review of Section I – Description of the Insurer’s Risk Management

Framework, Page 160.

Handbook, Section 1 – GENERAL EXAMINATION GUIDANCE, XI. REVIEWING AND UTILIZING THE RESULTS OF AN

OWN RISK AND SOLVENCY ASSESSMENT, C. Review of Section I – Description of the Insurer’s Risk Management

Framework, Page 160.

IAIS and SIF, Application Paper on the Supervision of Climate-related Risks in the Insurance Sector, May 2021.

calibrate premiums or reserves to reflect climate risks, particularly rapidly evolving ones, consider

forward-looking data in addition to historical data.

53. Insurers can also consider developing plans to mitigate their climate risks. For example, an insurer

can mitigate risks by setting limits for certain sectors or geographies, increasing its proportion of

products with attractive risk return profiles under likely climate scenarios, or supporting the efforts of

their customers or the companies in which they invest to contribute to the low-carbon transition.

Property/casualty insurers can further mitigate risks by offering appropriate risk mitigation products to

their policyholders.

Reducing financed and underwritten greenhouse gas emissions in line with

science-based targets is also a way to mitigate the financial and consumer risks that climate change

poses to insurance markets.

3.8.1.4. Risk Reporting and Communication

54. DFS expects insurers to provide their boards with information regarding their exposure to material

climate risks, mitigating actions, and the time frame within which they propose to take these actions.

The information should enable the board to understand, discuss, and challenge the insurer’s

management of climate risks as part of the board’s oversight.

3.8.2. Climate Change’s Impact on Existing Risk Factors

55. The ERM function should address all reasonably foreseeable and relevant material risks.

To the

extent material and relevant, DFS expects insurers and other entities that are required to have ERM

functions to analyze how physical and transition risks could materialize for the branded risk factors set

forth in the Handbook, including credit risk, legal risk, liquidity risk, market risk, operational risk, pricing

and underwriting risk, reputational risk, and strategic risk.

Recognizing the rapidly evolving nature of

climate risks, below are examples of how climate risks might impact each of these factors.

3.8.2.1. Credit Risk

56. Insurers should consider the effect of physical and transition risks on their counterparties’

profitability and viability. For example, a reinsurer on which an insurer heavily relies for reinsurance

could be adversely affected by physical risks from climate change. While climate change’s impact on

insurers’ credit risk may currently be small relative to its impact on other risk factors, large-scale

changes driven by developing physical risks may create a tipping point that triggers large-scale credit

risks, including the failure of important counterparties during times of climate-related stress. Given the

global and systemic nature of climate change, climate risks can be highly correlated, increasing the

likelihood that climate-related stresses will materialize at the same time for an insurer and its reinsurers

and other counterparties.

More examples can be found in the Bank of England Climate Financial Risk Forum Guide on Risk Management.

Section 82.2(a)(9) of 11 NYCRR 82 (Insurance Regulation 203).

Reserving risk is likely minimally affected by climate risks and is therefore not discussed in this guidance.

For more information on mapping of climate risks to these branded risk factors, see Sections 5.1 and 6 of the

IAIS and SIF Application Paper on the Supervision of Climate-related Risks in the Insurance Sector, May 2021, and

Annexes 3 and 4 of EIOPA’s Opinion on the supervision of the use of climate change risk scenarios in ORSA, April

19, 2021.

57. As described in more detail in Section 3.8.2.4 (“Market Risk”), insurers should also consider the

effect of climate risks on their current and future investments, especially the level and trend of non-

investment grade, problem, restructured, delinquent and non-performing earning assets

in sectors and

geographies most exposed to physical and transition risks.

3.8.2.2. Legal Risk

58. Insurers should monitor evolving climate-related regulatory requirements and consider the risk of

litigation for failing to adapt to climate change or to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on the

environment. Climate-related lawsuits are increasingly being pursued by investors, activist

shareholders, cities, and states.

Insurers should also consider the potential of increased liability claims

from parties who have suffered losses from physical and transition risks and seek to recover these losses

from those they view as responsible. For example, legal action might be taken against institutions

financing companies whose activities have negative environmental impacts.

