IronGate Data Centers runs two data centers along Bielenberg Drive in Woodbury. Data Center Map places IronGate Twin Cities East at 401 Bielenberg Drive and IronGate Twin Cities West at 500 Bielenberg Drive. On its website, IronGate calls them MSP 01 and MSP 02, respectively.
Though data centers operate outside public view, their electricity, cooling and backup systems can raise questions about power use, city water and future expansion.
The publication asks and answers a series of pragmatic questions about the data centers:
What Is A Data Center?
What Do The Listings Say About Each Facility?
How Are The Facilities Cooled?
How Much Electricity Could The Facilities Use?
What Does This Mean For Woodbury’s Water?
What About Noise And Backup Power?
While the article will be of most interest to folks in Woodbury, there are some nuggets for everyone. For example…
Under Minnesota law, the Public Utilities Commission must consider making very large electric customers cover the costs that utilities incur to serve them while protecting other customers from stranded costs.
According to Data Center Map, Minnesota already has 81 data centers operating or in the planning phase across the state. The majority of the data centers are in the Minneapolis Market. The next biggest market for Data Centers is Duluth, with 6.
Others (KADOA, Aterio and others) have done counts and Data Center Map count falls the same ballpark.
Minneapolis – 63 Data Centers (Hennepin County
Duluth – 6 Data Centers (St Louis County)
St. Paul – 3 Data Centers (Ramsey County)
St. Cloud – 1 Data Center (Stearns County)
Braham – 1 Data Center (Isanti and Kanabec Counties)
Rochester – 1 Data Center (Olmsted County)
Bemidji – 1 Data Center (Beltrami County)
Cambridge – 1 Data Center (Isanti County)
Alexandria – 1 Data Center (Douglas County)
Mankato – 1 Data Center (Blue Earth, Nicollet, and Le Sueur Counties)
For cities, however, the proposal reaches well beyond routine streamlining. If adopted, it would establish federal standards for local permitting timelines, cost recovery, and negotiated conditions while making it easier for providers to challenge local requirements as barriers to deployment under Section 253 of the Communications Act.
The article details specifics proposals on the following topics:
120-day shot clock
Limits on local fees
Restrictions on in-kind compensation
Rules for commingled facilities
And explains the potential impact on cities…
The proposed rules could have broad implications for how cities manage public rights-of-way and receive compensation for their use. Wireline construction in the public right-of-way is not a simple desk review. These projects often involve excavation, traffic control, road closures, utility coordination, engineering review, inspections and restoration. Requiring every authorization to fit within one federal timeline, particularly if the clock starts with an incomplete submission or applies to a large batch, could strain staff capacity and make careful coordination more difficult. Smaller and rural communities may feel those pressures most acutely.
Communications policy is entering a new era. The technologies, markets, and institutions that defined the last three decades are changing rapidly. At the same time, policymakers face fundamental questions about competition, affordability, resilience, accountability, and the public obligations that should accompany essential digital infrastructure.
The day will begin by asking how enduring technical principles and public-interest values apply to today’s internet infrastructure. We will examine how the broadband marketplace is evolving; the tools available to the public sector to achieve universal connectivity; and, finally, who can provide meaningful oversight of essential digital infrastructure.
Details:
Thursday, September 24th, 10:00am – 4:00pm ET
Barbara Jordan Conference Center, 1330 G St. NW. Washington, DC
Benton recently featured an article from one of the presenters, Dr. Amelia Acker, called, How Public is the Public Cloud. Here’s a taste of it…
I want to end where I began. Public institutions have obligations that their infrastructure providers do not. These obligations are measured in decades, possibly centuries, while IT firms are driven by quarterly business earnings and three-year contract cycles.
We crafted policy for telecommunications, electricity, railroads, banking, and broadcasting because Americans became so dependent on these services that they had become emblematic of what it means to participate in public life and belong to society. Public interest regulation should focus on dependencies, because dependence creates obligations to users that extend beyond any contract.
What “public” really means is the question underneath all of this. Writing in 2006, the philosopher and librarian Ed D’Angelo warned that markets, when left to govern information on their own, tend toward “the monopoly capitalism of a few major players.”[19] A market can coordinate consumption. But it cannot decide what a society owes its members.
For decades, telecommunications policy has confronted how Americans should be connected to networks. The next compact must focus on what happens after they connect.
