An anti-ESG bill will move forward with significant changes offered by the bill’s sponsor after the bill ran into a wall of opposition Friday from several entities, including Wyoming Treasurer Curt Meier.
Meier said the bill, as written was likely to prompt a walkout at his agency. Others suggested the changes would cost the state’s retirement fund billions of dollars.
The purpose of Wyoming’s anti-environmental, social and governance bill wasn’t to drill down into specific corporations’ ESG stances for investments, said sponsor Rep. Christopher Knapp, R-Gillette, on Monday during continued deliberations of House Bill 80.
“This bill simply wishes to codify the rules that are in place for our fiduciaries, and that would codify the investment policy statement that was done back in 2020, which we are living by today,” he said. “And (that) obviously hasn’t affected investments and is just a safe placeholder for safety when doing investments.”
Knapp based his amendment not only on Friday’s testimony, he added, but also feedback that came throughout the weekend as well.
“I’ve heard from constituents, I’ve heard from stakeholders, shareholders, and I’ve heard from board members,” he said. “The amendment will go to the purpose of the bill.”
Investments, Like Justice, Should Be Blind
Knapp’s changes struck through whole sections of the bill, as well as added the words “non-pecuniary” in a few places, as well as inserting more about the term’s meaning.
“Non-pecuniary factors mean fiduciary decisions that do not provide confidence in increased returns or lower risk, conversely, they may cause harm and concern,” Knapp said. “Non-pecuniary diversions from fiduciary responsibilities will most likely result in lower returns, and increased risk, resulting in less funding being available to the state of Wyoming in general.”
That language, Knapp added, comes directly from the aforementioned investment policy statement.
“I struck anything that tried to further define what a pecuniary decision would be,” Knapp said. “And 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 would like it to be the same as justice.
“We’d like it to be blind. So, it really doesn’t help anything to be listing ideological reasons on either side.”
One other change the amendment brought is to change the directive for the Attorney General’s Office, from “may” investigate to “shall,” in the event of any anomaly.
It’s A New Bill
The wholesale changes to the bill were off-putting to at least two House Minerals Committee members, who suggested it is a brand-new bill and ought to be treated as such.
Calling it quite a large change, Rep. J.T. Larson, R-Rock Springs, said, “I think it stays within the nature of what we were trying to do with the bill, but I’m wondering if it may be acceptable to do some sort of substitute bill, or at least get an official amendment drafted, so the public can look at it and provide comment on it.”
The latter would require re-opening the bill for public comment, Larson acknowledged.
“But I’d like to see, for transparency purposes for the public, I’d like to see what their thoughts are on this, if it changes their opinion on how the bill is rafted,” he said.
Rep. Martha Lawley, R-Worland expressed similar concerns and joined Larson in calling for a substitute bill, or at least a “clean” copy of the bill as amended.
“We’ve tried to have a policy that we really want the public to follow what we’re doing,” she said. “(This) was hard for me to follow, although I really see the intent and I support it. We have had public testimony, but this is a highly different bill.”
Lawley suggested that a “clean” copy of the changes would help avoid critics claiming this is another case where lawmakers have come in and quickly made changes to something without the public being aware.
“I don’t want to be accused of that, and this — I don’t think that’s the intent of you (Knapp) or the chairman, but I think we’re kind of in that zone where this has changed enough,” she said.
House Minerals Chairman Rep. Scott Heiner, however, said existing rules don’t really allow what Lawley is suggesting, though one of the rule changes under debate Monday would.
Lawley then made a motion to table the bill pending the outcome of that debate, seconded by Larsen. But the motion failed to gain enough aye votes.
The committee then voted to approve House Bill 80 as amended, with only one nay vote, sending it on its way to the House floor, for further consideration.
Roll Call
Larsonwas the only “no” vote on the bill as amended, which was moved by Knapp and second by Rep. Reuben Tarver, R-Gillette.
Aye votes came from Lawley; Reps. Mike Schmidt, R-La Barge; Tarver; Rep. Kevin Campbell, R-Glenrock; and Heiner, R-Green River.
Reps. J.R. Riggins, R-Casper, and Nina Weber, R-Cody, were not present for the vote, but were excused.
Renée Jean can be reached at renee@cowboystatedaily.com.
