Joint Judiciary Committee Minutes for Meeting October 1 & 2, 2007

Committee Meeting Information

October 1 & 2, 2007

Riverton Holiday Inn

Riverton, Wyoming

Committee Members Present

Senator Tony Ross, Cochairman

Representative Ed Buchanan, Cochairman

Senator Bruce Burns

Senator Ken Decaria

Senator Drew Perkins

Senator Kathryn Sessions

Representative George Bagby

Representative Dan Dockstader

Representative Erin Mercer

Representative Monte Olsen

Representative Lisa Shepperson (Tuesday only)

Representative Mary Throne

Committee Members Absent

Representative Deb Alden

Representative Keith Gingery

Representative Lisa Shepperson (Monday only)

Legislative Service Office Staff

John Rivera, Senior Staff Attorney

Dave Gruver, Assistant Director, Legal Services Division

Ian Shaw, Staff Attorney

Others Present at Meeting

Please refer to Appendix 1 to review the Committee Sign-in Sheet
for a list of other individuals who attended the meeting.

Executive Summary

The Committee met for two days in Riverton. The Committee considered draft legislation on court procedures, Board of Parole authority; juvenile justice, and testimony on adult sentencing and carbon capture and sequestration. the Committee also took a tour of the Honor Farm in Riverton. The Committee directed staff to work with interested parties to prepare legislation for consideration by the Committee at the next meeting.

The Committee will meet again in November, 2007, to consideration draft legislation and further refine the scope of the authorized study topics.

Call To Order (October 1, 2007)

Chairman Buchanan called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. Before approval the minutes of the August, 2007 meeting, Ms. Beth Evans, Wyoming County Commissioners Association (WCCA), advised the Committee that she would be publishing a profile of assets and services available to juveniles by county, not a profile of social and fiscal impacts as a result of jailing juveniles as noted in the minutes. After noting the change and approval of the minutes from the June, 2007 meeting, the Committee proceeded to consider items on its agenda. The following sections summarize the Committee proceedings by topic. Please refer to Appendix 2 to review the Committee Meeting Agenda.

08LSO-0120.W1, Court procedures-amendments

Ms. Holly Hansen, Supreme Court Administrator, advised the bill before the Committee was proposed by the Board of Judicial Policy and Administration. She distributed Appendix 3, Order Adopting District Court Rules for Court Reporters, explaining that the statute, W.S. 5-3-402, specifying requirements for court reporters was no longer necessary and was proposed for repeal in the bill. The Committee asked about the relationship between W.S. 5-3-401 and 402 and questioned whether portions of W.S. 5-3-402 should be retained, rather than being repealed. Ms. Hansen stated that Mr. Rivera had earlier questioned whether W.S. 5-9-119(a) should be revised to reflect that circuit court judges no longer hold court for justices of the peace.

The Committee decided that Ms. Hansen should discuss with the Board of Judicial Policy and Administration whether W.S. 5-3-402 should be amended, rather than repealed, and W.S. 5-9-119(a) should be added to the bill to reflect current practices.

08LSO-0121.W1, Board of parole-authorizing reductions in length of parole

Mr. Pat Anderson, Executive Director, Board of Parole, distributed calendars of Board of Parole hearings for 2007 and 2008 (Appendix 4) for Committee members who may want to attend Board meetings that may be held close to the Committee member's home. He then explained the bill before the Committee , including its purposes and goals. The bill would amend W.S. 7-13-408, authorizing intensive supervised probation because that program has worked well, according to the Department of Corrections. After review of the bill, Mr. Anderson believed it would be helpful also, to add W.S. 7-18-115 on page 2, line 20 of the bill. He described the two types of "good time" allowances that could be awarded under W.S. 7-13-420. "Special" good time is authorized by rules promulgated by the Governor, under subsection (a) of that section. It reduces the minimum term of a sentence by 1/3 and cannot be taken away. "Regular" good time is statutory and reduces the maximum term of a sentence, but can be taken away for infractions committed by the inmate. Mr. Anderson sees this bill as a management tool to help parolees become more successful. About 36% of potential parolees refuse to apply for parole and this bill may become an incentive to help parolees return to the community successfully. It is better to have the inmates address their risk behaviors through parole than to let them simply "kill their time" and get released at the end of their sentences without controls. Chairman Buchanan wanted more information on removal of good time statutorily and to have the amendment to the bill requested by Mr. Anderson incorporated into the bill before it is voted on by the Committee.

