Higher Electric Bills

• Risk: Big Tech is very effective at passing off their costs onto the rest of us. Without adequate regulations and implementation, hyperscale data centers could increase our electricity bills.  

• Response: Impose a two year moratorium on hyperscale data centers ("hyperscalers") in Minnesota to give the public sector time to develop rules that will protect Minnesotans.

More Climate & Air Pollution

• Risk: Hyperscalers require huge amounts of electricity. Big Tech claims their data centers will be powered by new clean electricity, but they lobby against requirements. Big Tech also wants polluting diesel generators as “back up.” Hyperscalers in other states have siphoned off existing renewable energy. Any new air emissions will further fuel climate change and air pollution.

• Response: Require clean energy from the start. Hyperscalers must meet 100% of their energy needs with new solar, wind or battery resources.

Secret Deals

• Risk: Big Tech is pushing cities to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), blocking citizens from knowing project details, including end users and local impacts.

• Response: Ban new NDAs and prevent those who have signed NDAs from being the lead agency for permitting decisions.  

Water Depletion & Water Pollution

• Risk: Hyperscalers produce heat, and can use large volumes of water for cooling. This water may be treated with chemicals that can cause pollution when discharged.

• Response: Require Big Tech to pay for drinking water and wastewater treatment upgrades and use the best available water-saving systems.

Local Impacts

• Risk: Hyperscalers can cause major negative social, health, and economic impacts, from noise and light pollution to new transmission lines and land use changes.

• Response: Require a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). We can only
  ensure that hyperscalers are good neighbors if they are sited properly and go through robust environmental review with ample opportunities for public engagement early and often throughout the process.

Tribal Sovereignty

• Risk: Indigenous and Tribal Sovereignty must be respected both on and near treaty territories.  

• Response: Require hyperscalers to obtain free, prior & informed consent from Tribal Governments. For additional information about concerns from tribal nations in Minnesota and proposed responses, see the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council’s July 10th, 2026 Resolution calling for a Temporary Moratorium on the Issuance of All Permits for Hyperscale Data Centers.

Our State’s Budget

• Risk: Services that people rely on continue to face funding challenges while the Big Tech owners of hyperscale data centers continue to enjoy robust sales tax exemptions not available to other regular taxpayers. 

• Response: Repeal the uncapped sales tax exemption for hyperscalers which has cost the state $134 million before a single hyperscaler has even opened.

Demanding Responsible Data Center Development 

We advocated for a strong, clear framework for hyperscale data centers. The bottom line: if these companies want to operate in Minnesota, they should be good neighbors and meet clear standards.

These bills together create the base of that framework:

• S.F. 4298/H.F. 4888: Puts a temporary moratorium on all hyperscale data centers and requires a report on potential impacts.

• S.F. 3968/H.F. 2928: Establishes a data center-specific permit and requires all hyperscale data centers to undergo an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), bring their own clean energy from the start, and make investments in grid resilience.

• S.F. 3852/H.F. 3793: Creates an independent water appropriation permit for data centers and requires enforceable water use limits and efficiency requirements.

• S.F. 4379/H.F. 4077: Limits the use of Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA) to increase transparency.

• S.F. 4203/H.F. 4173: Eliminates the existing sales tax exemption for qualified large-scale data centers.  

While several of these bills received committee hearings (most notably the NDA bill and the large water user bill) and enjoyed bipartisan support, there wasn’t enough political will to see them across the finish line.

But this issue isn’t going away anytime soon—hyperscale data center developers and end users continue to push their data center proposals forward across Minnesota, often without community support. That’s why legislators—both current and prospective—must make this a top priority next year.

As noted above, no political party has maintained a consistent record on data centers.  Data center supporters can be found in both  political parties. Powerful interests have influenced politicians’ willingness to support laws that would protect us from data center risks. Here are some of those divisions within the parties:

For the Republicans, support for data centers at the federal level–including strong support from President Donald Trump, who has sped up data center permitting—has caused many in the state party to follow suit. 

For the Democrats, they have a strong history with labor and want to avoid disagreements with that sector.  On March 6, the State AFL-CIO wrote to legislators that current laws provide “a structure that makes Minnesota an attractive place to build” data centers.  The AFL-CIO further asked legislators to “not move further legislation in 2026 that materially changes these conditions.” 

But the tide is turning.  Specifically with labor, the National AFL-CIO passed a new resolution in July at their National convention. While it does not commit the State AFL-CIO to support specific legislation as was proposed in the 2026 Legislative Session, there is a section called “Good Union Jobs and Responsible Data Center Growth.” It includes language on the risks identified above.

As the promises from tech billionaires go unfilled, public demand for laws to protect us from data centers risks is surging.  In other states, a few Republican candidates have broken with the President on data centers.  Here in Minnesota, delegates at the most recent Democratic and Republican conventions overwhelmingly passed resolutions for a data center moratorium. 

Before the primary election, only two candidates responded when asked their position on data centers.  

On the Republican side, Mike Lindell made multiple statements in this MN Reformer article. Minnesota Speaker of the House Lisa Demuth, who won her primary, did not respond.  As Speaker of an evenly divided House, Demuth had more power than any other Republican Legislator to either bring data center bills to a vote or to block them from coming to vote.  None of the data center bills were heard on the House floor.   

On the Democratic side, Senator Klobuchar did not respond directly to the Reformer’s specific questions about the use of NDAs and local moratoriums. Instead, her spokesperson responded, saying that, “the senator will work with legislators if additional changes are necessary to protect Minnesota consumers,” and her “number one focus will be on protecting Minnesotans’ energy bills and our state’s water throughout the process.” You can decide if these responses are sufficient.

More recently, a September 10 Star Tribune article said Klobuchar and Demuth “have roughly the same stance, supporting data centers that win local approval.”  This idea that statewide protections are not needed passes the buck, and fails to recognize that data center developers pit communities against one another in a race to the bottom. If we fail to pass laws that protect all Minnesotans, data centers will target the communities most desperate to increase local property tax revenue, and most willing to offer deals, even at the expense of  natural resources and quality of life.  

MYTH: Big Tech claims that hyperscale data centers will bring lots of high-paying jobs and sustained economic growth.

REALITY: Almost all of the jobs are in the construction of the facilities. Very few people are employed on site after construction. This is unlike manufacturing plants, where ongoing employment after construction is significantly larger. Sustained economic growth doesn’t happen without ongoing employment.

~

MYTH: Big Tech claims to help cities by providing local property tax revenue.

REALITY: Big Tech fails to mention that they get huge subsidies from state taxpayers, and often local tax abatements. This drains our state budget and could force cuts to the services people rely on.

~

MYTH: Big Tech claims they will speed up the clean energy transition by building new clean energy like solar, wind and batteries.

REALITY: Big Tech is slowing down the shift to clean energy. Even the Wall Street Journal acknowledges that “An explosion of so-called hyperscale data centers… has upended plans by electric utilities to cut the use of fossil fuels. In some areas, that means burning coal for longer than planned.”

View this Factsheet for More Myth vs. Reality Information: “Protecting Minnesotans from Hyperscale Data Center Risks”