On Aug. 1, Minnesota’s electric energy landscape substantially changed, yet very few people are probably aware of it. As of this month, unless a project is one of a few already exempted in law, Minnesota’s borders are restricted from the importation of new baseload coal electricity, even as new technologies are being developed to capture carbon. This new law places Minnesota in a challenging situation. Over time, our state will need additional cleaner, competitively-priced baseload power, yet access to domestically-abundant and reliable fuel sources has been impaired by state law.

At the time the coal moratorium was passed (as part of the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007), concerned groups asked how Minnesota would make up the gap between energy demand and available sources of baseload power. Two years later, we still do not have an answer to that question. Meanwhile, Minnesota has banned new coal and nuclear plants within the state without a plan for replacing those lost potential sources.

The problem is that Minnesota’s daily needs for baseload energy are not met exclusively by in-state coal or nuclear plants. Thanks to partnerships between Minnesota electric utilities and plants powered by North Dakota lignite coal, more than 800,000 homes and businesses in Greater Minnesota are guaranteed an affordable and reliable supply of electricity. Absent new coal generation and absent renewable technology available to provide 24-7 power at affordable prices, homeowners and businesses will pay excessive electricity rates compared to surrounding states unless we find a way to maintain a low-cost supply of energy while meeting Minnesotans’ environmental expectations.

The good news is that Minnesota can meet both goals if it remains open to opportunities for new, environmentally-sound baseload generation from across our borders. Our neighbors to the west have taken significant steps to stay at the forefront of new energy production technologies. The North Dakota Industrial Commission has committed $6.5 million in state funds for CO2 carbon capture and sequestration projects totaling $424 million in public and private investment. North Dakota is also host to the world’s largest CCS project and a pioneering demonstration project that is working to commercialize technology that captures 90 percent of carbon emissions.

Unfortunately, Minnesotans will not benefit from this work unless our policymakers rethink the state’s relationship with North Dakota. Minnesota still needs to answer that question — where will our homeowners and businesses get reliable, affordable power now that we have shut ourselves off from our most readily available source? The choice seems clear — we can either accept higher energy costs and less dependable electricity or we can encourage the research that will create commercially-viable, environmentally-efficient operations and state-of-the-art facilities for production of our most abundant energy source.

A smart path toward energy independence, affordability, reliability and environmental progress includes a sustained partnership between Minnesota and North Dakota to encourage more investment in carbon-capture technology. Minnesota needs to support, not deter, innovation that will help the state meet its energy needs. Aug. 1 put us on a dangerous path — encourage your legislators to correct this policy or, at a minimum, to answer this question: Where will Minnesota get its baseload power from now that we have closed our borders and how much is it going to cost me?

Christina Pierson is executive director of Partners for Affordable Energy, a coalition advocating for energy policies that support affordable, reliable energy.