EQB adopts expedited rules to align review of large energy projects with new state permitting law

The Environmental Quality Board voted Jan. 21 to adopt expedited permanent rules that bring the board’s environmental-review provisions into alignment with the Minnesota Energy Infrastructure Permitting Act (Minn. Stat. ch. 216I), the law governing permitting and environmental review for large energy infrastructure projects.

Kayla Walsh, environmental review program administrator in the Environmental Review Program, told the board the Legislature passed the statute in 2024 and the law took effect July 1, 2025. She said the statute creates a Public Utilities Commission-managed framework intended to streamline permitting and environmental review for projects such as high-voltage transmission lines, large generating plants, energy storage, large wind and solar systems and associated facilities. "EQB is doing this rulemaking in order to conform with the new law passed by the legislature in 2024 called the Minnesota Energy Infrastructure Permitting Act," Walsh said.

The board approved a resolution included on packet page 18 that adopts the rule text and authorizes the executive director to submit the rulemaking package and take necessary steps to finalize the rule. Voting on the motion to adopt the resolution, the roll call recorded 12 aye votes, no nays and no abstentions; the resolution passed.

Why the change matters: the statute (Minn. Stat. ch. 216I) changes which entity manages environmental review for certain large energy projects and how those projects are reviewed. Walsh said EQB’s amendments are intended to ensure the mandatory-category rules direct readers to the PUC statute where the new review pathway is defined, and to avoid conflicting requirements between EQB rules and the legislature’s statute.

Public comments and staff response: EQB opened a notice of intent and a public comment period (Oct. 6–Nov. 14). Staff reported two comment letters: one from the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA) and one from the Minnesota Biofuels Association. MCEA asked for language clarifying that environmental review remains governed by both the PUC statute and MEPA in appropriate cases; staff recommended no change, writing that the PUC statute itself references MEPA where required and that adding MCEA’s suggested phrasing would be redundant. The Biofuels Association urged EQB to delay adopting the carbon dioxide-pipeline mandatory EIS listing until a CO2-pipeline study is completed; staff replied that the 2024 legislation already requires an EIS for carbon dioxide pipelines and that EQB’s rule must reflect the statutory requirement.

On process: Walsh described the expedited rulemaking pathway used for this amendment, noting it is appropriate when changes are straightforward and not interpretive. If adopted by the board, EQB staff will submit the package (including an unsigned order adopting rules, the rule language and a justification memo with staff responses). An Administrative Law Judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings then has 14 days to approve or recommend changes; if no changes are required the executive director will sign and file the order and EQB will publish the notice of adoption in the State Register.

Public questions: during the public-comment period Bonnie Madder asked how the Public Utilities Commission informs the public that projects under review have satisfied environmental-review requirements. Executive Director Katherine Neuschler said EQB staff publish environmental-review documents in the EQB Monitor and continue to coordinate with PUC staff to make public notice and posting practices clear during the statutory transition.

What happens next: by voting to adopt the rule language and authorizing the executive director to complete submittal steps, the board set the administrative process in motion; the rule will take effect after adoption and publication if the administrative process completes without required modifications.

Votes and motion details: the motion to adopt the resolution was moved by Board member Katzenberger and seconded by Commissioner Kessler. The roll call recorded affirmative votes from: Commissioner Arnold; Board member Bakken; Board member Bauerkemper; Board member Brands; Chair Nancy Daubenberger; Commissioner Grenvall; Board member Hanks; Board member Katzenberger; Commissioner Kessler; Board member Martin; Board member Nelson; and Board member Smith (12 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions).