Reading last week's article in the Minnesota Reformer, Why Minnesota wants to be a leader in sustainable aviation fuel, by Christopher Ingraham, I felt something was missing in the story, which focused on the use of camelina and pennycress, while quoting representatives of three environmental groups.
What was in my experience that made me question the coverage? It's not just that the development of SAF is used to sell the construction of carbon pipelines. (See related posts below).
SAF hearing in the House
Maybe it was a February 10 hearing in the Minnesota House Agriculture Finance and Policy Committee. Here's the YouTube of the hearing from the Minnesota House Information Service:
Note that Andrea Vaubel, the very fine Minnesota Deputy Commissioner of Agriculture, notes in her testimony around the 2:10 minute mark:
So Minnesota has plenty of feed stocks ready to go. We know that we're going to need everything and anything that's available to meet the demand. And as you've heard or will hear, the demand far exceeds the supply and we're going to need everything ....
Watch the rest. According to the minutes of the hearing, here's the list of those giving testimony:
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Testifiers
Andrea Vaubel, MN Deputy Commissioner of Agriculture
Jeff Davidman, Delta Airlines
Peter Frosch, Greater MSP
Amanda Bilek, Minnesota Corn Growers Association
Joe Smentek, Minnesota MN Soybean Growers Association
Brian Werner, Minnesota Biofuels Association
Anne Schwagerl, Vice President, Minnesota Farmers Union
Rick Horton, Minnesota Forest Industries
Schwagel, an organic farmer, grows camelina, but the rest of the list suggests that much of the feed stock for SAF isn't as exclusive to that crop as readers of the MNReformer article might infer given the article's concluding section, A better jet fuel. Perhaps smarter AI apps could conduct a content analysis of the entire piece to scientifically determine the emphasis on these two fuel stocks.
Now, that was an informational hearing, not one on the Senate Tax Bill referenced in the Minnesota Republican Caucus release, Sen. Jasinski: Sustainable Aviation Fuel bill will create jobs, open new markets for Minnesota farmers, that Ingraham cites.
The MN Reformer article's naming of Friends of the Mississippi River, the Nature Conservancy and Fresh Energy as advocates for the fuel made me wonder why only these three groups are reported as supporters of the fuel.
As the list above from the House Ag Committee minutes illustrates, none testified for it back in February.
Indeed, the Minnesota House Information Services Session Daily article took a completely different focus on fuel stock, in the article State poised to power planes with pulp, not petroleum. The copy:
Can you fly airplanes with wood?
The answer is: yes.
It’s a very qualified “yes” — and it may not happen for many years — but the potential exists to manufacture sustainable aviation fuel from residual wood products and other non-petroleum-based sources that can reduce an airplane’s carbon footprint.
“The technology to fly airplanes with wood exists but needs to be scaled up to show the true potential,” Rick Horton, executive vice president of Minnesota Forest Industries, told the House Agriculture Finance and Policy Committee at an informational hearing Monday.
Other non-petroleum sources that can be used to manufacture sustainable aviation fuel include renewable feedstocks, such as the food and yard waste portion of municipal solid waste, woody biomass, fats/greases/oils, and other feedstocks.
Horton was one of several testifiers who said using sustainable aviation fuel to power airplanes is in its infancy and needs large-scale development — and probably government subsidies — to make it economically viable.
Sustainable aviation fuel currently costs two to five times more than conventional jet fuel, said Jeff Davidman, vice president of state and local government affairs at Delta Air Lines, but the demand is very high as many airlines seek to reduce their carbon footprint.
Although Delta used 12 million gallons of sustainable aviation fuel last year, he said that’s a small fraction of what would be needed to reach Delta’s goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.
The interest in using farm and forest products, waste products, and byproducts is extremely high among many segments of the agriculture economy across the state, said Andrea Vaubel, deputy commissioner at the Department of Agriculture.
“Minnesota has plenty of feedstocks ready to go,” she said. “We know that we are going to need everything and anything that’s available to meet the demand.”
She urged the committee to focus on legislation that will carry the sustainable aviation fuel industry to the next level, specifically by continuing the tax credits that help agricultural producers adapt to producing new biomass fuel sources and to attract new investors to the state.
“Companies across the country continue to look to Minnesota and our food and ag sectors for investments in innovation, and it’s important we continue investing in our nation-leading tax credits so companies know that Minnesota is where they should be making their home,” she said.
Stakeholders Alliance
But there's more support left out of the MnReformer article--and that from Session Daily. It's the Minnesota Sustainable Aviation Fuel Hub, a collaboration led by the Greater Minneapolis/St. Paul Regional Economic Development.
And who's in that hub?
Golly, gee.
And here are the supporting partners:
Learn more about the Hub on its webpage.
Now, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that the absence of the Hub from the public hearing and public discourse like a Reformer article are greenwashing. (The Wikipedia definition for those who need it):
Greenwashing (a compound word modeled on "whitewash"), also called green sheen,[1][2] is a form of advertising or marketing spin that deceptively uses green PR and green marketing to persuade the public that an organization's products, goals, or policies are environmentally friendly.[3][4][5] Companies that intentionally adopt greenwashing communication strategies often do so to distance themselves from their environmental lapses or those of their suppliers.[6] Firms engage in greenwashing for two primary reasons: to appear legitimate and to project an image of environmental responsibility to the public.[7] Because there "is no harmonised definition of greenwashing", a determination that this is occurring in a given instance may be subjective.[8]
And heavens don't anyone mention that carbon pipeline proposal that's caused such a populist insurrection here in South Dakota.
Legislative relief
Fortunately, not everyone is asleep at the wheel on this issue.
In his Legislative Update – May 9, 2025, House Agriculture Committe co-chair, Representative Rick Hansen, DFL-S. St. Paul, noted the Minnesota Reformer article:
. . . You can also read my response in this Minnesota Reformer article about the industry push for so-called sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). It’s clear this isn’t about sustainability, it’s about corn. Proponents of increasing tax credits for SAF are greenwashing a system with serious environmental and community impacts.
I believe that we should be prioritizing tax breaks for people, like renters and first-time homebuyers, not corporations producing sustainable aviation fuel that isn’t actually sustainable. I’ve introduced legislation to do just that, which you can find here.
About HF3304:
Description
Sustainable aviation fuel income tax credit and exemptions for data centers and construction of sustainable aviation fuel facilities repealed, increased general fund amounts reallocated from repealed tax provisions to increase the renter's credit, and corresponding technical changes made.
Photo: A maze of pipes at the Highwater Ethanol plant in rural Lamberton, Minn. Jackson Forderer for MPR News' article Soy powered planes? Minnesota hopes to be a hub for sustainable aviation fuels.
Related posts
- Three Minnesota environmental groups issue guiding principles for the development of Sustainable Aviation Fuels
- Broad array of groups object to Summit pipeline permit approval by Iowa Utilities Commission
- Sustainable jet fuel company Gevo contributes $167K in defense of carbon pipeline law
- South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance turns in petitions to SD Secretary of State to force a vote on carbon pipeline policy
- New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines
- Company behind proposed Lake Preston jet fuel plant buoyed by federal carbon credit ruling
- Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Gevo aviation fuel needs Summit Carbon Solutions and more!
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6
Comments