Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances amended data-center permitting language after hours of debate
Summary
Senate File 1393, carried by Sen. Nick Matthews, would clarify how large data centers and their backup power are reviewed in Minnesota. The committee adopted an author’s amendment addressing environmental-agency concerns, heard extensive testimony both supporting and opposing the measure, and laid the bill over for further work.
Sen. Nick Matthews presented Senate File 1393 on March 12, 2025, seeking to clarify when data centers and their on-site backup generation are subject to Minnesota’s certificate-of-need (CN) process and how local environmental review (the AUAR process) interacts with statewide permitting.
The committee unanimously adopted an author’s amendment (A5) that the Department of Commerce and other agencies reviewed and used to address environmental and permitting concerns. An oral amendment deleting Section 6 of the bill was also adopted. After a multi-hour hearing with dozens of witnesses for and against, the committee laid the bill over for further work; no final committee passage was recorded.
Supporters — including labor unions, the Becker city government, local school officials and Amazon Web Services (AWS) — said the bill provides clarity that will bring large data center investment, jobs and property tax revenue to communities losing energy-sector tax base. Joel Johnson of the IBEW State Council and Greg LaRue, Becker city administrator, told the committee data centers would help replace tax revenue and construction and maintenance jobs following the announced retirement of the Sherco power plant.
Amazon Web Services’ witness, Courtney Lee, said AWS is in early site-diligence and supports the bill as amended, noting the company’s commitments to renewable energy and water stewardship. Lee testified AWS has committed to being "water positive" by 2030 and described efficiency efforts and renewable-energy procurement but did not provide site-level engineering plans at the hearing.
Opponents — including the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Sierra Club-Northstar, Clean Water Action Minnesota, Vote Solar and community groups — urged the committee to preserve the Public Utilities Commission’s role in reviewing the need for very large backup generation and to retain robust environmental review for water, air, noise and community impacts. Witnesses cited concerns about water consumption, diesel backup emissions and the scale of tax incentives already available.
Key technical details discussed in the hearing included parties’ statements that Amazon’s proposed Becker site could include as many as 250 on-site diesel backup generators (each cited in testimony as roughly 2–2.75 MW) and that the company’s earlier filing to the PUC had been denied an expedited CN exemption; the PUC twice told the committee the type-of-resource review (the "type" prong of CN analysis) must still be considered. The Department of Commerce’s assistant commissioner told the committee the A5 amendment provided a robust alternatives analysis and narrowed AUAR use to light-industrial/building activities while leaving backup-generation review to state agencies and the PUC.
Committee members offered a range of perspectives in questions and debate: some members emphasized the potential for local jobs and tax relief in host communities such as Becker, while others urged further work on water use, noise, air emissions and union-busting concerns at AWS and other large employers. The committee rejected several member amendments (A3, A4, A6) that would have added zoning limits or operational limits on generators; those roll-call results were recorded.
The committee laid Senate File 1393 over for further consideration and indicated additional work and possible referral to the Environment Committee to resolve environmental review and permitting issues.
