Georgia data center activists are alarmed. EPA wants to change Clean Air Act

Caption

Meta’s Stanton Springs Data Center is seen near the town of Social Circle in September 2025.

Credit: Grant Blankenship / GPB News

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wants to remove public notice and public comments for state-level air quality permits, a significant change to the 1973 Clean Air Act. The change — which could occur in a few weeks — would take away a common form of public awareness for a new data center and public participation, speeding up the review process.

In a July 1 news release, the EPA called the current public participation rule “burdensome” and said removing public comments will “streamline” the process.

Dry cleaners, auto body shops and gas stations are typical applicants for a Clean Air Act “minor source” permit. Gas and diesel generators for data centers, especially in the past few years, have been a sustained newcomer to the permit application pool. These minor source permits are reviewed by state agencies, like the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, while “major source” permits for big power plants or large industry above the minor threshold are reviewed by the EPA (known as a Title V permit).

Critics of the EPA’s proposal, such as environmental lawyers, clean air advocates and data center opponents across the country and in Georgia, called this proposal “alarming”, “anti-democratic” and “bypassing community notices” in a July 22 EPA hearing considering the rule change.

“This proposal could allow pro-polluters to move forward with permitting new pollution sources while bypassing community notices and the current channels of communication,” Kiya Stanford, Georgia state organizer for Moms for Clean Air Force, said during the hearing. “This is especially alarming to me in Georgia with the rise of possible pollutant sources like AI data centers rapidly moving into communities throughout the state.”

More permits in two years than the previous 10

The Georgia EPD does not have a running list of data centers with air permits, and not all data centers have air permits, according to communications director Sara Lips. They are not tracked separately or categorized separately in a database, she wrote.

But Lips shared industry codes (SIC codes) to search for data center permits for “most but not all” in the state that have “minor source” site implementation plan permits.

According to an SIC search, 20 minor source permits have been approved for diesel generators at data centers in Georgia since January 2025. From 2014 to 2024, there were nearly the same number (17) of minor source data center permits.

Diesel generators are used for backup power when the grid can’t supply power during a storm or an outage and, in some cases, as a main power source while the developer waits to connect to the grid.

Finding out about a permit application is a critical way for watchdog groups and advocates to confirm a data center or polluting industries are coming to town, community organizers argue, because most people don’t search for air permits.

“Even current announcements don’t reach the residents who will be impacted directly,” Treva Gear the Georgia community organizer for North Carolina-based environmental justice advocate Dogwood Alliance, said during the July 22 EPA hearing. “It’s up to groups like mine to notify them. Once they know, they are always ready to speak up and speak out.

“The idea that the EPA is considering removing this 1973 requirement is alarming and anti-democratic. (It would make) it easier for polluting industries to move into communities under a cloud of secrecy is not the mandate of the EPA or state regulatory agencies.”

Gear has notified residents and reporters about biomass plants in southern Georgia, like the Altamaha Green Energy plant. That biomass plant’s minor source permit was approved in October 2025 and received 15 comments for or against the plant.

In Upson County, Rusty Blackston, a community activist against a Brightmark Plastic plant, thanked the Georgia EPD for allowing a public hearing in-person in Thomaston in May. Of the 29 people who spoke, only one was in favor of the plastic-recycling plant. The permit is being reviewed now. Blackston said the minor source permit review exemplifies a founding principle of this country.

“The public needs to have an input into this,” he said during the July 22 EPD hearing. “Damage to our environment is not acceptable, and we need to keep the process going to allow people to attend hearings, to submit comments and to be able to voice their opinions. If you take this away, you are infringing on our rights to freedom of speech.”

While public notice has been a way for watchdog groups to notify the community, public comment for data center permits hasn’t been popular until recently.

The permits issued between 2014-2024 had no public comments, according to the Ledger-Enquirer SIC list.

The first hyperscale data center project in Georgia, Project Excalibur, by QTS in Fayetteville, received a permit in 2023 and had no comments during the draft review.

In June, two projects out of the 20 found since 2025 had public comment participation: Project Pegasus in Troup County and Equinix xScale in Henry County.

Minor permits could have major implications

But starting in January 2025, the Sierra Club consistently commented on all 20 projects, saying: data center diesel generators would degrade air quality, battery storage should be considered rather than diesel generators, stricter emissions control technology should be considered, and a study about the cumulative impact on Georgia from all data centers should be conducted, given their unprecedented rise in development.

The Georgia EPD responded to the Sierra Club’s comments with consistent remarks. On air quality, they point to the facility’s Toxic Impact Analysis (TIA), showing pollutant levels below the state’s Allowable Ambient Concentrations (AACs). They do not dictate facility design, and battery tech isn’t a viable replacement for diesel backup. No federal rule requires more stringent technology, so EPD won’t mandate beyond the existing rule, and the cumulative study request has been “acknowledged,” and they are “monitoring” the growth.

The QTS Fayetteville project had 205 diesel generators approved in 2023. Project Pegasus had 180, in May, according to their air permits. Alone, these might not seem like a substantial amount, but that is why the Sierra Club has pushed for the review of a cumulative impact.

“The main reason why we’re so invested in this is the air pollution that comes out of these plants has real impacts in the air, even though it’s called minor source,” Isabella Ariza, a staff attorney for the Sierra Club, told the Ledger-Enquirer.

