March 23, 2026 · Energy, Utilities, Environment and Climate · 11,618 words · 10 speakers · 224 segments
Foreign.
The time is now 1243. We will start off first with Senate file 4590.
Senator friends, whenever you are ready, you may proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members proud to present the Public Utilities Commission technical bill. This is Senate file 4590. I present to you that this is truly technical in nature. And I have Mr. Bull here from the PUC. I wasn't sure, Mr. Chair, if you wanted Ms. Severson to walk through it. I don't require it. I think Mr. Bull's testimony would be fine, but up to you as the prerogative of the Chair.
All right, Mr. Bull, whenever you are ready.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Members of the committee, my name is Mike Bull and I'm the Deputy Executive
Secretary of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. And thank you Senator France, for authoring this fine bill for us. And to all of you for taking
the time in your busy part of your session to Hear Senate File 4590,
our technical cleanup bill.
The legislation truly is our non substantive effort to update and streamline the Minnesota statutes governing the work of the Public Utilities Commission. The primary goal of this bill is to ensure that our regulatory framework remains clear and and free of obsolete language that no longer serves the state or its utilities. Just to give a quick Overview, Senate File 4590 focuses on a few main areas of improvement such as eliminating archaic language, updating our statutes to reflect current practices, removing references to expired dates and repealing statutes that are no longer in use. CFILE 4590 is a housekeeping measure by
repealing outdated statutes and clarifying the language
used across the specific chapters of Minnesota statutes governing the work of the Commission. 216 216A, 216B through 216I.
This bill proves the ability of the
commission to implement these statutes with clarity and efficiency.
With that I respectfully ask your support in moving this technical bill forward. And we'll happy to answer your questions. Thank you, Mr. Bull. Members, any questions or comments to the
bill before handing back to Senator friends?
See none.
Senator friends.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Members. Again, a technical bill brought to us for expediency efficiency. And I ask that you support sending this bill to the floor and would move that Senate File 4590 be sent to the floor as recommended to pass.
The question is on the motion of Senator friends that Senate File 4590 be
recommended to pass and sent to the Senate floor.
All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no.
The motion passes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, thank you. Folks are waiting on a legislator to be here. I'm advised it'll be less than 120 seconds. Wait will just see. Patience. Members, glad to report we are now going to Hear Senate File 1710 Chief, authored by Senator Eric Putnam of St. Cloud. Senator Putnam, good to see you. Welcome to the Energy Committee. Thank you for your time. Please present your bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for that delightfully Minnesotan passive aggressive hazing for my lateness.
Senator Putnam, where have you been? Senator Putnam?
It's a big building, Senator Franz. So I apologize for getting lost on my way here. Thank you, Senator France and members for giving me the opportunity to talk about this issue. It's one that we talked about last year, in case you recall, and it's just as pressing now as it was then. But Mr. Chair, before we proceed, I do have an amendment that I'd like to offer.
I'd like to offer it, please.
Senator Putnam, we have the A5 authors amendment at the desk. If that's the one you're referring to, I can have a member offer it. Senator Dibble, would you offer the A5? Senator Dibble moves the adoption of the A5amendment. Any discussion? Seeing none. All in favor of adopting the A5 say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. The A5 is adopted. Senator Putnam, to your bill as amended.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's my pleasure to introduce Senate File 1710 as Amendment the Minnesota Maid Ammonia Act. Chair, Members, you watch the news on occasion, you see that the geopolitical scene is complicated right now. You may have read just today in the news that prices of fertilizer are expected to increase by 20% reported right now. And right now is when it's needed. But even before that crisis, Minnesota farmers and farm communities have been suffering because of the soaring costs and price volatility of ammonia fertilizer. The simple reality is that out of state ammonia fertilizer costs both too much and its access is too uncertain. And we can all agree that if we were able to make this product, we were able to make our fertilizer domestically. That's better for everybody, both in terms of certainty in prices, in access, all of these different things. So advances in technology right now allow for local production of ammonia fertilizer to bring stability and certainty to these prices, relief and economic opportunity to Minnesota's farmers and Minnesota's greater Minnesota's communities. So a coalition of partners, including the Central Farm Service, Talus, Ag, Clean Counts, Blue Earth, Water and Light, the West Central Research and Outreach center at Morris and the Great Plains Institute are proposing to scale up commercial volumes and the local production of anhydrous ammonia using renewable energy. Importantly, this project will also serve as a replicable model for counties that have had reduced energy production tax revenue because of wind curtailment. Stable property tax revenues are important to Minnesota's 18 counties that host wind turbines and the local ammonia production is a feasible way to reduce curtailed wind power. The project will enable for the first time in state history, a 10 year fixed price contract for anhydrous ammonia. Using $8 million of RDA dollars will benefit rural farm families, creating 10 years of savings totaling more than $62 million in direct affordability benefits. This one time investment creates a waterfall of cascading affordability benefits including to begin the work of preventing wind curtailment that is costing rural counties millions of dollars every year and to signal the start to create a more Minnesota made ammonia projects and even more fixed price agreements. So we have a number of testifiers here to join us. To provide some more detail, I will say that I'm incredibly grateful that I believe Mike Reese is in the building and he knows this stuff forwards and backwards and left and right. So if any question that comes up that uses words with more than one syllable, I'm going to ask you to direct them to him because he's smart
and he knows stuff and I'm not
an adult on this one in certain ways, so. Mr. Chair, members, thank you for considering this bill and for listening to our excellent testifiers.
Thank you, Senator Putnam, very well done. Members, we're going to take testimony now. First we'll hear from Rob Davis and after that, Rachel Stuckey. Mr. Davis, if you could please come forward. Members, I should Note that Senator McEwen is present, but online. Mr. Davis, welcome back to the committee. Please introduce yourself and present your testimony.
Thank you so much.
Thank you so much.
Mr.
Chair, may I ask your and the committee's permission to defer first to Casey Grayner, the CEO of Central Farm Service,
who happens to be with us today in person.
Of course you can. Mr. Graner, good to see you again. Thanks for your work on this bill. Please introduce yourself and present your testimony.
