CONVERSATION.

>> Barry: VERY GOOD.

LET'S GO RIGHT TO THE ENERGY QUESTION.

I WARNED MY GUESTS THAT WE DID HAVE A VIEWER WHO CALLED IN IN ADVANCE AND WANT TO REMINDER YOU CAN DO THAT.

SEND YOUR QUESTIONS IN ANY TIME DURING THE WEEK.

IT'S HELPFUL TO US IF YOU DO THAT AND GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO START OUT WITH THE ISSUES OF THE DAY, AND THIS PARTICULAR VIEWER HAD A QUESTION ABOUT ENERGY SUPPLY AND IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE INTERMITTENT NATURE OF WIND, INTERMITTENT NATURE OF SOLAR ENERGY, ENERGY COMMITTEE, AND I BELIEVE THE GOVERNOR SIGNED A BILL TENDING TO GET TO NET ZERO BY 2040, I BELIEVE.

THIS VIEWER IS SOMEWHAT SCEPTICAL HOW THAT CAN HAPPEN.

I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE, SINCE WE HAVE THREE GUESTS TONIGHT, ALL OF WHOM SERVE ON THAT COMMITTEE HAVE BACKGROUND IN THAT ISSUE, THIS WOULD BE A GREAT WAY TO START OUT THE PROGRAM.

SENATOR FRENTZ, IF YOU WOULD BE SO CONTAINED TO GIVE US A ROADMAP TO WHAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS DONE AND YOUR DEFENSE OF THAT ROUTE, AND THEN WE WILL THROW IT OPEN FOR CONVERSATION.

SENATOR FRENTZ, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

>> I'M INNOCENT, YOUR HONOR, I'M INNOCENT, I'M INNOCENT.

>> Barry: I DID TELL YOU BEFORE THE PROGRAM STARTED THAT THIS WAS NOT GOING TO BE A CROSS-EXAMINATION.

>> FIRST OF ALL, THANKS FOR THE QUESTION.

IT'S ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HEAR THE MOST.

CAN YOU GET TO CARBON NEUTRAL BY 2040?

I THINK WE CAN.

I'M ACTUALLY A SCEPTICAL PERSON MYSELF.

WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THERE'S A THREE TIER UTILITY SYSTEM IN MINNESOTA AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

WE HAVE INVESTMENT COMMITTEES, TWO OF WHOM THEY SAID GET TO CARBON NEUTRAL.

BUT WE HAVE THE RURAL ELECTRIC COOPS AND SMALLER MUNICIPAL, AND THE GREATER CHALLENGE IS FOR THE SMALLER OPERATORS.

I'M OKAY WITH IT BEING A CHALLENGE.

AMERICANS RISE UP TO MEET CHALLENGES.

JUSTICE ANDERSON, IF I DIDN'T COMPLETELY COME CLEAN, I'M NOT JUST THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE BUT THE CHIEF AUTHOR OF THAT BILL.

WHATEVER FUN WE HAVE DISCUSSING IT, YOU GET TO AIM IT AT ME.

I THINK THE DIFFERENCE WILL COME IN THE INNOVATION AND THE DRIVE TO SOME OF THE RENEWABLE ENERGY.

I WOULD JUST SAY WIND AND SOLAR ARE INTERMITTENT BUT COLLECTIVELY THAT HAS STABILIZED SOMEWHAT.

THE BILL WELCOMES OTHER FORMS OF WHAT WE CALL ELIGIBLE ENERGIES, BIOMASS, AND NUCLEAR IS COUNSELED ALTHOUGH EXCEL IS THE ONLY UTILITY THAT BENEFITS FROM THAT.

THERE'S AN OFF RAMP.

IF UTILITY MAKES A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO GET TO CARBON NEUTRAL BY 2040, AND I WOULD EXPRESS IT THIS WAY.

I THINK IT'S VERY POSSIBLE SOME OF THE SMALLEST UTILITIES WILL COME BACK TO THE PUC AROUND 2035 AND SAY WE JUST CAN'T MAKE IT.

WE CAN GET TO 95 BUT THAT'S ALL IT IS.

THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUY CREDITS, AND THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD YOUR OWN RENEWABLE.

