Revenue Committee limits pollution-control tax exemption to exclude standalone direct-air carbon‑capture facilities

The Senate Revenue Committee at a Revenue Committee meeting (date not specified) voted to adopt an amendment to Senate File 61 and passed the bill out of committee that narrows the state's pollution‑control property tax exemption so it will not apply to facilities constructed solely for the purpose of capturing non‑point‑source carbon dioxide.

The change amends the environmental quality statute referenced in testimony (Title 35, pollution control exemption) by inserting language that excludes "facilities constructed for the sole purpose of capturing non point source carbon dioxide" from the tax exemption. Senator David Case, sponsor of the bill, framed the change as a way to ensure very large, standalone direct‑air capture plants would not qualify for the exemption and therefore would remain subject to local property taxation.

Senator Case said the existing statutory exemption, found in the environmental quality provisions (discussed in testimony as 35‑11‑1103), was designed for equipment retrofits that control pollutants such as NOx and SOx required by federal or state mandates and that it has generally applied to pollution control equipment added to existing plants. "My worry ... was that this 35‑11‑1103 left an avenue for those very large new facilities to be exempt from taxation," Case said, arguing that large direct‑air capture facilities would create substantial local impacts and should contribute to local tax bases.

An industry representative who spoke to the committee described the original purpose of the exemption: to avoid attaching additional property value to equipment installed solely to meet regulatory pollution controls. That witness said the amendment offered to the committee would narrow the exemption and avoid unintentionally excluding bolt‑on pollution control equipment while preventing wholly standalone direct‑air capture facilities from qualifying.

Renny McKay, president of the Wyoming Business Alliance, and witnesses from the trona and mining industries testified that they had concerns about the bill as originally drafted but supported the amendment after discussing it with sponsor and industry representatives. McKay said some businesses view carbon capture as an economic opportunity while others worried about exempting large facilities from local tax rolls.

Brenda Henson, director at the Department of Revenue, told the committee that the State Board of Equalization tracks the value of pollution‑control exemptions reported by county assessors and that the department could provide aggregate figures from the assessors' abstracts due June 1.

Committee action: Senator Case moved the bill; Senator Hyde seconded. Senator Case offered the amendment (shared by industry and a staff witness); Senator Pappas seconded the amendment. The committee adopted the amendment by voice vote and later approved the bill on roll call. The recorded roll‑call on Senate File 61 showed Senator Case, Senator French, Senator Eyde, Senator Pappas and Chairman McEwen voting aye; the amendment adoption had been approved by voice vote earlier.

The committee record and testimony noted federal incentives and programs that could affect direct‑air capture development, including references in testimony to federal infrastructure funding and incentives for direct‑air capture hubs. Witnesses referenced a proposed project identified in a Wyoming Business Council press release (referred to in testimony as "Project Bison") and discussed uncertainty about whether such projects will be feasible in Wyoming.

The committee indicated staff would provide the State Board of Equalization's aggregated valuation data for pollution‑control exemptions on request. Senators and witnesses also discussed the difference between point‑source carbon capture (attached to an identifiable emitter) and non‑point‑source capture (directly from the atmosphere), which the amendment uses as the dividing line for the exemption.

Votes at a glance: the committee adopted the amendment and advanced Senate File 61 out of committee.

Sources and evidence: committee roll call, sponsor remarks and testimony from business and industry representatives, and Department of Revenue staff comments as recorded in the committee transcript.