Minnesota Lawmakers and Activists Call for Moratorium on Data Centers

Activitists concerned about the Big Tech incursion into communities without strong environmental and economic impact oversight was the subject of a rally in the State Capitol rotunda on the second day of the 2026 legislative session. (photo by Mikki Morrissette)

Environmental advocates, union representatives, engineers and state lawmakers gathered at the State Capitol Wednesday to call for a two-year moratorium on new hyperscale data centers, citing concerns about energy use, water consumption, environmental impacts and corporate influence. The rally brought together community members from across Minnesota who argued that the rapid expansion of large-scale data centers — driven by artificial intelligence and cloud computing demands — is outpacing state regulation and public oversight.

Legislators Introduce Moratorium Proposal

Sen. Jen McEwen (DFL-Duluth)

State Sen. Jen McEwen (DFL-Duluth) said she plans to introduce legislation to temporarily halt new data center permits while the state studies their long-term effects. “We have heard testimony about the potential impacts these hyperscale data centers could have on our communities, our energy grid, and our natural resources,” McEwen said. “If every currently proposed data center in Minnesota is built, they would collectively use more electricity than every household in the state combined.”

McEwen said the moratorium would remain in place while lawmakers conduct a comprehensive review of environmental, infrastructure, and public health impacts and develop a stronger regulatory framework. She also criticized the influence of large technology corporations in legislative discussions and raised concerns about non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) signed by some local officials.

She said she wanted to conclude with “thoughts about the connection between the struggles that we’re having around this issue of hyperscale data centers coming into our state, and corporate dominance over our society — and the wealth inequality and power imbalance that causes.” Corporations asking elected officials in communities to sign NDAs about proposed data centers is a “horrible conflict of interest, unbelievable. There has been enough outrage from our communities around these NDAs that I think we are going to see a turn in the direction toward making them illegal to sign.

“NDAs are symptoms of the larger problem of corporate dominance. That power imbalance is the reason we can’t have health care for all. It’s the reason we can’t have adequate funding for our schools and pay our teachers what they need to make. It’s the reason we have a childcare crisis, and why people providing childcare, elder care, or care for people with disabilities are operating on such tight margins. It’s more important than ever for us to join with working people, with our union siblings.

“Our unions are going to be the backbone of fighting these data centers,” McEwen added. “I know some labor supports building these, but many of our union siblings are not in favor of these data centers..”

State Sen. Erin Maye Quade (DFL-Apple Valley) echoed those concerns. She said that in Rosemount, a proposed data center known as “Project Bigfoot” was kept from public discussion due to NDAs. “Not one single resident had the opportunity to go before the city council and ask questions,” she said. Maye Quade said she will reintroduce legislation to prohibit NDAs related to data center development and to eliminate tax exemptions for data center operators, which currently total about $30 million per biennium. She also called for greater transparency around how data centers use electricity and water, and how artificial intelligence technologies are deployed.

“I take issue with Big Tech,” she said. “The emergence and quick integration of AI against our will into our everyday lives is deeply problematic. Not only are these multi-billion-dollar corporations building data centers outside of the public eye, but they’re also getting tax breaks from the state to do it.”

Maye Quade continued, “The amount of money corporations do not have to pay in taxes could fund special education in the state that is being cut — and [the total of tax breaks] will go up exponentially over time. This session, I will continue to pursue policies that hold Big Tech accountable, require them to pay their fair share — to end their tax exemption. Additionally, I want every constituent in a community to know exactly how data centers are going to impact electric bills, how much water they’re going to use, where this data goes, are they going to protect it like a military base with armed agents walking around our neighborhoods and near our schools?”

The work the activists are doing, she added, “is making sure that we are keeping ourselves safe, not only physically in this state, but digitally — so that Big Tech doesn’t own our lives.”

Calls for Greater Oversight and Consultation

Ernest “Joey” Oppegaard-Peltier III, a two-spirit leader from Bemidji and co-executive director of an Indigenous woman-led grassroots organization named Mukwa, said tribal nations have not been adequately consulted about proposed data centers. “When we talk about water and land, we have to ask who the original custodians are,” Oppegaard-Peltier said. “Indigenous nations have not been consulted.” Oppegaard-Peltier urged investment in alternative materials and technologies, such as hemp-based batteries and solar panels (currently being manufactured in Canada), to reduce reliance on rare-earth mineral extraction.