NTIA seeks feedback under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) on a set of questions for the November 2027 edition of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS). This collection of questions is known as the NTIA internet Use Survey and is also referred to as the CPS Computer and internet Use Supplement. NTIA has sponsored eighteen such surveys since 1994.
You can send an open ending email. They also have some suggested questions…
The bureau also welcomes comment on any of the following questions. Where possible, cite question numbers and propose specific, tested language:
Is data from the NTIA Internet Use Survey important in 2027? Should the survey be continued?
Which NTIA Internet Use Survey questions should remain unchanged in 2027 to preserve useful longitudinal time series?
How should the survey questions or language be updated for technology use in 2027?
Which questions should be kept because they are used by researchers, policymakers, and/or industry? Please explain how the question(s) are used.
Which questions use outdated language or will not provide useful data in 2027? Should these questions be removed? If not, how should they be changed?
Internet connectivity and applications have changed substantially since the survey instrument was substantively rewritten a decade ago. For example, the role of the internet in Americans’ lives is often unnoticed, from smart appliances to single-player video games that require online connections. How (if at all) should questions on the NTIA Internet Use Survey be edited, removed, or added to address the evolution of these technologies and the words we use to describe them?
Commenters often suggest adding questions, but space for questions is limited. If your comment proposed additional questions, are there other questions that should be removed to make space? Or would some questions be better asked in a different venue?
Are some questions (or potential questions) particularly important for policymakers or industry? Please explain. For example, as a supplement to the CPS, the nation’s primary source of labor statistics, the survey might provide key insights on internet use and the workforce.
What questions (or potential questions) are of particular importance for enabling high-quality evaluation of NTIA’s broadband grant programs and other federal broadband programs? Are there particular gaps in existing program evaluation data that could be filled by adding certain questions to the NTIA Internet Use Survey?
In what ways can survey language be customized to support cross-country comparison?
Is there a need for more data around children’s use of the internet and digital devices? Are there particular areas that need more data, such as screen use in schools or parental perceptions of children’s tech use? Is the NTIA Internet Use Survey, a CPS supplement, the most appropriate place for this, or should that data be gathered in other ways?
Is there a need for more data around artificial intelligence (AI)? Are there particular areas that need more data, such as AI use at work or home, or attitudes towards AI? Is the NTIA Internet Use Survey, a CPS supplement, the most appropriate place for this, or should that data be gathered in other ways?
Doug Dawson (POTS & PANS) takes a look at the disadvantage to consumers when telecommunications customer cut the copper…
But there are still good policy reasons for not tearing down the networks. For many rural households, a telephone landline is the only way to reliably reach 911 or to make the daily calls needed to connect to doctors, banks, and other necessities of daily life. The FCC and state regulators have all said they support tearing down copper as long as customers have an equivalent alternative for voice. And that’s where the rub comes. The Internet is full of stories of people who have lost their copper with no alternative available. Unless a telco is replacing copper with fiber, they generally tell customers to change to wireless broadband. Everybody who lives in rural America knows that cell coverage is poor or nonexistent in much of rural America. But the lack of cell coverage doesn’t seem to be a deterrent for the big telcos that want to get rid of the copper.
People can always change to Starlink, assuming they live in a place where they don’t have to cut down a bunch of trees or put up an expensive tall pole to receive service. But this means replacing a $30 landline bill with a $130 Starlink bill. Even then, a customer has to be sophisticated enough to subscribe to a WiFi calling service through a web connection and worry about losing 911 when power goes out.
I recently read an article on Medium by Bruce Kushnick that points out another motivation for the big telcos to tear down copper. When a telco eliminates the last copper infrastructure in a state, it is theoretically no longer subject to Title II traditional regulation. The FCC and courts have rules that broadband and voice services carried across all other technologies are subject to Title I regulation as an information service.
This is a big deal that is not being talked about. Carriers subject to Title II regulation are required to offer just and reasonable rates. Title II carriers are subject to strict rules about protecting customer information. Title II carriers are subject to all sorts of rules for things like having specific rules about when and how a customer can be disconnected for nonpayment. Title II carriers are subject to mandatory obligations to interconnect with other carriers.
If a telco can change to become regulated by Title I rules, all of these regulatory obligations would go away. If a big telco could get every single customer off copper in a state, they’d have a good case to make that they are no longer subject to any Title II regulation. I’m positive that this is where AT&T and Verizon are headed. They would probably have to petition a state to make the change, but in most states they will win their argument.
