Senate committee weighs removing 100‑MW cap so all hydro could count as carbon‑free

Sen. Joe Eichorn, sponsor of Senate File 426, told the Senate Energy Committee on Jan. 29 that the bill would remove a 100‑megawatt capacity threshold so hydroelectric generation of any size could qualify as an eligible carbon‑free technology under Minnesota law.

Supporters from utilities and industry told the committee removing the cap would expand options for meeting Minnesota’s carbon‑free goals. “When you think about it, this is the ultimate in renewable,” said Deb Bergen of Missouri River Energy Services, who described MRES members’ allocations from six federal dams on the Missouri River and told the committee the river’s dams have a combined capacity of just over 2,400 megawatts. “Hydropower is not only clean and renewable, it is flexible.”

The bill’s author said the change is intended to give utilities another tool in planning for the state’s 2040 carbon‑free target. “Large hydro is a vital part of the state's clean energy transition and gives us the ability to provide reliable flexible baseload power generation,” Eichorn said. Zach Martin, government affairs manager at Minnesota Power, described his company’s long history with hydropower and noted Minnesota Power receives 250 megawatts annually under a purchase agreement with Manitoba Hydro via the Great Northern transmission line.

Why it matters: removing the size limit would allow proposals for larger hydro projects to be considered in utility planning and by regulators. Supporters said permitting and environmental review requirements would still apply. “This just gives us the option,” Eichorn said, noting that any project would still need to clear federal and state permitting, including review by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Pollution Control Agency and by the Public Utilities Commission where required.

Questions and concerns: Several senators pressed witnesses on what concrete projects, if any, would immediately use the change and on the environmental consequences of large dams. Sen. McEwen asked whether any projects are in the pipeline; Eichorn and testifiers said they were not aware of specific sites but argued the statutory restriction prevents even considering large projects. Sen. Mary Port, Sen. David M. (Gruenhagen), Sen. Diane J. (Dibble) and others urged further study and suggested referring the measure to the Environment Committee for additional review of environmental impacts and siting before sending a Senate position to the floor.

Committee action: After extended discussion and a brief recess for the co‑chairs to consult, co‑chair Frentz said he would sign on as a sponsor and the author agreed to lay the bill over. The committee recorded that Senate File 4 26 would be "laid over for possible inclusion," giving members additional time to continue discussions and outreach.

Context and next steps: Proponents said removing the cap is a planning and eligibility change that would not itself build projects or alter environmental law. Opponents and some members said the committee should gather more information about potential project locations, costs, environmental impacts (including fisheries and river ecosystems), and how large hydro would compare with other carbon‑free options before final action.

Ending: The committee did not vote on the underlying merits of the bill; rather, members agreed to lay Senate File 4 26 over for possible inclusion so conversations can continue between the bill author, committee members and regulatory stakeholders.