House rejects bill removing eminent-domain protections for nonpublic power generators

House Bill 91, a measure concerning eminent domain and energy collector systems, failed to pass the Wyoming House of Representatives on Jan. 21 after sustained floor debate and a roll-call vote.

The bill, sponsored by the House Minerals committee and introduced on third reading, sought to limit the use of eminent domain for certain nonpublic electric generation and associated collector systems; proponents framed the measure as protecting private landowners from broad condemnation for multi-turbine collector corridors.

Representative Nicholas offered a third-reading amendment and described the bill's purpose and consequences at length on the floor, saying the proposal would eliminate a 10-year-old statutory carve-out that treated wind-collector corridors differently and instead bar eminent domain for "any electric generation from any place" that is not a public utility. "If you take, for example, data centers... Wyoming is in a power electrical hole right now," Nicholas told colleagues, arguing the bill could make future power projects more costly and harder to construct.

Supporters of limitations on eminent domain argued the measure protected ranchers and private landowners from so-called "spider web" collector systems that reach across many parcels. Opponents said the bill as drafted would raise costs and complicate efforts to expand electricity generation and transmission needed to grow industry. "We do have this large industry that's wanting to come here... it's a large tax revenue generator for the state of Wyoming," Representative Feiler said, noting a tension between property rights and attracting energy-intensive businesses.

The floor rejected Representative Nicholas's amendment and later defeated the bill on final passage. The Chief Clerk recorded a final vote of 27 yeas and 33 nays with 2 excused; the clerk announced that House Bill 91 had not received the affirmative vote of a majority and therefore failed to pass the House.

Members raised multiple technical and legal concerns about the bill's language, including ambiguity over use of existing easements, the scope of prohibitions on condemnation, and potential constitutional issues flagged by members familiar with prior committee work. Representative Eklund reminded colleagues that a previous, related bill had been vetoed on constitutional grounds and said the current draft "is probably too" (i.e., likely unconstitutional) and that the committee's earlier interim effort may be a better path.

Because House Bill 91 failed on the House floor, no further action on the measure occurred that day.