SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The Attorneys General from 20 states, including California's Xavier Becerra, have signed a letter to Congress, slamming two bills that would gut current state laws meant to protect people from predatory lenders.

HR 3299 and HR 4439 would clear the way for payday lenders to evade state usury laws and make loans with triple-digit interest rates, by making deals to operate under a bank's charter. Diane Standaert, executive vice president and director of state policy with the Center for Responsible Lending, called it a "rent-a-bank" scheme that would void any state consumer-protection laws that cap interest rates.

"The reality is that their passage would open the floodgates to predatory lending, with annual interest rates of 100-400 percent,” Standaert said; “even in states where they're currently not allowed."

One of the bills has already passed the House. Supporters claim they would improve access to credit for low-income families and promote innovation in the financial sector. Opponents say ultra-high-interest loans only trap people in a cycle of worsening debt.

Standaert said California has weak usury laws that cap interest rates on loans under $300 but allow them to be rolled over into multiple loans that end up costing the borrower big-time if they are unable to pay off the initial loan. A bill to cap interest rates on car-title loans has passed the California Assembly and awaits a vote in the state Senate.

Standaert said Congress could supersede any such effort.

"This bill would essentially eviscerate California's ability to ever take action to rein in the cost of these really high-cost predatory loans,” she said.

Recent efforts to strengthen the California usury laws have foundered. Assembly Bill 2500, which would have capped interest rates on some loans at 36 percent, failed in the state Assembly about a month ago.


get more stories like this via email

A new Virginia law protects residents from utility shutoffs in extreme weather.

The law prevents utility company shutoffs when temperatures are at or below 32 degrees and at or above 92 degrees. It also prevents shutoffs during states of emergency in response to public health emergencies. Virginia was one of 34 states with a shutoff moratorium during the pandemic.

Kajsa Foskey, economic justice outreach coordinator for the Virginia Poverty Law Center, said enacting this law cleared up some misconceptions.

"Most folks already thought that utilities couldn't shut them off on a day when it was too hot or too cold outside," she said. "So, what we've really done is just created some common-sense foundational protection so that all utility customers across the state know what their rights are."

Despite having some of these shutoff guidelines as unwritten rules, utility companies pushed back, saying it didn't allow them flexibility. Foskey said she thinks the state can build on this by including elements that didn't become law. This includes requiring data collection from utilities about who is being shut off, the frequency, reasons, and the amounts owed. She said this can help craft solutions for people facing shutoffs.

Rising utility prices concern advocates since this increases shutoffs. More than 750,000 Virginia families are energy cost-burdened, meaning they spend 6% of their income on utility bills.

Foskey said another removed part of the law would have reduced financial barriers to reconnection.

"When they try to get reconnected," she said, "not only do they have to pay that past-due amount that they couldn't afford to pay, they now also have to pay reconnection fees, late fees, security deposits, things that really just make the barrier to getting reconnected very high."

She added that this can prevent people from being able to afford everyday essentials such as food or rent. However, the new law has a provision for customers who received state energy assistance in the past year. They're eligible for having their deposit capped at 25% of what they previously owed to be reconnected, but this can only be used once every three years.

Minnesotans this month have a chance to share their thoughts on how the state should distribute home energy rebates. With federal incentives coming in, officials want to ensure equal access to new technologies.

Starting next Wednesday, the Commerce Department will host a series of public hearings on rebates funded through the Inflation Reduction Act. Mia Naseth-Phillips, the department's director of energy programs for inclusion and equity, said this aid can help eligible households get appliances and heating and cooling systems that reduce their energy burden. She said they especially want to reach people who otherwise couldn't afford emerging technologies that make a home's carbon footprint smaller.

"And that becomes a repeated theme," she said, "that, 'I'm having a hard time paying my bills. They're very high. How can I have something that is continually combating the high costs of energy use?'"

It isn't just affordability. Naseth-Phillips said messaging about home energy upgrades often doesn't reach underserved communities. The department hopes the meetings are informative as it gathers feedback on how the rebates should be carried out. Officials have said a challenge is creating a robust network of certified contractors trained for specific installations. A list of the hearing sites and times is on the Commerce Department website.

Eric Fowler, senior policy associate for buildings for the group Fresh Energy, said heat pumps are some of the more "glitzy" items getting attention these days. However, he cited other rebate opportunities that might not be as glamorous but still get the job done.

"These rebates can also help with insulation and air sealing," he said, "which are, depending on the state of your home, might be actually more important than a solar panel."

He said there will be chances to offset the cost of upgrading a home's electrical box, along with thicker wires, to accommodate increased use of clean energy sources.

The first hearing, next Wednesday, is in Minneapolis. Remaining events are spread out across the state, including St. Cloud, Bemidji, Fergus Falls and Duluth. A hearing in Mankato was scrapped and hasn't yet been rescheduled.

Fifth Third Bank just agreed to pay a $20 million fine to settle charges it forced car buyers to purchase unnecessary insurance and created fake accounts in customers' names.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said the bank required customers with car loans to buy insurance, even if they already had coverage or got their own within 30 days.

Rosemary Shahan, president of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, said some customers then could not afford the payments.

"There were about 1,000 consumers who had their cars repossessed," Shahan recounted. "Most people rely on their car to get to and from work, and get their kids to school, and get to medical appointments. So that is really devastating when they lose their car."

In a statement, Fifth Third Bank said it shut down the protection insurance program in 2019 and is taking action to set things right. The money from the fine will go to a fund to reimburse 35,000 customers who were harmed. The court order also bans the company from setting employee sales goals incentivizing fraudulently opening accounts.

Shahan pointed out car dealers sometimes make verbal promises differing from the written contract or fail to even print out the financing paperwork. She wants people to know they cannot be required to buy insurance if they already have coverage.

"The best way to avoid all these scams is join a credit union, get your own financing, and deal with a reputable bank," Shahan recommended. "Don't let the dealer get financing for you."

In 2015, Fifth Third Bank was ordered to pay more than $21 million in fines for discriminatory auto loan pricing and for illegal credit card practices.