Minnesota Judge Halts Google’s Project Skyway Data Center Over Environmental Review

A data center campus doesn’t usually stop because of a records request. This one did, at least for now. A Goodhue County judge has halted construction on Google’s Project Skyway in Pine Island, Minnesota, granting a May 22 temporary restraining order sought by the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy.

District Court Judge Patrick Biren found the environmental group raised real questions about whether the project’s review process met state requirements. The order pauses work on a proposed 482-acre campus that would hold at least 100 acres of data center development.

What the Court Found

The legal fight turns on whether Project Skyway needs more environmental review before it gets built. MCEA argued the campus “could be built without adequate environmental review,” and the court agreed the challenge would be moot if crews kept pouring concrete while the case played out. Biren also flagged how records requests were handled under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, noting the group would have “no opportunity to review the data requested” if construction moved ahead. Putting it plainly, the judge wrote that MCEA “has made a showing of possible success on the merits.”

The Cost of a Stoppage

Minneapolis-based Ryan Cos., the general contractor, estimates the delay could cost the firm about $5 million or more, per the order. “We are currently reviewing the judge’s order in detail to determine our next steps,” the builder said. Google announced its Pine Island investment in February, with Xcel Energy committing the same day to power the facility. Neither company disclosed a total project cost, which has become a pattern with hyperscale campuses.

Project Skyway sits inside a much larger story. Data center construction is booming, from the $16B Stargate site in Michigan to projects across the Sun Belt. As the buildouts spread, so does local resistance over water, power and land use, and environmental groups are getting sharper about using state review statutes as leverage. For contractors, the lesson is procedural: a signed contract and a financed owner don’t insulate a job from a review challenge filed before the first slab goes down.

Leave a Comment