AI data centers could drive a new wave of Texas air pollution, report finds
The boom in artificial intelligence (AI) risks filling Texas air with toxins, a report has found.
State regulators are considering proposals for more than 100 new gas power projects — the vast majority of them entirely new plants — to power a new wave of data centers, according to findings published early Wednesday by the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP).
More than 30 have already been permitted in a process that amounts to a 'rubber stamp,' the EIP said.
'To meet its increasing demand for electricity, Texas should be encouraging more clean energy instead of feeding public subsidies to dirty fossil fuels,' Jen Duggan, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, said in a statement.
The plants spread across the state but cluster around Houston, the I-35 corridor between Austin and San Antonio and the oilfields of West Texas.
If all are built, they could produce as much pollution each year as another 27 million new cars and trucks — the equivalent of doubling Texas's current motor vehicle fleet, the report found.
Oil and gas pollution includes volatile organic carcinogens such as benzene, asthma-triggering compounds including ozone and nitrogen oxides and lung-burrowing particles like PM 2.5.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state's environmental regulator, declined The Hill's request for comment on the analysis.
The report comes in the wake of the failure of a slate bills at the Texas legislature that had sought to restrict the growth of renewables in favor of gas power — an issue that drove an acrimonious inter-party debate within the state's ruling GOP.
One major reason for that failure: the state's insatiable demand for electricity, which the state's grid managers have estimated could double by the end of the decade, largely due to new cryptocurrency miners, data centers and oilfield operations.
In the fight over the renewable restrictions, wind, solar and battery advocates pitched their technologies — which can be installed much faster than gas — as ideal to meet that demand.
'Everything is supposed to be bigger in Texas, but there's no need to go big with gas plant pollution when there are cleaner alternatives,' said Adrian Shelley, the Texas director for civil society group Public Citizen.
'Texas is already number one in clean energy, which helps save the electric grid and reduce consumer costs, so we should rely on clean energy to increase our supply of electricity,' Shelley added.
But with a 'frantic race' to build capacity amid long wait times to connect to the grid, data center developers are increasingly turning to a new wave of privately owned gas plants, according to reporting this week from The Texas Tribune.
One such plant, outside the rapidly growing Central Texas town of New Braunfels, will generate about 1.2 gigawatts of power — about two-thirds as much generation capacity as is needed for the million-plus people of nearby Austin.
But all that power will go entirely to data centers, the Tribune found.
Despite the plants' size — some are large enough to power a medium-sized city — EIP contends that Texas regulators incorrectly classified three of them as belonging to a Clean Air Act category designed for minor sources of pollution.
That would mean that the gas plants will not have to use the best available technology to clean their emissions, causing a greater release of health-harming chemicals.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
20 minutes ago
- Forbes
Tesla Misses Robotaxi Launch Date, Goes With Safety Drivers
A vehicle Tesla is using for robotaxi testing purposes in Austin, Texas, US, on Friday, June 20, ... More 2025.. Photographer: Eli Hartman/Bloomberg Tesla's much-anticipated June 22 'no one in the vehicle' Robotaxi launch in Austin is not ready. Instead, Tesla has announced to its invite-only passengers that it will operate a limited service with Tesla employees on board the vehicle to maintain safety. Tesla will use an approach that was used in 2019 by Russian robotaxi company Yandex, putting the safety driver in the passengers seat rather than the driver's seat. (Yandex's robotaxi was divested from Russian and now is called AVRide.) Having an employee on board, commonly called a safety driver, is the approach that every robocar company has used for testing, including testing of passenger operations. Most companies spend many years (Waymo spent a decade) testing with safety drivers, and once they are ready to take passengers, there are typically some number of years testing in that