Hey, good morning everyone. Or good afternoon rather. My name is Mr. Chair, members of the Committee, my name is Casey Graynor. I am the serving Central Farm Service Chief Executive Officer, which is a farmer owned member owned cooperative serving about 4,500 member owners across southern Minnesota, northern Iowa. I'm here today in strong support of Senate File 1710. I want to start with a simple point. Farmers don't just have a price problem. They have supply and certainty problems. Over the past several years, we've been seeing ammonia prices swing dramatically more than 300% at times. That volatility is not driven by anything happening here in Minnesota. It's driven by global natural gas markets, geopolitical instability and supply chain disruptions. And we're seeing that play out right now. As recent reporting has shown, global events like conflicts in the Middle east are directly impacting fertilizer supply and pricing because a significant portion of the world's fertilizer moves through vulnerable and unpredictable global trade routes. For farmers, this ends up meaning one thing. Unpredictable costs and unpredictable supply of one of their most important and necessary annual crop inputs against a backdrop of giant capital investments they need to make to run their operations, which require long term planning, not just year to year. At cfs, we believe we can do better. That's why we're working with Talisag, with Clean Counts and other project partners to bring commercial scale locally produced ammonia right here in Minnesota. And most importantly, this project enables something that we, the state of Minnesota, have never had before, which would be a 10 year contract that guarantees both supply and the price of anhydrous ammonia. That kind of certainty can change everything. It allows our members to plan ahead, it reduces financial risk, and it brings real stability to one of the largest input costs in farming. As outlined in the proposal, this project is expected to generate more than $62 million in direct affordability benefits over that 10 year period for rural farm families. We forecast that farmers will benefit at a rate of roughly $25 an acre or more across over a quarter million acres annually. Multiply that by 10 years and the $62 million in savings. Now I want to be clear about something else. Central Farm Service has skin in the game as well. We are committing our own capital into this project, including storage, handling and infrastructure that we need to deliver this to our members. And we're making these investments because we believe in this model and because our farmers need it. This is not a pilot. This is not theoretical. This is a cooperative stepping forward to build a more reliable supply chain for our members. And with your support, the project will supply ammonia to cover a significant portion, if not all, of our annual needs. The Renewable Development Account gives Minnesota unique opportunities to support projects that deliver real benefits to ratepayers and to rural communities. And this proposal does exactly that. It leverages private investment, it strengthens rural economies, improves how we use Minnesota's energy resources. And most importantly, it delivers long term affordability, not just short term relief. Chair members, Minnesota farmers should not be dependent on global markets for one of their most essential inputs. We have this ability to produce this ammonia right here. We have the demand right here. And we now have a model that can work at a commercial scale. This is about affordability, certainty and it's about taking control of our supply chain so cooperatively. In service to our members, I respectfully ask for your support of Senate file 1710. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Grainer. Very well done. Mr. Davis. Now you want to try.
Thank you so much, Sir. Thank you. Mr.
Chair, members, members of the committee, My
name is Rob Davis. I serve as chief growth officer for Clean Counts, a non profit clean energy
registry that tracks and verifies renewable energy
production across North America. Previously named mrts.
Last May we adopted the new doing
business as name clean counts for three reasons. One, we track more than just renewable energy. Two, we do it throughout North America. And three, the domain name was available for $25. For nearly 20 years, our role has been to provide trusted auditable data that allows energy markets to function with confidence. Today we support markets for electricity and clean fuels. With this project, we extend that stem
infrastructure to ammonia members.
You've heard about the core challenge farmers are facing. Extreme volatility in fertilizer prices driven by global markets outside of Minnesota's control. This proposal offers something new, the local production. Backed by a 10 year contract that guarantees both price and supply.
It creates certainty.
But this model, in order for this model have to scale. We also need trust and transparency. That's where Clean Counts comes in. As part of this project, we will further develop the capabilities to track ammonia production similar to how we track and issue renewable energy certificates in our work today. In practical terms, this means that each unit of ammonia can be measured and tracked. Its production method can provide some certainty and farmers and cooperatives and buyers can make credible auditable claims. This builds directly on infrastructure already used across the United States and in Canada. And it matters because markets only grow when participants trust the data. Without that trust, investment slows and value is lost. With it, markets expand and costs come down. Minnesota has an opportunity not just to deploy a great project, but to build the market foundation that allows this model to grow. Chair members, this is about certainty for farmers, integrity in the market and a practical path forward. We respectfully ask for your support of Senate File 1710, the Minnesota made Ammonium Act.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Davis. Well done. Next we'll hear From Rachel Stuckey. And on deck will be Darren Broton. Miss Stuckey, welcome back to the committee. Please introduce yourself and present your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Chair, friends and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Rachel Stuckey, and I'm the executive director of the Minnesota Conservative Energy Forum. But I'm here today on behalf of the newly formed Minnesota Made Ammonia Coalition, or mmac. It brings together organizations across industries with the goal of identifying the policy and practical pathways needed to establish a local ammonia economy in Minnesota. And there should be additional information about the coalition on the letter in your packet, too. As others have stated, Minnesota imports nearly a million tons of ammonia every year, with almost all of it produced out of state. Even in normal times, transporting ammonia to Minnesota adds costs that are passed on to farmers and consumers. And we're seeing in real time the impacts of what happens when supply chains become vulnerable. We have the opportunity to address this and to do so in a way that connects multiple pieces of Minnesota's economy. And that's what's really exciting about this. Local ammonia production isn't only solving one problem. It's another step towards establishing a circular economy in Minnesota. Wind energy that can't get onto the grid is being curtailed across greater Minnesota, costing counties real tax revenue. That energy can be used to produce ammonia, a product used across agriculture, mining, steel making, manufacturing, shipping, energy and other industries. And the economic value of all of that stays right here in Minnesota. It means price certainty for farmers, stronger and cleaner supply chains for industries that don't have many other options and once proven at commercial scale, a model designed to replicate wherever wind resources, grid congestion and demand alignment. And this bill isn't just about getting the first facility off the ground. It invests in the research and analysis to scale this across the state, in addition to the wide variety of industries and organizations supportive of locally made ammonia. This bill has bipartisan support from metro and greater Minnesota legislators across both bodies, reflecting the breadth of industries and areas of the state. This investment stands to benefit. MMAC respectfully asks for your support of Senate File 1710, as amended. And thank you for your consideration.
