Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to reflect that HB 209 never received a committee vote. It’s scheduled for further consideration on Feb 5.
Two bills that would’ve fundamentally changed Wyoming’s energy strategy appear to be dead. Both would’ve rolled back Wyoming’s carbon capture laws in hopes of saving ratepayers money and propping up Wyoming’s coal industry. But one of the bills went a step further, pushing back on climate science.
SF 92, ‘Make carbon dioxide great again - no net zero’, failed to make it out of the Senate Minerals, Business and Economic Development Committee on Feb. 3.
The bill pushed back on widely vetted and accepted science, that in order to stave off the worst effects of climate change, we have to lower carbon dioxide emissions.
Instead, the bill said Wyoming can’t do that, because, “We have to have carbon dioxide in the air for life,” said Sen. Laura Pearson (R-Kemmerer) in testimony to committee lawmakers.
Pearson said she supported the bill because she thinks carbon dioxide emissions are too low and that if that trajectory continues, “plant life, life in general will die.”
The false notion that carbon dioxide emissions are dangerously low emerged in the Wyoming Legislature this time last year, during an unsanctioned panel featuring the CO2 Coalition, which is a national group that formed in 2015 to advocate for the “important contribution made by carbon dioxide and fossil fuels to our lives and the economy.” The panel was held by Sen. Cheri Steinmetz (R-Torrington), who sponsored this year’s ‘make carbon dioxide great again’ bill, along with Rep. John Bear (R-Gillette), who are both aligned with the far-right Wyoming Freedom Caucus.
Talking points from the CO2 Coalition were echoed in the bill, like “carbon dioxide is a foundation nutrient necessary for life.” While that’s true, climate scientists say only to an extent, because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that’s also warming the earth, and one of the largest contributors of CO2 emissions is the fossil fuel industry.
In public testimony, 82-year-old Wyoming resident Katheryne Earl said she was “firmly against” the bill. She added that despite the economic benefits of the fossil fuel industry, changes have to come, like lowering CO2 emissions.
“CO2 is causing climate change. It exists, it’s happening now,” Earl said. “Witness the fires we had in Wyoming this last year and those in California more recently, hurricanes increasing.”

In order to address rising CO2 emissions, Wyoming has developed an ‘all of the above’ energy strategy, which involves a mix of energy sources – including renewables and finding more climate friendly ways to produce fossil fuels.
To implement the latter, Wyoming began passing carbon capture laws in 2020 that essentially require electricity companies to consider the up-and-coming technology for their coal-fired power plants.
The state has banked on this requirement to keep its top industry alive, as customers look for more environmentally friendly energy. It’s proved controversial, namely because of expenses to Wyoming electricity customers and that the technology is unproven on a large scale.
But Wyoming has trudged forward, even creating a test and research center near Gillette that hopes to prove viability of the industry to the world.
Per the state mandate, the two major electricity providers in Wyoming, Rocky Mountain Power (PacifiCorp) and Cheyenne Light Fuel and Power (Black Hills Energy), are in the midst of determining if carbon capture is feasible for their coal power plants, according to committee testimony and WyoFile reporting.
The ‘make carbon dioxide great again’ bill, along with HB 209, ‘Reliable and dispatchable low-carbon standards repeal’, sought to repeal those state-mandated efforts.

The ‘make carbon dioxide great again’ bill did so under the premise that CO2 is not a pollutant and that Wyoming “shall not pursue any targets or measures that support the reduction or elimination of carbon dioxide.” The bills also took issue with the expense of carbon capture technology. Some estimates are as high as $1 billion per coal plant unit. Both bill sponsors said that instead of helping, the mandate is burdening the coal industry.
“This repeal frees up our coal fired plants, our fossil fuel energy, to let the market dictate what energy will do,” said Rep. Chris Knapp (R-Gillette), in testimony about his bill to the House Minerals, Business and Economic Development Committee on Jan 31. “The entire green movement was not about choices – it was about regulating and restricting one source of energy, while subsidizing and crediting another.”
But the governor’s office testified otherwise.
Randall Luthi, policy director to Gov. Mark Gordon, said the state’s carbon capture laws are keeping the coal industry viable in a changing market. He said there are two main reasons why.
The first is federal. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has an endangerment finding that says carbon dioxide emissions are a risk to human health. Also, the Biden administration finalized additional standards for the fossil fuel industry last year.
Luthi said that means “if you’re a coal fired plant, by 2030 you’ve gotta decide, A, shut down, B, switch to gas, or C, switch to carbon capture.”
And despite Wyoming’s litigation, Luthi said he’s not banking on changes – even under the new Trump administration.
“Our Supreme Court, the most conservative Supreme Court probably seen in my lifetime, upheld EPA’s ability on that endangerment finding,” he said. “So we’re not out of the woods, even with a good Supreme Court.”

The second factor putting pressure on Wyoming’s coal industry are other states’ laws. Luthi said the majority of states buying Wyoming’s coal have lower emission goals, some even passing “statutes to diminish the use of coal.”
“If we’re going to remain in the business, we’ve got to figure out a way to meet their standards. Those are not federal – those are state,” Luthi said.
That sentiment was echoed by the leader of Wyoming’s coal industry, Travis Deti. He’s the executive director of the Wyoming Mining Association.
“We are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere with coal fired power plants. Customers want cleaner emissions and if we’re going to do it, we gotta do it here in Wyoming,” Deti said in testimony.
He added that he doesn’t necessarily agree with the premise, but the industry’s hands are tied due to customer preference.
“I hate the issue of carbon capture. I hate the issue of carbon dioxide. I wish we didn’t have to deal with it,” Deti said. “If I was a magician and could wave a magic wand and could make it go away, I would. But we can’t, so I would urge the committee to just keep that in mind.”
Deti said the bills could take the “foot off the gas pedal and start pumping the brakes” on carbon capture efforts that, in his mind, could ultimately save the industry.
Neither bill received a motion to move forward in their respective committees. However, as of 7 p.m. on Feb. 4, HB 209, ‘Reliable and dispatchable low-carbon standards repeal,’ appears to have resurfaced on the House Minerals, Business and Economic Development Committee’s schedule for Feb. 5.