© 2025 Wyoming Public Media
800-729-5897 | 307-766-4240
Wyoming Public Media is a service of the University of Wyoming
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations
Transmission & Streaming Disruptions

Some legislative action is trying to reverse Wyoming’s effort toward alternative energy

A fiery sunset during the 2018 Roosevelt Fire in Sublette County, Wyoming
Caitlin Tan
/
Wyoming Public Media
A fiery sunset during 2018’s Roosevelt Fire in Sublette County – it destroyed dozens of homes and tens of thousands of acres. Climate scientists say global warming has caused water shortages and bigger and longer fire seasons.

There's a change of tone, both statewide and nationally, in regards to climate and energy. On the first day he took office, Pres. Trump declared a National Energy Emergency. It's not exactly clear how that will play out legally, but the idea is to sidestep climate protections and prop up the fossil fuel industry.

In Wyoming, far-right Freedom Caucus lawmakers and its supporters are echoing a similar sentiment, even denying climate change science. This is reflected in a bill that seeks to ‘make carbon dioxide great again.’

Wyoming Public Radio's (WPR) Energy and Natural Resources Reporter Caitlin Tan unpacks all this with WPR’s News Director Kamila Kudelska.

Editor's Note: This story has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Kamila Kudelska: So this ‘make carbon dioxide great again’ bill, where is it coming from?

Caitlin Tan: We actually have to rewind to this time last year. A panel of anti-climate change speakers known as the CO2 coalition spoke at the state capitol during the legislative session. They made claims like, the Earth isn't getting warmer, climate change is a cult and that photos of melting glaciers and dying polar bears are just scare tactics.

Gregory Wrightstone: CO2 should be celebrated, not captured. There is no climate crisis in Wyoming. There is no climate crisis globally.

A green square with the words ‘CO2 Coalition’.
CO2 Coalition
The logo for the CO2 Coalition, which pushes anti-climate change talking points.

CT: It was actually an unsanctioned event held by Sen. Cheri Steinmetz (R-Torrington), and she's the sponsor of the ‘make carbon great again’ bill this year.

KK: Yeah, I remember that. It seems like over the last year, this rhetoric has really caught on, especially with the Freedom Caucus in the state.

CT: Yeah, and the first chunk of this bill is basically a preamble that would codify all these ideas, like more carbon means a better quality of life, and that we're at a historic low of CO2 in the atmosphere. And these “whereas” statements kind of set the stage for actual legal changes.

KK: Are these “whereas” statements true?

CT: Not without context. I spoke to University of Wyoming Geology and Geophysics Professor Bryan Shuman, who researches climate change.

Shuman says human caused climate change is an undisputed fact. He also says CO2 levels are actually at their highest since humans have been around. While levels were higher at points in time before humans, that was a very different reality than the world we're living in now.

 

Bryan Shuman: Wyoming was a place where there were alligators, palm trees. It was basically a subtropical place, not because of the benefits of carbon dioxide to the plants, but because carbon dioxide is such an effective molecule for trapping heat.

KK: Pretty crazy to imagine, very opposite of the high desert landscape now.

CT: All these pro-CO2 statements in the bill, they set the stage for the bill's second part, which is where we get into legal changes. It says CO2 will not be considered a pollutant in Wyoming, which is notable. Because up until now, Wyoming has generally agreed we need to reduce CO2 emissions, but this bill says we can't do that, which could have unintended consequences.

A woman's headshot
Wyoming Legislature

KK: What could those be?

CT: Well, I spoke with Rob Godby, a University of Wyoming Department of Economics associate professor who researches energy and public policy. Godby pointed out that federally, CO2 is a pollutant, and we all know federal law trumps state law, so if Wyoming won't regulate or reduce it?

Rob Godby: We just have to step out of the way, and the feds would be in charge of that and that probably is gonna rub people the wrong way in the state as well.

KK: And federal government overreach goes against one of the main pillars of the Freedom Caucus, right?

