West Virginia lawmakers are clamping down on corporations trying boost environmentally and socially responsible investing. A new report by EcoConsult Solutions finds their actions will likely cost taxpayers at least $9-million, and perhaps as much as $29-million dollars annually. Senate Bill 262, passed last year, restricts the state from investing in companies deemed to be energy boycotters. Among those boycotted include BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo.

Jim Kotcon, chair of the West Virginia Sierra Club, said restricting long-term financial investments in the form of bonds could end up costing residents and taxpayers by reducing the amount of money the state has for public services and programs.

"This appears to be an effort by the state government to help bail out the coal industry and to deny the real cost of climate change on West Virginia citizens," Kotcon said.

More than two dozen states are suing the federal government over a U.S. Department of Labor rule change on environmental, social and governance, or ESG, in workplace retirement accounts. The rule allows 401(k) providers to consider climate change and other issues when making investments.

Kotcon said environmental groups believe state investment funds should take into consideration environmental and social factors, especially since West Virginia communities are struggling to cope with increased flooding and extreme weather events driven by climate change.

"It has become sort of an extremist initiative," he said, "trying to penalize financial institutions that are attempting to do the right thing."

More than a dozen states so far have passed or have pending bills that would pull state funds from investments deemed to be adverse to the oil and gas industry, according to the report.

A lawsuit to reinstate 16,000 fired federal probationary workers could get new life today at a federal district court hearing in San Francisco.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for the firings to proceed, dismissing a preliminary injunction from the same California judge who ordered reinstatement.

Erik Molvar, executive director of the Western Watersheds Project, said the high court objected to nonprofits having the standing to serve as plaintiffs. Advocates want the judge to issue a new injunction to block the firings on behalf of the workers' unions.

"We're continuing to fight to try and make sure that these probationary federal workers are able to retain their jobs," Molvar emphasized. "And to hold the Trump administration accountable for breaking federal law."

The Trump administration said the reduction in force only affected nonessential positions and is necessary to save money. Advocates for the workers said the mass firings were illegal because they came from the Office of Personnel Management, not the agency heads and because the dismissals cited the workers' alleged poor performance, without evidence to back it up.

Janessa Goldbeck, senior adviser to the nonprofit VoteVets, said 30% of federal workers are veterans, making the firings deeply unjust.

"We certainly owe people who have served in uniform, at the very least, due process when it comes to hiring and firing decisions," Goldbeck pointed out. "But more than that, we owe the American people the very best federal government and the services that many Americans rely on."

The lawsuit claimed the firings were haphazard and put essential functions at risk. For example, the only wildlife biologist for the Los Padres National Forest was targeted, as were all of the employees of a Bureau of Land Management office in Northeastern California responsible for overseeing grazing on nearby federal public lands.


get more stories like this via email

With planting season here, North Dakota farmers have plenty on their minds, including the escalating trade war and some hope a bipartisan bill in Congress will lead to a lot less uncertainty about the future.

A handful of U.S. senators introduced a bill supporters said would restore congressional authority over tariffs. It comes amid the latest tariffs announced by President Donald Trump, which upended global financial markets.

Bob Kuylen, a wheat farmer in western North Dakota and board vice president of the North Dakota Farmers Union, wants the bill to advance. He noted commodity prices for him are going down as the trade war heats up. Unlike manufacturers, he said, farmers cannot quickly adjust their price structure.

"We just can't say, 'Oh, well, we're just going to charge $3 more for our wheat for what they did to us.' You can't do that," Kuylen pointed out.

The measure would require the President to notify Congress of tariff action within 48 hours, which then would give lawmakers 60 days to pass a joint resolution of approval. If they do not, the tariff ends. President Trump has threatened to veto the plan, arguing it would chip away at leverage the administration has over foreign countries in negotiating new trade terms.

Kuylen noted tariffs might work in limited fashion to establish fairer trade but he feels a sweeping approach is not effective. He emphasized because certainty is hard to find these days, there's a real possibility of farms either going under or operators choosing to retire and sell off their land.

"It's either they can't get an operating loan right now, some people, and we're going to lose them, or there's people that don't want to lose any more equity and they're just going to walk away," Kuylen observed.

Kuylen added even if bigger farm operations take over, losing locally owned operations hurts surrounding communities. He echoed other producers in arguing agriculture still has not recovered from the trade war under the first Trump administration. Neither of North Dakota's U.S. Senators responded to comment requests on whether they support the bill.

Washington lawmakers and Gov. Robert Ferguson disagree about how to address the state's $16 billion revenue shortfall.

The House and Senate have both passed budgets which would tax wealthy residents and corporations in order to balance the budget.

In contrast, Ferguson's plan cuts social programs and furloughs employees to save the state $7 billion.

Jeffrey Gustaveson is an organizer with Firelands Workers United, an advocacy group for rural Washingtonians. He said he supports lawmaker's efforts to make the tax system more fair.

"They're saying we should support working people," said Gustaveson, "and we're going to unlock new sources of money by increasing taxes on giant corporations, and some of the wealthiest human beings in the face of the planet."

As budget negotiations move forward, Ferguson called relying on untested taxes irresponsible. Lawmakers have until April 27 to finalize a budget acceptable to the Governor.

David Henson, a retired veteran and volunteer for Firelands, highlighted what's known as the Tax on Wall Street, which would apply to people who own stocks and bonds worth over $50 million.

Democrats say it would generate about $4 billion a year for the state.

"But it only affects 4,300 people in the state of Washington," said Henson. "They only pay 4% -- where we're paying, on average, 14% of our income on taxes. I don't think it's robbery."

Ferguson says his budget does not include reductions to vital services. But, Gustaveson countered, the governor's definition of vital is narrow.

He said a 6% cut from all state agencies will harm many services Washington residents rely on including healthcare, housing, and transit.

"There's a very clear message, I think, from the public right now," said Gustaveson, "that they support public programs and they support funding those public programs with fair taxes."

Democratic lawmakers say their proposed taxes would generate $17 billion over two years, bringing the state out of the red.