Hockey metaphors, nuclear and data centers dominate CEEM's 2025 Legislative Preview

CEEM hosted our annual 2025 Legislative Preview event on Thursday, Dec. 5. The event provided a forum to explore the new dynamics at the Minnesota State Capitol and their implications for the energy landscape. Attendees gained insights from legislators about how the recent elections, legislative priorities, nuclear policy, data centers, transmission and ongoing federal initiatives, like the Inflation Reduction Act, could shape Minnesota’s energy future.

The lively Q&A session, moderated by Walker Orenstein of the The Minnesota Star Tribune, brought together Senator Nick Frentz (DFL, Senate Energy Chair), Representative Patty Acomb (DFL, House Energy Co-chair), and Representative Chris Swedzinski (GOP, House Energy Co-chair) for a candid discussion about pressing energy issues. The full video and transcript from the panel can be found below.

Hey, everyone. Thanks for being here. I’m Walker Orenstein. I cover energy for the Star Tribune. We’re now The Minnesota Star Tribune, if you haven’t heard. Our snappy rebrand is here. I’ve been on this job for about a year. I covered the legislature at MinnPost before that and before that I was covering the legislature out in Washington State. And for the first time in like ten legislative sessions, I’m seeing something totally new, which is a tie, tie in the State House. Republicans, of course, won a split in the State House this November, taking total control away from the DFL, making Representative Swedzinski [energy] co-chair in the House. So that should be interesting to see exactly how a tie is going to work — however the logistics shake out. This year is certainly going to take a new direction.

DFL lawmakers and the governor approved major changes to our energy system, of course, over the last couple of years. There was the carbon-free by 2040 law, the permit reforms meant to speed up wind, solar, and transmission. So, you know, now we’re going to have a potentially new direction. Also, federally, instead of Governor Tim Walz’s vision here in Minnesota kind of setting the tone maybe nationally, instead the national tone might be more similar to the vision of Governor Doug Burgum over in North Dakota. It’s a different landscape for sure.

So, this is happening as our electric grid and utility companies are facing this dizzying array of complicated challenges. We’ve got the ongoing transition from coal and gas, but then we’ve also got to meet potentially a gigantic rise in demand from the electrification of cars and appliances, but also data centers built by our giant tech companies. It should be a very interesting session We’ve got Senator Nick Frentz from North Mankato. Representative Patty Acomb from Minnetonka, and Representative Chris Swedzinski from Ghent.

Elections

[WO] So, we do have this interesting situation in the State House, kind of a mixed bag for both parties in the state elections this year, but for Republicans it was certainly a victory in the House. Can we start with you, Representative Swedzinski? I want to ask this of all of you, but what message do you think voters sent about our energy system in this election, and how does that inform what you want to do as co-chair of the House Energy Committee?

[Rep. Chris Swedzinski] Well, I thank you, by the way. Thank you, this good organization, for the invitation to come this morning. Thank you for taking time out of your days to come, and thank you for the question.

You know, it’s really unique. You think about an election here in the state of Minnesota. Here we had the top of the ticket, nationally, as our governor, Tim Walz, and it was even rejected by legislative races within the state of Minnesota. So not only did they lose their California-centric message nationally, but they essentially lost control of one house of the legislature with the top of the ticket as the governor of Minnesota. And while things that you may look at as victories, I think general population viewed as potentially very, very risky when it comes to policy decisions made in the state of Minnesota. And I think they spoke with that. It might be a slight change, but definitely change to have more than one voice represented at the Capitol, and we hope to do that.

So, I think that’s really, when it comes to policy, spectrum-wide, I mean, that is pretty deep when you think about that. You think of any other state, any other choice. Tim Walz was the choice on a national ticket, and it was rejected nationally, and at least in part, it was rejected at the state level by the legislature, switching or at least coming to a tie.

[WO] Is there anything that you take out of this, like a concrete kind of policy direction from that for energy in particular?

[Rep. Chris Swedzinski] In general, I think you need, we need to look at, from a reliability standpoint, from a cost standpoint, you look at most businesses. You look at Cargill, for instance.

We were just chatting about that on the walk-in. They’re eliminating 8,000 jobs. And what other industries are doing that? From a competitive nature, from an international standpoint, what makes good for a talking point to get on a national ticket isn’t necessarily a good talking point when it comes to actual job creation, actual ability to compete, actual ability to do the job necessary nationally and internationally. We live in a very dynamic, changing world. Literally, it’s exploding across the globe from an international relations standpoint. Whether it be between Southeast Asia, whether it be martial law in South Korea, whether it be issues in Israel and Palestine, all the rest, we’ve got issues that are absolutely exploding, and one of the biggest things that we can be doing is having a calming effect when it comes to policies, when it comes to cost, when it comes to families in Minnesota.

