Attorneys General Challenged Credit Rating ESG Rules
State officials are calling for federal scrutiny of how credit agencies incorporate climate-risk models into financial ratings.
Updated on Oct. 4, 2026 in Economic Policy
Live Poll
Should financial credit ratings be based exclusively on financial data rather than environmental and social factors?
A coalition of state attorneys general has sent a formal letter to the SEC Office of Credit Ratings demanding an investigation into the methods used by three major credit rating agencies. The challenge centers on the use of ESG criteria and specific climate-risk scenarios that the coalition argues undermine the integrity of debt ratings.
Why it matters
The coalition claims that reliance on climate-risk metrics, such as specific modeling scenarios and potentially flawed research, may distort financial ratings and negatively impact fossil-fuel industries. This dispute highlights a broader conflict over how environmental factors influence creditworthiness and capital access.
The coalition is scrutinizing climate-risk projections that estimate $41.4 trillion in economic losses by 2050. This figure represents roughly 14.5% of total projected global GDP.
The players
Moody's
A global credit rating agency that provides credit risk assessments used by investors to determine the financial health of corporations and governments.
SEC Office of Credit Ratings
The federal body responsible for supervising credit rating agencies to ensure they follow regulatory standards and provide accurate financial data.
Fitch Ratings
A major firm that provides credit ratings and research to help financial markets assess the risks of debt instruments.
S&P Global Ratings
An entity that issues credit ratings for companies and sovereign debt, influencing the interest rates these entities pay to borrow capital.
Liz Murrill
The Attorney General of Louisiana who is part of the coalition requesting regulatory oversight.
The details
The state attorneys general argue that the three agencies are inappropriately integrating climate-related commitments into their assessments, potentially skewing results. Specifically, the group contests the use of the RCP 8.5 climate scenario and claims that agencies have relied on a retracted 2024 Nature paper. The coalition is urging the SEC to force these agencies to either eliminate these ESG-related commitments or publicly disclose their impact on credit assessments.
Timeline
2024: Initial publication of a Nature paper that was later retracted.
August 2026: Moody's published a report regarding heat and water stress.
October 4, 2026: News report published regarding the attorneys general letter.
2050: Target year for the $41.4 trillion economic loss estimate.
Money Landscape
This dispute marks a departure from standard credit analysis by challenging the integration of non-financial metrics into sovereign and corporate ratings. It places the current regulatory cycle at the center of the growing debate over the role of climate modeling in financial markets.
While this federal challenge does not change your immediate borrowing costs, it signals a shift in how climate risks are reported to financial markets. Households invested in funds that track corporate debt may want to discuss with a professional how changing rating methodologies could affect portfolio risk.
The takeaway
The integrity of credit ratings remains a crucial factor for the cost of capital across the broader economy. Readers should monitor future regulatory updates for any shifts in how debt risks are assessed, particularly as major agencies refine their modeling criteria.
Further reading
Learn more about federal oversight of financial institutions on our Economic Policy page.
Source note: This article includes information reported by The Western Journal.
Live Poll
Should financial credit ratings be based exclusively on financial data rather than environmental and social factors?
