DNR survey shows overwhelming opposition to Walz’s energy agenda

An official survey from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has found that Minnesotans overwhelmingly oppose the energy agenda laid out by Governor Tim Walz regarding transportation and “clean energy and efficient buildings.”

We will examine the results of the DNR surveys below.

Clean Transportation

Question 1 of the DNR survey asks for the respondent’s zip code, but Question 2 asks: What is most important to you as Minnesota takes action on climate?” Respondents were allowed to pick up to three answers.

Interestingly, the ” other ” category received more than twice as many votes as the next-highest choice, which was greenhouse gas reduction. The selection of “other” was likely a response to the fact that Minnesota stakeholders are concerned about the costs of these programs.

The next series of questions asked respondents to rate the following policies in terms of whether respondents felt they went too far, were about right, and didn’t go far enough. It also allowed survey participants to select “don’t know.”

For the question “Reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector by 30 percent by 2025 and 80 percent by 2050,” the results were as follows: 1,809 respondents said the policy goes too far, 210 said it was about right, 484 said it doesn’t go far enough, and 28 respondents didn’t know.

This means 72 percent of respondents said this policy goes too far, 8 percent said it was about right, 19 percent said it doesn’t go far enough, and 1 percent said they didn’t know.

For the question “Decrease vehicle miles traveled by 2050,” the results were as follows: 1,770 respondents said the policy goes too far, 208 said it was about right, 465 said it doesn’t go far enough, and 84 respondents didn’t know.

This means 70 percent of respondents said this policy goes too far, 8 percent said it was about right, 19 percent said it doesn’t go far enough, and 3 percent said they didn’t know.

For the question “Increase the number of electric cars and light trucks on Minnesota roads to 20% by 2030,” the results were as follows: 1,758 respondents said the policy goes too far, 225 said it was about right, 492 said it doesn’t go far enough, and 53 respondents didn’t know.

This means 70 percent of respondents said this policy goes too far, 9 percent said it was about right, 19 percent said it doesn’t go far enough, and 2 percent said they didn’t know.

When it comes to prioritizing energy policies, creating a regional electric vehicle charging network was the lowest priority, developing a Minnesota strategic electric vehicle plan was the second-lowest priority, and the Clean Fuel Standard was the third-lowest priority.

Options enjoying higher levels of support included changing land use planning, transit options, and more funding for non-motorized transit options.

Clean Energy and Efficient Buildings

Again, Question 1 of the DNR survey asks for the respondent’s zip code, but Question 2 asks: What is most important to you as Minnesota takes action on climate?” Respondents were allowed to pick up to three answers.

Interestingly, the “other” category received 25 percent more votes as the next-highest choice: greenhouse gas reduction. The selection of “other” was likely a response to the fact that Minnesota stakeholders are concerned about the costs of these programs.

The next series of questions asked respondents to rate the following policies in terms of whether respondents felt they went too far, were about right, and doesn’t go far enough. It also allowed survey participants to select “don’t know.”

For the question “Increase number of income-qualified households receiving full weatherization services to 10,000 each year,” the results were as follows: 469 respondents said the policy goes too far, 113 said it was about right, 246 said it doesn’t go far enough, and 39 respondents didn’t know.

This means 54 percent of respondents said this policy goes too far, 13 percent said it was about right, 28 percent said it doesn’t go far enough, and 5 percent said they didn’t know.

For the question “Increase percentage of electricity that is carbon-free to 100% by 2040,” the results were as follows: 543 respondents said the policy goes too far, 149 said it was about right, 169 said it doesn’t go far enough, and 9 respondents didn’t know.

This means 62 percent of respondents said this policy goes too far, 17 percent said it was about right, 20 percent said it doesn’t go far enough, and 1 percent said they didn’t know.

For the question “Reduce GHG emissions from existing buildings by 50% by 2035,” the results were as follows: 508 respondents said the policy goes too far, 134 said it was about right, 206 said it doesn’t go far enough, and 18 respondents didn’t know.

This means 56 percent of respondents said this policy goes too far, 15 percent said it was about right, 23 percent said it doesn’t go far enough, and 6 percent said they didn’t know.

When it comes to prioritizing energy policies, the mandate for 100 percent carbon-free electricity was the lowest of the seven priorities, and the policy with the most support was one that expands the use of low-carbon building materials.

These surveys show that a vast majority of Minnesota stakeholders think that many of the energy policies proposed by the Walz administration go too far.

Hopefully, these results will be top-of-mind for members of the Climate Change Subcabinet and Advisory Council on Climate Change as they work towards finalizing the Climate Action Framework.