Lawmakers debate greenhouse gas goals on highway projects

Listen to this article

A bill that would expand Minnesota’s greenhouse gas emission reduction goals to more highway projects is getting an uneven reception at the Legislature.

Supporters of House File 4988, authored by Rep. Larry Kraft, DFL-St. Louis Park, say the bill would help Minnesota reach its goal of achieving “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and slow the onset of climate change.

But critics said at Tuesday’s House Transportation Finance and Policy Committee hearing that the bill would inappropriately take trunk highway funding away from projects designed to make roads safer, among other concerns.

At issue is a previous bill, approved in 2023, which builds on the state’s goal of achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions in transportation by 2050, and reducing vehicle miles traveled per capita by 20% by 2050.

Piggybacking on that legislation, House File 4988 would create a “technical advisory committee” to provide “ongoing guidance” to the implementation of the policy, and take a “portfolio approach” to evaluating projects for greenhouse gas emissions.

In other words, “projects are evaluated with respect to the portfolio of projects being planned and less on an individual project basis,” Kraft said at the hearing.

What’s more, Kraft said, the legislation would provide funding to “enhance modeling tools” to support the transition to a portfolio-based approach, and for mitigation-related projects in 2025 and 2026.

The 2023 legislation created a “working group,” which included representatives from the Minnesota Department of Transportation, city and county officials, regional planning organizations and others.

The current bill largely reflects the recommendations of a report released by the working group in January.

Citing a study from the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to accelerating the transition to clean energy, Kraft said the state could achieve more than $5 billion a year in benefits if it reaches the 20% reduction goal for vehicle miles traveled.

Factored into that calculation are “things like reduced car costs — cars cost about $11,000 per year to operate — reduced costs from air pollution, and the fact that fewer people will die on our roads,” Kraft said, adding that “almost 400 people per year die on our roads today.”

But critics said the bill could take money away from or complicate projects designed to improve safety, such as the Highway 14 expansion in Greater Minnesota.

“Highway 14 is a great example,” said Darrin Lee, an attorney representing the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities. “When we asked proponents whether projects like this would be able to move forward had this legislation been in place at the time, it’s unclear. At a minimum it would add cost complexity and time to a life-saving project like that.”

Rep. Bjorn Olson, R-Fairmont, said the bill as amended would authorize state trunk highway money — about $13.8 million — to be used for “the purpose of mitigating carbon” instead of building or expanding roads.

He has a problem with that.

“I would say that our constitution actually provides zero flexibility with regard to the utilization of trunk highway funds for the purpose of mitigating carbon,” Olson said at the hearing.

Pushing back on those concerns, Kraft said the funding would be “subject to the existing constraints” that the Minnesota Department of Transportation has on use of trunk highway funds. “We’re not changing the definition of what can be used or not,” he added.

At Tuesday’s committee meeting, the bill was laid over for possible inclusion in a larger transportation bill.

The committee’s chair, Rep. Frank Hornstein, DFL-Minneapolis, suggested that the bill is still a work in progress, with room for “some flexibility and adding amendments and adding comments.”

“That’s why we have hearings,” he added.

RELATED: Sustainable: Report shows Minnesota’s energy progress