And that’s our goal, and I think most folks would say that their energy bills are too high. The cost of energy is too high. The cost of gasoline is too high, and they’ve run out of pay before they’ve run out of month, and I think that was what the voters talked about. And, you can do that either through federal programs. It was talked about by the Assistant Commissioner [Hali Kolkind] that there’s going to be federal programs that come in to help lower the cost of energy for average, everyday people. It’s not through policy. It’s through writing checks to people. And, as this national administration works to balance the budget, hopefully, and that would be my dream of what they do, is drastically reduce the size of the federal government, so it gets out of our everyday single lives and it allows businesses and families to thrive on their own without government intervention; that we also balance the budget and have a strong dollar policy where the dollar increases in strength.

And I think that’s really the future of our nation, that where it needs to go, that this policy of a continuing lessening of value when it comes to the dollar’s value, internationally, needs to stop, and we need to grow the strength for the U.S. people and for our U.S. dollar.

[WO] Representative Acomb, what message did you take from voters on energy, and how does that inform what you hope to do this year at the Capitol?

[Rep. Patty Acomb] Thank you Walker and thanks for having us here today. It’s always fun to come to the University [of Minnesota], and especially for this event, so thanks for being here, and thanks for inviting me to join you. As far as what I think [about] the election, first I’ll say I’m a little tired of historic legislative sessions. We’ve had several of them back to back, so I’m a little, you know, PTSD for that. [Laughter]. But I think as far as the election, my takeaway from the election might be a little bit different than Representative Swedzinski, and while I think that how Minnesota fared compared to how Democrats fared across the country is very different. I think the Democrats in Minnesota did much better than many other places around the country.

And so, while maybe the DFL did not win the House, we didn’t lose it either. And so, I think that it gives us a great opportunity to be able to work together. And I think Representative Swedzinski and I have served on the Energy Committee together for the last six years, and so we have always enjoyed, I think, a respectful and not always agreeing relationship, but we’ve always worked well together. And I think that there’s a real opportunity for us to find some bipartisan paths forward today. I think we all can agree that we want to make energy more affordable, and that’s really been much of the reason that we have been pushing for the 100% clean energy bill. We know that the cheapest form of new energy is renewable energy.

And so as we continue to decarbonize, as we continue to grow that, I think that that and looking for energy efficiency are ways that we can help to lower people’s energy bills. I think it’s important this session, and I think that there’s wants and needs. And we need to pass a budget, and so that’s goal number one, project number one, and beyond that, I’m open to working with Representative Swedzinski and our colleagues on the committee, as well as the Senate, to determine what that might be.

[WO] Senator Frentz?

[Sen. Nick Frentz] Thanks, Walker, and first of all, thanks to CEEM. Thanks to all of you for the work that you do, for the jobs you provide, for the taxes that you pay. I’m probably going to go a little bit more narrow-focused on the election results, but glad to see Minnesota voters had a choice whether to have Democrats in charge of the Minnesota Senate or Republicans, and they chose Democrats. So, that’s on us. I think another message for Democrats is more outside of the energy jurisdiction. I’m proud to serve as the chair of the Senate Energy Committee. I’m going to be serving as the Chair of the Pension Commission also, so I’ll be busy. And as Assistant Majority Leader, I just want to say thanks for everything that you do. Thanks for this forum. And as a business owner myself, I’m assuming you’re coming here for the obvious combination of doing good for our state and our country and making a profit and providing jobs. And I’m all in for that.

On the energy front, I think you have an opening here. And I’ll tell you why I think legislators had better listen. Through two years as the Energy Chair, serving with Republicans and Democrats, I have yet to hear the Republican response to climate change. And I didn’t hear one in the opening remarks, Representative [Swedzinski], but I would like to know what the Republican thoughts are. If you’re following what’s going on at the COP meetings, we have a national and international crisis, and nations around the world are asking developed nations — that’s a euphemism for us — to put up 1.3 trillion dollars. Are you interested in your pocketbooks? Well, you better ask what that number’s going to be a year from now, five years from now, ten years from now.

And in those other countries, they’re not talking about whether this program raises the price of solar four cents. They’re talking about is this island nation going to be wiped out in their childrens’ lifetime? And so we need both parties to come to the table and say, here’s what we believe about climate change. Unfortunately, the news is not good. However, that is where CEEM members have the most to offer — and I think voters are waking up to that. By the way, the response of developed nations — that’s us — is, well, we don’t have your 1.3 trillion. We have $300 billion every year, which sounds like a lot of money, but clearly is not enough. Where do you think those nations and our partners around the globe are going to look to when those numbers go up?

