In early August, the CEO of Canary Oilfields Dan Eberhart testified before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and addressed the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) proposed climate disclosure rule. Eberhart’s main concern is that the effect of this rule will be “to drive capital away from badly needed conventional energy and infrastructure projects, making energy more expensive and denying America of a natural competitive advantage against other countries.” There is already an extensive amount of reporting required and adding reports on indirect greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) will not help potential investors like the SEC claims.
This sentiment is shared by many, including Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), the ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee. In his opening statement for the Committee hearing, Sen. Toomey stated this rule reaches far outside of the SEC’s limits. The data the SEC wants to require “has nothing to do with the company’s financial performance and is likely irrelevant to investors.” In addition, Sen. Toomey pointed to the enormous costs the rule would impose on private American companies. If adopted, the rule could add an additional cost per year of $6.4 billion for a company. Costs like this will cause businesses to shut down, jobs will be lost, and less energy will be produced, causing higher prices for consumers at a time when the American people can least afford it. To top it all off, it will not aid in slowing climate change. The mounting evidence as highlighted at the hearing by Canary Oilfields CEO Dan Eberhart and Sen. Pat Toomey add to the numerous arguments for why the SEC’s proposed rule is misguided and should be withdrawn.