This story was originally published by MinnPost.

Hibbing is something of a rarity when it comes to electricity. Since 2021, most of the city’s power has been generated by burning wood chips and mulch — up to 9,000 tons a month — largely from a local pallet manufacturer. The plant allows the small municipal utility to support northeastern Minnesota’s logging industry and also avoid buying electricity from large for-profit companies.

“The independence of the city is something that is very important to our ratepayers and that’s why we have the lowest cost of energy of anybody in the area,” said Luke Peterson, general manager of Hibbing Public Utilities.

And because state law counts biomass as renewable energy, Hibbing has likely already met a newly updated goal for 55% renewable electricity more than a decade before a 2035 deadline.

But the plant, and the city, is now in limbo. A landmark climate law passed in February by Democrats who control the Minnesota Legislature requires electric utilities to be 100% carbon-free by 2040. And the regulations do not say whether a renewable wood-burning plant will be considered carbon-free.

It’s a conundrum that could force Hibbing to find new power sources. It also illustrates how smaller utilities in Minnesota are grappling with the carbon-free standard, which has been a fierce point of political debate at the Capitol.

While large, investor-owned utilities like Xcel Energy that serve big cities are often the main focus of attention in the shift away from fossil fuels, cooperative and municipal utilities will need to hit carbon goals, too.

At least one city, Moorhead, says it’s already effectively at 100% carbon-free power. Hibbing, on the other hand, could be at zero. Leaders at both city utilities praised the progress toward cleaner power, but they also had frustrations with the DFL plan.

Political debate arises over smaller utilities

Democratic lawmakers tried for years to pass a bill steering electric utilities toward a 100% carbon-free grid, arguing it is crucial to prevent the worst impacts of climate change.

After winning full control of Minnesota’s government in the 2022 elections, they wasted little time in making that dream a reality. Despite cries from Republicans that DFLers were moving too fast, the House and Senate approved the measure two weeks after its first hearing.

While large, for-profit utilities like Xcel Energy and Minnesota Power generate and distribute much of the state’s electricity, 1.7 million Minnesotans are served by nonprofit electric cooperatives and another roughly 391,000are served by municipal utilities.

Under the law, smaller utilities will need to be 60% carbon-free by 2030, 90% by 2035 and then 100% in 2040. The bill does include “off ramps,” which allow a utility to ask the state’s five-member Public Utilities Commission to let it break standards if it can’t meet those benchmarks without risking affordability or grid reliability. Electric utilities also can buy energy credits to offset their use of carbon-emitting power.

There are more than 120 municipal electric utilities in the state — from Ada to Worthington — serving primarily cities in Greater Minnesota. Many have joined together with other city utilities in bigger electric systems known as “power agencies.”

As lawmakers debated the 100% bill, Republicans questioned whether the state should move ahead if cooperative and municipal utilities had issues with the bill. 

In late January, Gov. Tim Walz told reporters that the Legislature should “bring folks along” when asked if there should be consensus with the smaller utilities. “We’ll get them on board,” he said.

Four days later, Kent Sulum, director of government relations and senior counsel for the Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association, testified at a Senate hearing that the organization wasn’t opposed to the concept of the bill. But he said municipal utilities had “serious concerns” about the feasibility of reaching 100% carbon-free energy.

“Some of the initial studies show 80% is a doable figure,” Sulum said. “After that, things get very murky and very expensive.”

Sulum said many city utilities only generate power in times of emergency or to pump extra power into the regional grid when demand is high. But under the new law, Sulum said those utilities would have to buy credits or clean power that will be “greatly expensive” for small communities.

“The cost is higher,” Sulum told MinnPost. “You don’t have shareholders to pass it along to.”

Backup diesel is one question

One of those small utilities is in Princeton, home of Republican Sen. Andrew Mathews, who said during the Senate floor debate before the bill passed that Xcel Energy is the “least likely entity” to ask the PUC for an “off ramp” exception. The large utility already has a huge source of carbon-free nuclear power, for instance, when new nuclear is off limits to others because of a moratorium in Minnesota.

Keith Butcher, the general manager of Princeton Public Utilities, said the city gets electricity through the 18-member Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, which in 2020 announced it planned to be 80% carbon-free by 2030.

But Princeton also has roughly 12 megawatts of diesel power. The newest generator was designed as a marine engine for use on a cruise ship, Butcher said.

Butcher said that diesel can be used if the city was somehow cut off from electric transmission. In fact, the use of generators in Princeton dates back to the 1930s, when there were fewer transmission lines and those lines were less reliable. 

Now, however, the diesel is mainly for periods of high demand, when the regional grid operator Midcontinent Independent System Operator — known as MISO — asks for help keeping up energy supply across its interconnected market.

