Clicxpost

Tech

xAI Installed 59 Unpermitted Gas Turbines Near Black Communities in Tennessee and Mississippi

xAI unpermitted gas turbines

Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI has installed 59 natural gas turbines for its Colossus 2 data center project in Tennessee without securing federal clean air permits, according to communications between regulators and xAI representatives reviewed by Reuters.

The potential emissions from those turbines far exceed the threshold that would trigger a federal permit requirement, and they would be released near predominantly Black communities that already face disproportionately high rates of lung disease, according to a Reuters analysis based on government data and the regulatory correspondence.

The number of unpermitted turbines identified by Reuters is roughly double what xAI has publicly acknowledged. The company previously said it was running 27 unpermitted turbines for Colossus 2 as of January and has argued that permits aren’t required for them. At least 57 of the 59 turbines sit in Mississippi, just over the state line from the Tennessee data center they serve.

The findings show how surging electricity demand from AI data centers is pushing companies to build off-grid power plants faster than environmental oversight can keep pace, with real risks to public health in the surrounding communities.

A Pattern of Fast-Tracked Approvals

The xAI turbines are among dozens of off-grid power plants proposed or under construction for data centers nationwide. Local authorities often approve these projects in weeks or months, skipping the years of environmental studies and public hearings typically required for power plants that connect to the electric grid.

Mississippi regulators issued a permit in March for permanent turbines at Colossus 2, clearing construction of 41 gas-fired units. That approval came three weeks after the state held its only public hearing on the project.

Ben King, an analyst with the think tank Rhodium Group who reviewed the Reuters findings, said the xAI cluster already ranks among the largest off-grid data center power projects in the country. “This looks to be an unprecedented level of behind-the-meter gas being installed in one place,” he said, referring to off-grid natural gas plants that serve a single customer.

The communications reviewed by Reuters show that xAI, now owned by Musk’s SpaceX, has installed 57 off-grid turbines in Southaven, Mississippi, across the state line from its Colossus 2 data center in Memphis, which supports the Grok chatbot and other AI systems. Records show two additional unpermitted turbines were installed for the project at a separate site whose location Reuters could not determine.

The records came from a Reuters public records request and included emails between Trinity Consultants, which represents xAI and its subsidiary MZX Tech, and the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. xAI did not respond to a request for comment.

Civil Rights Groups Sue Over Emissions

The turbines sit at the center of a widening dispute over whether the AI industry is adding disproportionate pollution to communities of color. The NAACP and the Southern Environmental Law Center sued xAI in April to halt the turbines’ operation, arguing the emissions fall under the federal Clean Air Act and that the company shouldn’t be running them without permits. The groups say the turbines are polluting homes, schools and churches in historically Black neighborhoods.

“The scale of it is astonishing,” said Patrick Anderson, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. “This is an absolutely huge Clean Air Act violation that threatens public health.”

Securing a Clean Air Act permit would have subjected the project to extensive review and public comment, a process that can take years. Mississippi regulators and xAI have argued in court filings that the turbines qualify for an exemption because they’re classified as mobile and intended to run at the site for less than a year. “MDEQ has determined that portable/temporary turbines do not require an air permit,” the state agency said in a statement to Reuters.

The Environmental Protection Agency said in January 2026 that temporary turbines exceeding emissions thresholds still need permits. The agency told Reuters it’s now weighing changes that would give portable units more regulatory flexibility while still protecting public health. xAI, MDEQ and the EPA all declined to answer Reuters’ questions about how the turbines might affect communities of color living near the site.

The U.S. Justice Department entered the lawsuit with a June 15 filing arguing that restricting the turbines could threaten national security, since xAI’s systems support U.S. military operations, including operations tied to Iran.

Mary Rock, a senior attorney at Earthjustice representing the NAACP and the Southern Environmental Law Center, said the case could set a troubling precedent. “This sets up scenarios where the government can create sacrifice zones and tell communities they have to breathe illegal air pollution,” she said.

