Wyoming Energy Dominance Fund
In one sentence
Plain language
Official record
Bill Summary - 26LSO-0383 Bill No.: SF0123 Effective: 7/1/2026 LSO No.: 26LSO-0383 Enrolled Act No.: SEA No. 0069 Chapter No.: 107 Prime Sponsor: Biteman Catch Title: Wyoming energy dominance fund. Has Report: Yes Subject: Creates the Wyoming Energy Dominance Fund. Summary/Major Elements: This act creates the Wyoming Energy Dominance Fund. Funds within the Wyoming Energy Dominance Fund are appropriated to the Wyoming Energy Authority to provide grants and loans for energy-related applied research, demonstration, pilot projects and commercial development projects. This act requires an application process to apply for a grant or loan and the Attorney General is required to provide an opinion regarding the legality of the grant or loan. The Wyoming Energy Authority is required to notify the Management Council and the Joint Minerals, Business and Economic Development Interim Committee of all proposed expenditures from the fund. The Management Council may make recommendations on the proposed expenditures. This act authorizes the transfer of funds to provide funding for the Wyoming Energy Dominance Fund. This act has a sunset date of December 31, 2028. Comments: Requires a report. 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 7, 12:48 PM
R · H17
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because they believe funding should not be restricted only to current severance taxpayers, as it would exclude emerging energy technologies like rare earths.
R · H62
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because limiting funding to production-side companies that pay severance tax would eliminate support for post-production industries and new entrants.
R · H32
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment based on feedback from industry stakeholders in their county who are strongly opposed to limiting funds only to those paying severance taxes.
R · H39
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker argues against the amendment because it eliminates funding for rare earths, which are critical for national security and currently imported from unfriendly nations.
R · H54
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because limiting funds to extraction-only industries would exclude value-added processing and manufacturing, which are vital for job creation and economic growth.
R · H02
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill and opposes the amendment because it advances national energy dominance by funding reliable sources like coal, natural gas, uranium, and critical minerals.
R · H42
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment due to ambiguity regarding which industries qualify and because it would exclude value-added projects like natural gas refining that were previously supported.
R · H31
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes division two because they view the funding as a giveaway to wealthy companies rather than tax relief for property owners, and believe spending should be constrained.
R · H27
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes division two because the funds come from industry taxes that should be reinvested to generate further economic benefits for both the companies and the state.
R · H46
Why they voted this way
The speaker argues that the bill recycles money from extractive industries back into the economy and ecology by funding infrastructure like pipelines to increase sales and revenue. They state they will vote no on an amendment because of this investment rationale.
R · H56
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because removing grants signals a lack of confidence in project viability despite having oversight mechanisms in place.
R · H27
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because it limits the program's ability to generate additional funds from federal sources and ignores the industry's request for grants.
R · H62
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because grants are necessary to expedite business development in Wyoming compared to competing states.
R · H44
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he views the bill as a business deal where severance taxes paid by industry should be reinvested to generate more revenue.
R · H24
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because agencies indicated that grants are needed for companies testing new technologies in Wyoming.
R · H01
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he believes it is a critical opportunity to invest in energy dominance while federal support is strong, fearing future administrations may not be as supportive.
R · H52
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he believes grants are necessary to help small companies with shovel-ready projects succeed immediately.
R · H02
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he agrees with previous arguments that it is not the time to be timid regarding energy investment.
R · H58
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because he fears that grants could result in lost investments if a future administration changes policies, citing the Keystone pipeline example.
R · H60
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker leans toward supporting the amendment because she is concerned about the state picking winners and losers or entering the banking business in a free market economy.
R · H11
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he believes grants are necessary for high-risk rare earth mineral exploration projects that companies might not undertake with loans alone.
R · H54
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he argues existing industries have been over-taxed and deserve matching funds for new value-added projects like nickel mining.
R · H37
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports an amendment to cap funding at $105 million because they believe it provides necessary certainty and accountability for appropriators given the volatility of oil prices.
R · H47
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because they believe having two options in consideration is better than one.
R · H42
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes an amendment because they believe reducing the funding by 80% would effectively neuter the bill and make it ineffective.
R · H31
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports an amendment to limit the severance tax funding to $105 million because they believe it aligns with the bill's intent and ensures money flows as intended.
R · S21
Why they voted this way
The sponsor argues that the fund addresses capital bottlenecks and regulatory complexity to accelerate energy projects vital for national security, grid reliability, and state revenue without relying on federal mandates.
If a lawmaker is not listed, we couldn't find a published reason.
Wyoming roll calls
10 roll calls
Official activity
Changes
15 stored
Failed 2nd reading by Representative Pendergraft
Failed 2nd reading by Representative Harshman
Failed 2nd reading by Representative Larson, JT
Failed 2nd reading by Representative Bear
Adopted 2nd reading by Representative Bear
Divided 3rd reading by Representative Bear
Corrected, Failed 3rd reading by Representative Bear
Corrected, Failed 3rd reading by Representative Bear
Adopted Committee of the Whole by Representative Larson, JT
Adopted Committee of the Whole by Representative Heiner
Divided Standing Committee by House Minerals, Business and Economic Development
Corrected, Adopted Standing Committee by House Minerals, Business and Economic Development
Corrected, Failed Standing Committee by House Minerals, Business and Economic Development
Adopted Committee of the Whole by Senator Hicks
Adopted Standing Committee by Senate Appropriations Committee