mode, though the path to removing the safety driver depends primarily on evaluation of the safety case for the vehicle, and less on the presence of passengers. Tesla has put on some other restrictions--rides will be limited to 6am to midnight (the opposite of Cruise's first operations, which were only at night) and riders come from an invite-only list (as was also the case for Waymo, and Cruise and others in their early days.) Rides will be limited to a restricted service area (often mistakenly called a 'geofence') which avoids complex and difficult streets and intersections. Rides will be unavailable in inclement weather, which also can happen with other vehicles, though fairly rarely today. Tesla FSD is known to disable itself if rain obscures some of its cameras--only the front cameras have a rain wiper. The fleet will be small. Waymo started testing with safety drivers in 2009, gave rides to passengers with safety drivers in 2017, and without safety drivers in 2020 in the Phoenix area. Cruise had a much shorter period with passengers and safety drivers. Motional has given rides for years but has never removed the safety driver. Most Chinese companies spent a few years doing it. Giving passengers rides requires good confidence in the safety of the system+safety driver combination, but taking the passengers does not alter how well the vehicle drives, except perhaps around pick-up and drop-off. (While a vehicle is more at liberty to make hard stops with no passengers on board, I am aware of no vehicle which takes advantage of this.) As such we have no information on whether Tesla will need their safety drivers for a month or a several years, or even forever with current hardware. Passenger's Seat vs. Driver's Seat Almost all vehicles use a safety driver behind the wheel. Tesla's will be in the passenger seat, in a situation similar to that used by driving instructors for student human drivers. While unconfirmed by Tesla, the employee in the passenger seat can grab the wheel and steer. Because stock Teslas have fully computer controlled brake and acceleration, they might equip the driver with electronic pedals. Some reports have suggested they have a hand controller or other ways to command the vehicle to brake. There is no value to putting the safety driver on the passengers side. It is no safer than being behind the wheel, and believed by most to be less safe because of the unusual geometr20 November 2024, Berlin: A prototype of the Tesla Cybercab stands in a showroom in the Mall of Berlin. Photo: Hannes P. Albert/dpa (Photo by Hannes P Albert/picture alliance via Getty Images)y. It's hard to come up with any reason other than just how it looks. Tesla can state the vehicles have 'nobody in the driver's seat' in order to attempt to impress the public. The driving school system works, so it's not overtly dangerous, but in that case there's an obvious reason for it that's not optics. Tesla Cybercab concept. With only 2 seats and no controls, not very suitable for a safety driver. ... More These are not being used in Tesla's Austin pilot. That said, most robocar prototypes, including Tesla supervised FSD, are reasonably safe with capable safety drivers. A negligent and poorly managed safety driver in an Uber ATG test vehicle killed a pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona when the safety driver completely ignored her job, but otherwise these systems have a good record. The combination of Tesla Autopilot and a supervising driver has a reasonable record. (The record is not nearly as good as some people think Tesla claims. Every quarter, Tesla publishes a deeply misleading report comparing the combination of Tesla Autopilot plus supervisor to the general crash rate, but they report airbag deployments for the Teslas mostly on freeways and compare it without general crash numbers on all roads for general drivers. This makes it seem Autopilot is many times safer than regular drivers when it's actually similar, a serious and deceitful misrepresentation.) As noted, Yandex, now AVRide, has used safety drivers in the passenger seat, and has done so in Austin--also speculated to be mostly for optics, though there are some legal jurisdictions where companies shave made this move because the law requires safety drivers and they hope to convey an aura of not needing them. This has also been the case in China.) When Cruise did their first 'driverless' demo ride in San Francisco, they had an employee in the passengers seat. So Tesla has been ready to run with safety drivers for years. What's tested here isn't the safety of the cars, but all the complexity of