Three Data Centers Could Undo the Climate Plans

Oracle’s Project Jupiter is under construction in Doña Ana County, New Mexico. Meta Platforms is building another large data center in El Paso, Texas. A third, larger development is planned at Fort Bliss in east El Paso. ProPublica reports that the three projects could undermine emissions-reduction plans that New Mexico and El Paso spent millions of dollars preparing.

The review mechanism divides what the atmosphere combines. Regulators have largely considered the projects’ environmental effects separately, partly because the sites occupy two states. Each project has its own power plant. Separate proceedings may assign responsibility neatly without establishing whether the combined emissions fit either jurisdiction’s climate strategy.

ProPublica reports that, at full buildout, the three developments would produce millions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions, equivalent to the annual emissions of more than two million cars. That is a projection, not a measurement of current operations. The supplied reporting does not provide individual electricity-demand estimates or enough detail to calculate the precise gap between those emissions and each plan’s targets.

The conflict is nevertheless concrete. New Mexico’s plan aims to reduce emissions dramatically by 2050. El Paso adopted a plan with a similar ambition. Neither accounted for how these developments could upset those goals, according to ProPublica. The climate plan should not need a visitor badge at the permitting office.

The strongest economic case visible in the reporting is demand: companies are expanding computing capacity to supply rapidly growing artificial intelligence services. Infrastructure that serves paying customers has a purpose. But demand for computing does not establish the local public benefit of a particular power arrangement. The supplied excerpt gives no verified jobs, tax-revenue, or public-cost figures with which to settle that comparison.

Officials therefore need a common accounting rather than three unrelated assurances. A useful assessment would distinguish construction from operation, projected emissions from measured emissions, and company commitments from enforceable obligations. A project can comply with an individual approval while leaving a broader climate target harder to reach. Compliance and consistency require separate demonstrations.

New Mexico officials and El Paso city officials can explain whether they will revise their climate plans to account for these projects. Those officials, along with Fort Bliss authorities, should identify which approvals and infrastructure choices remain open within their respective powers. The next test is specific: what emissions conditions can responsible authorities still impose, and what will the public plans require if the projected plants proceed?