Lead
Thermal drone images captured by the nonprofit Floodlight newsroom and analyzed by multiple experts indicate that xAI—Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company—has continued to run gas-fired turbines at its Southaven, Mississippi, datacenter without state permits. The footage shows turbines active nearly two weeks after the Environmental Protection Agency reiterated on 15 January that such units generally require permits under the Clean Air Act. State regulators in Mississippi maintain the machines are classified as portable and therefore exempt; the EPA and outside specialists say permitting is required. A public hearing is scheduled for 17 February and the formal comment period remains open.
Key takeaways
- Floodlight thermal imagery and expert review show about 15 turbines operating at xAI’s Southaven site nearly two weeks after the EPA’s 15 January ruling.
- xAI parked 27 turbines in Southaven; public records obtained by Floodlight indicate 18 of those have been used since November 2025.
- xAI applied in January to operate 41 turbines at the Southaven facility; company filings estimate the site could emit over 6 million tons of greenhouse gases and more than 1,300 tons of health-harming pollutants per year.
- Mississippi regulators classify the turbines as portable/mobile units and say under state law they do not require air permits during temporary use; the EPA says permitting is usually required under federal policy.
- Residents report noise, pollution and disrupted lives; the site sits on a 114-acre parcel and has at least 10 schools within a two-mile radius.
- Similar conflicts occurred at xAI’s South Memphis Colossus 1 project, where thermal images previously showed more than 30 unpermitted turbines and the county later permitted 15 units in July 2025.
- Experts warn that exempting these turbines could leave them without applicable emission standards, raising public-health and legal concerns.
Background
The rapid expansion of AI datacenters across the United States has increased reliance on ad hoc, gas-fired power solutions when grid connections or planned renewable projects lag. xAI’s regional footprint grew through 2024 and 2025 with two major sites: Colossus 1 in South Memphis and a second facility, Colossus 2, whose operations are supported by turbines parked in adjacent Southaven, Mississippi. Environmental groups and community advocates have repeatedly flagged the use of multiple industrial turbines as a way to avoid conventional stationary-source permitting rules.
Federal policy dating back decades has generally treated stationary engines and large turbines as sources that require preconstruction and operating permits under the Clean Air Act; state agencies usually administer those permits. In several recent cases, the EPA has emphasized that mobile or portable labels do not automatically exempt a machine that functions as a long-term emissions source. The 15 January 2026 EPA notice reiterated that long-standing position, warning that an exemption could leave engines outside any emission standard regime.
Main event
In mid-February 2026 Floodlight deployed thermal drone photography over xAI’s Southaven compound and shared imagery with multiple independent experts for analysis. Reviewers concluded the heat signatures are consistent with combustion from active gas turbines and, in some frames, visible plumes align with operation. Floodlight also obtained public records indicating at least 18 of the 27 turbines parked in Southaven have been used since November 2025.
State regulators at the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) told Floodlight that under state rules the turbines are classified as portable/mobile units and remain exempt from permitting during their temporary deployment. The agency said applicable air-quality standards still apply even if formal permits are not required. The EPA, by contrast, declined to answer detailed questions about enforcement options and directed reporters to state permitting authorities, while its January guidance reasserted federal expectations.
Residents near the 114-acre site reported prolonged noise and visible emissions; community members say the turbines operate close to homes and schools. Longtime resident Shannon Samsa and others organized petitions and public comment efforts, while some families report health and quality-of-life impacts they attribute to the plant’s presence. xAI has not responded to repeated requests for comment on the operational status of the turbines or on the permit applications it filed in January.
Analysis & implications
The dispute highlights a regulatory gap that emerges when companies deploy portable or temporary equipment at scale. If a device labeled as portable is used continuously on a single site for months, experts argue it performs the role of a stationary source and should be subject to the same permitting requirements, monitoring and emission limits. That legal interpretation underpins the EPA’s January 2026 position and is central to arguments from environmental groups and former regulators.
