Why I Oppose Large-Scale Data Center Expansion in Minnesota

Technology is changing our world, and I support innovation that improves people's lives. However, not every development marketed as "progress" serves the public interest.

When it comes to large-scale data centers, I believe the costs often outweigh the benefits.

Supporters point to construction jobs, tax revenue, and economic growth. But once built, many data centers create relatively few permanent jobs compared to the enormous demands they place on local resources.

Large-scale data centers do not just consume enormous amounts of electricity—they can also place additional strain on the energy grid. As demand increases, utilities often need to invest in new generation, transmission lines, and infrastructure upgrades. Those costs can ultimately be passed on to ratepayers.

Minnesotans are already struggling with the rising cost of housing, groceries, and utilities. Families should not be forced to pay higher electricity bills to subsidize energy-intensive facilities that create relatively few permanent jobs.

Before approving new data centers, policymakers should ask a simple question: Who benefits, and who pays the cost? If local residents are left with higher utility bills, increased environmental impacts, and greater pressure on public resources, then communities deserve the right to question whether these projects are truly in the public interest.

As artificial intelligence continues to expand, the demand for larger and more powerful data centers is growing rapidly. Yet many residents are only now learning about the environmental footprint associated with these facilities. Before approving additional projects, Minnesotans deserve transparent information about energy consumption, water usage, environmental impacts, and the actual number of permanent jobs being created.

I believe economic development should strengthen communities, protect natural resources, and create meaningful opportunities for working families. If a project consumes enormous amounts of energy and water while producing only a small number of permanent jobs, we must ask whether those resources could be invested in ways that provide greater public benefit.

Minnesota can embrace innovation without sacrificing environmental stewardship, public health, or community well-being. We should prioritize investments that create sustainable jobs, support local economies, and leave future generations with clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment.

Progress should improve our quality of life—not diminish it.