Butcher said Princeton ran diesel during two polar vortexes in recent years. In one, the diesel generators operated for more than 30 hours straight. He said diesel and other similar fossil fuel production may be a small percentage of electricity produced, but in times of extreme cold or heat when the grid needs support, they’re really important for “broader, societal” grid stability.

Are there alternatives to diesel?

Perhaps. Yet Butcher said there are downsides to other options, like a lack of available hydro or the intermittent nature of wind and solar, especially in extreme weather. “If you’re saying you want us to be 100% (carbon-free) at 3 a.m. on Jan. 21 when the temperature is -21 degrees out, I don’t know how to do that,” Butcher said.

Two utilities are far ahead of climate goals

There are municipal utilities, however, that are close to 100% carbon-free energy, or believe they are already in compliance with the state’s 2040 goal.

That includes Moorhead and Detroit Lakes, which are in the district of DFL Sen. Rob Kupec. During the same Senate floor debate, Kupec used the cities as examples of why he would vote for the bill. “This is doable,” he said.

Moorhead Public Service gets about 53% of its electric power, most of it directly from hydro through dams on the Missouri River, a resource not broadly available across the state. Their allocation comes from a federal wholesaler called the Western Area Power Administration.

The rest of the city’s electricity mix is provided by the power agency Missouri River Energy Services, which also has some carbon-free electricity. In total, the electric power supply for Moorhead Public Service is about 85% carbon-free.

Travis Schmidt, general manager of Moorhead Public Service, said the utility buys renewable energy credits to cover the remaining 15% because they have been cheap in recent years. “We are 100% net-zero carbon power supply,” he said, already meeting the 2040 mandate.

Detroit Lakes has a power supply that is 80% carbon-free, said utilities general manager Vernell Roberts. That’s also thanks in part to a large allocation of hydropower from the Missouri River. “We value that WAPA allocation dearly,” Roberts said.

Both Moorhead and Detroit Lakes also have a large share of power from what they describe as “market purchases.” Those purchases include fossil fuels, but the emissions count only against the seller, not the buyer, the officials said, so in their view the cities can deem the electricity as carbon-neutral.

The legislation does factor in the level of carbon emissions in purchases from MISO, however.

Still, Roberts and Schmidt had concerns about the 100% standard. Schmidt said he worries the price of energy credits will rise dramatically as demand for them grows because of the climate law.

But, like Butcher from Princeton, Schmidt said he worried generally about the stability of the whole grid as large plants that generate consistent energy from coal and natural gas are retired. 

Detroit Lakes even published a letter urging lawmakers to slow down and rethink the 100% bill as it moved through the Legislature. Roberts said he believes the grid can get to between 80-90% carbon-free energy with new wind, solar and energy storage resources.

But he said storage projects could take a tremendous amount of time. For instance, he said Missouri River Energy Services has proposed pumping water uphill using renewable power like solar and wind to store it for release during periods of high electricity demand, an idea Roberts said could take up to 20 years to get permitted and built. 

Roberts also said he’s concerned the market won’t build wind and solar, or transmission lines to carry it, fast enough to meet demand given retiring fossil fuel plants and higher demand from things like electric vehicles and heat pumps.

Hibbing in limbo, hoping for clarity

Hibbing is not part of a power agency, but instead runs independently. Peterson, the utility’s general manager, said city residents like the multiple benefits the biomass plant can bring.

For instance, Hibbing is not as connected to larger electric markets that can spike prices during events like a polar vortex. The city first opened the wood-burning plant in 2007 as part of a deal with Xcel Energy for storing nuclear waste in the state. But it was idled for three years because Xcel, which bought power from the Hibbing plant, said the electricity was too expensive.

The city re-started operations for its own customers in 2021, after an extreme cold snap led to higher gas prices. In addition to its electricity output, the plant produces heat for about 1,000 customers. Most of that heat is used by hospitals, schools and large public buildings.

Peterson said Hibbing is also free from the profit-driven model of other utilities and can bring value to the region through buying wood waste. He said some movement toward 100% carbon-free energy “is better than none.” But Peterson, too, had gripes about the bill, which he said was more geared toward those larger utilities that can build infrastructure and recoup costs from ratepayers. He also said lawmakers didn’t take a closer look at the upside of systems like in Hibbing. And Peterson argued other countries, like Finland, have relied heavily on biomass to reach its climate goals.

But the biggest question mark for Hibbing is whether their biomass will ultimately be considered carbon-free or carbon-neutral.

House Majority Leader Jamie Long, a DFLer from Minneapolis who was prime sponsor of the 100% bill in the House, said lawmakers intentionally did not weigh in on whether a wood burning plant should be considered carbon-free.

