Wyoming2006Did Not Pass

HB0174

HB0174: Changes to How Coal Value Is Calculated for Taxes

Last scannedOct 18, 2026, 2:19 AM

In one sentence

This bill would change how the state calculates the fair market value of coal for tax purposes by adjusting which costs are included in the calculation and defining a new term called depletion.

What it does

Creates a new definition for depletion as the reduction in value of a mineral deposit based on reserves removed and historical acquisition costs.
Amends the rule for calculating the fair market value of coal sold away from the mine.
Requires the department to subtract specific costs like transportation, royalties, and taxes from the sales value before applying a cost ratio.
Defines direct mining costs to include labor, supplies, equipment depreciation, fuel, and depletion.
Defines total direct costs to include processing labor, processing equipment costs, and transportation to the point of shipment.
Excludes indirect costs, such as corporate overhead and legal fees, from the cost ratio calculation.

Who it affects

Coal producers who sell coal away from the mine mouth.
The state department responsible for calculating coal tax values.
Taxpayers subject to ad valorem production taxes on coal.

Limits and unknowns

The bill did not pass and failed introduction in the House on February 16, 2006.
The bill text is marked as a working draft, so the final language may have differed from this version.
The bill would have taken effect on January 1, 2007, but it did not become law.

Plain language

Terms to know

Depletion: The reduction in the value of a mineral deposit, calculated by multiplying the percentage of reserves removed in a year by the historical acquisition costs.
Direct mining costs: Expenses specifically tied to extracting coal, such as labor, supplies, equipment depreciation, fuel, and depletion.
Total direct costs: Direct mining costs plus expenses for processing coal and transporting it to the point of shipment.
Indirect costs: General business expenses like corporate overhead, accounting, and legal fees that are not specifically tied to mining or processing operations.

Official record

Sources

Source checked

Official bill page Introduced text Official digest Current bill text

Public statements

Why lawmakers voted

Last checked Aug 7, 2:15 PM

David R Miller

H55

Voted No

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker opposes the bill because it would increase business costs for coal companies, potentially driving them away from Wyoming and reducing state tax revenue as happened in Montana.

Public statementFloor statement at 1:16:19 Watch the statement

Esquibel

Voted Yes

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker argues that correcting cost classifications for coal payments is necessary because coal is not an endless resource and the change will not harm the industry.

Public statementFloor statement at 1:17:46 Watch the statement

If a lawmaker is not listed, we couldn't find a published reason.

Wyoming roll calls

Recorded votes

1 roll call

H Failed Introduction 15-44-1-0-02006-02-16 · House15 yes 44 no

Yes: 15
No: 44
Absent: 0
Excused: 1
Conflict: 0

Yes 15

Ann RobinsonH58 Debbie HammonsH27 Doug SamuelsonH07 EsquibelGeorge BagbyH15 Jeff WasserburgerH32 John HastertH39 Kurt BucholzH47 Layton D MorganH12 Mary GilmoreH59 Pete JorgensenH16 Ross DiercksH02 Tom WalshH56 W. Patrick P GogglesH33 Zwonitzer, DL.

Excused 1

Burke JacksonH52

Official activity

Bill history

2006-02-16H Failed IntroductionHouse
2006-02-15H Received for IntroductionHouse
2006-02-14Bill Number AssignedLSO