The Joint Agriculture, State and Public Lands & Water Resources Committee on Oct. 30 advanced two bill drafts aimed at restricting the ability of private developers to use eminent domain to acquire land for energy collector systems associated with commercial electricity generation.

The bills — LSO 24-113 and LSO 24-123 — would narrow which entities may condemn private land to build collector systems and add negotiation and compensation requirements before a condemnation action can proceed. Committee staff reviewed existing Wyoming eminent domain law, and private and public witnesses debated the practical effects of the proposals.

Under the draft designated LSO 24-113, the legislature would create a new Wyoming statute (identified in the draft as 1 26 7 15) requiring that, before exercising condemnation authority to place or expand a collector system associated with a commercial electricity facility, a non-utility developer must finalize land-use and compensation agreements covering at least 85% of the land or landowners affected. The draft also directs courts to consider whether the commercial facility is “economically, legally, and logistically viable” before condemning land. The draft expressly exempts a public utility that has been granted a certificate of public convenience and necessity as well as certain substations or interconnection facilities associated with transmission lines that serve load or export energy from Wyoming.

LSO 24-123 (a companion draft) would remove a prior, wind-specific reference from Wyo. Stat. 1-26-815(d), broaden the language to apply to all collector systems for commercial electricity facilities, and add similar new limits on condemnation authority for entities that are not certificated public utilities. Committee staff noted the drafts overlap and warned the committee that adopting both without reconciliation could create direct repeal/replace effects.

Why it matters: committee members said the bills aim to protect landowners and ensure broad voluntary buy-in before a private entity uses condemnation authority for collector systems (the lines that gather generation and route it to substations). Committee members repeatedly framed the bills as balancing private property rights against the need to get generation to market for projects that landowners and counties may support.

What committee staff told members: LSO summarized existing Wyoming eminent domain law and appraisal rules. The office explained that condemnation requires a showing of public use or necessity, that compensation is tied to fair market value at the time of valuation, and that appraisals and jury procedures are available where landowner and condemnor disagree. The staff presenter (identified in the transcript as Anna, LSO) also explained the draft statutory structure and how the new sections would interact with existing statutes.

Public testimony: advocates for renewable developers and private energy developers opposed parts of the bills. Jeff Pope, a partner at Holland & Hart appearing for the American Clean Power Association, told the committee “no renewable company has ever condemned any property in the state of Wyoming” and called the proposals “a solution in search of a problem.” Pope warned the committee that language in 24-123 that would bar use of existing easements for additional collector systems could bar projects where developers had already negotiated easements but had not yet built infrastructure, and that the change could invite costly inverse-condemnation litigation. He also raised constitutional and commerce-clause concerns about distinguishing in-state from exported energy.

Landowner advocates urged stricter limits. Karen (Bud) Fallon, an attorney representing a group of landowners affected by the Black Hills transmission line, told the committee her clients received a ‘‘65 day’’ condemnation notice and that the letter’s threat “does not feel like good faith.” Fallon urged retaining the draft provisions (including the 85% threshold) and recommended additional work in later drafts on liability, reclamation and abandonment standards and on minimum easement protections to prevent landowners from being left with derelict infrastructure or disproportionate liability.

Other witnesses who addressed the committee included: Brett Moline of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation (which said it preferred draft LSO 24-123 over LSO 24-113), and Jim Magagna of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association (who suggested adding a provision that terms in a condemnation not be less favorable than the average of terms negotiated voluntarily by other landowners).

Committee action and amendments: members debated whether the statutory 85% threshold was the correct percentage. After discussion the committee kept the 85% threshold in LSO 24-113. The committee adopted a clarifying amendment to require that compensation awarded in condemnation “include[] terms and conditions” comparable to what other landowners received. Members also added language to address concerns about existing easements: the committee adopted an amendment providing that the prohibition on using an existing easement for additional collector systems would not apply if the easement explicitly allowed the use or if infrastructure already exists in that right-of-way, wording intended to reduce questions about intent for older or generic easements.

Votes at a glance (committee action):
- LSO 24-113 "Eminent domain: energy collector systems" — Motion to move the bill passed on a roll-call vote: yes 14, no 0, abstain 0, absent/excused 1. Motion movers: Representative Conrad (mover); Representative Slagle (second). Amendments adopted as described above.
- LSO 24-123 "Eminent domain: energy collector system amendments" — Motion to move the bill passed on a roll-call vote: yes 14, no 0, abstain 0, absent/excused 1. Motion mover: Cochair Steinmetz; second: Representative Slagle. Committee adopted a mirror amendment aligning language with LSO 24-113.

What the bills do not do: neither bill as advanced creates new, detailed reclamation or insurance standards; witnesses urged (and the committee discussed) developing more-detailed minimum easement, reclamation, abandonment and liability rules, but committee members and witnesses acknowledged many of those topics are addressed elsewhere (for example, the Industrial Siting Act requirements, county conditional-use permitting and existing remedies in condemnation litigation).

Next steps: both bills were advanced out of committee for further consideration. Committee members and public witnesses said the drafts will likely be revised before and during the legislative session to clarify the interaction with easements, appraisal practice and existing permitting and reclamation law. Several witnesses recommended interim work (including county input) to refine standards for liability, reclamation bonds and abandonment responsibilities.

Ending note: the debate reflected a deep division among stakeholders: renewable developers warned the proposals could chill investment or invite large takings claims; landowners and agricultural groups urged stronger protections and clearer local processes. Committee members signaled intent to continue refining the drafts before they reach the floor.