And that’s before you ask yourself, what is the cost we’re paying every year in property damage from climate-related storms? I believe it’s about 450 billion dollars. One thing I’m surprised by is that Americans aren’t asking a little bit more about why the price of their homeowner’s insurance is tripling. Part of the reason is these large companies are getting slaughtered by these once-in-a-lifetime events that happen two or three times a year. I believe Hurricane Milton is now 52 billion dollars. One storm, ladies and gentlemen. So as we look at the Minnesota Legislature, we have to look out for Minnesotans. But as we have a shared interest with the rest of the country and the rest of the world, we’re going to have to come to an agreement. I hope we can, Representative Swedzinski, on the cost of climate change if we don’t do something. And as far as the budget and policy, I would characterize the House and Senate this way: Typically, the Senate Energy Committee has been a little bit more moderate on some of its energy policy than the House. That’s fine. To the extent that Republicans and Democrats will now be producing the House position, I think that’s fine. I think Minnesotans did ask for a little more balance. And we’ll come together in conference committee and hopefully work something out that’ll make sense for you and for your businesses. And for your families.

Energy costs

[WO] Affordability certainly does seem to be a theme. And here, at least with our electric bills, our major utilities tend to be below the average, the national average, at least in bills. However, bills are definitely going up. I mean, I keep writing about rate cases over and over and over again. And often, utilities will ask for a lot and they’ll only get some, but it’s still going up. What does addressing affordability look like at the legislature? How can you actually make a concrete difference? I know you touched on some of these things, but for you in this legislative session, how can you actually bring costs down specifically? Let’s start with you, Representative Swedzinski.

[Rep. Chris Swedzinski] Well, I think one of the first things we can do from an affordability standpoint is look at how does the legislature actually add to the cost of electricity in the state of Minnesota. And one of the primary areas that we do is through taxation. And so we have the tax on cask storage at our nuclear plants, which is $350,001 of our facilities and I think $500,000 apiece on the other, equates to about $30 or $50 million a year, I think that would be a great way to maybe bipartisanly look at what the legislature can directly do to lessen the cost of electricity on both business and families when it comes to the cost. And that would be the elimination of the tax on those casks.

Put a cask storage at our two nuclear facilities, which would save rate payers about $30 to $50 million per year. And so that would be our first walk out of the gate. I think that would be a good bipartisan way to say, hey, let’s just get rid of taxes that are taxing electricity so that those savings can be passed down to the consumer.

[WO] Representative Acomb?

[Rep. Patty Acomb] Well, I think that I certainly think affordability is an important issue. And as far as the renewable development account, I think that, if we recall that account was developed to work on innovative ways to replace nuclear energy because of the risks to our state for nuclear energy.

So, I think that the renewable development account has been an effective way for us to leverage those kinds of new innovations and technologies to help reduce costs. There’s a plethora of programs that have been established over the many years and ways that that fund has been used to help local units of government, school districts, to help reduce energy burden. So I think that continuing to look at those kinds of things. I will say I have solar panels on my house. I drive an electric car. I just installed an air source heat pump. And there are a lot of ways that we as energy consumers can reduce our need to buy more energy from our utilities, therefore reducing our costs. So I think energy efficiency is an important program.

I think that we need to be working hard to ensure that it’s being done equitably across our state and throughout all of our communities. It shouldn’t be just people in the suburbs who are able to afford solar panels that are benefiting from having a cleaner source of energy and the reduced energy bills that we pay. So, working to ensure that that’s happening in an equitable way is going to be a priority to me.

[WO] Senator Frentz?

[Sen. Nick Frentz] Well, first of all, in my experience, and I served as the ranking minority member before I became the chair, the best ideas come from the public. And we’re here in a room full of all of you, so the ideas you bring forward about how to lower ratepayer costs, the innovation that your companies produce. We’re looking forward to hearing from you.

Point of personal privilege for a moment, which is what senators say when they want everyone to stop what they’re doing and let us speak. This gentleman, Tyler, could you raise your hand, please? This is Tyler Kline. No applause necessary, but glad to introduce Tyler. He is the new committee administrator for the Senate Energy, Utilities, [Environment and] Climate [Committee]. And as all coworkers, I like to try to embarrass him wherever I can. We ran an incredibly thorough search for the next Energy CA. It is a critical job. As many of you know, he’s replacing Justin Emmerich, who also did a great job.