A Monticello resident and registered quality engineer with more than 45 years of experience in geothermal systems, raised concerns about strain on the state’s power grid. Referencing the severe 1988 drought, when water levels in the Mississippi River dropped dramatically and energy production was affected, he warned that similar climate events could jeopardize electricity generation in the future. “These are real risks,” he said, arguing that increased demand from data centers could lead to rolling blackouts. He also voiced concerns about lithium-ion battery storage systems used for backup power, warning of potential fire hazards and toxic contamination.

MCEA’s Kathryn Hoffman

Kathryn Hoffman, executive director of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA), said her organization has received hundreds of calls per month from residents concerned about projects in their communities — there are more than 20 projects now proposed in Minnesota. In her 15 years with the organization, she said she had never seen anything raising as many concerns as the data center issue. MCEA has filed five lawsuits related to data center developments. “The speed of these investments is outpacing policy,” she said. “Even when cities acknowledge a data center is being proposed, the environmental review is often inadequate.”

Hoffman said that current reviews fail to detail electricity demand, water usage, noise, light pollution and other impacts. She warned that companies may attempt to shield key operational details under trade secret protections. “We have strong environmental laws in Minnesota,” Hoffman said. “I’ve been working to enforce it for 15 years, and I will tell you that what’s being done on environmental review for these data centers is not even close to meeting the law. … We don’t know if what’s happening in these data centers involves supporting surveillance — of people who are protesting, of undocumented immigrants. We don’t know if what is happening will be in violation of our First and Fourth Amendments. So, it is reasonable for all of us to ask the question, ‘what’s happening inside that data center?’

Hoffman said she believes a moratorium is possible to pass in this session, because the concerns are bipartisan. A two-year break would allow protectors to “study and understand these impacts before we move forward. We hear from these companies that ‘If we have regulations in place, we’ll go somewhere else.’ Don’t be fooled. … Minnesota has been a model on environmental protections and water protections for generations. We can be a model, too, on how to manage these investments, and how to responsibly regulate and prevent the massive environmental impacts of data centers. We can take this moment to do it right.”

A representative from Workers Strike Back, a national labor advocacy organization, criticized bipartisan support for extending tax breaks for data center developers, especially since data centers consume large amounts of electricity and water while creating few permanent jobs compared to their environmental footprint.

Peter Wagenius, legislative director for the Sierra Club’s North Star Chapter, challenged claims made by some that Minnesota should compete to attract data centers. “Hyperscalers are not coming here because of the free market,” he said. “They are coming here because of massive subsidies from taxpayers. And who are we subsidizing? Not Minnesotans struggling to afford their lives, but the wealthiest corporations in human history: Amazon, Google, Microsoft.”

He noted that many in the general public might not know the details of data centers, but polls indicate voters care deeply about how Big Tech companies knowingly target minors, that social media companies make money from scammers who take advantage of people. “Voters already don’t like Big Tech allowing advertising adversaries to use their platforms to threaten our national security. Voters see Big Tech billionaires as predators on our children’s mental health, our attention spans, and our democracy itself. Voters are not shocked when we tell them that Big Tech are also predators on our environment and energy bills. Voters are more likely to support candidates who stand up to Big Tech.”

He suggested visiting peoplenotpolluters.com, which is a project of 18 environmental organizations bringing attention to situations “when courts or federal agencies had to step in when the Walz administration failed to protect Minnesotans and our environment and our future. Keep in mind, we don’t have a federal backstop anymore. Minnesotans are on our own now — how well we know that. If the legislature doesn’t step up, Minnesotans won’t be protected. The Walz administration has ten months left to build rather than undermine their own environmental legacy. It is long past time for Minnesota to stop riding on her reputation for good government or environmental protection.”

“Environmental laws are not environmental suggestions,” Wagenius concluded. “They are laws and they need to be enforced against polluters to protect us. The true fact of Minnesota exceptionalism is not to brag about it like inherited wealth. The path to Minnesota exceptionalism is for every generation to do the work again.”

Speakers at the rally called for:

• Mandatory environmental impact statements for new hyperscale data centers,
• Bans on NDAs that limit public disclosure,
• Setback requirements to protect residential neighborhoods from noise and pollution.

The proposed moratorium legislation is expected to be introduced in the upcoming session.