EPA proposes making air-pollution disclosure voluntary for datacenter permits

Former air officials warn public’s Clean Air Act voice at risk

The proposed rule would strip a requirement in the Clean Air Act that “minor” sources of air pollution disclose to the public through state agencies how much pollution their proposed projects will release. Instead, disclosure would become voluntary at the discretion of state and some local officials. Many states are keen to attract datacenters, and observers say it is unlikely that most would voluntarily require large tech companies to disclose the data.

Joe Goffman, a former assistant administrator for the EPA’s office of air and radiation, said the move is likely intended to curb criticism and public oversight of datacenters. He co-authored comments on the proposed rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Network. Goffman said the Clean Air Act is supposed to offer “an ironclad promise” that gives the entire U.S. public a voice on permitting decisions. “The administration is basically saying: ‘You all may have thought this was an ironclad promise, but it no longer is,’” he said.

The rule comes amid a national surge in datacenter construction that forms an essential part of the artificial intelligence boom. Many developers apply for “minor” pollution-source permits covering up to dozens of diesel generators or gas turbines used to help power facilities or provide backup generation. The EPA delegates monitoring of “minor” pollution sources to state authorities while handling major polluters such as gas plants. The permits are meant to ensure facilities follow federal limits on six pollutants linked to asthma, heart disease and cancer.

Without access to the disclosure data, communities would not know what they are breathing once a datacenter is built and would have less ability to challenge a project in court or in public relations, according to The Guardian. Public health advocates say the disclosure data is used by environmental law clinics, public-interest groups and journalists, even though individual members of the public typically are not part of the regulatory battles.

Advocates say large tech companies often split pollution-permit requests into separate applications for each generator or turbine, so the project stays within state “minor” reviews and avoids a larger EPA review that would be costlier, more time-consuming, and more difficult to legally defend. The practice is already legally uncertain, advocates say, and the administration now appears to be trying to eliminate the little transparency that exists. Some of the largest polluting sources in the Midwest, including datacenters, “emit harmful air pollutants under so-called ‘minor source permits,’” said Jessica O’Donnell, senior attorney at the Environmental Law and Policy Center. She added that the public “deserves to weigh in on such permits to ensure these industrial sources are given appropriate emissions limits and stick to them.”

The EPA wrote that the change is “intended to reduce administrative burden and responsibly speed up permitting, supporting American economic development and energy dominance” by putting state agencies “most familiar with local issues in the driver’s seat.” A spokesperson for the EPA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mike Koerber, a former deputy director of the EPA’s office of air quality planning and standards, said the proposed rule “continues efforts by the current administration to turn its back on the fundamental EPA principle of transparency.” Goffman said the flexibility of the rule could become a “regulatory subsidy” used by states competing for datacenter investment, because developers often try to avoid scrutiny and states eager to attract them could offer to waive the public-notice requirement.

Goffman’s concern extends to the administration’s push to accelerate datacenter development by expanding opportunities for “islanded” power-generation facilities that supply their own power rather than connecting to the grid, where emissions are more closely examined. With the public comment period closed, Goffman and others who co-authored comments say a finalized rule could be challenged in court.