He wanted to give the PUC flexibility to determine what meets the climate standards since the commission regulates the electric sector in Minnesota and has expertise on the matter. The law can give a utility partial credit for carbon-free power, however, meaning if the PUC decided a technology was 95% carbon-free, that utility would need to offset less through buying energy credits.

Asked if he considered the Hibbing plant to be carbon-free, Long said: “That’s an important question for the Public Utilities Commission.”

“I think that it would probably be something that would depend on the source material and how it’s produced,” Long said. “You do have carbon coming out at the end from burning wood. So it would be a question of whether or not a utility wants to make an argument that there is a sink on the other side and that is therefore a carbon-reducing or carbon-free technology.”

Peterson, meanwhile, said he hopes legislators tweak the law. “I’m trusting our state policymakers to make clear that biomass is net-zero,” he said.

How small city utilities are grappling with Minnesota’s new 100% carbon-free standard is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

This story was originally published by MinnPost.

Fresh off passing a bill that steers electric utilities toward a carbon-free grid by 2040, DFLers who control the Minnesota Senate on Wednesday signaled they might approve legislation to study the use of emerging nuclear technology in the state to meet clean energy goals.

The research could be something of an olive branch from Democrats to minority Republicans, who lambasted the DFL for refusing to lift a ban on new nuclear plants in the landmark electricity regulations signed by Gov. Tim Walz on Tuesday. GOP lawmakers have argued the 100% measure will lead to higher bills and even rolling blackouts without steady carbon-free power like nuclear.

“This is an effort to try to have all the tools in the toolbox as we’re moving forward and retiring many forms of baseload generation,” said Sen. Andrew Mathews, R-Princeton, during a hearing in the Senate’s Energy, Utilities, Environment and Climate Committee on Wednesday. “Nuclear will be one of the few remaining that will provide consistent, strong, reliable baseload generation and in a completely carbon-free manner. So it makes sense to have that studied.”

Mathews is sponsoring a bill that would commission research to look at the potential costs, benefits and impacts of “advanced nuclear technology reactor power generation” on things like power bills, clean energy goals, local jobs, the environment and more. At a price of $300,000, the study would also look into the economics of replacing coal-fired boilers with advanced nuclear reactors, avoiding costs of closing coal plants.

Minnesota only has two nuclear power plants, both owned by Xcel Energy. One is in Red Wing and one is in Monticello. And those plants will play a major role in Xcel’s plans to reach carbon-free energy by 2040, because they made up nearly a third of the company’s 2021 energy mix in the Upper Midwest. But there is a moratorium on new plants, and no other electric utility in Minnesota has the luxury of such a large amount of nuclear power.

Existing nuclear power counts toward carbon-free goals under the new 100% standard. But it does not count as renewable power, and electric utilities must be 55% renewable by 2035 under the new law.

The possibility of new traditional, large nuclear plants appears slim. In addition to the moratorium, utilities often consider them to be outdated or too expensive to build and operate, particularly under current federal regulations. They’re also fiercely opposed by many Democrats and tribal leaders out of concern for the environmental impacts of waste storage. Xcel pays hefty fees to the state for storing its nuclear waste in Minnesota, some directly next to the Prairie Island Indian Community.

Still, emerging technology has drawn the interest of Republicans and perhaps a growing contingent of Democrats. 

That includes the possibility of smaller reactors, which generate less energy but supporters hope will be cheap enough to build and run across the country. In January, federal regulators approved the design for what would be the country’s first small “modular” nuclear reactor in Idaho. It could be fully in service as a demonstration project by 2030.

A presentation given to Senate lawmakers on Monday by the Nuclear Innovation Alliance says the advanced nuclear energy projects might be used more as a flexible and “dispatchable” energy source, able to be called upon to fill energy needs when there is a spike in demand during a cold snap or when wind and solar are producing less.

Mathews’ bill drew wide support from utilities, including Xcel Energy, Duluth-based Minnesota Power, the large cooperative Great River Energy and the Minnesota Rural Electric Association.

“As we look to future technology, the addition of advanced nuclear energy resources has the potential to provide similar dispatchable energy to our portfolio,” said Pamela Gorman Prochaska, director of nuclear regulatory policy and strategy for Xcel Energy, in a letter to the committee.

Trades unions including the Minnesota Building and Constructions Trades Council and the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 are also backing the study. Kevin Pranis, marketing manager for LIUNA Minnesota & North Dakota, testified that advanced nuclear could be an alternative to natural gas “peaking” plants used when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining, especially since battery technology to store renewable energy isn’t ready yet and those batteries rely on a large amount of critical minerals.

“We can’t afford to bet the farm on a single technology to provide that sort of backup,” Pranis said. “We understand that the nuclear conversation is a hard and uncomfortable one for some folks. We sympathize with that. But what we would say is that everyone is being asked to do hard and uncomfortable things to solve the climate crisis. Our members are doing hard and uncomfortable things in sacrificing jobs in Senator Mathews’ district and other places in coal plants.”