Senator Ross stated he had attended a Board of Judicial Policy and Administration meeting at which judges recommended the repeal of the Addicted Offender Accountability Act because that Act is not being used.

Juvenile Justice

08LSO-0122.W1, Community juvenile services boards-amendments

Mr. Rivera advised that Attorney General Bruce Salzburg was not able to attend the meeting because of a previously scheduled mediation in Casper. Because the bill drafted at the request of former Attorney General Pat Crank has problems that haven't yet been addressed, the Committee declined to consider the bill further at this meeting, but would hear more testimony on juvenile justice issues to decide if the bill warranted further consideration.

Chairman Buchanan also advised the Committee that, after discussions with Mr. Rivera, the valid court order bill the Committee had wanted drafted for consideration at this meeting was considerably more complex than had been anticipated and the Committee would have to discuss a number of issues to decide what sort of bill it wanted to have drafted.

Mr. Bob Quick, Juvenile Services Administrator, Department of Family Services (DFS), distributed Appendix 5, a letter from Mr. Tony Lewis, Director, DFS, describing pilot projects in Laramie and Sweetwater counties to identify a continuum of services for juveniles who come into contact with the juvenile justice system. Washington state research found that there are a number of juveniles who shouldn't be brought into the juvenile justice system because of the negative behaviors they would learn. If their cases are handled administratively, it is likely that many of these juveniles would never be seen again in the juvenile or adult justice systems. The concern is to find ways to fund services for juveniles in the system.

Senator Ross said the new prosecutor in Platte county is referring juvenile offenders to juvenile court to ensure they receive necessary services that aren't available through municipal or circuit courts. This has increased caseloads significantly for the district court judges in Platte county. Mr. Quick replied that funding juvenile services in municipal or circuit courts may address the problem. Senator Ross agreed that funding is the issue but is not convinced that providing the funding to community juvenile services boards is the answer.

Senator Perkins said that funding juvenile services in municipal and circuit courts may be helpful, but having to convene a multidisciplinary team in every case would still be cumbersome, nor should all juvenile cases have to go through a community juvenile services board to allow services for a juvenile. Simply funding those local boards without central, uniform standards would result in a problem similar to those now being reviewed with respect to drug courts. Senator Perkins then suggested perhaps the Committee should consider the Attorney General's opinion letter that says lower courts can't provide probation and other services and find ways to address the restrictions so the lower courts can provide necessary juvenile services. W.S. 7-13-304 could be revised to authorize lower courts to order services. Mr. Quick advised caution about expand services too quickly, because it could significantly affect DFS's ability to provide those juvenile services.

Chairman Buchanan said different communities have different needs, so a set of central, uniform standards may result in exorbitant costs and inefficiencies. Perhaps the Community Juveniles Services Act could function to address local needs, but would need to have the multidisciplinary team provisions removed from the act. What is needed is to focus on the availability of services at the local level and establishing a single point of entry for juveniles in that system, which can be done without probation officers and the costs associated with implementation of 08LSO-0122.W1. Senator Perkins said his concern is not with the community juvenile services boards, but with the block grant process. In response to a question from Representative Mercer, Chairman Buchanan stated that the membership of the boards is not specified in statute. Representative Throne added that if the boards are not mandatory, perhaps it may be necessary to mandate the boards to act as a single point of entry. Chairman Buchanan advised that the discussion may return to the bill before the Committee, but he wants further discussion on the valid court order issue first.

