Commerce; gasoline specifications updated.
HF1330 updates Minnesota’s statutory gasoline and ethanol specifications to align with newer ASTM standards and related federal references. The bill revises definitions and product standards in the agriculture and petroleum tax/commerce statutes to replace older technical specifications, including updating gasoline and ethanol references from ASTM D4814-11b to D4814-24a and ethanol specification D4806-11a to D4806-21a. It also updates cross-references in the definitions of gasoline, denatured ethanol, and gasoline blended with nonethanol oxygenates.
Substantively, the bill preserves Minnesota’s existing framework governing what may be blended into gasoline after it leaves a refinery or terminal. It continues to allow agriculturally derived ethanol blends, while prohibiting blending with other oxygenates or petroleum products outside the specified exceptions, and it maintains the ban on certain nonethanol oxygenates such as MTBE, ETBE, and TAME. The measure is largely a technical conformity bill intended to keep state fuel standards current with industry and testing specifications.
The bill amends Minnesota Statutes sections 41A.09, 239.761, and 296A.01 to modernize fuel-quality definitions and standards used by regulators, refiners, terminals, and fuel distributors. It does not create a new fuel mandate or materially change the state’s ethanol policy; instead, it updates technical compliance benchmarks and statutory definitions so they match current ASTM and federal standards. Affected parties include fuel producers, blenders, terminals, refiners, ethanol suppliers, and the Department of Agriculture/Weights and Measures enforcement framework.
Because the bill is primarily technical and updates outdated standards, the likely sentiment around it is neutral to favorable. There is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials, and the text suggests a routine conformity measure rather than a controversial policy change. The bill appears designed to avoid regulatory mismatch and ensure Minnesota fuel rules remain enforceable and aligned with current industry specifications.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided record. If any debate were to arise, it would most likely concern the continued preference for agriculturally derived ethanol and the continued prohibition on nonethanol oxygenates, but the bill itself does not expand or contract those policy choices. The absence of transcripts and votes suggests no recorded opposition or substantive dispute in the available materials.