County Regulators Grant xAI Permits Despite Threat of Lawsuit
County regulators have granted xAI permits to operate 15 natural gas turbines at its data center outside Memphis, despite the threat of a lawsuit. This decision comes after Elon Musk’s AI company was accused of operating as many as 35 generators without permits, according to the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC). The SELC has stated that xAI will be sued for violations of the Clean Air Act on behalf of the NAACP.
xAI recently raised $10 billion, split evenly between debt and equity. The permit issued by the Shelby County Health Department allows xAI to operate 15 Solar SMT-130 generators with emissions controls, capable of generating up to 247 megawatts. The SELC claims that xAI has been operating eight of the same model without permits, although these generators do have the necessary pollution controls in place.
Under the conditions of the permit, xAI will still be allowed to emit significant amounts of pollution, including 87 tons of smog-forming NOx, 94 tons of carbon monoxide, 85 tons of volatile organic compounds, 73 tons of particulate pollution, and nearly 14 tons of hazardous air pollutants, such as 9.8 tons of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen. The company is required to maintain its own emissions records.
Before the permit was issued, a Memphis community group announced that it had funds to pay for an independent air quality study. The City of Memphis conducted its own air quality testing in June, but the SELC raised concerns about the methodology of the tests.
The SELC noted that ozone levels were not measured during the testing, and the tests were carried out on days when the wind was blowing xAI’s pollution away from the testing sites. Additionally, the testing equipment was placed in close proximity to buildings, which can impact the accuracy of the results.
Prior to this decision, the health department claimed that it did not have the authority to permit “mobile” gas-burning turbines if they were in operation for less than 364 days, stating that the EPA was the relevant regulator in such cases. The SELC disagreed with this interpretation, calling it incorrect and lacking legal analysis.
