Far-right Wyoming lawmakers are trying to boost the coal industry and oust the feds as much as possible with a new bill. But some say it could do the opposite, or at least have unintended consequences.
Sponsored by Wyoming Freedom Caucus aligned Sen. Cheri Steinmetz (R-Torrington) and Rep. John Bear (R-Gillette), SF0092 is called ‘Make carbon dioxide great again-no net zero’.
“It basically has three parts to it,” said Rob Godby, a University of Wyoming Department of Economics associate professor who researches energy and public policy. “The first is kind of a preamble that has a number of statements about carbon dioxide.”
These are largely anti-climate change talking points Freedom Caucus members have made to the Legislature before, which are disputed by decades of science. Specifically, Steinmetz hosted an unsanctioned anti-climate change panel of speakers, known as the CO2 Coalition, during the Legislature’s budget session last year.
Many of those talking points are echoed in this year’s bill, like implying carbon dioxide levels are dangerously low and the world needs to focus on ramping up CO2. Meanwhile, the majority of scientists agree that in order to prevent the most dire impacts of climate change that could threaten human existence as we know it, CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere must be lowered and entirely stopped by the 2050s.
But the “make carbon great again” bill says the opposite, which is reflected in what Godby considers the second part of the bill.
“We can't designate or treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant,” he said. “Now, that part is problematic.”

That’s because federally, carbon dioxide is an air pollutant. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this in a 2007 ruling.
“Therefore, it [carbon dioxide] falls under the regulation of the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] and their air pollution rules,” Godby said.
He added that typically states create their own rules for managing air pollution that abide by federal law, which Wyoming is in the midst of doing for methane emissions. But the bill specifically says Wyoming can’t “support the reduction” or “elimination” of carbon dioxide.
“If they don't want to do that, then the feds will do it,” Godby said. “And that probably is going to rub people the wrong way in the state.”
The EPA finalized rules that require capturing and lowering carbon dioxide in 2024. Within that, the EPA acknowledged Wyoming’s efforts and plans to do so, which involve an “all of the above” strategy that uses renewable energy sources along with more traditional sources, like coal, but with climate friendly retrofits.
So if Wyoming can no longer pursue those efforts, Godby said, “That would mean that regulation of carbon dioxide would go to the EPA and federal authorities, so they would impose their mandates and would regulate directly over Wyoming.”
That’s the opposite intention of a key pillar of the Freedom Caucus – limited federal government.
What Godby considers the third part of the “make carbon great again” bill would roll back a controversial Wyoming carbon capture mandate. It was born out of a 2020 law.
The intention of that law was to keep aging coal plants alive in a market that’s shifting away from coal and looking for more climate friendly energy sources. Several similar laws passed since also support this goal.
Basically, the mandate requires electric utility companies to at least consider the use of carbon capture technology at their coal plants. While largely unproven on a commercial scale, the hope is it would reduce the coal plants’ carbon emissions.
“The idea of the mandate was to try to keep those coal plants operating longer, and therefore using Wyoming coal longer, and also just employing people in Wyoming at those plants longer,” Godby said.
Utilities have suggested Wyoming’s carbon capture mandate would keep their aging coal plants operating into the early 2040s.
But Godby said removing that mandate means “there's a risk that those plants will close sooner. It'll reduce coal production in Wyoming sooner, and it will eliminate employment at some of those plants sooner.”
Godby said that’s because Wyoming’s coal industry depends on the outside market. And some other states, like Oregon, are looking for climate friendly electricity.
“If other states don't want our electricity because we're not capturing carbon dioxide, in that case, the utilities might just shut those [Wyoming coal] plants down,” Godby said.
Which flies in the face of another key Wyoming Freedom Caucus pillar – “protecting our core industries.”
Surprisingly, rolling back this mandate could have bipartisan support, just for different reasons.
“[Some] left of center people don't believe that carbon capture will ever work, and so they're saying, ‘This is just a waste of money,’” Godby said.
But they still believe in climate change and the critical need to reduce our carbon footprint.
“Then you have concern on the right – that's what this bill kind of espouses – that if you don't believe in climate change, why are you incurring this cost to control carbon dioxide?” Godby said.
That’s because it is an expensive endeavor. Utilities have previously said carbon capture wouldn’t be the “most reliable, least expensive” electricity option for customers. Some estimates show as high as billion dollars to retrofit a single unit at a coal plant with carbon capture technology.
And, it’s unclear who’s going to pay for that.
“It's potentially the case that because we as a state are requiring that, our ratepayers might have to pay all of that cost,” Godby said.
In fact, ratepayers are already paying. A monthly 0.3% surcharge was added to PacifiCorp customers’ electricity bills in 2023 for carbon capture feasibility research. And Wyofile reports that Wyoming ratepayers could be on the hook for about $20 million in similar fees, even if no carbon capture retrofit comes to fruition.
If the bill repeals that mandate, Godby said, “That cost threat would be gone.”
The “make carbon great again” bill has been received for introduction in the Senate on Jan. 10 and has not been assigned to committee yet.