Minnesota utility regulators declined Thursday to rule on which electricity sources count as carbon-free, drawing criticism from environmental advocates who say the decision opens the door for eligibility to polluting methods like trash incineration and wood biomass.
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC), a governor-appointed board that regulates utility providers, is tasked with considering what production methods should count as carbon-free energy. The answer will shape what sources qualify under Minnesota’s 2023 law requiring 100% carbon-free electricity generation by 2040.
But the PUC instead opted to launch a new process to further analyze the life cycle of sources like waste-to-energy incinerators that burn trash to create electricity, and wood biomass plants, which burn wood and paper scraps to generate electricity. That process must be resolved by the end of 2025.
The commission received hundreds comments from utility companies, the forestry industry and state agencies suggesting that sources that emit greenhouse gas, like incinerators and biomass plants, should be allowed to partially or fully qualify as carbon-free.
For several environmental groups and lawmakers, the question is unnecessary and goes against the intent of the law. The law defines carbon-free sources as those that generate electricity “without emitting carbon dioxide,” and includes sources like wind, solar, hydroelectric and nuclear power.
Advocates from various environmental groups met at a park in downtown St. Paul after the hearing to discuss their frustrations with the PUC’s decision.
“This is the direction it’s going; it’s making trash burning and wood burning and all these things carbon-free,” said Nazir Khan of the Minnesota Environmental Justice Table.
Representative Frank Hornstein, DFL-Minneapolis, worked on the carbon-free law and is a longtime opponent of the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC), which burns trash to generate electricity. He’s concerned that PUC board members didn’t agree with environmental groups who argued that pollution generating sources can’t count toward the law.
“I don’t think that garbage incineration is carbon-free at all,” Hornstein said after the hearing.
Comments submitted to the PUC from the waste and timber industries, utilities and some state agencies argued that technologies like waste incineration and wood biomass can be carbon neutral and have a positive overall effect on greenhouse gas emissions. The Minnesota Department of Commerce and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) urged the PUC to analyze the full life-cycle of incinerators, wood biomass and hydrogen electricity generation.
Sydnie Lieb, assistant commissioner of regulatory affairs with the Department of Commerce, said her agency examined the question through Governor Tim Walz’ goal of reaching net carbon neutrality by 2050. She said the department has three categories for electricity generation: totally carbon-free sources like solar, full carbon sources like coal burning and partially carbon-free sources, which could include incineration, hydrogen and wood biomass.
The state supports incinerators over disposing trash in landfills because landfills are large sources of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The MPCA argued that if burning trash, which produces greenhouse gas emissions, pollutes less than a landfill, regulators should consider that a better outcome and worthy of at least partial credit toward carbon-free status.
PUC Vice Chair Joseph Sullivan said the law is clear about what qualifies as carbon-free, but that the commission should be able to consider some utility projects on an individual basis.
“There’s some flexibility that I think we need to have when we get proposals,” Sullivan said.
The PUC questioned the Department of Commerce, which represents residential utility customers, the MPCA and Minnesota Power about their positions on the question at the hearing. Minnesota Power is a utility company in northern Minnesota that operates a wood biomass facility.
Evan Mulholland, an attorney with the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, said there was no confusion when lawmakers passed the carbon-free bill. Legislators knew there are trade-offs when it comes to considering which sources to allow and which to prohibit, he said, and wrote a bill clearly stating that any combustion at the point of electricity generation didn’t count.
“What we saw today was one of the most undemocratic things I’ve ever seen in this state,” he said.
