Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- This is completely unforgivably wrong. Pollution is pollution regardless of the source. We need clean air and water to live.
- The most ironic part of this is that data center pollution will impact Trump supporters the most. In 5-to-10 years, after swimming in the same river their parents and grandparents swam in, kids will start develop breathing complications or their teeth will fall out, and there won't be anything anyone can do about it. Congratulations, MAGA, you played yourself.by jimt1234
- 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.
- I think it's time for a name change.
There's definitely something more fitting out there than "Environmental Protection Agency".
by monneyboi - "Rubber Stamp Incompetent Loyalists Agency" was taken.
- What's frustrating is that the title in this thread is very misleading. This is the way the laws have been: Separate laws for generators feeding into the grid.
Why this is, I don't know. I suspect it's because the vast, vast, majority of non-connected generators were, (until now,) backup generators that only ran occasionally. I even have a "fancy" portable generator in my garage that probably emits way more pollution per kwh than a typical fossil fuel plant, but I probably only run it ~10 hours a year at most.
What's more disappointing is that this loophole is being promoted instead of closed; but everyone here seems to think that laws were weakened.
by gwbas1c - I find this perpetually frustrating.
People mistake carveouts or loopholes in the law for corruption.
This is a problem because it isnt conducive to actually identifying the problem and updating the law through a democratic process.
Same issue with flock cameras.
- I suspected that this was the case as the president can't just invent new laws on a whim. They have a fair amount of leeway on their interpretation of laws re: directions to the administration on how/when to do things but they can't just invent a law from thin air.
Also I mean what constitutes a generator if it isn't something connected to the grid? If my car has an engine and it also has a small inverter and an AC outlet is that now a generator and subject to generator laws in addition to car laws?
by msandford - About that P in your acronym...by Zigurd
- "privatization"by 32ikU
- "Profit" or "Plunder" would seem to fit.by ethagnawl
- > About that P in your acronym...
For the next couple of years (at least) it stands for "Pollution" or "Poisoning".
by blooalien - Surely this is going to cement the reputation of datacenters as a blight.by two_handfuls
- The bipartisan opinion shift towards absolute hate for data centers was extremely fast.
Just adding more fuel to one of the brightest fires out there in politics right now. Expect it to continue and grow as people feel even less heard, and any negative media towards data centers gets lots of clicks.
The AI companies and Trump seem to be doing everything they can to encourage this.
by epistasis - Right, I can only imagine the most foolish DC operators are excited about this. Just more gas on the political fire, when DCs should be boring and out of public politics, even if they rank 15th for water consumption and 8th for energy consumption.by WarmWash
- Title is taken from the reuters coverage[1], but I used the link to the original epa.gov press release.
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/epa-says-power-data...
by Levitating - 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 to lose these benefits - and with it we lose the benefit of them connecting to our grid.
- Those regulations are there for a reason though. I’ll never understand this logic. We have regulations so things are clean and safe. Yes, it would be easier to not have those regulations and just have dirty and unsafe electricity. But that’s the cost of having a business and also having a clean and safe society. Corporations love to externalize costs and that’s what’s happening here again.by Noaidi
- > 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.
by KaiserPro - That's partly a result of having 50 states writing laws for themselves instead having all statues living under federal laws for everything. The line between what is acceptable to be regulated by federal laws and what is not is something I, not being a lawyer, have never studied. Power and water type utilities does feel like it might be something that could benefit from same rules/regulations every where, but basing regulations on feelings is probably not the best bit of logicby dylan604
- What a disgrace. Abysmal leadership in this country.by wilburx3
- It's consistent leadership. Malevolent and stupid, but consistent.by metalliqaz
- This seems pretty inline with our leadership tho. This country has always put profits above people.by shimman
- 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.by iso1631
- EPA guidance source document https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2026-07/epa-issue...by andsoitis
- This is so amateurish. This document misquotes its own authorities, with grade-school grammar mistakes:
> "In particular, while a “utility” under ARP regulations includes any person that sells electricity, the 1990 edition of DOE Form 860 only covers those electricity generators who sell “electric energy primary [sic] for use by the public.”
Said "1990 edition of DOE Form 860" is included on page 8 of the pdf, and it very clearly reads "primarily"; not "primary". As is proper English.
by peri-cl - Thank you. This seems like a pretty straight-forward clarification of current law. The current thread title (OP said taken from Reuters) saying this side-steps the law seems misleading.by user00005
- Hmm... rules for thee but not for me. Sounds like the beginning of the end for the EPA. Two tiered rules breed resentment. There are already plenty of people that don't like the EPA. Making exceptions just makes it easier to argue the EPA is useless or just a tool for oppressing the little guy.by tastyfreeze
- > Sounds like the beginning of the end for the EPA
The beginning of the end of the EPA started the day Trump was sworn in. In the last few years several cases have been decided by this Supreme Court that have effectively reduced the EPA to an advisory board, like a group of consultants that have no real authority over anything.
by jimt1234 - It’s literally the playbook from project 2025. FWIW it’s not the beginning, that has been a process at play since day 1 of the 2nd trump admin
Edit: actually since the 1st term as mentioned below
by dgellow