Ms. Evans described the history of the valid court order requirement under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA). The requirement first appeared in the 1982 Code of Federal Regulations. While only minor revisions to the Wyoming Juvenile Justice Act would be necessary to comply with the JJDPA, only about 10% of juveniles in detention appear before the juvenile court, so those changes wouldn't have much effect with respect to compliance with the JJDPA. A few states don't have valid court order statutes because their laws specifically prohibit status offenders from being placed in juvenile detention. She advised that the purpose of the multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) was to provide the third party assessments required as part of the valid court order requirement. Some alternatives could include requiring the valid court order form to have both the signature of the juvenile and of the parents, or giving circuit courts responsibility over Title 14.

Mr. Brian Christensen, 7^th Judicial District Deputy District Attorney, advises that the Natrona County Access to Recovery Program incorporates most of the procedures required under the valid court order provisions of the JJDPA. The program can include juveniles who are issued county or municipal citations, but because the program is voluntary some governmental entities in the county don't participate. If the juvenile chooses to participate and successfully completes his program before he is required to appear in court, the charges may be dismissed. Mr. Chuck Kratz described the process used in Fremont county.

Mr. Bill Runner, member, State Advisory Council on Juvenile Justice, said the state needs to provide mental health and substance abuse services for juveniles through municipal or circuit courts when appropriate. He doesn't know how best to provide the funding for those services, but believes it is essential that those services be available, regardless of the court.

Chairman Buchanan proposed limiting the use of municipal court for infractions by juveniles, then only applying the valid court order procedures in circuit and juvenile courts. Mr. Christensen stated the law would have to be changes to allow circuit courts to hear violations of municipal ordinances. The Juvenile Justice Act already provides concurrent jurisdiction for the juvenile court over municipal court citations issued to juveniles. Chairman Buchanan then said he would like the Committee to focus on establishing a single point of entry into the juvenile justice system, provision of appropriate services to juveniles, and the authority of lower courts to order juvenile probation services.

Senator Ross expressed concern that the bill before the Committee is unworkable in its current format because it doesn't address juvenile services through municipal or circuit court. The bill might be workable if the MDT provisions are removed from the Community Juveniles Services Act. In fact, the bill may be better than jurisdictional changes if the MDT provisions are eliminated. The jurisdictional changes may be adequate, provided an exception is made for cities like Cheyenne and Evanston that have excellent juvenile courts in place. The $11 million appropriation in the current bill is unacceptable. Accountability for any monies that are appropriated is essential. Representative Dockstader asked how much it would cost to implement the bill with the changes. Mr. Quick replied that can not be calculated and he would prefer that DFS would like to try a reasonable expansion of probation services for a while before estimating how much funding would be necessary for the community juvenile services boards.

Chairman Buchanan believes that with a change in the circuit courts' jurisdictional authority, the amendments to the Community Juveniles Services Act would not be necessary. With the change in jurisdiction authority, the funding could simply be given to the county or to DFS to provide the services. Representative Mercer asked what caseload demands would this approach place on circuit court judges. Senator Perkins replied that circuit courts are already handling these cases and the only money that may be needed is for additional probation officers and those funds could be allocated by the courts just as the guardian ad litem provisions are currently. Senator Ross suggested that it may be easier to simply allow all courts to have authority to implement intensive supervised probation services. Chairman Buchanan then summarized the approach he was proposing to include: limiting municipal courts' authority in juvenile matters, with an exception for good programs like Ronn Jeffrey's court in Cheyenne; authorizing circuit courts to impose supervised probation for juveniles; fund services through DFS initially to provide for accountability; amend the law to provide for valid court orders in circuit and juvenile courts; and, require data collection to assess outcomes.

Senator Burns noted that the no judges or the Attorney General were present to discuss the alternative being presented. He, therefore, suggested the Committee take no action until those persons have had an opportunity to provide input on the various proposals. Chairman Buchanan replied they have had input, but it's time for the Legislature to present a proposal to get further discussion on the issues. Senator Ross added that the working lunch on juvenile justice hosted by the Governor was focused on allowing local officials decide which services they would provide for juveniles.

