AG’s Office notes costs may rise into ‘billions’ for Xcel ratepayers who are supposed to be insulated by law from all data center electricity costs
Xcel should also justify its many ‘trade secret’ redactions that cloud public understanding of data center’s potential rate impacts
AG’s Office submits initial comments to Public Utilities Commission in response to Xcel Energy’s request to approve agreement for electric service to Pine Island data center; under state law, Residential Utilities Division of AG’s Office advocates for individual and small-business ratepayers at PUC
October 1, 2026 (SAINT PAUL) — The Office of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has submitted initial comments to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regarding an agreement (ESA) between Xcel Energy and Google to provide electric service to Google’s proposed Pine Island data center. The Attorney General’s Office argues that Xcel has not established that the Google ESA is reasonable, consistent with the public interest, or meets the stringent requirements of the applicable law. It further warns that ratepayers, who under Minnesota law are supposed to be insulated from all data center electricity costs, may in fact face billions of dollars of costs under the ESA between Xcel and Google.
There are two main reasons for this. First, Xcel has not shown that Google will pay all costs attributable to the data center during the ESA term. Second, Xcel has not shown that other customers will be protected from paying for stranded costs if Google reduces its demand or leaves Xcel’s system. The impact of these potential cost shifts to Xcel’s individual and small-business ratepayers could be in the billions of dollars.
In the initial comments, the Attorney General’s Office also expresses its concerns with the lack of transparency in the current PUC proceeding caused by Xcel’s redaction of information about the costs of serving Google, and Xcel’s failure to justify these redactions.
Risks to other ratepayers of data center cost shifts
Minnesota law requires that “all costs attributable to the utility’s very large customers” be assigned to those customers and not other ratepayers. This includes Minnesota households and small businesses. Yet the Google ESA, and Xcel’s current cost-allocation plans to the extent they are known, fail to comply with this requirement, leaving significant risk that other customers will be asked to cover Google’s costs. Although Xcel claims that Google will provide over $1.1 billion in net benefits to other ratepayers, the Attorney General’s Office’s analysis indicates that the value may be closer to $1 billion in net costs to other ratepayers.
The Attorney General’s Office argues that Xcel should take steps to supplement the record to ensure that all costs attributable to serving Google’s data center are born by Google, as the law requires.
Risks to other ratepayers of data center stranded costs
Minnesota law also requires that an ESA “contain[] protections necessary to ensure that other customers of the public utility are not placed at risk for paying stranded costs.” Stranded costs may occur when power plants and other utility infrastructure is built to serve data centers but becomes a burden on other ratepayers after a data center stops operating or reduces its electricity purchases. The Google ESA as proposed would leave Xcel’s other ratepayers facing significant stranded-cost risks. Specifically, the Attorney General’s Office’s analysis shows that other ratepayers, including individuals and small businesses, could be on the hook for billions of dollars in incremental resource costs incurred to serve Google after the 15-year contract term ends. If Google were to terminate its contract early, the stranded cost risk would be even greater.
The Attorney General’s Office argues the PUC should not approve the ESA unless and until these risks are more fully mitigated and asks that Xcel provide additional information to help develop the record on the extent of these risks.
Concerns with lack of transparency
The PUC has recognized the critical importance of transparency in allowing the public to understand utilities’ plans for serving data centers and has adopted a requirement that Xcel file its ESA and supporting cost data publicly “to the greatest extent possible.” It also adopted a requirement that for any information not filed publicly, Xcel “provide specific explanations of why protected status is necessary and permitted under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.”
Electricity service to Google’s data center could have significant impacts on Xcel’s other ratepayers, including Minnesota households. Xcel has redacted almost all of the dollar amounts of these potential impacts, however, and has not provided specific explanations for some of its redactions. Members of the public and even some intervenors in the case do not have access to information that would allow for informed judgments on whether the Google ESA and Xcel’s related cost-allocation plans sufficiently protect ratepayers from cost shifting and stranded-asset risks. The unfortunate effect of Xcel’s many redactions is to hamper efficient review of the ESA and cloud the public’s understanding of the data center’s potential rate impacts on Minnesotans.
To facilitate a more robust review of this ESA petition, and to comply with the Commission’s order, the Attorney General’s Office argues Xcel should provide specific explanations of why protected status is necessary and permitted under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act for each part of the ESA petition and supporting cost data designated as trade secret. To the extent that Xcel’s review reveals any inappropriate designations, Xcel should refile its petition with those redactions removed.
Role of the Attorney General’s Office in advocating for individual and small-business utility ratepayers
Minnesota state law makes the Attorney General “responsible for representing and furthering the interests of residential and small business utility consumers through participation in matters before the Public Utilities Commission involving utility rates and adequacy of utility services to residential or small business utility consumers.” The Residential Utilities Division of the Attorney General’s Office fulfills this function on a full-time basis and prepared the initial comments.
Role of the PUC in considering public utilities’ agreements to provide electric service to ‘very large customers’ like data centers
In 2025, Minnesota passed legislation regulating data centers and, in particular, setting requirements for public utilities’ provision of electric service to “very large customers.” The law provides that the PUC “may approve, modify or reject a tariff or electric service agreement proposed between a public utility and a very large customer.” In making this decision, the PUC must consider how best to achieve four outcomes: (1) that “all costs” attributable to very large customers are assigned to the very large customer class or subclass; (2) that the electricity provided to a very large customer meets the quantitative benchmarks of the state’s carbon-free electricity standards; (3) that the very-large-customer tariff or agreement “contains the provisions necessary to ensure” that other customers are not put at risk of paying for stranded costs; and (4) that the tariff or agreement is otherwise in the public interest.
Under Minnesota law, an electric service agreement between a public utility like Xcel and a very large customer like Google must meet stringent requirements designed to protect utility ratepayers from bearing costs caused by the very large customer. However, Xcel has neither demonstrated that the proposed ESA will protect other customers from cost shifting during Google’s term nor shown that other customers will be adequately protected from stranded cost risk if Google leaves the system.
The recommendations in the comments submitted to the PUC by the Residential Utilities Division of the Attorney General Ellison’s Office will help build a record on which the PUC can ensure that (1) all costs attributable to the data center are assigned to Google or the very large customer class and (2) other customers are not held responsible for Xcel’s stranded investments if Google uses less power than forecast or terminates its contract early. Providing the information will help build a record on which the Commission can decide whether the Google ESA meets the requirements of Minnesota law.
