April 2021 Environmental Quality Board Meeting
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
520 Lafayette Road North, Saint Paul, MN 55155| www.eqb.state.mn.us
Phone: 651-757-2873 | Fax: 651-757-2343
April 2021 Environmental Quality Board Meeting
April 21, 2021 1:00 - 4:00 p.m.
Meeting location: Virtual via WebEx
Meeting link: https://minnesota.webex.com/minnesota/onstage/g.php?MTID=e838315036f4acba7756cb894f55644ab
Meeting Time and Location
In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Environmental Quality Board (EQB or Board) will convene its
April Board meeting virtually through the WebEx platform. To access the meeting, use the link under the
“Meeting Location” above.
Instructions for joining the meeting via WebEx are included on page 5 of this packet.
This material can be provided in different forms, like large print, braille, or on a recording. Please
contact EQB staff at least one week prior to the event at info.EQB@state.mn.us to arrange an
accommodation.
Public Engagement Opportunities at EQB Meetings
EQB encourages public input and appreciates the opportunity to build shared understanding with
members of the public. During the April Board meeting, members of the public will have the opportunity
to contribute questions, comments, and ideas during a public input period at the beginning of the
meeting. The public input period is limited to 30 minutes. Members of the public can also submit ideas
throughout the meeting via the online platform Slido. To access the platform, please visit Slido
[https://www.sli.do/] and enter the event code “EQBAPR21.”
Meeting Objectives
• Review the 2020 Quadrennial Energy Report for Minnesota
• Hear a project overview for the 2021 Mandatory Category Report
• Discuss preliminary results from the pollinator survey and next steps for the Interagency Pollinator
Protection Team
• Review and discuss findings from the 2020 Environmental Review Performance Report
EQB Packet - 2
Agenda
I. Adoption of Consent Agenda & Minutes
Proposed Agenda for April 21, 2021 Board Meeting
February 17, 2021 Meeting Minutes
II. EQB Welcome & Introductions
Laura Bishop
EQB Chair
Commissioner – Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
EQB Members
Margaret Anderson Kelliher; Commissioner – Department of Transportation
Grace Arnold; Commissioner – Department of Commerce
Kristen Eide-Tollefson; Public Member – Congressional District 2
Alan Forsberg; Public Member – Congressional District 1
Julie Goehring; Public Member – Congressional District 7
Steve Grove; Commissioner – Department of Employment and Economic Development
Mehmet Konar-Steenberg; Public Member – Congressional District 5
Jan Malcolm; Commissioner – Department of Health
Nicholas Martin; Public Member – Congressional District 4
Bryan Murdock; Public Member – Congressional District 8
Thom Petersen; Commissioner – Department of Agriculture
Alice Roberts-Davis; Commissioner – Department of Administration
Sarah Strommen; Commissioner – Department of Natural Resources
Gerald Van Amburg; Chair – Board of Water and Soil Resources
Benjamin Yawakie; Public Member – Congressional District 3
III. Executive Director’s Report
Katie Pratt
Executive Director
Environmental Quality Board
Katie.Pratt@state.mn.us
IV. Public Input Period
The Board welcomes public input on today’s agenda items. The Board is hearing oral public
input at the beginning of the meeting only. The public input period is limited to 30 minutes and
commenters are asked to keep their statements to fewer than 300 words or three minutes of
speaking. Depending on the volume of commenters, the Chair may need to further limit
speaking time.
Please use the WebEx chat function to indicate that you would like to make a comment. The
“Guide to WebEx Participation” on page 5 of this packet has additional details about how to use
the WebEx platform.
EQB Packet - 3
Beyond the public input period, members of the public can submit ideas throughout the
meeting via the online platform Slido. To access the platform, please visit Slido
[https://www.sli.do/] and enter the event code “EQBAPR21.” Board members may or may not
have time to directly address all comments, however, all Slido comments will be exported and
included as part of the public record in the subsequent Board packet.
V. 2020 Quadrennial Energy Report for Minnesota
The Department of Commerce prepares a report outlining key energy sector developments
every four years. The 2020 quadrennial report has been redesigned for easy access to important
information. Key highlights from this report, released in March 2020, include renewable energy
and greenhouse gas emission trends for the power and buildings sectors and the impact of
utility, community, and governmental actions in meeting local and state energy goals.
Presenters:
Aditya Ranade
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Commerce
Aditya.ranade@state.mn.us
Materials enclosed:
• Full Quadrennial Report: Energy Policy and Conservation Quadrennial Report 2020
• Fact Sheets based on the Quadrennial Report: https://mn.gov/commerce/policy-data-
reports/energy-data-reports/energy-data.jsp – EQB Packet page 16
VI. Mandatory Category Report Project Overview
EQB staff will provide an overview of the Board’s responsibility for Environmental Review
Program Mandatory Categories Report which is due December 1, 2021.
Presenter:
Erik Cedarleaf Dahl
Planning Director
Environmental Quality Board
Erik.Dahl@state.mn.us
Materials enclosed:
• 2021 Mandatory Category Report Project Overview Memo – EQB Packet page 27
VII. Preliminary results from the pollinator survey and the Interagency Pollinator
Protection Team’s next steps
The Interagency Pollinator Protection Team (IPPT) conducted a survey to gather public feedback
on the 2020 Minnesota State Agency Pollinator Report and gain insight on actions Minnesotans
are taking to protect pollinators and challenges they face. The IPPT will use this feedback to
shape the 2021 Minnesota State Agency Pollinator Report, to identify new opportunities for
EQB Packet - 4
action, and to engage with the public to advance pollinator protection in Minnesota. EQB staff
will present preliminary results from the survey and next steps.
Presenter:
Rebeca Gutierrez-Moreno, PhD
State Pollinator Coordinator
Environmental Quality Board
Rebeca.Gutierrez-Moreno@state.mn.us
Materials enclosed:
• Prelim. Results from the Pollinator Survey and Next Steps Memo – EQB Packet page 29
VIII. 2020 Environmental Review Program Performance Report
Under Minnesota Rules 4410, EQB is responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of the
Environmental Review Program (ER Program) and taking appropriate measures to modify and
improve its effectiveness. EQB staff will present the 2020 ER Program Annual Performance
Report. The performance report interprets 2020 and historical data to inform future data
management practices and ER program improvement recommendations.