The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce supports the research, as do some environmental advocacy groups including the nonprofit Fresh Energy (publisher of the Energy News Network).

But leaders from the Prairie Island tribe wrote in a letter that the study bill doesn’t adequately address the production and storage of nuclear waste, and said they are concerned Prairie Island would be the “de facto storage site” for any new nuclear plants.

“This would mean that the nuclear waste deposited 700 yards from our community would grow at a much faster rate,” the letter says, which is signed by tribal president Johnny Johnson and four other Prairie Island officials. “In short, we are interested in less nuclear waste next to our community, not more.”

One change to the bill on Wednesday proposed by Mathews would require the study of technology and methods to minimize environmental impacts of nuclear waste and the cost of managing it.

In advocating for more changes to the bill, Sen. Jen McEwen, DFL-Duluth, said she supports studying nuclear power but wants the study to also include research on the health impacts of nuclear storage in light of the tribal concerns. 

Last year, the state Senate passed a similar study bill when the chamber was controlled by Republicans. Though it drew some DFL support, a deal struck with the Democratic-led House did not include the research.

During debate this year over the 100% carbon-free standard, Republican efforts to include a nuclear study or a measure to lift the moratorium were shot down by majority Democrats.

Still, Sen. Nick Frentz, a North Mankato DFLer who chairs the Senate’s energy committee, said Wednesday that a study is appropriate given “our position has been that decarbonizing is our top priority.”

“I realize the waste issue has not been solved, but I think we should be studying it,” Frentz said. “And I think if there is a solution to the waste issue and that includes removing the current storage from Prairie Island then I don’t think we should close that door.”

Frentz was the prime sponsor of the 100% bill in the Senate and promised earlier in session to consider Mathews’ nuclear study bill amid Republican criticism of the energy bill being rushed over GOP concerns.

Democrats did not pass the research bill out of the committee but Frentz said DFLers would consider including the measure in a larger omnibus bill the committee will advance later in the legislative session.

Fresh Energy staff, board members and funders do not have access to or oversight of the Energy News Network’s editorial process. More about our relationship with Fresh Energy can be found in our code of ethics.

Democrats wrestle with studying ‘advanced’ nuclear energy in wake of Minnesota carbon-free bill is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

States like Washington and Massachusetts plan to join California in largely banning the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035, seeing it as an effective way to rapidly cut greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.

In Minnesota, however, prominent Democrats who celebrated an earlier move toward cleaner vehicles are not supporting the idea — at least not so far. Gov. Tim Walz’s administration hasn’t ruled out a ban on selling new gas cars, though Walz’s regulators strongly suggest it won’t happen any time soon.

Now, a key DFL lawmaker in the Minnesota House from progressive Minneapolis is also throwing cold water on the idea. State Rep. Jamie Long, who leads the House’s Climate and Energy Finance and Policy Committee said the governor is “taking the right approach” by implementing an earlier and less strict version of California’s auto emissions standards for just one year.

“I think Minnesota is going to go its own path,” Long told MinnPost, saying electric vehicles are less common in Minnesota than other states moving quickly toward EVs. “I think the likelihood that we follow California is probably low.”

Minnesota must decide which auto regulations to follow

Last year, Minnesota adopted what it calls Clean Cars standards. They are identical to California’s auto emission standards, and primarily require auto manufacturers to deliver more electric vehicles for sale in the state starting in 2024.

California is the only state that can set its own auto emission regulations, but other states can either choose to follow California or hew to federal standards.

Most Democrats have supported Clean Cars in Minnesota because they argue it will offer more EV choices, stimulate a lagging industry and slash carbon emissions. But Republicans and auto dealers oppose the regulations, saying they meddle with a free market and force expensive EVs on people.

Then, in August, California made the rules tougher. Starting in vehicle model year 2026, the state will allow auto manufacturers to deliver fewer and fewer cars with internal combustion engines for sale until they are largely phased out in 2035. (People will still be able to buy new gas cars in other states or used ones in California. Some new plug-in hybrids that use gasoline will also still remain available.)

That means Minnesota’s older program will run for one year, until 2025. At that point Minnesota will either have to join California in banning new gas cars or reverting to less stringent federal regulations.

The decision for now is in the hands of Walz and his Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The MPCA can act without new legislative approval because of state laws governing pollution regulation, though lawmakers could always change that authority, and their views likely factor into state decisions on the issue.

MPCA commissioner Katrina Kessler on Friday reiterated the agency is not starting a rulemaking process to ban the sale of new gas cars by 2035 and is focused on implementing less aggressive 2025 regulations.