Thanks, Ms. Stuckey. Well done. Last we'll hear from Darren Broughton from AgriGrowth. Mr. Broton, welcome back to the committee. Big smile. Please introduce yourself and present your testimony.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Darren Broughton, executive director of Minnesota Agrigrowth. And I am excited to support Centerfile 1710 this afternoon because it is the shot in the arm that Minnesota's agriculture and food Economy needs right now. Now, for the past two years, Minnesota's agriculture and food economy has been mired in a great recession. Inflation, extreme weather, changing climate, major animal health events, turmoil in our global markets, and disruptions in our supply chains have created a perfect storm for farmers, food processors and the local communities that serve them. The proposed facility can help our economy mitigate future uncertainty while thrusting the state onto a global stage. For years, leaders have discussed investing in domestic green ammonia. And while we continue to talk about it, China has built the world's largest green ammonia facility, exporting affordable cleaner fertilizer across the Pacific Rim. India, which is the world's second largest consumer of fertilizer, is investing billions of dollars in new facilities to develop green ammonia fertilizer. Not only that, they are mandating that 37% of their steel that's produced in India comes from green ammonia energy. The time to act is now for Minnesota. Last year, AgriGrowth convened leaders across the farm, food, logistics, supply and research sectors to start laying the groundwork for a stronger Minnesota agriculture and food economy by 2040. One major theme that we continued to hear was that we need to have advanced world class processing facilities that could put Minnesota back on the map and grow our economy. The proposal in Senate File 1710 supports that priority and puts us back on that map. I encourage the legislature to Advance Senate file 1710 and help put Minnesota's ag and food economy back on track.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bro. Well done. That's the end of the list of expected testifiers. Any members of the public who wish to testify for or against the bill. Seeing none. Member questions for the chief author, Senator weber?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no problems with the basics of the bill. As we look at the four items that are included in the bill, three of them are requiring no additional money to any state agency or the university or anything like that. However, one of them is, and I'm wondering why the Department of Commerce feels they need an additional of $10,000.
Senator Weber, let's give that to the chief author first, see if we can figure that out. Senator Putnam.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
And thank you, Senator Weber, for the question. I would probably have to ask Mr. Davis, for example, to opine on that particular element of the bill and whether or not it is necessary for commerce.
Thanks, Senator Putnam. Mr. Davis, you want to come back forward for the limited purpose of addressing Senator Weber's question? Mr. Davis.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Senator Weber. And thank you, members of the committee.
The $10,000 included is intended to be a maximum amount. We understand that handling bills like this does incur some staff time. And so we didn't want it to get, if you will, any anything larger than that. So it's really to ensure that there's
budget accommodation for that staff time and
nothing to exceed that amount.
Thank you, Mr. Davis.
Senator Weber.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If we look at $4 million going to the Department of Ag, I don't see any money allowed them there. They. I obviously feel they can absorb that. There's another $500,000 grant to the Department of Commerce. There's no additional monies there, no contract. Quite frankly, it's been my experience in the 14 years I've been here that most of the agencies have more than $10,000 falling out of their desk drawer at any given time. So I guess I just think that's an unnecessary element. Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Weber. Anything further, Senator Weber?
I would move that that $10,000 be removed.
Senator Weber proposes an oral Amendment. Let's give Ms. Severson just a moment to cook that up. Senator Weber. Miss Severson.
Thank you, Chair. Members, the oral amendment would be page one, delete line 16 and 17.
Thank you, Mr. Member Discussion to the Weber Oral Amendment. Sorry. Member discussion to the Weber oral Amendment. Senator dibble.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was wondering if the author of the bill has a response to the amendment.
Thank you, Senator Dibble. Senator Putnam.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Dibble. Thank you, Senator Weber, for your fiscal responsibility. In pointing out this particular wrinkle, my first response is that I think we should give it to the Department of Ag instead. But then, of course, the Department of Ag is so incredibly well run that they would not need additional resources to do this. I will say that I believe that there's a good chance that Commerce could handle this activity without this additional fund. And so I would see this as a friendly amendment.
Thank you, Senator Putnam. Further member comments to the Weber oral Amendment. Seeing none. All in favor of adopting the Weber Oral amendment say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. The amendment is adopted and the bill is amended. Further member commentary, Senator rarick.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Question for Senator Putnam. And I see he handled the last one that had multiple syllable words, so he can probably handle this one as well. We're talking about helping Minnesota farmers. In a lot of the testimony. Is there anything in the bill that specifically. Specifically says the fertilizer must be sold to Minnesota farmers or that we must prioritize Minnesota farmers?
Thank you, Senator Rarick. Great question, Senator Putnam.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Senator Rarick, if I could ask for a little bit more elucidation in terms of the question. I believe that this makes it available and accessible to Minnesota farmers. But it does seem like, in a sense, it might be excessively restrictive to limit this so that it can't be sold to other markets as well.
Senator rarick.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I guess in a way I'd like to see it. I get it that we shouldn't limit it only to Minnesota farmers, but if Minnesota is making the investment into this, we should be prioritizing Minnesota farmers over Iowa, Nebraska. So and so.
Thank you, Senator Rarek. The intention of the chair is to lay this over so there is room for some additional conversation. I like the idea that Webb prioritize Minnesota farmers, but I'll leave that to you and Senator Putnam. With that, Senator Matthews.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senator Putnam. I guess I'm first trying to figure out why the bill expanded as much as it did last year's original bill just was kind of on one topic. And I'm wondering, like, it feels like the ammonia issue could probably stand alone as its own bill coming through, and why it's tied in with the renewable energy credits and counting and why would pick a specific nonprofit to do that. Kind of all the things I had last year about that particular issue. Why it's all getting roped into this and then some of the other appropriations that are in this. But I'll start with that first one.
Thank you, Senator Matthews. Senator Putnam.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Thank you. Senator Matthews. This bill is not fundamentally, profoundly that dissimilar to the amended version that we presented last year. The original text was one way, but we did amend it to make some of these changes in terms of the distribution of the resources in the amended version of the bill last time, but not in its entirety. You are correct. And that this is much more expansive. I agree with you on that front. I think that the tracking is important because of the tax credits and the distributions of those. And so that's why this is part of this as well. We have tried to, in the Ag Committee talked a little bit about ways to support this project in our space in a non energy specific way. This, I think, rolls in together a lot of issues that are specific to energy and its distribution specifically, which is why we're here instead of in the Ag Committee.
Thank you, Senator Putnam. Senator Matthews.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So talk through why there's like. I think that. I think that helps understand the $4 million going to ag. But then we've got explain from your perspective the tie in with the Great plains institute getting 500,000 and the university getting 1.5 million, and why those are all necessary pieces in all of this.
Thank you, Senator Matthews. Senator Putnam.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Senator Matthews. From my perspective, these are all different elements of the same issue. They're kind of like facets on a gem. And if you want to get the whole thing taken care of and done as sufficiently as necessary, we do need the investment and the engagement of the University of Minnesota and the Great Plains Institute and other folks who are also advocates in this space. So to me, the reason why this might seem unwieldy or to have multiple parts that you. That don't seem essential is because they are all parts of a larger goal, which is the creation and establishment of this opportunity for Minnesota farmers.