The dispute mirrors a 2022 study by researchers at UCLA and Columbia University, published in the journal Nature Energy, which found that communities historically subjected to redlining, where banks once denied mortgages to Black applicants, now face disproportionately high exposure to pollution from fossil fuel facilities. “Air pollution from these and other sources contributes to systemic racial disparities in chronic disease and ultimately shorter lives,” said Lara Cushing, a UCLA public health professor who co-authored the study.

The Numbers Behind the Pollution

Emails reviewed by Reuters included manufacturer emissions data for 32 of the 59 turbines, including 30 at the Southaven site. Based on that data, Reuters calculated that those 30 turbines alone could emit close to 2,500 short tons of nitrogen oxide, 4,000 short tons of carbon monoxide and 22 short tons of formaldehyde a year, assuming continuous operation at 80% capacity, the load level the EPA says gas turbines typically run at for efficiency.

Nitrogen oxides contribute to smog and respiratory inflammation, according to the American Lung Association. Carbon monoxide limits the body’s ability to absorb oxygen, and formaldehyde is a known carcinogen. The site’s potential emissions far exceed the Clean Air Act threshold of 100 short tons annually for pollutants like nitrogen oxide, the level that triggers permitting requirements.

“This is a massive amount of turbines and an unfathomable amount of air pollution,” said Southaven resident Shannon Samsa, director of the Safe and Sound Coalition. “It’s not a hypothetical that air pollution is bad for you.”

Nicholas Mailloux, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who studies air quality, said the nitrogen oxide emissions calculated for roughly half the plant’s turbines would place the facility among the top 25 gas plants in the country for that pollutant, based on EPA data for actual emissions nationwide.

Who Lives Nearby

In Southaven’s Colonial Hills neighborhood, residents say the turbines run around the clock, firing off bursts of noise they compare to jet engines. Ervin Laws, a Colonial Hills resident in his 20s, said the noise wakes him up at night. “I can’t do anything about it, because he’s got more money than me,” he said, referring to Musk.

A Reuters analysis of CDC data found that in 27 of 28 census tracts within five miles of the site, spanning both Mississippi and Tennessee, estimated asthma rates exceeded their respective countywide averages. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease rates were also higher in 24 of those tracts. Researchers commonly use a five-mile radius to identify populations likely exposed to pollution from a stationary source.

A separate Reuters analysis of Census Bureau data found that residents near the facility are disproportionately Black. Within five miles of the site in DeSoto County, Mississippi, about 46% of residents are Black, compared with 33% countywide. Across the state line in Tennessee, where residents have no voice in Mississippi’s permitting process, about 94% of residents within five miles of the facility are Black, compared with 52% in the surrounding Shelby County.

Jayajit Chakraborty, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said the Reuters findings align with existing research showing that communities of color face higher exposure to fossil fuel pollution. Shelby County and parts of DeSoto County have previously failed to meet federal ozone standards and remain under EPA-approved plans meant to keep them from falling out of compliance again. Nitrogen oxide is a key building block of ozone formation, which the EPA says can damage respiratory health.

“Given this community struggles with high asthma rates, additional NOx exposure at such high rates could exacerbate public health issues in a community that is already seeing more than its fair share of exposure to toxic air pollution,” said Victoria Nelson, an independent environmental engineer formerly with the EPA.

Sarah Gladney, 72, has watched xAI expand across the Memphis area from her home in Boxtown, a historically Black neighborhood a few miles from where the company built its first data center, Colossus 1, in 2024. “Once they got their foot in the door in Memphis, I feel like it’s going to be a continuous movement of xAI into these other communities,” she said. “It’s all about the money, and it’s not about the health or wellness of the people that live in or near these communities.”

