Matthew Daly, Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — A plan by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could make it more difficult for the public to learn about and comment on proposed AI data centers that have faced opposition in various communities across the United States.
The EPA proposal would remove a federal requirement for states to notify the public and seek comments before issuing air pollution permits for data centers and other industrial facilities. While states could still provide opportunities for public comment, the EPA would no longer mandate this as a condition for granting permits.
Critics argue that this change could prevent local residents from being informed about proposed data centers and from voicing their opinions before projects are approved and construction begins. This proposal comes amid significant opposition as technology companies build numerous large server facilities to support artificial intelligence and cloud computing.
"By eliminating the long-standing federal requirement for public notice, this proposal continues efforts by the Trump administration to turn its back on the fundamental EPA principle of transparency," stated Mike Koerber, a former deputy director of the EPA's air quality office.
If finalized, the plan could lead to disparities where citizens in one state may remain unaware of new data centers and industrial emissions in their vicinity, while neighboring states maintain oversight, Koerber added.
Under the EPA's plan, states with minimal or no public comment requirements could expedite permits for data centers, power plants, and other pollution sources without consulting the public or informing communities about the facilities' locations, according to Koerber and other critics.
"Data centers and other industrial sources should not be able to get their air pollution permits in secret," said Keri Powell, senior attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which leads a coalition of nearly 200 environmental, health, and community groups opposing the plan. "Communities deserve a chance to weigh in" before potentially harmful projects are approved.
An EPA spokesperson described this concern as a false narrative. "In our proposal, we are saying that states get to pick how they want their permitting process to go for minor sources" of air pollution, spokesperson Carolyn Holran explained.
The EPA proposal does not specifically mention data centers, Holran noted, as it also applies to laundromats, car repair shops, and landfills that are classified as "minor" pollution sources under the federal Clean Air Act.
The proposal does not require states to implement specific changes to their programs and does not alter federal emission standards or weaken environmental protections, Holran stated. "Rather, the proposal simply aligns the national program with the Clean Air Act language to ensure that states are in the lead regarding their programs."
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, who has prioritized U.S. leadership in AI, indicated that the plan aims to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens and promote cooperative federalism with states. The EPA is expected to finalize the rule next year.
Former President Donald Trump has continued to support data centers, despite criticism from politicians across the spectrum and community efforts to block them. Trump recently stated on social media that U.S. communities without data centers would "end up being backwards and poor."
Trump acknowledged that data centers require "a little public relations help" and has encouraged tech companies to generate their own electricity to mitigate higher utility costs. He views data centers as essential for maintaining a competitive edge in AI against China.
Environmental groups and critics assert that the EPA's proposal overlooks the fact that many states, particularly in the South and Midwest, do not require public notice or hearings beyond those mandated by federal agencies. They argue that the federal plan would leave many communities uninformed about data centers before they are established.
"It's beyond cruel for Trump's EPA to silence front-line communities who bear the brunt of unhealthy air," said Brandon Jones-Cobb, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity.
Jones-Cobb criticized the EPA for previously reducing enforcement against industrial polluters and eliminating air pollution measures. "Now it wants to shut the public out of decisions to build or expand facilities that expose communities to dangerous air pollution, including data centers," he said.
Powell emphasized that many states "only do what is required by federal law" regarding public notice of land-use projects and environmental concerns. She described regulation of data centers as a critical issue in a region where energy-intensive facilities are increasing, with Virginia and Georgia being among the states with the highest concentration of current and proposed data centers.
A poll conducted last year by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago found that about 40% of U.S. adults are "extremely" or "very" concerned about the environmental impacts of AI. Many Americans believe that over the next decade, artificial intelligence will have a more negative than positive impact on the environment, economy, and society.
In addition to supporting AI and cloud computing, data centers are often sources of nitrogen oxide, which contributes to ozone formation, as well as carbon monoxide and other air pollutants. Local communities have also raised concerns about excessive water use and noise associated with data centers.
Many Americans worry that AI could exacerbate economic inequalities and lead to significant job losses.
Advocates for data centers argue that the local taxes generated by these facilities can help fund public schools, alleviating financial burdens on homeowners.
Jane Williams, executive director of California Communities Against Toxics, stated that even if data centers are ultimately approved, "every community should be able to participate robustly in governmental decisions that can pollute our air."
Williams added that rolling back the EPA rule "pulls a dark cloud, filled with soot and toxic chemicals, over communities' right to know what polluting facilities are planned in their community."