Senator Matthews.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess my final question would then be to council if I could verify what form or what language Did Senate file 1710 leave this committee last year.
Year.
Because I'm gathering that the original version we were handed that we amended today is not how it left last year. Is that accurate or what was the status of it?
Thank you, Senator Matthews. Ms. S.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. From memory, the bill from last year was amended as well and laid over. We adopted a de. When it was laid over, it was not exactly like this, but it. I don't believe it. It was changed quite a bit from the underlying bill as well.
Senator Matthews. Mr.
Chair and Council. Then did it not get engrossed?
Okay,
I appreciate the discussion. I think there's some parts that I like in this bill more than others, and I guess I'll keep mulling it over, but appreciate the discussion.
Thank you, Senator. Senator Gruenhagen.
Oh, thank you. Mr. Chair. Yeah. Just a couple questions. What is green ammonia compared to regular ammonia?
Yeah.
Senator Putnam, Senator France. Mr.
Chair.
Senator Gruenhagen. Thanks for that question. Is Mr. Reese actually here? Senator, friends, are you aware Mr.
I see him in the second row. Senator Putnam, Mr. Reese, if you would not mind too much coming forward to field Senator Gruenhagen's question.
So, Senator Chair France and Senator Gruenhagen. I could have tried to make it up, but this guy knows the stuff, so I think that it's best that he answer with the depth that he can.
Thank you.
Thanks for the question, Senator Gruenig. And Mr. Reese, if you would not mind introducing yourself and then as best you can, addressing the Senator's question.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I'm Mike Reese, director of Operations and the Renewable Hydrogen Ammonia Research Lead at the University of Minnesota West Central Research and Outreach center in Morris. Remember to your question. Green ammonia is just a title given to different production of ammonia using domestic sources. For some reason, when this effort first began, there was a lot of colors assigned to ammonia. Pink, for example, is ammonia produced from nuclear power. And I think really what it boils down to is what this bill had identified. It's Minnesota made, domestically made ammonia. And I think that's really the important part. Green is just a terminology that has stuck through the years. But I think from at least my perspective, energy is not the main point here. The main point is that it's Minnesota made. And so I guess that's the way I would address this.
Thank you, Mr. Rees. Senator Gruenhagen.
Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, thanks for explaining that to me. And the next question I've got is on line 1.24 and 1.25. It says, you know, additional distributed ammonia production and that have nearby wind or other curtail power. I tried to look up the definition of curtail power. It's still fuzzy. Can you explain that? And are we saying that the production has to be near wind the way it reads, so you have to build these plants next to wind generated electricity? Am I interpreting that properly?
Thank you, Senator Gruenhagen. That is a key feature here. I'm going to give it first to Mr. Reese.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senator Gruenigan. There's a lot of dimensions to that question you've asked. With this process, there tends to be tax credits available, similar to other energy industries. So in some cases, yes, it has to be in close proximity to wind and solar energy for green ammonia, close to nuclear power plant for pink ammonia. But if you look at a general operating principle, wherever the excess electrons are is where this plant could be outside of all the other regulation and tax credit schemes and all those things. Ideally, that's where we're going to that these plants can be put any place in the state where there's excess electricity. For now, that tends to be where wind and solar power generation is located. They call it stranded wind and stranded solar power. It's not really stranded. It just can't get through critical infrastructure points within the grid system. And that tends to be in central Minnesota. If you draw a line north, south through the state of Minnesota, there tends to be infrastructure that prohibits power or limits the amount of power going from the western states and into Eastern Minnesota into Minneapolis, St. Paul and further on down to Chicago. So the answer to your question is it depends. But certainly we're heading in the direction where these plants could be placed. Any place.
Thank you, Mr. Reese. Senator Gruenhagen.
Well, thanks. You didn't address curtailed power. What is the definition of that, Mr. Reese?
Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senator Groon. Curtail power is when there's excess power on the grid so that the wind turbines are shut down. And so that's a lost opportunity as a. If you're a wind farm owner, you want to keep the wind turbines running. If you're a utility, you typically want to keep the wind turbines running to be able to be able to monetize that power and that resource. And sometimes you're not able to do that. There's instances where even if they do keep it running and they're not curtailed, the power is sold into the MISO system for zero or negative value. And so that's. That's an opportunity for utilities to capture that value.
Thank you, Mr. Reese. Senator Gruenhagen.
Oh, thank you. Yeah, that helps some. The, you know, the farmers that I talk to, and I got quite a few farmers in my area, they want lower property taxes. That's what they want. Property taxes are killing them. Okay. And I'm all for ammonia made in Minnesota. I do think this bill, you know, seems a little bit, you know, like a football game where the referee goes into the huddle and calls the play. Okay. And government, we need a referee, we need government, but we don't need them going into the huddle, calling the play. And this bill seems to micromanage
the
ammonia production, trying to emphasize so called green energy, which I call greed energy, which we're losing $7 billion of subsidies in the next few years. So we probably should try to address that rather than keep going down this road. So I just. I might vote for the bill, but I think I'm going to have to hold my nose. So I don't, you know, if you level the playing field in terms of taxes and regulations, you can get this type of production from the private sector. The problem is we've gone just the opposite direction in the state of Minnesota. And then all of a sudden, by God, we got to take money and try to prop this and that and every other business up, which means government gets into the huddle and starts calling the play. And I don't really like that. Anyway, those are just my thoughts. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Gruenhagen, Senator Matthews.
Real quick, Mr. Chair, I just need to highlight for the committee again. I mean, comment made that this has, well, functionally will likely get cited next to wind and solar, because that's where the excess energy is. And the reason why we're in that position is because we're making a deliberate policy effort to shut down a lot of other forms of generation around this state that were not adequately replacing, and we'll be buying it over state lines to ship it in to backflow that baseload power on the current trajectory that we're on.
Good point, Senator Matthews. Members, further comments or questions before we give the chief author the final word. Senator Gruenhagen, just to your point, I wrote down every other business, but I am primarily hearing from farmers in my district how important this is. And keep in mind, members, there is a price settlement stabilization feature, predictability that agriculture could really use right now. So I think your points. Senator Matthews, you too, those are good points, but we have to balance that against the benefit to the every other business, which in my district generally means the farmers. I'm going to go back to you, Senator Gruenigan, even though we're this close to going to Senator Putnam. Senator Gruenhagen, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You are fair in terms of responses. But anyway, real quickly, you know, one of the reasons the farmers are crying is because their expenses, their property taxes, everything is going up. And part of it is the Green New Scam. All right? And you know, that's the problem. That's what we need to address.