And out of about, I don’t want to exaggerate, 100,000 applications and about 250 interviews, Tyler came out on top. And I’m proud to serve with him. My point in identifying Tyler for you is that’s the kind of person you can bounce your ideas off. That’s the type of person that a CEEM member can say, well, this program could be more efficient. And one of the words, I think, Representative Swedzinski, we’re going to agree on is ‘efficiency’. Just like your companies are always asking, what can they do more efficiently? Where can we save our customers money? The government has to do that too. I’m encouraged by some of the Senate Democrats’ discussion in the last few days about efficiency. Your government has to keep looking. Doesn’t mean we change everything. It just means you have to be willing to have that conversation. And in energy, there are programs that could be done differently.

I will say, of our efficiency programs in Minnesota, I kind of like them. I kind of like the way we do CIPP. I kind of like the way we incentivize efficiency. And I think we want to continue to look at that. My guess is there won’t be some massive new proposal out of the Senate this year in energy. But for costs, I think the simple ways are still the best. And I like to pitch the 100% clean energy bill, which, as many of you know, I was a proud chief author of. It does not prescribe that Minnesota get to its clean energy goals by saying we have 9% of solar and 13% of wind.

It says, ‘Let’s go to the cleanest, most affordable, most reliable energy for 2040.’ And we don’t know what that is. And you and your members are able to inform us to say, ‘Hey, this technology is working.’ And I think some of those innovations are starting to bear fruit in energy storage. But I’m guessing that’s a different question.

Data centers

[WO] So I wanted to talk about data centers. I feel like it’s all anybody talks about in some ways right now in the energy world. Or at least it’s a lot of what I read about and sometimes a lot of what I write about. And we’ve got Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta likely coming to the region with Xcel [Energy].

The PUC, the Public Utilities Commission, had a hearing the other month where Xcel said they expect roughly 1,000 megawatts of data centers in the next five to seven years, and the same for Great River Energy. I’ll borrow some math from the vice chair of the PUC there. 2,000 megawatts would be somewhere in the neighborhood of the energy use of 1.6 million homes. So it’s a lot if that actually materializes. That’s quite a challenge. It’s also potentially an economic opportunity.

And I wanted to ask you all, just generally, do you think that these data centers are a good thing or a bad thing for Minnesota and for utility customers? Do you think the legislature should do anything to encourage them or to incent them to come here? Or do you think that the legislature should do anything to kind of regulate them or restrict them in any way? And what would that look like? And maybe we’ll start with Senator Frentz. We’ll switch up the order.

[Sen. Nick Frentz] Thanks, Walker. Yeah, I like this discussion because part of our claim, and this helps all of you, is that demand is going to go up, maybe way up, in Minnesota in the next 15 years. And data centers are usually in the first sentence after we discuss that. Having said that, as we watch the states’ development of their own data center policy, the state of Washington comes to mind. There was a time when they were incentivized by the host state to the extent [of] that, I don’t think we’re going to see anymore.

I think it’s a discussion of a new business coming here. I like that part. They create good jobs. I like that part. But I think they’ll put up some of the infrastructure and incentivize their role here. And I think it’s driven actually by the consumers. This artificial intelligence is a consumer demand. And if you know anything about Americans, they’re going to get their consumer preferences treated with their pocketbooks. So, I think we’ll see continued data center deployment with the data centers and their large, wealthy purveyors offering, I don’t know, maybe $1-2 billion of infrastructure to us. That’ll be a relationship we can live with. On the regulatory side, I think there’s a little bit of clean water concern. But I don’t see heavy regulation at all. And I would characterize Minnesota as open for business without having to roll out red carpet financial incentives. That’s my best guess.

[WO] Representative Acomb?

[Rep. Patty Acomb] Thank you. This is a topic that came up quite a bit last session and certainly has raised some red flags for me as we are looking to reach our 100% clean energy goal. With the increased demand, it can certainly force or encourage continuation or even new development of fossil fuel infrastructure. And so, I find that concerning. I think that we need to be careful about how we welcome these organizations to our state and recognizing the benefit that they bring. I do think there is an opportunity. Many of the larger data centers share Minnesota’s desire for clean energy and being carbon neutral. And so, I think that’s a good thing.

I think that there’s some opportunities there for working together to ensure we do reach those clean energy goals that we have. I think that there’s also potentially other opportunities. I really appreciated the hearing that the Public Utility Commission held. I attended and learned a lot about many of the different stakeholders that were presenting that day.