The MPCA has previously estimated EVs would need to make up between 6.2% to 7.4% of new light-duty vehicles sales of manufacturers in Minnesota to meet the original Clean Cars standards.

“We haven’t gotten to the starting point” of the older rules, Kessler said. “It’s premature to try to ask us what are you going to do in three days when we haven’t decided what we’re going to do tomorrow.”

Key House Democrat not calling for car ban

Long, the Minneapolis DFLer, is a prominent voice on climate and energy policy for his party at the state Capitol and is in the progressive wing of his party on the issue.

On Friday, he spoke, wearing a windmill lapel pin, as the governor unveiled a “Climate Action Framework” that details policy hopes held by Democrats, climate nonprofits and some businesses to reduce carbon emissions across the state.

It calls for 20% of vehicles on Minnesota roads to be EVs by 2030 and for an 80% reduction in carbon emissions from the transportation sector by 2040. It does not include a ban on selling gas cars, even though such a plan would sharply reduce emissions from a transportation sector that accounts for roughly a quarter of Minnesota’s emissions. Currently, the state is not on track to meet a state goal for reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions 30% below 2005 levels by 2025, and the transportation sector carries part of the blame.

Long said Minnesota’s Clean Cars rules will spark the EV market in Minnesota and provide consumers with options already offered in other states trying to increase EV use. After those rules end, Minnesota can reassess where it’s at, he said.

But Long also said Minnesota is different from California and other states. For instance, Long said EVs aren’t as popular here and that the state needs a more robust charging system. Minnesota is the only state in the Midwest to adopt the earlier version of the auto emissions standards.

“I think we need to get to a point first where Minnesotans have the choices to buy electric vehicle options and also that we have the infrastructure to support those choices,” Long said. “I think in the next few years that’s where I want my focus to be, is getting options for Minnesotans for new vehicle purchases.”

Would the reaction from Long, Walz and other Democrats be different if not for this coming midterm election that will decide who is governor and who controls the Legislature? 

Politics can’t be ignored in this case. The issue has been controversial, with some Democrats, particularly in rural areas, opposing the original Clean Cars standard.

Republicans lately have criticized Democrats for what they say is a lack of a clear “yes” or “no” answer on adopting California’s gas car ban. “Right now gas vehicles are $15,000 cheaper than electric,” said Rep. Chris Swedzinkski of Ghent, the top Republican on the House’s climate and energy committee. “This would represent a massive shift with expensive consequences for Minnesota families, businesses, and auto dealers, and we aren’t getting a straight answer from Gov. Walz or his agencies.” 

What Democrats hope to do instead

In the absence of banning sales of new gas cars, Long said he hopes to pass a bill to offer EV rebates, and he said there should be more state funding for electric vehicle chargers. But he also said there has been federal investment in charging and the Inflation Reduction Act will pay for an EV tax credit, among other provisions aimed at sparking the market. Some auto manufacturers have also set their own goals for stopping or limiting the sale of gas vehicles.

By 2025, when the Clean Cars standard in Minnesota is running its short course, Long said “there’s going to be a lot in motion” from the federal government and by auto manufacturers to advance the industry.

Rather than endorse a ban on selling new gas cars, the climate framework unveiled by Walz and the MPCA at an Ecolab facility in Eagan calls for more money for a statewide pedestrian and bicycle network, more transit, and land use policy that “facilitates multimodal transportation.”

One major policy proposal suggested in the framework for slashing carbon emissions from vehicles is what’s known as a “low carbon fuel standard,” which requires that fuels become less “carbon intensive” over time. That would need to be passed by a Legislature that is currently split between the majority-DFL House and the Republican-led Senate.

A version of the policy has been adopted in states like California, Washington and Oregon.

MinnPost is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization whose mission is to provide high-quality journalism for people who care about Minnesota.

Why Minnesota Democrats aren’t embracing California’s ban on new gas cars is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Minnesota lawmakers made headlines earlier this year when they approved a bundle of financial incentives to draw a timber product mill to the city of Cohasset in northern Minnesota.

But the Legislature, along with state and county officials, also threw down cash for another project aimed at economic development in northern Minnesota: The expansion of a plant in Mountain Iron — a city of 2,800 people between Virginia and Hibbing — that manufactures solar panels.

Part of an effort to diversify a regional economy reliant on natural resources like wood and iron ore, the plant — run by Ontario-based Heliene, Inc. — is expected to be the second-largest solar panel manufacturing plant in the country once the new project is done. 

Martin Pochtaruk, Heliene’s president, said the company aims to help the U.S. meet new goals announced by President Joe Biden to produce half the nation’s electricity via solar energy by 2050. “Our product, made in Mountain Iron, Minnesota, is the simplest renewable energy engine to such electrification,” Pochtaruk said last week at the new facility’s groundbreaking ceremony.

