A report released Thursday by a Legislature-appointed work group meant to help create a low carbon fuel standard to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is recommending lowering ambitious targets set by lawmakers.
The Clean Transportation Standard (CTS) Work Group was established within the transportation omnibus bill passed by the Legislature this past spring. The 40-member work group was put together and managed by the state’s Agriculture, Commerce, Pollution Control and Transportation agencies.
While a majority of the work group agreed with its recommendations, some members united to release their own report, which outlines why a standard will have negative environmental impacts.
The report
The report issued by the group found that carbon intensity reduction targets set by legislation may be too difficult to achieve based on the market and current clean fuel technologies. Modeling done by the work group showed that the state would only see a 30% reduction in carbon intensity by 2050 in a business-as-usual case study, and the goal of 100% reduction by 2050 would only be possible through aggressive policy making efforts.
“The work group learned from state program leaders in Oregon and Washington that it will be important for the Legislature to strike a balance between ambitious targets that encourage decarbonization and a program that can achieve compliance,” the report reads. “Therefore, the work group considered alternative targets and goals.”
The report recommended that the 2030 target of 25% reduction be lowered to a 13-17% target, and for the 2040 target be lowered from 75% to 40-50%. The group also recommended 100% reduction for 2050 be changed from a target to a goal.
“Even if the goal posts of the carbon reduction targets shift during the legislative process, what is important is that Minnesota can and should lead the building of a national model that can not only address climate change but also support jobs and drive economic growth in Minnesota’s rural communities,” said Brendan Jordan, vice president for Transportation and Fuels at the Great Plains Institute, said in a statement.
The Great Plains Institute is facilitating the Minnesota Future Fuels Coalition, which includes electric utilities, environmental and agriculture groups, among others.
The minority report
Members of the work group from four organizations – the Sierra Club’s North Star chapter, CURE, Healthy Professionals for a Healthy Climate and COPAL – released their own report alongside the state agencies’ report, expressing concern about the work group report’s recommendation to incentivize ethanol production and its use.
“The whole CTS work group report is based on the presumption that ethanol is helping the climate when in reality, ethanol likely pollutes the climate at least 24% more than just using plain gasoline and pollutes our water in the process,” Peter Wagenius, the Sierra Club’s legislative director, said in an interview. “If you operate on the false assumption that ethanol is better than gasoline, that’s a problem.”
Wagenius said the work group report didn’t focus enough on electrification and promoting electric vehicles. Electric motors are more efficient than combustion engines, and the electric grid is already improving with respect to integrating renewable energy sources, he said.
The minority report also takes issue with carbon capture and storage mentioned in the main report due to the potential for the captured carbon to be used in a process called enhanced oil recovery, where CO2 is pumped into old oil wells to push more oil out. The CTS report does not recommend facilitating enhanced oil recovery, but the minority report argues capturing emissions from ethanol plants ensures continued availability of carbon.
“If we turn carbon dioxide – the pollution from an ethanol plant, into a product – that creates a perverse economic incentive to never stop polluting,” Wagenius said. “If you’re making money from it, why would you reduce it?”
