Wyoming’s anti-ESG bill faces a “wall of opposition”
Wyoming State Treasurer Curt Meier was joined by other state leaders in raising alarm bells over House Bill 80 – legislation that would prohibit investment firms accused of considering environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors from investing state funds.
Members of Wyoming’s House Minerals Business and Economic Development Committee encountered a “wall of opposition” due to the bill’s estimated cost of nearly $1.2 billion in lost revenue and the potential of undermining oil and gas companies. Some lawmakers noted they received a “flood” of messages from retired state employees concerned the bill would impact their pension checks.
During the hearing, Meier told committee members that many energy companies, including coal focused entities, have ESG statements. In addition, he noted his office has already “taken the bull by the horns” regarding investment policies. He also alluded to other Wyoming laws that have “already interfered at times with investing companies” that he believes the state should support with its investment portfolio. Meier said HB 80 is “straying too far.”
Meier even said if the bill became law, more than half his staff would walk out the door because of a material change in their contracts.
In response, members of the legislature recognized the concerns raised by the opposition and made a number of tweaks to the bill, including removing the section of the bill that instructed the Wyoming Attorney General to sue any firm investing state money in a fund with ESG goals for financial damages.
David Swindell, executive director of the state’s retirement system, stated, “it seems that Legislators heard the concerns of investment professionals and retirees alike.”
Both Swindell and Meier noted the amended bill largely codifies current policies in Wyoming that require investment firms to pursue the highest returns. Swindell, who pointed out the retirement system is “ESG-agnostic,” affirmed legislation that directs investments is simply not needed.
The updated bill will be sent to the Senate for review, where its outcome is still uncertain. But it’s clear the opponents of this overly aggressive legislation will continue to advocate that any measures that pass should not negatively impact the state’s retirees or taxpayers.