Nuclear energy production study.
In one sentence
Not clearly identified in the stored source.
No additional limitations are listed.
Official record
Bill No.: <billno> Drafter: <drafterinit> Bill No.: HB0097 Drafter: DKG LSO No.: 10LSO-0244 Effective Date: VETOED Enrolled Act No.: HEA0052 Chapter No.: Prime Sponsor: Representative Harshman Catch Title: Nuclear energy production study. Subject: Task force study of nuclear energy production. Summary/Major Elements: Creates a task force consisting of 7 members (2 Senators appointed by the Senate President, 2 Representatives appointed by the Speaker) and 3 other members appointed by the Governor. The task force is to be staffed by the LSO. The task force is to study a number of issues relating to the production of electricity from nuclear energy as follows: o Potential incentives to encourage nuclear energy production in this state including taxation issues, use of unappropriated waters of the state and private and public sector partnerships; o State regulatory provisions unduly restricting the development of nuclear power production; o The role of local land use planning; o Any relevant federal statutes that may preempt or limit state or county authority; o Storage and reprocessing technologies, including short term and long term storage issues; o The role of higher education within the state in developing nuclear energy production. The task force is to submit its recommendations, including proposed legislation, to the joint minerals, business and economic development interim committee and the governor no later than November 1, 2010. The minerals committee is to consider the recommendations and develop legislation it deems appropriate for the 2011 session. Comments: Report Required report required to the minerals committee and governor by November 1, 2010. THIS BILL WAS VETOED. In his veto message the Governor noted: "If the Legislature wishes to have legislatively dominated task forces chaired by legislators, this should be done through Management Council or the committee of relevant jurisdiction." "We should not be spending precious public dollars on a topic about which we are already quite familiar." (The bill contained total appropriations of $26,000 for task force member salary and travel.)
Public statements
Last checked Aug 8, 6:25 AM
Why they voted this way
The speaker supports the bill because the Senate amendment replaced a member with revenue and taxation expertise on the appointed committee with a general public member, broadening its composition.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker argues that studying past uranium mining is unnecessary because modern practices are different and safety standards have improved, urging support for the bill's forward-looking focus instead of a backward look at history.
R · H37
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports focusing on future opportunities to bring jobs to the state, noting that nuclear power is highly regulated and past concerns are often exaggerated by hype.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker urges voting down the amendment because past studies have focused too much on negative aspects for decades, and this bill should focus on positive steps to restart the industry.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports looking at past uranium mining history as relevant context for moving forward, arguing that ignoring it is not a good approach.
If a lawmaker is not listed, we couldn't find a published reason.
Wyoming roll calls
8 roll calls
Official activity
Changes
2 stored
Failed 3rd reading by CONNOLLY
Adopted Standing Committee by LARSON