内容来源：https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/986176/data-center-pollution-epa-rule-change-air-permit

内容总结：

美国环境保护署（EPA）正拟废除一项联邦空气污染法规，该法规要求某些工业场所在申请空气许可证时必须进行公众公告并接受公众评议。这一举措被指将帮助人工智能数据中心开发商规避公众监督，加速项目动工，而周边社区或将在施工前毫不知情。

特朗普政府此次计划取消的法规源自上世纪70年代建立的“新源审查”程序，适用于垃圾填埋场、造纸厂、电厂扩建等各类设施。近年来，随着生成式人工智能的兴起，此类许可也成为反对新建数据中心及为其供电的电厂的焦点矛盾。

今年7月，美国环保署宣布，将取消对大批污染源的联邦公众参与要求，把是否告知公众的裁量权下放至各州。环保署署长李·泽尔丁当时表示，这将削减不必要的繁文缛节。然而，环保组织担忧，州及地方空气管理机构可能直接放弃公众告知程序，而空气污染往往跨越州界，影响范围远超当地。

此变更主要针对所谓“次要”污染源，即官方称“排放相对较低、环境影响有限”的项目。但南方环境法律中心高级律师克里·鲍威尔指出，“次要”标签名不副实，相关许可流程常涵盖对周边社区影响重大的项目。她表示：“环保署的做法等于让所有此类设施绕开公众，暗箱操作发放许可，直到推土机开到家门口，公众才如梦初醒。”

此前，马斯克旗下xAI公司在田纳西州建设的超级算力中心“科洛索斯1号”，便以“次要”污染源身份于2025年申请许可，引发听证会并收到数千条公众意见，南方环境法律中心与全国有色人种协进会还曾威胁就其未获许可安装燃气轮机提起诉讼。

上周，包括南方环境法律中心在内的近200个健康及环保组织提交正式意见，要求环保署撤回这项提案。肯塔基州资源理事会高级律师拜伦·加里表示，废除公众评议将剥夺决策机构获取社区切身经验数据的机会，使审批部门无法全面评估设施的累积环境影响。

该提案的公众评议期已于上周结束，环保署发言人卡罗琳·霍兰表示，目前正在审查收到的逾4900条意见，之后才能最终敲定规则。

中文翻译：

正如新数据中心日益遭到周边社区反对之时，美国环境保护署（EPA）却正准备让公众更难对这些中心产生的污染发表意见。

特朗普政府的环境保护署希望让数据中心隐藏其空气污染。

特朗普政府想废除又一项联邦空气污染法规。倡导者表示，这将帮助数据中心开发商规避公众监督。

环保署计划废除一项联邦法规，该法规要求某些工业场所在申请空气许可证时必须发布公众通知并提供评论机会。倡导者警告称，此举将允许数据中心开发商及其他行业在周边居民毫无发言权、甚至不知晓建设计划的情况下破土动工。

“你能理解为什么这对一个想急于推进数据中心建设的政府来说如此有吸引力，”南方环境法律中心（SELC）高级律师兼空气项目负责人克里·鲍威尔表示，“环保署的做法将是允许所有这些设施绕开公众，在闭门状态下秘密发放许可证。在推土机开到现场之前，没有人知道发生了什么。”

“在推土机开到现场之前，没有人知道发生了什么。”

环保署的拟议变更涉及一项自20世纪70年代以来一直实行的审批程序，称为“新源审查”，适用于从垃圾填埋场、造纸厂到电厂扩建等各类设施。近年来，随着生成式人工智能的兴起，这些许可证也成为反对新建数据中心以及为这些服务器供电而新建电厂的焦点。

今年7月，环保署宣布将取消对一大批污染源的联邦公众参与要求，并将这一责任转嫁给各州。该计划将交由州和地方空气监管机构决定是否就某些新污染源通知公众——这让倡导者担忧，许多机构可能会完全放弃这一程序。空气污染通常在联邦层面进行监管，因为污染会随风飘散至全国各地，即使污染源位于另一个州，也会影响本州居民。

“最了解问题和公众的州及地方当局应尽可能多地负责许可审批的决策，而不是华盛顿，”环保署署长李·泽尔丁当时在一份声明中表示，“我们正在削减不必要且繁重的繁琐程序。”