3.8.2.3. Liquidity Risk

59. Insurers should consider the risks that a lack of reliable and comparable information on climate-

sensitive exposures could create uncertainty and cause procyclical market dynamics, including fire sales

of carbon-intensive assets, as well as reduced liquidity in these markets.

3.8.2.4. Market Risk

60. Climate risks are unprecedented and often not contemplated by insurers in the context of their

investments. Insurers should consider the effect of physical and transition risks on their current and

future investments, including whether and how these risks could lead to potential shifts in supply and

demand for financial instruments (e.g., securities and derivatives), products, and services, with a

consequent impact on their values. Transition risk drivers may result in investment losses, whether

realized or mark-to-market, and lower asset values due to stranded assets. For example, investments in

companies with business models perceived as environmentally unsustainable, or located in areas prone

to physical risks, might suffer a decline in value due to changes in policy measures, market sentiment,

technology, severe weather events, or gradual adverse changes in climatic conditions.

Insurers should

consider whether climate risks could impact the correlation between investments and underwriting, or

among investments. Insurers should also consider the potential impact of increasing climate-related

litigation on the companies, regions, and countries in which they invest.

Handbook, Section 4 – EXAMINATION EXHIBITS, Exhibit L – Branded Risk Classifications, Page 481.

Setzer, J., et al.; Global trends in climate change litigation: 2019 snapshot; July 2019, London: Grantham

Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy,

London School of Economics and Political Science.

NGFS, Guide for supervisors: integrating climate-related and environmental risks into prudential supervision,

May 2020.

NGFS, Guide for supervisors: integrating climate-related and environmental risks into prudential supervision,

May 2020.

ECB, Guide on climate-related and environmental risks: Supervisory expectations relating to risk management

and disclosure, November 2020.

61. DFS encourages insurers to monitor on an ongoing basis the effects of climate-related factors on

their current and future investments, and to develop stress-testing scenarios that incorporate climate

risks.

62. Given that a large portion of insurers’ investments are in fixed income products, insurers are

encouraged to consider the time frame in which climate risks might materialize relative to the maturity

of their investments, including the possibility of sudden changes in asset values and credit ratings. As

risk-based capital is influenced by the credit ratings of investments, insurers should follow credit rating

agencies’ work on incorporating climate and sustainability risks into their methodologies and related

rating actions.

3.8.2.5. Operational Risk

63. Insurers should consider how climate-related events could have an adverse impact on their assets

(including property, equipment, information technology systems, and human resources) and business

continuity (including outsourced activities), leading to increased operational costs and reputational or

liability risks.

3.8.2.6. Pricing and Underwriting Risk

64. Insurers should consider the impact of climate change on their underwriting activities and pricing

models. The increased frequency and concentration of high-impact natural catastrophes due to climate

change will result in more weather-related insurance claims. However, pricing models may not properly

reflect climate risks, which are not fully captured by historical data, and insurance underwriters and

producers may not be sufficiently aware of climate issues to understand how those issues affect the

pricing of and risks covered under the insurers’ products. Insurers should also consider demand

elasticity, including whether increasing climate-driven costs can be managed through premium increases

and whether premiums might become so high that certain climate risks become uninsurable. Insurers

should assess the impact of climate change on casualty lines of business, such as directors’ and officers’

liability insurance and professional liability insurance in certain sectors.

3.8.2.7. Reputational Risk

65. Insurers should consider the negative publicity that may be triggered by insurers’ underwriting or

investing in sectors perceived as contributing to climate change. This is exemplified by social

movements calling for divestment from fossil fuels and the cessation of underwriting of coal-fired power

infrastructure.

Furthermore, to the extent that individual insurers respond to climate risks by

increasing rates or exiting markets, reductions in the affordability or availability of insurance coverage

may also adversely impact insurers’ reputations with some stakeholders.

3.8.2.8. Strategic Risk

66. Insurers should consider the challenges posed by physical or transition-related climate events,

trends, and scenarios, which could adversely affect insurers’ competitive position and financial

condition. For example, an insurer’s insufficient or ineffective strategy to mitigate physical risks or its

ECB, Guide on climate-related and environmental risks: Supervisory expectations relating to risk management

and disclosure, November 2020.

IAIS and SIF, Application Paper on the Supervision of Climate-related Risks in the Insurance Sector, May 2021.

poor response to transition risks that affect the insurance industry landscape could put an insurer at a

competitive disadvantage.

