Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 318.
This bill (Stress Testing Accountability and Transparency Act) directs the Federal Reserve Board to issue rules that set out the models, assumptions, formulas, and other methodologies used for stress tests conducted under section 165(i) of the Dodd‑Frank Act, including how stress capital buffer requirements are derived when multiple supervisory stress test results exist. It requires that material changes to those methodologies be made only through notice-and-comment rulemaking, forbids double-counting of capital requirements for the same risks, and clarifies certain definitions.
Prohibition on climate‑related stress testing: progressives view this as a major flaw that weakens systemic risk oversight; conservatives view it as a necessary guard against agency overreach; centrists are wary of the ban but see rationale for limits.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill imposes clear administrative obligations on the Board (rule issuance, public scenario disclosure, restrictions on certain uses of authority) and establishes recurring GAO oversight, but it leaves several operationally important details unspecified (definitions, aggregation methods, resource implications, confidentiality protections, and enforcement mechanisms).
This bill (Stress Testing Accountability and Transparency Act) directs the Federal Reserve Board to issue rules that set out the models, assumptions, formulas, and other methodologies used for stress tests conducted under section 165(i) of the Dodd‑Frank Act, including how stress capital buffer requirements are derived when multiple supervisory stress test results exist.
It requires that material changes to those methodologies be made only through notice-and-comment rulemaking, forbids double-counting of capital requirements for the same risks, and clarifies certain definitions.
Beginning in the first calendar year after enactment the Board must publicly disclose each stress‑test scenario at least 60 days before conducting the test.
On content alone, the bill is modest in scope and low-cost, which helps its prospects, but it explicitly constrains a major regulator and bans a specific type of climate-related supervisory action—an element that raises political controversy and legal/administrative pushback. Those factors lower the probability that it would navigate both chambers and the executive branch without significant changes or objections.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill imposes clear administrative obligations on the Board (rule issuance, public scenario disclosure, restrictions on certain uses of authority) and establishes recurring GAO oversight, but it leaves several operationally important details unspecified (definitions, aggregation methods, resource implications, confidentiality protections, and enforcement mechanisms).
Prohibition on climate‑related stress testing: progressives view this as a major flaw that weakens systemic risk oversight; conservatives view it as a necessary guard against agency overreach; centrists are wary of the ban but see rationale for limits.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Prohibition on climate‑related stress testing: progressives view this as a major flaw that weakens systemic risk oversight; conservatives view it as a necessary guard against agency overreach; centrists are wary of the…
This persona would welcome the transparency and formal rulemaking around stress‑test methodologies and the GAO oversight requirement, because those elements can improve accountability.
However, they would be strongly concerned about the explicit prohibition on climate‑related stress tests, seeing that as a significant weakening of the Board’s ability to assess and mitigate climate‑related systemic risk.
They would view the restriction as likely to leave a gap in regulators’ knowledge about long‑term risks to institutions and the financial system.
This persona would generally view the bill as a mix of useful transparency and possible constraints on supervisory flexibility.
Requiring the Fed to articulate and publicize stress‑test methodologies and to use notice‑and‑comment for material changes increases predictability and process integrity, which centrists favor.
The explicit prohibition on climate‑related stress tests may be seen as an overbroad limit that could hamper risk assessment if climate risk is material, so centrists would weigh that downside against the benefits of constraining perceived regulatory overreach.
This persona would generally approve of the bill’s effort to constrain and clarify Federal Reserve stress‑testing authority.
Requiring formal rules, public disclosure, and notice‑and‑comment for material changes increases predictability and curbs perceived regulatory discretion.
The explicit ban on climate‑related stress tests would be positively viewed as preventing mission creep and politicized regulation.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, the bill is modest in scope and low-cost, which helps its prospects, but it explicitly constrains a major regulator and bans a specific type of climate-related supervisory action—an element that raises political controversy and legal/administrative pushback. Those factors lower the probability that it would navigate both chambers and the executive branch without significant changes or objections.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Prohibition on climate‑related stress testing: progressives view this as a major flaw that weakens systemic risk oversight; conservatives v…
On content alone, the bill is modest in scope and low-cost, which helps its prospects, but it explicitly constrains a major regulator and b…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill imposes clear administrative obligations on the Board (rule issuance, public scenario disclosure, restrictions on certain uses of authority) and establishes recurring…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.