Matthew Daly (AP)
•9/3/2026
WASHINGTON (AP) — A plan by the Environmental Protection Agency could make it harder for the public to learn about and comment on proposed AI data centers that have sparked backlash in communities across the United States and transformed the midterm election landscape.
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 mandate them as a condition for states to grant permits.
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. The move comes during a widespread backlash as tech giants build hundreds of massive server warehouses to fuel 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,” said Mike Koerber, a former deputy director of EPA’s air quality office.
If made final, 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,” he said.
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, Koerber and other critics said.
“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, an advocacy organization that leads a coalition of nearly 200 environmental, health and community groups that filed comments with the EPA opposing the plan. “Communities deserve a chance to weigh in” before potentially harmful projects are approved.
An EPA spokesperson called that 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 said.
The EPA proposal does not specifically identify data centers, she said, noting that the plan also would apply to laundromats, car repair shops and even landfills and steel mills that are considered “minor” pollution sources under the federal Clean Air Act.
The proposal does not demand that states make particular changes to their programs, nor does it alter federal emission standards or weaken environmental protections, Holran said. “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 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. The EPA is expected to make the rule final next year.
President Donald Trump continues to stick up for 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.”
Trump 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.
Environmental groups and other critics say the EPA proposal ignores the reality that many states, particularly in the South and Midwest, don’t require public notice or hearings beyond those set by federal agencies. The federal plan would leave many communities in the dark before data centers show up in their backyards, they said.
“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, another environmental group.
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.”
Powell, whose organization focuses on six Southern states from Virginia to Alabama, 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 in an interview, 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.
Besides powering AI and cloud computing, data centers are often sources of nitrogen oxide, which helps form ozone, as well as carbon monoxide and other air pollutants. Local communities also have expressed concerns about excessive water use and noise from data centers. Many Americans worry that AI could increase economic disparities and cause widespread job losses.
Data center advocates stress that local taxes paid by the centers can help fund public schools, reducing the financial burden on homeowners.
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.’'
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,” she said.
