COMMENTARY:
[Lanham Napier chairs Borderplex Digital Assets, which proposes to build a huge data center campus in Santa Teresa.]
Dear Lanham:
I am glad you favor “putting communities first,” that the Jupiter Project is “deeply personal to me. … I’ve dreamed of improving lives,” and that you say you aspire to doing this “the right way.”
But you are an intelligent, thoughtful fellow. You know that climate craziness threatens a draconian future for our children and is already wreaking havoc. You know that our county is within one of the four areas on Earth now suffering from a “Mega-drought.” You know that such a data center not only can threaten water supplies, but demands huge amounts of power comparable to a modest city.
Particularly here, it should be a rebuttable presumption that any big new installation be as largely renewable-powered as feasible. You likely also know that this community has stood for sustainability and that we have abundant sunlight here.
Therefore I urge you to improve your plan by using primarily renewable energy and by agreeing to very strong requirements on water use.
The Board of County Commissioners should require such a commitment from you. As a decent human being, aware of our plight, you should not require a requirement.
The Commission should have county residents’ welfare as their top priority. While the niceties of cooling technologies and corporate maneuvering can be complicated, this part is not: we are threatened by a climate catastrophe largely fueled by our own greed; mitigating damages and minimizing our carbon footprint is as clear a duty for each of us as honoring our parents, treating the downtrodden as we might treat our savior, or not raping our neighbor’s wife (or anyone else). Unnecessarily adding to the problem, in 2025, is just plain wrong.
You know this as well as I. Can you summon the self-discipline to let that knowledge influence your business conduct a bit? Can you modify your plan, even if that’s inconvenient or might cut into the huge profits you say this campus will produce?
As a practical matter, building a renewable power source might be cheaper than building a gas plant, and would avoid exposure to high and volatile fuel costs; extra cost for firming might change that initial cost equation, but renewables would still save you from exposure to fuel-cost volatility and from the eventual cost of adjusting, as the world moves more definitively toward renewables. Thus it is hard to see how at least a hybrid, involving large investment in renewables and battery storage, but with some firming, would not be a very reasonable solution, minimizing emissions and remaining cost-competitive.
County Commissioners: Please keep in mind the difference between your mission and Mr. Napier’s. His is to make profits, hopefully within the law. Yours is to balance what’s best for us, including our health and well-being as well as the relative affluence of our communities. If you see some benefit to the county in this proposal, your job is to negotiate, at arm’s length, to gain the safest and best possible agreement for us – not to roll over like five obedient dogs.
Urging or demanding that these business entities compromise their profits to improve our environment, isn’t some impermissible discourtesy. It’s your duty.
Most similar projects have provided fewer jobs and used more water than promised, and fought transparency like the plague. Why not turn some promises into contractual requirements?
Peter Goodman's opinions are his own and do not necessarily represent the views of KRWG Public Media or NMSU.