Analysis: Permitting Reform Needed

A 2018 analysis commissioned by Minnesota Corn found that the lengthy and cumbersome nature of Minnesota’s air permitting process has negative economic effects on the state’s ethanol plants. Similarly, the analysis found, the state’s lengthy environmental review process has negative economic impacts on some beef feedlots and swine operations. Ethanol plants, beef feedlots, and swine operations are key users of corn, accounting for well over 500 million bushels annually in Minnesota, according to the market research firm ProExporter Network.

Now, a new analysis by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce has affirmed that Minnesota’s air permitting process has negative economic effects and has offered recommendations for streamlining all state permitting processes.

On average, it took 656 days for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to issue air permits between 2017 and 2022, according to the analysis. That’s 1.5 to six times longer than in the four states bordering Minnesota and six other similarly sized states across the country.

For example, in Minnesota, the analysis found that simple errors in an air permit application, such as missing information in a field, can cause the MPCA to reject the entire application, sending the applicant to the back of the review queue. Other states avoid this problem by either setting a time limit on administrative review, assigning the task to non-technical staff to check for basic completeness, or skipping the step altogether.

Once applications are complete, it can take the MPCA months to assign a permit engineer to begin the technical review process. Additionally, Minnesota requires companies to complete air dispersion reviews before work on an application can occur. In other states, such as Illinois or Iowa, permit engineers can work on the application while the modeling is taking place.

If Minnesota’s air permitting review process matched that of other states in the study, the state would see hundreds of millions in additional economic activity, according to the analysis. For example, if Minnesota’s air permitting review process was like that of Iowa, the state would see an additional $800 million in economic activity and 3,000 full-time jobs, according to the analysis. If the state’s review process was like that of Illinois or Wisconsin, it would see an additional $910 million in economic activity and 3,400 full-time jobs.

To improve the air permitting process, the analysis recommends the state make updates such as: issuing construction permits separately from operating permits; revising its approach to determining whether an application is complete; reviewing the format and organization of air permits; collecting and publishing more detailed data on air permit processing timelines; and more.

To improve the environmental review process, the analysis recommends the state update its environmental review projects database, narrow the focus of content required on Environmental Assessment Worksheets, and revise scoping requirements for mandatory Environmental Impact Statements.