MR: North Dakota officials threaten to sue Minnesota if it passes 2040 clean energy plan

[China]

North Dakota officials threaten to sue Minnesota if it passes 2040 clean energy plan

 

North Dakota’s governor and other top elected officials on Tuesday threatened a lawsuit in a letter to Gov. Tim Walz and other state officials over Minnesota’s potential move away from fossil fuels.  

Gov. Doug Burgum urged Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, Agriculture Commissioner Thom Petersen and legislative leaders to amend the bills currently being considered that would mandate 100% carbon-free energy by 2040, or else face the “certainty of a lawsuit.”

 

The Minnesota House is debating a bill Thursday requiring Minnesota utilities to use only carbon-free energy sources for electricity generation by 2040. This would also ban the state from importing energy originating from carbon sources. The House passed a similar clean energy bill in 2021, but it died in the Senate. A new DFL-majority in the Legislature has given the bill new life, and Walz has said he’ll sign it. 

 

Minnesota’s neighbor, however, would be displeased. 

 

North Dakota is one of the nation’s top energy-producing states and relies heavily on natural gas and coal power. On Tuesday, North Dakota’s Industrial Commission — which oversees the state’s utilities, industries and business projects and comprises the governor, attorney general and agriculture commissioner — said the 2040 clean energy legislation would illegally regulate commerce in North Dakota.

 

“They could pass whatever legislation they want to regulate themselves,”  Burgum said at the Industrial Commission meeting. “We work well with Minnesota on a number of things, and this is something where if they make a small change, we can avoid the certainty of a lawsuit.”

 

The threat was first reported by the Fargo Forum. Burgum said during the meeting that the 2040 clean energy legislation echoes a 2007 Minnesota law that banned the state from importing new sources of coal-based energy.

 

The Industrial Commission at the time filed a lawsuit against Minnesota, arguing that the coal law violated the U.S. Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause by attempting to usurp Congress’ power to regulate commerce between the states. Federal courts ruled in favor of North Dakota, negating the coal law.

 

The letter sent to Walz said the two 2040 clean energy bills raise similar issues.

 

“Because our electric grid is fully integrated and does not stop at our state boundaries, these two recently introduced bills as written would subsequently hinder North Dakota utilities,” the letter states.

 

The North Dakota officials in the letter urged Walz to amend the bills to clarify that they only apply to energy generation within Minnesota, not outside of the state.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

 

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

Lol, sorry North Dakota, nobody cares what you think or even recognizes you as a real state. You are the Pluto of states. 

[skinsmarydu]

2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Lol, sorry North Dakota, nobody cares what you think or even recognizes you as a real state. You are the Pluto of states. 

I can only quote you in order to give you 2 reactions...wanna guess?

[Captain Wiggles]

6 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Lol, sorry North Dakota, nobody cares what you think or even recognizes you as a real state. You are the Pluto of states. 

 

It's one of five states I've never been to. 🤣

 

Hell even South Dakota has Mount Rushmore and Sturgis. What North Dakota gots? Natural gas?

[LD0506]

N Dak is chock-full of assholes but it's beautiful in lots of places 

 

Not even last on the list

[Captain Wiggles]

13 minutes ago, LD0506 said:

N Dak is chock-full of assholes

 

I believe it. My Aunt n her family are from there. Her parents where non to happy to find out their daughter was marrying a man born in Panama, nevermind the fact he was like 99% Scottish. Her parents wrote my grandparents a fairly nasty letter about it. 🤣

[LD0506]

29 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

 

I believe it. My Aunt n her family are from there. Her parents where non to happy to find out their daughter was marrying a man born in Panama, nevermind the fact he was like 99% Scottish. Her parents wrote my grandparents a fairly nasty letter about it. 🤣

 

What color crayon did they use?

[GhostofSparta]

"STATES' RIGHTS!"

"NO! WAIT! NOT LIKE THAT!"

[The Evil Genius]

I don't understand what the grounds of the lawsuit would be...

 

🤔

Edited January 28, 2023 by The Evil Genius

[CousinsCowgirl84]

18 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

I don't understand what the grounds of the lawsuit would be...

 

🤔

The article laid it all out. It said that because the grid is interconnected the  law would impact how North Dakota power companies produce power, and it is unconstitutional for states to limit interstate commerce.

it seems like Minnesota passed a similar law in 2007 that was overturned by the courts so it seems like ND might have merit.

 

Edited January 28, 2023 by CousinsCowgirl84

[PokerPacker]

4 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Lol, sorry North Dakota, nobody cares what you think or even recognizes you as a real state. You are the Pluto of states. 

A Dwarf state?  Back to the (coal) mines with ye!

[balki1867]

3 hours ago, GhostofSparta said:

"STATES' RIGHTS!"

"NO! WAIT! NOT LIKE THAT!"

lol yeah. Republicans loved states rights until they realized California can literally change entire industries via state laws because of the size of the state.

[Larry]

11 hours ago, China said:

The Industrial Commission at the time filed a lawsuit against Minnesota, arguing that the coal law violated the U.S. Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause by attempting to usurp Congress’ power to regulate commerce between the states. Federal courts ruled in favor of North Dakota, negating the coal law.

Looking forward to a Red State asking the current Supreme Court to rule that the US Constitution makes it illegal for a state to ban the sale, in their state, of something that's legal in some other state. 
 

 

[Renegade7]

13 hours ago, GhostofSparta said:

"STATES' RIGHTS!"

"NO! WAIT! NOT LIKE THAT!"

 

"States right to do what???" Immediately comes to mind as well...🧐

 

At some point I hope we all come together that when founding fathers made an emphasis on states rights for the Constitution to be rarified, there was going to be starting off like, what, 13 of them?

 

Now there's 50...

 

Somethings that might of made sense from a decentralized nature might of worked with 13 states but clearly don't with 50.  Like our public education system...

Edited January 28, 2023 by Renegade7