I do think the water issue is one that needs to be looked at to ensure that we are protecting our water here in Minnesota. And so I don’t know what the landscape should look like. But I think we need to be careful. And I think we need to make sure that there are some maybe guardrails or at least some guidance about where they’re going, making sure it’s not interrupting some of the transmission needs that we already have.

And so, making sure we’re looking at all of the impacts that it will bring to our state.

[WO] And just briefly, do you have any specifics on what you think those guidelines or regulations might look like?

[Rep. Patty Acomb] Well, I don’t know specifically. I will say I’m interested in meeting with some of the data centers to talk with them a little bit about what some of the requirements are that they need. I’m not going to pretend to be an expert because I’m not. But I would like to learn more about what they need and why they need to be located where they are, their wants, their needs, so that we can understand where the benefits are for Minnesotans.

[WO] Representative Swedzinski?

[Rep. Chris Swedzinski] Well, I think Wayne Gretzky said it best. He said, ‘What made him great at hockey is that he didn’t skate to where the puck was, but where it’s going to be.’ And when it comes to the digital economy, the hosting [of] these digital data centers and the rest, whether it’s an institution like the University of Minnesota or MNSCU or business in general, where the puck is going when it comes to education is not bricks and mortar, but it is going digital. When it comes to our businesses that are, you know, international or just regional, it’s digital, it’s manufacturing, but it’s also what is hosting that crossway, that interconnection of our future economy, whether it’s AI and the rest. And so, I feel like we have an opportunity in Minnesota to make ourselves as efficient as possible.

I think we can open them with open arms and welcome them into our state. I’m not concerned if you look at the potential that they’re going to use the same consumption of 1.6 million homes; when it comes to distribution and distribution of costs for infrastructure maintenance, having that many extra hands on deck to do that for our state is going to be a good thing. And, ultimately, what they’re reliant on and why they’re probably building in the area that they’re looking at purchasing, where they purchased a lot of ground already, is base load energy. That’s why they’re building there, and we need to support it.

[WO] Senator Frentz wanted to add something.

[Sen. Nick Frentz] Yeah, I’m sorry, I hate to jump in and compliment Representative Swedzinski on this point, but you are exactly right.

And I mean, if we’re talking about costs, we have to accept that the scale of this potentially produces benefits for our rate payers — potentially. And I thought the all hands on deck, that’s an upside for us. And Minnesota rate payers mostly don’t know the name of their state senator, they don’t care. They know their electric bill at the end of the month. And so I do think that’s a fair point. I’m not positive how it plays out. But that is a selling point for the data centers, is look, if we add this much, the capacity, the ability to benefit from economies of scale. I think it’s a very fair point. I promise no further compliments for Representative Swedzinski.

[Rep. Chris Swedzinski] No, we’re fine. You don’t have to promise anything. [Laughter]

[Sen. Nick Frentz] We’ll see.

[WO] Representative Swedzinski, sorry if you mentioned this, but specifically, would you want to incentivize them any further? Do you think that there’s anything that Minnesota should do additionally to encourage them [data centers]?

[Rep. Chris Swedzinski] Well, I’ve always believed that you need to incentivize something that’s needed, right? And, you know, if we truly believe that it’s a battle between us and another state to actually get them or not, I don’t know the landscape that well. It’s my understanding that a vast majority of property has been purchased already by some of these, 300 some acres, 500 acres, 600 acres in some cases. If they’re already willing to make an investment in infrastructure and do the job on their own, I’m more than happy to allow them to do it on their own.

But if it does come to, it’s between us and another state, then we need to look at that. And I don’t know the landscape, but I certainly don’t want to disincentivize them. And sometimes that can be viewed as a two-edged sword. One person, one state’s incentivization or reasons, you know the word I’m trying to say, and is another state’s — the other side. [Laughter]

[WO] I’m glad you mentioned base load power. I wanted to talk nuclear. I’m going to direct this first to Representative Acomb. You’re a bit outnumbered on this issue or, you know.

[Rep. Patty Acomb] I don’t know that I believe that, but that’s okay.

[WO] Well, at least on this stage, maybe. [Rep. Patty Acomb] Okay, maybe.

Nuclear energy

[WO] More Democrats across the country are embracing nuclear energy, and one example is the Biden administration. They want to triple nuclear capacity by 2050. Obviously, they won’t be in power anymore, but, and nevertheless, that’s a goal. We’ve seen nuclear plants reopen to feed these data centers, even tech companies working to advance unproven but promising smaller nuclear reactors in ways that can pick up the cost for rate payers, even in some cases.