Enforcement options are constrained by institutional choices. State air agencies traditionally issue permits, and the EPA typically intervenes only when states fail to act. The EPA’s public reluctance to discuss enforcement in this instance — combined with a recent record-low number of federal enforcement actions under the current administration — raises questions about the speed and scale of any federal response. Former agency officials say referral to the Department of Justice is possible but not automatic.
From a public-health perspective, the turbines emit pollutants commonly associated with increased risks of asthma, cardiovascular disease and certain cancers. xAI’s own permit application projects more than 1,300 tons per year of air pollutants and over 6 million tons of greenhouse gases if the planned configuration is approved—figures that would place the site among the state’s largest fossil-fuel emission sources. These projections intensify local concerns and frame the dispute as both a regulatory and a community-health issue.
Comparison & data
| Site | Turbines Reported | Turbines Used (since Nov 2025) | Permitted (as of July 2025) | Projected annual pollutants |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colossus 1 (South Memphis) | >30 (thermal images) | — | 15 (permitted July 2025) | — |
| Colossus 2 (Southaven) | 27 parked | 18 | 0 (state views as portable) | >1,300 tons air pollutants; >6,000,000 tCO2e |
The table aggregates public-record filings, Floodlight thermal analysis and state permitting actions. It shows a pattern: temporary or portable classifications can lead to substantially different regulatory outcomes even when the operational footprint is comparable among neighboring jurisdictions. That variance complicates statewide and national policy responses to large-scale datacenter power needs.
Reactions & quotes
Former EPA air enforcement chief Bruce Buckheit reviewed Floodlight’s imagery and federal regulations and emphasized the legal expectation that permits be obtained before operation. His assessment frames the situation as a straightforward potential violation under current agency guidance.
“That is a violation of the law. You’re supposed to get permission first.”
Bruce Buckheit, former EPA air enforcement chief
The Southern Environmental Law Center, which previously released thermal images from Colossus 1, positioned the issue as a pattern of noncompliance and regulatory inaction. SELC attorneys said earlier hopes that health or permitting authorities would intervene went unfulfilled, prompting legal and advocacy responses.
“xAI violated the Clean Air Act the first time, and now they’re gonna copy and paste and do it again.”
Patrick Anderson, senior attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center
Local residents describe immediate quality-of-life and health concerns, noting proximity to schools and longstanding ties to their homes. One resident said the experience has forced difficult personal choices about staying in the neighborhood.
“I do feel like xAI is playing by a different set of rules. We are a casualty of the whole datacenter race.”
Krystal Polk, Southaven resident
Unconfirmed
- Whether the turbines observed were operating continuously every day since November 2025 has not been independently verified beyond the thermal snapshots and usage logs cited in public records.
- Any specific enforcement action the EPA may take, including a referral to the Department of Justice, remains unannounced; no federal enforcement filings were reported as of publication.
- The exact health outcomes for residents tied directly to emissions from these specific turbines have not been established through epidemiological study at this site.
Bottom line
The Floodlight investigation and expert review present a clear regulatory and policy tension: companies are fielding large numbers of gas turbines to support fast-growing AI infrastructure, while state and federal authorities dispute how those machines should be classified and regulated. The EPA’s 15 January 2026 ruling reiterates a long-standing federal view that long‑term turbine use typically triggers permitting requirements, but on-the-ground enforcement and state implementation remain decisive factors.
For nearby communities the dispute is concrete and immediate—noise, visible plumes and permit filings with large emissions projections drive tangible concern. The outcome of the 17 February hearing, continued public comment and any subsequent state or federal enforcement decisions will shape not only xAI’s Southaven project but broader precedents for how ad hoc power plants are regulated amid the AI datacenter build-out.
Sources
- The Guardian (investigative reporting)
- Floodlight (nonprofit investigative newsroom; thermal imagery and public-record reporting)
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (federal agency; January 15, 2026 guidance)
- Southern Environmental Law Center (environmental legal organization)
- Cleanview (clean-energy and datacenter project tracker)