The Environmental Quality Board on Sept. 17 voted to start expedited rulemaking to align Minnesota’s environmental‑review rules with the 2024 Energy Infrastructure Permitting Act (Minn. Stat. 216i), which consolidated permitting and review requirements for large energy infrastructure projects.

The board approved a resolution to publish notice of the proposed amendments in the State Register on Sept. 29, open a public comment period through Nov. 10, and authorize Executive Director Kathryn Neuschler to proceed with the rulemaking steps. Commissioner Kessler moved the resolution; board member Katzenberger seconded. The motion passed with 11 yes votes and one abstention. Board member Martin said he would abstain because he works for Xcel Energy and wanted to avoid any perceived conflict.

Colleen Petzel, director of EQB’s environmental review program, told the board staff will use a ‘‘clearinghouse’’ approach rather than reproducing the new statute verbatim in Minnesota Rule 4410. The approach directs users to Minn. Stat. 216i for the environmental‑review requirements that now govern large energy infrastructure projects, while retaining smaller project thresholds in rule 4410 to avoid duplication and potential inconsistency.

Petzel said the changes respond to how the statute is structured: the statute requires an environmental impact statement (EIS) for large energy infrastructure projects but lists exceptions and subcategories that do not map neatly to the rule’s previous format. The clearinghouse approach adds signposts in the rule’s mandatory‑category sections to point users to Minn. Stat. 216i and reduces redundancy and the chance of conflicting guidance.

Under the statutory changes, several project types are now governed by 216i, including high‑voltage transmission lines, large electric power generating plants, energy storage systems, large wind and solar generating facilities, associated facilities connected to larger projects, and carbon‑dioxide pipelines. The act also moved some Department of Commerce environmental‑review staff and responsibilities into the Public Utilities Commission (PUC); Petzel said the rule revisions update references to reflect those transfers.

Petzel reviewed specific drafting steps: adding definitions for newly enumerated project types (for example, energy storage system and carbon dioxide pipeline), removing an unused transmission‑line threshold from the EAW mandatory category, and retaining definitions and mandatory categories for smaller electric generation facilities that do not meet the large‑infrastructure thresholds.

Petzel laid out the schedule: if the board’s motion is published Sept. 29, the public comment period will run through Nov. 10; staff will review comments and return proposed final rules to the board, with an expected board vote around January 2026 before the Administrative Law Judge review and final publication. Petzel described the version sent to the board as a shortened reviser’s draft (about five pages) intended to make changed language easier for reviewers.

During public comment, Renee Kieser, water‑resources manager for the White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, asked whether the EQB would provide the changes to the Minnesota Tribal Environmental Committee and what the timeline for tribal consultation would be given the compressed notice period. Neuschler replied that EQB staff had discussed conforming changes with tribal staff at MnTAC meetings in December and February and again in June, and had sent letters to tribes as part of annual consultation; she characterized the board action as conforming the agency’s rules to legislative decisions rather than making new substantive policy.

The board’s action initiates the formal notice and comment process; substantive changes to how environmental review operates for large energy projects were made by the Legislature in Minn. Stat. 216i, Petzel said, and the board’s rule changes are intended to prevent duplication and provide clear signposts for users.

Next steps: notice in the State Register on Sept. 29, public comment through Nov. 10, staff review and revisions, board vote on final language (target January 2026), Administrative Law Judge review and expected effective date in early 2026, subject to the administrative process.