Questions arise as Minnesota begins to implement its ‘cumulative impacts’ pollution policy

During the 2023 legislative session, Minnesota lawmakers passed a law that will require some businesses seeking air permits in “environmental justice areas” to undertake an analysis of the impact pollution has had on their area. 

While initial versions of the legislation would have applied the requirement to businesses seeking air and water permits in environmental justice areas across the entire state, the law only applies to air permits for projects inside, or within a mile of, such areas in the seven-county Twin Cities area, Rochester and Duluth. Many Greater Minnesota Cities were not included. 

Supporters of the legislation said such laws are essential in addressing the health concerns from pollution that historically have hurt people of color. 

Cumulative impacts are defined in the law as the effect of “aggregated levels of past and current air, water, and land pollution in a defined geographic area to which current residents are exposed.”

Some groups, like the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, were skeptical of a law like this applying to the entire state, saying the definition of “environmental justice area” covered too many regions and would limit economic development. 

According to the legislation, an environmental justice area is defined as an area, according to the Census, where 40% or more of the population is nonwhite, or 35% or more of the households have an income at or below 200% of poverty, or 40% or more of the population over the age of five has limited English proficiency, or is located within Indian Country. A MinnPost article last summer examined which areas would be impacted by this definition. 

The commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will have some say in whether to order a cumulative impact analysis for a business that is requesting an air permit – meaning that not every business that applies for a permit in or within a one-mile buffer of an environmental justice area will need to have a cumulative impacts analysis done. 

If an analysis is completed, the MPCA will consider it when deciding whether to issue or deny a permit. 

Gathering the data

The MPCA has begun the process — and hosted a webinar in January to share some initial thoughts on what the cumulative impacts analysis would look like. Panelists at the first event have experience in states with similar laws, like Washington and New Jersey. 

The agency says it will solicit and gather data, ideas and approaches until April 2026 and that the process will be ready toward the end of May 2026 for legal review. 

So far, using the Legislature’s criteria for an environmental justice area and the types of air permits subject to the new cumulative impacts law, the MPCA estimates 123 current facilities may need additional environmental analysis when seeking an amended or reissued air permit.

They include facilities in Bayport, Duluth, Little Canada, Hastings, Farmington, Forest Lake, Newport, Northfield, Osseo, Rochester, Shakopee and White Bear Township, among others.

What about Greater Minnesota? 

The Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities lobbied for the adjustment to the policy that excluded cities outside the Twin Cities area, Rochester and Duluth. 

Rochester and Duluth are not members of CGMC. While the coalition’s over 100 member cities are not directly impacted by the legislation, Elizabeth Wefel, the lead lobbyist for the CGMC on environmental issues, said it’s still important to weigh in on the policy and process because it could potentially be expanded to other areas in the future. 

Wefel said the group sees the benefits of such a policy for areas with high exposure to pollutants. But they worry that depending on how it’s implemented, it has the potential to apply to vast geographical areas, she said.

“We are worried that it might have the potential to discourage businesses,” she said. “We do think it’s important, obviously, that any business that’s relocating, and is going to be emitting air pollutants or whatever, go through the permitting process, but we do have processes in place. But this is an added layer on top of that, that could be enough to discourage folks.”

She says the definition of environmental justice areas — as defined in the law — applies to large swaths across the state, many of which might actually hurt more from such a law than benefit from the environmental protection. 

“People who don’t earn a lot, don’t have access to as healthy food, or health insurance and stuff like that. If there’s not good jobs in their area, that problem isn’t going to get any better if businesses are choosing to locate somewhere else. In fact, it could make the situation worse,” she said. “Being pulled in as an environmental justice area based on income without other factors … could have the unfortunate effect of making it actually worse for those lower-income people.” 

But some residents of Greater Minnesota do want a policy like this in their areas. During a public comment period on the policy, several wrote that they wanted Greater Minnesota to have similar protections. 

“Regarding this proposed Cumulative Impacts Bill, where does Greater Minnesota fit in? It’s essential to include and protect us as well. This absence is concerning and needs to be addressed,” one commentator wrote. 

Another comment in similar fashion came from the city of Winona. The city’s Citizen’s Environmental Quality Committee wrote that it would like the law to apply statewide and that Winona needs those protections. 

The committee is made up of a small group of people, but includes diverse perspectives, like a high school teacher, an employee of a local manufacturer and a couple of other people, according to Sadie Neuman, the committee’s chairperson. 

Neuman felt that residents didn’t know about this law – and she brought it to the committee’s attention when she found out it could provide feedback. While she sees the economic reasons that the CGMC believes would harm communities, she also said the city is facing negative impacts from air pollution. 

“Our access to the river is completely blocked by manufacturing, because that’s what the town is built on. We have days every once in a while where our air, if you walk outside, it’ll just hit you and it’s nauseating,” Neuman said.  

The committee wrote in its letter that excluding certain geographic regions in this policy promotes a “race-to-the-bottom” effect in pollution control.

“Lessening environmental regulations kind of … incentivizes more manufacturing to either relocate there or initially locate in those areas of lower regulation,” Neuman said. 

She worries that those incentives will then drive more polluters to Winona. 

A request for benchmarks

Winona is one of the coalition’s member cities, but there may have been a disconnect between the coalition and the city on this particular issue. Wefel said the coalition communicates frequently with the participating cities and holds policy committees every fall where member cities identify general priorities and stances going into the next session. At that session, members vote on policy stances, she said. 

Request for feedback on this particular policy issue and updates on the legislation were given through weekly newsletters; Wefel said she didn’t hear from Winona one way or another. 

When members of Winona’s committee heard about the policy more recently, they wanted their perspective to be heard. Neuman said that if the regulatory agency is going through the process of crafting this policy, she would have liked for their city to be included as one of the vulnerable populations; 

“We really wanted to make sure that there was at least a comment on the record whether or not it actually impacts anything in the short term,” she said. “We wanted to make sure that it was out there that we’re watching. We also want to make sure that our neighborhoods and our residents are also protected under the same kinds of new policies that the state would be making in more metro areas.”  

In the coalition’s public comment, the group suggested that the MPCA adopt benchmarks so that cumulative impacts analyses would only be required in environmental justice communities that are currently overburdened by air pollution or potentially at high risk. 

They also asked that the MPCA only require a cumulative impacts review for facilities with a history of substantial permit violations — and if the issuance of a permit would result in substantial growth in air pollution. 

The MPCA is planning more webinars to include panels of experts from other states, community organizations and academia to help shape the implementation of the law. 

“We won’t be presenting information on this law of our own as we have a lot to learn from these experts, as well, that can be applied to the creation of our program,” the MPCA wrote in an email to attendees of the first session.

After those sessions, the agency will begin “work sessions on key concepts within the cumulative impacts rule” to be held tentatively between June and October.