Statement by Acting Chair Uyeda on Climate-Related Disclosure Rules

Today, I am taking action on The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors rule that was adopted by the Commission on March 6, 2024 (the “Rule”). [1] The Rule is currently being challenged in litigation consolidated in the Eighth Circuit [2] and the Commission previously stayed effectiveness of the Rule pending completion of that litigation. [3] The Rule is deeply flawed and could inflict significant harm on the capital markets and our economy.

Both Commissioner Peirce and I voted against the Rule’s adoption. [4] Commissioner Peirce said that then-existing disclosure rules were sufficient and that the “[R]ule’s anticipated benefits do not outweigh the costs.” [5] She argued that “only a mandate from Congress should put us in the business of facilitating the disclosure of information not clearly related to financial returns.” [6] I stated that the Commission was “without statutory authority or expertise” to address climate change issues and that “this [R]ule is climate regulation promulgated under the Commission’s seal.” [7]

During the comment period, many submissions likewise urged that the Rule not be adopted. Among the reasons were that the Rule would require a large volume of financially immaterial information, financially material climate-related risks were already subject to disclosure under existing rules, and the proposed rules overstepped the SEC’s regulatory authority. [8]

The Commission’s briefs previously submitted in the cases consolidated in the Eighth Circuit do not reflect my views. The briefs defend the Commission’s adoption of the Rule, but I continue to question the statutory authority of the Commission to adopt the Rule, the need for the Rule, and the evaluation of costs and benefits. I also question whether the agency followed the proper procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act to adopt the Rule.

The lack of statutory authority is a weighty factor. Commissioners have a constitutional obligation to determine the bounds of the agency’s statutory authority, and my views on the Commission’s authority here were the result of lengthy study and research informed by many comments on all sides of the issue.

These views, the recent change in the composition of the Commission, and the recent Presidential Memorandum regarding a Regulatory Freeze, [9] bear on the conduct of this litigation. I believe that the Court and the parties should be notified of these changes.

Therefore, I have directed the Commission staff to notify the Court of the changed circumstances and request that the Court not schedule the case for argument to provide time for the Commission to deliberate and determine the appropriate next steps in these cases. The Commission will promptly notify the Court of its determination about its positions in the litigation.

---