It was founded with the mission to “protect investors [and] maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets.” The SEC, however, has gone beyond its job description over the last year as it proposed a rule to push an environmental agenda that seeks to punish companies for certain climate-related activities.
First, the actions by the SEC, in this case, are wholly removed from its mission of “protecting investors.” By rushing this rule through the rulemaking process, despite a number of publicly debated issues with the wisdom and legality of such a measure, the commission’s proposal will put investors in a bind. Businesses will be put in a costly situation, scrambling to come up with the information demanded by the SEC, leaving investors to make quick, tough decisions about their finances.
This regulation would be immensely costly for businesses of varying sizes nationwide. Research indicates businesses will spend cumulatively up to $10.2 billion annually to comply with this regulation if the final version released in April is similar to public proposals. This would require analyzing, evaluating and reporting direct and indirect climate impacts.
Recently, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell noted that climate policy is “more properly overseen by elected officials.” He said he would decline to make his agency a “climate policymaker,” especially where there is no congressionally delegated authority. Where Congress makes laws of the land, agencies such as the SEC should be focused on enforcing those laws rather than trying to create and implement their own — especially when it falls so far outside of the scope of their responsibilities.