Representative Dockstader moved for the Committee to consider draft legislation that would provide for a single point of entry into the juvenile justice system; limiting jurisdiction; and, providing for community involvement in the provision of services. The motion carried on a voice vote. During brief discussion on how to achieve those objectives, the Committee also called for creation of valid court order provisions for all courts dealing with juveniles as part of the same bill, or as a separate bill, as appropriate. The cochairmen would work with staff to structure a proposal.

Adult Sentencing Review Follow-up

Mr. Steve Lindly, Deputy Director, Department of Corrections (DoC), advised that Director Lampert was unavailable for the meeting. He distributed Appendix 6, containing charts and a comparison of projections on prison populations in Wyoming through 2015 made by Pew Charitable Trusts Public Safety Performance Project and by the Wyoming Department of Corrections. Projections beyond five years are very speculative. The Pew Project ranked Wyoming as No. 5 in the nation, with a projected prison population growth of 27% in the next five years. The DoC projections are 15.7% for the same period. The more recent projections by the DoC have been within 1% of actual growth. The DoC is also examining "good time" allowances, sentencing policies around the state and other issues to see how to make the best use of prison beds. He recommended a 2-year study, with a report to the Committee to examine the DoC's findings.

Mr. Lindly spoke briefly about his concern when the DoC prepares fiscal impact statements for bills. He is concerned with the potential of under- or over-estimating potential fiscal impacts, which will have consequences for the DoC. Senator Burns asked Mr. Lindly to provide examples of how other states perform their fiscal impact analysis.

Mr. Lindly distributed Appendix 7, a description by Ms. Korin Schmidt, Policy and Planning Administrator, Wyoming Department of Health (WDH), Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services Division, of a proposed study of drug offenders to determine the most effective sanctions that may be imposed for the individual drug offender. The key to the success of drug courts appears to be getting the right candidate into the right program and services. Mr. Lindly was asked to return to the next meeting of the Committee with an estimate of what the DoC can do to augment the funding the WDH can provide for the study.

Meeting Recess

The Committee recessed at 3:50 p.m. to tour the Wyoming Honor Farm.

Call To Order (October 2, 2007)

Chairman Ross called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. The following sections summarize the Committee proceedings by topic. Please refer to Appendix 2 to review the Committee Meeting Agenda.

Carbon Capture and Sequestration

The Committee heard from Dr. Nicholas Woodward, Department of Energy (DoE). Dr. Woodward provided his PowerPoint presentation to the Committee. (Appendix 8). He has worked with the issue since 1993 and acknowledged its complexity. His principal employment is to review and approve grant applications relating to carbon sequestration. He has extensive knowledge of deep well injection of supercritical carbon dioxide (CO2). According to Dr. Woodward, the subject is really permanent disposal of CO2, with the CO2 being added into a system in which the CO2 eventually reacts with geological formations. Over time, the buoyancy of the CO2 decreases. He explained the geophysical characteristics of the formations used for CO2 sequestration. The well must be at least 1 kilometer in depth in order to keep the CO2 at its supercritical phase. Over time, the CO2 will become immobile as it dissolves and eventually becomes mineralized. The amount of CO2 which may be injected will depend upon the porosity of the formation (perhaps 10% of the rock’s volume). The porosity of the formation will affect the volume of the stored CO2. A solid cap rock is necessary to prevent upward mobility of sequestered CO2. Assuming the formation into which the CO2 is injected is filled with saline brine, the CO2 will displace the brine. The CO2 is much more mobile in the gas phase, with one example showing the plume spread 12 kilometers in 10 years. The permanency of the retention of the injected CO2 was discussed. The length of time for mineralization to occur is unknown. It has been estimated that if the CO2 remains in the supercritical phase, 45% to 70% will remain after 250 years. The movement of the CO2 will depend largely upon the local geology and movement of the CO2 in specific locations is unknown before specific study is done.

