Counterpoint: Transparency matters in data center development

Americans have a lot of concerns about AI data centers, but two keep rising to the top. First, the process for approving data centers is very secretive, and the developers are concealing even basic details about their projects from the public. Second, the environmental impacts could be significant, from energy use and bills to water use to noise.

In his recent MinnPost Voices commentary, Lindsay Mark Lewis tries to portray the proposed Pine Island, Minnesota, data center as an example of a project that “went through the process” and should therefore be built. But I wonder if Lewis has read any of the documents in the Pine Island “process.” I have, and there simply isn’t enough information in them to evaluate the potential environmental impacts. 

Key facts were not included in the documents, including how much energy the facility would use and what that might mean for the energy grid or electricity bills; why the facility needs 55 million gallons of water per year and what impact that might have on water resources; how many diesel generators the facility might need on site and what air quality impacts those generators could have; and how much noise or light pollution the facility might cause. The study also neglected to do a required cumulative impact analysis, looking at whether there are other proposed similar facilities nearby and what the cumulative impact of multiple AI data centers might be. 

Related: The Pine Island blueprint: How Minnesota is setting the standard for data centers

The developers have claimed that they didn’t know these details at the time, not that they were deliberately withheld under the non-disclosure agreements they signed with local officials. I don’t know which one is true. But from the perspective of the law, and the residents who wish to know what is being proposed in their town, the result is the same — the environmental study doesn’t include information that the public needs to evaluate and comment on the project.

Ironically, Google’s news release about their involvement and anticipated clean energy investments, which was released after the city had voted to approve the project, contained more details about the project than the environmental study. 

So let’s dig in a bit further to those energy issues, because this is the primary claim at Pine Island — that they are a model of clean energy investment. But the environmental study is silent on the topic of energy demand and clean energy investments. Google doubled down on this secrecy strategy in its recent filings at the Public Utility Commission, where it claimed this information was trade secret and must be withheld from the public.

With regard to how much energy the facility would use, here is a direct quote from their filing: “The facilities are anticipated to bring an electrical load of [TRADE SECRET DATA BEGINS TRADE SECRET DATA ENDS] to the Company’s Minnesota system.” 

Community Voices: Pine Island data center project is far from a gold standard

Did that answer your questions? Or are you curious about Google’s plan to build new energy resources? Here is what Google has to say: “At full load ramp and with all resources online, these assets are expected to produce at least [TRADE SECRET DATA BEGINS TRADE SECRET DATA ENDS] of the capacity and [TRADE SECRET DATA BEGINS TRADE SECRET DATA ENDS] of the energy required by the facility.” 

As long as this veil of secrecy is held around these facilities, this will never be a transparent and democratic public process. Nor can we fully assess this project and its potential impacts. 

Lewis points to the 2025 law passed in Minnesota on data centers as evidence that we have strong safeguards in place already. That law did have good provisions, such as a requirement that utilities create separate terms of electric service, or “tariffs” for data centers to avoid putting costs onto ratepayers. But we still have significant outstanding issues to address, including nondisclosure agreements, environmental review, and the cumulative impacts of multiple AI data centers on our air, water, and land, among other things. And contrary to Lewis’s claims about clean energy, the law does not prevent our utilities from building fossil fuel plants to service AI data centers, as is happening all around the country right now. There is, in short, a lot more to do.  

Lewis’s original question about whether it is possible to build and regulate at the same time, the answer is an unequivocal yes. Minnesota is doing it all the time. In its most recent report on permitting efficiency, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency currently manages air, water, and land permits at over 26,000 facilities across the state. Last year, 99% of the permits submitted met the timeliness requirements set forth by the Minnesota Legislature.

Related: In pausing data centers, Minnesota courts did what local officials wouldn’t

And yes, there are large, controversial projects that are outliers, including AI data centers. Some folks like to point to these examples to make it seem like all facilities are litigated and challenged. In reality, the vast majority of projects in Minnesota go through environmental review and permitting in a timely manner and are never challenged in court. 

AI data centers are moving quickly and quietly into the state. They are moving so quickly and under so much secrecy that, without judicial review, communities would have few, if any, tools to protect themselves. The courts do have a role to play in enforcing our bedrock environmental laws, and the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy’s litigation is intended to ensure that these facilities undergo the same process as every other facility in Minnesota. 

The real question is, who will decide whether these facilities are right for this state — Minnesotans, or the massive technology companies behind these developments? A transparent process is the first step toward putting this decision back where it belongs — in the hands of Minnesotans.

Kathryn Hoffman is CEO of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy.

The post Counterpoint: Transparency matters in data center development appeared first on MinnPost.

Originally reported by MinnPost by By Kathryn Hoffman. Read the full story at the source.