这一变更适用于所谓的“小型”污染源，环保署在其公告中称这些污染源“排放量相对较低，环境影响有限”。鲍威尔所在的组织则认为，“小型”这一标签是用词不当，该审批程序通常涵盖可能对周边居民产生重大影响的项目。

xAI位于田纳西州的大型数据中心Colossus 1（该公司称其为“迄今最强大的AI训练系统”）于2025年申请了小型源许可证。《气候内幕新闻》去年报道称，这引发了一场听证会，当地卫生部门发布的公众通知收到了数千条评论。同年，SELC和全国有色人种协进会（NAACP）威胁要起诉xAI，因其在该场地未经许可安装了燃气轮机组。

SELC是上周五提交评论的近200个健康和环境组织之一，这些组织要求环保署撤回其关于“新源审查”的提案。他们认为，通过强制公众评论，居民可以为监管机构提供关于新建数据中心或其他工业设施影响的宝贵信息。

“（环保署的提案）可能剥夺那些就这些（污染）源做决策的机构获得社区真实生活经验数据的权利。没有这些信息，审批机构不可能全面评估这些设施的累积影响，”肯塔基州资源委员会高级律师拜伦·加里在一份新闻稿中表示。

环保署提案的公众评论期已于上周结束，环保署发言人卡罗琳·霍尔兰在给The Verge的一封电子邮件中表示，他们仍在审阅所有提交的评论——在机构最终确定规则之前，需要处理超过4900条评论。

英文来源：

Just as new data centers face growing backlash from neighboring communities, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is about to make it harder for people to weigh in on any pollution those centers create.
Trump’s EPA wants to let data centers hide their air pollution
The Trump administration wants to scrap another federal air pollution rule. Advocates say it’ll help data center developers avoid public scrutiny.
The Trump administration wants to scrap another federal air pollution rule. Advocates say it’ll help data center developers avoid public scrutiny.
The EPA plans to toss out a federal rule requiring public notice and an opportunity to comment when certain industrial sites apply for an air permit. Advocates warn that the move would allow data center developers and other industries to break ground without giving nearby residents a say, or even a warning that construction is planned.
“You can see why that would be so interesting to an administration that wants to rush through the construction of data centers,” says Keri Powell, senior attorney and air program leader at the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC). “What EPA would be allowing would be all of those facilities to go through and just not have to deal with the public, issue the permits in secret behind closed doors. Nobody knows what’s happening until the bulldozers are out there.”
“Nobody knows what’s happening until the bulldozers are out there.”
The EPA’s proposed changes apply to a permitting process that’s been in place since the 1970s called New Source Review that applies to a wide range of facilities, from landfills and paper mills to power plant expansions. More recently with the rise of generative AI, these permits have also become a flashpoint for opposition to new data centers, as well as to power plants built to provide electricity for all those servers.
In July, the EPA announced that it would eliminate the federal public participation requirement for a large set of polluters and place that burden on states. The plan would leave it up to state and local air agencies to decide whether or not to notify the public about certain new sources of pollution — leaving advocates concerned that many of these agencies would forgo the process altogether. Air pollution is often regulated at the federal level because it can waft across the country, affecting residents in one state even if the source is in another.
“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,” EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said in a statement at the time. “We are cutting unnecessary and burdensome red tape.”
The change applies to so-called “minor” sources of pollution, which the EPA says in its announcement “have relatively low emissions and limited environmental impact.” Powell’s group contends that the “minor” label is a misnomer and that the permitting process routinely covers projects that can have significant consequences for their neighbors.
Colossus 1, xAI’s massive data center in Tennessee that the company billed as the “most powerful AI training system yet,” applied for a minor source permit in 2025. That led to a hearing and elicited thousands of comments to a public notice posted by the local health department, Inside Climate News reported last year. The SELC and NAACP threatened to sue xAI for installing unpermitted gas turbines at the site the same year.
SELC was one of nearly 200 health and environmental groups that filed comments last Friday asking the EPA to withdraw its proposal on New Source Review. They argue that by mandating public comment, residents can provide agencies with valuable insight on the repercussions of building a new data center or other industrial facility.
“[The EPA’s proposal] could deprive the agencies making decisions about these [pollution] sources the necessary lived experience data of those communities. Without that information, it is impossible for permitting agencies to evaluate the full, cumulative impact of these facilities,” Kentucky Resources Council Senior Attorney Byron Gary said in a press release.
The public comment period for the EPA’s proposal ended last week, and EPA spokesperson Carolyn Holran says in an email to The Verge that they’re still reviewing all the comments submitted — more than 4,900 that need to be addressed before the agency can finalize its rule.