A business group is suing Texas over the so-called “anti-ESG law.” Photo via Getty Images

A progressive business group sued Texas on Thursday over a 2021 law that restricts state investments in companies that, according to the state, “boycott” the fossil fuel industry.

The American Sustainable Business Coalition filed suit against Attorney General Ken Paxton and Comptroller Glenn Hegar, alleging that the law, Senate Bill 13, constitutes viewpoint discrimination and denies companies due process, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The group asked a federal judge in Austin to declare the statute unconstitutional and permanently block the state from enforcing it.

“Texas has long presented itself as a business-friendly state where limited state regulation facilitates the ability of businesses to conduct themselves as they see fit,” lawyers for the group wrote. “Yet in 2021, the Legislature passed SB 13 to coerce and punish businesses that have articulated, publicized, or achieved goals to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.”

Known as the “anti-ESG law” — which stands for “environmental, social and governance” — Senate Bill 13 requires state entities, including state pension funds and the enormous K-12 school endowment, to divest from companies that have reduced or cut ties with the oil and gas sector and that Texas officials deem antagonistic to the fossil fuel industry.

In approving the legislation, Republican officials looked to protect Texas oil and gas companies and to bite back at Wall Street investors pulling financial support from the industry in an effort to incorporate climate risk into their investments and respond to pressure to divest from fossil fuels, which play an outsized role in accelerating the climate crisis.

In March, Texas Permanent School Fund, Austin, cut ties with BlackRock, which managed roughly $8.5 billion of the $52.3 billion endowment and which was listed by Texas as one of the companies that should not handle state business.

The statute defines “boycott” as, “without an ordinary business purpose, refusing to deal with, terminating business activities with, or otherwise taking any action that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations with” a fossil fuel company. It also prohibits state agencies from doing business with a firm unless it affirms that it does not boycott energy companies. And it charges the state comptroller with preparing and maintaining a blacklist of companies based on “publicly available information” and “written verification” from the company.

In a statement, Hegar, the comptroller, called the lawsuit an “absurd” attempt to “force the state of Texas and Texas taxpayers to invest their own money in a manner inconsistent with their values and detrimental to their own economic well-being.”

“This left-wing group suing Texas,” he said, “is hiding their true intent: to force companies to follow a radical environmental agenda that is often contrary to the interests of their shareholders and to punish those companies that do not fall into lockstep and put politics above earnings.”

Paxton’s office did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

Texas has blacklisted more than 370 investment firms and funds, including BlackRock and funds within major banks like Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan. BlackRock, among other companies, pushed back on its designation as “boycotting” fossil fuels, calling the decision “not a fact-based judgment” and citing over $100 billion in investments in Texas energy companies.

“Elected and appointed public officials have a duty to act in the best interests of the people they serve,” a BlackRock spokesperson said at the time. “Politicizing state pension funds, restricting access to investments, and impacting the financial returns of retirees, is not consistent with that duty.”

In Thursday’s suit, the American Sustainable Business Coalition argued that the physical and financial risks posed by climate change are a legitimate investment and business consideration and cause for efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

The group said the Texas law was enacted to go after what Republican lawmakers saw as a “burgeoning fossil fuel discrimination movement,” and that it effectively “infringes rights of free speech and association under a scheme of politicized viewpoint discrimination” and allows Texas officials to “punish companies they believe are insufficiently supportive of the fossil fuel industry.”

The group argued that the law penalizes companies for their energy policies and membership in certain business associations, and compels them to adopt positions that align with Texas officials “as a condition” of doing business with state entities.

The suit also alleged that the law violates companies’ right to due process because vagueness in the statute “encourages arbitrary enforcement” and fails to provide blacklisted companies a fair process to contest their designation.

Texas blacklisted “the flagship investment funds” of Etho Capital and Sphere, two climate-focused firms represented by the American Sustainable Business Coalition, according to the lawsuit.

“Among ASBC’s many projects are efforts to encourage sustainable investing and sustainable business practices,” the lawsuit reads. “These are all cornerstones of the modern Texas economy. Yet, SB 13 takes aim at, and punishes, companies that speak about, aspire to, and achieve this goal.”

