I'm Veronica Commercial at the Capitol. This week on Senate Spotlight, the session is over, but the latest efforts to improve affordability are just getting started. >> Anything that we can do to kind of help keep the market healthy [music] and keep it affordable for folks is a win for everybody because so much of our economy is actually dependent [music] upon and driven by the housing market. >> Details on the bill senators passed this session to improve affordability and the state's housing crisis at the same [music] time. And >> there's cost savings with many of these energy technologies. So, for your average rate payer who maybe doesn't know the name of their state senator, but knows their electric bill, it's good news. >> The latest investments in clean energy to save you some green and some [music] might surprise you. Plus >> We get more done when we work together. >> The simple message for next [music] session's senators. That's all coming up. >> Senate [music] Spotlight is produced by the Minnesota Senate and Senate Media Services. >> The costs of everyday [music] items like groceries, housing, and health care are going up and our utility bills are no exception. Energy costs tie into affordabilities across the state, but Senator Nick Frentz says legislators were busy this session working to help Minnesotans save their money and their energy. Senator, I'm happy to have you here. >> Good seeing you, Veronica. Thanks for having me. >> Absolutely. So, we are here today to talk about energy, our clean energy reputation here in Minnesota, and energy affordability. So, let's start with something really positive. Minnesota is known as a clean energy leader. How did we earn this reputation? >> I think through the work of a lot of good people. It has aspects that Minnesotans always like. We protect the environment, so as climate change and the impacts and costs have become better understood by Minnesotans, more Minnesotans say we have a responsibility to act and we want to act. There's also an economic aspect. There are clean energy jobs in Minnesota numbering over 60,000 now. So, when we build wind and solar, that takes electricians, um building trades. We want those jobs. And of course, there's cost savings with many of these energy technologies. So, for your average rate payer who maybe doesn't know the name of their state senator, but knows their electric bill, it's good news. And for all those reasons, we've led and continue to lead. >> I know we've also been innovative when it comes to sustainable airplane or airline fuel. So, a lot of great things happening in Minnesota in that green space. But, [clears throat] I have also read that some of that green energy growth in this state has slowed. Is it because we were so ahead of the curve that, you know, we have nowhere else to go at the moment or or tell me about that? >> Well, first of all, you did your homework. Nice uh shout-out there for sustainable aviation fuel. Last night, we announced our budget deal, if you caught that, for this year's supplemental budget, and the sustainable aviation fuel tax treatment that we wanted is in there. That's a big win for cleaner air, for our airlines, and for our farmers. So, thanks for flagging that. The percentage of use of renewables is growing. I think what you may be referring to is the fact that the most recent numbers tell us that we're burning a little more coal. That's largely due to the increased demand. Around the state, we have more people using more electric devices, and electricity demand is up. We have not built the clean energy generation as fast as we would like, but with the 2040 100% clean energy bill, utilities will be required to get there, and I think we'll make it. >> You talked about an increased demand, Senator, and that takes me to something that came up when the bill was being debated on the floor, something that would impact the energy, environment, and affordability, which is data centers. And there has been a lot of concern and anxiety around them, but I was intrigued that on the floor you brought up a lot of positive points that I hadn't heard before. So, tell me more about that. >> First of all, we want people to understand better all our energy uses and all the concerns people have. It's the same in environment. For data centers, people ask, "Well, if they're so big, is it a threat to the water?" We have some water questions and we have permitting in this state. There are questions about how many jobs and how they create them and for how long. The answer is for the new hyper-scale data centers and we're talking a million square feet, maybe a cost of billions of dollars. The building trades jobs are as significant as an entire state bonding bill for a whole two-year period. Um career changing for some electricians, for example. And then one of the things that's not as well understood, and I hope to bring to the floor debate and just remind people, is the economic benefit to the community in terms of property taxes. We have an example of a proposed data center in southern Minnesota, where I live, that would take a county that has about a $48 million county budget. So, paying for county roads and county employees, and the data center by itself would produce an additional 20 million a year. The 2025 law, thanks again for your second example of great homework, uh made some changes that also require data center companies to make some payments to our low-income energy assistance. You may have seen in the headlines the data center in Pine Island that Google recently announced. First of all, it's air-cooled, so it does not have the water concerns, but they'll pay $5 million a year and they're building, wait for it, 1,600 MW of clean energy, wind, solar, and battery at their expense. Minnesota Excel rate payers getting 1,600 MW