Who Pays for the Cloud? Environmental Justice, Data Centers, and the Fight for Clean Air in Ohio
A Green Environmental Outreach perspective
Every AI search and chatbot answer runs through a building somewhere. Those buildings need power, water, land, and permits. For decades, communities with the least political power have absorbed the costs of that kind of infrastructure, and AI is not changing that pattern.
At Green Environmental Outreach, we work with underserved families and youth in Ohio. The question we hear most often is simple: who decides, and who pays?
The federal retreat from environmental justice
Environmental justice is the idea that every community deserves clean air, safe water, and a real voice in decisions that affect its health, no matter its income or zip code. Federal policy has moved in the opposite direction since early 2025.
Offices closed. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin sent a memo to regional administrators saying the agency planned to eliminate all environmental justice positions and offices immediately.
Grants canceled. A court filing showed EPA planned to cancel 781 environmental justice grants and reassign or lay off more than 450 staffers working on the issue. The administration said the programs were a waste of taxpayer dollars. Grantees said the work protects people's health.
Courts pushing back. On June 11, 2026, a federal court in South Carolina ruled that EPA's guidance terminating the $2.8 billion Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant Program was unlawful and vacated it. The fight is far from over. The Fourth Circuit had earlier vacated injunctions that required reinstating other terminated grants.
The administration describes these programs as "forced discrimination," while advocates say they directed resources to places that pollution has already hit hardest. Either way, small nonprofits like ours lost a federal partner at the moment the pressure on neighborhoods like ours was growing.
The AI boom meets weaker guardrails
In July 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14318. It directs agencies to speed permitting for large data centers, including projects over 100 megawatts, and directs EPA to expedite permitting by developing or modifying regulations under the Clean Air Act and other laws. Environmental groups also warned that the administration's AI plan would create a nationwide Clean Water Act permit allowing data centers to be built without advance public notice, and new exclusions from the National Environmental Policy Act.
The permit process is where ordinary people get to ask questions, so shortening it takes away their chance to be heard.
Memphis shows the stakes. A lawsuit by the NAACP alleges xAI ran unpermitted methane gas turbines to power its data centers near Memphis. The Justice Department moved to dismiss the suit, saying private groups shouldn't use environmental laws to undermine national security. That motion was still pending as of late June. Mississippi regulators had decided no permit was needed. xAI and the administration dispute the allegations, but the case shows how a project can be built before the neighbors have any say.
What data centers can mean for a place like Springfield
Data centers are not inherently villains. They also bring construction jobs, tax revenue, and investment. But they carry real local costs, including:
Water. The city estimates the 5C/Vultr data center in Springfield will use 300,000 gallons of water daily, making it the third or fourth largest user in the city's system.
Air. Backup generators and onsite gas power raise air-quality questions. A Springfield resident and former nurse told WOSU she hopes the city will take a proactive approach to monitoring air, land, and water.
Noise and light. At a Clark County hearing, a Springfield resident said she wears earplugs at night because of the constant thumping from the existing data center.
Power bills. Central Ohio data centers are on pace to use more than 5,000 megawatts a month by 2030, about the same as the island of Manhattan.
Transparency. Clark County officials said they lack authority over a data center inside Springfield city limits. Residents have also raised alarms about a possible expansion from 67,000 to 214,000 square feet, which one resident found through public records and LinkedIn rather than a public notice.
Springfield's commission responded with a temporary six-month moratorium on new hyperscale data centers. It's a start. Residents deserve baseline monitoring and an honest public accounting of what these facilities use and emit.
Ohio's protections for ratepayers
Ohio has done some things well, and the credit goes to state regulators and bipartisan lawmakers rather than Washington. In July 2025, PUCO approved an AEP Ohio data center tariff. It requires data centers to pay at least 85% of subscribed energy costs to fund grid infrastructure and protect other customers from cost shifts. Before the tariff, AEP had received inquiries from more than 50 operators at more than 90 sites totaling more than 30,000 megawatts. The Ohio Manufacturers' Association has appealed the tariff to the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing it is discriminatory. A bipartisan bill, House Bill 706, would apply the same safeguards statewide.
The tariff protects wallets, but it does not address air, water or noise. A ballot effort by Conserve Ohio would have banned construction of any data center above 25 megawatts of peak monthly load, but according to Ohio Capital Journal coverage, it will not be on this year's ballot. The next battleground is local zoning, permitting and public oversight.
Social justice is part of the same story
Environmental justice has never been separate from civil rights. This summer, a federal judge lifted the block on the Trump administration ending Temporary Protected Status for Haitians, with Springfield's Haitian community among those facing uncertainty. Mayor Rob Rue said he supports the Haitian community, but the city will abide by the law. The administration says it is enforcing immigration law and offering help to those who leave voluntarily. Families caught in the middle may also be less likely to show up at a zoning hearing or file an air-quality complaint, and the people who most need a voice in these decisions can end up with the least protection.
The other side of the argument
Supporters of the administration's approach say Americans need to win the AI race, that permitting delays cost jobs and investment, and that federal agencies shouldn't be second-guessing every data center. Many local officials also welcome the tax base and construction work. Some of these projects bring real benefits, and some also install cleaner power than older industrial sites did. These are fair points, and the real disagreement is about speed and who gets a say. We think both growth and accountability are possible, but only if communities are at the table before the concrete is poured.
What GEO is asking for
Transparency. Public disclosure of water use, power demand, backup generation and expansion plans before approval.
Monitoring. Independent air and water monitoring near large facilities.
Community benefit. Local hiring and green job pipelines, so the neighborhoods that live next to these buildings can share in the work.
A real voice. Public comment periods that are advertised and accessible, including for immigrant families and non-English speakers.
Get involved
Attend your city commission and township meetings, and read the public notices. Ask what a facility will use before it opens, not after. And if you're a young person curious about careers in sustainability, energy, or environmental science, talk to us at GEO. The people who understand these systems should include the people who live next to them.
I can turn this into an editable doc, or draft a shorter social media version and a few pull quotes if that would help.
Comments