Press Release: New lawsuits highlight shortcomings and lack of transparency surrounding environmental review of data center proposals in MN
New lawsuits highlight shortcomings and lack of transparency surrounding environmental review of data center proposals in MN
DATE: 08/05/25 CONTACT: Sarah Horner, MCEA, shorner@mncenter.org, 612-868-3024
St. Paul, Minnesota – Today, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA) filed lawsuits against two Minnesota cities advancing large data center proposals without adequately studying the potential impacts the facilities could have on Minnesota’s water and energy resources.
The lawsuits are the first in Minnesota to challenge the environmental review of data centers. They seek to halt both cities’ data center proposals until they complete legally required, full environmental review. The suits were filed in Minnesota’s 1st and 5th district courts challenging approvals by Lakeville and North Mankato as well as the two development companies seeking to build data centers in the cities.
The lawsuits allege that the project descriptions in the environmental review documents are vague and don’t even mention the words “data center.” The lack of specificity makes it difficult for residents to figure out what is proposed to be built, let alone what its potential risks and benefits might be for their communities. The cities’ environmental review processes also neglected to examine some of the most common and significant environmental impacts associated with the burgeoning data center industry, including large electricity demand that may put Minnesota’s clean energy goals at risk, and high usage of already-stressed groundwater resources.
“Minnesotans have a right to know where the energy will come from to power these massive facilities and how our clean air, drinking water, and quality of life will be protected,” said Kathryn Hoffman, CEO of MCEA. “Without answers to these basic questions, Minnesota can’t fully weigh the pros and cons of whether these developments are right for our state. Our laws require more transparency, and Minnesotans deserve it.”
“Surprisingly, the descriptions of these projects are so unclear that it’s hard to even know what is being proposed, let alone what the impacts might be. These documents do not promote the type of robust transparency that Minnesotans expect from our government about facilities that are proposed to be built in our communities,” Hoffman continued.
The data centers proposed in Lakeville and North Mankato are part of a new wave of hyperscale data centers being proposed across the state to support the growing demand for artificial intelligence. Data centers at this scale may provide economic benefits, but can also consume massive amounts of electricity, large amounts of water for cooling, and huge quantities of metals and other materials. For example, if all the data centers currently proposed in the state are built they would consume as much electricity as every home in Minnesota. That’s why adequate environmental review of these proposals is so critical. Instead, MCEA has observed project proposers across the state use Minnesota’s environmental review process to conceal environmental impacts, rather than illuminate them as the process intends.
In both Lakeville and North Mankato, an environmental review process called an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) was used to skirt adequate environmental review and advance each city’s respective data center proposal. Public records show that North Mankato, for example, described the project to residents engaged in the environmental review process as vague and speculative — even while actively planning for a data center.
AUARs for “large specific projects” are required by law to include “clear, complete and detailed project descriptions.” They are also required to study any direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts that are anticipated in an AUAR study area from the proposed project. Lakeville and North Mankato violated state law on both accounts through vague project descriptions and failing to study the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on water resources and air pollution.
One solution is for all proposers of hyper-scale data centers in Minnesota to undergo a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) so decision-makers and the public have the information needed to make reasonable decisions about whether these proposals make sense for our state. EISs evaluate the potential costs and benefits of large proposals in a transparent way, provide meaningful public engagement opportunities, and have been commonly used by other large facilities. They are also more likely to be conducted by the state, rather than by a local government. State agencies are better equipped to analyze statewide impacts such as groundwater use that affects multiple cities, or energy use that affects overall state clean energy goals.
Several other Minnesota cities are also utilizing AUARs to approve similar developments without full environmental scrutiny. Meanwhile, other forms of environmental review are being used by other cities. This is creating an inconsistent and incomplete environmental review system for a rapidly emerging industry with significant potential to damage our groundwater and disrupt Minnesota’s transition to carbon-free electricity.
Questions about the lawsuits as well as interview requests can be directed to Sarah Horner at the contact information listed at the top of this release.
###
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA) is a nonprofit environmental law organization whose mission is to use both the law and science to protect Minnesota’s environment, natural resources, and the health of its people.
Click here to sign up for our 5 part email series the Data Center Download