You’ve been, House DFLers, I guess, have been reticent to allow kind of even a study of these new technologies compared to legislative Republicans and Senate DFLers, and the Governor, who are all more bullish on the idea. Has your view on this evolved at all? What is your current thinking? Do you think that your caucus is, I guess, behind the times compared to those other folks who believe in this?

[Rep. Patty Acomb] I guess we’re old-fashioned. But we remember the problems that nuclear energy can bring. And so, I think it may be carbon-free, but by no means is it clean. And so there is a lot of nuclear waste that comes with it, and there’s no way to handle that. Right now, where it’s stored is in compromising positions to some of our neighbors in Minnesota So, I think it’s really important that we not forget the risks that come with nuclear. We’ve seen that both of our nuclear plants have had issues over the last couple of years with contamination on site, contaminating water. So, I think that as we look forward to what’s on the horizon, I certainly am hearing interest about modular nuclear, certainly hearing it from our utilities.

I will also say there is a lot of concern and from colleagues in my caucus that are like, ‘Wait a minute, we’ve talked about nuclear for a long time. We have a moratorium in Minnesota because of the risks.’

Am I ready to lift the moratorium? No, I’m not personally. But that doesn’t mean I’m not open to conversations about what we can do to look at and consider nuclear going forward.

[WO] Representative Swedzinski, can you give us some just your general view? Should we be lifting the nuclear moratorium?

[Rep. Patty Acomb] Can I just pass on one other thing? [WO] Of course, yes.

[Rep. Patty Acomb] We often talk about nuclear, and it’s carbon-free. And let’s not also forget it’s the most expensive form of new generation today. And so as we’re talking about reducing costs and reducing cost to consumer, nuclear does not fall in line with that. So let’s just remember if we’re having a conversation about affordability and cost to consumers, this is in contrast to that.

[WO] So Representative Swedzinski, just generally your view on lifting the nuclear moratorium, if you’re in favor of it, can you address like are you hopeful that we would build in this state the type of really large nuclear reactors that have seen some of the cost overruns and even the smaller ones have had some cost issues — but generally are you looking at hoping for really big ones, really small ones, mix of the two? What’s your general sense of this issue?

[Rep. Chris Swedzinski] You know, I think, you know, it’s not necessarily what we wish for. I think when you look at a moratorium, that’s a pretty firm ‘no’ when it comes to what is the planning, what is the possibility. We’ve given money to institutions within the state to actually do studies within the nuclear realm on how the reactors work, how do we gain form and function when it comes to how that they would potentially be deployed, when it especially comes to the small nuclear plants that would be, movable, on a semi-truck. I think that would be at least a first step, right? If you’re talking [about] a large one, the time of development is I think 10 or 20 years. I mean, it’s not a short period of time, but again, where is the puck going? And if the puck is indeed going to a carbon-free system, nationally, then if the technology exists, we should at least be open to it.

And by saying, no, you know, what we run the risk of is that if we believe that energy is also economic opportunity and development is also economic opportunity. By simply having a ‘no’, what we run the risk of, because we have a grid and we have a system that runs between states, that if another state is more readily and more friendly, and we simply have a ‘no’, that that development will happen across the state line by 30 feet. Right? And so, if our goal is that we can manage those resources, if our goal is that we can manage the technology better than other states, then we should have a mat that is opened to the potential of the development of the technology, which should be lifting the moratorium, so that if we believe we do things better in Minnesota — which I believe we do in certain areas — that we should make sure that that nuclear plant, when it’s built — because it will be — is not 30 feet on the other side of a state line, just so that we can feel better about ourselves.

And I think that’s what I fear, is that when you have a general moratorium on a technology that is quite frankly widely used nationally and growing exponentially internationally, that if we shut the door to it as a state, as an economy, that we are going to be sticking our own foot not in the door but in our mouths. And I think we can at least have a conversation about it.

[WO] Senator Frentz, you have passed a study, I think the last couple of sessions at least. If it is a 10 to 20 year lead time to develop one of these and you believe that that’s a necessary, potentially necessary thing, why spend a couple years studying something, you know? Why not let the utilities have at it if they want it?

[Sen. Nick Frentz] It’s no secret the Senate Energy Committee passed unanimously, and by that I mean all 13 members, the largest committee in the Senate, all Republicans and all Democrats voted ‘yes’ on the advanced nuclear study, which is a slower route. But that was our attempt to have this discussion. I think you’ll see a discussion.

