Datacenter Developers Accused of Splitting EPA Air Permits

Environmental advocates say datacenter developers are splitting their emissions sources into multiple smaller permit applications to avoid the Environmental Protection Agency's stricter "major source" review, according to reporting by The Guardian. The tactic, if confirmed, would let large tech projects sidestep tougher emission controls and public comment periods as datacenter construction accelerates nationwide.

What triggers a 'major source' review under the Clean Air Act?

Federal permitting law requires facilities that emit pollutants above set thresholds — including nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, and other pollutants datacenters can generate through backup generators and gas-fired power — to undergo a major source review. That process is slower, more expensive, and typically requires stronger pollution controls plus a public comment period. Projects that stay under the threshold can instead apply for one or more "minor" permits, which move faster and draw less regulatory and public attention, advocates told the Guardian.

How are developers allegedly dividing their permits?

Advocates describe developers submitting separate minor-source applications for a single project rather than one major-source application covering the whole facility's combined emissions.

"Dividing their emissions sources into separate, multiple 'minor' sources that require less regulatory oversight," is how advocates describe the practice, per the Guardian's reporting.

In North Carolina, Amazon and Duke Energy are installing 649 diesel generators to back up a hyperscale datacenter and submitted two permits rather than one, avoiding a major review despite the site sitting in a low-income area that already has elevated air pollution, according to the Guardian.

Which specific projects are named in the allegations?

In New Mexico, developers behind the Project Jupiter datacenter proposed two natural gas "microgrids" on either side of the facility and filed two separate minor permits; the Guardian reports the combined project would have released enough pollution to trigger a major review had it been filed as one application. In Frederick, Maryland, four datacenters — including one operated by Amazon — sit on a single campus under one master developer but each holds a separate minor permit, according to regulatory documents cited by the Guardian. The report also notes other developers have staggered minor permit requests over months in ways that cumulatively approach major-source thresholds.

What do developers and regulators say in response?

The Guardian's reporting centers on allegations from environmental advocates rather than statements from the named companies or the EPA defending the permit structures. The report separately notes a New Jersey datacenter was fined $1.1 million after a visual investigation found dozens of unpermitted generators, illustrating enforcement actions tied to datacenter power infrastructure.

What to watch

• Whether the EPA or state environmental agencies open formal reviews of the multi-permit structures at the North Carolina, New Mexico, and Maryland sites.
• Whether New Mexico regulators reconsider the Project Jupiter permits following the Santa Fe protests documented in the Guardian's report.
• Whether Amazon or Duke Energy issue public responses to the permit-splitting allegations.
• Whether Congress or state legislatures move to close the permit-aggregation gap as datacenter construction continues.