Primary impacts fall on large bank holding companies and large nonbank financial firms that meet the Act's asset-size thresholds: they will face recurring analytic exams that evaluate climate-driven losses and whether consolidated capital is adequate under adverse climate scenarios. Firms will likely need to expand climate risk modeling, collect new data across global supply chains, rework capital planning, and document adaptation plans. Regulators (the Fed, OCC, FDIC and other primary financial regulators) will need to build new analytic capacity, coordinate with designated climate science leads, and run regular scenario development, testing, and surveys. Over time, the requirement could shift industry practices: firms that identify large vulnerabilities may change lending, underwriting, insurance, and investment decisions; some may hold more capital or change portfolio composition. Broader economic effects may include increased focus on climate resiliency in sectors exposed to physical risks (energy, agriculture, infrastructure) and amplified market signals for firms to reduce transition risk. The surveys and public work products are designed to increase transparency and consistency of climate-risk assessment, but they may also raise compliance costs and operational burdens for covered firms. Consumers and taxpayers could see indirect benefits from improved financial-system resilience; potential costs could be passed on through financial products if firms raise capital buffers or adjust pricing. The law does not itself appropriate funds or change tax law, but it requires ongoing work by federal agencies that could create administrative costs (absorbed within agencies' budgets unless additional appropriations are provided).