I think it’ll come if nowhere else from Senator Andrew Matthews, who’s the ranking minority member on the Senate Energy Committee. And he’s appeared with me at some events this year already. He says ‘we’re going to be proposing a full repeal of the nuclear moratorium.’ I am the one who runs around saying these technologies must compete with each other if they’re carbon-free on cost and reliability. Nuclear’s got some advantages on reliability. It’s true, there are some cost questions and most of you are familiar with the cost overruns for trying to build legacy nuclear down in Georgia. However, simply saying no deprives us, deprives our businesses, deprives our utilities, deprives our rate payers of any benefit that we might come up with in the year, or five years, or ten years.

And so I think a better approach is to acknowledge the cost issues and take a look. And it’s also clear that there’s a greater public concern about legacy nuclear than small modular nuclear, which after all has been powering submarines for us for about half a century. And we have a number of places that are saying, ‘What is the reason that we can’t deploy small nuclear in this situation?’ And I think as state government, the question becomes: Are we certain that there’s no risk balanced approach to nuclear anywhere in the state? We just can’t deploy small modular nuclear. There’s no way it’s ever going to work in any application. And I think the answer is probably ‘no.’ That’s why I support the study.

As far as the full repeal of the moratorium, I think the waste is a good point. All of our energy generation carries risks. We’ve got environmental risk. We have cost risk. We have risk to public safety. And we’ll have to balance those. And as I’ve said before, the toughest part of being a legislator is saying no to your friends. And so we’re going to have to ask ourselves ‘are we really in this for the people of Minnesota, including those that just want affordable, reliable, clean electricity?’

Transmission

[WO] Representative Swedzinski, I read in the Marshall newspaper that you oppose Xcel Energy’s transmission line, the one that would run from Sherburne County to Lyon County. It seemed like there was considerable local opposition to that as well. That project is really aimed at carrying renewable power long distances to help replace Xcel’s retiring coal plants. You talked about [how] you thought it was a mistake — or at least you were quoted as such — thought it was a mistake to retire those plants. Utilities are working to build tons of these transmission lines basically and additional renewable power.

Two questions for you on that. I wondered if it’s possible to put the genie back in the bottle on that one? Do you think that it’s possible for the legislature to do anything to, I guess, extend the life of coal in this state, and should they? And then, two, like nearly all of this power infrastructure that’s being built — a gigantic amount is going in Greater Minnesota — sometimes with a lot of local opposition. What do you think can developers and utilities do to convince or win over people, or to make them more comfortable with some of these projects as they’re built at an increasingly rapid pace in Greater Minnesota?

[Rep. Chris Swedzinski] I think that’s one of the big concerns and that was a meeting that was held in Marshall. And, the general feeling is, you have a choice as long as you generally agree where it’s going to go. And I think, when you look at right-of-way and you look at eminent domain, that’s really where the conversation happens, right? When it comes to basic utilities, if you’re the belief that we have a system that’s already been developed, we already have core centers of distribution, so we have Becker, we have Monticello, we have across state lines with other coal plants as well.

What part do we play in a technology we don’t necessarily agree with? And a lot of the folks that were in that meeting are very concerned that they have a choice but they really don’t. That the line is coming whether they want it or not. And, the development of wind, the development of solar, the rest. It’s awfully good if it happens to be on your land and you don’t live near it. It’s awfully stinky when you’re not profiting from it. You have to look at it. And every sunset is blinking lights. And, I think that’s one of the unique things. It has its benefits but also drawbacks, right? And when it comes to the coal and the rest, I think quite frankly demand is going to take care of that [on] its own.

You look at [it] internationally, I think what do we have? We have 187 gigawatts of coal electricity in the United States. Currently under development we have over 600 gigawatts of coal development globally. I think just actually within a couple of countries, China and India. So when we’re being told that one, hey, we need to get rid of our coal in the U.S. so that we don’t have bad storms.

Do you think that’s going to stop a storm? When we literally have three times the capacity being built internationally than we have in the U.S.? So then it becomes a point of competition. Where do we stand internationally from a form of competition within business, within a regulatory environment, within a business environment, within a tax environment to get manufacturing, to get job growth, to get young people, to get investment?

Those are the real questions. And so when we’re told [by] the legislature, ‘well, hey, we need to stop burning coal so that we don’t have bad storms in Florida.’ And three times is being built internationally with our competitors, not our enemies, our competitors when it comes to business and economic development.

Where is the puck going? That’s all I’m saying.

[WO] Senator Frentz, I wanted to let you touch on this too. You obviously are in a Greater Minnesota district as well. You can respond however you’d like or just also what can developers and utilities do to win hearts and minds in places where there might be skepticism?

