County board rejects proposed moratorium on data centers

County board rejects proposed moratorium on data centers

News Clippinecountynews.com·Pine County, MN·5/7/2026

The Pine County Board of Commissioners rejected a proposed ordinance for a one-year moratorium on data center developments. The Zoning Board had proposed the moratorium to allow time to study the impacts of data centers on energy and water usage. Commissioners expressed differing views on the necessity and effectiveness of moratoriums.

moratoriumzoningelectricitywatergovernmentenvironmental
Gov: Pine County Board of Commissioners, Pine County Zoning Board, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, Minnesota Legislature, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Sen. Jennifer McEwen, Moose Lake Power company
The Pine County Board of Commissioners voted to reject a proposed ordinance that would have imposed a one-year moratorium on data center developments within the county. The Pine County Zoning Board had put forward the interim ordinance, citing concerns that existing zoning regulations were inadequate to address the energy and water usage and localized impacts of data centers. County Administrator Kelly Schroeder highlighted that data centers are a significant topic, and the zoning board sought the moratorium to gain time for studying potential regulations. Commissioner Matt Ludwig moved to approve the moratorium, but the motion failed to receive a second. During the discussion, Commissioner Steve Hallan expressed his general disapproval of moratoriums, while Ludwig acknowledged the need to understand data center impacts on resources. The debate also touched upon the broader context of data center growth in Minnesota, with concentrations in the Twin Cities and increasing interest in outstate areas due to cheaper land and power access. State-level efforts are underway, including a bill introduced by Sen. Jennifer McEwen (DFL-Duluth) proposing a statewide moratorium and legislation to ban non-disclosure agreements between local officials and developers to enhance transparency. Previous state legislation has addressed water supply, energy cost pass-throughs, and contributions to energy conservation programs, though opponents argue more is needed, particularly regarding water recycling and energy impacts.