The State of Utah Department of Natural Resources provided public comment on Oct. 25 regarding the Proposed Rule by the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) to adopt listing standards for Natural Asset Companies (NACs). The State requests a 90-day extension to the public comment period to allow for a more in-depth review of the Proposed Rule.
The comment letter, addressed to Vanessa Countryman, the secretary of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Secretary, is in regard to the Proposed Rule by the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) to adopt listing standards for Natural Asset Companies (NACs). The State of Utah, through its Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office (PLPCO), has reviewed the Proposed Rule and expressed several concerns and recommendations.
The letter, signed by the director of the Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office, Redge B. Johnson, emphasizes the importance of responsible and non-burdensome regulation to ensure the success of the state's natural resource industries, particularly those on federal lands managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service (USFS). Overall, the letter raises substantive concerns about the potential impacts of the Proposed Rule on Utah's industries and public lands, calling for careful consideration and potential revisions by the SEC.
The letter critiques the creation of a new type of public company, Natural Asset Companies (NACs), and expresses concerns about the involvement of a private company, Intrinsic Exchange Group Inc. (IEG), in conceptualizing NACs and its exclusive licensing agreements with the NYSE.
The State raises concerns about the acquisition of ecological performance rights (EPRs) by NACs through agreements with government entities or private landowners, particularly in light of the Bureau of Land Management's proposed Conservation Rule.
The letter addresses concerns about the definition of "unsustainable activities" and how it may affect industries such as mining, logging and agriculture, especially livestock grazing.
The State opposes the assertion that concepts like ESG are widely desired by the public and expresses disagreement with the implementation of ESG scores.
The State also questions the SEC's justification that the Proposed Rule is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, stating that the SEC is venturing into areas outside its expertise and mission. It encourages the SEC to reconsider its proposed course of action in light of the State's comments.