RECOMMENDED
Tech

Meta’s Muse AI Agent Promises Help, but Experts Warn of Online Chaos

By George Mensah 8 min read

Meta’s new AI agent, Muse, can cancel a gym membership, haggle with customer service, buy groceries and invite friends to a party. It asks for total control of your Gmail, your calendar and, on a Mac, your whole computer. A BBC reporter who tested the app for a week revoked its access and asked it to erase what it had collected, and the researchers interviewed say the problems reach well beyond one person’s inbox.

Muse is an AI agent, a tool that goes out into the world to complete tasks without supervision. It uses its own web browser, and Meta says phone calls are coming. It is the first free, full-featured agent from a big company. Millions of people downloaded it in its first weeks, and OpenAI has since announced an agent of its own. More are expected.

The experts interviewed for the BBC’s report expect the internet to get more frustrating as agents spread, with bots competing for tickets and appointments, small businesses swamped by automated requests and some agents working against their own users.

An agent that asks for everything

A cartoon avatar asks for your name. Then it asks for access to Gmail, the calendar and, on a Mac, the entire machine. Muse arguably asks for more trust and sensitive information than any product Meta has made.

Patrick Wardle, co-founder of Objective-See, a US nonprofit security foundation, uncovered serious flaws in the app. His advice is blunt. “I wouldn’t use it,” he said. “Personally, I would tell you to uninstall it altogether.”

The reporter tested it anyway, named the agent “Bob” and handed over access to their accounts.

Meta defends the product. “Muse is the first personal AI agent built for everyone and designed to be safe, secure and private – with built-in protections and user controls that put people in charge of how they use it,” a Meta spokesperson said. “Safety and security is a huge priority for us,” the spokesperson added, and said Muse went through extensive testing.

The ticket problem scales up

Experts expect the problems to look like the ones scalpers already cause. In 2024, some American fans of Taylor Swift flew to Europe to see her because resellers had pushed US ticket prices so high that a flight to an international concert cost less. Scalpers buy tickets to resell at a mark-up.

An agent gives anyone the same tool. Calli Schroeder, director of the AI and Human Rights Program at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (Epic), expects a sharp rise in bot activity. “There’s going to be a huge escalation of the problems we’re already having with bots,” she said.

The effects reach ordinary errands. Reservations at a hot new restaurant could become close to impossible to get. Appointments for passport or driver’s licence renewals in peak travel season could vanish too. Some people will probably hoard slots, booking five appointments just in case, since an agent makes that effortless.

Solutions exist. Society could drop “first come first served” and move to lotteries for scarce slots. That would change how much of daily life works. Schroeder sees little preparation. “I haven’t seen a lot of plans to address these things,” she said. “We’re just launching these tools and saying, ‘well, we’ll deal with the problems when they come up’.”

Meta says Muse asks permission before buying anything. According to the company, it is built to behave like a “reasonable, honest person”, one who would not buy every ticket to an event or refresh a page 500 times an hour.

Websites under strain

The reporter found Muse useful. Over a week, it messaged a seller on Facebook Marketplace with questions, ordered the reporter’s preferred dental floss and negotiated a $31 (£23) discount on a software subscription.

Now picture millions of agents doing this at once, on tasks that might take a person weeks. Schroeder asked what that does to the sites on the receiving end. “What happens if bots send 600 inquiries to a website a day, when normal humans might only send two?” she said. By our arithmetic, that is 300 times the normal load from a single visitor. “Businesses and individuals are going to have a lot to deal with.”

Web businesses already face pressure. Google and chatbots now answer many questions directly, so people visit fewer websites. Robots do not click ads or buy subscriptions, and the income those visits once produced is shrinking. Agents are expected to deepen the problem.

One analysis found that web traffic from bots rose 124% in the year to June 2026. Some websites and services are struggling because they were not built for that load.

Meta’s spokesperson said Muse completes tasks while respecting the interests of websites.

Whose side is the agent on?

