EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by bryanlarsen » Fri, Aug 28, 2026, 4:05 PM UTC

testing22321 wrote: post #174

bob1029 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most generators not connected to the grid are for emergency backup purposes. Granted, this carve out is now clearly being abused, but the original intent is quite rational. If we enforced strict regulations on all generators without any exceptions at all, your sewage lift station might not have a backup source anymore.

> If we enforced strict regulations on all generators without any exceptions at all, your sewage lift station might not have a backup source anymore. No need for the FUD. It would just mean the backup generator connected to the sewage lift station must meet emissions regulations, like in every developed country on earth. If you’re trying to say there are simply some generators that can’t meet emissions standards, I’m…

Yes, that's what we're saying. A small generator cannot meet the emissions standards of a large generator.

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

#182

Post by jandrewrogers » Fri, Aug 28, 2026, 4:08 PM UTC

bob1029 wrote: post #96

pyrophane wrote: post #37

> Clean Air Act (CAA) Acid Rain Program (ARP) does not apply to power generation facilities that are not connected to a public electricity grid, commonly referred to as “islanded” power generation facilities. This of course makes no sense whatever, as whether or not a power generator is connected to the grid has nothing to do with its environmental impact.

Most generators not connected to the grid are for emergency backup purposes. Granted, this carve out is now clearly being abused, but the original intent is quite rational. If we enforced strict regulations on all generators without any exceptions at all, your sewage lift station might not have a backup source anymore.

It isn't just emergency generators.

Many non-emergency generators are used because there is no grid to connect to and/or the power requirements are not anticipated to be permanent. The cost of a grid connection can greatly exceed anything justified by the use case.

There are entire industries that live off of large portable generators for non-emergency purposes because it is the only way to get power where you need it.

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

#183

Post by claytongulick » Fri, Aug 28, 2026, 4:10 PM UTC

pkilgore wrote: post #119

claytongulick wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure you're aiming your ire in the right direction in this case? The EPA provided guidance that the CAA (Clean Air Act) itself was written to not apply in these cases. Shouldn't you be angry at the authors of the law?

Well the one thing I know about lawyers: Utterly impossible to get them to write a dishonest guidance document interpreting the law in a way that benefits them somehow. You got me. Check mate. No counterarguments here.

The law was specifically written to exclude things like independent power sources and backup generators etc...

From 42 U.S.C. § 7651a(17)(A) [1] which defines the power generation units that are covered by the law:

"(17) (A)The term “utility unit” means— (i)a unit that serves a generator in any State that produces electricity for sale, or (ii)a unit that, during 1985, served a generator in any State that produced electricity for sale."

The key phrasing there is "for sale". The clarification from the EPA simply restated that these units don't fall under the regulatory authority because under a plain reading of the law, they are not generating power for sale. [2]

The EPA certainly cites Trump's power agenda several times, but that doesn't make the plain text interpretation of the law wrong.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7411

[2] https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-issues-permitting-guida...

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

#184

Post by throwawaysoxjje » Fri, Aug 28, 2026, 4:10 PM UTC

throwway120385 wrote: post #68

sailfast wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do the octogenarians in power not remember when they couldn’t breathe because of the lead in the gas in the 60s and the lack of emissions controls on everything? Do they yearn for the mines and coal dust of early industrial England? Everybody loves clean air and water but apparently forget why they have it in the first place.

Most of those octogenarians weren't responsible for any of that. Their parents did it for them. If you're 80 you came of age in the 60's, and you wouldn't have been eligible for the Senate or the Presidency until 1970 or 1975. The decline of the US started pretty much when the baby boomers came to power and the people who fought WWII were all retiring.

That’s not even what the post you’re replying to said

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

#185

Post by prasadjoglekar » Fri, Aug 28, 2026, 4:12 PM UTC

Good thing that Chevron is no longer the law of the land right? So courts can review the law without regard to what the EPA says.

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

#186

Post by convolvatron » Fri, Aug 28, 2026, 4:13 PM UTC

brandonagr2 wrote: post #66

convolvatron wrote: post #30

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?

What are you basing your they are not as clean assertion on? It's more likely that data center generation can be run continuously instead of turning on and off according to market prices. Can see the swing in amount of natural gas production during a day, https://www.gridstatus.io/live/ercot

just type 'single cycle gas plant efficiency and emissions vs combined cycle' into google

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

#187

Post by RetroTechie » Fri, Aug 28, 2026, 4:13 PM UTC

KaiserPro wrote: post #86

londons_explore wrote: post #9

There are big benefits to having power generation grid connected. It is more reliable (due to many possible generation sources). It is more eco-friendly (solar in daytime, wind when the wind blows). It is more cost efficient (no need to overbuild for peak usage, generators don't sit idle when computers are off for maintenance). Yet our electricity grid has such a mass of regulations attached that people are choosing…

> It is more cost efficient Depends. Getting a grid connection, and all the equipment to connect and step down with negotiating prices is not always fun. Especially as there is a limited amount of power on the grid. its not a free lunch and takes time. Its far easier to just slap shitty local generators on and live off the crappy noisy electricity they provide.

It's ironic when data center operators, who I'd expect to be experts on calculating complex cost/benefit scenarios, check for & arrange what's needed, sidestep better solutions because there's a bunch of requirements attached.

Reads to me as going for a quick & dirty fix.

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

#188

Post by inigyou » Fri, Aug 28, 2026, 4:15 PM UTC

dukeofdoom wrote: post #177

inigyou wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much money is your homestead making?

Probably not much. But even if it's zero, it's still better than falling behind in a City. The profit margins of being a wagie living in a city, is just a few hundred dollars left over a month, if that. Statistics back this up. Almost all of the money goes to rent and basic necessities now. Most people are broke! In a relatively wealthy country like Canada, something like 10 million / 40 million have food insecurity.…

So how much money is your homestead making?

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

#189

Post by iso1631 » Fri, Aug 28, 2026, 4:16 PM UTC

s3p wrote: post #163

ceejayoz wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In theory the US has checks and balances. Ask 10 years ago if you could have a president selling national secrets via an api and you'd be laughed out of the room.

Carter had to sell his peanut farm. Trump makes billions each year.

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

#190

Post by cucumber3732842 » Fri, Aug 28, 2026, 4:21 PM UTC

inigyou wrote: post #127

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Rich assholes who are upset they can't throw their trash on the ground. Anyone else is parroting propaganda generated by said rich assholes. Yeah, that guy who owns a liquor store on 7-mil and can't make the $100k underground stormwater treatment it would take to pave his dirt parking lot pencil out and that city in the rust belt who saw a major manufacturer pack up and leave for a desert state because environmental…

Did that happen? The former sounds like a guy being told his trash needs to be picked up and not being able to afford it so not being allowed to generate trash, and the latter was provided with no details at all so I can't evaluate it.

>Did that happen?

I chose 7-mile for my hypothetical example because the road is an absolute goldmine for "you can't do that these days it's too dense" site plans and there's at least one liquor store with a dirt lot on it but I don't recall where. The "we want to make it nicer but it's not worth the stormwater treatment cost" example is from a business down the street from me. These things get stopped at the engineer/lawyer phase when the true costs become known to the owner.

Basically all the stormwater rules BS come at the expense of incentivizing sprawl. Doesn't really matter if you're walking past 1000ft of strip mall or 500ft of fancy multi level retail with a parking garage in back with 250ft of empty grass on either side, you're still 1000ft from the bus stop.