Trump administration is quietly considering a rule change that could make it easier for polluters to build facilities – including some gas-fired power plants and diesel generators that power data centers – with little or no public notice.
On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency held a public hearing on a proposed rule change that would give states the power to decide how the public participates in the permitting process for some up-to-date sources of air pollution. The proposed phaseout comes as data centers face growing opposition across the U.S., with many communities taking advantage of the permitting process in an attempt to ponderous development. Any changes could have sedate consequences for the way ordinary people are notified about up-to-date or expanded polluting facilities appearing in their neighborhoods.
“As someone who actively works in data center communities, I know this is fundamentally true: People want to have a say,” Vanessa Lynch, a Pennsylvania organizer with Moms Neat Air Force, said at the EPA hearing.
Companies that build any type of facility that emits air pollution are required to obtain permits under the Neat Air Act. Pollution sources may be subject to a “major” permitting process, meaning they meet or exceed thresholds for some pollutants, or a “minor” permitting process for those that do not.
Major sources of pollution are reviewed by both federal and state regulators and have extensive pre- and post-construction requirements. However, there is less oversight of smaller sources. The scope of what is allowed as a secondary source is extremely wide and can include everything from arid cleaners and body shops to diesel and gas engines. The latter two are increasingly being used to power data centers, and operators such as xAI and Meta are using processes that allow them to tap into smaller sources to build advance gas power plants.
The Neat Air Act requires public involvement in permitting processes; Congress specified that primary sources must conduct several public steps, including a public hearing. Environmental Protection Agency rules require some public participation for permits for smaller sources. However, due to a patchwork of state enforcement laws, this engagement process – and whether state agencies actually comply with EPA requirements – varies across the United States.
If the proposed rule is finalized, it “will put state and local agencies most familiar with local issues in the driver’s seat to determine whether, when, and for how long to provide public participation opportunities for proposed new smaller sources and modifications,” an EPA spokesperson tells WIRED, noting that the rule will not change emissions standards.
These state-to-state differences can make a massive difference in how the public engages. Keri Powell, an Atlanta attorney with the environmental rights group Southern Environmental Law Center, says groups like hers often take on cases in states like Georgia, where she believes there is a more resilient public notification process and the involvement of smaller sources. Earlier this month, the group alerted state services about structural problems in the data center, based on information obtained from companies’ applications for public air permits. However, if EPA removes the federal requirement, community and legal groups in the state may receive little or no information about upcoming projects and be excluded from participation and review.
“Georgia is an example of a place where I can say I am concerned,” Powell says.
Sara Lips, director of communications for the Georgia Department of Environmental Protection, says the agency is “determining whether proposed changes to federal regulations will impact public participation requirements in state regulations.”
Kentucky also has stricter public participation rules for smaller source permits. Byron Gary, senior attorney at the Kentucky Resources Board, says state agencies behind the scenes have “informally committed to keeping their public participation rules unchanged even if EPA changes its rules.” But, he says, that could change: “Who knows [if] next administration whether they will actually change it.”