of clean energy for free. And for context, the entire solar fleet for us in Minnesota is about 3,000 MW. So, what we want people to understand is the pros and cons and the non-disclosure agreement question is real, and I have said in the media I love the 2025 law. As the author, I'm very proud of it. It's being copied in some other states, and the way we require the data centers to report their water usage is nation-leading. And even my colleagues in the Senate who have some questions about data centers acknowledge it's nation-leading water language. So, the unknowns include the use of artificial intelligence. People have concerns. I would say, "Good. Let's ask some tough questions." But, it's booming. In fact, to make your um show here a little more timely, today the United States is meeting with China, and one of the principal issues is semiconductor chips because AI is such a global question, and they mean it in economic terms. So, if you're going to come to the city of North Mankato and increase the property tax $20 million a year, that has some pretty significant implications for local taxpayers at a time when property taxes are going up, and data centers are discussion we should have. I'd encourage people to make sure they get all the pros and cons, and then talk to your city councilman, or talk to a local official, or talk to the Department of Natural Resources if water's your concern. >> Another controversial topic that comes up when we talk about energy, um is nuclear power. We know it's a low-carbon energy source that could save us but the moratorium on building new nuclear power plants was not repealed this year. What are your thoughts there? >> Well, as the energy chair, it's been a topic that comes up every year. You may know there's a little nuance between the House and the Senate. The Senate has passed a nuclear study three years in a row now. I do think this year it will get across the finish line. I was working on it before I came down from my office to sit with you. And it essentially says, "Let's take a closer look at today's nuclear. The moratorium comes from the 1990s and it includes an agreement with the Prairie Island Indian community who unexpectedly and completely against their will um has a large amount of nuclear waste stored 700 yards in their community, the closest any American community in the country has to live to nuclear waste. And we created a couple things, a renewable development account, money that Xcel rate payers will help to pay for clean energy projects and the moratorium that said until we come up with a solution that's okay with Prairie Island and with the people for disposing of nuclear waste, we won't build any more. What's happened in the meantime is that other states and countries have moved more into nuclear because it is a carbon-free source. A couple things that your viewers um should hear. First of all, in my opinion as the chairman, it's not cost-competitive right now in the legacy nuclear picture, the big cooling towers from Three Mile Island in the '70s and that's why we're not seeing a lot of that nuclear built around the country even in states where there's no moratorium. But we got to look at it and in the same way you and I talked about the innovation and the wind turbine blades, remember long time ago? We don't know that there won't be more innovation in nuclear. There are two smaller ways we deliver nuclear power, advanced nuclear and um so-called small modular nuclear. Those are being deployed around the country for limited uses. I don't know that they'll be scaled up to be powering a city of 100,000, but I don't know that they won't. So, where we are in Minnesota is the moratorium is still in effect. The Senate has funded a nuclear study. I think that'll become law and for the first time in Minnesota history since the '90s, it has the support of the Prairie Island Indian community. They had been neutral on the study until now. >> And supporters say we can't reach our state goals, our clean environment goals, like being zero net emissions by 2050 without investing nuclear power. So, if something that doesn't happen, what are our other options to reach our goals? >> We're not going to reach that particular goal without nuclear, and it's not calculated by the state's utility classes, investor-owned, rural co-op like where I live, and then municipal utilities without it. There are two nuclear facilities, both owned and operated by Xcel Energy, our largest utility, and there's no real trajectory to get to 100% by 2040 without including that nuclear. I fully respect those people who have concerns, but you're making the point I would want to put before the people of Minnesota. If that's not a part of our mix, are we saying that suddenly demand is going to go down? Not likely, including data centers. Or are we saying we don't want to reach our goal? Or is there some new form of energy generation? Or are we going to scale up wind and solar to such an extent we we meet our goal? Um we're building more wind and solar. I hate to put in a shameless plug, but we passed 2 years ago the clean energy permitting reform in Minnesota, speeding up the deployment of wind and solar and battery significantly. So, it's much easier to get a permit for those technologies, but in my opinion, that's not going to be enough to get us there, and we'll have to ask tougher questions about nuclear and about demand. The data centers are booming right now, taking up a ton of energy. Um I got to put in a plug also for the ratepayer protection, the 2025 law, which relates to data centers, has this feature. Xcel has to file with the Public Utilities Commission their plans for this Pine Island data center. They filed now and said, "Here's what it's going to mean for ratepayers. It'll be a savings of 1.1 billion over