Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Natural Asset Companies topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel sends Natural Asset Company ban to 40‑first day after split committee debate
Summary
House Bill 13‑18, which would prohibit state participation in 'natural asset companies' for state lands and resources, was sent to the 40‑first day by a 7–6 vote after testimony from the sponsor warning of future risk and state agencies warning the measure is premature and could hurt trust land revenue.
The House Commerce and Energy Committee voted 7–6 to send House Bill 13‑18, the Natural Asset Company Prohibition Act, to the 40‑first day after extended testimony and debate over scope and potential impacts on state trust lands.
Sponsor Representative Julie Elk said the bill would protect state‑held lands and resources from being converted into tradable environmental assets that could shift management decisions toward investor returns and away from public access and multiple use.
"This legislation is about state owned lands and state controlled resources," Elk said, arguing that under an NAC model "land and natural resources become financial instruments with shareholder returns tied to environmental accounting matrix." She urged members to vote yes to prevent public lands from becoming "Wall Street traded environmental asset vehicle[s]."
Opponents included Caleb Fink of the Office of School and Public Lands, who described the measure as "premature and overly broad" and warned that, as written, it could accidentally capture ordinary grazing and leasing activities and conflict with the office's constitutional duty to generate revenue for K‑12 schools (Article 8).
"As it stands today, there's no active federal rule enabling these natural asset companies," Fink said, noting the SEC proposal that generated prior national attention was withdrawn in early 2024. He said the Office of School and Public Lands feared the bill could reduce the pool of bidders at lease auctions and harm revenue for schools and local governments.
Other state officials and conservation representatives cautioned that the bill's language could reach routine conservation partnerships, carbon‑sequestration practices, or federal programs; several asked whether narrower reporting triggers or exceptions could be added for School and Public Lands.
In rebuttal, Representative Elk said proponents remain active and that the bill is intended as a precaution against future developments: "They're just in waiting, kinda like sharks waiting for prey," she said, urging members to act now rather than later.
Committee members were split: some called the bill "ahead of the need" and asked for narrower language or reporting triggers; others described it as a forward‑looking safeguard. Representative Baumiller moved to send the bill to the 40‑first day; the motion carried on a 7–6 roll call.
Next steps: House Bill 13‑18 as amended will be carried to the 40‑first day calendar for future consideration and possible floor debate.
