How land trusts can engage

Land trusts can participate in PUC siting or CN dockets by submitting formal public comments and data. All comments become part of the official record reviewed by the PUC.

For example, a land trust might submit GIS maps identifying nearby conservation easements, wildlife corridors, or sensitive habitats that should be avoided. These comments can shape the issues that the PUC and developers must address. Land trusts can also attend or speak at public hearings, and even petition to intervene as parties if they have the capacity. Formal intervention allows them to introduce expert testimony or cross-examine witnesses (see “Formal intervention” below for more information).

During the state environmental review process, land trusts can provide feedback on project impacts and propose alternatives or mitigation measures. Minnesota’s rules allow the public to propose alternative sites or routes during EIS scoping. A land trust could, for instance, suggest an alternative project layout that preserves a prairie remnant or advocate for a “distributed solar” alternative if appropriate. They can also scrutinize the draft EIS and submit scientific evidence (wildlife studies, water reports, etc.) to ensure the final EIS fully addresses conservation concerns. By proposing concrete solutions such as alternative sites or specific mitigation measures, land trusts move beyond opposition to constructive engagement.

Minnesota often convenes stakeholder groups to develop policies or best practices for energy infrastructure. Land trusts can join or contribute to these groups to influence broader siting standards. For example, the PUC has work groups on vegetation management for solar sites and grid modernization, including utilities, state agencies, and advocacy groups. Land trusts bring the conservation perspective to the table. Through these forums, they can influence the creation of pollinator-friendly solar guidance and other mitigation measures.

A land trust may choose to formally intervene in the PUC proceeding in cases with high conservation stakes. By doing so, the land trust gains legal standing as a party, which allows it to file expert testimony and legal briefs and to participate in evidentiary hearings. This level of engagement can directly impact the outcome, for example, by negotiating modifications to the project or even supporting an alternative outcome.

Intervenors can also appeal PUC decisions. Some environmental coalitions in Minnesota have effectively used this to influence wind farm conditions, such as turbine setback distances to protect bird habitat. Land trusts should weigh this option for projects that pose extraordinary risks to conserved lands or species.

Collaborating outside the formal process is a proactive strategy. Land trusts can build relationships with the PUC’s environmental review staff and agency scientists to share data on critical natural resources early in the planning phase of a project.

Conservation advocates have worked with some solar companies on voluntarily adopting pollinator-friendly planting standards and even co-locating grazing or farming (agrivoltaics) to make solar more compatible with rural landscapes. Guided by input from conservation groups, some solar projects in Minnesota have even incorporated wildlife-friendly fencing and native plantings from the outset.