Carbon Dioxide Can’t Be Labeled A “Pollutant” Under Proposed Wyoming Legislation

Legislation proposed by state Sen. Cheri Steinmetz, R-Lingle, may turn out to be more than a message about the political debate over climate change, it also could mark a substantial change in Wyoming’s environmental policy moving forward.

Her “Make Carbon Dioxide Great Again” bill shared exclusively with Cowboy State Daily would cut out low-carbon energy standards in Wyoming and repeal legislation passed by the Legislature in 2020 that requires coal power plant owners to retrofit their facilities with carbon capture, use and storage technologies as an alternative to help prevent them from having to shut down. 

It also would specify that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant or contaminant and cannot be designated as such in Wyoming.

“It requires a clear-eyed look at how policies aimed at eliminating CO2 emissions, such as decarbonizing the West, making Wyoming carbon negative or popular ‘net-zero’ mandates,” Steinmetz writes in an op-ed. “They may sound good on paper but often come with high economic costs and questionable environmental benefits, and clearly negative effects on our people and our industries.

“Wyoming must refuse to jeopardize our economy and energy security for initiatives that will yield — at best — questionable results.”

Gov. Mark Gordon has been a major proponent of Wyoming becoming carbon negative, which he views as the best approach to saving the state’s fossil fuels industries. He declined to comment on Steinmetz’s legislation.

What It Does

The 2020 bill passed with a solid majority in both chambers and was signed into law by Gov. Mark Gordon. Last year, the Legislature passed new legislation easing some of the requirements on the 2020 mandate and bumped the deadline that operators need to comply with these standards from 2030 to 2033.

The 2020 legislation was brought as an attempt to insulate coal plants from changing market demands and help stem off the closure of these facilities because of a larger shift away from coal by bringing more carbon capture projects to Wyoming.

Sen. Brian Boner, R-Douglas, was a co-sponsor on the 2020 bill and doesn’t support Steinmetz’s new effort as he believes it has been effective in helping save Wyoming’s coal industry.

“I’d be hesitant to move away from strategies that are clearly working to preserve our baseload, coal-fired power plants that we’re going to need,” Boner said.

Rep. Mike Yin, D-Jackson, agrees, calling the new effort “another bill that does nothing to make everyday Wyomingites’ lives better, but just a continuation of the in-fighting within the majority party.”

Who It Effects

This law impacts five coal plants in Wyoming. 

Boner believes the 2020 legislation has been “demonstrably effective” in protecting Wyoming’s coal industry and economy.

He pointed out how Rocky Mountain Power said in its biennial Integrated Resources Plan released last week that it will delay closure of Dave Johnston Power Plant Units 1 and 2 in Glenrock by one year to 2029, and will continue to evaluate carbon capture and sequestration options for Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4 in Rock Springs for completion by 2030. The closure of Units 1 and 2 had originally been proposed for 2027.

“In terms of saving jobs, for Converse County this is a success,” Boner said. “It demonstrates the current strategy is working. It’s a huge deal for Glenrock.”

The mandated retrofits are a costly measure for these facilities however, which the 2020 legislation also attempted to address at the time. Under the law, each utility company is allowed to initiate a cost recovery mechanism that allows them to charge up to 2% of each customer's total electric bill to help shoulder the cost of the low‑carbon energy standard passed by the Legislature.

“The people of Wyoming have always believed in the value of questioning conventional wisdom, looking at the bigger picture and finding solutions that are possible and actually work,” Steinmetz wrote. “This legislation is not about denying science, it is about applying science, thoroughly reevaluating the ‘climate change’ scientific assumptions and advocating for policies grounded in practicality, reality, and achievability — common sense.”

Steinmetz’s bill would repeal these requirements and require utility companies to refund any rate taxes that customers paid to help install the carbon capture technology, but only for unspent money. How these refunds would be delivered would be up to the Public Service Commission.

Travis Deti, executive director of the Wyoming Mining Association, said his organization is neutral on Steinmetz’s bill and sees both pros and cons to mandating carbon sequestration efforts at coal plants.

“I certainly understand the concern, but there’s pretty good support for viable carbon capture at coal facilities,” he said. “Unless there’s a dramatic shift in the market, using carbon capture utilization for emissions is going to be needed to keep the coal fleet going.”

Outgoing Rep. Dan Zwonitzer, R-Cheyenne, said that when his bill passed in 2020, solar energy was much less prevalent than it is today, which served as an impetus to bridge a connection to carbon capture. He said the recent growth of solar, which he expects solar energy to be cheaper than coal in about five years, takes away some of the gusto from the bill’s original purpose, with the future of coal production worldwide in serious doubt when compared to the growth of that alternative energy. 

“Here in the next decade, it (worldwide demand) could easily switch to solar, and Wyoming could be left in the dark,” Zwoniter said.

But he still opposes Steinmetz’s bill as he believes it is the wrong approach to try and keep coal alive in Wyoming and believes if passed, will kill the industry more quickly. 

“The difficulty with passing the bill is Wyoming ultimately needs to focus on technology, research and development for our coal industry, to keep coal viable and sustainable,” Zwonitzer said. “The bill takes a step back from us trying to invest in coal as a long-term source of power for Wyoming.”

CO2 A Good Thing?

Steinmetz’s bill also would make a formal state policy statement against addressing carbon dioxide as a negative by declaring that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

This stance flies in the face of the widespread scientific conclusion that it is a pollutant despite the gas occurring naturally in the air.

Steinmetz said the bill would directly contradict Environmental Protection Agency mandates. 

She also said it would have no impact on oil recovery efforts in Wyoming but would affect carbon capture injection wells and underground facilities.

She also argues in her bill that carbon dioxide serves a valuable role in agricultural production as “a foundational nutrient necessary for all life on Earth,” and that the carbon cycle “is a biological necessity for life on Earth.”

“Wyoming is uniquely positioned to lead this conversation,” Steinmetz writes in her op-ed. “Our state is vital to energy production, agriculture and food industries, transportation and energy reliability and stability. We understand the real-world importance of CO2.”

Her stance aligns with the views presented in a hearing denying the effects of climate change held at the Capitol during the Legislature last year. The scientists featured in this hearing either expressed disbelief that climate change is happening, or a belief that it could not only be inconsequential, but even beneficial. 

Although rising temperatures could indeed help agricultural production in some parts of the world, it also could further exacerbate decades of drought already seen in the Colorado River Basin and other areas and further elevate sea levels, which will lead to more flooding and property damage on the coasts.

Leo Wolfson can be reached at leo@cowboystatedaily.com.