Presenter:
Katrina Hapka
Environmental Review Program Coordinator
Environmental Quality Board
Katrina.Hapka@state.mn.us
Materials enclosed:
• 2020 Environmental Review Program Performance Report – EQB Packet page 32
IX. Closing Remarks
X. Adjourn
EQB Packet - 5
EQB Guide to Participating in WebEx Meetings
If you have any questions or technical difficulties regarding the Board meeting or WebEx, please
contact EQB staff at (651) 757-2873.
Contents
• Connecting to WebEx
• Submitting Written Comment (Written Comments will be included in the subsequent Board
Packet)
• Troubleshooting your connection
Connecting to WebEx
Step 1: Join WebEx through the provided link found on our website or public meeting notification
through GovDelivery.
Step 2: Input your name and email address, then select join.
EQB Packet - 6 Step 3: This will prompt you to register for the meeting by confirming your email address, after confirming, select “Submit” Step 4: If you have not already used WebEx before, follow the prompts to download the plug-in for your web browser. This typically does not take long, but be sure to budget time in advanced to connect to the meeting.
EQB Packet - 7 Step 5: Configure your Audio and Video Connection, if you wish to use your computer’s microphone and camera, select “Call Using Computer.” If you prefer to connect by phone you can either call in or have the WebEx system call a number that you provide. Note: you will be muted upon entry to the conference call. If you are joining audio by phone, you will only be able to unmute through your computer. If you wish to submit written public comment Note: Written comments will not be visible to the Board in real time. They will be included in the subsequent Board packet. Step 1: Open the chat clicking the chat bubble icon. Step 2: Then in the chat box, select “Environmental Quality Board (Host)” to submit your written public comment.
EQB Packet - 8
Troubleshooting your Connection
If you have any questions or technical difficulties regarding the Board meeting or WebEx, please contact
EQB staff at (651) 757-2873.
Having trouble with hearing or speaking? Try joining by phone.
Step 1: Open Step 2: Select
the options by “Audio Connection”
selecting the in the menu.
three dots icon.
Step 3: Select “Switch Connection.”
Step 4: Press
“I will call in”
to get unique
call in
information
for your
phone’s
connection.
EQB Packet - 9
MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
February 17, 2020; 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Virtual via WebEx
Members Present: Margaret Anderson Kelliher, Aditya Ranade (proxy for Grace Arnold), Laura Bishop,
Kristen Eide-Tollefson, Alan Forsberg, Mehmet Konar-Steenberg, Julie Goehring, Kevin McKinnon (proxy
for Steve Grove), Nicholas Martin, Bryan Murdock, Thom Petersen, Sarah Strommen, Gerald Van
Amburg, Sue Vento, Benjamin Yawakie
Members Absent: Jan Malcolm, Alice Roberts-Davis
Activity Video*
I. Adoption of Consent Agenda & Minutes 00:00:55
II. EQB Welcome & Introductions 00:02:00
III. Executive Director’s Report 00:05:05
Executive Director Katie Pratt announced that EQB staff are requesting public feedback on
draft recommendations through March 31st for integrating climate change information into
environmental review. EQB is also seeking input on interagency pollinator efforts via a
pollinator survey through March 12th. EQB is planning on hosting a youth led Board meeting
on climate change. EQB, in collaboration with the Minnesota Humanities Center is piloting an
effort to bring the climate change conversations to communities outside of the metro area.
IV. Elect EQB Vice Chair 00:14:08
The Board elected VanAmburg to the position of EQB Vice Chair.
V. From the Inside Out: The Fight for Environmental Justice within Government Agencies 00:18:03
Jill Lindsey Harrison, PhD is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Colorado
Boulder. Her research focuses on environmental sociology, sociology of agriculture and food
systems, environmental justice, and political theories of justice, with a regional emphasis on
the United States. Harrison shared findings on environmental justice discussed in her book.
VI. Question & Answer Session for Jill Lindsey Harrison 01:10:15
Board members and public participants had the opportunity to ask questions from Jill Lindsey
Harrison, author of “From the Inside Out: The Fight for Environmental Justice within
Government Agencies.”
VII. EQB Work Plan 01:43:30
Executive Director Katie Pratt provided Board members an update to the EQB work plan and
led the Board in a discussion of organizational objectives.
VIII. Closing Remarks 02:44:56
* Video recording and presentations of February 17th meeting reside on the EQB website:
https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/content/february-17-2021-environmental-quality-board-meeting
EQB Packet - 10
Questions from the public submitted virtually via Slido during February 2021 meeting
agenda item VI.
Question Text Upvotes User Name
Ignored by the HOST in the Chat as this vote just happened: from Jami 0 Jami
Gaither to Host (privately): Gaither
Can we get Native Voice Representation with Ben Yawakie?13:19
Seems a great piece of evidence in how public and Native voices are 1 Jami
SILENCED HERE. No wonder the EJ committee resigned almost in whole? Gaither
Discussion of EJ reforms are usually prospective, but is there something 5 Amelia
agencies should be doing to remedy EJ harms caused by past agency Vohs
decisions?
What is the role of a set of principles in EJ policy and practice. What is the 3 Anonymous
potential advantage of a common set of principles? What are examples?
Have you found frequent instances where regulatory agencies now are 1 Anonymous
acknowledging that disproportionate adverse impacts fall on minority and
indigenous communities but then do nothing to avoid these impacts as was
the case with the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline here in Minnesota.
4 Anonymous
If there were a common set of principles for EJ for a the
state/administration -- how exactly do we go from, and integrate principles
into process and practice?
Could we perhaps go back and ask Ben if he'd consider the vice-chair 3 Jami
position? It seems my nomination of him was clearly missed. Perhaps we Gaither
could Re-Vote if he has willingness? Reconsidering Ben's willingness could
be a concrete step in addressing EJ real-time?
If you're familiar with the Line 3 pipeline case here in MN, can you give us 2 Amelia
your recommendations of places where EJ could have been brought into Vohs
that multi-agency permitting and review process?
I noticed that you use the term "overburdened" communities. At our 7 Anonymous
agency, we have struggled to find a way to categorize communities that
suffer injustice in a way that is not counter-productive, paternalistic, or
contemptuous. Can you say more about your choice of words and any
advice you have?
Can you imagine a different presentation where every time she mentions 1 Anonymous
Environmental Justice instead you substituted the words "Corporate
economic interests" and you can see how far away from equity we are
today in Minnesota.
Timely... based on discussion at MIAC (a nation-to-nation mtg with MN 1 Jami
State and MN Tribes) earlier today. There was much time spent in trying to Gaither
help white membership to understand their ignoring of the Native
perspective and voice. What can agency reps do to HEAR these voices
rather than defend?