Heliene leases an industrial park that Mountain Iron officials built in 2010 specifically to lure green energy projects. Craig Wainio, the city administrator, said the area’s economy has been dependent on mining and forestry and Mountain Iron officials saw renewable energy as an opportunity for future development.

The business park, across the street from an entrance to U.S. Steel’s enormous MinnTac taconite mine, was first occupied by another solar panel manufacturer: Silicon Energy. But that company closed up shop in 2017 and garnered controversy for its dismal output — despite receiving millions from the state of Minnesota and local governments.

Heliene moved in later that year to the building, which sits on Silicon Way, on the outskirts of a town with street names like Mineral Avenue, Granite Street and Agate Street. “From there it’s just taken off,” Wainio said.

Pochtaruk said the company has typically employed about 75 people over the last three years, making it a relatively large employer in the area outside of mining and schools.  About half of the sales from the Mountain Iron facility have been to Minnesota companies, Pochtaruk said, though Minnesota is expected to make up a smaller share of sales after the expansion. Two of Heliene’s larger Minnesota customers are the Duluth-based utility Minnesota Power and Minneapolis-based U.S. Solar, a company that has built many community solar gardens in the state.

Heliene is planning to employ another 60 people after the roughly $21 million facility expansion. The campus will grow from about 27,000 square feet to 95,000 and will include a new production line, plus extra storage and office space. Heliene, which also has production facilities in Canada and Florida, says it will more than triple its manufacturing capacity in Mountain Iron. The company says it plans to start construction in September and begin manufacturing at the new space in June.

While Heliene is chipping in about $9.5 million for the new manufacturing line, state and local governments are also pouring in millions for the new building. The Legislature is contributing $5.5 million to Mountain Iron for the expansion, while the state’s Department of Employment and Economic Development and Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board (IRRRB) each provided a $2.75 million loan for the project. St. Louis County offered a $1 million grant.

Mark Phillips, commissioner of the IRRRB, said the “heavy lifting really was at the Legislature.” Supporters tried for two years to get money for the plant expansion at the Capitol. In 2020, the measure didn’t get a hearing in the Republican-led Senate, but in the closing days of the regular session, Chisholm Sen. David Tomassoni — who was a Democrat at the time — and Sen. Torrey Westrom, R-Elbow Lake, tried to add the grant money to a package of environmental legislation up for a vote on the Senate floor. (The amendment also included money for research of ammonia produced by renewable energy.)

The bipartisan move drew some attention on the Senate floor, but Westrom withdrew the amendment when Republican leaders said that the projects, while worthy of consideration, were not part of a deal negotiated with Democratic House leaders and Gov. Tim Walz. “We had that debate on the floor where we felt like we had a chance,” Tomassoni said last week. “Then it died, which is one of the reasons that I was a little skeptical that we were ever going to get it done.”

In 2021, Tomassoni left the DFL to become an Independent and chaired a committee in collaboration with the Republican Senate. Still, the Senate didn’t originally include the Mountain Iron solar project money sponsored by Tomassoni in the energy budget eventually passed by the chamber. The money was added to the bill by Sen. David Senjem, R-Rochester, on the floor shortly before a vote. The Legislature later approved the cash as part of a broader deal on energy policy.

What changed? 

“I said ‘I’m not going home without this,’” Tomassoni said. “Jobs on the Iron Range are something that people have always talked about — diversifying the economy. What better opportunity to have solar panel manufacturing, the only one in the upper Midwest and one of the largest in the country right here in the Iron Range.”

Lawmakers at the event also said Rep. Dave Lislegard, DFL-Aurora, championed money for the project in the Minnesota House, and the expansion eventually had a long and bipartisan list of supporters; the company released a set of friendly quotes from Walz, Minnesota’s two U.S. senators and 8th Congressional District Rep. Pete Stauber. 

The $5.5 million from the Legislature came out of the state’s Renewable Development Account, which pays for clean energy projects with fees levied on Xcel Energy for storing nuclear waste in the state. State law says the money is supposed to benefit Xcel customers.

State Rep. Jamie Long, a Minneapolis DFLer who chairs the House’s Climate and Energy Finance and Policy Committee, said Mountain Iron isn’t in Xcel’s service territory. But he said many of the solar panels Heliene produces are sold in the Xcel territory, so there is a “broad benefit from the expansion.”

Peter Teigland, director of policy and regulatory affairs for the Minnesota Solar Energy Industries Association, said at a March hearing in the state House that Heliene makes the “highest quality solar modules available” and said much of the solar development in Minnesota takes place in Xcel’s service territory — justifying use of the nuclear waste money.