YOU CAN SAY YOU ARE GOOD AT 95 UNTIL FIVE YEARS.

OF COURSE IT ALL COMES FROM ONE PLACE, WHICH IS THE DESIRE TO DECARBONIZE AND PROBABLY A LONGER DISCUSSION AND DIFFERENT COMMITTEE IS CLIMATE CHANGE.

I'M PERSUADED IT'S SERIOUS.

JUST THIS MORNING READING ABOUT MORE COMPELLING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE WARMING TEMPERATURES AND THE MELTING OF THE POLAR ICE CAP, BUT IF THAT IS A CONCERN OF YOURS, YOU SEE THE VALUE OF THIS BILL.

WITH THAT, I ASSUME MINE IS THE ONLY OPINION YOU WANT TO HEAR.

I'M JUST GOING TO LOG OFF NOW.

>> WE ARE GOING TO GO TO SENATOR MATTHEWS.

YOUR COLLEAGUE ON THE COMMITTEE AND SEE HOW HE WOULD RESPOND TO THE VIEWER'S QUESTION.

>> THANK YOU.

I THINK THE CALLER HAS DEFINITELY SOME MERIT TO HIS CONCERNS OVER HOW WE WILL GET TO 100%, AND IF WE DO GET THERE, WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE.

WE TALKED ABOUT LAYING OUT THE EVIDENCE OF WHAT MINNESOTA HAS DONE ALL THE WAY ALONG.

WE PASSED THE FIRST ITERATION OF A RENEWABLE ENERGY STANDARD, AND THE MAJORITY OFTEN LIKE TO BRING UP IN THE DEBATE, BUT MANY PEOPLE BACK AT THAT TIME SAID WE WILL NEVER MAKE THE 25% STANDARD HERE BY THE MID-2020'S, AND THERE WERE NAYSAYERS THAT WERE SAYING ALL THESE REASONS WHY WE COULDN'T DO IT AND WE DID DO IT.

BUT THE COUNTERPOINT THAT I OFTEN BRING UP THAT HAS NOT BEEN READILY REFUTED IS THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT RESULTED FROM THE FIRST ITERATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY STANDARD IS IT MADE COSTS GO UP TO THE CONSUMER.

THAT HAS COME TRUE.

MINNESOTA PAYS A HIGHER COST FOR THE ENERGY WE USE IN OUR HOMES.

WE ARE ABOVE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE AND GOING UP FASTER THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE, AND THE ADDITIONAL MANDATES PASSED IN THIS 100% BILL, I BELIEVE, ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO STEEP THAT CURVE UPWARD.

THERE'S FRANKLY A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS THAT ARE IN THE 100% BILL.

WE ARE GOING TO RUN INTO A MATH PROBLEM.

WE ARE SUBTRACTING FROM MINNESOTA'S SYSTEM A LARGE AMOUNT OF STRONG RELIABLE BASE LOAD ENERGY.

WE ARE WINDING DOWN ALL OF OUR COAL PLANTS OF WHICH I HAVE ONE OF THE LAST REMAINING FEW IN MY DISTRICT AT THE PLANT IN BECKER, MINNESOTA, AND IT'S PROVIDED 3400 MEGAWATTS OF BASE LOAD ENERGY FOR A LARGE CHUNK OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.

GAS, NATURAL GAS FACILITIES, ARE ALSO BEING WOUND DOWN OR THEY ARE GOING TO BE IN AN INTERESTING CATEGORY WHERE COMPANIES THAT STILL USE THEM WILL HAVE TO BUY ADDITIONAL CREDITS OR DO OTHER THINGS THAT WILL ADD TO THE COST, AND SO WE ARE SUBTRACTING A LOT OF MEGAWATTS OFF OUR SYSTEM, AND WE ARE ADDING ON, IN MY VIEW, A SMALLER NUMBER OF INTERMITTENT ENERGY SOURCES WITH A LOT MORE WIND AND SOLAR, AND I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST WIND AND SOLAR.

I AM AN ALL OF THE ABOVE ENERGY GUY, AND THERE ARE TOO MANY THINGS ON THE OUTSIDE LOOKING IN OF WHAT'S ALLOWED.