Okay?
I mean, that's what growing states across this country are doing. They're lowering their taxes, they're getting investment to come in here. We're doing just the opposite.
We.
We're going down higher taxes, more regulations, the Green New Scam and a host of other things, and we're chasing people away. Anyway, just my thought.
Thank you. Senator Gruenhagen, you said Green New Scam twice. Members, we're going to go now to Senator Putnam for the last word before the Senate file is laid over. Senator Putnam, thank you for your patience. Any final comments, just very briefly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members for the session. In particular, thank you, Senator Matthews, for pointing out discussing the complexity of the bill, which I agree exists. I will say that while we can talk about a referee being in the huddle, for years, we've had the other team playing for oil companies. And this is a point where we need to actually think seriously, not just about the subsidies and the way that government gets involved in our distribution of energy, but who benefits from that? And in this case, farmers benefit. And to your point, Senator France, I talk to a lot of farmers every day I talk to farmers and they will tell you that input costs are one of the causes of their stress and their drama. And right now, members, is the most difficult time to be a farmer in 50 years. We are on the brink of another massive farm recession. And if we are here now in this moment having the opportunity to provide some stability and some help with affordability, I think we have a responsibility to do that. So thanks again for the discussion, members. And thank you again, Mr.
Chair.
Thank you, Senator Putnam. With that, Senate File 1710 is laid over for possible inclusion. Thank you. Testifiers. We're now going to Senate file 486. Senator Scott Dibble. Senator Dibble, how are you?
I'm very well. Senator Prince, Chair of How are you?
I'm good. Thank you for presenting Senate file 486. With that, please present your bill. We have an A3amendment at the desk. Senator, would you like that to be put on?
I would, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Senator Dibble moves the A3 authors amendment. Any discussion? Seeing none. All in favor of adopting the A3amendment say aye.
Aye.
Aye.
All opposed say nay. Motion prevails and the amendment is adopted. Senator Dibble, to your bill as amended.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members, I'm very pleased to be able to present senate file number 486. I'd also like to thank my co authors, Senator Hoffman, Senator yourself, Senator France, and Senator Port is or soon will be a co author as well. So, Mr. Chair, members, this bill would establish a supplemental state funded energy assistance program with a one time general fund appropriation of $40 million available through 2029. It is designed to work directly alongside the federal IHEAP program using the same infrastructure eligibility thresholds and the same delivery system. The goal is simple, to help more Minnesotans afford their home energy costs year round. So the bill would create that supplemental program administered through the Department of Commerce to provide primary energy grants to help households stay current on their bills. Crisis grants to prevent shut offs or restore service, emergency repair or replacement of heating systems. Outreach and outreach funding to serve underserved communities. In almost all cases, these funds will go directly to utilities or fuel vendors. To ensure accountability and immediate impact. It prioritizes serving more households rather than increasing benefits for those already served. Just a quick word about why we need this effort, Mr. Chair. The need is urgent and growing. Minnesotans currently owe over $140 million in past due utility bills and they are. Those arrears are rising sharply month after month. Over 90,000 households per year experience shutoffs. This is not evenly distributed across the state. You have in your packet an energy burden map and you can see that particularly in greater Minnesota, some are seeing Those households spend 7 to 10% or more of their income on energy, well above the 6%, what is accepted commonly as the 6% affordability threshold. So the majority of those federal energy assistance dollars flow outside of the metro. The federal energy assistance program is essential, but it falls short in a few key ways. There's not enough funding, of course. Only about a quarter of the eligible households receive assistance. It's not available when most needed. Most shutoffs occur between June and September, when assistance is typically not available. And of course, it doesn't address cooling. When LIHEAP was created, cooling was not a major concern. But now our summers are hotter, very volatile. Cooling is a health necessity, especially for seniors and medically vulnerable individuals. And cooling degree days have increased dramatically in recent decades. So, Mr. Chair, if you like, I can do a quick walk through of the amendment itself so that we understand the bill in front of us.
That'd be great. Senator Dibble. Ms. Severson here also, if you need help.
Senator Dibble, thank you. So just very quickly, I'll just jump off the high points, of course. Subdivision 1. Sorry, Section 1 and Subdivision 1 provides some definitions for the various aspects. LIHEAP Cross Crisis Grant Primary Energy Grant establishes Subdivision 2 establishes the supplemental Energy Assistant Grant program within the Department of Commerce. Subdivision 3 sets up the application and procedures, directs the commissioner to use the existing LIHEAP system, leveraging existing infrastructure, et cetera. Subdivision 4 defines what who qualifies for assistance. A key change is that it reduces the eligibility from 60% to 50% of state median income to match federal standards and adds flexibility if the federal program guidance is delayed. Subdivision 5 establishes how the funds are prioritized to serve more households, as I mentioned earlier, and requires that LIHEAP funds be used first before the state Funds apply. Subdivision 6 specifies the allowable uses of the funding. Crisis assistance for households that did not receive full federal crisis support, Primary and crisis grants for households not served by federal funds, heating system repair or replacement and outreach activities so folks are aware and can take advantage. And then subdivision seven sets up a certain amount of reporting. I won't get into all the details, but all the aspects of what could be reported to us are laid out there so we know exactly what's going on. And then section two is the appropriations section. And As I mentioned before, funds would be available through 2029 and then some of the administrative elements of that. That's the bill, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Well done. Senator Dibble. For testifiers, I had listed Chair Seban first, But I see Ms. Levison. Faulk, that's fine with the committee. Senator Dibble, any preference on the order of testifiers?
I only prefer what the testifiers prefer. I have no strong feelings.
I see Chair Seban coming forward. Maybe we'll start with Ms. Levinson. Falk, welcome back to the committee. If you could please introduce yourself and present your testimony.