At the groundbreaking ceremony at the Heliene facility Thursday, Pochtaruk, the Heliene president, had a surprise. Holding back tears, he announced the new expansion project would be named after Tomassoni, who recently announced he has been diagnosed with ALS. After the two embraced, workers at the plant marched out a green and red banner reading: “Senator David J. Tomassoni Solar Manufacturing Facility.”

“Well it’s overwhelming because there’s any number of people that were here today they could have picked the name after,” Tomassoni said afterwards. “I’m just honored by it, and I appreciate the fact that people are recognizing the hard work we had to do to get this done.”

MinnPost is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization whose mission is to provide high-quality journalism for people who care about Minnesota.

Minnesota’s Iron Range may soon be home to one of the largest solar panel manufacturing facilities in the country is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

This article was originally published by MinnPost and is republished here with permission.

In the fall of 2020, Laura Bishop, then commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, got an unusual voicemail.

Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka, a Republican from East Gull Lake, had called her to urge the approval of a key water-quality permit for Enbridge Energy’s planned Line 3 oil pipeline. For years, the 337-mile pipeline across northern Minnesota has been one of the state’s most controversial environmental issues, and Enbridge needed what’s known as a 401 certification before construction could begin.

“I just can’t stress enough how important it is that you do your job with these and that the permits get issued,” Gazelka told Bishop.

To the majority leader, the call was an example of respectful advocacy on behalf of those who support Line 3. To Bishop, however, the voicemail was an unwelcome political intrusion: a threat from one of the state’s most powerful lawmakers to remove her from office if an environmental review based on science and law halted the pipeline project.

The MPCA ultimately granted Enbridge’s permit in November of 2020, a decision Bishop stands by and said wasn’t influenced by Gazelka. But earlier this month, Bishop resigned rather than face a Senate confirmation vote, a move that sparked debate over whether Republicans were conducting proper oversight or politicizing a scientific agency in their scrutiny of the MPCA.

Either way, the voicemail, released by the MPCA, is an unusual window into the acrimonious relationship between Senate Republicans and the agency, as well as behind-the-scenes machinations at the Minnesota Capitol.

Voicemail came after firings, job review

Bishop was appointed by Walz in January of 2019 after working at Best Buy, most recently as the company’s top sustainability officer, overseeing issues like environmental compliance and recycling initiatives.

As head of the MPCA, Bishop handled many controversial environmental issues, such as defending in court permits for PolyMet Mining’s copper-nickel mine and implementing tougher water pollution regulations for Minnesota’s largest animal feedlots.

The former commissioner drew sharp criticism from the GOP in 2019 when she announced plans to adopt “Clean Cars Minnesota” — new auto emissions standards that would require vehicle manufacturers to provide more electric cars for sale in the state. The regulations, which match ones in California, did not need legislative approval, but Republicans opposed to the idea said Bishop should work with the Legislature anyway on a matter of such public interest.

In August of 2020, Republicans hinted they might remove Bishop from her post, holding a performance review in an environmental committee soon after the Senate GOP had voted against confirming Nancy Leppink as commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industries. The Minnesota Senate has power to approve or deny commissioners appointed by a governor, but lawmakers often wait for years without voting on confirmations. Sometimes they hold agency leaders in limbo to retain leverage and influence over a governor’s policy.

Though Bishop never came up for a vote in 2020, Republicans did remove another commissioner: Steve Kelley, who was leading the Department of Commerce.

When Kelley was ousted, the MPCA was considering Enbridge’s 401 certification and planned to make a decision on the Line 3 permit before a federal deadline in November.

The 401 certification was arguably the most important permit issued to Enbridge by the MPCA, and also likely the most scrutinized. The agency received more than 10,000 comments during a comment period in the spring of 2020 — 10 times the number fielded for the 401 permit issued to PolyMet for its controversial mine plan near Hoyt Lakes.

The 401 certification is meant to ensure construction projects don’t violate water quality standards that safeguard drinking water, habitat and recreation. It’s also one of a handful of state-issued permits tied to federal law. In this case, the 401 certification stems from the Clean Water Act, which regulates pollution in waters of the United States such as the many lakes and rivers Line 3 would cross or run near.

Bishop did not give an exact date for when Gazelka left the voicemail, but said it was after her performance review, after Kelley and Leppink were removed, and days before the MPCA approved the Line 3 permit in November of 2020.

“Hey Laura, it’s Paul Gazelka,” the Republican said. “I’m just calling about the Line 3 water quality permits. This is a big deal to our caucus and I know that you have to make the decision in November. And I just can’t stress enough how important it is that you do your job with these and that the permits get issued. So that’s what I’m calling about. I appreciate your time, you have a good day.”

