[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6376229,"mediaKeyId","2140491-02599c4767b1c48c9bb2bdd7b4e41987","parentId",2140491,"title","Lawmakers hear data‑center industry, utilities and community groups on power needs and grid impacts","audioSeconds",4031,"startMs",153000,"endMs",4184000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2140491-02599c4767b1c48c9bb2bdd7b4e41987&start=153&end=4184","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2140491-02599c4767b1c48c9bb2bdd7b4e41987/thumbnail_153000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6376229/Minnesota/Lawmakers-hear-datacenter-industry-utilities-and-community-groups-on-power-needs-and-grid-impacts","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6376229-9b67fbd8f5240d6a2f4f8c151466f81d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771077799&Signature=jx7GppjYJMQq03fQjT3MHB2wskUIKPQlWZ7bswBdbEIDxMQwKfGiJUQN2ldu9fhNwS9rdrhFhdam6rDHs7yuv3oDjr1ojfxF-8rEgiyWSPcXa2lTFk39OLzCTLxQEphMpZnSPznVhLQk1k9V9R4cHaxh3uGtKkzWn7AoGFx3OEYZ0Q0EJRQ3jirzzZA2aJHEGYE1sah~y~7NL9YmtAxKdzojH-c4VRcc817aP1~dHxzvtMRDyrG9OuAug4PPTu7l5qMFf3mAP0eEyEngcIASNO9zk5G9VHP311gNVrucWBj4xjVmTreGKETBW0zxGEbI1Kw9FuZko1-l3GQRC57Oog__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Minnesota Senate Media Services","date","2025-01-22T00:00:00Z","article","Minnesota Senate Energy, Utilities, Environment and Climate Committee members heard more than three hours of testimony on how large data centers could affect Minnesota’s electric system, the economy and local communities.

Committee members heard that utilities have been approached about very large loads, that planning and contractual terms will shape whether those projects help or strain ratepayers, and that local siting, water use and transparency remain immediate concerns.

The committee convened with Cochair Mark Frentz and Cochair John Matthews presiding; the panel heard from Xcel Energy, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, electric cooperatives and consumer advocates, among others. “We’re excited,” said Jim Pearson, an Xcel Energy representative, as he opened the discussion and described the utility’s interest in partnering with data‑center operators. Pearson said utilities use long‑range integrated resource planning and that the company follows a “cost causer” principle: customers pay for the specific capital investments needed to serve them and other costs are recovered through rates.

Why it matters: several witnesses said data centers can bring investment, new generation and rate‑stabilizing load, but those potential benefits are not automatic. Consumer and community advocates urged firm contracts that protect existing customers from bearing stranded costs; local groups raised siting, water and noise concerns.

Most significant testimony and details

- Jim Pearson, representing Xcel Energy, told the committee the utility is “eager to partner with the data center industry.” He described integrated resource planning as an 18‑month process that models 15 years of demand and treats different load scenarios publicly through the Public Utilities Commission process.

- Michelle Benson, director of Commerce and Energy Policy for the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, said broader economic forecasts and AI growth are driving data‑center investment and that the Chamber sees the centers as a potential source of jobs and investment while calling for workable permitting and attention to energy and water use. “AI is coming, and we’re going to be part of it whether we choose it or not,” Benson said.

- Ryan Hentges, chief executive officer of Dakota Electric Association, told the committee his cooperative has received inquiries “totaling over 3 gigawatts worth of electric service” in its territory, though he said not all inquiries are expected to develop. He said data centers can pay for transmission and generation upgrades and provide rate stability by increasing kWh sales.

- Annie Levinson Faulk, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board of Minnesota (CUB), urged protections for residential ratepayers: require reservation payments, “take or pay” provisions and greater transparency in contracts between utilities and data‑center customers so the Public Utilities Commission can assess the full cost to serve.

- Aaron Tindham, vice president of energy for the Data Center Coalition, said the industry is pursuing efficiency and that data centers are significant buyers of contracted renewable energy. He noted data centers’ operating models make energy a large share of their operating costs and argued that industry actors are incentivized to pursue efficiency.

- Deb Bergin of Missouri River Energy Services and other municipal and cooperative utility speakers flagged “infrastructure fatigue”: large, repeated transmission projects can prompt landowner pushback and raise community concerns about siting long transmission corridors.

