Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mpca Permitting Efficiency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel hears bill to shorten public notice and clarify MPCA permitting timelines
Summary
Senate File 28 33 would let the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency shorten certain public-notice periods, stop permit timelines while applicants respond to information requests, require a 30‑day applicant response window, and explicitly authorize air dispersion modeling for permitting.
The Minnesota Senate Committee on the Environment, Climate, and Legacy heard testimony April 4 on Senate File 28 33, carried by Senator Johnson Stewart, a bill that would modify the powers and duties of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to increase permitting efficiency. The bill would allow the MPCA, in some cases, to reduce a 60‑day public notice period to 30 days, stop counting days under the statute’s 90‑day and 150‑day permitting goals while awaiting additional information from applicants, and give applicants 30 days to respond unless the agency grants an extension. It would also clarify statutory authority for the MPCA to require air dispersion modeling in permits and let applicants waive a pre‑public‑notice review period to move faster.
Senator Johnson Stewart, the bill's author, said the measure “provides modifications to the powers and the duties of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency” and described the changes as targeted at permitting efficiency. He noted the measure is “being considered in addition to other budgetary requests, namely for additional staff to help process the backlog of permit applications.”
Tom Johnson, who testified for the MPCA, told the committee the bill is the governor’s policy bill on permitting reform and that the agency supports clarifying its authority for modeling. Johnson said federal and state authorities and rules related to air permitting are “broad and not specific,” and that the bill would give the agency a clear statutory citation to point to when asking applicants to conduct modeling. He described the stop‑the‑clock change as “shared accountability between the agency and the permittee,” explaining the MPCA believes it should not be held responsible for delays caused by applicants’ delayed responses.
Andrew Morley of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce limited his testimony to sections creating the stop‑the‑clock mechanism and the modeling authority. He warned the committee that adding modeling authority without describing modeling standards could “create more uncertainty, longer timelines, and more cost to the process.” Morley said the cost and scheduling of modeling “varies widely” and that those potential costs and scheduling windows were a concern for permit applicants.
Committee members asked for more specifics on the typical cost and scheduling challenges of air dispersion modeling. Senator Drazkowski and others pressed for a range of costs; Tom Johnson and Andrew Morley said costs vary and that the agency would provide range estimates later. The bill’s sponsor and MPCA staff said they would follow up with the committee with additional data.
No final action was taken on Senate File 28 33 at the hearing. The bill was laid over for possible inclusion in the environment omnibus package so stakeholders and agency staff could clarify remaining questions.
Ending: The committee left the bill in committee for further work; proponents and some industry representatives emphasized the measure aims to improve timeliness without weakening environmental standards, while business groups urged clarity on modeling requirements and costs.
