State lawmakers are planning to introduce a statewide moratorium on large scale data center projects during the 2027 legislative session. State Representatives Micaela Lara Cadena (D-Mesilla), Angelica Rubio (D-Las Cruces), Eleanor Chávez (D-Albuquerque) and Senator Carrie Hamblen (D-Las Cruces) say the moratorium would give them time to develop a framework for regulating data centers. Rep. Cadena joined KSFR to discuss what they hope to accomplish with the legislation and what informed their decision to introduce it.
this transcript has been lightly edited for clarity
KSFR: What are some of the red flags that you've seen with existing data center projects that inspired this legislation?
Cadena: I really appreciate that question. I'm honored to represent House District 33 which is entirely in Doña Ana County, here in our Fronterisa communities—our border lands that we share with Texas and Mexico. Here in south central New Mexico we're in a big fight over Project Jupiter, a massive hyper-scaled AI data center that is being built here in Santa Teresa. That project came to be after lots of deals and deception and dishonesty.
When myself and our public heard about this project, our county was getting ready to vote on a massive industrial revenue bond—the biggest IRB ever contemplated in the entire U.S. The IRB they approved is worth $165 billion and they took that vote with less than 30 days public notice. When they took that vote, the IRB application was in draft form. There were lots of pages missing. On a community radio show here at home I asked some county commissioners how they would take a vote with a missing environmental impact statement. They told me their lawyers said they didn't need it. Unfortunately, while this is a tax break worth billions, the legal framework in New Mexico allows data centers to show up just like Project Jupiter did. So, for myself and my colleagues, this proposed moratorium is just common sense.
Our local governments and state governments don't have any protections or parameters in place to mitigate the potential harm that comes along with these projects. A moratorium is not permanent; we're not proposing a permanent ban. But for a window of time we need to prohibit new data center development, so that our local governments and our state governments have a chance to catch up to this fast-moving industry.
So what are some of those specific harms or things that you want to catch up with while this potential moratorium is in place?
Well, here in Southern New Mexico, with Jupiter, we're currently in a fight about emissions. So, in the 2025 legislative session, there was some dishonest lobbying and advocacy that moved something called a micro grid amendment onto an otherwise really good bill about advanced grid technology. What that micro grid amendment allows for is industries like this to show up in our communities and make their own power. Doing so they do not have to follow our landmark climate change act, the Energy Transition Act of 2019. So, that means Jupiter, as it stands today, can show up here and produce massive amounts of power. Of course, we'll be dealing with the effects of massive amounts of emission dropping on our homes and communities. On July 6, New Mexico Environment Department closed its public comment window period for their air quality applications related to Jupiter.
We've played this game before. In the fall Jupiter said they were going to produce almost four gigawatts of power, huge amounts of power with natural gas turbines. That proposal was set to emit almost 13 million tons of new greenhouse gasses every year. I imagine people know that there are real-life consequences to that—respiratory illness surges, and miscarriage rates. People's lives are changed living through emissions like that. There was a lot of public outcry. I'm so proud of our people here in the Borderlands and activists around the state who were throwing all sorts of flags about new emissions like that. Our value is to acknowledge climate change is real and to make real progress towards those climate goals.
As we were fighting the natural gas power plants Jupiter pulled those out and said instead they're going to produce that amount of power with something called fuel cells. Fuel cells have not been deployed at anywhere near this scale at anywhere in the world. If this project moves forward, it would really be like a pilot test. But our lives and futures are on the line. The kind of science that they are putting in front of our agency is almost comical. They are talking about scales like 1/367 of what Project Jupiter build out would be, and say that somehow they can speculate as to how many emissions will come forward with fuel cells like this. They're putting forward sham scientists. People deserve better and they know better.
With the kind of dishonesty moved by this project—I'm sure you all have seen on social media or in real life, they have been moving propaganda campaigns for a long time. In the fall, we were seeing something called Elevate New Mexico. Through the winter, the New Mexico State Ethics Committee actually took Elevate New Mexico to court, arguing that because they haven't filed with the Secretary of State and have not disclosed their donors or the contributors that they are skirting laws. Because they are clearly attempting to influence policy, but not following New Mexico's legal framework in their efforts to do so.
You mentioned the public outcry and pushback against the environmental impacts of data centers like this. It seems from from my point of view that people are a lot more opposed to the impacts of AI data centers than they are to the content being produced. We saw some bills last session that would have regulated things like sensitive deep fake images created by AI, and those failed to gain traction. What do you think that says about this technology?
I think it's interesting, that's been something that I've tried to navigate with some caution. I have constituents still that are using AI to tell me about how harmful Jupiter is and how it is going to wreak havoc in our communities. I'm someone that has explicitly tried to turn off every toggle. [AI] is not something I've leaned into or invested in, but I understand that for different people they are finding benefit to this technology. I've never wanted to use something and then say 'not in my backyard.' I think we have to be really cautious with that here in New Mexico. I have been actually quite supportive of Chair Chandler and others that are trying to move these common sense regulations.
I think New Mexicans deserve to know when AI is being used to make a decision of consequence that impacts their lives, whether it's screening someone for Medicaid eligibility, or reviewing a job application for someone trying to work at the corrections department. I also think it's more than reasonable that if there's a decision being made that we should have an opportunity to review the information being connected to us. We know there's lots of inaccuracies in AI systems, so again, if there's a decision of consequence, we should be able to see that file. And I think there should be a human appeal process, should you want to correct the accuracy of something or explain something that this kind of machine learning wouldn't capture. Those are proposals that I know Chair Chandler has moved previously.
I think one of the other ones that matters a lot to her is making sure, especially when someone's a minor, that there are reminders like 'I am not a human.' Especially when people are finding companionship and connection through these AI systems. We want checks in place. So, those are certainly proposals I would support.
I have to say, down here in Southern New Mexico, the people on the front lines—mostly young people, queer people, brown people, Native people—that are fighting this with everything they have, they are smart, they are thinking for themselves. They are old-fashioned in that they are drawing out banners and writing out letters and making zines of their own creation in their own hand. So, I would say, there's complexity in this, but also the people on the front lines down here in Doña Ana, we know that we're not trying to blow up AI, and say not in our backyards. We're trying to talk about the long-term ethical pieces of this.
When our county voted on that IRB in September, they were being really mysterious about who the end tenant would be of Project Jupiter. Days later, it was announced, in fact, that this would be Oracle. We finally saw documented for the first time that this was a national security issue, because Oracle, Trump's billionaire besties, are are the firm that that said they would go into Trump's Department of War and build out AI technologies for the Department. So not only are the concerns about our scarce water realities and our water futures, the emissions, the ethics around all of this. It looks like Project Jupiter will be used by Trump's Department of War so that these AI systems will be deciding who lives or dies.
What have you learned from other states who have tried to introduce similar legislation?
We've had conversations with a legislator in particular in Maine who was really successful in getting a moratorium passed. Unfortunately, that effort was vetoed by their governor. One of the things that has mattered a lot to us is what it means to uphold our relationships and care for New Mexico's really important labor unions. We want to have honest conversations about where we create jobs, where we have economic futures that are more than false promises. We want to make sure that those workers are part of this conversation. For me that was one of the most fascinating conversations we had with another state—learning how the unions weighed in, what kind of concerns do they have, and how do we make sure that we center and consider those concerns? So I'm really grateful for my colleagues, Representative Chavez, she comes from labor organizing, Rubio, my homie, is also always ready to be in alignment with labor. We're proud to have built working relationships over decades with the Federation of Labor and unions across the state. We want to make sure that we are listening in and learning from what their expertise is and how they want us to consider the potential of these projects beyond the harm.