the next 10 years after it opens because the economies of scale and the clean energy that they're building. So, ratepayers can save money in different ways, and meeting our demand doesn't have to look one particular way. >> You've said we cannot afford to ignore the fight on climate change. I'm signaling in on the word afford. You know, what is it currently costing us or how are those costs manifesting in our budgets? >> The big one is homeowners insurance. If you've seen a report of a Southeastern United States hurricane, the damage that's done now with storms that we feel would not be happening but for climate change are so costly that it affects your and my homeowners insurance rates around the country. We don't have a lot of hurricanes up here, but our homeowners insurance sometimes reflect it. We had a storm last year that cost $52 billion. One storm. And climate change is responsible for a lot of that. And while we can debate what direction we're heading, it's pretty clear the planet's warming up and the cost to us are not just dollars but lives. And we have people killed in these storms. And so, our point is there's a cost to climate change coming out of your pocket. And you probably know Minnesotans have been saying to elected officials, we are very worried about the daily costs. Well, that's one of them. And if you want to insure your home, there are many places where in Minnesota the homeowners insurance has gone up 300% in the last 10 or 20 years. We have more expensive homes. It costs more for the labor to get them fixed. But the real story is the amount of damage that's done. And this also has the wildfire costs if you're in Canada or on the West Coast. Those storms are wiping out entire communities at a cost that's almost beyond calculation. >> The energy omnibus bill passed off the floor in the Senate. I know there were provisions in there >> [laughter] >> Yeah, you were there. Um, that will help people with those bills. So, talk to me about some of the things that were there. >> Well, first of all, the framework in Minnesota is the 100% clean energy. So, that's doing our share for the planet. We we don't just want Minnesotans to pay less. Uh we want climate change to slow down in the rest of the world. We're all in this together. Second of all, we promote renewable energy where it's cheaper. One of the features of the 2020 uh 300% bill is that we don't pick a technology. We don't have to get to 100% using X% of solar. And so, the omnibus bill this year continues on that path, including the nuclear study. Maybe nuclear will save some money. We want people to save money. There's conservation. Uh we try to promote energy conservation and demand response, which is a little geeky, but essentially says, "Let's generate when it's the lowest cost, and let's use energy when it's the lowest cost." We want to have, for example, plug-in solar, which is we're going to allow people to put solar on their balcony. It's a smaller deployment, but if it saves people money and moves us in the right direction, we'll take it. Customers, consumers, are not going to go that way if it doesn't save them money. So, those are without subsidy. And you'll see if adoption um continues to go up. One of the things we didn't talk about is that solar panels are down 90% in cost over the last 20 years. Wouldn't you know it? That lowers the cost of people's energy. >> Senator, it sounds like you have a full day ahead, so I won't keep you any longer. Thank you for taking the time to talk with me about this today. >> My pleasure, Veronica. Nice job. >> Thank you. Minnesota faces a severe deficit of homes for extremely low-income renters. More than 60% of the state's lowest-income renters don't have access to affordable housing options. However, Senator Zach Duckworth successfully passed a bill that would allow more Minnesotans to invest in rental properties, creating passive income for those property owners and new living spaces for renters. Senator, thank you for being here. >> Thanks for having me. >> Absolutely. So, I'm really excited to talk to you about this subject today. It's not one I know a lot about, so I'm going to learn a lot from you. But, we're going to talk about at first investing in property. You've said it's a great way to generate wealth, and that's the basis behind one of your bills we'll talk about in a little bit. But, why is property such a good investment? >> Sure, and appreciate the question. Investing in your home or property in real estate traditionally historically has been ways in which people build wealth wealth for themselves and for their families. And so, anything that we can do as a state government to help incentivize people or make that even easier to provide for them and their families not just now, but into the future is something that I believe you know, we should take very seriously and try to make it as easy for folks as possible. There's no question real estate has been a phenomenal vehicle for for families to build wealth and kind of help raise themselves up. Many folks that came to this country kind of found a way to to lift their family up out of poverty by investing in real estate, owning a home, and then maybe even a couple of others. >> You are a real estate agent when you're not here, so you definitely follow the housing market trends. Is now a good time to invest in properties? >> So, without sounding like a commercial because that's the every question any real estate agent wants to have somebody ask, right? My honest answer to folks is especially here in Minnesota, the housing market is good, it's strong. It's it's a pretty hot market, can be competitive. But, right now the real issue is affordability and people's ability to afford that first home in particular. And so, anything that we can do to kind of help keep