A new poll is looking to answer the question of how much support there is in the Pine Island community for the data center project.
The person behind the poll, who shared the results with ABC 6 News, said it only counted people who have addresses within 55963 area code. It should also be noted that the author has publicly pushed back on the data center project.
Of the over 650 people who responded to the poll, just over 19% said they support the project while nearly 76% said they did not support it. 4.4% said they were not sure.
These numbers track with broader results, including a recent KSTP/SurveyUSA poll that found 60% of Minnesotans oppose data centers in their area, 27% are in favor, and the remainder were uncertain.
Community members on both sides of the Google data center debate spoke out at Tuesday’s Hermantown City Council meeting, with some voicing disappointment that the planned environmental review was not on the agenda.
No one spoke specifically on the consulting resolution during public comment. Community members on both sides of the data center debate used the time to address the broader project.
Some expressed disappointment that the Alternative Urban Areawide Review, or AUAR, the planned environmental review, was not part of Tuesday’s agenda.
The meeting was paused but in the end continued…
Public comment during the meeting became heated, and shouts from attendees prompted a brief recess. The meeting resumed afterward.
The Hermantown City Council on Tuesday unanimously approved funding of no more than $20,000 for a consulting service to help guide discussions with tribal governments as part of the Google data center proposal.
The consultant will act as a liaison between the city and tribal governments throughout the environmental research and permitting process.
The Coalition for Responsible Data Center Development in Farmington will halt its lawsuit today against the city of Farmington, the Farmington School District, and Tract Land Development of Colorado due to the increasing costs of the litigation.
“The merits of the lawsuit are valid, but the ongoing high costs of litigation are no longer sustainable by the few residents who have personally shouldered the legal costs to keep the lawsuit alive,” said Cathy Johnson, chair of the CRDCD.
The Coalition is a group of residents opposed to the 2.5 million-square-foot data center concept that has been proposed to be built near residential neighborhoods.
The Coalition’s decision to withdraw from the lawsuit does not affect the Castle Rock Township’s companion lawsuit against Farmington that challenges the breach of the Orderly Annexation Agreement.
More information on the Castle Rock Township’s lawsuit…
The Farmington City Council approved in December 2024 a final planned unit development with Tract to build up to 12 data center buildings in a $5 billion project. The data center end user has not yet been identified.
Castle Rock Township Board voted unanimously to sue the city of Farmington on Jan. 14, 2025, accusing the city of violating the orderly annexation agreement when it granted the approval. Castle Rock’s move followed a Dakota County judge’s November 2024 approval of an injunction that halted the technology park project.
St. Cloud’s rulebook does not say the words “data center,” and the city will take at least another month to fix that.
The St. Cloud Planning Commission voted 5 to 1 Tuesday night to postpone action on the city’s first data center rules, sending staff back for more research before a possible vote in October.
The delay matters because the current code is not silent by design. It never contemplated these buildings, so the city treats them as communications facilities, a use already allowed in its planned industrial parks. The door is technically open right now, with no standards attached to it.
The St. Cloud Planning Commission holds a public hearing Tuesday evening at 6:00 at city hall on draft amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code that would, for the first time, define what a data center is in St. Cloud and specify where the largest ones could go.
The city itself is the applicant. In a September 1st memo, Community Development Director Matt Glaesman writes that the city’s current position leans on general industrial language and “a dated zoning definition with no specific site design standards.” Acting now, before a site-specific proposal lands, is “the best practice to establish appropriate standards based on community goals,” he writes.
The drafts split data centers into two categories. Enterprise or on-site facilities, the kind that have quietly operated inside businesses for years, are capped at 2,000 servers, 10,000 square feet and 50 megawatts of peak electrical use. Anything bigger is considered hyper-scale.
Join the Colorado Adult Education Coalition (CAEC) for Bridging the Digital Divide during Digital Inclusion Week 2026
This 100% remote event brings together educators, workforce professionals, community leaders, and digital equity advocates for conversations focused on AI, digital literacy, technology access, workforce opportunities, online learning, digital equity, cybersecurity, and more.
📅 October 5–9, 2026
⏰ 8:00 AM–4:00 PM (MT)
💻 100% Remote
Together, we’re building bridges to access, skills, opportunity, equity, and brighter tomorrows.
