Governance & the Path Forward
The Imperial County data center: who's blocking progress and why
The $10 billion Imperial Valley Data Center has been legally confirmed, economically validated, and community-ready. So why isn't it built? Because a network of political actors — from the City of Imperial to Sacramento legislators — have used every tool available to obstruct, delay, and kill the project.
Court-confirmed: lawful by-right development
On February 27, 2026, a Superior Court judge dismissed the City of Imperial's 35-page, 121-paragraph lawsuit, ruling the data center is a "by-rights" permissible use on industrial land. The court found the complaint "legally insufficient to state a cause of action."
On April 2, 2026, Judge Anderholt denied the City of Imperial's emergency request to halt the Board of Supervisors' lot merger vote. The legal challenges have been rejected at every turn.
Why it matters
The project sits on I-2 heavy industrial zoned land where data centers, utility substations, and energy storage systems are permitted uses under County Code sections 90515.01 and 90516.01. This is textbook ministerial approval — the same process used for warehouses, factories, and other industrial facilities across California.
Timeline of obstruction
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Sept 2024 | IVCM company created; project development begins |
| Aug 2025 | IVCM withdrew proposal from City of Imperial after political interference |
| Fall 2025 | Project relocated to unincorporated Imperial County (I-2 industrial land) |
| Dec 4, 2025 | City of Imperial filed CEQA lawsuit — later dismissed by court |
| Dec 18, 2025 | Planning Commission lot merger vote failed due to political pressure |
| Dec 22, 2025 | IID Board adopted Ratepayer Protection Resolution (No. 37-2025) |
| Jan 2026 | Developer filed federal civil rights lawsuit (Case 3:26-cv-00128) |
| Feb 27, 2026 | Court ruled project is by-right permissible |
| March 2026 | Sen. Padilla introduced SB 886 & SB 887 to retroactively block projects |
| March 27, 2026 | Board of Supervisors special meeting — packed chambers |
| April 2, 2026 | Judge denied City's emergency halt request |
| April 7, 2026 | Board of Supervisors lot merger vote scheduled |
The IID ratepayer protection framework
On December 22, 2025, the IID Board adopted Resolution No. 37-2025 — a "ratepayer first" framework that ensures any infrastructure costs caused by large industrial projects are paid by developers, not existing customers. This resolution provides five key protections:
Resolution No. 37-2025
- Ratepayer protection — residential and small-business customers pay nothing
- Electrical reliability — grid stability maintained for all customers
- Full cost recovery — developers fund all upgrades they cause
- Expert-driven decisions — engineering studies, not politics, determine feasibility
- Transparency and accountability — public process with community input
The IVDC developer has agreed to all five principles. The framework works. What's needed now is leadership willing to execute it.
SB 886 & SB 887: legislative overreach from Sacramento
Senator Steve Padilla introduced SB 886 and SB 887 to retroactively reclassify data center projects from ministerial to discretionary approvals — subjecting them to full CEQA review even after courts have confirmed their legality. These bills don't protect the environment; they create litigation vectors for opposition groups that have used CEQA as a weapon.
Case in point: Comite Civico del Valle demanded $83 million over 30 years to drop CEQA opposition to a similar project. That's not environmental protection. That's greenmail.
“The courts have spoken. The zoning is clear. The ratepayer protections are in place. The only thing missing is political will.”
The courts confirmed it. The framework exists. Now elect leaders who will act.
Support Carlos Duran for IID Division 1 on June 2nd.
Take Action