![\"Two](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/072326trumpepa.png\")
<\/p>\n\t<\/p>\n
Two people look across the Ohio river at a coal power plant in Ripley Ohio on June 12, 2025.Jeff Swensen via Getty<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tGet your news from a source that\u2019s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.<\/a><\/p>\n This story was originally published by\u00a0Wired<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0is reproduced here as part of the\u00a0Climate Desk<\/a>\u00a0collaboration.<\/p>\n The Trump administration\u00a0is quietly considering a rule change that could make it easier for polluters to build facilities\u2014including certain\u00a0gas plants<\/a>\u00a0and diesel generators that\u00a0power data centers<\/a>\u2014with little to no notice to the public.<\/p>\n On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency held a public hearing on a proposed rule change that would hand the power to states to decide how the public participates in the permitting process for certain new sources of\u00a0air pollution<\/a>. The proposed rollback comes as\u00a0data centers face greater pushback<\/a>\u00a0across the US, with many communities using the permitting process to try to\u00a0slow down development<\/a>. Any changes could have major consequences for how ordinary people are given notice about new or expanded polluting facilities coming into their neighborhoods.<\/p>\n \u201cAs someone actively working in communities with data centers, I know this to be fundamentally true: People want to have a say,\u201d Vanessa Lynch, a Pennsylvania organizer with Moms Clean Air Force, said at the EPA hearing.<\/p>\n \u201cGeorgia is an example of a place where I can say I\u2019m concerned.\u201d<\/p>\n Companies building any kind of facilities that release air pollution are required to get permits under the Clean Air Act. Polluting sources can either be put through a \u201cmajor\u201d permitting process, meaning that they meet or exceed thresholds for certain pollutants, or a \u201cminor\u201d one for those that don\u2019t.<\/p>\n Major sources of pollution are reviewed by both federal and state regulators and have extensive requirements before and after construction. However, there\u2019s less oversight of minor sources. The scope of what gets permitted as a minor source is extremely broad and can include everything from dry cleaners and auto body shops to diesel and gas engines. The latter two are increasingly being used to power data centers, with\u00a0operators such as xAI<\/a>\u00a0and Meta using minor source permitting processes to build behind-the-meter gas plants.<\/p>\n The Clean Air Act does require the public to be involved in permitting processes; Congress has specified that major sources need to have several public steps, including a public hearing. EPA\u00a0rules<\/a>\u00a0require some public participation for minor source permits. But thanks to a patchwork of state enforcement laws, that engagement process\u2014and whether state agencies are actually complying with EPA requirements\u2014varies across the US.<\/p>\n If the proposed rule is finalized, \u201cit would put state and local agencies most familiar with local issues in the driver\u2019s seat to determine whether, when, and for how long to provide opportunities for public participation for proposed new minor sources and modifications,\u201d an EPA spokesperson tells WIRED, noting the rule wouldn\u2019t alter emissions standards.<\/p>\n These state-by-state differences can make a big difference in how the public gets involved. Keri Powell, an Atlanta-based attorney at the environmental legal advocacy group Southern Environmental Law Center, says that groups like hers often end up taking on cases in states like Georgia, which, she says, has a more robust public notification and participation process for minor sources. Earlier this month, the group\u00a0alerted the state utility<\/a>\u00a0about construction issues at a data center, based on information they\u2019d gotten from the companies\u2019 public air permit applications. But if the EPA removes the federal requirement, community and legal groups in the state could get little to no heads up about upcoming projects and be shut out of participation and review.<\/p>\n \u201cGeorgia is an example of a place where I can say I\u2019m concerned,\u201d Powell says.<\/p>\n Sara Lips, the director of communications at Georgia\u2019s Environmental Protection Division, says that the agency is \u201cdetermining whether proposed federal rule changes would affect the public participation requirements per the state regulations.\u201d<\/p>\n The EPA is working to make the US \u201cthe AI capital of the world.\u201d<\/p>\n Kentucky also has stronger public participation laws for minor source permits. Byron Gary, a senior attorney at the Kentucky Resources Council, says state agencies have made an \u201cinformal commitment\u201d behind the scenes to keep their public participation rules the same, even if the EPA changes its rules. But, he says, that could shift: \u201cWho knows [if] the next administration, whether they would actually change it.\u201d<\/p>\n Texas is an example of what lower levels of engagement look like. The data center boom there has driven a massive buildout of private gas plants, many of which\u00a0rely on minor pollution permits<\/a>. The state\u2019s lower levels of enforcement have left some communities living in the shadows of data centers surprised at the scope of fossil fuel infrastructure being installed near their homes.<\/p>\n Since coming into power, the Trump administration has gone all in on artificial intelligence, removing multiple roadblocks for data center development at the federal level. That includes efforts at the EPA, which is working to make the US \u201cthe AI capital of the world,\u201d the agency spokesperson says.<\/p>\n