Live data from Hacker News

EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws

epa.gov

161–170 of 266 posts

Re: EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws

#161
post #134
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that is the original intent, why did that not get added into the law? Explicitly specififying that the exception only applies to emergency backup situations would have solved this, right?

My reasonable guess is that they did not want to make those case that need off-grid generation too hard to build. And never considered that anyone would build any actually significant amount of off-grid capacity. At certain threshold grid just makes economic sense. So rational actors would never do that. Sadly AI companies are entirely irrational actors so this really was rather hard to foresee...

Yep. The loophole is not hard to close, they could restrict the exemption to standby generators which only operate (1) in the event of a grid outage, and (2) for testing purposes.

For a genuine off-grid use case (eg: very rural locations), they could add a new exemption which allows installations up to X kW capacity per site where local grid connections do not exist. Set X large enough that it won't negatively impact applications like cabins or nature retreats, but small enough that it's not useful to a large operator like a datacentre.

Of course, this all requires a functional Congress... so good luck.

Re: EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its very much using the letter to violate the spirit - since the pollution is emitted regardless of whether the plant is grid-connected. these datacenter plants don't run as clean or as efficient as proper power plants, but the primary acid rain contributor is no2. how much are we really talking about?

> its very much using the letter That’s how law works.

No it isn't. Otherwise the entire concept of Original Intent would be dead in the water rather than a cornerstone of how multiple federal judges all the way to the Supreme court rule on cases.

Re: EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws

#163
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what the leadership wanted. And as they won the election. Not like in 2016 (where more people voted for the other guy but they won due to the difference in power of votes), or in 2020 (where they lost), they won a clear outright victory, it's exactly what the USA wanted.

I'm not sure it's fair to characterize 49.8% of the vote as a "clear outright victory". Harris got 48.3%; that's a pretty close to even split. The majority of voters didn't vote for this.

The majority of voters who voted for president got the president they wanted. With a president comes admin of all these agencies. So yeah they voted for this.

Re: EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you nailed the mindset with the "cartoon villain".

Less Snydley Whiplash and more the pig guy from captain planet though

Hoggish Greedly if memory serves. Regardless of one's politics Captain Planet is so campy it's fun to watch MST3K-style. Remember Linka from the Soviet Union? "Imperialist pigs!"

Re: EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws

#165
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that is the original intent, why did that not get added into the law? Explicitly specififying that the exception only applies to emergency backup situations would have solved this, right?

"Emergency" is a spectrum. Would you be OK with one specific generation station temporarily emitting 3x more than legal limit (e.g., from the hours of 2pm to 6pm) if the alternative is a 5% increase in absolute probability of a multi-day regional blackout? What about a 10% increase? Where is your red line?

Isn't the US in a perpetual state of emergency?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_i...

Re: EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws

#166
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might be a reason, but probably more relevant is the fact that when you want solar to provide all power for a data center, you need a lot of buffering capacity (batteries). And then you also need a back up for when the sun doesn't shine... Which is probably a gas generator. Easier to just install a gas generator then

AI training , not inference, seems like it would actually be a good application for a solar powered DC because you could just checkpoint and pause when it gets cloudy. It might end up worth it for the free electricity.

If you think you are building God, and every second counts, interruptions cost you way more than measly electricity.

Re: EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AI companies look at something called the "endless government bureaucracy" and they think to themselves "fuck that, I'm not waiting 10 years for all that bullshit, I'll just use the loophole." I truly cannot comprehend any other reaction because I would rather have my fingernails ripped out than deal with years of government bureaucracy.

I would rather take /them/ going through fingernail ripping government bureaucracy for 10 years over /me/ having acid raid, but hey, I'm just a egoistical and don't see the Big Picture or something.

>Big picture

Well, if you juuust let the rich get richer, something (intentionally left unspecified) will trickle down on you.

Re: EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that city in the rust belt who saw a major manufacturer pack up and leave for a desert state because environmental compliance precluded expanding their site The one that's about to whine and demand Federal assistance when their water gets cut off because it ran out? https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/21/climate/colorado-river-wa...

No this was a plastic molding company ~10yr ago. Edit: They had a facility with a rail siding. Cheaper to relocate to a new site with expansion potential in another state than pay the state a million bucks an acre to let them fill in wetland (a ~100yo mill pond). The city did what they could to facilitate things but it basically just came down to the discretion of the state officials who live a few hundred miles away…

Do their employees not need water?

Re: EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws

#169
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that is the original intent, why did that not get added into the law? Explicitly specififying that the exception only applies to emergency backup situations would have solved this, right?

"Emergency" is a spectrum. Would you be OK with one specific generation station temporarily emitting 3x more than legal limit (e.g., from the hours of 2pm to 6pm) if the alternative is a 5% increase in absolute probability of a multi-day regional blackout? What about a 10% increase? Where is your red line?

[deleted]

Re: EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> truly cannot comprehend the mindset The mindset is "if I could harvest your organs for profit I absolutely would, and I would make it illegal to protest against it"

That’s completely unfair. They would also rent the organs back to us on a subscription plan.

Step 1: steal all of the worlds IP and make a judge rule it is fair use

Step 2: declare end of the Anthropocene (defined by man made influence on earth), while simultaneously accelerating mass extinction

Step 3: ???

Step 4: Profit?

Post reply on HN