WE DO TALK ABOUT NUCLEAR, AND SENATOR FRENTZ AS WELL I BRING IT UP OFTEN IN THE ENERGY COMMITTEE.

WE HAVE A NUCLEAR MORATORIUM IN LAW, SO WE CANNOT BUILD ANYMORE THAN THE TWO EXISTING NUCLEAR PLANTS THAN WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.

MY CONTENTION HAS BEEN IF THE MAJORITY WANTS TO BE SERIOUS ABOUT HELPING US GET TO 100% IN A RELIABLE AND AFFORDABLE WAY, WE SHOULD REMOVE THE NUCLEAR MORATORIUM SO THAT UTILITIES CAN CONSIDER PLANS, WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE TO ADD NUCLEAR TO MINNESOTA, AND THE TECHNOLOGY COMING IN WHAT I CALL THE ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY FAMILY, I HAD THE CHANCE TO STUDY THIS, TO GO OUT TO IDAHO WHERE THEY ARE TESTING MANY OF THESE DESIGNS.

THEY ARE JUST INCREDIBLY FASCINATING AND MIND BLOWING WITH EVEN THE HIGHER SAFETY FEATURES THAT THEY HAVE IN THESE SYSTEMS, AND SOME OF THESE UNITS ARE MUCH SMALLER, CAN BE USED IN A MUCH SMALLER LAND FOOTPRINT IF WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE GIGANTIC BUILDINGS WITH THE HUGE DOME IN THE CENTER LIKE THE EXISTING PLANTS.

I THINK IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION.

I AM LOBBYING THE CHAIR.

I'M HOPING WE MAYBE WILL TAKE STEPS FORWARD IN THAT REGARD THIS YEAR.

IN ORDER TO BE TRULY AND ALL THE ABOVE ENERGY, WE NEED TO HAVE ALL THE TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX AND MINNESOTA IS NOT THERE RIGHT NOW.

>> REPRESENTATIVE SWEDZINSKI, YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS QUESTION, AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO GO BACK TO SENATOR FRENTZ AND HAVE A BIT MORE OF A ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION ON THIS.

BECAUSE THERE ARE LOTS OF ANGLES TO THIS ISSUE THAT ARE NOT ALWAYS AVAILABLE.

REPRESENTATIVE SWEDZINSKI, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

>> SURE.

THANK.

I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT ANYTHING EITHER OF THEM HAVE SAID.

YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE OTHER AREAS THAT THE CALLER AND THE GENERAL FOLKS SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT FROM A RESOURCE STANDPOINT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU KIND OF LOOK INTO HISTORY AND ESTIMATE THAT THE SAME AMOUNT OF COPPER WILL NEED TO BE MINED IN THE NEXT 25 YEARS, THAT WE MINED THE LAST 500 YEARS AS A WORLD IN ORDER FOR THIS TO EVEN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE SHAPE, NOT JUST IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, BUT IF THE POLICIES MOVE BEYOND OUR STATE BORDERS.

FROM A LEGALISTIC STANDPOINT, THIS OPENS THE STATE UP TO LAWSUITS, AND NORTH DAKOTA ALREADY ANNOUNCED PRETTY MUCH ON THE SAME DAY THAT GOVERNOR WALZ SIGNED IT INTO LAW, NORTH DAKOTA BEGAN THE PROCESS OF SUING OUR STATE AND SUING THE TAXPAYERS OF MINNESOTA FOR PUSHING THIS POLICY FORWARD.

THOSE ARE TWO MAJOR CONCERNS.

WE HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITY.

PRESIDENT BIDEN RELEASED IN SOME OF HIS PLANS TO FOCUS HIS ATTENTION ON REALLY OPENING UP RESOURCES, DOMESTICALLY SO SOMETHING LIKE THIS COULD MOVE FORWARD AND CLOSES OFF THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF POTENTIAL ACRES OF MINING IN NORTHERN MINNESOTA.

YOU KNOW, RELYING ON INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY CHAINS, OBVIOUSLY WE LEARNED A LOT IN THE FAILURES OF THOSE THINGS IN THE LAST TWO YEARS THROUGH THE COVID PANDEMIC.