Thank you, Chair. Friends and committee members as Good to be back. My name is Annie Levinson Falk. I'm executive director of the Citizens Utility Board of Minnesota. We're a 501c3 nonprofit advocate for Minnesota residential utility consumers. And I've had the privilege of working on this bill for more than three years now and with a very large group of companies and agencies and organizations supporting it to bring forward this proposal today. Out of respect for the committee's time, we we haven't asked all of the supporters to speak today. But you should have this handout in your packets that has a list of 30 some organizations that are with us asking for this bill today. The bill, as Senator Dibble stated it, provides immediate relief on energy bills which is sorely needed right now. But it also has some ripple effects down the line that I want to highlight. Energy assistance not only provides that immediate relief, but helps people access long term solutions so they won't have the same need for assistance in the future. Applying for energy assistance gets people in line for home weatherization and energy conservation through their utility and often onto rates that are set at an affordable level for each household. Energy assistance help people have stable housing. As a utility, disconnection can be grounds for eviction in Minnesota. And when somebody doesn't pay their electric or gas bill, that tab becomes bad debt that's picked up by all the other ratepayers of a utility. So energy assistance reduces bad debt and consequently reduces utility rates for everybody, even people who don't themselves receive assistance. Senator Dibble provided some data that shows the difficult situation that many in Minnesota are in with thousands of households unable to afford basic home energy service. And there's more data I could share and I'd be more than happy to get into that if members would like. But I'd like to take a few moments just to talk about kind of the human side of those numbers. And if I may, I'd like to Share a statement From James Burr, CUB's Outreach and Communications manager. James is one of the staff at Cub who fields calls directly from people who are facing unaffordable energy bills this winter. Cub has received more of these phone calls than ever before, and what I'm about to describe are just a couple of anecdotes from calls that James or our colleagues have received recently, but I think they help to paint a picture of what many Minnesotans are going through right now, james says. About a month ago I spoke with a woman who had been out of work for months. She told me that she had a notice for an imminent disconnection. She has two children with disabilities. She's already been shut off once before and she said it traumatized her children that following Monday I took a call from a woman in southern Minnesota. She has been without electricity and gas service since last summer. She's gone the entire winter without heat and relies on a generator to keep herself and her dog warm. She has multiple chronic health issues, including diabetes. She told me that her feet have turned black as she lives in a home that is regularly 20 degrees Fahrenheit. I discussed options with her and referred her to the consumer affairs office at the Public Utilities Commission for further support. I haven't gotten in touch with her since the call. Another man called Cub after receiving an eviction notice for non payment of his utility bill, which is billed through a third party service. Cub worked with staff from multiple different organizations and agencies to ensure we were doing everything we could to provide resources, education and support. I'd like to follow up with him soon to make sure that he's not still facing an eviction. Through my time at cub, I've spoken with well over a thousand Minnesotans. I have collected countless stories of past due bills and the effects they have on families. At the end of the day, Minnesotans simply want to keep their lights on, their food good, and their homes warm. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something we all know but bears acknowledgement. No one wants to have their power shut off. No one wants to be hundreds or thousands of dollars in debt to the utilities they rely on to survive. Survive. It's hard to advocate for yourself when you're so far in debt that you can't see straight. I know that myself. But I'm also uplifted by how many people are calling Cub to learn how they can best support others in their communities. I've talked with school social workers, doctors and nurses, and folks who have no formal title but simply want to help their neighbors. Thank you for the opportunity to share the stories of just a few Minnesotans regarding their struggles with energy cost. And thank you for considering this bill which will help thousands of people get back on their feet.
Thank you Ms. Levenson Falk next we're going to go to the Public Utilities Commission Chair and Birthday celebrant Katie Sieben. Chair Seban, welcome back to the committee. Happy Birthday. Please introduce yourself, do not say how long it's been since you were born and present your testimony.
Great.
I appreciate that. Thank you. Mr. Chair and members of the Committee, It's a pleasure to be here. I come in support with a full support of the other commissioners of the Minnesota PUC who weren't able to join us today. But we're all very supportive and appreciative of Senator Dibble and Ms. Levinson Folk and their efforts to pull this bill together, which as you've heard will provide $40 million from the general Fund for Supplemental Energy Assistance for low income Minnesotans. As you all know, the PUCC at the PUC we do our best to help assure that Minnesotans have the most affordable rates possible, but state support to supplement low income energy assistance is desperately needed. Minnesotans, like other Americans, are feeling the effects of higher energy prices. These are due to a variety of factors but include inflation, load growth in our area, winter storm fern, the continuation of uneconomic coal plants across the country by the Department of Energy, and increased wholesale commodity costs. For example, natural gas prices are double what they were in March of 2024. The Commission, as I said, does its best to mitigate and minimize rate increases. We've disallowed over $1 billion in costs from 2020 to 2024. But as Ms. Levinson Folk and Senator Dibble said, residential electric bills and gas bills are still causing hurt across Minnesota. Our residential electric bills, as you heard from our excellent staff testify earlier this session, are the failure fifth lowest in the nation in 2025. That's according to the Department of Energy and the Energy Information Agency. But arrearages are still up as Ms. Levinson Falk said since 2020. As I said, we do our best to keep our bills and rates as affordable as possible, but this $40 million will greatly assist local low income Minnesotans who are struggling with higher arrearages. I'd like to really also call out a strong shout out to the other organizations that are supportive of this bipartisan effort. There are utilities and many advocacy organizations that often appear in front of the Minnesota PUC that are supportive of this and I think it's an overall great effort and, and we're all very appreciative of your efforts to help pass this, this session. Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
Thank you, Chair Sean we also have Kaya Concepcion.
Thank you.
Welcome to the committee. Ms. Concepcion. Please introduce yourself and present your testimony.
Good afternoon, Chair, friends and committee members, My name is Katie Cashman. I'm speaking, speaking on behalf of Kaya Concepcion who could not be here today, unfortunately due to a family emergency. Kaya is the director, Policy Director for Black Visions. Black Visions mission is to empower and unite communities to dismantle systems of discrimination. One of our top priorities is to collaborate with other organizations, state officials and the legislature to address the energy burden faced by low income communities of color across the state. State While the average Minnesota household spends about 2% of its income on energy, low income households of color often spend 8% or more, with some facing burdens up to 30%. African American households in Minnesota experience a median energy burden 64% higher than white households. Neighborhoods with higher concentrations of people of color have experienced more frequent utility shutoffs and and longer power outages, being 47% more likely to lose power for over 12 hours compared to other areas. Low income households of color and low income rural Minnesotans have limited access to energy efficiency upgrades and renewable energy options. They often live in older, inefficient, poorly insulated housing and own inefficient appliances, creating higher energy waste and higher, less affordable monthly utility bills. These conditions create a significant energy burden affecting quality of life, health and average well being. Senator Dibble's bill is really needed. Please support the funding increase to the energy Assistance Program. This funding will support families in every area of the state, rural, urban and suburban areas where people are experiencing high need. We encourage you to vote yes on Senate file 486.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thanks Ms. Cashman. Members, that's the end of our list of testifiers. Anybody in the public who wants to be heard? If not, we're going to go to member questions and comments. Seeing none, I have Senator Rarek and Senator Grudage and I'm going to add Senator Matthews if I have that right. Senator rarick. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to focus on one part of the bill and that's the administrative costs. We see a lot of different grants and things that go out around here and I think historically we've looked at about 5% going and we've been seeing that number rise and rise and 10% seems to be a number we've been going to, which causes a lot of us concern. In this bill, we're looking at 17.5% that can go to administrative costs. That's $7 million of the 40 million being appropriated. And part, I guess I don't understand when we're talking about the 12 and a half percent. Senator Dibble, can you help us understand why 12.5% must be used for staffing costs rather than permissive may, so that it, I mean, if the costs aren't there, I don't understand why it's must.
