impacts

IMPERIAL — Whenever the weather changes suddenly, or the skyline becomes shrouded in a windy haze, Fernanda Camarillo braces herself for an asthma attack.

Her condition has become more manageable, but the 27-year-old said it’s still scary when her chest tightens and she starts to wheeze. It was one of her first thoughts when she heard about plans to develop a massive data center next to her home in Imperial County, a farming community near the border of Mexico that struggles with poor air quality.

“A lot of people in the county are asthmatic,” she said, explaining that she worries the new center would add more pollution. “I’ve been anxious — so many of us are voicing our concerns.”

Data centers have existed for decades but are rapidly changing and expanding due to the worldwide boom in artificial intelligence, or AI as it’s known. States and communities nationwide have started pushing back, citing concerns that the projects could strain power grids, increase utility bills and have negative health and environmental impacts.

In California, state legislators are debating how to protect residents and natural resources without creating so much red tape that developers go elsewhere, taking their jobs and taxable earnings with them.

No Data Center signs are posted in the front yard of a home that is right behind the proposed site.

“We can be supportive of innovation and a technology that is needed but also protect our communities and our health and our environment,” said state Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego). “We can do both at the same time.”

The California Legislature is considering bills to prohibit the projects from being exempted from the state’s stringent environmental law and to impose new tariffs on new major energy users that strain power supplies. Lawmakers also have proposed restrictions on new data centers, requiring companies to provide verifiable estimates on expected water and energy usage before they can be granted a business permit.

Imperial resident Fernanda Camarillo, who is an asthmatic, holds some of her medications.

Members of Congress also expressed concerns. Rep. Ro Khanna, speaking at a town hall about AI last month at Stanford University, said legislators must ensure data centers serve the communities that power them.

“We live in a new gilded age,” said Khanna (D-Fremont). “What kind of future are we going to build?”

::

Eric Masanet, a professor at UC Santa Barbara specializing in sustainability science for emerging technologies, described the facilities as the “brains” of the internet. The sprawling centers are filled with banks of specialized computers that process online shopping orders, stream movies, host websites, encode Zoom and other videoconferencing apps, store data and serve as switching stations for the digital world that’s now woven into daily life.

Data centers, particularly those that power AI, use significant amounts of water and energy. The facilities accounted for about 4.4% of the nation’s total electricity consumption in 2023, up from 1.9% in 2018, according to a report provided to Congress from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The researchers projected that figure will reach 6.7% to 12% by 2028.

Many companies, including big tech giants like Meta, Google and Amazon, are making major investments in AI.

“We are building a lot more data centers faster than we ever did — and a new AI data center is 10 to 20, maybe 30 times, the size of the largest data centers we had before,” Masanet said.

The proposed site of the 950,00-square-foot data center is on a dusty parcel that is next to the Victoria Ranch housing community and adjacent to farmland in Imperial, Calif.

It’s unclear how many data centers are in the state. A California Energy Commission spokesperson told the Los Angeles Times it does not track this information. Data Center Map, a nongovernmental website that tracks data centers across the world, lists 289 facilities in California, with more than 4,000 nationwide.

The federal government has, so far, largely left it to states or localities to regulate data centers.

The facilities can generate significant revenue for local governments due to sales and property taxes.

But some new proposals are sparking a backlash. More than 200 community and environmental organizations, including a dozen from California, sent an open letter to Congress in December calling for a national moratorium on new data centers.

Robert Gould, a pathologist with San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, one of the organizations that signed the letter, explained data centers are causing a shift away from renewable energy and back toward fossil fuels because the facilities need a reliable and constant stream of power.

Cornell University researchers last year estimated that AI growth could add 24 to 44 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere annually by 2030, unless steps are taken to change course.

Gould said fossil fuel emissions are associated with various cancers, an increase in hospitalizations for older adults due to respiratory conditions, and asthma attacks or stunted lung growth in children. Particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions is also linked to cardiovascular events and negative effects on maternal fetal health.

Gould’s organization has noticed an alarming trend.

“These are generally placed in communities that are the least able to defend themselves,” he said.

