Data‑center bill draws sharp testimony over review process, generators and water; amendment fails and measure tabled

Senate File 13‑93, a bill focused on environmental review for large data‑center developments, prompted multiple hours of testimony and a contested committee process before the measure was tabled on April 8.

Sponsor Senator Matthew introduced the bill, saying the measure is intended to clarify how environmental review and air permitting rules apply to backup generators at large data centers. "The permitting process ... limits when the data center generators can be run, how long they can be run, and the maximum annual emissions each site is allowed," he said, describing existing permit limits and staff estimates that many data‑center generators operate far below permitted maximums.

Opponents warned that the bill would weaken oversight for projects that can include hundreds of diesel backup generators and very large water withdrawals. "A single data center can consume up to 5,000,000 gallons of water per day," said Ivana Stark, state director of Clean Water Action, adding that water‑use and chemical treatments for cooling can remove water from the local cycle and require close scrutiny. Environmental and public‑interest groups including Sierra Club North Star Chapter, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, CURE and Clean Water Action urged fuller environmental review and stronger permit conditions.

Local officials offered mixed testimony. Rick Hendrickson, a Becker city council member, told the committee Becker completed an alternative urban area‑wide review (AUAR) intended to evaluate development in a designated area and asked that the local AUAR and local permitting not be overridden. "It seems unfair to require an EIS which will jeopardize data center development throughout Minnesota," Hendrickson said. State Environmental Quality Board executive director Catherine Newshorn said AUARs are appropriate for light industrial and warehousing projects and are performed by local governments, but added that if a project includes significant on‑site power generation or large water appropriations, other environmental review categories may also apply.

Committee action and votes: Senator McHugh introduced an A8 amendment that would have required an environmental impact statement for data centers that meet the bill's definition. Sponsor Senator Matthew opposed the amendment. The committee conducted a division on the A8 amendment; recorded division votes were 4 in favor and 6 opposed, and the A8 amendment failed. Later in the hearing the committee voted to table Senate File 13‑93; the motion to table carried by voice vote and the bill was laid over for further consideration.

Why it matters: Testimony highlighted unresolved questions about how data centers should be reviewed and permitted in Minnesota, especially when projects include very large backup‑generation capacity, fuel storage and high water use. Opponents argued the bill could allow projects to avoid a full environmental impact statement and reduce transparency about energy, water and air impacts; proponents and some local officials said AUARs and local planning already provide review capacity for certain siting decisions.

What’s next: Senators agreed to continue discussion at a later date; several members said they plan to offer additional amendments to specify operating limits, reporting and permitting requirements for backup generation and water use.

Ending note: The committee deferred a final decision after a lengthy public record that included environmental organizations, local officials and industry stakeholders.