Thank you, Senator Rarick. Senator dibble.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Rarick. I would be very amenable to the May language, so if you want to make a motion, I'll support it. I will also concede the point that 12.5% and the 5%, 17.5% is a lot. And I'll invite Commerce up to help us understand those numbers a little bit better. I'll take a first stab. Hope I'm right. I might be corrected. But, you know, one of the elements of this bill is that it would make those energy help with energy bills available year round, which is very different from what we do now currently. These programs, both at the cap agencies and Department of Commerce, kind of staff up and staff down. And this would create a cohort that supports these efforts year round, which represents, at least initially, maybe something that can be stepped down. I'm not sure the need to be paying folks to help get these dollars out year round. So that's part of the somewhat larger administrative cost. The 5%, of course, is again, you know, all of these things can be discussed and negotiated in good faith, whether it's the right amount or not. A big problem that that 5% attempts to solve is getting the word out more effectively to those who would be eligible to use these dollars. And that takes, you know, quite a bit of kind of programmatic communication outreach effort.
Thank you, Senator Dibble. Senator Rehrick. So that's an offer, I think, for two things. One, an oral amendment to switch to the May type of language. If you're open to that, we'll talk to Ms. Severson. And also if you want Commerce to come forward and testify, that's fine with the chair. If you want to just keep on with your questioning, that's fine, too.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I'm just going to. No other questions that I have. I just want to make one other comment. You know, I see that only 2.5% is for the department. So 10% of the original is going out to other groups, and then we have the additional 5% that's going out to other groups. And I think part of what we should be asking ourselves is, you know, one would believe the vast majority of those organizations that are going to be receiving this funding is going to be non profit organizations who say that this is the mission of their work. Well, then why is that mission not being funded by the people who agree with that mission and are supporting those organizations through their charitable contributions rather than money that we're appropriating, that we're saying is supposed to be going to help people afford their bills when it's actually just going to administrative costs. If it's truly their mission to help people, then they should raise the money through charitable donations and perform this work, because that's their mission. It shouldn't be government money going to them to perform their supposed mission. So. But with that said, I still, still don't know that I, I mean, I would prefer my motion be to change the numbers, but at very minimum, I would make that Oral Amendment to change must to May on line 3.18.
Thank you, Senator Rarick. Senator Rerick moves an Oral Amendment. We'll have Ms. Severson briefly cover the Oral Amendment and then comment and vote. Ms. Severson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, I would also suggest potentially adding language up to 12.5% on page three, line 18 and page three, line 27. That language is also included on page three, line 22.
Thanks, Ms. Severson. So that's a suggestion, Senator. Eric, I see you nodding. So we'll have Ms. Severson describe the Oral Amendment with that inclusion, if I'm seeing you correctly, Ms. Severson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, the Oral Amendment would read as follows. Senate File 486 is amended to read page three, line 18 before 12.5 insert up to delete. Must insert May, page three, line 27 before five insert up to.
Thank you, Ms. Severson. Members, questions, comments or concerns to the Rarick Oral Amendment? Senator Dibble, any comment?
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I would consider the amendment friendly.
Thank you for that, Senator Dibble. Considering that it's a friendly amendment. Further comment. Seeing none, all those in favor of the Rarick amendment signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. The motion prevails and the amendment is adopted. Senator Rarick, you still have the floor if you want it. We'll go now to Senator Gruenhagen and then Senator Matthews. Senator Gruenhagen oh, thank you, Mr.
Chair.
First, I'll just say here we go again. But I think everybody on this committee, and probably most in the audience, if not all, want to help people who are hurting with their energy costs. I know I do. I've written out checks for people to help them pay their energy costs. I got seniors, I got over 400 Medicare supplements in my agency. And some seniors come in crying on fixed incomes, crying that they it's the pay the electric bill or prescriptions. They have to choose. Okay? I mean that's where we're at. And we've had testimony in this committee, you know, 36%, this was last year, I believe, 36% of Minnesotans or are struggling to pay their energy cost. And yet we continue to go down. And now we're faced with, by the way, losing another $7 billion in green energy subsidies in the future. And yet we just keep driving down this road blindly thinking, well, there's a cliff coming. But we're just going to hope the cliff isn't as steep as what it it looks like it's going to be. I mean, we should repeal the 2040 bill. We should lower taxes and help our citizens. Instead, we just keep going down this path of higher and higher energy cost. And if we lose the 7 billion in federal subsidy, you think we got people hurting now? You haven't seen anything yet. Okay. And you know, I have to say this, this reminds me of Obamacare. Your premiums are going down $2,500. You can keep your doctor. All those things all turned out to be a lie. And then what do they do? They pass subsidies to help you pay your higher health insurance premiums. This is the same philosophy. It's craziness. And yet we just keep blindly going down there. Let's really fix the system now. I could support something like this in the short term if we add it to this bill. Repeal the 2040 bill, reveal the green mandate nonsense that we passed here. But we got nobody to blame but the committee that's passed this legislation. It's really that simple. You know, I grew up in the farm many years. I can't remember anyone not willing to pay their electric bill. I talk to my co op members, they all tell me the ones I've talked to, we got more people can't pay their electric bill now than ever before. Think, think what we're doing and it's not helping the environment. So again, if you like your health insurance premiums keep going down this path of green new scam nonsense and you'll get more of this and then we're
going to have to.
And at the same time, by the way, and I'll try to keep this short. The IRS puts out a report
on
our state, all 50 states. How much gross income leaves in a year versus going into a state, according to the last report, and this is off the top of my head, I did a video on it.