Community and consumer concerns

Local advocacy groups and residents testified on siting, water use and tax incentives. Kathy Johnson, president of the Coalition For Responsible Data Center Development, said several hyperscale proposals in Dakota County are seeking hundreds of megawatts each and called for zoning rules and stronger oversight to ensure benefits accrue to local communities and ratepayers. Consumer advocates warned that benefits to consumers are not automatic and urged contractual protections to prevent ratepayers from shouldering infrastructure costs if a project does not follow through.

Discussion vs. decision

The hearing was primarily testimonial and informational. No committee votes were recorded on data‑center proposals at this session. Witnesses and committee members discussed: current utility forecasts and integrated resource planning; contract terms (reservation payments, “take or pay” language); potential near‑term solutions such as distributed generation and batteries; and longer‑term generation options, including nuclear and additional renewables. Utilities emphasized they rely on regulatory review through the PUC and resource planning to determine how to serve large customers.

Clarifying details raised in testimony

- Dakota Electric reported inquiries “totaling over 3 gigawatts” in its service territory (Ryan Hentges).
- Xcel Energy said its current integrated resource plan contains roughly 450 megawatts of load scenario related to recent inquiries and company leadership has discussed pursuing about 1,000 megawatts by 2032 (Jim Pearson).
- Utilities described an 18‑month integrated resource planning cycle and noted that generation and transmission investments can take years and require regulatory approvals.

What’s next

Committee members reserved questions until the end of the panel and signaled the committee will continue the conversation in future hearings. There were no formal actions taken on data‑center policy during this meeting.

Ending note

Testimony made clear that whether data centers become a net benefit for Minnesota ratepayers will depend on the contractual arrangements utilities and developers sign, the speed and scale of development that ultimately materializes, and how regulators and local governments manage siting, permitting and transparency.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Committee on Energy, Utilities, Environment, and Climate - 01/22/25","oneSentenceSummary","Minnesota Senate Energy, Utilities, Environment and Climate Committee members heard more than three hours of testimony on how large data centers could affect Minnesota’s electric system, the economy and local communities.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MN, Minnesota","taxId",77817,"location","Minnesota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6376224,"Prairie Island tribe urges caution as Minnesota committee weighs lifting nuclear moratorium",0,4118000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2140491-02599c4767b1c48c9bb2bdd7b4e41987&start=4118&end=4118","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2140491-02599c4767b1c48c9bb2bdd7b4e41987/thumbnail_4118000.jpg","/articles/6376224/Minnesota/Prairie-Island-tribe-urges-caution-as-Minnesota-committee-weighs-lifting-nuclear-moratorium","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6376224-879841224fac01114bda255d5da4b663/orig.mp4?Expires=1771077799&Signature=bfCNUp3I-KVZkN1Yh1du2i1oilRGa67UNnBVOut3wnMYkAVv6CHKMbosUBCbkXazOR4V84AjFsbYjTs91QUom-JOAxOuYl0s5dd0cuOFlQxEd9l08ohYP5RII~UdT5ma1GgR-Rl1O7mZwqWX6j2fT6Vuq6awyID7PjJG-NSXAY-ja25BQigv8g6AYmK-Fs6JQk9fKKvlA9-q~mb3~CtqtQXvU3vncxg1moi4ZsDlGgROe-CdCcdMLwJbE-4VvrRRlVXUUOTOnjTjPOs3iuq2lj5gsEBrL3SaMYdWZ2GhwFDkrBappnN~lhOUkYUk8xJrbnsUBEY-RVZCFKPAXcwFvA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Minnesota Senate Energy, Utilities, Environment and Climate Committee took public testimony on the state’s 30‑year moratorium on new nuclear plant construction and about the state’s existing nuclear fleet and spent fuel.

Tribal leaders, utilities, labor unions and clean‑energy advocates told the committee that nuclear power provides dispatchable, carbon‑free electricity important to reliability and growth, but the Prairie Island Indian Community said any decision about new construction must address long‑term storage of spent fuel and the community’s decades‑long proximity to the Prairie Island plant.

Blake Johnson, government relations representative and tribal member of the Prairie Island Indian Community, told the panel that the reservation sits “less than 700 yards” from the Prairie Island nuclear plant and described the community’s experience living next to stored spent fuel. He traced the tribe’s objections to how decisions were made in the 1970s and to a 1994 state law that authorized on‑site dry cask storage and established the moratorium. Johnson said the tribe opposed lifting the moratorium until there is a viable plan for long‑term waste disposal.