Do you find that your work overlaps with our society's need to address and 1 Anonymous
root out racial injustice in all levels of government?EQB Packet - 11 how much of the staff you interviewed identified as People of Color? feels 2 Anonymous like the answers from staff you report are tainted by racism and white supremacy Pretending we are color blind does not work. In every interaction, 3 Anonymous dominant members of a society like ours (where whiteness is the dominant culture) have so many more advantages at every step. I know that NJ recently passed an EJ law. Can you talk about what teeth it 5 Anonymous gives agencies to act on EJ? What other states are making progress on EJ? Where to target transformation of culture and practice -- at what level of 3 Anonymous agency responsibility and authority? Do you have any examples of some agencies in some states that have 4 Anonymous begun this process, even baby steps? For accountability what metrics of effective EJ practice have been shown to 7 Anonymous produce measurable results? Wow! 1 Anonymous Wow, that's exactly the OPPOSITE directions the new Water Standard Rules 0 Jami are going... Gaither Wow, that's exactly the OPPOSITE directions the new Water Standard Rules 0 Jami are going... Gaither In the US, the regulatory process is more litigious and therefore more 4 Eric prescribed. Do you think the prescribed nature of our regulations creates Wojchik more challenges in terms of comprehensive EJ reforms? Without metrics and established goals that address cumulative 2 Anonymous environmental impacts and EJ, are visibly measured & reported, and most importantly serve as the yardsticks by which staff compensation and promotion opportunities are gauged, you will not achieve the change you desire. Please comment. The Minnesota PUC's EIS fully disclosed this disproportionate burden of the 1 Willis Line 3 pipeline on Native peoples but allowed the injustice to stand Mattison unabated. Is that not worse than ignoring the problem because to do so gives the appearance of EJ awareness but does nothing to relieve it. For accountability what metrics of effective EJ practice have been shown to 0 Willis produce measurable results? Mattison EQB administers cumulative impacts differently than basic science does. 0 Willis Repeated impacts by different actors and that are added over long periods Mattison of time are systematically excluded from cumulative impact consideration allowing EJ and other injustices to accrue. Have you seen this done elsewhere? Public participants in this very meeting are being discriminated against by 0 Willis their not being able to view the list of other participants. Only EQB staff and Mattison Board members names show on our screens. Only one member of the public shows on the list of participants. Also, why 0 Anonymous do some comments display as anonymous when they registered? Agencies have little accountability to the public who are continuously 1 Jami silenced by agency actions. Requested meetings by scientists are refused - Gaither or given AFTER decisions are made. Not just BIPOC voices, but the voice of science as well.
EQB Packet - 12
You mention innovative environmental monitoring. Examples? Do you find 0 Anonymous
that participation in monitoring contributes to empowerment of
communities who are burdened, and may suffer cumulative impacts.
Are the taxes on the Tesla a bit higher, in part covering this, Alan? 0 Jami
Gaither
Our license fees are much higher,so we pay for the roads in a different way. 0 Anonymous
Clean Cars mean nothing if we allow Enbridge to build a Tar Sands pipeline 0 Jami
through MN that wipes out all our gains - as they use more electricity than Gaither
the State as a whole.
Economic incentives for alternative energy vehicles are necessary and what 0 Willis
Alan saw is an example of that, not discrimination based on age or color. Mattison
Does anyone get that public members not being able to have a voice here is 0 Jami
a part of the injustice practices? Gaither
MEQB meetings USED to allow for comments, communications between 0 Jami
attendees within the meeting format, emoticon reactions. Chat access. Gaither
(Yes, even in Covid time formats). ALL GONE NOW. Working the public OUT
of the process. All the time...
Questions from the public submitted virtually via Slido during February 2021 meeting
agenda item VIII.
Topic
As we reflect upon EQB’s work plan and look forward to the next biennial planning cycle, what does
success look like for the EQB over the next few years?
Idea text Upvotes User Name
I'd like to see the MEQB Actually heeding the Native and Science voices that 2 Jami
have been ignored as the Line 3 process, 2020 Water Plan, and water standard Gaither
changes (among many other issues) ignore these voices.
Please consider EQB identifying EJ and other focused communities throughout 7 Anonymous
MN, per MN District, which can be further utilized in other planning, reporting,
permitting, ER and other activities.
Success: MEQB would have an impact on MNDOT operations. Trees are being 2 Polly
ripped from across our state. See Hwy. 220 Detroit Lakes to Walker. MNDOT Andersen
has plans to do more of this to protect highways and car drivers. What about
protecting the climate? Trees are ecosystems, vital to protecting climate.
