Lawmakers are moving forward a bill dealing with how the state invests. Some say it’ll financially wreck the state and people’s pensions. But the bill’s sponsor said that’s not the intent and revisions to the bill clarify that.
Billions of dollars. That’s how much Wyoming’s treasurer and chief investor estimated the state – and state employees and schools – could lose over the next few years if the bill passes.
“We had great testimony on Friday and further testimony through the weekend, which was good,” said bill sponsor Rep. Christopher Knapp (R-Gillette) to fellow Minerals Committee lawmakers on Jan. 20.
HB80, “Stop ESG-State funds fiduciary duty act,” deals with environmental, social and governance-based investing (ESG), and is part of a growing “culture war” between conservatives and liberals. The bill is backed by the far-right Wyoming Freedom Caucus, which has called it an effort to “ban woke investment strategies for the state” and has called ESG investing “communist.”
The bill’s supporters don’t want to see the state’s investment decisions swayed by anything other than what’s in the best financial interest of the state. For example, factoring in whether a company supports renewable energy or access to abortion.
But stakeholders spoke for over two hours on Jan. 17 and almost unanimously agreed that the bill would prevent Wyoming from investing in any company that has taken any stances that fall into the ESG category – which is most companies. Wyoming’s chief investor pointed out that even Peabody Coal has a statement supporting reducing emissions.
Public testimony closed and lawmakers picked up their discussion the morning of Jan. 20. Rep. Knapp said the stakeholders misunderstood the intent of the bill. Its purpose is to codify rules already in place, namely, an emergency rule that was passed in 2023 that requires companies doing business with the state to disclose ESG principles. The idea behind the rule was to make sure ESG issues don’t take precedence in state investment decisions.
“Which we’re living by today and obviously hasn’t affected investments,” said Knapp.
Knapp’s extensive amendment to clarify precedence passed. It cut almost two full pages from the bill, specifically, the parts that clarify what could fall into the ESG category. That includes “providing or increasing access to abortion, sex or gender changes, transgender surgery or any treatment” and “eliminating, reducing, offsetting or disclosing greenhouse gas emissions.”
“The reason I did that is because whether an issue that a fund is attempting to accomplish socially or environmentally, whether it’s on the right or whether it’s on the left, we’d like it to be the same as justice,” Knapp said. “We’d like it to be blind. So it really doesn’t help anything to be listing ideological reasons on either side.”
Some committee members thought the amendment completely changed the bill and wanted to re-open public testimony.
“This is a different bill,” said Rep. Martha Lawley (R-Worland). “[There’s] a lot of talk out there about whether the legislators come in and quickly make changes, and the public’s not aware. And I don’t want to be accused of that.”
Committee Chair Scott Heiner (R-Greenriver) said they couldn’t reopen public testimony. The committee didn’t have the rules in place to do so.
The House of Representatives passed the first reading of the bill on Jan. 21. It’s scheduled to be heard for a second time on Jan. 22.