Farmworkers toil in the noon heat to pick vegetables in Imperial. Agriculture is an important part of the Imperial Valley economy.

::

The debate over data centers is heating up in the Imperial Valley, a rural desert region in southeastern California where a proposed center faces fierce opposition from residents.

The county in 2025 granted the project an exemption for the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA. The landmark 56-year-old state law has been credited with helping to preserve California’s natural beauty and protecting communities from hazardous impacts of construction projects — but also blamed for stymieing construction.

Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, a California-based limited liability company that started two years ago, plans to develop a 950,000-square-foot facility in the county that’s designed for advanced artificial intelligence and machine learning operations. The company says it will use reclaimed wastewater and EPA-certified natural gas generators, and create 2,500 to 3,500 construction jobs and 100 to 200 permanent positions.

“We are committed to Imperial County and to creating lasting economic opportunity,” the company website states. “The project will generate $28.75 million in annual property tax revenue for local schools, fire departments, libraries, and essential services.”

The Imperial County Board of Supervisors is moving toward finalizing the proposal.

Farmland spreads out in front of the Imperial Valley Fair near a proposed data center in Imperial.

Sebastian Rucci, an attorney and chief executive officer of Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, said he commissioned multiple studies assessing the proposed center’s potential effect on issues like traffic or the environment that found no or minimal harms. He threatened to pull his proposal if a CEQA review was required.

“CEQA leaves you in an unknown territory — some of the environmental groups have used it for extortion, they sue, they have no basis for the suit but they delay you, and then they can squeeze money out of you for settling the lawsuit,” said Rucci.

The exemption, however, has alarmed residents, who have spoken up at county board meetings and launched a community organization, Not in My Backyard Imperial, to protest the data center and demand a CEQA review.

“It feels like it’s us against the county,” said Camarillo, adding that many feel the board has dismissed their questions and concerns.

None of the Imperial County Board of Supervisors responded to requests for comment.

Resident Fernanda Camarillo’s home is right behind the proposed site of the data center in Imperial.

The center would be a neighbor to Camarillo’s house in Victoria Ranch, a family-friendly area with beige stucco homes topped with terracotta tile roofs. She worries about noise, pollution and spiking utility bills. Power companies that have to upgrade grids to meet data centers’ energy demands sometimes seek to recoup that cost by hiking up rates for all consumers.

Camarillo, a substitute teacher, is also scared for her students. The air quality in Imperial Valley is already so poor that schools use a system of color-coded flags to signal whether it’s safe for children to go outside during gym or recess, she said.

“I think they see [the valley] as easy pickings because we are a low-income community and we have such a large population of Latinos here,” Camarillo said.

A quick drive around the neighborhood shows others share her concerns. Signs protesting the data center pop up throughout the community, displayed on front lawns or nestled into rocky garden beds.

Victoria Ranch was quiet and peaceful on a sunny Sunday in late February. Francisco Leal, a resident and lead organizer for NIMBY Imperial, said that’s a major part of its appeal.

The colorful dusk sky hovers over a Little League baseball game at Freddie White Park in Imperial. The debate over data centers is heating up in the Imperial Valley, a rural desert region in southeastern California.

Leal wants answers about everything from potential health hazards and impacts on the local water supply to whether the fire department is equipped to handle a large-scale electrical blaze. But without a CEQA review, he says residents are left to trust assurances from the developer or privately hired consultants.

Leal plans to sell his property if the project goes forward, but the thought makes him emotional.

“It’s not just a house; it’s a home,” he said. “This is the only home my kids have ever known and all of our family memories are here.”

Gina Snow, another resident, isn’t necessarily against bringing a data center to the county. But she wants the proposal to undergo a CEQA review.

“Clearly we understand that there is economic development and the potential for that to be positive for the county, but at what cost?” she said.

Daniela Flores, executive director of Imperial Valley Equity and Justice, a nonprofit that works for social and environmental equality, stands on the site of the proposed data center.

::

Daniela Flores, executive director of Imperial Valley Equity and Justice, a nonprofit that works for social and environmental equality, said the community has good reason to be wary. Various industries have come into the region over the years and made grand promises that never panned out.