It will be critical to monitor, using various means, the injected CO2 and to test the proposed sites for sequestration in order to help know the potentialities involved. Dr. Woodward addressed the current test models being done, including the locations, types of formations being tested and timelines for the tests. Over the next two years, a great quantity of information will become available regarding the fate of the CO2, its movements and risk.

Dr. Woodard discussed the risks of injection, including the fact that underground reservoir pressure increases. When injection ends the pressure will decrease in the reservoir over time. Other risks include changing the fluid chemistry, which can dissolve formation minerals, thus decreasing the strength of the formation rock. Risk analysis, include faults in the subsurface and displacement of brine as the buoyant CO2 migrates upwards, must be done. How far and how fast the CO2 can migrate is currently being tested.

Committee questions addressed the Future-Gen project. The Future-Gen project is intended to pulverize coal, separate the CO2 before combustion, and thus provide a segregated stream of CO2. The purpose of the project is to take a holistic approach to the issue. In response to Senator Burns' question as to whether there is any reason for carbon sequestration other than the abatement of anthropogenic CO2 for global warming purposes, Dr. Woodward stated “no.” Senator Bebout expressed concern regarding the pushing of the brine upward and it’s effect on fresh water lying above the sequestered CO2. Dr. Woodward explained that, in one test formation in which the CO2 was injected at a depth of only 800 meters (versus the minimum 1 kilometer needed), the supercritical CO2 has become a gas and is leaking from the formation (in the North Sea). Dr. Woodward stated that the bottom line is that the issue will be generated by government mandate. Without a mandate, there will be no incentive to store carbon. The science is coming along and we are learning how to store carbon. The science can not state with certainty that carbon storage is a viable option. Dr. Woodward suggested that there will be sensors cemented into the formation, There will be sensors above the caprock to detect any leaking. In response to Sen. Nicholas, as to how far brine might migrate and could it be a surface owner 50 miles away who would discover brine water showing up on his surface, Dr. Woodward thought the concern could be adequately evaluated.

The Committee asked questions of Dr. Woodward including whether any test wells were being drilled in Wyoming. Dr. Woodward indicated that no phase II (small tests) wells are located in Wyoming. Representative Lubnau asked who regulates best practices. Dr. Woodward answered by indicating that the EPA regulates under experimental well status (class V) or class II, reinjected water. Representative Simpson asked who regulates chemical injection wells. Dr. Woodward believes them to be regulated by the EPA as class I wells. Representative Throne asked when will the large volume (Phase III) tests be known. They will be completed in the 2017 timeframe with small volume tests being completed well before then. Dr. Woodward believes that the liability for tests are subject to contractual agreements.

Dr. Bill Gern of the University of Wyoming addressed the Committee. Dr. Gern stated that Wyoming has a large stake in CO2 sequestration as a large coal producer. Dr. Lee Spangler, University of Wyoming professor and director of the Big Sky Partnership, addressed the Committee. Dr. Spangler discussed the Big Sky Partnership, which is one of several partnerships throughout the nation doing CO2 sequestration research in cooperation with the DoE. The Partnership includes the University of Wyoming, University of Montana and a number of business entities. The Partnership is conducting pilot projects and has submitted applications to the DoE to conduct phase II (small tests) and phase III (large-scale tests) studies on CO2 sequestration. Dr. Spangler discussed methods of trapping CO2 to stop its movement once it is injected. He stated that if the storage facility is carefully selected, there is significant evidence that CO2 can be restricted in movement and there are remediation methods that can be implemented if there is movement. Dr. Spangler opined that remediation likely is possible long before any significant effects of leaking CO2 are apparent. Dr. Spangler addressed the partnership’s current efforts. He noted that small scale testing must be accommodated in any regulatory scheme.