Call was not a threat, Gazelka says

In an interview Friday, Gazelka said he doesn’t regularly call commissioners, but usually relies on chairs of legislative committees who have more specialized expertise to work closely with an agency head. But Gazelka said Line 3 was a project “we thought should be done a while ago” and something he felt the governor was delaying. That led him to get personally involved.

“Absolutely it’s my job to try to influence her into a direction that we think needs to get done for the good of Minnesota,” Gazelka said, adding lots of people who support and oppose Line 3 were making their views on permitting known. “For me to be silent, to me, would be derelict of my responsibility to speak for what I think a lot of people in Minnesota think should happen.”

Bishop resigned on July 6, after Republicans signaled they planned to oust her, largely for not dropping or delaying the Clean Cars rules. (The regulations were formally adopted Monday.) After announcing she would leave, Bishop told Minnesota Public Radio that some calls and voicemails from Gazelka were a form of “political intimidation” and “very unsettling.” When asked for copies of the messages, the MPCA sent the Line 3 voicemail.

Bishop declined to comment further after releasing the voicemail, except to say she believes the Line 3 permit met agency standards and was issued based on merit, not political pressure. Still, she said shortly after the MPR interview that she felt Republicans had been holding the confirmation process over her head for years and were politicizing agency work that was supposed to be based on law and science.

Gazelka said the call was respectful and said he wasn’t suggesting the Senate would fire Bishop if she didn’t approve a critical Line 3 permit. “You can’t read a threat into that,” he said.

Enbridge spokeswoman Juli Kellner emphasized in a statement that Line 3 “has had strong bipartisan support all through the review and construction process.”

Why the permit in question is ‘relevant’

Gazelka’s attempt to influence the 401 certification was also noteworthy to Bishop because, unlike most state environmental policy debates, the Line 3 permit is part of a review program required by federal law.

The Clean Water Act gives states like Minnesota power to evaluate projects for a 401 certification to make sure they don’t violate local water quality standards required by the federal law. State lawmakers have less power over a review process under the state’s Clean Water Act authority.

John Linc Stine, a former MPCA commissioner appointed by then-Gov. Mark Dayton in 2012, said the state is “an agent of the federal government” when working on 401 certifications and other issues tied to administration of the Clean Water Act. Lawmakers have ways to offer their opinions — there is a public comment period on the 401 certification, for instance — but Stine said there is “strict guidance on how we perform our duties and we have to be mindful of (federal) oversight.”

Before he worked at the MPCA, Stine served under Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty at the Department of Natural Resources, which has no federally delegated permits, and at the Department of Health, which does. “One of the things I learned quickly when I joined the health department was that this delegated program responsibility makes for a lot of complexity and difference as compared to programs that the state solely operates,” Stine said.

Once the state approved the 401 certification for Line 3, it was sent to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for scrutiny as part of a broader federal permit. That permit, known as a Section 404 permit, was granted by the feds in November of 2020, though it has faced legal challenges. Construction on Line 3 is now more than 70 percent complete.

Stine, now executive director of the clean water advocacy nonprofit Freshwater, said “those kind of phone calls and voicemails and conversations” with state lawmakers happened somewhat regularly during his time in state agencies and aren’t necessarily inappropriate. “Most of the time I would say legislators were very good at exerting their influence in a way that was clear, understandable and yet didn’t go across the line,” Stine said.

But Stine said he was confirmed early in his tenure. That meant there was no tension over being removed. Stine also said it is “notable” that such a call to Bishop came from Gazelka as majority leader, and the fact that the voicemail was about a 401 certification “is relevant,” too. Gazelka never had any similar interactions with him, Stine said.

“In public they’re very measured, I would say,” Stine said generally of legislators. “Never in doubt where people were coming from, but the direct statements of influence like that would be kept to private conversations normally. Phone messages … phone calls, hallway conversations, the one-on-one meetings I’d have with legislators, or even groups of legislators — that’s where you’d hear things like that. They’d rarely go to the point of saying ‘I need you to’ or ‘I want you to.’ They know there’s a line in there of trying to ethically command your decision.”

Gazelka said he doesn’t look at the “style of permit,” only “where I can influence the direction we should go.”

For instance, he and other lawmakers successfully pushed to relax MPCA feedlot regulations in a way that troubled agency leaders who said the changes may run afoul of federal regulators. The tweak in state law says if the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t like Minnesota’s alterations, the permit conditions would revert back to where they were before lawmakers intervened.

“I don’t really care where the permit is coming from,” Gazelka said. “I just want to make sure the people who have a voice in the matter hear from us. And again it’s always going to be respectful but it is going to be advocating for the things that we believe in.”

MinnPost is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization whose mission is to provide high-quality journalism for people who care about Minnesota.

‘Do your job’: Was Line 3 message from powerful Minnesota legislator a form of intimidation — or ‘respectful’ advocacy? is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.