67. Insurers should also consider the possibility that, if risk-based pricing rises beyond demand elasticity

and customer willingness to pay, their capacity to write insurance may be constrained by increasing

physical risks to insured property and assets. In addition, if transition risks significantly change the

products and services desired by consumers, an inability to appropriately design insurance products to

meet changing needs could significantly affect an insurer’s market share and pose a threat to its overall

business viability.

68. As climate change impacts both the liability and asset sides of insurers’ balance sheets, DFS expects

insurers to consider the correlation between the two in analyzing climate risks, and if necessary,

mitigate risk due to the correlation. For example, if a property/casualty insurer is heavily exposed to

hurricane risks along the coast in its underwriting, it should consider minimizing its exposure to real

estate-related investments in similar geographies on the investment side. Insurers should also consider

the relationships, if any, between risk categories, while keeping in mind that historical data may not

accurately represent future relationships.

3.8.3. ORSA

69. Certain insurers are required to regularly conduct an ORSA in accordance with the process set forth

in the ORSA Manual.

Consistent with the ORSA Manual, DFS expects the ORSA to describe how the

insurer identifies, categorizes, manages, and monitors climate risks, as well as the insurer’s climate-

related assessment tools and methods of incorporating new climate risk information to monitor and

respond to changes in the insurer’s risk profile due to economic changes, operational changes, or

changes in business strategy.

Insurers should continuously refine their reporting to keep pace with the

evolving climate risk landscape.

70. If climate risks are not considered material, for example, because the insurer has minimal exposure

to these risks, DFS expects the justification, including key assumptions made by the insurer, to be

documented in its ORSA. If an insurer determines that climate risks are material, DFS expects the

insurer’s assessment process, including measurement approaches used, key assumptions made, and

outcomes of any plausible adverse scenarios that were run, to be documented in its ORSA.

When

evaluating a risk, the insurer should analyze the results under both normal and stressed environments.

Because each insurer’s risk profile is different, an insurer should use assessment techniques applicable

to its risk profile.

While the full effects of climate change will play out over decades, it is already

affecting the financial system and insurers’ assets and liabilities today. Insurers should therefore

address material climate risks in their ORSAs with a focus on near-term solvency and how the insurers’

current strategies and risk appetites are affected by long-term climate concerns.

IAIS and SIF, Issues Paper on Climate Change Risks to the Insurance Sector, July 2018.

NAIC ORSA Manual, III. Section 2 – Insurer Assessment of Risk Exposures, Page 10 (Page 18 of the full document).

Section 82.3(a) of 11 NYCRR 82 (Insurance Regulation 203).

NAIC ORSA Manual, II. Section 1 – Description of The Insurer’s Enterprise Risk Management Framework, Page 8

(Page 16 of the full document).

Section 82.2(a)(4) of 11 NYCRR 82 (Insurance Regulation 203).

NAIC ORSA Manual, III. Section 2 – Insurer Assessment of Risk Exposures, Page 9 (Page 17 of the full document).

71. The ORSA should be proportional to the nature, scale, and complexity of an insurer’s business and

risk, and should enable it to properly identify and assess the risks it faces in the short and long term.

Qualitative assessment may suffice for insurers not significantly exposed to climate risks, but

quantitative assessment should be the long-term goal for insurers facing material climate risks.

Insurers can use a range of quantitative metrics, from simple ones, such as investment exposure to

carbon-intensive sectors, to more complex ones, such as potential loss in a given climate scenario.

Insurers’ use of quantitative metrics should evolve over time.

72. While enterprise risk reports and ORSA summary reports may be completed at the group level,

insurers’ climate-related policies and procedures should be implemented at the entity level to address

each insurer’s material climate risks.

3.9. Scenario Analysis

73. Insurers’ ERM functions must provide for the identification and measurement of risk under a

sufficiently wide range of outcomes, using techniques that are appropriate to the nature, scale, and

complexity of the insurer’s risks, and use prospective solvency assessments, including scenario analysis

and stress testing.