———

This story was originally published by The Texas Tribune and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

DOE proposes cutting $1.2 billion in funding for hydrogen hub

funding cuts

The U.S. Department of Energy has proposed cutting $1.2 billion in funding for the HyVelocity Gulf Coast Hydrogen Hub, a clean energy project backed by AES, Air Liquide, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Mitsubishi Power Americas and Ørsted.

The HyVelocity project, which would produce clean hydrogen, appears on a new list of proposed DOE funding cancellations. The list was obtained by Latitude Media.

As of November, HyVelocity had already received $22 million of the potential $1.2 billion in DOE funding.

Other than the six main corporate backers, supporters of HyVelocity include the Center for Houston’s Future, Houston Advanced Research Center, Port Houston, University of Texas at Austin, Shell, the Texas governor’s office, Texas congressional delegation, and the City of Fort Worth.

Kristine Cone, a spokeswoman for GTI Energy, the hub’s administrator, told EnergyCapital that it hadn’t gotten an update from DOE about the hub’s status.

The list also shows the Magnolia Sequestration Hub in Louisiana, being developed by Occidental Petroleum subsidiary 1PointFive, could lose nearly $19.8 million in federal funding and the subsidiary’s South Texas Direct Air Capture (DAC) Hub on the King Ranch in Kleberg County could lose $50 million. In September, 1Point5 announced the $50 million award for its South Texas hub would be the first installment of up to $500 million in federal funding for the project.

Other possible DOE funding losses for Houston-area companies on the list include:

  • A little over $100 million earmarked for Houston-based BP Carbon Solutions to develop carbon storage projects
  • $100 million earmarked for Dow to produce battery-grade solvents for lithium-ion batteries. Dow operates chemical plants in Deer Park and LaPorte
  • $39 million earmarked for Daikin Comfort Technologies North America to produce energy-efficient heat pumps. The HVAC company operates the Daikin Texas Technology Park in Waller
  • Nearly $6 million earmarked for Houston-based Baker Hughes Energy Transition to reduce methane emissions from flares
  • $3 million earmarked for Spring-based Chevron to explore development of a DAC hub in Northern California
  • Nearly $2.9 million earmarked for Houston-based geothermal energy startup Fervo Energy’s geothermal plant in Utah

Houston ranks No. 99 out of 100 on new report of greenest U.S. cities

Sustainability Slide

Houstonians may be feeling blue about a new ranking of the greenest cities in the U.S.

Among the country’s 100 largest cities based on population, Houston ranks 99th across 28 key indicators of “green” living in a new study from personal finance website WalletHub. The only city with a lower ranking is Glendale, Arizona. Last year, Houston landed at No. 98 on the WalletHub list.

“‘Green’ living means a choice to engage in cleaner, more sustainable habits in order to preserve the planet as much as possible,” WalletHub says.

Among the study’s ranking factors are the amount of greenhouse gas emissions per capita, the number of “smart energy” policies, and the presence of “green job” programs.

In the study, Houston received an overall score of 35.64 out of 100. WalletHub put its findings into four buckets, with Houston ranked 100th in the environment and transportation categories, 56th in the lifestyle and policy category, and 52nd in the energy sources category.

In the environment category, Houston has two big strikes against it. The metro area ranks among the 10 worst places for ozone pollution (No. 7) and year-round particle pollution (No. 8), according to the American Lung Association’s 2025 list of the most polluted cities.

In the WalletHub study, San Jose, California, earns the honor of being the country’s greenest city. It’s followed by Washington, D.C.; Oakland, California; Irvine, California; and San Francisco.

“There are plenty of things that individuals can do to adopt a green lifestyle, from recycling to sharing rides to installing solar panels on their homes,” WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo said in the report. “However, living in one of the greenest cities can make it even easier to care for the environment, due to sustainable laws and policies, access to locally grown produce, and infrastructure that allows residents to use vehicles less often. The greenest cities also are better for your health due to superior air and water quality.”