Is ignoring my nomination of Ben in the Chat another piece of evidence in how 1 Jami
public and Native voices are SILENCED here at MEQB? Is it no surprise the EJ Gaither
committee resigned almost in whole? from Jami Gaither to Host (privately):
Can we get Native Voice Representation with Ben Yawakie?13:19
Requirement that all MEQB members READ the Treaties of Minnesota Tribes 1 Jami
so they can perhaps comprehend the Native perspective further. Gaither
Have you found frequent instances where regulatory agencies now are 1 Anonymous
acknowledging that disproportionate adverse impacts fall on minority and
indigenous communities but then do nothing to avoid these impacts as was
the case with the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline here in Minnesota.EQB Packet - 13 The Minnesota PUC's EIS fully disclosed this disproportionate burden of the 1 Willis Line 3 pipeline on Native peoples but allowed the injustice to stand unabated. Mattison Is that not worse than ignoring the problem because to do so gives the appearance of EJ awareness but does nothing to relieve it. EQB administers cumulative impacts differently than basic science does. 5 Willis Repeated impacts by different actors and that are added over long periods of Mattison time are systematically excluded from cumulative impact consideration allowing EJ and other injustices to accrue. Can you imagine a different presentation where every time she mentions 1 Anonymous Environmental Justice instead you substituted the words "Corporate economic interests" and you can see how far away from equity we are today in Minnesota. I noticed that you use the term "overburdened" communities. At our agency, 2 Mauricio we have struggled to find a way to categorize communities that suffer injustice Leon in a way that is not counter-productive, paternalistic, or contemptuous. Can you say more about your choice of words and any advice you have? Within a white Euro-centric base, how do we help folks understand their 2 Jami skewed perspective that ignores the perspective of Natives? Gaither In line 3 case that it may be that the agency did not believe that it had 4 Chuck authoity to take racial disparity factors into account. Are there examples of Dayton such statutes, or rules in other states or the federal level? Public participants in this very meeting are being discriminated against by their 1 Willis not being able to view the list of other participants. Only EQB staff and Board Mattison members names show on our screens. For accountability what metrics of effective EJ practice have been shown to 2 Willis produce measurable results? Mattison Accountability metrics that only measure levels of effort are NOT effective, 4 Willis they must measure actual change that result from the efforts. Mattison Without metrics and established goals that address cumulative environmental 0 Anonymous impacts and EJ, are visibly measured & reported, and most importantly serve as the yardsticks by which staff compensation and promotion opportunities are gauged, you will not achieve the change you desire. Please comment. Yes, MPCA should be advocating! 0 Anonymous Suggestion on how to help citizens of low income with energy programs. We 0 Anonymous need to help establish more programs like Mahube-OWTA Community Action Plan Partnership Inc. They are out of Detroit Lakes Minnesota. As a Muncipal electric Company, we have a hard time spending CIP dollars for this. Could we use the EQB "Report Card" format, for EJ. Create an "EJ Report Card" 4 Anonymous with the kind of metrics that our environmental report card uses; how are we doing etc? I like the EJ Report Card idea. This is sort of what I was trying to get at with my 4 Nicholas PM2.5 example: create metrics, based on undeniable data, and then even folks Martin unwilling to talk about race or historical inequity will hopefully be willing to work to "improve our grades"... Because Line 3 impacted a wide range of agencies, advocates and communities 2 Anonymous and involved EJ issues and analysis - could we consider initiating an inquiry
EQB Packet - 14 about the factors that led to the decision and how elements of process affected participation, representation and decision making. A case study. Levels of effort metrics need to be replaced with metrics of improvement in 1 Willis human health, restored ecosystem functions and better environmental justice. Mattison Last year had check boxes for effort but nothing that would reveal measurable success or failures for change on the landscape that really matter. @Anonymous, Science for the People did a good video on the Line 3 approval 1 Jami debacle you might find interesting: https://fb.watch/3JgVkfWaDK/ Gaither Proposals for generic EISs on CAFOs or Pinelands GW problems are failed 1 Willis ideas. Project specific EIS citizen petition has been denied by DNR. Agencies Mattison are ducking big problems by shunting off to GEIS what should be addressed by project specific EISs. I agree with Al. I think we do need to discuss this. Please note that the Red 1 Anonymous Wing was extremely well done. The meeting created significant input and resources to move forward outside a GEIS. It would be great to have a staff review and assessment of the potential here to set up this discussion. I would like to see EQB undertake an initiative that investigates whether 4 Amelia projects that were deemed to "not have a potential significant environmental Vohs effect" indeed did not have an negative effect on the environment once permitted. A study of whether enviro review study aligns with reality. Ben's thought about mapping the burdened/impacted communities is 3 Kristen excellent. We also need an inventory of the organizations and key individuals doing this EJ work . They are huge assets in this work. These same groups could be significant partners in outreach for engagement and ER. Thank you Ben! Excellent suggestion, Ben. As Scientists we were given almost no voice in the 0 Jami process of evaluating Line 3. MANY REQUESTED meetings never happened Gaither while Enbridge had regular and consistent meetings... Tribes didn't get a place at the table either. I would also like to see the EQB explore needed GEISs. We see a number of 1 Amelia cumulative problems, like pervasive nitrate pollution, escape meaningful Vohs review because they can't be adequately assessed on a project by project basis. This is a place where EQB could provide critical missing information Regarding Green Steps and supporting local climate action --- It would be 1 Kristen powerful to create a matrix of the community and county climate change goals. The data exists in the Green Steps network. It would help us to communicate these commitments (also to legislature) and coordinate efforts. For example, nitrate pollution is afflicted with finger-pointing. Contributors 1 Amelia point the finger at other contributors to avoid modifying their projects to Vohs address the pollution. If we had data showing where nitrate pollution is coming from, that would help force improved design. BINGO! So many buzzwords. Perhaps speaking in plainer language with truth 0 Jami of our reality expressed would assist in making progress? Instead of making Gaither pretty presentations and wordy docs (so white supremacy). Posting the Slido comments, questions on EQB minutes and website is 0 Willis welcome but replies to all this public input is necessary to demonstrate true Mattison
EQB Packet - 15 dialogue is valued. Being heard means more than repeating what was said, responding is essential. Consistency in structure doesn't necessarily allow for diversity of reaction as 0 Jami needed by many projects which will not be black and white. These are complex Gaither issues that require nuance. And deep discussion. With no effort given to stopping an unneeded Tar Sands pipeline (as that 0 Jami industry dies) will the Governor comprehend the risks, especially after another Gaither near-fatality for the Enbridge project in LaSalle Valley on February 6th? YEP, BEN!!!!!! YOU WERE DISSED. Thought I heard Bishop say the public was 0 Jami open to expressing their wishes of representation. Gaither ANOTHER instance of dismissing the public you are supposedly serving? 0 Jami Shouldn't it be open? The vote can be by the Board still. Gaither
EQB Packet - 16
2020 QUADRENNIAL REPORT
FA C T S H E E T S
A D D I T I O N A L DATA O N M I N N E S OTA’S E N E R G Y L A N D S C A P E C A N B E F O U N D I N T H E
2020 E N E R GY P O L I C Y A N D CO N S E R VAT I O N Q UA D R E N N I A L R E P O R T AT M N .G OV/CO M M E R C E .EQB Packet - 17
2020 Q UA D R E N N I A L R E P O R T—FAC T S H E E T
Overview of Minnesota’s Energy Landscape
Minnesota has no indigenous fossil fuel reserves to U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data. In
supply its energy needs. Most of the energy consumed addition, Minnesota ranks among the top 10 states in
within Minnesota comes from other states and Can- electricity generation from wind and solar energy. Re-
ada. Over 73% of the energy consumed in Minnesota newable resources continue to make up an increasing
comes from fossil fuels used for heating, industrial share of the state’s energy supply. A diagram, below,
processes, transportation, and electricity generation. of Minnesota’s energy use in 2018 shows how energy
More than half of imported electricity is generated flows from primary fuel sources and how it is used,
with fossil fuels. However, Minnesota has an abundant including where energy is lost due to system inefficien-
supply of wind, solar, and bio-based energy. cies. Notably, more than half of the energy consumed
Minnesota ranks among the top five states in the in the state is wasted, rendering only 42.3% (661 trillion
nation for ethanol production capacity, according to Btu) of the energy useful.
