Don’t claw back progress: The stakes for Minnesota in rolling back clean energy infrastructure aid

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

In the aftermath of the 2024 election, the Minnesota Star Tribune ran an article raising alarm over the potential loss of billions of dollars in federal aid that Minnesota is counting on to build clean energy infrastructure (“Future of Biden’s clean energy law in limbo,” Nov. 16). The concern stemmed from then-President-elect Donald Trump saying he would claw back unspent funds allocated under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Estimates suggest that could mean cutting off one-third of the historic funding promised by the landmark legislation, though the actual loss may be even higher.

As Trump begins his term, let’s be clear about the stakes. Such a rollback will affect every corner of Minnesota, leading to fewer jobs and higher energy prices.

A recent analysis by the Washington Post, titled “See how the Inflation Reduction Act is affecting your community” (tinyurl.com/ira-local), demonstrates the widespread impact this move could have. In Minnesota, seven of eight congressional districts received substantial IRA funding, led by $319 million to Rep. Brad Finstad’s southern Minnesota district (CD1) and $423 million to Rep. Michelle Fischbach’s district on the western side of the state (CD7). All told, the North Star State has received more than $900 million from the IRA to combat climate change, helping to fuel the state’s 62,000 clean-energy jobs.

But the potential damage doesn’t stop there. Recent comments from U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson suggested the new House may repeal the CHIPS Act, leading to an additional loss of $280 billion aimed at improving the nation’s high-tech manufacturing sector.

When the CHIPS Act, the IRA and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) are added together, they have delivered over $12 billion for more than 1,800 projects in Minnesota alone.

In rural areas, the impact is particularly significant. Nearly two-thirds of the county-specific funding from these three pieces of legislation went to greater Minnesota. Faribault, Watonwan and St. Louis counties each received more than $4,500 per resident. The 10 projects in Grant County are enough for one project for every 616 residents.

Notably, the data used to calculate these numbers excludes some funding sources, such as money directed to municipalities and school districts. Tax incentives created by these laws are also not included, leaving out an estimated $11 billion in clean-energy investments that could support more than 10,000 Minnesota jobs. Put simply, the totals reported here understate the true value at stake.

Cutting off this assistance is about more than removing commitments in these communities — it’s about the significant human impact that follows. In Becker, the IRA is helping to fund 900 family-sustaining jobs for workers constructing the Sherco Solar project. When projects like this are stopped or slowed down, those jobs are put at risk, along with our state’s efforts to fight climate change.

Losing this support would also mean higher energy bills for Minnesotans. The IRA’s $579 million grant to Dairyland Power Cooperative for a solar and wind farm has the potential to reduce electricity rates for residents in southeastern Minnesota by 42%.

To strip away this federal funding would be to turn our backs on evidence showing how such investments have made Minnesota’s economy the envy of the Midwest, with the North Star State boasting the region’s top wages and most productive construction industry. Rather than reversing this progress and prosperity, Congress and the new administration should protect these funds, supporting the jobs, clean-energy infrastructure and economic opportunities that are already transforming lives across our state.