CT: That's right. The bill's third part would roll back a controversial Wyoming law from 2020, you might know it as the carbon capture mandate. It requires electric utility companies to at least consider using carbon capture technology on their coal power plants.

Rob Godby: 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.

People standing in front of a coal plant, north of Gillette, on a sunny day.
Caitlin Tan
/
Wyoming Public Media
People prepare for the tour of the Wyoming Integrated Test Center, which studies carbon capture technology using CO2 produced from the Dry Fork coal plant. The coal plant is what can be seen in the background.

CT: Plus, the plants would theoretically be more environmentally friendly. But the bill's sponsor, Sen. Steinmetz, has said she thinks the carbon capture mandate is placing an undue burden on Wyoming's coal industry, and that if you take away those climate friendly efforts, coal production would thrive.

KK: Is that true?

CT: Unlikely. Godby said that basically, the market no longer favors coal, even with Trump in office, and he added that Wyoming's carbon capture mandate may be part of the reason electricity companies are still considering using their coal plants – at least for the next 15 years or so.

Rob Godby: If you remove that mandate, that may not happen. So 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.

KK: Alright, so a summary of the bill would be that, it's blocking the state from regulating CO2 emissions, and it would roll back the carbon capture rule?

CT: Yeah. To be fair, it's unclear how effective the mandate would have been long term, because carbon capture technology is unproven on a large scale, and just to research it is costing electricity companies a lot, which is then passed down to Wyoming customers. So rolling this back could save us all money in that regard.

On the other hand, Wyoming has hedged its bets on carbon capture. We've already poured years and tons of money into it. It's part of the state's ‘all of the above’ approach to its energy strategy meaning we'll reduce our emissions with renewables, but still find ways to make fossil fuels cleaner, which is the carbon capture part. We're even seeing this [carbon capture] reflected in other bills this session.

KK: That’s right, I have seen some legislation that would further develop the carbon capture industry.

CT: It's kind of like there's two separate conversations happening at the state capitol.

There are bills to continue growing this emerging industry. Lawmakers spent all last summer drafting bills that offer stimulus and tax cuts for companies that want to find ways to use that captured carbon. Another bill is trying to make sure Wyoming makes money off this industry, just like it does with coal, oil and gas. Lawmakers wouldn't be writing these bills if they didn't think Wyoming is going to become a mecca for carbon capture.

But then meanwhile, the Freedom Caucus members are bringing bills that would unravel all those efforts – bills like ‘make carbon dioxide great again’. And some members went after Gov. Mark Gordon for accepting the reality of climate change.

Mountains with snow and exposed rock on blue sky day.
Caitlin Tan
/
Wyoming Public Media
The Wind River Range has seen glaciers receding due to climate change.

KK: So, really, two different pushes, but interesting that it seems climate change denial is having a resurgence.

CT: It seems part of that is because change is hard, and the monumental changes needed to slow the worst effects of climate change are especially hard. But Bryan Shuman, the UW climate scientist, pointed out that we don't really have a choice. This past year was the warmest on record, and we're seeing the impacts now.

Bryan Shuman: Whether it's snow melting earlier in the year and that reducing our soil moisture for agriculture later in the summer. Or that leading to warmer stream temperatures which have consequences for trout, reducing the water levels in our reservoirs, or increased number of smoky days.

CT: Shuman says when he's gone around the state and spoke to Wyomingites, they seem to want to do something about it, because they're feeling these changes.

KK: Well, we will have to wait and see what happens. And as a reminder, bills are moving really fast through the legislature, so the status of them can change pretty quickly.

Caitlin Tan is the Energy and Natural Resources reporter based in Sublette County, Wyoming. Since graduating from the University of Wyoming in 2017, she’s reported on salmon in Alaska, folkways in Appalachia and helped produce 'All Things Considered' in Washington D.C. She formerly co-hosted the podcast ‘Inside Appalachia.' You can typically find her outside in the mountains with her two dogs.

Enjoying stories like this?

Donate to help keep public radio strong across Wyoming.

Related Content