Domestic Policy Caucus Testifies Before Minnesota Senate Transportation Committee to Oppose Liquid Fuel Ban

Kent Kaiser, Ph.D., secretary/treasurer of the Domestic Policy Caucus and executive director of No Fuel Ban testified before the Minnesota Senate Transportation Committee to oppose Senate File 2684, which ultimately would impose a liquid fuel ban in the state.

In his testimony, Kaiser said the following.

At a time when Minnesotans are already struggling with inflation, the last thing the state needs is a costly California-style fuel ban.

And to be clear: Requiring Minnesota’s transportation fuels to achieve a 100% reduction in carbon intensity by 2050 is not a fuel standard but a fuel ban.

At the end of the last session, the Legislature created the Clean Transportation Standard Work Group, focusing exclusively on how the state could go about implementing the CTS 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. We would out-perform California if we did nothing new.

However, if the fuel mandate policy moves forward, Minnesota families could be forced to pay hundreds of dollars more a year in fuel costs—studies suggest at least 45 cents per gallon more in 6 years and even more thereafter—in order to subsidize electric vehicles and fuels produced in other states. 

We know the legislature likes to incentivize citizens with carrots and sticks to achieve policy objectives, but this bill would disproportionately stick it to low- and middle-income families and rural residents across Minnesota.

Not surprisingly, a recent informal poll we conducted shows that 77% of Minnesotans oppose a liquid fuel ban.

We urge you: Instead of promoting regulations favoring only one technology, please reject this California-style fuel ban and support our state’s diverse energy portfolio, including biofuels and clean technologies.

Video of the Domestic Policy Caucus testimony begins at about 2:56:50 here.