Despite approving a $48.4 billion budget, the 2019 Minnesota Legislative Session will likely be known as much for what didn’t pass as for what did. That means the 2020 Session will have its plate filled with unfinished business.
Last spring, neither the Republican-controlled Senate nor the DFL-controlled House got everything they wanted, and first-term Governor Tim Walz, a DFLer, struggled to bridge the difference between the two bodies on key issues like prescription drug prices, paid family and medical leave, transportation funding, bonding for public construction, gun safety and energy policy.
Those issues will again be front and center when the 2020 Session opens on February 11.
On the energy front, legislators in the House and Senate will again try to reconcile very different visions of what the state’s energy policy should look like.
In 2019, the House passed sweeping new energy provisions, including a 100 percent “carbon-free” energy mandate by 2050, new regulatory demands for “clean energy,” and new incentives for conservation, solar and storage technologies. The Senate, on the other hand, focused mostly on consensus energy policy provisions.
In 2020, both bodies are likely to continue work on the Clean Energy First proposal, which puts into statute preferences for clean energy in various Public Utility Commission processes, such as Integrated Resource Plans, Certificates of Need and rate cases.
Both the House and Senate have a version of Clean Energy First, but there are key differences in each. The House version (HF1405), authored by freshman Rep. Zach Stephenson (DFL-Coon Rapids), has a narrow definition of “Clean Energy,” and added regulatory steps for utilities. The Senate version (SF1456), authored by Sen. Dave Senjem (R-Rochester), includes carbon capture and sequestration in its definition of “Clean Energy” and stronger ratepayer protections, particularly for energy-intensive industries and companies.
Although legislators hoped to work through the differences between the two bills over the interim in the Legislative Energy Commission, those efforts have so far fallen flat. Even scheduling hearings has been a challenge, let alone deciding what should be on the agenda.
This month, House Climate and Energy Committee Chair Jean Wagenius (DFL-Minneapolis) announced she would not seek re-election. There has been talk that her retirement could provide additional incentive to compromise in order to allow her one last legacy bill.
But with an election looming, there’s also a question of how much either side will be willing to compromise on a key issue like energy. Energy continues to be a growing partisan issue in Minnesota, and the House, in particular, seems content to wait for the outcome of the 2020 elections in the hope they will be able to pass more aggressive climate-related policies. If there is compromise to be found, Gov. Walz (who isn’t up for re-election) will likely have to expend some political capital to find it.
With the difficult work of budgeting done, the second year of the legislative calendar has traditionally focused on passing a bonding bill and taking up broader policy issues. In practice, however, legislators typically want to get their work done so they can focus again on re-election efforts. Considering the broad disagreements between the House and Senate over energy policy, that’s likely to be the case again in 2020.