Dr. Jeff Fine, University of Wyoming, addressed what the Big Sky Partnership is doing in Wyoming. Dr. Fine addressed issues raised earlier. The “footprint” would be much like an oil and gas development, with one Texas professor suggesting that the final overall footprint might be as large as those created by the oil and gas industry. While personally on the fence regarding global warming, he noted that if Wyoming can develop clean coal technology, it will benefit the state. Mr. Fine explained that the EPA regulates CO2 under a United States Supreme Court decision. The EPA prohibits interfering with water that has a salinity less than 10,000 parts per million. As to test wells in Wyoming, there is a pilot test that may be conducted in Wyoming near LaBarge. Mr. Fine provided an overview of the geology in the area. The test well will involve a large volume sequestration test proposed to begin in 2008, with injection to begin in 2010. The CO2 for the project is mostly already in the formation, but additional CO2 will come from a company in Colorado, under a DoE funded project. The state geologic survey has identified another potential formation for testing in two other areas. The results of the first large volume test will be available in the next 10 to 15 years, with valuable information being provided throughout the test period.

With regard to the LaBarge, Wyoming project and responding to a question by Representative Lubnau, Dr. Fine explained that the company supplying the CO2 owns the mineral rights and the project is being permitted as an oil and gas injection well by the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Committee questions and discussion concerned the use of formations and land ownership surrounding the test site. Dr. Fine noted that the project would add 5 to 7 wells to an area with approximately 30 wells and would be using the existing rights-of-ways of the company supplying the CO2. Thus, for this project, the immediate impact would be minimal. However, Dr. Fine explained that the overall impacts of CO2 sequestration on landowners and surface owners are unknown.

Mr. Rob Hurless, Governor’s Office, talked to the Committee and noted that the Rock Springs uplift is being discussed as one storage formation. However, it is within the checkerboard of land ownership and the ownership issues will be complex. According to Mr. Hurless, Wyoming lost out on the Future-Gen project because we were not able to demonstrate that the caprock at the proposed site was sufficiently impermeable to protect water lying above. Further, the quality of the water at 9,500 feet was unknown. Both of those issues have been addressed for the projected large scale projects. He stated that the best estimates are that Wyoming produces 55 million tons of CO2 per year from manmade generation.

The Committee asked questions regarding the capture of intellectual property rights surrounding new CO2 sequestration technologies. Dr. Gern stated that the University of Wyoming owns the technology if federal funds were involved. They must recognize inventors' rights and repay the federal government certain funds. For the Partnership, Dr. Spangler stated that under applicable MOU’s, the generator of the intellectual property owns it. In response to a question concerning any opposition to the LaBarge project, Dr. Fine stated that there has been none at this point. He, however, does not know if the project has received enough publicity to generate opposition.

Representative Lubnau then addressed the Committee and thanked the University and Dr. Woodward for attending and sharing their expertise. He noted that there is some regulation of CO2 wells at this time but that ownership and liability issues would could be undertaken through court cases. That would be an inefficient means of proceeding in his view. He stated the issue is more complicated than he had foreseen, but that CO2 sequestration likely has the largest potential effect of any legislation during his generation. He reviewed the draft legislation, noting that the drafts are only on the table for discussion purposes and that they should be reviewed critically in order to facilitate the debate.

The Committee discussed the various issues the draft raises. Those included the definition of what is subject to the draft (i.e., CO2 from an anthropogenic source). Rep Lubnau stated that legislation applies to man-made CO2. Issues discussed included the standards for bonding, determining whether the required findings are sufficient or overly broad and the difference between permitting and certificating facilities. Representative Lubnau identified three main topics on the CO2 issue: 1) eminent domain; 2) regulatory issues; and, 3) ownership issues. Representative Lubnau felt that the logical sequence in legislation should be ownership, then regulatory, and finally eminent domain. He said the issue of eminent domain had been left out of the bill and perhaps should not be included in the first step of the bill.

