Red vs. red doesn't necessarily mean no debate on environmental issues. If there's enough disagreement among the state's population, it just gets moved to the primary. For example, Texas is almost exclusively GOP-controlled on a state level, and yet has implemented an extensive plan of government support for wind power development [1]. There are hardline small-government conservatives who thought that was a bad idea, but they didn't win enough primaries and lobbying battles to set policy. In this case the winning coalition was a mixture of environmentalists (who like wind energy), West Texas landowners (who like a new source of revenue), and state budget wonks (who like a new source of tax revenue that isn't an income tax). There aren't enough pure environmentalists in a state like Texas (or, I'd guess, Wyoming) to win only with their support, but if it can be aligned with preferences of a significant share of say, farmers, ranchers, and other landowners, it's possible to pass things.
That's a good point, but in your example, wind energy is basically an 'extra', rather than the government regulating an industry. I'd be curious to hear examples of the latter in places like Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas.
[1] http://www.texastribune.org/2013/10/14/7-billion-crez-projec...