On Monday, Biden’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) got into the act, issuing a new proposed regulation mandating climate-related disclosures, a vast expansion of its regulatory authority that some believe exceed its’ purview. “Today’s action hijacks the democratic process and disrespects the limited scope of authority that Congress gave to the SEC,” Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) was quoted as saying. “This is a thinly veiled effort to have unelected financial regulators set climate and energy policy for America.”

One of the big concerns from the oil and gas industry stems from the likely outcome that the SEC rule will afford some financial institutions and ESG investor groups with just another rationale to deny capital lending to companies. One CEO I spoke with pointed out that the measurement of these emissions is far from an exact science, open to interpretation and disagreement even among true experts. But Gary Gensler, Chairman of the SEC, disagrees, saying “Companies and investors alike would benefit from the clear rules of the road.”

While the administration boasts that the new rule will result in a set process for everyone to use, the CEO is concerned that the method for measurement will later be proven to have been wrong. But in the meantime, the liability associated with SEC filings would almost certainly become another tool for activists to target companies for “improperly” disclosing emissions and bring shareholder lawsuits.

API, one of the oil industry’s national trade associations, alluded to such concerns in a formal statement issued on Monday: “The U.S. oil and natural gas industry has a long history of sustainability reporting, and achieving greater comparability and transparency across those efforts is a leading priority. We are concerned that the Commission’s sweeping proposal could require non-material disclosures and create confusion for investors and capital markets.”

Jason Modglin, President of the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, was more blunt in his assessment, saying “The SEC appears to have been coopted by the same proponents for Sarah Bloom Raskin into utilizing the financial system to penalize and ostracize oil and gas producers to the detriment of US taxpayers and their energy security.”

As I’ve written several times recently, the topic of energy security would logically seem to be of heightened importance at this difficult juncture of world history. But there can be little doubt that America’s energy security has been diminished during this presidential administration, and it could be put at further risk by politically-motivated financial regulators with little or no expertise in energy or environmental regulation.

This article originally appeared at Forbes.com and is reposted here with the permission of the author.