Trump’s Data Center Push May Unleash New Forever Chemicals
▼ Summary
– The Trump administration is prioritizing deregulation to support data center construction, including rolling back environmental rules and opening public lands to coal mining.
– A new EPA policy aims to fast-track approval of new chemicals, including “forever chemicals,” with limited oversight for data center-related projects.
– This policy is part of broader regulatory overhauls following executive orders and an AI Action Plan, intended to boost American manufacturing and technology dominance.
– The EPA is addressing a backlog of chemical reviews inherited from the previous administration, with leadership including former chemical industry executives and lobbyists.
– Companies must prove their chemicals are for “qualifying projects” like data centers, grid expansion, or national security to receive expedited EPA review.
A recent push by the Trump administration to accelerate data center construction is raising environmental concerns, particularly regarding the potential approval of new chemical substances with minimal oversight. This initiative, framed as essential for advancing American technological leadership, includes regulatory rollbacks that could streamline the introduction of novel compounds, including persistent “forever chemicals”, into the market.
In September, the Environmental Protection Agency revealed plans to fast-track the review of chemicals intended for data centers and associated infrastructure. This move forms part of a broader regulatory overhaul stemming from executive orders on artificial intelligence and a White House AI Action Plan released earlier in the summer. The administration has promoted these measures as foundational to ushering in a “golden age for American manufacturing and technological dominance,” developed after evaluating thousands of public comments, many submitted by industry stakeholders.
Greg Schweer, former chief of the EPA’s new chemicals management branch, observed, “The current approach appears geared toward minimizing regulatory hurdles for chemical approvals. Previous administrations typically allowed scientific assessment to guide these decisions, but now industry perspectives appear to carry unprecedented weight among officials.”
The expedited review process addresses what officials describe as a substantial backlog of chemical evaluations accumulated since regulatory reforms were implemented in 2016. Both industry representatives and lawmakers from across the political spectrum have criticized the delay in chemical assessments. The Trump administration has prioritized clearing this backlog, staffing key EPA positions with former chemical industry executives, lobbyists, and attorneys.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin defended the new approach, stating, “We inherited a massive backlog of new chemical reviews from the Biden Administration which is getting in the way of projects as it pertains to data center and artificial intelligence projects. The Trump EPA wants to get out of the way and help speed up progress on these critical developments.”
Under the September directive, companies seeking accelerated review must demonstrate their chemicals will be used in “qualifying projects.” These include data center construction, grid expansion projects adding at least 100 megawatts of capacity, national security initiatives, and any projects endorsed by the secretaries of defense, interior, commerce, or energy. The streamlined process requires manufacturers to submit documentation proving their chemicals serve these designated purposes.
![Image: Data center facility with cooling towers]
Environmental advocates worry that reduced scrutiny could allow persistent chemicals with unknown long-term effects to enter widespread use. These substances, commonly called forever chemicals for their resistance to breaking down in the environment, have been linked to various health concerns in previous formulations. The new fast-track system potentially enables their introduction with limited environmental and health assessment.
The regulatory shift represents a significant departure from established chemical review protocols, prioritizing infrastructure development over comprehensive safety evaluation. This approach has sparked debate about the balance between technological advancement and environmental protection, particularly regarding substances that may persist indefinitely in ecosystems and human tissues.
(Source: Wired)