The question was raised of whether the use of a subsurface void should be dominant over the surface, similar to mineral extraction. Representative Lubnau thought it should not. There was then discussion whether there should be monitoring of the sites required in legislation. Representative Lubnau identified it as a policy choice. Senator Sessions thought such a requirement should be included in the statute.

Representative Lubnau continue reviewing the draft and Senator Burns asked why would you want to separate the ownership of the void from the surface. Representative Lubnau opined that it is an asset that the surface owner might wish to sell and make the overall ownership right more valuable. Senator Burns identified that this would be a problem similar to mineral ownership rights - i.e., it could be simpler and no loss of benefit if the ownership right always stays with the surface owner. Representative Lubnau feels it is a policy decision of free alienability of property rights versus regulatory simplicity. The Committee discussed the issue. Representative Lubnau discussed which estate would be dominant. Representative Lubnau’s intent was to leave the surface owner and the void owner on equal footing, the void owner would not have the dominant estate. Other issues discussed on the bill were the interaction of the bill with different patents for lands, including issues relating to tribal lands.

Next, Mr. Bob Tarantola, Rocky Mountain Power, introduced Kyle Davis, PacifiCorp Manager for Environmental Policy and Strategy. Mr. Davis provide written materials (Appendices 9-11). He noted that utilities are not generally involved in research and development as their charge is to provide the utility to consumers as efficiently and cost effectively as possible. Thus, for carbon storage issues, PacifiCorp and other utilities are limited as far as doing R&D work. They do need to recognize potential carbon tax issues on their charge. He stated that no one should underestimate the effect of decarbonizing an economy which has been based on carbon fuels for two centuries. The view of PacifiCorp is that research and development should be the focus of reducing carbon emissions over the next 15 years or so and then address regulatory implementations for reductions. As far as PacifiCorp is concerned, carbon sequestration is the leading R&D issue to address. Legislation can help develop pipeline development and address the legal and regulatory framework for CO2 sequestration. Mr. Davis identified other issues including, what can a utility do in the context of R&D and recovery of R&D costs, what is the regulatory framework to get the projects off the ground, and what can be done to promote demonstration projects which will help inform the subsequent development of a regulatory framework.

Senator Nicholas then asked whether an injector should assume the liability for CO2 sequestration or should it be kept with the generator of the CO2. Mr. Davis noted the issue is critical, but commented that PacifiCorp believes it should be a federal solution. PacifiCorp would like to contract the issue away, but short of that solution, feel that spreading the costs over the utility's customers might be feasible. He is hopeful that demonstration projects will show that the liability is not as great as feared. Representative Throne asked what the current regulatory approach to CO2 is. PacifiCorp has seen two different approaches: 1) the oil and gas commissions; and, 2) DEQ-like agencies permit the project. PacifiCorp would like to see a full utility unit built with carbon capture and sequestration permitted as a full scale demonstration project. Senator Ross asked what PacifiCorp is expecting of Wyoming to operate the demonstration project? Finding ways to remove regulatory barriers is a large benefit in Mr. Davis’ view. The point is to help find a way to get demonstration projects started in order to know if carbon capture really is going to work.

Mr. Marion Loomis, Wyoming Mining Association, provided testimony on the draft bill related to ownership. He stated that the resolution of the ownership issue should be tied to carbon sequestration only. There already are deep disposal wells being used and the bill might upset those agreements. There also was discussion about how carbon capture, if done after coal pulverization, loses its efficiency. Mr. Loomis provided estimated add on costs of about 7 cents per kilowatt hour (or approximately double the current price for electrical coal fired power). Senator Nicholas asked Mr. Loomis who currently owns the storage rights for deep disposal wells. Mr. Loomis testified that he is not sure who owns the rights to the disposed injection wells.