Given the forward-looking nature of climate risks and the inherent uncertainty of

both the physical impact of climate change and resulting societal responses, past experience will not

necessarily be a good indicator of future conditions. If climate risks are determined to be material, DFS

expects climate change scenario analysis to be embedded in insurers’ corporate governance structures,

risk management practices, and ORSAs. Insurers should also conduct scenario analysis to inform their

strategic planning and determine the impact of climate risks on their overall risk profile and business

strategy. Scenario analysis should be used to explore the resilience and vulnerabilities of an insurer’s

business model to a range of outcomes.

Insurers are encouraged to consider the opportunities

presented by climate change in the analysis as well. DFS expects an insurer’s approach to scenario

analysis to evolve and mature over time.

74. Insurers should consider the impact of climate risks on their assets and liabilities as part of their

scenario analyses, including the following factors to the extent that they are material:

a. the impact of physical and transition risks,

b. the evolution of climate risks under various scenarios, including multiple carbon emissions and

temperature pathways, different transition paths to a low-carbon economy, as well as a path

where no meaningful transition occurs,

c. the fact that climate risks may not be fully reflected in historical data, and

d. how climate risks may materialize in the short, medium, and long term depending on the

scenarios considered.

75. An insurer’s scenario analysis should include:

For more information on considering climate risks in ORSA, see Section 5.2 of the IAIS and SIF Application Paper

on the Supervision of Climate-related Risks in the Insurance Sector, May 2021.

Section 82.2(a)(3) and (5) of 11 NYCRR 82 (Insurance Regulation 203).

PRA, Supervisory Statement, SS3/19, Enhancing banks’ and insurers’ approaches to managing the financial risks

from climate change, April 2019.

a. A short- to medium-term assessment of the insurer’s exposure to climate risks within its existing

business planning horizon, including the quantification of those risks. For physical risks, there is

strong evidence that climate change is affecting the frequency, severity, and distribution of

extreme weather events and natural disasters.

For transition risks, strong government policy

or a technology breakthrough in the short-term could cause financial markets to adjust the

pricing of fossil fuel-dependent industries.

b. A long-term assessment of the insurer’s exposure, based on its current business model and for

business decisions that require a long-term horizon in accordance with Section 3.3, to a range of

different climate scenarios to support its long-term strategic planning. DFS expects the time

horizon of this assessment to be in the order of decades. The long-term assessment can have a

lower level of precision and be conducted more infrequently than short-term risk assessments.

For example, the assessment could be updated not more than once a year in the absence of

new material risk exposures, or partially updated when new material exposures are identified,

or new methodologies or data become available.

76. Like other types of scenario analysis, this is not intended to be a precise forecast, but rather a

qualitative or quantitative exercise used to inform strategic planning and mitigation efforts to address

the long-term impacts of climate change.

Given the early stage of climate scenario analyses, an

insurer’s analysis should be focused on understanding potentially material climate risks, exploratory in

nature, and balanced between quantitative and qualitative data and observations. The goal of this

exercise is to produce reasonably reliable outputs that are useful to insurers’ decision-making and avoid

creating a false sense of security and precision in the results.

77. DFS expects insurers to use these scenarios to understand the impact of climate risks on their

probable maximum loss, solvency, liquidity, and ability to pay claims. If an insurer relies on reactive

actions to mitigate the financial risks in a particular scenario, it should consider whether these actions

are realistic. For example, an insurer may not be able to rely on the existence of a liquid market to sell

assets exposed to climate risks or the sufficiency or feasibility of rate increases to compensate for

increased costs. Insurers should also consider whether precautionary actions should be taken in

advance, or whether such actions would be relevant only if a specific scenario emerges.

Climate risks

may not always be reflected in asset prices,

which could experience abrupt adjustments because of

new policies, shifts in market sentiment, or other factors.

78. Insurers should utilize scenarios that are relevant to their business lines and anticipated exposures.

In choosing appropriate scenarios, insurers should consider publicly-available information on climate

risks – including guidance, such as TCFD’s Technical Supplement,

and scenarios, such as those

EIOPA, Opinion on the supervision of the use of climate change risk scenarios in ORSA, April 19, 2021.

PRA, Supervisory Statement, SS3/19, Enhancing banks’ and insurers’ approaches to managing the financial risks

from climate change, April 2019.

PRA, Supervisory Statement, SS3/19, Enhancing banks’ and insurers’ approaches to managing the financial risks

from climate change, April 2019.

