EPA proposal would remove public air-permit review for data centers and their power plants
- The EPA plans to remove the federal requirement that states notify the public and accept comments before approving air-pollution permits for industrial facilities, including data centers and the power plants that supply them.
- A separate EPA proposal issued last month would let data center developers begin construction before their permits are approved.
- Nearly 200 advocacy groups and more than a dozen states led by both Democrats and Republicans have opposed the federal permit changes.
- South Carolina recently ruled that power plants built for data centers can proceed without review or approval from the state's Public Service Commission.
- Capital B reports that the rural South has seen the largest growth in large data centers, including areas with disproportionate Black communities, while a Gallup poll found seven in 10 Americans oppose data centers in or near their communities.
Hacker News opinions
The EPA calling making the U.S. the AI capital its top priority is a strange mission for an agency created to protect public health and the environment.
I wanted to know what data center pollution even meant. The concern is exhaust from on-site diesel generators or methane turbines when the grid cannot supply enough power, plus noise.
I see this as classist more than inherently racist. Projects with harmful externalities go near poorer communities with less political power, and that population is often disproportionately people of color.
I live in a county with a coal plant and an oil refinery, so I find it odd that people are more alarmed about prospective data center pollution than the pollution already here.
The xAI site in Tennessee is the sort of case people mean. It has brought the on-site turbine emissions issue into focus.
I think communities that have opposed data centers look more justified if public review is removed. The pressure is not only from elected officials, either. Data Center Coalition members and other industry interests push regulators across election cycles.
I disagree that public review is automatically good. Democratically enacted environmental rules should apply equally, rather than letting a small group of loud opponents block legal projects; skipping a hearing does not itself waive pollution rules.
A better policy would copy Massachusetts: allow data centers but require them to build renewable generation for their load. I do not want an outright ban, but I also do not want fossil-fueled construction pushed through without safeguards.
The polling is stronger than a minority objection. I have seen figures of 71% of Democrats and 64% of all Americans supporting a ban on data center construction, so elected officials should not dismiss opposition as fringe.
I am generally pro-information and skeptical of anti-data-center activism, but power and water demand are real. A proposed Box Elder County facility that would use more power than Utah and burn natural gas sounds irresponsible, especially if it raises regional gas and electric bills.
I do not see a quick fix. Voting, protesting, joining environmental groups, and helping bring legal challenges are the practical ways to resist these changes.