Fig. 1-A: Out of all energy consumed in Minnesota in 2018, over 57% went unused as waste heat.
Figure 1-A shows Minnesota’s estimated energy consumption in 2018. Of the 1,847 trillion Btu consumed that year,
more than 57% went unused as waste heat.
Source: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
A D D I T I O N A L DATA O N M I N N E S OTA’S E N E R G Y L A N D S C A P E C A N B E F O U N D I N T H E
2020 E N E R G Y P O L I C Y A N D CO N S E R VAT I O N Q UA D R E N N I A L R E P O R T AT M N .G OV/CO M M E R C E .EQB Packet - 18
2020 Q UA D R E N N I A L R E P O R T—FAC T S H E E T
Renewable Energy Goal for Total Energy Use
Goal: Derive 25% by 2025 of total energy used in the state from renewable resources for heating, industrial
processes, transportation, and electricity generation (Minnesota Statute §216.05).
Status: Minnesota obtained 16% of its total energy from renewable resources in 2018 and is at risk of
missing its 25% by 2025 goal.
In 2018, 16% of the total energy consumed in Minne- energy consumption from renewable sources by 2025.
sota for heating, industrial processes, transportation, Achieving this goal could be possible with a long-term
and electricity generation came from renewable decrease in total energy consumption (reducing the
sources, compared with a United States average of 11% denominator) or a 5 to 10% increase in renewable
renewable consumption. Minnesota is at risk of miss- energy consumption (increasing the numerator).
ing the State goal to provide one-fourth of its total
Fig. 1-B: In 2018, 16% of all energy
consumed in Minnesota came from
renewable sources.
Source: U.S. EIA
Fig. 1-C: Minnesota is at risk of
missing its goal of 25% of total
energy use from renewables
by 2025.
Source: U.S. EIA
A D D I T I O N A L DATA O N M I N N E S OTA’S E N E R G Y L A N D S C A P E C A N B E F O U N D I N T H E
2020 E N E R G Y P O L I C Y A N D CO N S E R VAT I O N Q UA D R E N N I A L R E P O R T AT M N .G OV/CO M M E R C E .EQB Packet - 19
2020 Q UA D R E N N I A L R E P O R T—FAC T S H E E T
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Goal
Goal: To reduce greenhouse gas emissions statewide to a level at least 15% below 2005 base levels by 2015,
30% by 2025, and 80% by 2050 (Minn. Stat. §216H.02).
Status: Minnesota missed the 2015 milestone and is not on track to meet 2025 goals.
Fig. 1-D. Minnesota is not on track to meet its 2025 greenhouse gas emissions goals.
Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
In 2007, Governor Tim Pawlenty signed the bi-partisan parts of the economy have seen only modest reduc-
Next Generation Energy Act into law, setting statutory tions or emission increases. Emissions attributable to
goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions industrial, residential, and commercial activity have all
by 15% from 2005 levels by 2015, 30% by 2025, and increased by 15% or more.
80% by 2050. Minnesota missed its goal in 2015 and Minnesota continues to see excellent progress in
currently is not on track to meet future goals. Since reducing emissions from electricity consumption
2005, overall GHG emissions overall have declined because of growth in renewable electricity and reduc-
by just 8%. tion in coal-fired electricity, primarily from generation
The positive progress in Minnesota so far has been within state borders. Future emissions reduction in
concentrated in the electricity generation sector. the power sector will depend on the resources chosen
Between 2005 and 2018, the carbon intensity of within and outside state borders to serve load in
electricity delivered for Minnesota consumption Minnesota as aging power plants continue to retire.
decreased by 29%. In the same timeframe, all other
A D D I T I O N A L DATA O N M I N N E S OTA’S E N E R G Y L A N D S C A P E C A N B E F O U N D I N T H E
2020 E N E R G Y P O L I C Y A N D CO N S E R VAT I O N Q UA D R E N N I A L R E P O R T AT M N .G OV/CO M M E R C E .EQB Packet - 20
2020 Q UA D R E N N I A L R E P O R T—FAC T S H E E T
Energy Savings Goal and the Conservation Improvement Program
Goal: Energy savings of 1.5% of average annual retail sales each year for electric and natural gas utilities, unless
adjusted by the commissioner to no less than 1.0% (Minn. Stat. §216.241).
Status: Utilities are meeting and exceeding their energy efficiency goals.
Fig. 1-E: Each dollar spent on CIP generates $3.75 in benefits to society.
Source: Cadmus
Minnesota’s Conservation Improvement Program • Saving Minnesota’s businesses and residents
(CIP) establishes an annual savings goal of 1.5% of over $279 million in energy costs; and
average retail sales for electric and natural gas utilities.
During 2017 and 2018, electric utilities exceeded the • Supporting over 48,000 energy efficiency jobs,
CIP goal of 1.5%, and natural gas utilities exceeded the representing the largest share of Minnesota’s
statutory minimum of 1.0% energy savings. In total, in clean energy employment.
years 2017 and 2018, energy conservation programs CIP brings positive economic and societal benefits to
benefited Minnesota’s environment and economy by: Minnesota, according to an independent 2020 study
of CIP investments made from 2013 to 2018. The study
• Saving around 15.2 trillion Btu of energy —
found that each dollar spent on CIP generates $3.75
enough energy to heat, cool and power more
in benefits to society. The study also showed that CIP
than 160,000 Minnesota homes for a year;
generates numerous immediate and persistent positive
• Reducing CO2 emissions by 1.79 million tons, economic effects on energy bill savings, job growth,
equivalent to removing over 350,000 vehicles and environmental benefits.
from the road for one year;
A D D I T I O N A L DATA O N M I N N E S OTA’S E N E R G Y L A N D S C A P E C A N B E F O U N D I N T H E
2020 E N E R G Y P O L I C Y A N D CO N S E R VAT I O N Q UA D R E N N I A L R E P O R T AT M N .G OV/CO M M E R C E .EQB Packet - 21
2020 Q UA D R E N N I A L R E P O R T—FAC T S H E E T
Energy Use in Buildings
Goal: Energy savings of 1.5% of annual electricity and natural gas retail sales through conservation improvement
programs and rate design, energy codes and appliance standards, and programs designed to transform the
market or change consumer behavior and other efforts (Minn. Stat. §216B.2401).
Status: Utilities are meeting their energy savings goals, but overall emissions and energy use from
buildings are increasing.
