Even while preparing for a carbon-constrained energy future here at home, Wyoming officials say the Democrats' sweeping energy bill sets unrealistic goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and could hit Wyoming's energy-based economy.

If passed, the impact of the legislation on Wyoming may be mixed. The state is currently on the cusp of a wind energy boom. If the United States is to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy, Wyoming stands to gain more wind development and the power lines that come with it.

It could also mean more demand for domestic oil. Dozens of Wyoming oil producers are already clamoring for CO2 supplies to stimulate production from old oilfields - an endeavor that addresses both climate change and energy independence. Although oil is a source of greenhouse gas emissions, using CO2 to develop more oil may actually build much of the infrastructure needed for carbon sequestration.

Rep. Tom Lockhart, R-Casper, said he's disappointed with the current draft bill in Washington, D.C.

Lockhart serves on Wyoming's legislative minerals committee, which has crafted several new laws in recent years dealing with CO2. He's also on the board of directors for Arch Coal Inc., and serves on the University of Wyoming's Energy Resource Council and the Clean Coal Research Task Force.

Lockhart said many of the provisions he saw in the energy bill were based on some false assumptions and with the attitude that hydrocarbons - even domestic sources - are a clear and present danger to the U.S.

"There are a number of things in there that I'm sure people don't understand," said Lockhart. "I don't think it will be good for the U.S. economy. I don't think it will be good for the state of Wyoming."

The Senate has yet to act on the measure, and a major struggle is expected.

While the bill would impose a "cap-and-trade" system that would force higher energy costs, Republicans for weeks have branded it an energy tax on every American.

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are rising about 1 percent a year and are predicted to continue increasing without mandatory caps.

Under the bill, the government would limit heat-trapping pollution from factories, refineries and power plants. It would distribute pollution allowances that could be bought and sold, depending on whether a facility exceeds the cap or makes greater pollution cuts than are required.

Proponents note that domestic energy sources aren't getting any cheaper to develop, and continuing America's reliance on foreign imports is patently unwise and uneconomic. Yet environmental concerns and not-in-my-backyard attitudes extend to proposed wind and nuclear energy development.

"Certainly there's going to be a lot of new development in the energy sector. To reduce carbon is going to require new technology and new generation and a variety of doing things differently," said Steve Michel, chief council for Western Resource Advocates' energy program.

He said while some jobs might be lost in some areas, building out a cleaner energy generation and distribution system will indeed create a lot of jobs.

"From an overall economy perspective, I think we're going to see a lot of growth and new opportunities," Michel said. "But it is going to mean change, and change we need to make."

Sen. Grant Larson, R-Jackson, said he absolutely believes the U.S. needs to cut greenhouse gas emissions and become more energy independent. However, he believes the deadlines in the bill for cutting emissions are unrealistic. If strictly imposed, it could actually cut American jobs and reduce the nation's energy output.

"There are ways of getting there without the deadlines in the bill," said Larson. "If we work on coal and developing clean coal, then I think you're talking about something that we can use and still meet the objectives."

Larson said the deadlines for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are not in line with the time it takes to develop and deploy carbon capture for coal-fired power plants and build enough new nuclear energy to meet the nation's growing needs.

Yes, Americans need to make a significant investment in a cleaner energy regime, but it's going to take time, he said.

"I think, personally, there are things that can be done more effectively than cap and trade. Now that the government controls the auto industry, we should make all big rigs use compressed natural gas, which is cheap, which we have a lot of, and it could do a tremendous amount in cutting emissions and oil imports," said Larson.

Contact energy reporter Dustin Bleizeffer at (307) 577-6069 or dustin.bleizeffer@trib.com. Read his energy blog at tribtown.trib.com/DustinBleizeffer/blog.