Volume 08-7 ~ April 25, 2008
Environment Day at the Capitol
Omnibus Bill to Conference Committee
Environment Day at the Capitol
One day after Earth Day, Public Television’s “At the Capitol” dubbed Wednesday, April 23, as “Environment Day” – not “Energy Day” – on both the Senate and House Floors. The House passed the Omnibus Energy Bill, SF 3337, and the cap and trade bill, HF 3195, while the Senate moved the cap and trade bill, SF 2818, from General Orders to the Calendar.
Omnibus Bill to Conference Committee
First, the House omnibus energy bill, SF 3337 (the House used a Senate bill because the Senate does not have an omnibus energy policy bill and doing it this way helps to preserve floor time). Following the chief author Rep. Bill Hilty’s technical amendment, the first amendment proposed to delete the solar renewable energy carve out provision, but it failed on a party-line vote of 46:84. Two DFLers did vote for the amendment: Reps. David Olin (Thief River Falls) and Scott Kranz (Blaine). Most of the floor time on the bill was spent debating an amendment which would allow the PUC to issue a certificate of need for a nuclear power plant. That amendment also failed, but this time five DFLers voted for it.
Altogether, nine amendments were proposed before final passage by a vote of 109:22. Upon the bill’s return to the Senate, Senator Prettner-Solon refused to concur with what the House did to her bill. Conference committee members will be named next week. Senator Prettner-Solon has consistently stated that the Senate conference committee members will uphold the Senate position on the solar carve out bill, which the energy committee defeated. The Senate also did not hear a utility eminent domain bill on appraisals and negotiations which the House put in the bill.
Next on the House Floor, about three hours were spent on the “non-controversial” cap and trade bill, HF 3195. All utilities and most all other stakeholders have been accepting or supporting the bill, since the bill has been amended to include reports to the Legislature, the formation of a legislative advisory council, and an economic impact study of the Governors Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord, along with a study of potential revenue and spending options. The lengthy floor debate and amendments, however, covered global warming science, legislative authority over the executive branch, Minnesota going alone with a cap and trade program, representation on the legislative advisory council, international trade and emissions impacts, economic safety valves, a statewide referendum on the program, and, best of all, whether co-ops and munis should be included in the program.
Let’s pick up on that last one. Rep. Doug Magnus (Rep – Slayton) offered an amendment that would have, in effect, exempted electric co-ops and municipals from any cap and trade agreement. Neither MMUA nor MREA asked Rep. Magnus to offer the amendment; he was, he said afterwards, just trying to watch out for his friends. There were some party line crossovers in the 51:78 vote against the amendment.
The amendments providing economic safety valves are also interesting. One amendment proposed that the cap and trade program must end if energy prices increase “to a level exceeding 30 percent of median family income in Minnesota.” That failed 59:70. Another safety valve would end the program if the cost to Minnesota consumers and businesses exceeds $5 billion annually. That failed 43:86. But one idea made it – yet another study. Rep. Bob Gunther prevailed with his amendment to require an annual study by the Department of Commerce to estimate the annual economic costs to Minnesota consumers and businesses resulting from the cap and trade program. After the chief author of the bill, Rep. Kate Knuth, added “and benefits” to the equation – costs and benefits – his amendment was adopted on a voice vote.
Surely serious, but probably with a touch a humor, one legislator offered an amendment adding to the list of ten subjects that the economic impact study must include “an estimate of greenhouse gas emissions from publicly-owned buses containing fewer than six fare-paying passengers.” Gee, do you think the Metro transit-loving legislators really want to know that? The amendment was not adopted on a voice vote. Well, there was much more, which you can watch on the legislative video and audio television session archives at http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hinfo/sdailytopic.asp?topic=14 (you will also find other energy bill videos at that site). Just in case you were wondering, the bill did pass by a vote of 91:38.
An Environment Day on the Hill would not be right without Senator Ellen Anderson in the picture. Her cap and trade bill, SF 2818, was heard on the Senate Floor. The Senate did not accept two amendments offered by Senator Ray Vandeveer to delete the key provisions of Senator Anderson’s bill concerning reports, an advisory council, and an economic impact study of the Accord. Senator Vandeveer also tried to cut $500,000 for the cost of the study. After relatively short debate, by a vote of 42:20, the bill passed General Orders onto the Senate Calendar. With HF 3195 now forwarded to the Senate, the Senate Rules Committee will compare the two versions of the bills before acting on the Calendar.
The House Property Tax Division released its portion of the upcoming omnibus tax bill, HF 1222, due for complete unveiling on Monday, April 28. Great River Energy receives a personal property tax exemption for its Elk River natural gas peaking plant. We hope to see the same in a Senate version later. The exemption currently is not included in the Senate’s bill, SF 2869. The House version also differs from the Senate bill in addressing utility property valuation decreases with utility property class rate percentage increases. Both increase generation property from 2.0% to 2.8% by 2010. On transmission and distribution property, however, the House bill leaves that class rate at 2.0%, while the Senate increases that property to 2.25% by 2010. So far, we like the House version more.
Speaking of the House granting a property tax exemption for GRE’s Elk River peaking plant, the Public Utilities Commission unanimously approved GRE’s application for a certificate of need and a siting permit for the plant. GRE stated in its written comments that a “no-build” alternative could force the use of older, less environmentally efficient resources and that potential demand savings do not eliminate the need for the proposed plant. One public person offered both written and oral comments against the plant. He believed that the certificate of need should be denied for four reasons:
· No power plants should be built while the State is studying how to reduce CO2 emissions.
· GRE’s growth can be met with utility grade batteries.
· The viability of upgrading existing plants or using compressed air storage should be investigated.
· Photovoltaic cells and fuel cells should be considered instead.
Besides those reasons, he added, the price of natural gas is already very high and will be going even higher. Regardless, the PUC agreed that GRE met the criteria for the application and that its load growth and peaking needs can best be met with such a plant.
Largely overshadowed by action on the cap and trade bill, SF 3520, concerning wind property rights, also moved to the Senate Calendar. When a property owner grants a wind or solar easement, option, or lease, the property right lasts as long as might be stated in the agreement, or is perpetual. Because of complaints that large wind and property developers were gobbling up the best wind properties and then not putting the property into commercial operation, the Legislature last year passed a provision ending wind easement or option or lease rights after seven years if the property was not being developed. The idea behind its passage was to bring opposing parties together to find a compromise. That has not happened, so Senator Prettner-Solon proposes to delete the 7-year limit. You can well imagine the stir that is causing by the one side of this struggle.
SF 3520 also revises the duties of the Legislative Electric Energy Task Force (or maybe the Legislative Energy Commission after this session). The bill adds that the LEETF may “solicit and consider public testimony regarding the economic, environmental, and social implications of state energy plans and policies.” This should cover all the bases. Also, the bill subtracts the LEETF requirement to request information from the Manitoba Hydro Electric Board. The Canadians do not like this infringement on their sovereignty and the implications of environmental racism.
I don’t think it was a legislator or a lobbyist, but I heard it said that “We know that communication is a problem, but we are not going to talk about it.”