Mr. Ken Hamilton, Wyoming Farm Bureau, also addressed the Committee concerning the bill addressing void ownership. He stated that surface owner should be the owner of the void. Eminent domain should be a separate issue in the 08LSO-0047 draft, but he questioned whether eminent domain is needed yet for carbon sequestration and he suggested that the need has not been established. In his view, there are a number of situations where eminent domain might be needed, but its necessity has not been demonstrated up to this point. Senator Sessions questioned whether it would be more harmful to landowners to leave eminent domain out of the statute for carbon sequestration rather than covering surface owner protections as provided last session. Mr. Hamilton thought the issue should be left completely out of the carbon sequestration bill.

Mr. Jason Beggers, Rio Tinto Energy, testified about ownership of the void. He testified that the issue of ownership of void is still unknown in Wyoming. His company has provided research that the surface owner is the owner of the pore space in other states. However, there is no Wyoming case on the issue. He provided Appendix 12 .

The Committee discussed the issue. Chairman Ross asked for Committee input as to how the bill drafts should be handled. Senator Nicholas suggested that the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the DEQ and the State Engineer should all be invited to testify as to what their roles should be and how the bills should be structured. He also suggested that the University could be invited to attend. Other members suggested that the DEQ be invited to address the Committee regarding primacy and the interaction of current UIC permitting and the proposed draft bill. That would take approximately half a day with the second half of the day to be devoted to developing a framework for the bill.

Next Committee Meeting

Cochairmen Ross and Buchanan stated the next Committee meeting will be held in November. They asked staff to determine via email the availability of members for a meeting on proposed dates that may be proposed.

Meeting Adjournment

There being no further business, Chairman Ross adjourned the meeting at 3:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Senator Tony Ross, Cochairman Representative Ed Buchanan, Cochairman

Appendix	Appendix Topic	Appendix Description	Appendix Provider
1	Committee Sign-In Sheet	Lists meeting attendees	Legislative Service Office
2	Committee Meeting Agenda	Provides an outline of the topics the Committee planned to address at meeting	Legislative Service Office
3	Order Adopting District Court Rules for Court Reporters	Provides requirements for court reporters adopted by the Wyoming Supreme Court	Ms. Holly Hansen, Supreme Court Administrator
4	Calendars of Parole Board Hearings	Provides the schedule for Board of Parole hearings for 2007 and 2008	Mr. Pat Anderson, Director, Board of Parole
5	Department of Family Services (DFS) letter to Committee Cochairs	Describes programs in Laramie and Sweetwater Counties and describes a program of graduated sanctions for juveniles	Mr. Tony Lewis, Director, DFS
6	Department of Corrections (DoC) letter to Committee Cochairs	Provides DoC's 5 year projections of prison populations in Wyoming and compares them with Pew Charitable Trust projections for Wyoming	Mr. Steve Lindly, Deputy Director, DoC
7	White Paper on Proposed Study of Drug Offenders	Describes a proposed study on assessing drug offenders and appropriate sentencing alternatives for those offenders	Ms. Korin Schmidt, Planning and Policy Administrator, Department of Health
8	PowerPoint Presentation on the Science of Geological Carbon Dioxide Sequestration	Provides an explanation of the science related to geological carbon sequestration	Dr. Nick Woodward, U.S. Department of Energy
9	Brochure¾Finding the Balance:Energy and Climate Conference	Provides information about a conference to be held October 8-10, 2007 to discuss balancing energy needs with protection of the environment	Mr. Bob Tarantola, PacifiCorp
10	PowerPoint Presentation by PacifiCorp	A PowerPoint presentation explaining the position of PacifiCorp on the issues relating to carbon capture and sequestration	Mr. Bob Tarantola, PacifiCorp

11		Written Statement by Rocky Mountain Power Co.		Explains the position of Rocky Mountain Power Co. on the issues relating to carbon capture and sequestration		Mr. Bob Tarantola, PacifiCorp
12		Rio Tinto White Paper on Carbon Capture and Sequestration		Reviews legal issues surrounding ownership rights affected by carbon capture and sequestration		Mr. Jason Beggers, Rio Tinto