Datacenter developers are gaming the EPA's air pollution permitting system through a tactic environmental advocates call "lego permitting" — splitting a single facility's pollution sources into multiple minor permit applications, each small enough to avoid the stricter "major source" review required under the Clean Air Act. The pattern has been documented across at least three states and involves some of the largest names in tech and energy. In North Carolina, Amazon and Duke Energy are installing 649 diesel generators to back up a new hyperscale datacenter. They submitted two separate permits rather than one, avoiding a major review despite siting the facility in a low-income area already burdened by pollution from a Duke power plant and a plastic pellet factory. The Southern Environmental Law Center alleges Amazon may control all the generators despite the companies' claim of separate ownership and operations. North Carolina regulators accepted the companies' self-interested statements without verifying lease agreements or contracts. In New Mexico, the Project Jupiter datacenter developers proposed two natural gas "microgrids" on either side of a single facility and submitted two minor permits. Each microgrid would have emitted between 20.2 and 24.2 tons of hazardous air pollution per year — just below the 25-ton minor-permit threshold — meaning the combined facility would have released up to 44 tons, well into major-review territory. Attorneys for the New Mexico Environmental Law Center called the attempt "nothing short of preposterous" and "insulting to both regulators and community members." The developer withdrew the application in April 2025 amid community opposition, and the state environment department also opposed the proposal, though that opposition was not made public until now. In Frederick, Maryland, four datacenters with separate minor permits — including one by Amazon — operate on a single campus with a master developer. In other documented instances, datacenter developers have staggered minor permit requests over months so that cumulative emissions equal those of a major source without ever triggering the corresponding review. The consequences are concrete. Amazon's North Carolina project alone would emit nearly 250 tons per year of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds, about 98 tons of particulate matter annually, and 6.4 tons per year of hazardous air pollutants including benzene and formaldehyde. Heart disease, cancer, and respiratory disease are already leading causes of death in the surrounding region. A major review would require pre-construction monitoring, cumulative impact assessment, and potentially pollution control equipment like smokestack scrubbers. The minor-permit pathway skips all of that. Michael Koerber, retired deputy director of the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, said the strategy is about flying under the radar: "The more attention they have, the more difficult it gets to get the permit. They have consultants who are very good and know where the shortcuts are." He noted this is not unique to datacenters, but former EPA employee Cheryl Vetter said the tactic was not common for datacenters until recently. The legal framework technically allows divided permits when separate companies pollute at the same location, but not when all polluting activities are under common control. Amazon responded that it "appropriately applied for and obtained an air permit" and that separate permitting "reflects the actual ownership and operational structure." The SELC's Kathleen Sullivan countered that regulators are "simply trusting two extremely wealthy and politically powerful companies without any verification." The structural incentive is clear: major reviews take longer, cost more, require monitoring, and can force expensive pollution controls. Minor permits are faster, cheaper, and attract no public scrutiny. As AI-driven datacenter demand accelerates, this regulatory arbitrage will scale unless the permitting architecture changes.