handling passengers, including the surprising problems of good PuDo (Pick-up/Drop-off.) Whether Teslas can operate a safe robotaxi with nobody onboard, particularly with their much more limited sensor hardware, remains to be seen. Other Paths To Launch Tesla apparently experimented with different paths to getting out on the road before they are ready to run unsupervised. In particular, vehicles were seen with the passenger seat safety driver, and also being followed by a 'chase car' with two on board. Reports also came of Tesla planning for 'lots of tele-ops' including not just remote assistance (as all services do) but remote supervision including remote driving. We may speculate that Tesla evaluated many different approaches: Because Elon Musk promised 'nobody in the car' and 'unsupervised' in the most recent Tesla earnings call, there was great pressure to produce #1, but the Tesla team must have concluded they could not do that yet, and made the right choice, though #3 is a better choice than #4. They also did not feel up to #2, which is commonly speculated to be what other companies have done on their first launch, later graduating to #1 #5 just looks goofy, I think the optics would not work, and it's also challenging. Remote driving is real and doable--in spite of the latency and connectivity issues of modern data networks--but perhap Tesla could not get it ready in time. All teams use remote assistance operators who do not drive the cars, but can give them advice when they get confused by a situation, and stop and ask for advice. Even Waymo recently added a minor remote driving ability for low-speed 'get the car out off the road' sort of operations. I have recommended this for some time. It is worth noting the contrast beween Cruise's 'night only' launch and Tesla's mostly-daytime one. Cruise selected the night because there is less traffic and complexity. LIDARs see very well at night. Tesla's camera-based system has very different constraints at night and many fear it's inferior then. On the other hand Tesla will operate in some night hours and with more cars and pedestrians on the street. The question for Tesla will be whether the use of safety drivers is a very temporary thing, done just because they weren't quite ready but needed to meet the announced date, or a multi-year program as it has been for most teams. Tesla is famous for not meeting the forecast ship dates for its FSD system, so it's not shocking that this pattern continues. The bigger question is whether they can do it at all. Tesla FSD 13, the version available to Tesla owners, isn't even remotely close to robotaxi ready. If Tesla has made a version which is closer, through extra work, training and severe limitations of the problem space, it's still a big accomplishment. This will be seen in the coming months. Two robocar teams had severe interactions with pedestrians. Both those teams, and one pedestrian, are dead. Tesla knows they must not make mistakes.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate parliamentarian greenlights state AI law freeze in GOP megabill
The Senate's rules referee late Saturday allowed Republicans to include in their megabill a 10-year moratorium on enforcing state and local artificial intelligence laws — a surprising result for the provision that's split the GOP. Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas) rewrote a House-passed AI moratorium to try to comply with the chamber's budgetary rules. His version made upholding the moratorium a condition for receiving billions in federal broadband expansion funds. Both parties made their arguments before the parliamentarian Thursday. "It's good policy," Cruz said of the moratorium in a recent interview. Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) has also defended the provision, saying it's necessary to avoid a 'labyrinth of regulation' with '50 different states going 50 different directions on the topic of AI regulation." Though the parliamentarian delivered a victory for Republicans, a number of conservative senators including Sens. Josh Hawley (Mo.) and Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), have vocally opposed the provision. Hawley has vowed to work with Democrats on an amendment to remove the language once the megabill hits the floor. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and the House Freedom Caucus have also opposed the AI moratorium, with Greene threatening to oppose the megabill H.R. 1 (119) if the legal freeze remains.
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Industry Energy Demand And Costs Keep Growing. Clean Energy Can Help.
