Bill
HB 62
Prohibits banks from denying services to farmers based on ESG factors tied to emissions or fossil-fuel inputs, shifting burden to show financial reasons if ESG commitments exist.
Status: Introduced; withdrawn from committee (per legislative record)
Purpose
- To prohibit financial institutions from denying, restricting, or cancelling banking or lending services to farmers and other agriculture producers on the basis of certain environmental, social, or governance (ESG)-related factors. The bill is intended to protect agricultural borrowers from financing decisions tied to greenhouse‑gas emissions or use of conventional (fossil‑fuel) farm inputs and equipment.
Key definitions
- Agriculture producer: a person engaged in growing crops or livestock production.
- ESG commitment: a bank’s decision to join or otherwise commit to an initiative or organization whose purpose is to promote environmental, social, or political/governance goals (wording varies slightly across versions).
Main provisions
- Prohibition: It is unlawful for a bank to deny, restrict, or cancel a service to an agriculture producer based, in whole or in part, on the producer’s greenhouse‑gas emissions, use of fossil‑fuel‑derived fertilizer, or use of fossil‑fuel‑powered machinery.
- ESG presumption: If a bank has any ESG commitment related to agriculture, a rebuttable presumption arises that a denial/restriction/cancellation of service violates the law. The bank may overcome the presumption by demonstrating—by a preponderance of the evidence—that the action was based solely on documented financial considerations.
- Enforcement and remedies: Either the banking Commissioner (or equivalent regulator) or an agriculture producer may bring a civil action seeking injunction or civil penalties. A court may assess civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation. Net proceeds from penalties are directed to the State’s Civil Penalty and Forfeiture Fund.
- Scope extended: Parallel provisions are added or referenced to apply the prohibition to State associations, state savings banks, and credit unions (statutory cross‑references amended).
- Effective date: The bill is effective upon becoming law and applies to acts committed on or after that date (consistent with the committee substitute language).
Who is affected
- Protected: agriculture producers (farmers) using conventional inputs and equipment.
- Regulated: banks, state savings & loan associations, savings banks, and credit unions operating in the State.
- Enforcers: the State banking/savings administrators and courts.
Potential impacts and considerations
- Limits financial institutions’ ability to use ESG criteria in credit decisions affecting agriculture, requiring institutions to document financial reasons for denials to rebut the presumption.
- May increase litigation and administrative enforcement actions by producers or regulators seeking penalties or injunctions.
- Could constrain risk‑management or corporate‑policy choices by banks that adopt agriculture‑focused ESG commitments.
- Compliance and defense costs for financial institutions may rise; farmers may gain greater assurance of access to credit tied to traditional production methods.
Notes
- The bill appeared in at least two draft forms; the committee substitute adjusted burden of proof standards and enforcement language. Legislative actions indicate the measure was introduced and later withdrawn from committee.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
