2. ERMUSR AGENDA 05-12-2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The House voted 100-32 yesterday to approve SF550. the omnibus energy policy bill. This bill includes mostly technical changes to the state's energy policy. One provision that concerns MMUA requires power companies to purchase 200 megawatts of power from small renewable energy projects (less than five megawatts each) by Dec. 31, 2010. An effort to remove this requirement failed on a 58-73 vote. No similar `carve-out' language appears in the Senate version, however, and all reports indicate the House language will be removed during aHouse-Senate conference committee. Rep. Tim Faust (DFL-Hinckley) unsuccessfully offered an amendment that would have repealed the state's prohibition on the construction of new nuclear power plants. The amendment failed on a vote of 60-72. Rep. David Blv (DFL-Northfield) successfully offered an amendment that would protect landowners from utility companies looking to site high-voltage transmission lines on their properties through the use of eminent domain. Though of concern to utilities, this amendment was approved 98-33 The bill now returns to the Senate, where a different version passed 52-15 on April 6. We will continue to lobby these issues as the session progresses toward its scheduled May 18 adjournment date. Many Capitol observers are predicting a special session, however, mainly due to the uncertain future of the tax bill. The full House and Senate April 24-25 narrowly approved their respective tax bills (HF 2323 SF 2074 . Both bills would cut local government aid (LGA) and market value homestead credits (MVHC). The Leaeue of Minnesota Cities reports that the House bill includes $50 million in reductions to LGA and MVHC for 2009, and $78 million in reductions for 2010. The Senate bill makes no further reductions in city aid and credit reimbursements for 2009, but would cut city aids by $16 million in 2010. Both bills include a repeal of levy limits for cities. A provision in the House tax bill (Article 1, Sections 6 and 13) would remove the exemption of interest on Minnesota public entity bond issues. While somewhat in dispute, the Minnesota Institute of Public Finance (MIPF) argues this provision would raise annual borrowing costs for political subdivisions, including cities, and the State of Minnesota itself, by $23.8 million. MIPF argues that by placing a state income tax on the interest income derived from these bonds, interest rates will rise to a level comparable to the national market and Minnesota issuers and taxpayers will be the losers, with the Vol. 12, No. 10 May 1, 2009