the market healthy and keep it affordable for folks is a win for everybody because so much of our economy is actually dependent upon and driven by the housing market. >> Speaking on affordability, your bill Senate File 4168 would make it more affordable for people to buy an investment properties. Take me through that. >> Sure. So, sometimes things can be a little bit challenging for folks when they're trying to purchase a property, specifically when it comes to financing and how they want to structure it. All that bill does is provide a little bit more flexibility, a few more options for folks when they're looking to try to buy an investment property and use a lending institution to do so. So, rather than having fewer options and maybe not being able to purchase that property, this bill gives them the ability to have a conversation with the lender, explore a few other options that might actually make it something they can do. >> And I loved how you described it during committee because I listened to your expert and it went right over my head. But, in committee, you described it so simply in that at times when having a down payment is difficult, this allows people to roll certain fees into their payment over time so they can finance the closing costs and lender fees. And so, it's just giving them that flexibility to pay in a way that makes sense for them. >> Absolutely. It's just more options. It's they're not required, they're not forced to, but they can have a conversation with the lender, consider various options, and pick the one that works best for them. >> And this is only for investment properties. Why is that? >> Well, we want to be very careful about when people are buying their primary primary residence where they and their family are going to live. We want as many safeguards and protections as possible regarding that loan and that mortgage, and we want that really kind of stacked in the favor of the consumer as much as possible. When it comes to investment properties, the rules change a little bit because when folks are investing in real estate, they may be a little more savvy. It's a little bit more of a risky investment because it's not their primary residence, they're likely going to be renting it out or something to that effect. So, we allow for a few more options and some additional flexibility when it has to do with that investment property versus a primary residence. >> During the committee, you also started off by talking about how predatory lending doesn't belong in Minnesota. How does that relate to the bill? >> Well, I said that because I didn't want anybody to be confused. Sometimes when you talk, especially after the housing crisis and what what the cause of that was, which was fraudulent lending in in mortgage applications. I wanted people to know and understand that the bill is about providing people options to be educated about and use if they're comfortable using them, not a means at all for any lenders to be predatory or take advantage of folks. In Minnesota, obviously we don't stand for that. This bill has nothing to do with predatory lending whatsoever, and I wanted to be clear and take a firm stance on that. >> On the same subject or adjacent subject of financial concern with investing in things, you have another bill, Senate File 4652, which your testify or talked about the growing fraud problem banks are seeing. Tell me about that. Is that an issue here in Minnesota? >> Uh unfortunately, it's an issue everywhere. And in Minnesota, we wanted to give banking institutions, as well as folks that have accounts at banks, the ability to protect against fraud really through the means of early detection. So, regarding this bill, if a bank were to see something that seemed to be potentially fraudulent and they tried to contact the owner of that account and they weren't able to get a hold of them, the bill allows the owner of that account to also name somebody else that can be contacted by the bank to then notify that person and say, "We think that something might be happening with this account that you should be aware of." >> I like that, early detection. And you've also called it common sense and a no-cost bill, and your testify or said it was anti-fraud, and we love all those things. >> Absolutely. At least I like to think so. >> Well, those two bills really caught my attention in the way they moved through the legislative process. And I found them to be so unique that we have to talk about it. But you were the only author on both of them, no co-authors at all here in the Senate, and they passed unanimously in the Senate and in the House. That's is wild. How did you achieve that twice? >> Well, I I couldn't find any co-authors cuz I don't have any friends. I'm just kidding. Sometimes when a bill is moving kind of fast, you you want to drop it and get it heard and move it. I typically do try to load up my bills with co-authors. A bonus if I can get both parties represented on that. But this was one that we wanted to move quickly and and try to have passed this session and by getting the bill, dropping it quickly and moving it is kind of how we were able to do so. >> Okay. Well, I know you're a member of the civility caucus. So, you have a history of working across the aisle. Do you think that works in your favor or made a difference with these bills? >> I'd like to think it does. You know, it's this is my sixth session now. So, I also have learned a thing or two. But more importantly, I've had time to build relationships. And so, being in the minority in the Senate and to your point, having both of those bills heard and then ultimately pass out the floor, I'd be lying if I didn't say having a good working relationship across the aisle was important to that. I could go to the chair of the Commerce Committee, explain