THE MORE AND MORE THAT WE CAN FOCUS THOSE JOBS HERE IN MINNESOTA HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, BUT HAVING AN ADMINISTRATION THAT NOT ONLY CUTTING OFF OUR ACCESS TO GOOD QUALITY DOMESTIC OIL PRODUCTION BUT ALSO FROM A MINING PERSPECTIVE, REALLY PUTTING US AT A DISADVANTAGE.

WE SAW YESTERDAY THAT THE PRESIDENT RELEASED ANOTHER 27 MILLION BARRELS FROM OUR STRATEGIC OIL RESERVE.

YOU KNOW, YOU KEEP PRICES LOW, AND HOPEFULLY WITH INFLATION HITTING AMERICAN FAMILIES AND MINNESOTA FAMILIES PARTICULARLY HARD, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO LIGHTEN THAT LOAD.

AT WHAT COST?

AND YOU KNOW, IF ANYONE WOULD ASK DO THEY FEEL MORE SAFE INTERNATIONALLY TODAY THAN THEY DID FIVE YEARS AGO, THEY WOULD ANSWER NO.

TO ME, THAT'S A BIG, BIG ISSUE THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH IS AN INTERNATIONAL BUT HOW HARD DOMESTIC PRODUCTION IS.

IF THE WIND ISN'T BLOWING OR SUN ISN'T SHINING WHAT IS THE BASELINE ROADS WE ARE GETTING RID OF AND PUTTING RATE PAIRS AND TAXPAYERS AT RISK.

THESE SHOULD REALLY BE CONSIDERED.

SADLY WE LAID A LOT OF THOSE CONCERNS, AND YOU KNOW, WE HAD A LOT FROM OUR RURAL COOPERATIVES.

THEY HAVE LOCALLY ELECTED BOARDS THAT REALLY HELPED SHAPE THEIR LOCAL POLICIES AND WHAT THEY FEEL BEST FOR THE LOCALS, AND IT REALLY KIND OF TIED THEIR HANDS AND TOOK THE POWER AWAY FROM THEM, LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS AND MOVED IT IN THE BUREAUCRATS OF ST. PAUL, WHICH IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE BIGGEST FRUSTRATIONS I HAD WITH THE PROCESS IS THAT WE TAKE THE TIME TO SERVE IN OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY BEFORE WE RUN INTO THE LEGISLATURE, AND WE JUST TAKE THAT POWER UP WITH US AS WE GO, AND I DON'T THINK THAT WAS PROBABLY THE BEST MOVE WITH THE BILL AND POTENTIALLY PUT US AT MAJOR RISK.

SENATOR MATTHEWS TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE NATIONAL AVERAGE, AND MINNESOTA HAS A STATUTE, AND ONE OF OUR MAIN GOALS IS TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR RATES ARE 95% OF THE NATIONAL AVERAGE.

TO HAVE A REAL GOAL TO REACH THOSE GOALS.

NOW WE ARE ABOVE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE AND INCREASING FASTER THAN THE NATIONAL RATE.

IF YOU ARE A MANUFACTURER, IF YOU ARE A HIGH ENERGY USER, THAT'S GOING TO POTENTIALLY PUT YOU AT A DISADVANTAGE WHEN IT COMES TO COMPETITION AND KEEPING THE BOTTOM LINE IN BLACK AND NOT IN RED.

>> THERE'S A LOT TO RESPOND TO THERE, SENATOR FRENTZ, ON VARIOUS ISSUES.

LOTS OF COMPLICATIONS TO THIS QUESTION, BUT THE FLOOR IS YOURS, AND LET'S TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE ISSUES.

>> WELL, AS MUCH AS YOU WANT JUSTICE ANDERSON AND I, I AGREE IN PART WITH BOTH SENATOR MATTHEWS AND SENATOR SWEDZINSKI.

SENATOR MATTHEWS HAS REPEATEDLY MADE THE POINT.

IF NUCLEAR IS A CARBON FREE SOURCE, AND IF CARBON EMISSION REDUCTION IS A GOAL WE HAD BETTER BE LOOKING AT IT.