Utility witnesses described the system role of existing nuclear plants and interest in advanced reactors. Pam Gorman, who has worked in nuclear operations and policy for Xcel Energy for 35 years, described MPR’s two plants: Prairie Island (two pressurized water reactors producing about 1,100 megawatts) and Monticello (a boiling water reactor producing about 700 megawatts). Gorman said Monticello received a federal NRC license extension through 2050 and Xcel has filed for state and federal approvals to extend Prairie Island into the 2050s.

Why it matters: Minnesota relies on existing nuclear units for a substantial share of today’s carbon‑free electricity. Supporters of lifting the moratorium said new and advanced reactors could provide firm, 24‑7 power needed as the state pursues electrification and responds to potential new demand from data centers. Opponents, including Prairie Island leaders, said past federal failures on a national repository (Yucca Mountain) and current on‑site storage create unresolved risks and inequities that should be resolved before allowing new construction.

Key points and testimony

- Prairie Island concerns: Blake Johnson said the community was not consulted when the plant was built and described decades of living near spent fuel stored on site. He cited the 1994 legislative findings that drove a moratorium, which included concern that future disposal costs and uncertainties could impose economic risk on Minnesota ratepayers.

- Utilities and labor: Pam Gorman (Xcel), Derek Moe (Minnesota Rural Electric Association), Kevin Prentice (LiUNA), and others emphasized nuclear’s reliability and role in maintaining a low‑carbon backbone. Gorman noted Xcel’s fleet produced more than 55 million MWh between 2020 and 2023 and described existing on‑site storage: Monticello has about 30 canisters, Prairie Island 52 loaded casks.

- Advanced nuclear and recycling: Witnesses discussed small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced reactor demonstration projects funded in part by the U.S. Department of Energy; Pam Gorman noted pilot projects (for example TerraPower and X‑Energy) that aim to demonstrate technologies by the end of the decade. In response to a question, Gorman said advanced recycling technologies can recover a high share of usable material from spent fuel (she described reuse rates on the order of the high‑90s percent for certain processes) but said recycled material still produces a residual that requires management.

- Policy tradeoffs: Trade and business groups, including the Minnesota Chamber and Minnesota Conservative Energy Forum, argued the moratorium limits options for clean, firm generation and could put Minnesota at a disadvantage in attracting investment that requires large, reliable power. Opposing witnesses stressed the need for community consent and robust spent‑fuel solutions.

Actions mentioned by committee leadership

At the close of the hearing Cochair Matthews announced three bills planned for a future agenda: Senate File 350 (full repeal of the nuclear moratorium), Senate File 468 (partial repeal), and Senate File 426 (hydroelectric capacity bill). Those bills were announced for committee consideration; no committee action or vote on the bills took place during the hearing.

Discussion versus decision

The hearing was informational; no votes were taken. Committee members asked detailed follow‑ups about spent fuel, recycling, timing and costs. Utilities described relicensing and storage plans; tribal leaders urged further consultation and solutions for waste before policy changes.

Clarifying details extracted from testimony

- Prairie Island and Monticello capacity: Prairie Island two units ~1,100 MW; Monticello ~700 MW (Pam Gorman).
- On‑site storage: Monticello reported about 30 loaded canisters; Prairie Island reported 52 loaded casks on site.
- Licensing status: Monticello has an NRC license through 2050; Xcel has filed state and federal applications to extend Prairie Island into the 2050s.

What’s next

The committee announced it will schedule consideration of Senate Files 350, 468 and 426 at an upcoming meeting; no legislative action occurred at this hearing. Witnesses and committee members signaled that further hearings and stakeholder engagement — including direct consultation with the Prairie Island Indian Community — will be necessary if lawmakers pursue changes to the moratorium.

Ending

The hearing framed the central tradeoffs: reliability and decarbonization needs that proponents say require keeping nuclear on the table, against long‑running concerns about spent fuel siting and the rights of communities that live closest to nuclear waste. Committee members left the record open for further work and said the legislature will continue to consider the matter this session.

","The Senate Energy Committee heard testimony for and against repealing Minnesota's 30‑year moratorium on new nuclear construction. Prairie Island Indian Community urged any repeal be tied to a spent‑fuel solution; utilities and trade groups said lifting the moratorium would keep a carbon‑free, reliable option on the table as demand grows.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lawmakers hear data‑center industry, utilities and community groups on power needs and grid impacts

Prairie Island tribe urges caution as Minnesota committee weighs lifting nuclear moratorium