You can watch it.
In 2017, we lost $715 million of gross income left the state, more than came in. In 2024, it was 2.19 billion left the state. I think we all know people who are well to do who are leaving this state. So we are going down a path economically that is going to make it more and more difficult to help the people who really need it as we chase people out who could pay the tax. And we're seeing it in New York, we're seeing it in California, we're seeing it all. And this bill takes us one step closer. Please think, please, let's really help people rather than just pile more subsidies onto a green new scam. He can comment if he wants. And I know, Senator Dibble, your heart is right, you want to help these people, but it's. It's the wrong philosophy.
Thank you, Senator Gruenhagen. We've had this discussion before, so I'm just going to go to Senator Matthews and then we'll give Senator Dibble the last word. Our intention is to move the bill to pass and Senate to Finance, so there's opportunities for all members to have further commentary. I'm going to go to Senator Martin Matthews now. Senator Matthews.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That was going to be my question. One of them is the plan is to vote this out to Finance committee.
Yes.
Okay, Mr. Chair, members, I won't completely rehash all the arguments that have been shared. I would urge the author to look at really ratcheting down these percentages because when it's put. Put in those terms, I think it doesn't take $7 million to figure out how to spend the other 33. The agencies are already, the employees are already on their payrolls. They get their salaries. The nonprofits all should be getting their salaries. I don't think it needs to have that big of a bite of the sandwich taken out. So I'd urge you to try to shrink that, because people capitalizing on generous sounding programs is how we got into the fraud situation that we're in now. And I don't want to have that bleed into a problem in this committee. My final question, I think would be for you, Mr. Chair, is to is there any update on any discussion of targets with this committee and where we're at with that, with this appropriation?
First of all, Senator Matthews, thank you for raising the administrative cost issue. Thank you to all the senators who raised that. You may remember two years ago when the chair pushed back on the administrative cost for the St. Thomas micro grid. I think we have to be asking our agencies to tighten their belts in the same way we do Minnesota families. So looking forward to this discussion as it moves forward. It's got to be a reasonable administrative cost. And I think some great points remain to the question about targets. This is not a big secret. We do not have an agreement with the governor's office or the House yet. I have made my request for a target for this committee and I do not have a final answer. Senator Matthews. All right, members. Senator Hoffman, you have a senator online,
but giving that light of that, when
it comes down to it, I think we should roll call this.
Roll call's been requested. Roll call granted. Further comments before we give. Senator green. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I was holding off to hope that every, all my questions were answered, but there's just a couple, couple of things. This is a one time appropriation and it was stated by the testifiers that,
you know
the energy rates and how high they are. This bill does nothing to reduce the energy rates. So when the 40 million is gone, if it is appropriated, it's gone and nothing changes. And the same problem is going to be here again next year. And it was stated to a point that we're in this situation because of the blackout bill that passed. We're decommissioning nuclear plants. We still haven't dealt with the moratorium that we have on nuclear. Where are we going in the future? If you're not going to address the problem, then doing this is irrelevant to do a one time payment. These bills are going to keep coming every month for years and years and years if we don't change this. And so the bill itself and the amount of money that's going to administration was brought up is the wrong path. You can't be pretending that you're going to fix a problem by throwing money at it when the problem is going to persist. So I don't support the bill. I would much rather see the testifiers coming in with the stories and acknowledging the fact that we told them this was going to happen. We could see it coming. We see it coming all the way from 2008 when the first 25 by 25 passed and we do away with our cheap energy and go to higher and higher cost inefficient electricity and then take more money from the taxpayers and the people that are paying the bill and, and everybody pays taxes. This isn't wealthy. This money is coming from every time somebody goes and buys food at the not so much food, I guess, because it's not taxed as much. But whenever you buy anything out there, including your own gas, the taxes are going up to pay for the stuff that we're doing here. And then we're going to raise taxes again in this misnomer that we're going to help people by giving them back some of the money that we took from him. We're not addressing anything here. Thank you, Senator Green. Other member comments before we go to the chief author, Senator dibble.
Thank you, Mr. Chair members. I do need to mention briefly though about the administrative amount, which I'm very open and amenable to that discussion. But we've discussed this proposal before and you know, some of what we deem as administrative would be in other areas and other programs be considered program expenses because the Department of Commerce, in conjunction with the community action agencies that administer, take a great deal of time and care to verify eligibility, income verification, those sorts of things. That's part of what costs administrative dollars. It's not just overhead and personnel costs, it's the actual running of and administering the programs to address some of the concerns about paying out these grants to people who might not be actually eligible for them, addressing those issues that we talk about a lot around here as a huge concern. So I just wanted to note that. But then just in closing, Mr. Chair members, this is very much about whether or not folks can keep their lights on, stay cool, stay warm, keep their home safe, maintain their health and stability. We have a system, a structure that works very, very well. This is an attempt to reinforce and extend that and meet the moment, the crisis that people are finding themselves in, whatever reason you think that is. I disagree with some of the reasons that have been proposed here. But nevertheless, we know that people are in crisis and it is targeted, it's efficient, proven in structure, urgently needed. So I appreciate the conversation and would appreciate your support.
Thank you, Senator Dibble. Well done. The chair is going to be a yes vote on this, folks, and I'll tell you why. We just had a bill for green ammonia to recognize that price stability is a virtue for our farmers. We do help groups when they need some help. We do provide ethanol subsidies and requirements of blend where appropriate. We are a state that tries to help those that have a little less. This bill does exactly that. And as senator from the great city of North Mankato, the largest amount of this money would go to greater Minnesota households, which I think is where it should be. We work on low income weatherization, and it is a sacred goal of ours to try to help these homes become more efficient. This bill goes directly to that. I think it's a good use of the money. With that, the question is, on the motion of Senator Dibble, that Senate File 486, as amended, be recommended to pass and be recognized re referred to the Committee on Finance. A roll call was requested by Senator Hoffman. That was granted. The clerk will take the roll.
Chair friends.
Yes.
Senator Zhang.
Yes.
Senator Matthews. Senator Dibble. Yes. Senator Green? No. Senator Gruenhagen.
No.
Senator Hoffman.
Yes.
Senator klein. Yes. Senator McEwen?
Yes.
Senator Rarick. No. Senator Webert. No.
There being six yes votes and five no votes, the motion prevails. And the motion will Send Senate File 486, as amended, to the Finance Committee with a recommendation to pass. Thank you, Senator dibble.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Members, we are adjourned. We'll be back on Wednesday. Thank you.
It.