Personal risks sit alongside the public ones. “If you’re empowering an agent to make things like purchasing decisions, or choices about taste and preferences, you’re opening yourself up to being exploited,” Schroeder said.

She gave examples. If Muse plans a holiday, a user has no way to check whether it found the best deal or picked flights and hotels that benefit Meta’s business partners. If it recommends music, the user cannot tell whether the picks come from their taste or from artists who signed deals with Meta.

Meta says Muse’s protections and user controls put people “absolutely in charge”, and that Muse “behaves like a personal assistant acting for a single person” and follows ethical guidelines meant to protect users. Schroeder has read the terms of service. She said they contain no guarantee that the app will act in the user’s favour.

Proposals for new rules

Ramesh Raskar, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies AI agents, uses a driving comparison for the current situation. “Imagine there are no rules of the road. And you release billions of cars – the AI agents – and you just let them drive through playgrounds, hitting kids. That’s where we are,” he said.

Raskar is among the researchers designing an internet that works for agents, businesses and people alike. He argues that regulators need an approach built for agents. “Think about the models like an engine. The agents are the cars, and that’s what we need to regulate,” he said. “We need to establish the rules of the road: windshields, brakes, traffic lights and so on.”

The AI industry is developing protocols and standards that let bots connect directly to other services in a cooperative way. Some companies are building systems that would charge AIs a fee to scrape websites. Regulation could require agents to serve their users’ best interests.

There are early examples. A few restaurant reservation platforms have banned people for AI misuse. The UK has rewritten the rules for booking driving tests, in part to combat bots.

Raskar remains optimistic. “Agents could unlock so much investment, innovation and value,” he said, as long as the new rules do not hand any company an unfair advantage. In the meantime, people who use agents pay with personal data.

What Muse holds, and what Meta promises

The reporter has used the same Gmail address for 21 years. It is the login for hundreds of accounts. It holds medical test results, contracts, legal documents, family conversations, receipts and financial information. It also holds love letters from an ex-girlfriend, who gave permission before the account was connected. Muse also suggested connecting bank accounts. The reporter declined and did not let the agent loose on the hard drive.

Meta makes explicit privacy promises. The company says it will not connect any data Muse collects to its advertising systems. Special systems are meant to keep the AI from seeing passwords or payment methods. When a user connects Gmail, the agent asks whether it should scan the whole inbox or read only messages related to specific tasks.

There is a catch, according to Schroeder. By default, Meta uses Muse data to train new AI models. She said data built into a model cannot be removed, and that AIs can sometimes be tricked into revealing training data. Meta says it “sanitises” data to strip out personally identifiable information before training, and that users can opt out with a setting.

Wardle does not take those assurances at face value. Soon after launch he found a critical vulnerability. “This was literally 20 minutes of me poking at the app, and it just, like, fell over,” he said. With a simple hack, he said, an attacker could have taken over Muse and all of its data, and even controlled other connected devices such as a phone or a smart lock.

Meta fixed the flaw immediately. Wardle says the oversight still leaves him unable to trust the company’s privacy and safety claims. “These bugs were trivial to discover,” he said. “If they were willing to ship something that’s security was not well vetted, it doesn’t give me a warm fuzzy about their intentions.”

A Meta spokesperson disputes that view and said Muse was delayed for months for further privacy and security testing.

The tester’s decision

The reporter spent a lot of time with Bob and found the agent useful and enjoyable. After finishing the article, the reporter revoked Muse’s Gmail access and asked the app to erase everything it had collected.

The reporter’s reason was simple: “In the end, the fear won out.”

Sources: BBC News reporting on Meta’s Muse AI agent; comments from Patrick Wardle (Objective-See), Calli Schroeder (Electronic Privacy Information Center), Ramesh Raskar (MIT); statements from a Meta spokesperson.