The Economist, Why are investors not pricing in climate change risk?, June 2, 2020.

The Use of Scenario Analysis in Disclosure of Climate-Related Risks and Opportunities, TCFD, June 2017.

developed by NGFS

– and customize the selected scenarios based on their geographies and business

lines. Through the exercise of developing and conducting scenario analysis and stress testing, insurers

are also encouraged to identify data, methodology, and talent gaps, and to raise their organization’s

awareness and sophistication with respect to managing climate risks.

79. Insurers that are not ready to conduct a comprehensive and quantitative scenario analysis should

start with a qualitative assessment and consider how various scenarios might impact their businesses

and balance sheets. While larger insurers have the benefit of diversified lines of business and

geographic exposure, smaller insurers could have concentrated risk within the lines of business most

important to them. As a result, scenario analysis is a valuable exercise for all insurers to understand

their climate risks.

3.10. Public Disclosure

80. Public disclosure ensures that market participants have adequate insight into financial institutions’

risk exposures, risk assessment processes, and capital adequacy.

Publicly-traded insurers or

companies with insurance businesses are subject to annual and other general disclosure requirements

by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, New York, along with fourteen other

states and the District of Columbia, requires insurers with annual country-wide premiums above $100

million to respond to the NAIC Climate Risk Disclosure Survey.

DFS views public disclosure through the

survey as acceptable if the responses satisfy the expectations in this guidance. For insurers not currently

covered by the survey, the disclosure can be made on their websites or by augmenting public general-

purpose financial reports with relevant climate risk information. Disclosure at the group level is

acceptable if it specifically addresses practices at the insurer level.

81. In addition to existing disclosure requirements, insurers should enhance the transparency of their

approach to managing climate risks, consistent with the expectations set out in this guidance.

Specifically, all insurers should publicly disclose how climate risks are integrated into their corporate

governance, risk management, and business strategies, including the processes used to assess whether

these risks are considered material. Information disclosed should go beyond operational issues and

address how physical and transition risks (including liability risks) might affect insurers’ underwriting,

investment, and strategies. Insurers are encouraged to highlight opportunities that arise from the

transition to a low-carbon economy as well.

82. As insurers would benefit from greater climate-related disclosure in the wider economy, they should

encourage such disclosure by engaging with their customers and the companies in which they invest.

83. DFS expects insurers to develop an approach to public disclosure that reflects the distinctive nature

of climate risks and the insurers’ understanding of these risks. While the information disclosed is likely

NGFS has published a set of climate scenarios alongside its Guide to climate scenario analysis for central banks

and supervisors.

For more information on climate-related scenario analysis in ORSAs and the current European industry practice,

see Opinion on the supervision of the use of climate change risk scenarios in ORSA.

NGFS, Guide for supervisors: integrating climate-related and environmental risks into prudential supervision,

May 2020.

NAIC Climate Risk Disclosure Survey responses can be accessed at the California Department of Insurance

website.

to be qualitative initially, if climate risks are determined to be material, the disclosure should become

more quantitative, including key metrics and targets for quantifiable risks, over the next two to three

years. Insurers should also disclose any changes to targets and the rationale for those changes.

84. Over the next two to three years, insurers should start specifying key considerations that inform

their assessment of the materiality of climate risks for their businesses. They should pay attention not

only to internal factors, such as their business models, long-term strategies, and overall risk profiles, but

also external factors, such as the economic and political environment, the different information needs of

different users of the disclosure, and recent developments in risks and disclosure requirements. If an

insurer determines that climate risks are material, the insurer is expected to publicly disclose related

figures, metrics, and targets as well as the methodologies, definitions, and criteria used to make that

determination.

85. DFS expects insurers to engage with the TCFD framework and other similar initiatives, including the

tools and case studies that they provide, in developing their approach to climate-related financial

disclosures. The NAIC Climate Risk Disclosure Survey allowed a TCFD report to be submitted in lieu of

responding to the survey in its 2020 cycle. The CDP, Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, Climate

Disclosure Standards Board, and others have also developed implementation guides and questionnaires

on the TCFD framework.

ECB, Guide on climate-related and environmental risks: Supervisory expectations relating to risk management

and disclosure, November 2020.