“We became a sacrifice zone,” she said, adding industries use the area’s resources while ultimately doing little to permanently improve the lives of most residents.

Flores said the community continues to struggle with a range of problems, including poor air quality, high poverty rates, weak worker protections and crumbling infrastructure. She believes a data center could add new and potentially dangerous challenges.

The valley has long, brutal summers with temperatures that swell to 120 degrees. If the data center strains the grid and causes a lengthy blackout, or low-income residents have their power shut off because they can’t afford the rising bills, Flores fears the situation could quickly turn deadly.

The city of Imperial also has concerns. The city has filed a lawsuit calling on the county to halt the project, arguing it should not have received a CEQA exemption.

The controversy has drawn attention from Padilla, whose district includes Imperial Valley. Padilla has echoed residents’ calls for more transparency from the county and introduced Senate Bill 887, which would ban data centers from receiving exemptions from CEQA.

“I am not anti-data center or anti-artificial intelligence,” Padilla said. But, he added, we need to “find a way to do this right and make sure there is adequate review and understanding.”

A dusty haze settles over the city of Imperial at dusk near the site of a proposed data center.

Another measure from Padilla, Senate Bill 886, would direct the Public Utilities Commission to create an electrical corporation tariff to cover the cost of data center-related grid upgrades.

Other related legislation this year includes Assembly Bill 2619 from Assemblymember Diane Papan (D-San Mateo) that would require data center owners to provide an estimate about expected water usage and sources before applying for a business license, and Assembly Bill 1577, by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), which would require data center owners to submit monthly information to a state commission about water and fuel consumption and energy efficiency.

While lawmakers weigh new policies at the statehouse, Camarillo said she hopes the priority will be protecting communities.

“Innovation is important, but innovation for the sake of innovation has never really been something that hasn’t had negative impacts,” she said. “Think about human lives.”

Long security lines snaked into baggage claim areas and parking garages at some U.S. airports over the weekend, a possible indicator of more widespread travel problems as the latest government shutdown drags on.

That kind of disruption, while not yet widespread, is not a concern that typically surfaces at San Francisco International Airport, the largest of nearly two dozen U.S. airports where screening checkpoints are staffed by private contractors under a little-used federal program that allows airports to outsource security screenings while maintaining TSA oversight.

Because contractors’ pay comes from a federal contract, it often continues even when the government shuts down.

“The money’s already been allocated, the payments have already been made, and that continues without interruption,” SFO spokesperson Doug Yakel told the Associated Press. “That is a very nice place to be.”

The contrast draws attention to a long-running debate in the aviation industry: Can private contractors operating under TSA oversight provide a stopgap — and shield airport security operations from the political impasses that can disrupt U.S. air travel?

Some aviation experts see the TSA screening program as a potential model for keeping security lines moving with fewer disruptions during shutdowns. At SFO, that system helped maintain screening operations during last year’s record 43-day shutdown, Yakel said.

But critics caution that privatization is not a silver bullet and could introduce new risks. The union representing federal screeners argues that moving operations to private companies could erode job protections and reduce pay and benefits for workers already facing high turnover amid demanding conditions.

How the program works

Established in 2004, TSA’s screening partnership program allows airports to use private security companies chosen by the federal government to run checkpoints while TSA retains authority over procedures and oversight. The agency says private screeners receive the same security background checks as their federal counterparts.

The program “provides needed relief to staffing shortages brought on by a government shutdown,” TSA said in a statement to AP.

In addition to SFO, other participating airports include Kansas City International Airport, Atlantic City International Airport and Orlando Sanford International Airport.

The vast majority of the nation’s roughly 400 commercial airports, meanwhile, rely on federal screening officers employed directly by TSA. During shutdowns, those workers must continue reporting for duty even though they stop getting paid — a dynamic that has historically led to higher absenteeism and slower-moving checkpoints the longer a shutdown lasts.

The current partial shutdown affects only the Department of Homeland Security, which includes TSA. Democrats in Congress refused to fund the department over objections to its immigration enforcement tactics. The lapse marks the third shutdown in less than a year to leave TSA workers temporarily without pay — and once the government reopens, to have to wait for backpay.

