The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving toward a change in air permitting that could matter far beyond paperwork. At issue is whether nearby residents must receive public notice and a chance to comment when certain industrial projects seek an air permit.
Advocates warn that the shift could make it easier for data center developers and other industries to move ahead before communities know what is planned. The EPA says the proposal would reduce red tape and give state and local authorities more control.
What the EPA wants to change
The proposal targets a federal public participation requirement connected to New Source Review, a permitting process that has existed since the 1970s. New Source Review applies to a broad range of facilities, including landfills, paper mills, power plant expansions, and, more recently, data centers and related power projects.
Under the current federal rule described in the source article, certain industrial sites applying for an air permit must trigger public notice and an opportunity for comment. The EPA plans to remove that federal requirement for a large set of polluters and shift responsibility to states.
That would leave state and local air agencies to decide whether the public should be notified about certain new sources of pollution. Advocates are concerned that some agencies could skip notice and comment entirely, which would leave residents without a formal way to raise concerns before a permit is issued.
The EPA framed the proposal as a way to place decision-making closer to the affected areas. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said in a statement, “The state and local authorities closest to the issues and the public should be making the decisions on the permitting process as much as possible, not Washington.” He also said, “We are cutting unnecessary and burdensome red tape.”
Why data centers are part of the fight
Data centers have become a flashpoint because of the rise of generative AI. The facilities need large amounts of computing infrastructure, and the source article notes that permits have also drawn opposition when power plants are built to supply electricity for servers.
New data centers are already facing growing backlash from neighboring communities. In that setting, advocates argue that public notice is not a minor procedural step. It can be the first moment when residents learn that a project is planned near them.
Keri Powell, senior attorney and air program leader at the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), said the proposal would be attractive to an administration seeking faster data center construction. She warned that facilities could receive permits without public visibility, saying, “Nobody knows what’s happening until the bulldozers are out there.”
The concern is not limited to data centers. The rule applies across many kinds of industrial activity. But AI infrastructure has made the issue more prominent because data center projects and the power sources connected to them are becoming a point of local dispute.
The meaning of “minor” sources
The EPA says the change applies to so-called “minor” sources of pollution. In its announcement, the agency described those sources as facilities that “have relatively low emissions and limited environmental impact.”
Advocates dispute the practical meaning of that label. Powell’s group argues that “minor” can be misleading because the permitting process can still cover projects with meaningful consequences for nearby communities.
The source article gives one example: Colossus 1, xAI’s massive data center in Tennessee, which the company billed as the “most powerful AI training system yet,” applied for a minor source permit in 2025. That application led to a hearing and thousands of comments after a public notice was posted by the local health department, Inside Climate News reported last year.
The SELC and NAACP also threatened to sue xAI for installing unpermitted gas turbines at the site the same year. That example shows why environmental groups see public participation as a substantive safeguard, not just an administrative step.
What public comments can add
SELC was one of nearly 200 health and environmental groups that filed comments last Friday asking the EPA to withdraw the proposal on New Source Review. Their argument is that residents can provide information agencies may not otherwise have when reviewing a new data center or industrial facility.
That information can include lived experience from people near proposed pollution sources. Kentucky Resources Council Senior Attorney Byron Gary said in a press release that the EPA proposal “could deprive the agencies making decisions about these [pollution] sources the necessary lived experience data of those communities.” He added, “Without that information, it is impossible for permitting agencies to evaluate the full, cumulative impact of these facilities.”
Supporters of public participation also point to the nature of air pollution itself. The source article notes that air pollution is often regulated federally because it can travel across the country, affecting people in one state even when the source is located in another.
That is why the proposed shift to state and local discretion is so contested. For the EPA, it is a move toward local decision-making. For opponents, it risks removing a consistent federal guarantee that the public will be informed and heard.
What happens next
The public comment period for the EPA proposal ended last week. EPA spokesperson Carolyn Holran told The Verge by email that the agency is still reviewing all submitted comments.
There are more than 4,900 comments that must be addressed before the EPA can finalize its rule. Until that process is complete, the proposal remains under review.
If finalized, the change could alter how communities learn about certain air permits tied to data centers and other industrial projects. The central question is whether public notice and comment should remain a federal requirement or become a decision left to state and local air agencies.