The Issue: MN Clean Transportation Standard
Politicians in St. Paul are trying to mandate costly California-style pricing and bans on the fuels and vehicles Minnesota families, small businesses, and farmers rely on every day.
Make no mistake, the cost of doing so – both at the pump and through local job losses – would be staggering.
Politicians are sugarcoating this by calling it a “clean transportation standard” (CTS), but it’s actually the most radical fuel mandate in the nation—one that ultimately bans ALL liquid fuels like gasoline, diesel, ethanol, and even Minnesota’s homegrown biofuels.
Minnesota is not California, but the state will soon experience much the same in terms of the nation’s highest fuel prices if legislators copy another of California’s costly energy policies.
It is impossible to be pro-Minnesota families while pursuing policies that will cost these families more money every day in order to subsidize electric vehicles and fuels produced in other states.
Who’s Trying to Ban Fuels & Vehicles?
Some lawmakers in St. Paul have been pushing to adopt a California-style fuel mandates for years, but the efforts largely went nowhere due to the unacceptably high cost it would impose on Minnesota families.
At the end of its last session, however, the Minnesota Legislature quietly created a “Work Group” to study a fuel ban and provide recommendations for its implementation. The Work Group was tasked with an extremely narrow scope, focusing exclusively on how the state could go about implementing the policy. It has not examined larger, more substantive questions about how much a fuel ban will cost consumers, what impact it will have on Minnesota’s existing fuel industry, or if such a policy is even workable in Minnesota at all.
The Work Group’s own analysis shows that simply sticking with current Minnesota policies – which would impose no additional costs on Minnesota families – would achieve a 30 percent reduction in the state’s transportation sector emissions. However, if the fuel mandate policy moves forward, Minnesota families could be forced to pay hundreds of dollars more a year in fuel costs in order to subsidize electric vehicles and fuels produced in other states.
The Work Group submitted its report to the legislature on February 1, 2024. After that, the decision on whether to move forward with a fuel ban will lie with Minnesota lawmakers.
What Would a California-Style Fuel Ban Mean for Minnesota Families?
If implemented, a “CTS” would immediately raise prices on all fuel in Minnesota and threaten thousands of agricultural jobs and family farms across the state. It would also force Minnesotans to subsidize electric vehicles and expensive fuels produced in other states.
The Minnesota Clean Transportation Standard, if implemented, would:
Completely ban liquid fuels by 2050— including Minnesota-produced fuels, such as biofuels.
Increase prices at the pump – for both gas and diesel – for all Minnesotans in the near term. A study from Stillwater Associates found that such a severely limited energy policy in Minnesota would be responsible for raising gas prices by as much as 94 cents per gallon by 2030 and up to $1.05 per gallon by 2040. Diesel prices under the policy could rise by $3.61 cents per gallon by 2030 and over $4 per gallon by 2040.
Create a massive new government division to oversee and implement the complex program, costing taxpayers millions of dollars in new and unnecessary government spending.
It is impossible to support Minnesota fuel producers, including workers in the state’s biofuels and agricultural sectors while also embracing policies that price these fuels out of the market. It is further impossible to stand with Minnesota families while pushing policies that will hit them in their pocketbooks and upend their daily lives.
Minnesotans deserve to know where all candidates for office stand on policies to ban biofuels and gas and diesel-powered vehicles.
Has a CTS Been Tried Before?
If Minnesota moves ahead with the fuel ban, it would follow California, Oregon, and Washington as the fourth state to implement the policy. All three states dubiously boast the highest gas prices in the nation.
Washington state, in particular, serves as a cautionary tale. Before implementing the restrictive energy policy, the state’s Department of Ecology predicted it would impact fuel prices by less than one cent in 2023. Instead, consumers ended up paying far more. While prices fluctuated throughout the year, residents paid up to 50 cents more per gallon when fuel costs were at their peak, according to the Oil Price Information Service. Simply put, Washington’s policy increased fuel prices by as much as 50 TIMES MORE than advocates said it would.
California’s experience demonstrates that fuel ban policies provide minimal environmental benefit while maximizing the pain consumers feel at the pump. The Work Group’s own analysis shows that under existing policies, Minnesota will lower transportation emissions by 30 percent. This is a larger reduction than California’s projections for its costly low-carbon fuel mandate—a policy that has contributed to California having the highest fuel prices in the nation.
California has considered updating its fuel mandate policies in recent years, and many of the proposed changes are similar to what Minnesota lawmakers are considering. According to the California Air Resources Board, if the state were to implement the Minnesota-style changes, gas prices would increase by an additional $.37 per gallon in the immediate term. Later in the program’s life, the fuel mandate could add more than $1.50 per gallon. Similarly, the policy would cause diesel prices to rise by roughly $.50 per gallon in the first few years, with the longer-term impact being well over $2.00 per gallon.
When it comes to Minnesota’s proposed fuel ban, there’s a kicker: it’s even more aggressive than California and Washington's. Proponents in Minnesota say it “would create the strongest existing or pending statewide clean transportation standard in the nation.”
In other words, Minnesota families will face far greater costs than anyone can imagine. Politicians can be for Minnesota families or fuel ban policies—not both.
Questions to Consider
Inflation has already placed a burden on countless Minnesotans. How much more will bans on fuels and vehicles cost families?
Our state – along with our farmers, employers, and workers – has heavily invested in biofuels, liquid fuel production, and agriculture. How many of these jobs will a California-style fuel ban destroy?
Minnesota’s winters and terrain pose challenges that states like California do not experience, including harsh winters and heavy farm equipment. Are fuel and vehicle bans remotely workable in Minnesota?
Proponents of electric vehicles act as if the cost of “fueling” them is more affordable and efficient, but European nations have seen their charging rates skyrocket. States like California have had to prohibit drivers from plugging vehicles in at certain times to avoid blackouts. Is the potential for such burdens worth the cost and safety of Minnesotans?
A Commonsense Approach in Minnesota
The No Fuel Ban Coalition supports maintaining a high quality of life in Minnesota.
We support an all-of-the-above approach to energy. This includes energy policies that, for example, focus on clean and available biofuels that support thousands of jobs across Minnesota. It includes energy economies in which consumers who want to own electric vehicles may do so, but we do not want the government skewing and forcing consumer choice through bans, mandates, or inefficient subsidies.
We are assembling a coalition that brings together state agricultural leaders, labor voices, and supply chain stakeholders to ensure that any legislative or rulemaking activity on a Clean Transportation Standard program doesn’t jeopardize our members’ ability to contribute to the advancement of an all-of-the-above energy portfolio for the state of Minnesota.
Unfortunately, the Minnesota Legislature may adopt this California-style fuel ban policy in the legislative session that is now underway. It’s important that policymakers and Minnesotans understand the significance of this policy and conduct an appropriate fact-based analysis of the costs and benefits before following California down this road. California policies will produce California results. In this case, that means much higher fuel prices and little else.
While the No Fuel Ban Coalition does not call for the election or defeat of any candidate for any office, we believe citizens should know where their elected officials and candidates for office stand on these critical issues.