As a cold-climate state, energy efficiency is critical.
Minnesota has some of the coldest winter weather in
the nation, coupled with hot, humid summers. Build-
ings require large amounts of energy to heat and cool.
In 2017, Minnesota’s buildings consumed 40.6% of
the total energy use in the state, 19.5% of which was
from commercial buildings, including large multifamily
buildings.
In Minnesota, the average energy burden is 2%, while
low-income households average an energy burden
of 8% and some Minnesotans face an energy burden
exceeding 30%. The federally funded Low-income
Weatherization Assistance Program supports home
energy efficiency upgrades, lowering the energy Buildings Consume over 40% of Energy in MN
burden of households with income at or below 200%
of the federal poverty level. ing energy code from the 2012 International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC) to the 2018 IECC. The
Minnesota’s growing population combined with
U.S. DOE estimated that the new building standards
long-term housing shortages are driving new building
will result in more than 8% energy cost savings and
construction in the state. From 2016 to 2019, Minne-
6% energy savings. The 2021 IECC building code was
sota’s population and number of households increased
approved in 2020 is expected to further improve effi-
by 2.7%. From 2018 to 2032, Minnesota’s population is
ciency by 10% in residential and commercial buildings
estimated to increase by 7%. Between 2016 and 2018,
for decades to come.
between 11,000 and 14,000 homes were built each
year. During the same timeframe, more than 5 million Minnesota’s policies and programs work together to
square feet of commercial building space was added support cost-effective energy conservation and effi-
each year in the Twin Cities area. ciency in new and existing buildings. Minnesota is the
only Midwestern state that consistently ranks in the
Building codes provide a significant opportunity to re-
top 10 states nationwide in the American Council for
duce energy consumption and reduce energy bills. The
an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) State Energy
relationship between building codes and energy use
Efficiency Scorecard. As a result of these efforts,
intensity (EUI) in buildings has been well documented.
Minnesota’s per capita energy consumption is lower
On March 31, 2020, the Minnesota Department of
than nearly two-fifths of other states.
Labor and Industry updated the commercial build-
A D D I T I O N A L DATA O N M I N N E S OTA’S E N E R G Y L A N D S C A P E C A N B E F O U N D I N T H E
2020 E N E R G Y P O L I C Y A N D CO N S E R VAT I O N Q UA D R E N N I A L R E P O R T AT M N .G OV/CO M M E R C E .EQB Packet - 22
2020 Q UA D R E N N I A L R E P O R T—FAC T S H E E T
Renewable Electricity Standards
Goal: Derive 25% of retail electricity sold in the state from renewable resources by 2025; 30% for Xcel Energy
by 2020 (Minn. Stat. §216B.1691, Subdivision 2a).
Status: Utilities retired renewable energy credits (REC) representing more than 20% of 2019 retail
electricity sales in Minnesota. Utilities are planning for renewable generation to meet or exceed
future RES milestones.
Minnesota’s utilities are on track to meet and exceed reductions in renewable energy technology costs,
their RES milestones of 30% by 2020 for Xcel Energy have led to a rapidly changing mix of resources used
and 25% by 2025 for other electric utilities. In 2019, to generate electricity within state borders.
utilities retired RECs for more than 20% of the elec- Based on preliminary 2020 data, between 2005 and
tricity sold in Minnesota. 2020, electricity generated within Minnesota from
Historically, Minnesota and the Midwest have relied on renewable sources increased four-fold from 6% of
coal as the primary fuel source for electricity gener- electricity generated in 2005 to 29% in 2020. This has
ation. However, Minnesota’s suite of energy policies, moved renewable energy closer to becoming the pri-
combined with the low cost of natural gas and ongoing mary source of electricity generated within the state.
Fig. 1-F: Utilities are on-track to meet
and exceed the Renewable Electricity
Standards.
Source: Minnesota Department of Commerce
Fig. 1-G: Electricity generation within
Minnesota’s borders is transforming.
Source: U.S. EIA
A D D I T I O N A L DATA O N M I N N E S OTA’S E N E R G Y L A N D S C A P E C A N B E F O U N D I N T H E
2020 E N E R G Y P O L I C Y A N D CO N S E R VAT I O N Q UA D R E N N I A L R E P O R T AT M N .G OV/CO M M E R C E .EQB Packet - 23
2020 Q UA D R E N N I A L R E P O R T—FAC T S H E E T
Solar Electricity Standard
Goal: Generate 1.5% of public utility retail electricity sales from solar energy by 2020, and 10% of all retail
electricity sales from solar energy by 2030 (Minn. Stat. §216B.1691, Subd. 2f).
Status: Utilities are planning for solar generation to meet or exceed the 1.5% standard.
Fig. 1-H: Minnesota’s solar generating capacity has grown rapidly since 2015.
Figure 1-I shows Minnesota’s cumulative solar power capacity from 2013 - 2020, with growth through 2022 projected to continue
at a similar rate.
Source: Minnesota Department of Commerce
Power generated from solar energy in the state has in- According to preliminary data from the U.S. EIA,
creased significantly in recent years. In 2013 the State solar energy accounted for 3% of electricity generated
amended the Renewable Energy Objectives Statute to within Minnesota in 2020, mainly from Xcel’s Energy’s
include a Solar Electricity Standard of 1.5% by the end community solar garden programs and utility-scale
of 2020 for three investor-owned utilities: Minnesota facilities that have at least 1 MW of generating capacity.
Power, Otter Tail Power Co., and Xcel Energy. The SES
also sets a state goal that by 2030, 10% of all elec-
tricity sales in Minnesota must be generated by solar
energy.
A D D I T I O N A L DATA O N M I N N E S OTA’S E N E R G Y L A N D S C A P E C A N B E F O U N D I N T H E
2020 E N E R G Y P O L I C Y A N D CO N S E R VAT I O N Q UA D R E N N I A L R E P O R T AT M N .G OV/CO M M E R C E .EQB Packet - 24
2020 Q UA D R E N N I A L R E P O R T—FAC T S H E E T
Preference for Renewable Energy in Resource Planning
Goal: Electric generation and transmission utilities that serve load in Minnesota are required to identify options for
renewable energy resources in their long-term plans to serve customer needs (Minn. Stat. §216B.2422, Subd. 4).
Status: Utilities are evaluating potential system options to pursue least-cost, environmentally sound, and
efficient resources consistent with current State and Federal laws and goals.
