Keri Powell said data centers and other industrial sources should not be able to get their air pollution permits in secret. That warning lands at the center of a plan by the Environmental Protection Agency that would make it harder for the public to learn about and comment on proposed AI data centers before projects are approved and construction begins.
Who Gets Shut Out
The EPA proposal would eliminate a federal requirement that states notify the public and seek comment before issuing air pollution permits for data centers and other industrial facilities. States could still offer opportunities for public comment, but the EPA would no longer require them as a condition for states to grant permits. That shift hands more power to state permitting systems that, critics say, already leave many communities in the dark.
Critics say the move could thwart local residents from learning about proposed data centers or making their voices heard before projects are approved and construction begins. Under the EPA plan, states with weak or no requirements for public comment could speed permits for data centers, power plants and other pollution sources without consulting the public or even informing communities where the facilities are located, Mike Koerber and other critics said. Koerber, a former deputy director of EPA’s air quality office, said, “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.”
He said the plan 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.” That’s the apparatus at work: one set of rules for some communities, silence for others.
The People at the Bottom
The Southern Environmental Law Center leads a coalition of nearly 200 environmental, health and community groups that filed comments with the EPA opposing the plan. That’s the closest thing in the article to organized resistance from below. It’s not glamorous, and it’s not backed by the same machinery as the tech giants, but it’s direct, public, and rooted in the places where the pollution lands.
Powell said communities deserve a chance to weigh in before potentially harmful projects are approved. She said many states “only do what is required by federal law” when it comes to public notice of land-use projects and other environmental concerns. “We rely on a minimum federal requirement to ensure we have environmental protections and a voice,” she said, calling regulation of data centers a crucial issue in a region where the energy-hungry behemoths are proliferating.
Virginia and Georgia are both among states with the highest concentration of current and proposed data centers. The article says local communities have also expressed concerns about excessive water use and noise from data centers. These are the costs that don’t show up in the glossy pitch decks: the air, the water, the noise, the burden pushed onto neighborhoods that didn’t ask for any of it.
What the Officials Call “Lead”
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, who has made U.S. leadership in AI a top agency priority, said in a statement that the plan is aimed at “cutting unnecessary and burdensome red tape, unleashing American energy and advancing cooperative federalism” with states. EPA spokesperson Carolyn Holran called the criticism a false narrative. She said, “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.
Holran said the EPA proposal does not specifically identify data centers and would also apply to laundromats, car repair shops and even landfills and steel mills that are considered minor pollution sources under the federal Clean Air Act. She said the proposal does not demand that states make particular changes to their programs, nor does it alter federal emission standards or weaken environmental protections. “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,” she said.
That’s the language of managed retreat: states get to pick, the public gets less say, and the people living beside the facilities are told this is all just procedure.
President Donald Trump continues to back data centers, even as politicians from both parties criticize them and many communities try to block them. Trump said on social media this week that U.S. communities that don’t have data centers will “end up being backwards and poor.” He has acknowledged that data centers need “a little public relations help” and has pushed tech companies to generate their own electricity to shield consumers from higher utility bills. The Republican president calls data centers critical to winning the AI race against China.
Brandon Jones-Cobb, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said, “It’s beyond cruel for Trump’s EPA to silence front-line communities who bear the brunt of unhealthy air.” He said the EPA “has already turned its back on science, cut enforcement against industrial polluters and eliminated life-saving air pollution measures.” He said, “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.”
Jane Williams, executive director of California Communities Against Toxics, said even if data centers ultimately are approved, “every community should be able to participate robustly in governmental decisions that can pollute our air.” She said 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.”
The EPA is expected to make the rule final next year. For now, the fight is over whether the public gets a voice before the permits are stamped and the server warehouses rise.