to him what the bill is, ask for his help to have it heard. Same with other committees and kind of shepherd that bill through the committee process and ultimately get it to the floor, which early on, I'm not sure I would have been able to do first off from a knowledge standpoint, but let alone from the experience and the trust that has built up over the last few sessions. >> See, you have all the friends. >> [laughter] >> As somebody who watches for bipartisanship, how do you think we did this session? >> That remains to be seen. But I will tell you, I just came from a conference committee and the interesting about the interesting interesting thing about going through the bill and comparing the same and similar as we call them is that a lot of the language that was included in that bill, much of it had already passed and become law and been signed by the governor, which means the House and the Senate are working and collaborating with one another to actually pass bills, get them signed by the governor, and act them into law. So, there is something to be said for balanced government, I think. Really good common sense practical legislation is passing. Some of the other things that are more political are kind of being set off to the side or is forcing some more compromise and conversation, which I typically think is a good thing because it tends to lead to better governing. >> Okay. Senator, thank you so much for your time today. >> My pleasure. Thank you. >> More than a century of legislative experience is leaving the Senate. 15 senators are retiring from the legislature and two more are leaving to seek higher office. And while they may have disagreed on politics and policy during the session, the departing senators shared the same message as they said their final farewells on the floor. Throughout session, opposing political priorities were highlighted as senators votes split cleanly along party lines. >> There have been 34 eyes and 33 nays. The bill is passed and its title agreed to. There have been 34 eyes and 33 nays. The bill is passed and its title agreed to. There have been 34 eyes and 33 nays. The bill is passed and its title agreed to. >> During my early years, it was more about working together in passing good policy. But now, it feels like it's an us against them mentality. >> But after the final votes were cast and the rolls were closed, >> The Senate is now adjourned. >> [cheering] >> Those partisan politics were pushed aside and the spirit of bipartisanship took center stage. During their final farewell speeches on the floor, retiring senators from different sides of the aisle shared the same message, a call for cross-caucus collaboration and compromise. >> As I leave the Senate, I would encourage those who are coming back to put the people first. Make it less about partisan politics [music] and more about what is best for the people. We can disagree and still come together to discuss, that we can argue and still share respect, that democracy carries us to a higher place where we oppose each other on ideas while carrying brotherhood and sisterhood in our hearts. >> We have engaged in rigorous debates on this floor, but the one thing that I will carry with me are the moments of quiet bipartisanship. We need more of those. >> [music] >> The instances where we look past our political labels, where we're focused entirely on [music] the people who sent us here, not trying to score political points. I've always believed and I still believe >> [music] >> that there is far more that unites us than divides us. >> I want to live in a strong two-party system. I want two viewpoints. I want two alternatives. I want to hear what people have to say. I truly believe we are the beacon of the world because of a strong, stable, productive two-party system. >> I've learned that progress is [music] made often not by those loudest moments, but in the quieter ones, in the conversations behind the scenes, in unexpected partnerships, and the willingness [music] to remember that we're all stewards of something larger than ourselves. >> So, whether you're red, blue, or a different color entirely, >> when I first came into the legislature, I looked at everything black and white. And I began to realize there was a tremendous amount of shade of gray in between that black and white, and every shade of gray is legitimate. >> Take it from these senators who have spent collective decades in the legislature that the best way to a better tomorrow is by working together today. >> Some say we've never been this divided. We've never been this divided. Yet I believe with every bone and fiber and and sinew in my body that our best days are ahead of us. >> Another idea brought forward by a retiring senator to improve the work of the legislature was to make it full-time. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Minnesota is one of 26 states with a hybrid legislature where lawmakers work somewhere between full-time and part-time here at the Capitol. Research finds full-time legislatures allow lawmakers to get more hands-on and delve more deeply into their subject areas, allowing them to be more informed and involved in policy making. It also puts them on par with their full-time colleagues like the governor, state auditors, and the attorney general. However, full-time legislatures would effectively create professional lawmakers, which discourages citizen and dual-career legislators from running for office, limiting the variety of voices heard in the chamber. As for now [music] though, the legislature has adjourned sine die, which means senators won't return to the Capitol until [music] the start of the new session on January 12th, 2027. So, to that [music] end, that's all the time we have this session. Thank you for joining us. We'll see you in January. >> Mhm.