A proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could limit public access to information and opportunities to comment on air pollution permits for data centers and other industrial facilities. This potential change has drawn criticism from environmental advocates and community groups who fear it will reduce transparency and civic engagement.
The EPA plan would remove a federal mandate requiring states to notify the public and solicit comments before issuing air pollution permits. While states could still choose to offer public comment periods, the EPA would no longer require it as a condition for permit approval. Critics argue this could allow projects to be approved and construction to begin without community awareness or input.
This proposal comes amid growing concern in communities across the U.S. about the rapid expansion of data centers, which are built to power artificial intelligence and cloud computing. These facilities are often large energy consumers and can be sources of air pollutants like nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide, as well as raising concerns about water usage and noise.
"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," said Mike Koerber, a former deputy director of EPA’s air quality office. He added that the change could create an "unlevel playing field where citizens in one state are kept completely in the dark about new data centers and heavy industrial emissions in their backyards, while neighboring states maintain oversight."
Keri Powell, senior attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, stated, "Data centers and other industrial sources should not be able to get their air pollution permits in secret." She emphasized that communities deserve a chance to weigh in before potentially harmful projects are approved, noting that her organization and nearly 200 other groups have filed comments opposing the plan.
An EPA spokesperson, Carolyn Holran, characterized the criticism as a "false narrative." She explained that the proposal allows states to determine their own permitting processes for facilities considered "minor" sources of air pollution. According to Holran, the plan does not specifically target data centers and would also apply to facilities such as laundromats, car repair shops, landfills, and steel mills. She asserted that the proposal does not alter federal emission standards or weaken environmental protections but rather aligns national programs with the Clean Air Act to empower states.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, who prioritizes U.S. leadership in AI, stated that the plan aims to cut "unnecessary and burdensome red tape, unleashing American energy and advancing cooperative federalism" with states. The agency is expected to finalize the rule next year.
Former President Donald Trump has voiced support for data centers, suggesting that communities without them risk becoming "backwards and poor." He has also advocated for tech companies to generate their own electricity to manage utility costs and views data centers as crucial for U.S. competitiveness in AI development against China.
Critics, including Brandon Jones-Cobb, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, argue that the proposal ignores the reality in many states, particularly in the South and Midwest, where public notice and hearings beyond federal requirements are minimal. They contend that the federal plan would leave many communities uninformed about the presence of data centers in their vicinity.
Powell noted that many states rely on federal law for minimum requirements regarding public notice for land-use projects and environmental concerns. "We rely on a minimum federal requirement to ensure we have environmental protections and a voice,'' she said, highlighting the importance of data center regulation in regions like Virginia and Georgia, which have a high concentration of current and proposed facilities.
Advocates for data centers point to the local tax revenue they can generate, which may help fund public services like schools and reduce the financial burden on homeowners. However, groups like California Communities Against Toxics maintain that all communities should have the opportunity to participate in governmental decisions affecting local air quality, regardless of the project's ultimate approval.