Summary — HB 5239 (House Bill No. 5239)
Status / procedural history
- Filed: March 14, 2025
- Read first time: April 7, 2025 (and again listed Nov 6, 2025)
- Referred to committees: Homeland Security, Public Safety & Veterans' Affairs (Apr 7 entry); Committee on Economic Competitiveness (Nov 6 entry)
- Bill electronically reproduced: November 6, 2025
- House sponsors: Rep. Luke Meerman and co-sponsors
Purpose
- HB 5239 (an amendment to the Michigan Savings Bank Act, 1996 PA 354) makes two types of changes:
1. Technical/statutory clarifications on supervisory fees assessed on savings banks (amends section 210).
2. Adds a new Section 401a that prohibits savings banks from denying, restricting, or cancelling financial services to agriculture producers on the basis of certain environmental factors (adds a statutory protection related to banks’ environmental, social, and governance — ESG — commitments).
Key provisions
- Amendments to section 210 (supervisory fees)
- Commissioner will periodically establish a schedule of supervisory fees for savings banks.
- Fee cap: no more than $0.25 per $1,000 of total assets (as reported on Dec. 31 of the prior year), except for a minimum fee.
- Minimum annual supervisory fee: not less than $1,000.
- Invoice issuance: commissioner to provide invoice by July 1 each year; payment due by August 15.
- Initial supervisory fee rules for converted and newly chartered banks clarified.
- Commissioner may set additional fees for applications, special evaluations, examinations, and related activities; those fees must equal the bureau’s estimated cost of the activity.
- Fees for document certification/notice service may be charged.
Unpaid fees/penalties may be recovered by action after notice; fees/penalties are nonrefundable and paid into the state treasury to the credit of the bureau for bureau operations.
New section 401a (restriction on denying services to agriculture producers)
Prohibition: A savings bank shall not deny, restrict, or cancel a “financial service” to an “agriculture producer” based in whole or in part on any of the following:
- the producer’s greenhouse gas emissions;
- the producer’s use of fossil fuel–derived fertilizer; or
- the producer’s use of fossil fuel–powered machinery.
Presumption of violation: If the savings bank has made an “environmental, social, and governance commitment” (ESG commitment), any denial/restriction/cancellation is presumed to violate the prohibition.
- Evidence of an ESG commitment may include advertising, public/private statements or reports, or participation in coalitions/initiatives that use business activity to further environmental/social/political goals.
Rebuttal: The presumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that the action was based solely on a documented ordinary business purpose, not related to an ESG commitment, and not intended to further environmental, social, or political goals.
Penalty: Violation subjects the savings bank to a civil fine of up to $10,000.
Definitions:
- “Agriculture producer” — a person who owns or operates a farm as defined in the Michigan Right to Farm Act (1981 PA 93, MCL 286.472).
- “Environmental, social, and governance commitment” — public or private commitments or participation that use market position to reduce/offset/disclose greenhouse gases or to achieve environmental standards beyond legal requirements, or participation in initiatives that encourage customers to meet environmental/social/political goals.
- “Financial service” — broadly defined to include lending, funds transfers, fiduciary activities, trading activities, deposit taking, and other financial products/services.
Who is affected
- Primary: state-chartered savings banks operating under the Michigan Savings Bank Act.
- Secondary: Michigan agriculture producers (farm owners/operators) who obtain financial services from state savings banks.
- Tertiary: banking bureaus responsible for fee collection and administration; organizations and coalitions associated with voluntary ESG initiatives.
Enforcement, penalties, and open questions
- The bill specifies a civil fine (up to $10,000) for violations but does not explicitly lay out an administrative enforcement process or identify the enforcing agency/process in Section 401a (the Savings Bank Act’s general enforcement structure may apply). The presumption/rebuttal standard is high — “clear and convincing evidence.”
- The bill creates a statutory presumption tying ESG commitments to prohibited discriminatory conduct against agriculture producers; banks would bear the burden to rebut.
Potential impacts (practical considerations)
- Limits banks’ ability to refuse or restrict services to farms on the basis of greenhouse gas–related policies or fossil-fuel usage, even where a bank has voluntary ESG commitments.
- Could affect how savings banks draft, disclose, or participate in ESG initiatives to avoid triggering the statutory presumption.
- May constrain the use of environmentally informed credit risk policies for agricultural lending unless banks can document ordinary business reasons.
- Administrative and compliance implications for savings banks to document lending decisions and for the bureau to handle fee administration and any enforcement actions.
Note: This summary focuses on the bill’s text and immediate legal mechanisms. It does not interpret constitutionality or predict legislative outcomes; further review may be needed to assess interactions with federal banking law, existing anti‑discrimination or consumer protection statutes, or regulatory prudential requirements.