[Sen. Nick Frentz] Well, first of all, I said I wasn’t going to compliment you again, but you got backbone promoting coal to CEEM, I give you credit for it, seriously. [Laughter]

I think we had the Huntley-Wilmarth line, a similar situation where the local landowners had concerns and not in my backyard is a phenomenon all of us are familiar with and eventually it got built. But it’s true that landowners have a concern when you talk about bringing transmission right through their backyard. And as a Greater Minnesota legislator, we have about 2,000 farms in my district. Some of these families have been on that land 100, 150 years. So [the] land issue is just a little bit touchier. Having said that, I think coal is on the way out generally because of the cost. And I think if you look at some of the wind, unsubsidized wind out of Buffalo Ridge in Minnesota, it’s just way cheaper.

We will have to deal with eminent domain, that has always been a touchy issue in our country and it will always be a touchy issue. But I think we want to deploy the cleanest resources. And I would again pose the question for all of you and for us three as well: What is the cost that we attach to climate change? You’re allowed to say there is no cost. We simply want to go right now for whatever technology, regardless of its ability to heat up our planet. You could say the cost is tremendous. We simply cannot have any carbon emitting resources of any kind. Let’s close every Kwik Trip tomorrow and pull up every gas pump. I think the best answer for our country and for our planet is between those two. I tend to feel that climate change, when it incorporates our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren, is pretty high-cost and we should be working towards clean, renewable, and hopefully affordable and reliable energy.

So that would be, you know, how I see it. We’ll continue, 100 years from now, when we put transmission through, we will still have families who say, ‘Hey, that sucks when you put that on my land.’ That will not change. But it turns out we got a bunch of human beings on the planet and there’s some other stuff that we’re not going to change about our personalities and shortcomings either, but that’s a different panel.

Inflation Reduction Act and federal incentives

[WO] Okay, I want to do one really quick question, if you all can answer really fast, before we get to audience questions. The Inflation Reduction Act, we don’t really know the future of it over in Congress. Incoming President Donald Trump has said he wants to cut it, but legislative Republicans, congressional Republicans, are a little, it’s a little less certain kind of how that’s going to play out.

However, you feel about it, the local utilities here are kind of penciling in that money, tax breaks and things, and everyone from Xcel to our rural electric cooperatives are talking about how this, they feel like will lower costs, especially in a state where moving to the 2040, carbon-free isn’t an option at this point in state law. So, I just wanted to ask just generally your view on what Congress should do with the IRA, but also just should the legislature do, do anything to, I don’t know, can you or should you do anything if things get cut to kind of replicate that or affect that? I realize that the scale of money at play is quite large, but how would you address that as a lawmaker if they start to get rid of some of those pieces?

And since I skipped you, Representative Acomb, maybe we’ll start with you.

[Rep. Patty Acomb] Well, I think the Inflation Reduction Act has been an incredible opportunity for Minnesota and other states around the country to partner with the federal government to achieve our clean energy goals, and we heard earlier today that Minnesota has benefited with billions of dollars of input from the IRA to help reach goals, to help our co-ops and our munis achieve the 100% clean energy goals that we have.

Hearing some of what President Trump had said on the campaign trail, after the election I reached out to Pete Wyckoff at the Department of Commerce to ask specifically how does Minnesota sit, where do we need to be concerned, and I think it’s not 100% clear yet, and I think there are still things that are being developed here at the tail end of President Biden’s administration.

So I think that it’s been a great two years being able to work and partner with the federal government, and I’m hopeful that because of the input from congressional Republicans that these opportunities aren’t going to fully go away. I’m not counting on it or holding my breath, but I think that the pressure from the Republicans will be, I hope, felt by President Trump to not get rid of all of the opportunities there. It’s doing amazing things to help reduce [and] recognizing the impact of climate change across our country. So, I’m not sure what we can do; I’m not sure what it will do to Minnesota if it goes away, but certainly a topic that I’m paying close attention to.

[WO] Representative Swedzinski?

[Rep. Chris Swedzinski] You know, who knows? I would probably venture on the side of, I think if the President lives to his promise of trying to eliminate $2 trillion from the budget, my guess is this would be probably in the top 80% tile for things to go, and it didn’t work. I mean, we still have inflation.

[WO] Senator Frentz?

[Sen. Nick Frentz] I think we’ll see some tinkering with the IRA, but my favorite headline last week was from the Wall Street Journal — I’m paraphrasing. ‘Trump plans to undermine IRA opposed by GOP legislators’. And to their credit, Republican-led states have benefited from the IRA and that money, jobs, and their jobs and their clean energy, and I think that will be the counterweight. I love it in the same way I love the occasional Democrat who pushes back on their own party. I love the checks and balances, and that’s what I think you’ll see.