GLAD TO REPORT, IF WE ARE LOOKING FOR ANY BIPARTISAN SHIP, THAT THEY HAVE AN ADVANCE STUDY BILL, WHICH IS HEARD IN OUR COMMITTEE LAID OVER FOR POSSIBLE INCLUSION, BUT SINCE I AM THE CHAIR IT'S GOING TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SENATE OMNIBUS BILL.

IT'S NEW TECHNOLOGY AND RECOGNIZED FOR NUCLEAR THAT I LOOK AT FRANCE AND GERMANY.

GERMANY HAS A NUCLEAR MORATORIUM.

THEY ARE NOT GOING THAT WAY.

FRANCE HAS, I THINK, 18 REACTORS.

THEY ARE BOTH COUNTRIES THAT HAVE THEIR SUCCESSES.

THEY ARE BOTH INTELLIGENT COUNTRIES LED BY GOOD MEN AND WOMEN.

THEY REACHED A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONCLUSION ON THE ISSUE WITH NUCLEAR, AND I THINK THE SAFETY ISSUE, SENATOR MATTHEWS TOUCHED ON THIS WITH NUCLEAR, BUT I'M CONFIDENT HOWEVER DANGEROUS IT HAS BEEN TO HAVE LEGACY REACTORS AND A DANGER OF A MELTDOWN OR MAJOR MISHAP LIKE CHERNOBYL OR FUKUSHIMA, THAT IT'S IN THE UNITED STATES.

WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT, BUT I THINK NUCLEAR IS A GOOD POINT BY NOR MATTHEWS.

SENATOR SWEDZINSKI, I DIDN'T MEAN TO TWIST YOUR WORDS BUT I HEARD JOBS, AND COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE.

PART OF THE 100% BILL IS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF CLEAN ENERGY JOBS IN MINNESOTA.

I THINK WE CAN AGREE ON THIS.

THERE'S ABOUT $12 BILLION A YEAR OF MINNESOTA MONEY FROM RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PAYORS GOING TO OTHER STATES AND OTHER COUNTRIES FOR OUR ENERGY.

WE DON'T HAVE NICOLE IN THE GROUND IN MINNESOTA.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY OIL TO DRILL FOR, BUT WE DO HAVE WAYS TO PRODUCE OUR OWN ENERGY, AND WIND, SOLAR, CARBON CAPTURE, NUCLEAR, IF YOU LIKE ARE WAYS TO PRODUCE OUR ENERGY HERE.

IF I COULD AGREE WITH REPRESENTATIVE SWEDZINSKI ONE MORE TIME, AND I PROMISE I WILL NOT AGREE WITH HIM ONE MORE TIME ON THIS BROADCAST, WE DO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH NATIONAL SECURITY.

WE DO WANT TO SAY DO WE WANT TO BE TIED TO ANOTHER COUNTRY'S WHIMS ABOUT WHETHER THEY LIKE US OR NOT.

WHILE I'M A FAN, FRAME EARL BECAUSE I SEE NATO HAS HAVING HELPED TOGETHER, AND AGAIN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME, BUT I THINK THE WAR IN UKRAINE IS A SIGN THE NATO NATIONS ARE ACTUALLY TOGETHER, AND I LIKE THAT, THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR OUR SECURITY.

BUT THE MORE WE CAN BE ENERGY INDEPENDENT, THE BETTER OFF WE ARE AS A NATION, AND I SEE REMOVAL AS NECESSARY, AND ONCE AGAIN, ALTHOUGH MY COLLEAGUES DIDN'T STUFF ON IT TOO DEEPLY, I THINK CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE COST ISSUE AS WELL, STORMS THAT COST A LOT OF MONEY THAT WE WOULDN'T BE GOING THROUGH, WARMING THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH, DROUGHT THAT CAN AFFECT OUR FARMERS AND POINTED OUT A COUPLE TIMES WE HAD ONE HURRICANE THAT HIT FLORIDA THAT COST $50 BILLION.

THAT IS A COST, ALSO, SO THOSE ARE WAYS IN WHICH OUR INSURANCE RATES ARE AFFECTED AND THE WAY IN WHICH SOME OF US SHARE IN THE COST.

THANKS FOR THE FORUM ON THIS AND FOR JOINING THE YOUR "YOUR