Amazon and Duke Energy Accused of Bypassing Clean Air Act for Diesel Generators at North Carolina Data Center

Amazon and Duke Energy are facing allegations that they attempted to circumvent Clean Air Act obligations tied to the installation of 649 diesel-fired generators at an Amazon data center under construction in Hamlet, North Carolina. The complaint, filed by the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), argues that the project could have severe consequences for the surrounding community.

The SELC, an environmental advocacy group, contends that Amazon applied for a state air permit to install 592 diesel emergency generators intended to provide backup power during outages. In a parallel move, Duke Energy sought a separate permit to deploy 57 additional generators at the same site to supply primary power until the facility connects to the electric grid. According to the SELC, filing two separate permit applications was a deliberate attempt to avoid stricter pollution limits and heightened air quality requirements that would apply under a single consolidated permit.

"One of the wealthiest companies in the world can and should do better than trying to evade critical air quality protections for a whopping 649 diesel-fired generators that belch deadly soot pollution into the air North Carolinians breathe," said Caroline Cress, senior attorney at the SELC. She added, "We hope this blatant attempt to avoid responsibility for emitting a significant amount of harmful air pollution is not an example of what North Carolina communities should expect from data centers and regulated monopoly utility, Duke Energy. Our regulators must impose conditions on Amazon and Duke Energy that are more protective of people's health and the air we all breathe."

The SELC emphasized that the generators pose a tangible risk to residents of Richmond County, one of the most economically distressed counties in North Carolina. The group argues that the cumulative emissions from the generators could undermine local air quality and public health, particularly in a region already grappling with economic challenges.

Duke Energy, however, strongly refuted the allegations. In a statement, the company said, "These 57 leased, portable generators will provide temporary site power for AWS only during facility construction and testing. They are not connected to Duke Energy's electric grid, and all associated costs are the responsibility of AWS, not other Duke Energy customers. These temporary generators are permitted for less than one year." The utility added, "While such temporary generators do not require that Duke Energy submit an air permit application, given their proximity to our Smith Energy Complex, we voluntarily included them within the air permit for our existing natural gas power plant. Taken together, all emissions from our power plant and the temporary generators combined will remain below the strict permit requirements set to keep the public and surrounding environment safe."

The dispute highlights a broader tension in the rapidly expanding data center industry, where backup power systems are essential for reliability but often rely on fossil fuel generation. Amazon broke ground on the Hamlet facility in October of last year, with plans for a campus that could eventually include up to 20 buildings, each exceeding 200,000 square feet. The site is located directly across from Duke Energy's 1.247 GW Smith Energy Complex, a natural gas plant built in 2001. As part of the agreement with Amazon, Duke intends to expand the plant's capacity by an additional 240 MW through a new gas turbine, with construction slated to begin in late 2027 and operations expected by late 2029.

The case underscores the growing scrutiny on data center operators and utilities to balance rapid infrastructure development with environmental compliance. As more hyperscale facilities come online, regulators and advocacy groups are increasingly focused on ensuring that emissions controls keep pace with industry growth. The SELC's complaint signals that communities and environmental groups are prepared to challenge permitting strategies they view as fragmented or insufficiently protective, potentially setting a precedent for how similar projects are reviewed in the future.