Tech

Trump Renames AI “Super Intelligence” in Executive Order as Calls for Regulation Grow

By George Mensah 4 min read

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2026, that renames artificial intelligence “super intelligence” across the federal government. The White House says the new term better describes what the technology can do. The order lands as critics press Washington for stricter limits on how fast AI develops.

What the order says

The executive order argues that current systems do “much more than imitate or automate discrete aspects of human intelligence.” It goes further in its central passage. “As these capabilities continue to improve, they increasingly represent not merely artificial intelligence, but a new era of Super Intelligence,” the text reads.

It adds that federal terminology “should reflect the transformative capabilities of these technologies and the limitless opportunities they create for the American people.”

Trump spoke to reporters after signing. “It’s not artificial, we all agree on that,” he said.

What agencies must do now

Every federal agency has to use the new term, or its short form “SI,” when it talks about the technology in public. That covers public communications, websites, reports and policy documents. If your local agency publishes an AI guidance page, expect it to change.

The order also gives Michael Kratsios, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, a defining role. He will decide whether the official definition of “super intelligence” should be modified or expanded. The order does not set a deadline for that decision.

A term that already means something else

The rename creates a vocabulary problem. In the AI field, super intelligence already refers to a specific kind of system, one that exceeds human cognitive ability in virtually every area of thinking. Nobody has built one. Researchers treat it as a future possibility, and much of the safety debate centers on it.

Under the order, federal documents will apply that label to chatbots, coding assistants and image generators that exist today. A reader who sees “SI” in a government report may assume the government is describing something far more advanced than what companies actually sell. Kratsios’s authority to modify the definition could narrow that gap, or it could widen it.

Timing and the push against regulation

The order follows a week of similar messaging. Trump began using the term at the U.N. General Assembly last week, where he pushed back on calls for tighter rules on the industry. He told world leaders that tech executives would build the right guardrails into their own models.

Concerns have grown since then. Worries about AI replacing workers keep rising. Recent reporting has also described rogue agents linked to a security breach involving Australia’s prime minister, and AI agents that accessed U.S. government websites. Some systems have also been used to start cyberattacks.

Trump has repeatedly called whistleblower warnings about weak oversight overblown and a “hoax.” He has said he will not slow AI growth. In his view, keeping American dominance in the technology is a national security matter.

The industry’s own safeguard

On the same day, tech executives signed a “morally binding” constitution on AI at the White House. Its terms ask companies to hire an independent external auditor. The auditor would check that models are “operating as intended.”

The document also asks companies to set up internal controls meant to stop models from hacking systems. A team would monitor those controls. That team would answer to an independent committee of the company’s board.

The wording matters here. “Morally binding” describes an obligation companies accept by choice. The reporting on the document does not describe fines, penalties or a government body that could enforce it. Whether outside auditors get real access to model internals, and what happens if one finds a problem, are open questions.

What the two actions have in common

The order and the constitution came out the same day, and they share a theme. Both keep the government’s role limited. The order changes what officials call the technology. The constitution leaves safety checks largely in company hands.

Supporters of that approach say it keeps American firms moving fast against foreign competitors. They argue that rigid rules written now could be out of date within a year. Critics say voluntary pledges have a weak record in other industries, and that a stronger name for the technology may make the public less cautious about it.

Neither side has settled the argument. What is clear is the direction of policy. The administration is choosing branding and industry commitments over new binding rules, at a moment when the documented incidents involving AI agents are piling up.

What happens next

Three things are worth watching over the coming weeks.

  • Kratsios’s definition. Any change to the official meaning of “super intelligence” will show how the administration wants the term understood.
  • Agency compliance. Federal sites and reports should begin switching to “SI” now that the order requires it.
  • The auditor provision. The industry constitution only matters if independent auditors are named, given access and allowed to publish what they find.

Congress has not yet responded to the order, and no agency has published a compliance timeline. Until Kratsios acts on the definition, “super intelligence” will mean one thing to researchers and something looser in federal paperwork.

ADVERTISEMENT
Scroll to Top