The Sierra Club analysis found adding together all approved minor source permits in Georgia are set to house more than 2,600 diesel generators, according to the Sierra Club’s analysis in a public comment submitted May 11. They could be more than two coal and gas plants worth of nitrous oxide emissions.

“These 24 data centers alone provide 5.2 gigawatts of backup power,” their letter says. “At a minimum, if we assume all 212 data centers in Georgia operate 100 diesel generators rated at 2,000 kW, the total backup power comes to 42.4 gigawatts. Georgia’s power sector had 39.7 gigawatts of net summer capacity online in 2024. There may now be enough diesel backup generators at Georgia’s data centers to power the state’s entire electric grid.”

Ariza, told the Ledger-Enquirer via email that, when clustered together, the data centers’ minor sources act as a major source, leaving folks with difficult decisions during the summer heat.

“If Georgia’s 212 data centers are each allowed 99-ton annual NOx emissions limits, they could emit roughly 21,000 tons of NOx per year, close to double the annual NOx emissions of Georgia’s coal plants, Plant Scherer and Plant Bowen,” Ariza wrote.

“During power outages in the summer, individuals who live near data centers will be without AC and will be faced with a decision of whether to open their windows and be exposed to unnecessarily high emissions from the data center’s diesel generators or else keep their windows shut and bear the brunt of the heat,” Ariza said via email.

Burden of proof or proof of burden?

The Ledger-Enquirer asked the EPA about the burdensome process that the state-level agencies are experiencing.

When asked specifically how much time it would save, they did not give a specific answer, only operational procedure and their reason for the change.

“The time required for any specific agency to review and respond to public comments varies across air agencies,” EPA spokesperson Carolyn Holran said via email. “The purpose of the proposed rule, per the best reading of the Clean Air Act is to provide state, local and Tribal permitting authorities with greater discretion to identify the requisite level of public participation that is appropriate in their minor NSR programs…it would 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 opportunities for public participation for proposed new minor sources and modifications.”

Ariza said the Sierra Club, and other “allied organizations” have filed Freedom of Information Act requests for surveys and meetings about the burdensome process. The EPA has not responded, and rejected the Sierra Club’s request to expedite the process.

After comments are reviewed by the Aug 21 deadline, the EPA can act as soon as they want, Ariza said.

Lips explained where the EPD stands with the EPA decision and other means of communities being notified through other permits.

“EPD is determining whether the proposed rule changes would affect public participation requirements per the state regulations,” she said in an email to the Ledger-Enquirer. “Not all data centers require an air permit, and some data centers do require water withdrawal or wastewater permits. Those that require water from local governments do not require public notice. But if a new water permit is requested, public hearings will be held.”

In July, the EPD issued a stop-work order for a data center in Newton County because it was illegally constructing a data center. Activists in Covington say the public participation in these processes made this possible.

‘Pop-up power plant’ delayed because of public comment

In Newton County, the data center in Covington has been delayed thanks to public participation and comments from the group, said Sustainable Newton president and co-founder Maurice Carter. He told the EPA this story during the July 22 hearing in hopes of not letting this new proposed rule come to fruition.

The nonprofit organization with 50 members was concerned when they heard about the California-based Serverfarm data center being built in Covington last fall. The data center wanted to use on-site power because Georgia Power couldn’t yet supply this site, as it was an old warehouse that would be transformed into a data center, according to Carter.

VoltaGrid, a Texas-based power provider, permitted 33 gas generators to provide 90 megawatts of electricity “behind the meter,” Carter said. At the same time, Serverfarm applied for 37 diesel generators for backup power, all in one permit.

The Southern Environmental Law Center, on behalf of Sustainable Newton, filed public comments challenging the technical aspects of the VoltaGrid permit in December.

“We raised and challenged (Georgia) EPD’s December decision to allow VoltaGrid and Serverfarm to apply for separate minor source permits rather than undergoing full review of their combined emissions from a co-located operation,” Carter said during the July 22 EPA hearing.

Georgia EPD published a draft permit in March. Sustainable Newton reiterated the same comments in the draft permit and noted the EPD proposed the two entities to separate sources, allowing both to escape more rigorous Title V permitting, Carter said. The “behind-the-meter” arrangement also violates state law, Carter told the Ledger-Enquirer.

“We again filed comments challenging that arrangement and also pointing out that under Georgia law, under the Georgia Territorial Electric Service Act, a business can’t sell electricity to another business unless one of those businesses is a regulated utility,” Carter told the Ledger-Enquirer. “So VoltaGrid could sell power to Georgia Power, or they could use it themselves, but they can’t sell it to Serverfarm. That’s not allowed.”

Despite this, VoltaGrid still constructed their generators, and Sustainable Newton took aerial photos resulted in EPD’s stop-work-order to VoltaGrid. Serverfarm has since received a permit, but they remain liable for penalties and further enforcement actions. VoltaGrid has not received a permit, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

“It’s very obvious,” Carter said. “If we had not been notified and invited to comment, then nothing we’ve done would have happened. This thing would probably have been operating back in March, you know, when they got the draft permit. Nonprofits like ours rely on a transparent review process, giving local communities an opportunity to hold polluters accountable. Without that, people suffer.”

This story comes to GPB through a reporting partnership with Columbus Ledger-Enquirer.