Broadband Matters: Office of Broadband Development Updates
Broadband Task Force, September meeting plans
Digital Opportunity updates
Broadband, Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) updates
Line Extension Connection Program, registration open for residents and businesses
Broadband Task Force, September meeting plans
The Broadband Task Force will meet Wednesday September 16 at 10 a.m. CT. This meeting will be held virtually and is open to anyone from the public to attend. Information on this upcoming meeting, including the Teams link to join, as well as past meetings can be found on the Broadband Task Force webpage.
Digital Opportunity updates
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is to review the E-Rate Program, information from the FCC available on the Federal Register. Additional resources include:
Schools, Health, & Libraries Broadband Coalition’s (SHLB) resource page on their response to purposed E-Rate changes
Additionally, on the federal news of the reinstatement of the Digital Equity Competitive Grant Program, Benton Institute recently published The Tight Clock for Reopening the Digital Equity Competitive Grant Program. At this time, our office has not received updated guidance from NTIA regarding whether state’s Digital Equity Capacity funds or related grants may be reinstated.
As OBD continues to navigate ongoing developments please feel free to reach out to our office with questions at DEED.broadband@state.mn.us or by phone at 651-259-7610.
Broadband, Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) updates
OBD is continuing to work through required project scope changes and preparing contracts for execution. Updated information and resources can be found on the OBD BEAD webpage. The NTIA must approve project scope changes and has informed OBD the review process can take several weeks. The current federal contracting deadline is October 8, 2026.
On September 3, 2026, the NTIA announced a new BEAD Supplemental Deployment Policy Notice that introduces an updated process for BEAD implementation. States are actively reviewing this new guidance to better understand its implications. As NTIA releases additional information, including details on timelines, states will provide further updates and resources to keep partners and providers informed.
OBD’s Executive Director, Bree Maki, was quoted in a recent article, Second BEAD Deployment Funding Round Launched, “We’ve had some really good providers who have participated in the state of Minnesota for years not be able to move forward with BEAD because of cost increases, supply chain, as well as the uncertainties that this program has provided.”
Anhil Hurkadli, former acting deputy director for the Office of Educational Technology and chief of staff for the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development at the U.S. Department of Education, lives in Minneapolis. The Minnesota Star Tribune recently published an Opinion Piece from him on technology in the classroom…
The 2024 National Educational Technology Plan identified three digital “divides” that characterize more precisely where our intentions fall short: the digital access divide (who does or doesn’t have connectivity, content and devices); the digital-use divide (active or passive technology used to complete instructional tasks); and the digital design divide (systems providing ongoing, robust professional support to ensure all educators use technology more effectively, or not). A student, parent, educator or administrator can use this language to better pinpoint the specific issues technology is creating in their school community.
The letter goes on to offer some recommendations to students, parents, educators and district leaders. He also discussion the importance of policy…
Minnesota is exceptional in many ways, but we lag far behind as a state when it comes to educational technology policy. Gov. Tim Walz made attempts to close the digital-access divide during the pandemic, but little was done to ensure those new devices were used effectively (as teachers and parents who weathered the pandemic can attest). Since ChatGPT was released to the public in 2022, our state government and the Legislature have done little to set a unifying vision for technology or AI in education, or to provide guidance and resources to implement that vision.
We should expect that our next governor, our next commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Education and our next state Legislature have informed, nuanced opinions about the issues involved and the political will to act. Thankfully, strong leadership exists at the local level. St. Cloud’s robust guidance to students, educators and families and Hopkins’ ”pedagogy over policing” approach stand out as regional exemplars.
These are collective opportunities and challenges that will take time to address, but we each play a role in solving them. Don’t spend another semester wishing someone else would do something about it. While the underlying issues may be difficult to identify (but easy to ignore), things will only get more complex. Just ask Claude how agentic AI or quantum computing will affect education.
I’ve been going back in forth on whether to talk about Flock or not. At the highest level, Flock is a surveillance system that includes the hardware, software and database. You’ve probably seen mention of it in the news. My intention is not to take this on as a new discussion on the blog but introduce the topic briefly and share some resources that I found useful in learning more.
