On day 3 of Minnesota’s 2020 legislative session, the Senate Energy & Utilities Finance & Policy Committee held a hearing on a policy called “Clean Energy First.” This is following public Senate hearings last month in Rochester and Minnetrista.
In 2019, a policy called “Clean Energy First” was part of a package proposed by the Governor and passed in the House.
But what is “Clean Energy First?” Is it good? Is it bad? Well - as always - the devil is in the details. Let’s break it down.
What is “Clean Energy First?”
The concept of clean energy first is common sense - to address the climate crisis, protect communities from pollution and create good clean energy jobs in Minnesota - utilities should prioritize clean energy when planning to meet electricity needs and look to fossil fuels like coal and fracked gas as a last resort.
However, there are multiple versions of a “Clean Energy First” bill, and they are not all created equal.
GOVERNOR & HOUSE BILL: CLEAN ENERGY FIRST
Sierra Club supports Governor’s “One Minnesota Path to Clean Energy” and House File 2208
Last year, Governor Walz and Lt. Governor Flanagan proposed “One Minnesota Path to Clean Energy” that provided a roadmap for cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the way we generate electricity for Minnesotans. The package includes a commitment to 100% carbon-free electricity by 2050, improvements to our state’s energy efficiency programs, and setting a true “Clean Energy First” policy that directs utilities and regulators to prioritize clean energy over fossil fuels and support local hiring for clean energy jobs. This strong package, that was passed by the House last year as part of the jobs bill (House File 2208), could help put our state on a path to 100% clean, renewable energy.
SENATE BILL: CLEAN ENERGY FAKE
Sierra Club opposes Senate File 1456 as amended 2/13
Unfortunately, the new Senate proposal not only lacks any commitment to 100% carbon-free energy, this gutted version is “Clean Energy First” in name only. The substance does not match the title, and in fact it would move our state backwards.
For a comprehensive list of concerns, you can check out Sierra Club’s letter to the Senate Energy Utilities & Finance Committee. But here are some highlights (lowlights?):
-
It includes dirty energy sources in the definition of clean energy:
-
Coal or gas plant technology that continues to emit carbon and captures only 80% of emissions -- and injects that carbon into the ground to push oil out of the ground. Carbon capture and storage technology (or CCS) for coal plants is an extremely expensive alternative to America’s plentiful clean energy resources. CCS has been in development for decades, and though it promises to cut down on carbon pollution, it still creates a massive waste stream of coal ash, toxic water output, and ravaged landscapes. This proposal also allows the carbon to be used to getting more oil out of the ground -- further contributing to the climate crisis.
-
Garbage burning (mixed municipal solid waste). Garbage burning produces large amounts of air pollutants that contribute to respiratory and other health problems for communities near the plants and also contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. There are also significant environmental justice concerns - 8 out of 10 waste incinerators in the U.S. are located in low-income communities and communities of color.
-
Nuclear power. At a time when no utility across the country is proposing a new nuclear plant because costs are too high and we have no permanent storage solution for waste that must be stored for a quarter-of-a-million years.
-
It creates a number of loopholes:
-
It exempts the two fracked gas plants being proposed by utilities right now. Xcel’s proposed 800 MW Sherco gas plant in Becker and Minnesota Power’s 525 MW Nemadji Trail Energy Center in Superior. Both plants will be in front of regulators this year. Customers deserve a fair public process that will evaluate whether there are lower cost, cleaner alternatives.
-
It creates a loophole allowing utilities to propose fossil fuel plants out of state. This would allow Minnesota utilities to outsource pollution to neighboring states.
-
It still directs the Public Utility Commission (PUC) to consider building new fossil fuels to meet energy needs. Minnesota’s twenty first century energy demands should not be met with twentieth century technology.
-
It repeals Minnesota’s decades-old nuclear moratorium.
-
It allows coal and gas to be burned for electricity indefinitely. Without pairing it with a commitment to 100% clean energy, utilities can continue to burn fossil fuels for electricity past 2050.
“Clean Energy First” needs to be more than a slogan. If the policy is done well, like in the House bill, and it is paired with a commitment to 100% clean energy, Clean Energy First can provide guidance for utilities and regulators to support a path to 100% clean energy. But the specifics are important to ensure the policy’s outcomes match the intent. And the Senate draft does not live up to its name - it’s a Clean Energy Fake.
So what can you do? Contact your State Senator to let them know you support action on climate and a path to 100% clean electricity and ask them to oppose proposals that would move our state backwards.
We can’t fight the climate crisis by calling dirty energy clean and creating loopholes for more fossil fuels. We need solutions that actually address the challenge of our time, not policies that move us back.