In the House
On April 8th, the House Transportation Committee, chaired by Representative Koznick (GOP, 57A), invited MnDOT to present on the greenhouse gas emissions assessment and mitigation process established under state law. The hearing was set up as a lopsided conversation, with most of it focused on opposition to the law and a very limited opportunity for committee members, advocates, and the public to weigh in and offer support for the bill.
Assistant Commissioner Jon Solberg walked the committee through MnDOT’s framework for assessing emissions and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) from capacity expansion projects — things like new interchanges and lane additions over 2,500 feet– and that meet major projects cost thresholds ($15 million in the metro and $5 million in Greater Minnesota).
The law, originally passed in 2023 and updated in 2024 to include a “portfolio” assessment, requires MnDOT to evaluate the additional VMT generated across the system by projects added to the STIP, and develop plans to offset those emissions.
Individual project assessments have been required since February 1, 2025, and the portfolio-level assessment, covering the full slate of projects in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), is set to begin August 1, 2027, starting with the fiscal year 2031 project portfolio. Important to note that no project has triggered this requirement in the past two statewide plans.
MnDOT shared offset options, which include 10 categories defined in statute: transit expansion, active transportation infrastructure, land use changes, traffic operations, and others, plus an “11th category” that gives the Commissioner discretion to consider offsets not explicitly outlined in law. Notably, some offset categories, including natural systems, parking management, and land acquisition, do not yet have developed methodologies. The cost of offsets could represent 30–50% of overall project costs, with some being direct infrastructure investments and others requiring broader policy changes, such as land use reform or parking management. These costs are the state internalizing the climate impacts of these investments, which threaten to cost the state significantly more in the long run if we don’t adapt to climate-friendly approaches.
Two major unresolved questions dominated the discussion. First, how should the “portfolio” be defined? The statute doesn’t specify, and the answer matters enormously — assessing the entire STIP would be a massive undertaking but would have big climate benefits, while limiting the scope to only MnDOT expansion projects would be far more manageable but limit the offsets to VMT. Second, on the process side, how do you assess emissions at the portfolio level without losing the specificity of individual project analysis?
Committee members pressed on several practical challenges. Regarding what exactly is assessed, MnDOT clarified that their understanding of compliance means the evaluation covers only the additional capacity, not the entire roadway. Members also raised the tension between emissions goals and other priorities, such as safety and economic development, noting that a new or improved route might be safer or attract more users precisely because it supports growth. However, bigger roads are not the only way to address both concerns, and smart multi-modal projects can build safety and economic development benefits and create good jobs in the process.
The department acknowledged that capital investments alone have limited potential to reduce transportation emissions, and that other policy tools — clean fuels, electrification, and land use decisions that affect how far people drive — are also necessary to meet the state’s climate targets.
Stakeholder feedback, which was limited to counties and cities that are fighting against the law, reflected a familiar dynamic: broad recognition of the need to reduce emissions but limited appetite to actually solve the problem when it gets in the way of expansion projects that local governments want to build, regardless of whether these projects are fiscally sound.
When creating and administering osets, there are concerns about additional costs and administrative complexity. As Solberg summarized, partners understand the problem but are uneasy about the practical demands of achieving the state’s goals. Local stakeholders have also raised questions about how to capture and track a variety of offset types within the traditional project development process, and whether federal documentation requirements create additional hurdles for offset projects.
The presentation underscored a core reality: capacity expansion projects will increase emissions, which are prohibitively expensive with or without offsets, and offsetting those increases through capital investments alone is limited. We should continue to develop proven offsets, like capacity reduction, that MnDOT could program at no extra cost, which could actually reduce VMT at a lower cost and build broader community benefits in the process. Additionally, more work is needed to ensure climate mitigation does not cost jobs for union workers, and that good projects can be developed and move forward smoothly.
Additional policy action and potentially further legislation will be needed for Minnesota to meet its net-zero-by-2050 climate goals.
In the Senate
A series of Bike Policy bills were heard in the Senate Transportation Committee, covering bike helmet requirements for youth e-bike riders, definitions of e-bike and e-moto, and other provisions. Check out BikeMN’s post for a broader discussion of the hearing and where bike policy discussions have been this session.
Stay updated on legislative progress
We’ll let you know about action alerts, opportunities to testify, and other transportation-related legislative happenings.