A Wyoming Legislature committee rejected two bills that would have restricted the use of eminent domain to acquire land for carbon capture projects and wind and solar projects.

Wyoming law now allows public and private utility companies to use eminent domain to seize and seize land for these alternative energy projects under certain circumstances if a district court judge approves. In all condemnation situations, fair compensation must be paid for all confiscated property and the condemnor must make a good faith effort to negotiate and purchase the property before using eminent domain.

Wyoming’s eminent domain laws give private entities the right to use eminent domain proceedings to seize land for projects such as wind and solar energy collector systems and transmission lines. These collector systems are generally limited to the use of wind energy within the state.

The laws originally began as a way for early Wyoming settlers to access water, but have expanded into a tool that the state’s power companies can use.

The Joint Committee on Agriculture, State and Public Lands on Monday rejected by a vote of 9 to 6 a bill that would have prohibited public and private entities from using eminent domain to install pipelines in Wyoming that transport carbon dioxide for the purposes of capture, use or carbon storage.

Voting against the bill were Sens. John Kolb, R-Rock Springs, Dan Laursen, R-Powell, and Reps. Lane Allred, R-Afton, Dalton Banks, R-Cowley, Jon Conrad, R-Mountain View, Barry Crago , R-Buffalo, Bob Davis, R-Baggs, John Winter, R-Thermopolis, John Eklund, R-Cheyenne.

Voting in favor of the bill were Sens. Cheri Steinmetz, R-Lingle, Tim French, R-Powell, Larry Hicks, R-Baggs, Bob Ide, R-Casper, and Reps. Bill Allemand, R-Midwest, Allen Slagle, Republican for Newcastle.

Carbon capture has become a somewhat controversial issue in Wyoming lately, with some Republicans, such as Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Steinmetz, loudly criticizing Governor Mark Gordon’s support and efforts in this industry.

Enhanced oil recovery

Although the majority of the Senate Agriculture Committee shares Steinmetz’s position, the biggest concern raised by lawmakers and the public in opposition to the bill on Monday is that it would also have prohibited the use of eminent domain to enhance oil recovery.

Pete Obermueller, executive director of the Wyoming Petroleum Association, said enhanced oil recovery will serve as a critical mechanism for Wyoming’s oil industry in the future. The Legislature’s Minerals Committee is currently working on some bills to support oil recovery in Wyoming.

Obermueller called the proposed bill “a significant threat” to enhanced oil recovery in Wyoming because eminent domain is rarely used for this process.

When asked if the bill could be amended to protect oil recovery, he said no because Wyoming’s oil and gas industry has already invested heavily in both carbon capture and storage due to lawsuits. Sustainable energy on the west coast.

“The systems are intertwined,” he said.

Slagle believes energy companies are more frequently flouting private landowners for eminent domain because they find it easier to take care of their land rather than trying to lease federal land for their projects. And even if it’s not used, Slagle said the implied threat of expropriation affects land negotiations.

“What this bill does is deal fairly with all landowners,” Slagle said.

Obermueller said that while this may be true, he emphasized that it is much more beneficial for oil companies to try to reach an agreement with landowners than to seize their land through expropriation.

“This is not a condemnation of the feds or one or the other,” he said.

The Ide also voted in favor of the bill, describing it as an absolute protection of private property rights against external theft.

Kolb, who voted against the bill, took a different perspective, noting that landowners could keep their property and thus potentially scuttle a pipeline project without eminent domain.

Hicks called this a facetious argument, saying that energy companies have immense flexibility to move a pipeline if a particular owner rejects it.

“No landowner can stop a pipeline (when it can) go to an adjacent landowner and realign it,” he said.

The carbon capture bill would have only applied to CO2 pipelines in Wyoming, a point Allemand disputed. As a result of the Commerce Clause, federal regulations govern interstate pipelines that cross state lines.

Still alive is a bill passed by the Agriculture Committee at its last meeting in September that would prevent private entities from using eminent domain to seize land for electric generation collector systems that transform energy from their wind turbines or solar panels into usable energy. .

Harnessing the land for wind and solar energy

The committee rejected by a vote of 10 to 5 the bill that would have allowed some level of eminent domain to continue for the installation of electric collector systems for wind and solar energy, which some saw as a compromise on the controversial issue of eminent domain. The bill would have sharply restricted the sentencing practice but still allowed it to continue to a small degree.

Current Wyoming law allows wind energy companies to seize land for their use if the landowner does not cooperate with them, a right sometimes called eminent domain.

The bill would have given the private landowner the right to occupy and use at least 95% of the land on which the energy collection system is built. It also included the warning that a land negotiation must take place between a company and no less than 95% of the owners of the land on which the energy collection system is built if at least three owners are involved in the possible expropriation action.

Senators Steinmetz, Kolb, Ide, Hicks, French and Representatives Banks, Allemand, Allred, Winter and Conrad voted against the bill. Senator Laursen and Representatives Crago, Davis, Eklund and Slagle voted in favor.

The issue of collector farms and eminent domain has been ongoing since wind farms began popping up around the state.

Gordon vetoed a bill last year that would have extended a limitation on the circumstances under which eminent domain could be used for nine years, expressing concern about the length of this moratorium. The bill would have reimposed an existing moratorium until 2015.

“It’s a balancing act”

Cheyenne attorney Karen Budd-Falen believed the bill considered Monday would have provided more protections to landowners who may not want to give up their land for wind production.

Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the Wyoming Growers Association, expressed concern that reducing eminent domain through the bill would restrict financial opportunities for some landowners if one of them did not want to participate in a wind project.

“It’s a balancing act, it’s never going to be perfect,” he said.

Attorney Frank Falen said cooperation typically occurs in these negotiation scenarios when they arise in Wyoming, but he said there have been cases where property owners and businesses have refused to reach an agreement.

He also said there have been problems with obsolete or abandoned easements that have cost property owners tens of thousands of dollars trying to remove them.

Ide opposed the bill because he believes it supports “corporate welfare” through public subsidization of wind farms. Although he acknowledged that some landowners might want wind turbines on their land, he believes it is a greater disgrace to forcibly take property to use this form of energy production. Considers that property rights are inalienable and absolute.

“It’s taking away from someone,” he said. “They are the minority that we are constituted as a republic where we are supposed to protect the minority.”

Falen said wind farms often use these subsidies to help provide financial incentives to entice a landowner to give up use of their land for wind production.

Budd-Phelan said that while she appreciated Ide’s position, stopping the government from subsidizing wind and other green energy is not a fight she considers won in the Wyoming Legislature.

“I think that issue needs to be addressed with Rep. (Harriet) Hageman or Sen. (John) Barrasso,” he said. “I just think Wyoming saying ‘we’re not going to allow a subsidized use on someone’s property’ isn’t going to mean anything in the grand scheme of things except make everyone feel better.”

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows these takings for public use purposes, but requires just compensation for the owner whose property has been seized.

“Each individual must negotiate fair compensation based on the particulars of their particular property,” Hicks said.

Both bills could still be resurrected as individually sponsored legislation for the 2025 legislative session. Steinmetz expressed doubt to Cowboy State Daily that she would bring the bill back from collections systems herself.

Leo Wolfson can be reached [email protected].