Hurricane Helene and the MN PUC
On Thursday afternoon, as the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission was meeting to decide the direction of the carbon free standard in Minnesota, Hurricane Helene was barreling towards Florida, to make landfall at 11:25 pm EDT as a Category Four Hurricane near Perry, Florida. Between Wednesday morning and Thursday evening, the storm transformed from a tropical storm into one of the most powerful hurricanes to ever strike the United States. The rapid intensification and moisture collected from the high pressure, warm air can be directly attributed to the profound warmth of the Caribbean waters, which are hotter now than they have ever been at this time of year. The sustained winds reached 140mph on Thursday evening and the immense amount of moisture in the system led to storm surge levels around fifteen feet in the impact zone.
Initial reports on damages are staggering. From Florida to North Carolina, Hurricane Helene left a wake of destruction with at least 133 dead, 600 missing, around $35 billion in damages, and 1.5 million still without power as of Tuesday morning.
The Caribbean is much hotter than in previous years
This Hurricane (like all storms now) was super-fueled by climate change: the result of decades of burning of fossil fuels and other things that emit greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere, while simultaneously destroying the ecosystems that would otherwise store carbon naturally.
If you are reading this blog, the chances are you know this. And you have known this for a long time. And you have worried, and you have acted, and you very possibly were instrumental in creating a movement that passed a nation-leading 100% Carbon Free Electricity by 2040 Standard in Minnesota.
So it is discouraging to report that, as people in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky were evacuating their homes and lives, neither our aspirations nor our legislative statute were upheld by the PUC on Thursday.
Despite initiating a comment period in which the PUC asked “how should the Commission define carbon free” (to which hundreds of commenters replied “With a plain reading of the statute.”), the commissioners ultimately opted not to answer it. Commissioner Sullivan said that carbon free was already defined in statute. (We agree.) Commissioner Tuma suggested the definition wasn't material to other implementation questions. (We disagree.)
The Commission then decided on an approach that conflicts with the definition they bypassed. It opens the door to burning biomass and garbage based on lifecycle analyses of burning different fuels. The Commission also voted to allow carbon capture to make any fuel eligible for partial compliance with the standard.
This is problematic.
Instead of using the Carbon Free Standard to point utilities in a better direction, it encourages their investment in currently harmful and polluting systems. Under this framework
Coal can serve us well into the future if it is paired with carbon capture – even if that carbon will be transported through new pipelines to oil drillers who will use it to get out more oil.
Burning trees and timber industry waste – which can emit more carbon dioxide than coal – is commodified.
Burning garbage serves multiple purposes and motivation to impact waste streams, materials and product design is lost.
None of the above transform our practices, they instead provide a runway for the status quo to not wind down but take off.
Ultimately the financial costs of this new infrastructure (carbon capture, pipelines, garbage burners, tree burners) will be paid for by taxpayers and ratepayers – because new infrastructure is how utilities and pipeline-builders make money.
But beyond dollars, we know these decisions will cost us all more dearly. Coal ash will continue to pollute our water. Particulate matter and toxins will poison our air and people. And the emissions driving climate change will not be reduced at the rate we need to shift our climate trajectory.
The Carbon Free Standard implementation docket is not over. Decisions made by the PUC Thursday require new questions to be asked:
How should the PUC determine the life cycle emissions impact of a particular fuel?
How does that impact compare to other actions that could be taken?
Look for this to get more complex, not simpler. But we can’t look away. After passing the Carbon Free Standard, Minnesota was helping to lead the country toward real climate action.
Every state has the responsibility to do the best it can to create the future we need.
And to do it as fast as possible.
For resources on how to help the people whose lives have been upended by Hurricane Helene, this list was compiled by Blue Ridge Public Radio. Here is a link to American Red Cross.
Also Recommended:
The Daily Podcast, October 1, 2024: Hurricane Helene’s 600 Miles of Destruction
Minnesota StarTribune: Burning wood and trash might qualify as carbon free under 2040 climate law Minnesota regulators find
Sahan Journal: Minnesota regulators punt on carbon free definition, keeping door open for polluting sources
MPR: What’s Carbon Free? Utility Regulators to Decide what qualifies under state’s clean energy law
Resources for a Website Page “Minnesota’s Carbon Free Standard”
As long-time supporters who both helped shape and pass the 100% Clean Electricity Law passed by the Minnesota Legislature in 2023, MNIPL is closely following its implementation at the Public Utilities Commission.
A key question for which the Commission opened comments is how it should define carbon free.
MNIPL commented that the Commission should define the statute as the Minnesota legislature did: “carbon free means a technology that generates electricity without emitting carbon dioxide.”
While this shouldn’t be complicated, polluting industries invested in the status quo have weighed in heavily and tried to sow confusion between two different standards: the Carbon Free Standard and the Eligible Energy Technologies Standard.
For a more complete discussion about the difference between the objective Carbon Free Standard and the separate and more politically negotiated Eligible Energy Technologies standard, please see Context for Understanding Minnesota’s 100% Clean Electricity Law.
The definition of carbon free is straightforward and based in science. Only technologies that do not generate carbon dioxide emissions while producing electricity should be considered “carbon free.”
When that definition is applied throughout the statute, it precludes harmful and polluting technologies that emit carbon dioxide from counting toward the carbon free standard.
✅ Solar - does not emit carbon dioxide when producing electricity.
✅ Wind - does not emit carbon dioxide when producing electricity.
✅ Nuclear - does not emit carbon dioxide when producing electricity.
🆇 Coal or natural gas with carbon capture - emits CO2 when producing electricity
🆇 Burning garbage, trees or other biomass - emits CO2 when producing electricity
To Read MNIPL’s comment to the PUC click here.
To See a database of comments submitted through June to the PUC on this docket click here.
These and other comments are available on the MN PUC E-dockets site, using Docket # 23 - 151.
Context for Understanding Minnesota’s 100% Clean Electricity Law
MNIPL Letter to PUC on What Carbon Free Means, July 24, 2024
October 2 Blog on PUC Decisions from September 26, 2024
Resources Consulted for this Blog:
MCEA press release “Public Utilities Commission weakens MN’s landmark climate law in Thursday Vote (September 26, 2024)
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/news/hurricane-helene-makes-landfall-florida
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/27/nx-s1-5130849/helene-category-4-fast-warm-water-climate-change
https://apnews.com/article/hurricane-helene-florida-georgia-mexico-42fb7cc90604b7f87179920f97627873
https://www.axios.com/2024/10/01/hurricane-helene-damages-35-billion