How does this relate to broadband? Broadband connects the remote cameras in a way that allows quick information-sharing,
If Flock is an entirely new term to you, you might check out the Wikipedia entry. For a conversation about Flock, from the community perspective, I’d recommend Flock Off! – Episode 23 of Unbuffered, hosted by Chris Mithcell from the Institute for Local Self Reliance. You can watch, listen or read the discussion. (Video below.)
I like the discussion because it’s part technology, part policy and overall pragmatic. It’s not meant to change anyone’s mind about the topic or related topics, but it raises questions and provides some facts and data to inform us. It uses Minnesota examples – as well as others. It’s a conversation that’s interesting and informative. Chris is a trusted resource who is pretty upfront about when he’s giving opinions, when facts and when his biases might be showing.
Here’s the description from the website..
In this episode of Unbuffered, Chris sits down with independent reporter Daniel Boguslaw to explore the growing friction between technology, privacy, and local governance.
The conversation centers on Flock Safety—a network of automated license plate readers and surveillance cameras—and how it has sparked a nationwide debate over corporate surveillance, national databases, and civil liberties.
Chris and Daniel begin by exploring what Flock actually is—beyond simple traffic cameras—and how its centralized, network-wide license plate tracking creates massive databases of human movement.
They examine how private surveillance data is increasingly bought, repackaged, and utilized by federal agencies to bypass constitutional protections, enabling broader dragnet tracking and political intimidation.
From there, the conversation turns to the growing grassroots resistance to mass surveillance. Daniel and Chris discuss how citizens across the political spectrum are exercising local civic power through city councils to cancel Flock contracts and reject ungoverned technology in their communities.
Finally, Chris and Daniel tackle the false choice between total surveillance and public safety, contrasting high-tech dragnet systems like Flock and ShotSpotter with proven, trust-building community policing strategies.
Throughout the episode, Chris and Daniel connect these local battles to broader questions about civil liberties, corporate power, and how everyday people can reclaim control over the technology in their lives.
This show is 55 minutes long and can be played on this page or via Apple Podcasts or the tool of your choice using this feed.
The Reformer asks an intriguing question in a recent article: Big Tech wants to build a data center in your city. Is it worth it? The answer is potentially more intriguing for readers because is seems to depend on several factors, including where it is located. City, suburb, rural area? Are you retrofitting an older building or building new? What deals have been made?…
Community opposition to data centers is rising fast, but big computing facilities still have at least one influential fan.
“If I were the mayor of a town or the governor of a state and I had a chance to get a big … AI plant or data center, I would absolutely want it because the jobs are enormous and the money paid, the taxes paid, are just enormous,” President Donald Trump told reporters last month.
He returned to the subject recently, in harsher form.
“The only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor,” Trump said in a lengthy Truth Social post. “If we kill the Golden Goose, you will only have yourselves to blame.”
Recent public polling shows Trump’s stance on data centers is unpopular, even within his own party. A recent Economist/YouGov poll finds the general concept of data center construction underwater by more than 30 percentage points, and Americans opposed to data centers in their communities by a margin of more than 3 to 1.
Fifty-two percent of Republicans would say no to a new data center nearby, while just 28% would support one, the poll found. Respondents expressed particular concern about data centers’ impacts on electric bills and home values.
Those worries and others — about excessive water usage, air and noise pollution, strain on the power grid and secret deals between developers and local officials — are bubbling up across Minnesota as Meta brings the state’s first hyperscale data center online in Rosemount, and Google seeks permission to build two more near Rochester and Duluth. There’s unease about what happens inside these facilities, too.
The use several local examples, such as downtown Minneapolis…
Downtown Minneapolis has several smallish data centers in operation and at least one more under construction. A few dozen more dot the Twin Cities’ suburbs. Some of these have operated uneventfully for decades. But Minnesota does not yet have any computing clusters to rival Quincy’s or Loudoun County’s.
Rosemount…
Meta’s Rosemount facility will be the state’s first experience with the newer generation of industrial-scale facilities that has soured public opinion on data centers generally. Rosemount says Meta could pay the city up to $20 million in property taxes over 20 years and support 148 permanent jobs once operational, likely later this year or in early 2027. The city reported total revenues of $68.8 million in 2024.
The Dakota County assessor expects the project to have a total tax bill of $2.6 million in 2028, Rosemount community development director Adam Kienberger told the Reformer.
The article continues to compare and contrast the experience or potential in each area.
Y105FK out of Rochester reports