Data Center construction halted in Pine Island

追加: 2026-05-31

[00:00:00]Trading order has now halted construction on a large data center being built by Google in Pine Island.

[00:00:06]This is about 20 minutes or so north of Rochester. And this comes after the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy filed a lawsuit seeking further environmental review of the project. So, a good Hugh County district judge issued a restraining order, an injunction essentially finding that uh the lawsuit was enough to warrant further review.

[00:00:30]So, it gets put on pause while that plays out. So, joining us now is the executive director of MCA, Katherine Hoffman. Thanks for being with us.

[00:00:42]>> Yeah, thank you. Thanks for having me.

[00:00:43]>> Sure. Let's talk about exactly what this means. uh by issuing this injunction or temporary restraining order. What happens now?

[00:00:54]>> Well, all that it means for right now is that the um the company can't break ground on the project. So, they were planning to do so in July. And that's why we ordered the temporary restraining order is because uh proper environmental review and environmental study with a strong public comment period has not been done. And if they start the project without environmental study, the environmental study matters a lot less later on because >> the reason you do an environmental study is to figure out okay what are the problems here? What are the risks and what can we do to decrease those risks?

[00:01:31]So there are other uh you know measures we can take, mitigation designs, things like that that would lower the environmental risk. And so to start digging before you've done the study is kind of a problem. Uh and so that's all it means for right now is they can't start digging as long as this temporary restraining order is in place.

[00:01:50]>> Now there was some environmental review done. That's what the folks in Pine Island and others behind this center say. uh you're alleging and a judge basically agreeing it as merit that it wasn't done thoroughly enough. I mean, what are you saying that was uh not done here or not followed?

[00:02:08]>> Yes. So, um our environmental review laws in Minnesota have been around for a long time, about 50 years, which is about how long my organization has been around. and we're an environmental law nonprofit. So, we see it as being part of our mission to make sure those laws are followed because that's how we make sure we make good decisions about our resources in Minnesota is we study it, the public can weigh in, and then we have that information to make good decisions. Um, in this case, uh, the company used an alternative streamlined version of environmental review and a lot of information was not included. In particular, it's actually pretty hard if you read the study. It's actually pretty hard to figure out what they were proposing. Uh, it is uh, a data center that they're proposing, but you don't really know how big it is, how much energy it would use. Uh data centers use tremendous amounts of energy, how much water it might use, is it noisy, is it lit at all hours, are there traffic concerns, all kinds of things that might come with a data center. Uh those things are not analyzed. It's really a much more general study that looks at uh more like a warehouse type development. So most of those details aren't there. And that's not consistent with the law and it's not consistent with our um traditions in Minnesota of having transparency in good decision-making.

[00:03:36]>> Now, more recently, it was revealed, you know, initially it was uh there were NDAs here. It wasn't said who it was. Uh it's been revealed that it's Google. I think more information did come out about the size um you know the employment the energy needs and that XL Energy would be building additional power generation there specifically to not take it off the grid of the people in the community nearby and are you saying that's still not enough information?

[00:04:05]>> Um what I'm saying is that that wasn't part of the environmental review.

[00:04:10]>> Okay. So what happened in this case is the environmental review was done. Uh that information was not included. So they knew at the time that Google was the investor. That wasn't in there. They knew about these clean energy investments. That wasn't in there. They uh did a public comment period. They closed the public comment period. After that, then Google made their announcements. So we're not saying this project is good or bad. It is a good thing. Of course, uh, as an environmental organization, we like clean energy investments. What we're saying is that environmental studies are a necessary part of the process, both because it's democratic and transparent, but because it's how we get good decision-m. So, the clean energy is a good thing to do. Energy is not the only thing we worry about with data centers.

[00:04:59]There is also potential water use or water pollution. We have concerns about material uses. a lot of metals and other materials come in. Do we have a strategy for recycling those or making sure they're um taken care of responsibly? Uh we're concerned about um noise and light and other local impacts. There's lots of uh questions because these are massive facilities and so so to do a streamlined environmental review process like this really isn't appropriate.

[00:05:29]um in a good environmental review process. Of course, they can talk about that clean energy and it may be that on balance this data center is a good decision for the community. But right now, they haven't been given a chance to view the actual proposal, its costs, its benefits, weigh those and then weigh in on whether they think this is a good idea.

[00:05:50]>> Okay. So, uh again leading back to my my first question too about what happens now. I mean, this is a everything's on hold. It doesn't mean that they're required to do more environmental review at this point. This suit has got to play out in court. I mean, how how does that work before you determine an outcome about whether they do need to do more environmental review or not?

[00:06:14]>> Yeah, I mean this this decision is very new. It just came out this week. So, it's a little hard for me to say, you know, what the next step will be in terms of the litigation. But yeah, in general, what where this is all headed is a ruling from the court on whether or not the environmental review as it was done was adequate or whether they have to go back and do more. That's the that's the primary.

[00:06:37]>> The injunction is not saying that it wasn't done properly. It's saying that you presented enough uh of an argument to say we need to look at whether it was done properly and come up with that. If if uh um once this is done, say you prevail and they say they need to do more environmental work and then that is all okay, then your opposition, does that end as well?

[00:06:58]>> We're an environmental law organization.

[00:07:00]So what we want to see is that they follow the law. Um the first step is environmental review and if they follow that law and fulfill those obligations, then yeah, we're in good shape and then we move on to a permitting process.

[00:07:15]>> Okay. And then lastly, are you involved in any other similar litigations against there's a number of data centers being uh either proposed or planned in the works across the state. Do you have a role in similar suits or or inquiries into any others?

[00:07:34]>> Uh yes, we have four other active pieces of litigation. So, uh, Herman Town, Farabo, um, Lakeville, >> and then North Manito.

[00:07:48]>> Okay. Didn't mean to put you on the spot there, but I know.

[00:07:52]>> So, and they're all and they're all very similar suits. Like, it's all the same because they all went through a very similar process in terms of a lot of secrecy and lack of detail at the environmental studies stage that hid a lot of the information from the public.

[00:08:06]And so the suits are all I mean they're different but they're all kind of the same and that we're arguing that environmental study doesn't look like that in Minnesota. It looks better. Uh and it it it really values transparency and public process over secrecy.

[00:08:20]>> All right. Uh Katherine Hoffman with the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. Thank you for taking some time and and helping explain uh what can be a confusing process for folks.

[00:08:32]>> Yeah, thanks for having me. You bet.