A sector in a heating plant, containing a system of boilers and pipes. When New Belgium Brewing in Colorado committed to being carbon neutral by 2030, the company needed to change how it made its beer. The process of making beer requires a lot of steam, which is usually made by burning natural gas, exposing brewers to volatile price spikes. Fortunately, New Belgium found a solution with AtmosZero, a company specializing in industrial electric boilers which swap out expensive and dirty fossil fuels for clean electrons with stable prices. Industry – everything from making steel and cement to chemicals and beer – is the world's largest energy consumer, and its energy demand has soared 70% since 2000. To help protect against price volatility and cut climate pollution, industries around the world are embracing electric technologies in lieu of burning fossil fuels —also called industrial electrification—to create truly cleaner products. That's critical for manufacturers looking to succeed: Industrial producers won't remain competitive in a global marketplace that increasingly values clean products, so countries and companies that don't evolve will get left behind by those who do. Until recently, cutting industrial emissions was considered difficult because of the sector's reliance on burning fossil fuels for various processes. Fortunately, all-electric technologies—many already commercially available and ready to deploy at scale—can meet industry's heat needs without compromising performance, while providing secondary benefits including cleaner air, a stable climate, and improved worker health. Electric technologies are to poised power the next industrial revolution, but overcoming all barriers to industrial electrification requires policy leadership and industry's embrace of technological innovation. Electrifying industrial heat is the next step in manufacturing innovation Industry is integral to our daily lives, economic health, and quality of life. The industrial sector produces nearly everything in our lives—from beverages and food to paper products and plastics, and even electric vehicles and solar panels. Manufacturing uses enormous amounts of fossil fuels to create those products, making industry the largest energy consumer in the world and responsible for a third of greenhouse gas emissions. These energy demands fall into three primary categories: Process uses account for 84% of industrial non-feedstock fossil fuel use globally, and each industrial subsector requires different temperatures for their bespoke processes. Percentage of industrial process heat demand by temperature range in the European Union in 2012 Today, industries rely on burning large volumes of fossil fuels to achieve these temperatures. Subindustries within the global industrial sector and their non-feedstock energy use in 2020 Fortunately, many untapped opportunities exist to reduce industrial energy demands by improving the overall efficiency of industrial operations. This can be done through energy and material efficiency measures, as well as reducing demand for new products. However, sizable industrial heat needs require scalable technology solutions to mitigate the sector's outsized impact on climate change and air pollution. Fortunately, viable technologies and policy solutions are primed to tackle this challenge. Powering industrial heat with electric technologies and a clean grid Because electricity can be generated from carbon-free resources—like solar, wind, batteries, and geothermal—swapping electric technologies for burning fossil fuels can reduce and ultimately displace emissions. Though no one-size-fits-all solution exists for industrial heat, electrified technologies can meet nearly all industrial heating demands, including industrial heat pumps, electric boilers, thermal batteries, electric arc or induction furnaces, electric resistance heating, dielectric (radio or microwave) heating, and infrared heating. Industrial electrified heating technologies and their temperature ranges However, shifting industrial processes from dirty fuels to clean electrons requires overcoming three primary categories of barriers—economics, grid readiness, and technology maturity and awareness—with a suite of policy solutions. Primary barriers to industrial electrification and policy solutions to overcome them Electrification can deliver many long-term economic, environmental, and societal benefits, but the higher cost of electricity relative to fossil fuels in many places and the capital expenditures needed to switch to electric technologies can be a deterrent to change. In addition, the costs to connect to the grid can add expenses. Policymakers can pursue a combination of incentives to increase deployment of renewable and carbon-free electricity and create incentives to encourage clean industry and electrification. Creative financing tools will help fill market gaps, and clean heat emissions standards will help level the playing field for industrial electrification technologies, allowing them to compete with fossil fuel alternatives. Widespread industrial electrification will also require a robust and reliable electricity grid capable of supporting more demand. New capacity additions must be carbon-free, alongside new transmission and distribution infrastructure. Slow and costly interconnection processes and outmoded grid planning can prevent meaningful progress. In order to overcome grid readiness barriers, policymakers should pursue greater energy efficiency as well as flexible industrial demand. This combined with interconnection and grid planning reforms that can reduce demand on the grid, while also reducing the costs for other ratepayers. Finally, many electric technologies have been commercially available and in use in specific applications for decades, but not all have been deployed at scale or applied to traditionally fossil-fueled industrial processes. Industries, the workforce, and investors need experience with these technologies to gain confidence in industrial electrification. Government officials should support foundational research development and demonstration policies to ensure continued technology evolution and support for projects that yield cost and performance improvements across different geographies and jurisdictions. Workforce training and education programs are also necessary to attract, train, and support the people charged with their effective deployment and maintenance. Policy solutions for industrial electrification Catalyzing industrial electrification today No one-size-fits-all policy package exists to electrify the industrial sector, and each sub-industry and jurisdiction faces unique challenges and priorities. Overcoming all barriers to industrial electrification can help government officials revitalize and modernize their region's industrial base—one that is cleaner, more economically competitive, and aligned with a stable climate future.
