In 2023 Minnesota passed a much-celebrated law that promised to get Minnesota’s electrical system to “100 percent” carbon-free energy by 2040. That law (which contained concessions and compromises that arguably already make achieving 100 percent unlikely), left the matter of what carbon free electricity actually means to be decided. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (Commission), an independent state agency with authority to regulate energy and telecommunications monopolies in the state, has been tasked with applying “carbon free” to the real world. Powerful industries with significant political power have vested interests in keeping as much of the status quo ante as possible – and assuring that carbon free in Minnesota is anything but.

Minnesota’s 100 percent carbon-free by 2040 statute (“100 percent law”) defined “carbon free” as “a technology that generates electricity without emitting carbon dioxide.” Faced with this common-sense and obvious definition, the Commission requested further public comment on this term to establish which energy sources will count as carbon free. Specifically, the Commission asked for comments on:

“1. How should the Commission define carbon free? Are any clarifications necessary regarding what resources should be considered carbon free?

a. Provide examples of resources that would fit any proposed definition of carbon free, including any requested clarifications.”

In line with a request from many regulated utilities, the Commission gave until June of 2024 for stakeholders and the public to give their thoughts on this and related definitional questions. The many organizations, climate activists, legislators and other Minnesotans who celebrated the passage of the law in 2023 may be surprised to hear that the legal meaning of “carbon free” is still in debate well over a year later.

This article argues the importance of not distorting the definition to protect the status quo when doing so is illogical, and humanity’s future depends on making revolutionary change to achieve real carbon-free energy. We know that clean renewable energy such as solar and wind can make Minnesota energy independent without reliance on burning fuels of any type. We know that energy storage, including long-term storage (e.g. pumped hydro), short-term storage (e.g. lithium-ion batteries), or medium-term storage (e.g. iron-air batteries, compressed-air energy storage) are either already available and proven or on the cusp of their first large demonstration projects. Clean renewable energy plus carefully deployed storage and other so-called “grid enhancement” technologies can produce truly carbon free electricity with fewer tradeoffs. What we lack in time we make up for in sound options, so long as we invest wisely and keep our eyes on the prize.

The problem is that there are ever more bad options out there, and many people arguing for their inclusion in the carbon free standard, such that polluting industries and facilities can continue to provide grid-connected electricity beyond 2040. This article argues that the Commission must resist any fig leaves, false solutions, or not-ready-for-prime-time expensive wastes of time meant to keep extractive industries viable and profitable, all contrary to our scientifically-proven need to move to clean fuel-free renewable energy production and storage. Half measures and false starts are worse than too little too late and more like dangerous distractions when you look at the climate facts.