Fig. 1-I: Utilities are planning to transition to an energy mix that is 70% carbon free by 2034
Figure 1-I shows the projected resource mix between 2019 and 2034 for power delivered to Minnesota – including energy
generated both inside and outside of the state – based on Xcel, Minnesota Power, Otter Tail Power, and Great River Energy
resource plans and announced power plant retirements.
Eleven electric generation and transmission utilities predicts a renewable electricity mix that includes 70%
that serve Minnesotans are required to file long-term carbon-free resources by 2034, with 56% renewable
plans on the resources needed to meet customer resources (7% hydro, 10% solar, and 39% wind).
needs. An aggregated forecast of electric energy Future emissions reduction in the power sector will
generation—including energy generated both inside depend on the resources chosen to serve load as
and outside of Minnesota—based on Xcel, Minnesota aging power plants continue to retire.
Power, Otter Tail Power, and Great River Energy re-
source plans and announced power plant retirements
A D D I T I O N A L DATA O N M I N N E S OTA’S E N E R G Y L A N D S C A P E C A N B E F O U N D I N T H E
2020 E N E R G Y P O L I C Y A N D CO N S E R VAT I O N Q UA D R E N N I A L R E P O R T AT M N .G OV/CO M M E R C E .EQB Packet - 25
COVID-19 Response and Energy Policy
The 2020 political climate combined with the pandemic and civil unrest amplified social and economic dispari-
ties in Minnesota. The Minnesota Department of Commerce continues to monitor emerging trends in the energy
sector with a focus on relief and recovery efforts for low-income households and businesses affected by civil
unrest.
COVID-19 Timeline
Dec. 2019 Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) variant was identified in Wuhan, China.
March 6, 2020 Health officials confirmed the first known case of COVID-19 infection in Minnesota.
March 13, 2020 Governor Walz issued Emergency Executive Order 20-01, declaring a peacetime
emergency.
March 25, 2020 The Minnesota Department of Commerce and Public Utilities Commission (PUC) issued a
joint letter to electric and gas utilities requesting voluntary extension of cold weather rule
protections to suspend shut-offs. More than 130 municipal utilities and cooperatives that
are not state-regulated responded to a March request from the PUC to suspend disconnec-
tions, offer payment plans, and remove late fees during the pandemic.
March 27, 2020 Congress approved the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES)
Act including $900 million of additional funds for the U.S. DOE Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP) nationwide.
May 27, 2020 The IRS extended a Safe Harbor provision for energy Production Tax Credits (PTC)
and Investment Tax Credits (ITC).
Aug. 13, 2020 The PUC issued an order requiring regulated gas and electric utilities to suspend
disconnections and provide additional consumer protections.
Dec. 21, 2020 Congress passed the $2.3 trillion Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 including
the 2020 Energy Act with significant changes in climate and energy policy.
Electricity Consumption Trends
Initial analysis shows that 2020 changes in electricity consumption were most pronounced among commercial
and industrial energy users. EIA estimates nationwide retail sales of electricity to the commercial and industrial
sectors fell by 6.0% and 7.9%, respectively. Despite a mild winter, overall residential consumption of electricity
across the U.S. increased 1.3% in 2020, with people spending more time at home because of the pandemic.
Natural Gas Consumption Trends
The EIA estimated that U.S. natural gas consumption declined 2.5% in 2020 compared to 2019 levels because of
reduced commercial and industrial consumption, reduced electricity generation, and milder winter weather.
M N .G OV/CO M M E R C EEQB Packet - 26
2020 Federal Energy Policy Changes
IRS Extends Safe Harbor for PTC and ITC 85% reduction over 15 years in hydrofluorocarbons, a
potent group of greenhouse gases, and includes signif-
The pandemic caused widespread supply-chain disrup-
icant energy policy changes.
tions and worker shortages that delayed the con-
struction of some solar and wind power projects. In The 2020 Energy Act, which was incorporated into the
response, the Internal Revenue Service issued a notice Dec. 21 spending bill, includes:
on May 27, 2020 extending the safe harbors for the
• A reauthorization of the U.S. DOE Low-Income
renewable energy production tax credit (PTC) and
investment tax credit (ITC).
Weatherization Assistance Program through
2025, with FY2021 funding at $310 million (a
COVID also prompted factory shutdowns in China
2% increase over FY2020) to help low-income
early in the pandemic, which led to supply chain
families improve home energy efficiency and cut
problems that constrained solar supplies. However,
energy bills, while improving their home health
factories restarted production in April 2020, creating
excess capacity on the manufacturing side. Less ex- and safety;
pensive modules could benefit solar developers in the • FY 2021 funding for the U.S. DOE State Energy
short term. The pandemic’s long-term effects on re-
Program at $62.5 million, the same as FY 2020,
newable energy projects in Minnesota remain unclear.
to enhance energy security and support state
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic efficiency and renewable energy goals;
Security Act • An extension of credits for energy-efficient
Congress approved the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and homes, up to $2,000 for new energy-efficient
Economic Security (CARES) Act on March 27, 2020, homes, through 2021;
providing $900 million of additional funding for the
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program • Making permanent the 179D energy efficiency
(LIHEAP) to support households with mounting energy tax deduction for commercial buildings.
bills driven by COVID-related unemployment. In late
January 2021, the National Energy Assistance Direc- • An extension of the production tax credit at
tors’ Association estimated that an additional $10 60% of the full credit amount, or $18/MWh, for
billion in emergency funding would be needed to help an additional year through Dec. 31, 2021;
four million families pay off growing utility debt and
• An extension of the investment tax credit at
to help seven million families pay current bills through
Sept. 30, 2021. 26% for two years through 2022, and an expan-
sion of the tax credit to include waste heat-
Consolidated Appropriations Act to-power investments; and
Congress passed a $2.3 trillion appropriations package
• $35 billion in funding for clean energy research
on Dec. 21, 2020 by combining a $1.4 trillion omnibus
government funding bill with a $900 billion pandemic and development.
relief package. In addition, the legislation requires an
M N .G OV/CO M M E R C EEQB Packet - 27
Date: 4/9/2021
To: Environmental Quality Board Members
From: Erik Cedarleaf Dahl, Planning Director, Special Projects/Rules, 651-757-2364
RE: 2021 Mandatory Category Report Project Overview
Mandatory Category Report Due: December 1, 2021
Background and Purpose:
The legislature directs (116D.04 Subd. 5b) the EQB to conduct an assessment of mandatory
environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) and mandatory environmental impact statement (EIS)
categories every three years. The purpose of the report is to review the historical purpose of each
category; consider if categories are also subject to local, state or federal permits; and develop
recommendations for whether the mandatory categories should be modified, eliminated or unchanged.
