Stop ESG-State funds fiduciary duty act.
HB0080, titled the “Stop ESG-State funds fiduciary duty act,” would impose new statutory duties on entities that invest or manage Wyoming state funds, including the state treasurer, the state loan and investment board, the Wyoming retirement board, the Wyoming retirement system, and other state fund managers. The bill requires those fiduciaries to act solely in the financial interest of beneficiaries and to base investment and proxy-voting decisions only on “pecuniary financial factors,” while expressly excluding environmental, social, governance, political, or ideological considerations from those decisions.
The bill also tightens rules around proxy voting and outside managers. It limits granting proxy-voting authority to outside parties unless they agree in writing to follow the same pecuniary-only standard, requires fiduciaries and proxy advisors to commit to those guidelines, and mandates annual public reporting of proxy votes on agency websites. It further requires contracts with investment fiduciaries to include acknowledgment of these requirements and makes conforming changes to existing retirement and state investment statutes, with applicability beginning July 1, 2025 and no impairment of preexisting contracts entered before that date.
HB0080 would amend Wyoming statutes governing state investments and retirement-system assets by adding a new section, W.S. 9-4-722, and conforming related provisions in the state treasurer and retirement system laws. In practical terms, it would codify a fiduciary standard for state funds that prioritizes financial return and risk considerations, restricts ESG-oriented investment practices, and imposes reporting and contract-language requirements on state investment entities and their outside managers. The bill affects the state treasurer, the state loan and investment board, the Wyoming retirement board/system, custodians, trustees, proxy advisors, and any other person managing state funds.
The bill appears to have generally favorable support among its sponsors and a majority of the House, as reflected in the committee recommendation to amend and do pass and the final House passage vote of 44-16. The title and structure indicate a policy direction aimed at limiting ESG considerations in public investing, which is consistent with broader conservative opposition to ESG-based investment strategies. The absence of committee transcript material limits more detailed insight into debate, but the vote margins suggest meaningful support with a notable minority in opposition.
The main point of contention is whether state investment managers should be prohibited from considering ESG, political, or ideological factors at all, or whether such considerations can be relevant when they are tied to long-term financial performance. Supporters of the bill are likely focused on ensuring fiduciaries act only on measurable financial returns and risk, while opponents are likely concerned that the bill is overly restrictive, may interfere with professional investment judgment, and could limit the ability of managers to consider broader market or governance risks. Another likely area of dispute is the proxy-voting and reporting requirements, which add administrative constraints and may limit the use of outside advisors and coalitions.