Guest Column: Minnesota needs more time to implement sustainable changes to the state’s overly broad PFAS law to ensure our economy remains strong

By: Stephen Yurek, Minnesota-native and President and CEO of the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI)

As a native Minnesotan who leads the trade association that represents manufacturers of heating, cooling, water heating, and commercial refrigeration equipment, I am encouraging legislators to support HF4257. This legislation would provide a much-needed delay to the PFAS in Products reporting program before the current September 2026 deadline forces an unworkable mandate on Minnesota-based job creators like our member companies, several of whom have operations in Minnesota.

Manufacturers have long thrived in Minnesota. Here, companies build complex products that support our communities and the supply chains that keep America running. Our member companies are part of that tradition. That’s why we’re urging the legislature to pass HF4257 – thousands of hardworking families are counting on it.

This delay is about giving Minnesota the time to make the program more workable for both businesses and regulators, and to ensure that the most critical environmental issues in the state are properly addressed. Without this delay, there will be an immediate impact on jobs and investment in the state.

Minnesota’s PFAS in Products program requires manufacturers to report detailed information on products containing PFAS, and phases in unusually broad bans. While this program is well-intentioned, a more workable policy will ensure that manufacturers are able to reasonably comply, and state regulators have the resources and time to properly target their efforts toward environmental remediation.

Consider what the past couple of years have actually looked like for manufacturers trying to comply. With little time and guidance from regulators, they face a reporting regime that is extraordinarily complex. For companies producing advanced goods — everything from electronics to industrial equipment — PFAS may be located deep within multi-tiered global supply chains. Identifying, tracking, and reporting those uses requires coordination across hundreds of suppliers and thousands of components. Even regulators have acknowledged the scale of this challenge and the need for time to build proper internal systems that ensure accurate reporting.

The reporting platform manufacturers are currently expected to use, PRISM, only entered a soft launch in December 2025 with a limited group of beta users, with full availability to all manufacturers pushed to January 2026. In the weeks after launch, the system has failed at unpredictable times and hasn’t included all product categories that regulators expect us to report on. We are being asked to submit detailed, legally consequential disclosures through a platform that is still being debugged.

To put it plainly: if the PFAS in Products program does not undergo significant risk-based reforms, complex product manufacturers will not be able to operate in the state.

HF4257 proposes a very reasonable delay to July 2027. This is less than a year from the current deadline of September 2026. That is a significant compromise on the part of manufacturers, and is the bare minimum needed to prevent disruption to Minnesota jobs and supply chains. We are asking for the time to do this responsibly.

This delay would give the MPCA the time needed to fix these issues and incorporate critical stakeholder feedback. That’s important because the success of this program will depend on prioritization

Not all PFAS uses present the same level of risk, and not all products have viable alternatives today. While the state defines PFAS in a way that sweeps in over 10,000 compounds, there is understood to be about 800 in active commercial use. A program that treats a medical device component the same as a non-stick frying pan is not a science-based program, and does not properly target the issues most responsible for contamination. At a minimum, Minnesota must focus first on areas where exposure risks are highest and substitutes are readily available.

The state has an opportunity to lead nationally on PFAS policy. But getting it right is more important than doing it quickly. Other states pursuing similar frameworks have already encountered implementation challenges, particularly for those manufacturers with complex supply chains, and have adjusted timelines accordingly. Minnesota needs to do the same.

If we want durable, effective PFAS policy, passing this delay under HF4257 is a realistic first step. It gives regulators time to refine the program, ensures that reporting systems are fully functional, and allows businesses to comply without jeopardizing jobs in the state.