Committee hears bill to fund CelluComp plant making fiber packaging from sugar‑beet pulp

The House Agriculture Finance and Policy Committee on Wednesday heard testimony on House File 1621, which would provide a $10 million state grant to CelluComp to construct a scalable plant in Renville that would convert sugar‑beet pulp into a fiber‑based packaging material meant to replace PFAS and many plastics.

The bill’s author, Representative Vance Binsbergen, introduced two CelluComp executives: Christian Kemp Griffin, identified as the company’s CEO, and Chris Pultz, identified as the company’s president. Griffin told the committee the product, branded as Curran, is a microfibrillated‑cellulose additive and coating derived from root‑vegetable fibers and that embedding the fiber in substrates and coatings can create fiber‑based barrier packaging. “Our mission is to create material change for good,” Griffin said.

The nut graf: supporters said the proposal matches Minnesota supply and market advantages — the state is a leading sugar‑beet producer, a major pulp source is one mile from the proposed site in Renville, and a recently effective PFAS ban increases demand for PFAS‑free food packaging. The company also plans a biogas digester to convert co‑product waste streams into energy and fertilizer, and said the project would initially hire about 20 workers and could process up to 80,000 tons of sugar‑beet pulp as it scales.

Griffin and a second testifier described a “circular economy” linking the plant to the Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative in Renville and said CelluComp has already invested about $15 million in the company and is in a current capital raise of about $4–4.5 million. Representative Lee pressed for specifics about the state contribution and matching funds, asking what the $10 million would finance and whether it was for construction, engineering or equipment. Griffin answered that the Senate‑originated bill is for $10 million and that the funds would be used to scale the project, add biogas equipment and install food‑safe processing equipment.

Committee members directly questioned the wisdom of a legislatively directed grant to a for‑profit startup. Representative Hansen cited the legislative auditor’s recent findings on direct earmarks and said competitive grants may be preferable; he said he did not expect the committee to approve $10 million for a private company without other funding sources. Representative Nelson and others praised the project’s research and potential farm and manufacturing benefits but acknowledged budget constraints.

After questions, Representative Vance Binsbergen moved to have House File 1621 held over; the committee laid the bill over for later consideration.

Context and next steps: the bill was heard as part of a multi‑item agenda and was not advanced; the author and company were instructed to pursue other funding and provide more detailed cost and matching information in future hearings.