Environmental justice advocates are pushing back on proposals to include trash incinerators and wood biomass plants as carbon-free energy sources under a new state law that aims to make Minnesota power 100% carbon-free by 2040.

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC), a governor-appointed board that regulates utility providers, is collecting input on what should count as carbon-free energy and has received comments from utility companies, the forestry industry and state agencies suggesting that greenhouse gas emitting sources like waste-to-energy incinerators and wood biomass burning plants should be included. 

For several environmental groups and lawmakers, those suggestions are alarming and go against the intent of the law. The law defines carbon-free sources as those that generate electricity “without emitting carbon dioxide,” which would include sources like wind, solar, hydroelectric and nuclear power. 

“This should be a very easy question to answer,” said Andrea Lovoll of the Minnesota Environmental Justice Table.  

Some state agencies and utility companies disagree. 

Two top Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) officials submitted a letter arguing that the PUC should allow waste-to-energy trash incinerators and wood biomass to count as carbon-free because they produce energy with waste that could create more greenhouse gas in the form of methane, a potent pollutant, if sent to a landfill. 

Assistant commissioners Frank Kohlasch and Kirk Koudelka said the PUC should take a big-picture view of overall emissions, rather than just looking at the “point of generation” to determine if an energy source is carbon-free. 

And they said the agency has flexibility within the law to determine “partial compliance with the standard for such fuels.”

That is not what DFL lawmakers had in mind when they passed the bill, a group of legislators and environmentalists said Wednesday. 

“Carbon-free means carbon-free,” said Representative Frank Hornstein, DFL-Minneapolis. 

Lawmakers expect the state government to implement laws, Hornstein said, not muddy the waters. The 100% carbon-free energy bill is a good goal, he said, but there are no guarantees the 2040 deadline will be met. He pointed out that the Legislature approved a 2014 mandate that metro counties recycle 75% of their waste by 2030, but recycling rates have stagnated and the goal looks out of reach.

“I see a parallel,” he said. 

Cecilia Calvo, director of advocacy and inclusion at Minnesota Environmental Partnership, said she is disappointed that polluting sources are being considered. It shows that passing legislation is only the first step, and that people need to follow the implementation process closely. 

“Ultimately, I think there will be industry and others that will find a way to push and protect their interests,” Calvo said. 

Controversial sources 

Trash incinerators are considered renewable energy sources in most Minnesota jurisdictions, but that has long been a contentious point with environmental justice advocates who point to the substantial pollution created by those facilities and their locations near diverse, low-income areas. Minnesota lawmakers stripped the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC) in Minneapolis of its renewable energy status when they passed the 100% clean energy bill in 2023. Six of the seven incinerators in Minnesota are still considered renewable energy sources, which is a lesser standard than being “carbon-free.” 

Wood biomass, the burning of wood chips to produce electricity, has controversially been considered carbon-neutral for years. The technology is popular in the European Union, which often sources its wood from the United States and Canada. 

Minnesota Power operates a large wood biomass facility in Duluth, the Hibbard Renewable Energy Center, and submitted comments to the PUC arguing that the technology should be considered carbon-free. But that facility produces a large amount of greenhouse gas pollution, according to a 2021 study examining Minnesota Power’s operations. The study was commissioned by Fresh Energy, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and the Sierra Club. 

A coalition of environmental groups led by rural advocacy organization CURE submitted a comment letter Friday arguing that including trash incineration and wood biomass as renewable energy sources would allow further greenhouse gas pollution near diverse and low-income areas. 

“Our pathway to carbon-free electricity should be grounded in the dual goals of achieving real emissions reductions while also assuring that already overburdened communities don’t bear undue costs,” the group wrote. 

The PUC received dozens of comments on their query and plans to hold a hearing to decide what counts as carbon-free sources in late September, but doesn’t have a set date for the hearing or a decision, according to a commission spokeswoman. 

This story comes to you from Sahan Journal, a nonprofit digital newsroom covering Minnesota’s immigrants and communities of color.

Does carbon-free mean carbon-neutral? Activists, industry fight over details in new Minnesota energy law 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.