Those disruptions can ripple through the travel system, cascading problems across already crowded flight schedules. The strain is especially acute this time of year as airlines and airports brace for what they expect will be one of the busiest spring break travel seasons on record.

San Francisco’s airport is a ‘litmus test’

Aviation security expert Sheldon Jacobson, whose research contributed to the design of TSA PreCheck, said the program’s success at SFO, a large international airport, shows that privatization “is something that needs to be explored.”

SFO is among the top 15 busiest airports in the U.S. when measured by passenger traffic. A major hub for international travel, it is the second-busiest airport in California behind Los Angeles International Airport.

“It’s operated just as well as any other airport,” Jacobson said, adding that SFO’s multiple concourses and status as a hub for United Airlines demonstrate that even large-scale operations can be managed effectively under this model. “If SFO is the litmus test for delivering this privatized product, then many other airports can do it, too.”

Jacobson noted that most airports currently using the program are smaller, but “the scale issue should not be a limiting factor,” and he called for a broader conversation on how such options could deliver government services efficiently and benefit travelers.

“Of course TSA would have oversight. It’s not like they’re freewheeling on their own,” he said of privately contracted screeners. “We might as well use a government shutdown that affects air travel as an opportunity to begin that discussion.”

Why TSA’s union opposes the private model

The American Federation of Government Employees, which represents TSA officers, has long opposed privatization.

“We will never advocate for any privatization of any federal employees. We don’t believe that’ll work,” Johnny Jones, secretary-treasurer of the TSA union’s bargaining unit, said in a brief phone call this week.

In a blog post on its website, the union argues it could weaken accountability for aviation security — one of the reasons Congress chose to federalize airport screening after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The union also warned that private companies could face pressure to cut costs in ways that affect training, staffing levels and employee benefits. Relying on contractors, the union says, could create inconsistencies between airports if different companies operate checkpoints across the country, potentially complicating oversight of a system designed to maintain uniform national security standards.

“We have to remember the TSA was created in the wake of 9/11 when there were no security standards or very minimal security standards,” said airline industry analyst Henry Harteveldt, president of Atmosphere Research Group. “The TSA came around, they established very stringent airport screening security requirements, which exist to this day.”

Others say there are simpler ways to address the shutdown problem.

Industry groups — including the U.S. Travel Assn., Airlines for America and the American Assn. of Airport Executives — are urging Congress to pass legislation that would ensure aviation workers are paid regardless of the government’s funding status.

“Every time Washington fails to fund the government, these essential workers pay the price. So do travelers. So does the economy,” Geoff Freeman, U.S. Travel Assn.’s president, said in a statement. “That is why America’s travel industry has come together, because this workforce is too important, and the stakes are too high, for this to keep happening.”

An unintended benefit of outsourcing screeners

Republican lawmakers have pushed in recent years to dismantle the agency entirely. Last year, two GOP senators introduced the “Abolish TSA Act,” which would phase out the agency and transfer oversight to a new office charged with aviation security. Supporters of the long-shot legislation say privatized screening could be more efficient and less vulnerable to shutdowns.

TSA leadership has signaled an openness to discussion. Speaking at a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing last year, Ha Nguyen McNeill, a senior official performing the duties of TSA administrator, said “nothing is off the table” regarding potential privatization.

“If a new privatization scheme makes sense, then we’re happy to have that discussion to see what we can come up with,” McNeill said. “It’s not an all-or-nothing game.”

At SFO, officials say its screening model was adopted more than 20 years ago for reasons unrelated to government shutdowns. But with shutdowns in recent years growing longer and more disruptive, the airport says its arrangement has revealed an unintended benefit: fewer staffing disruptions at checkpoints.

“The benefits, I think, are compelling,” Harteveldt said. “The real issue is making sure that any vendor, any partner to the TSA, upholds the strict standards that TSA has established and works with TSA to ensure that screening remains efficient and finds ways to make it even better.”

Yamat writes for the Associated Press. AP video journalist Haven Daley contributed to this report from San Francisco.