This regular assessment is an opportunity to evaluate the mandatory categories and consider if they are
effectively meeting the purpose and goals of the Minnesota Environmental Protection Act (116D),
Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (116B) and EQB’s charge under 116C for all Minnesotans. Prior
Mandatory Category Reports were completed in 2013 and 2018.
Project Approach:
Past Mandatory Category Reports focused on completing the legislative directive by assessing each
mandatory category for environmental review (EIS and EAW) in Minnesota Rules 4410. In addition to the
legislative requirements, the 2021 approach will also include a pilot assessment of environmental justice
in mandatory categories.
Input Process:
EQB staff anticipate using a variety of methods to get feedback on mandatory categories. These include
reviewing input received during past Mandatory Category Reports and the recent EQB mandatory
category rulemaking, an open public input period, soliciting input from state RGUs, and targeted
interviews with local government staff and environmental justice thought leaders. EQB staff are
currently developing a project plan for the input process.
Next Steps:
• Identify interagency representatives and setup periodic meetings to provide input on mandatory
categoriesEQB Packet - 28
• Develop detailed project charter and timeline
• Compile data & review historical recommendations
• Develop project plan for input process including:
o Outreach to Local Government Units (LGUs)
o Public comment period (tentatively May – June 1, 2021)
o Targeted interviews with environmental justice thought leaders
• Begin analysis of ER mandatory category data
• Develop draft report outlineEQB Packet - 29
Memo
Date: 04/09/2021
To: Environmental Quality Board
From: Rebeca Gutierrez-Moreno, EQB State Pollinator Coordinator
RE: Preliminary Results from the Pollinator Survey and Next Steps
Executive Order 19-28 directs the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) to establish a public engagement process
to ensure public participation in pollinator policy and program development and build cross-sector partnerships.
As part of this engagement process, the EQB directed the Interagency Pollinator Protection Team (IPPT) to:
• Seek public feedback on the 2020 Minnesota State Agency Pollinator Annual Report (Report)
• Learn about the actions individuals and organizations are taking
• Understand the barriers they are encountering to help pollinators
The IPPT created a survey to gather information from Minnesotans. The survey was open from February 10,
2021 to March 12, 2021 and was promoted through IPPT state agencies’ social media outlets, including
Facebook and Twitter posts, and GovDelivery distribution lists. IPPT members also promoted the survey to
target audiences such as beekeepers, corn and soybean growers, and specialty crop growers by reaching out to
partners in different organizations to help distribute the survey to their constituents. Additionally, the IPPT
received written comment from two members of the public and from the Red River Valley Sugarbeet Growers
Association.
The IPPT will use the survey results and feedback to inform future pollinator reports, identify opportunities for
action and engagement, and advance pollinator protection in the state.
Who participated?
In total, 623 individuals responded the survey. Respondents were asked to select one category that best
describes them. Figure 1 shows the percent of respondents by category. The vast majority of respondents
identified as “Minnesota Residents” (61%), followed by “Government Employee/Civil Servant” (12%), and
“Beekeepers” (7%). There was also representation from “Corn/Soybean Growers” (5%) and “Specialty Crop
Growers” (4%).
1EQB Packet - 30
Nonprofit Conservation
Advocate 3%
Government
Employee/Civil
Servant
11%
Student Beekeeper, 7%
2%
Educator
Crop Consultant 1% 5% Minnesota Resident
60%
Pesticide Applicator 1%
Specialty Crop Grower 4%
Corn/Soybean Grower 5%
Elected Official, 1%
Figure 1. Survey participants by category
What are early takeaways?
The survey responses are a rich source of information for the IPPT. Although the team has not yet finished their
analysis of the data, here are some early takeaways:
• The majority of survey respondents (approx. 87%) were not familiar with the Report before taking the
survey. This could suggest that the IPPT should better publicize the Report, or that a different format is
needed to communicate with the public about pollinator protection in the state.
• Among the survey respondents who were familiar with the Report, the majority rated it as informative
about pollinator issues, ongoing efforts, challenges, and recommendations to protect pollinators in the
state. However, they also indicated that future reports could be restructured to make them more
accessible and action-oriented. Some respondents voiced differing opinions about length and content;
some asked for a more succinct report, while others requested more context about pollinator stressors,
regional pollinator protection efforts, and ongoing research.
• The majority of the survey respondents reported taking steps to protect pollinators. These included
implementing pollinator habitat on their lands, using an integrated pest management (IPM) framework
to manage pest problems, participating in citizen science programs, and spreading the word within their
circles of influence.
• Some responses indicate that there may be misconceptions about the best ways to help pollinators. For
example, some individuals cited beekeeping alone as a key way to protect pollinators. However, the
issue is more nuanced, since managed bees and native pollinators often compete for resources.
2EQB Packet - 31
• Survey respondents also provided insights into the barriers they are encountering in their efforts to
protect pollinators, such as:
o Pesticide-related issues. For example, wanting to plant pollinator habitat, but living near areas
where there is pesticide drift from golf courses and farms; or people indicating that “IPM is not
widely practiced by the average citizen.”
o Financial. For example, initial costs of pollinator habitat installations. Several people indicated
that “native plants are expensive.”
o Social. For example, pollinator habitat in landscaping does not conform to the common
aesthetic preference for the “perfect lawn,” meaning manicured turf grass with non-native
plants. This is causing problems between neighbors, and even between residents and local
governments.
• Many survey respondents provided program and policy ideas for state government that the IPPT will
review and explore. Some examples of these include creating incentives for installing pollinator habitat
and using IPM, increasing educational resources, and working with local governments and communities
to raise awareness about the different ways to help pollinators.
Next Steps
Pollinators face multiple challenges to survive. The work of protecting pollinators is complex and requires finding
new ways to work together and bringing people with different perspectives to the table. The IPPT is discussing
public input and is strategically thinking about their work plan for the coming year and beyond based on the
feedback they heard. Next steps include:
• The IPPT will establish sub-teams to consider public input for each pollinator protection goal and the
desired outcome in the report.
• IPPT members will bring the survey results to their agencies to identify specific actions that they can do
within their authority and resources to expand their capacity and move progress forward toward
healthy pollinator populations in Minnesota.
• The IPPT will modify their work plan to align interagency resources with key opportunities and regularly
report to the Board and the public on progress.
3You can also read
