COMMENTARY:
Should New Mexico enact a statewide moratorium on construction of new data centers?
Two local state representatives, Micaela Lara Cadeña and Angelika Rubio, have urged fellow legislators to do so.
Why would we? Creation of permanent jobs and the betterment of area economies was the huge carrot that mesmerized our county commission. However, as was pretty clear even then, while data centers can produce substantial capital investment and tax-base growth, they create few permanent jobs. They can help economic development through capital spending, construction expenses, property/equipment taxes, utility demand, and perhaps a few high-wage technical jobs. (“Utility demand,” is not an unalloyed blessing in the desert.”)
For example, Meta's Los Lunas data center is a substantial economic asset. It employs more than 300 full-time workers. Meta has invested more than $2.5 billion in New Mexico since 2016, with another $800 million construction phase announced. However, 300 jobs is minimal, given the cost: not only someone’s capital, and local governments’ tax breaks, but the strain on our limited natural resources.
New York has enacted a moratorium on hyperscale data centers. New Yorkers seem to approve, so far. People want the state to slow down, figure out who pays for the infrastructure, and impose appropriate conditions before allowing another wave of enormous AI facilities.
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro has announced new stringent regulations on data centers, reversing some of his past policies and embracing more rigorous reviews of the projects. Any new data center project must meet new guidelines limiting electricity and water usage. Meeting those will not be easy. Developers must also be approved by local authorities.
Environmentally, Jupiter alone makes a mockery of our commitment to cleaner air.
Another reason for a temporary moratorium is Jupiter proponents’ extensive campaign of lies and misstatements. A corporation’s legal duty is to maximize profits. If lying (short of perjury, perhaps, and actionable fraud) works, the corporation’s duty is to lie. However, the extent of these lies undermines everything the proponents say, which might include occasional truths.
The lies are legion: claiming that fuel-cells are guaranteed; using people’s email addresses to falsely tell government agencies those people passionately support Jupiter misleading statements about “potable water.” Another example: fuel cells theoretically cut the power plant’s bad impact on our environment by 30%. Saying that “solves” the problem just ain’t accurate. Given that prevaricate flood, how can government agencies accept proponents’ statements without time-consuming verification?
Why NOT delay, to consider the evidence?
Some Republican legislators think we should do a study BEFORE any moratorium. If you thought I was driving us off a cliff, and wanted to pause to check the terrain, would you be happy studying it from the speeding car?
In ChatGPT’s words, we could "Stop approving enormous facilities until the state knows exactly what they're going to cost the public, what they're going to contribute, and who bears the risks." It adds, “Even AI agrees “there’s a strong case” for a moratorium. “A pause of a year or so . . . lets the state learn enough to negotiate intelligently, rather than making billion-dollar infrastructure commitments under rules written for an [earlier] world.” Chat adds that a moratorium is particularly desirable in New Mexico, with our “combination of scarce water, electricity infrastructure, and the possibility that enormous AI facilities could receive preferential treatment.”
Yeah, we should have a statewide moratorium. And thanks, once more, to Representatives Rubio and Lara Cadeña.
Peter Goodman's opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of KRWG Public Media or NMSU.