Prescriptive Easements for Electricity Delivery
In one sentence
Plain language
Official record
Bill Summary - 26LSO-0501 Bill No.: SF0099 Effective: 7/1/2026 LSO No.: 26LSO-0501 Enrolled Act No.: SEA No. 0063 Chapter No.: 102 Prime Sponsor: Cooper Catch Title: Prescriptive easements for electricity delivery. Has Report: No Subject: Authorizing easements for electricity delivery and distribution systems. Summary/Major Elements: This act authorizes a nonexclusive easement for electric utilities for a delivery system (the physical structures and power lines that convey electricity) if all of the following have been met: The electric utility has installed a delivery system. The delivery system is visibly installed so as to provide successors-in-interest constructive or actual notice that the delivery system exists on the property. The delivery system was installed on or before January 1, 2026. The delivery system's use is continuous and uninterrupted (for purposes of this requirement, an interruption must exceed one (1) year to be not continuous). The act provides that, upon the establishment of an easement for the electric utility, the electric utility has the right to reconstruct, re-phase, maintain and repair the existing system and to remove trees and vegetation likely to become hazardous to the system. Access to the easement granted under this act is limited to that access necessary to exercise the rights and privileges granted under this act, except that further access is authorized if access to the easement would be hazardous or materially encumbered. The act provides that the easement cannot exceed thirty (30) feet from any direction from the location of the physical parts of the system, and an easement is deemed abandoned if the electric utility fails to use the delivery system for more than three (3) consecutive years without an agreement with the landowner. Before the electric utility is granted an easement, the utility must publish a notice in a local newspaper or customer newsletter. The above summary is not an official publication of the Wyoming Legislature and is not an official statement of legislative intent. While the Legislative Service Office endeavored to provide accurate information in this summary, it should not be relied upon as a comprehensive abstract of the bill.
Public statements
Last checked Aug 4, 11:57 PM
R · H02
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because it was requested by landowners to allow reasonable expansions for residential needs while explicitly excluding industrial or manufacturing increases in wattage.
R · H54
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because removing the existing language would fail to protect against industrial expansion or other mischief that the current text prevents.
R · H52
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because they believe it could negatively impact a landowner's ability to expand their own property for residential use or water wells.
R · H04
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports an amendment to clarify that while residential expansions are allowed under historic easements, industrial or data center projects must start the easement process over.
R · H29
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports a second amendment because it clarifies that large power projects or industrial upgrades must still go through the established easement process.
R · H17
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports an amendment to ensure that handshake deals from the past are properly documented with paperwork while maintaining protections against unauthorized expansions.
D · H13
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports an amendment because they believe it resolves the ambiguity in the previous language regarding industrial exceptions.
R · H27
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports an amendment because it clarifies the language while preserving the intent of what landowners want and need regarding easements.
R · H51
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports an amendment because it clarifies the language while still protecting property rights, which they consider very important.
R · S20
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports concurrence because stakeholders agreed on the original version of the bill and it is considered good with no damage to either side.
R · S29
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because it tightens liability standards, but opposes the bill itself as they believe it undermines property rights without landowner permission.
R · S02
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because they believe it is appropriate given that the state is effectively creating an easement where none previously existed.
R · S16
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill and the amendment because they consulted with their utility association, which expressed comfort with the proposed changes.
R · S11
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because it provides legal protection for users who are also landowners, while noting other remedies exist for trespassers.
R · S20
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker explains that the bill addresses current access issues for aging power lines and notes it was reworked by a group of stakeholders to meet everyone's needs.
If a lawmaker is not listed, we couldn't find a published reason.
Wyoming roll calls
6 roll calls
Official activity
Changes
6 stored
Failed 3rd reading by Representative Bratten
Adopted 3rd reading by Representative Geringer
Adopted Standing Committee by House Minerals, Business and Economic Development
Withdrawn 2nd reading by Senator Steinmetz
Adopted 3rd reading by Senator Steinmetz
Withdrawn Committee of the Whole by Senator Steinmetz