Amazon's new Texas data center could become the single largest polluter in the US

[DragonSlayer101]

A hot potato: A proposed Amazon data center in Texas has sparked concerns that its massive on-site power plant could become the single-largest source of pollution in the US, threatening to affect local communities, farmland, and small businesses. The facility is planned for Pecos County as part of Amazon's growing push into AI and cloud services.

In a statement to The New York Times, an Amazon spokesperson said the data center will be powered entirely by an on-site power plant, ensuring it won't raise electricity costs for local residents. The plant is expected to run on natural gas, with 35 turbines combining to generate up to 7.65 gigawatts of power.

The facility has regulatory approval to release up to 33 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, which would make it the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in the US – more than any other factory or power plant nationwide.

(Not Amazon's data center) - Satellite imagery shows OpenAI's Stargate data center transforming the landscape near Abilene, TX. The 1,100-acre campus spans roughly 4 million square feet and is still growing. Credit: Planet Labs PBC

Critics say the permitted emissions level is far too high, noting that the projected output would rival the total emissions of entire countries, including Switzerland, Ireland, and Bulgaria.

Notably, Amazon co-founded The Climate Pledge in 2019, promising to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2040. Since then, though, its emissions have climbed sharply: the company's emissions tied to purchased electricity rose 34% in 2025 alone.

Stargate's gas turbines are permitted to emit over 1.6 million tons of greenhouse gases and 1,000 tons of air pollutants annually, approved without public input. Credit: Evan Simon / Floodlight, via The Texas Tribune

Asked about the pledge, Amazon spokeswoman Margaret Callahan told the Times that "the world looks different now than when we co-founded the climate pledge," but added that "our commitment [to a carbon-neutral future] hasn't changed."

The Pecos County plant falls under the so-called "Ratepayer Protection Pledge," which requires tech companies to source their own power for new AI data centers rather than drawing from existing grids.

The pledge was signed last March at the insistence of President Trump by several leading American tech companies, including Google, Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, Oracle, OpenAI, and xAI.

US investment in data center infrastructure hit record levels last year, and as major tech companies continue pouring money into AI, demand for electricity is expected to keep climbing sharply in the years ahead.

Permalink to story:

Amazon's new Texas data center could become the single largest polluter in the US

 

[The Talking Tech]

Texas and their corporate goons.....that's why every company sees Texas as the "out of jail card" for their terrible business practices.

But the people in that state keeps voting in all those closed minded politicians that care more about their pockets and how they keep restricting their citizens than looking out for their own health.

 

[OortCloud]

Another day, another bout of madness from the United States of Dystopia.

 

[yRaz]

Oh, thank goodness. I thought my tacobell addiction made me the largest polluter in the US

 

[NumberNine]

I guess I've just been miseducated and led to believe pollution is harmful when in reality, it creates jobs and makes life better for everyone. Surely they wouldn't do anything bad for the children.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

While the net zero carbon idea is ridiculous, so is creating more emissions than Ireland.

This is one of the downsides to the solution of data centers providing their own power. The power generation you can throw up quickly at any location is not necessarily the best way to generate power. Everything has trade offs but we aren’t taking any time to consider them as we plow full speed ahead.

 

[Kirby1]

Before Trump, the US had reduced its emissions every year for 10+ years in a row.

Shocking how far we have gone in the other direction.

Won't be any bot accounts in this thread unless they come just to reply to other comments. None will comment on the topic itself.

 

[toooooot]

I see it as an opportunity to become first to not use any water and generate their own electricity.
Heck, even give them some money in a form of 0 interest credit.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Love the headline… but let’s not pretend that it’s not purposefully misleading in order to generate clicks…

First off, 33 million tons is a permitted maximum, not necessarily what Amazon will actually emit. And they are hoping that they can augment with wind/solar down the road in order to minimize it.

Also, the alternative is to connect it to Texas’ already insufficient power grid - which would be far worse to the people relying on it.

Datacenters are essential- if they aren’t built in the west, China will grab the lead instead.

Given the choice of Amazon powering it themselves or having the state do it, this is a no-brainer…

Down the line, hopefully cleaner energy will be cost-effective… hard to criticize something that hadn’t even happened yet…

 

[airbornex]

Amazon says the world has changed since its climate pledge. Apparently the climate stayed the same, but AI arrived with a very persuasive expense account.

 

[pnntmp]

Fantastic news! Hope they'll build it as fast as possible.

Notably, Amazon co-founded The Climate Pledge in 2019, promising to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2040. Since then, though, its emissions have climbed sharply: the company's emissions tied to purchased electricity rose 34% in 2025 alone.

Did you spend the recent years in hibernation or what?
"Climate change", "net zero" and all that went down the drain long ago. Yet another piece of fantastic news, although it's not exactly new, we're way past the climate hysteria peak now. Anyway, carbon emissions is just a statistical number without significance.
Of course, that didn't stop the author from spreading misinformation - 33 million tons CO2 per year is the approved amount they can reach, the actual value will be far less

 

[NicktheWVAHick]

My electric bill may stay the same, but my natural gas bill probably just went through the roof.

 

[VitalyT]

Whatever official plunker got richer off this, should go in jail.

 

[Y2JB47]

Fantastic news! Hope they'll build it as fast as possible.

Did you spend the recent years in hibernation or what?
"Climate change", "net zero" and all that went down the drain long ago. Yet another piece of fantastic news, although it's not exactly new, we're way past the climate hysteria peak now. Anyway, carbon emissions is just a statistical number without significance.
Of course, that didn't stop the author from spreading misinformation - 33 million tons CO2 per year is the approved amount they can reach, the actual value will be far less

The fact that people like you exist in number in 2026 is really sad. Do maga caps cut off the blood supply to your brain or do you just lack the ability to think? Even putting aside the overwhelming scientific evidence for a second, just the simple fact that 7 billion people adding energy to a system daily must surely have an effect right?

 

[Rudyduu]

Datacenters are essential- if they aren’t built in the west, China will grab the lead instead.

Down the line, hopefully cleaner energy will be cost-effective… hard to criticize something that hadn’t even happened yet…

Why are additional AI datacenters "essential"? Don't we really have enough? It likely wouldn't affect anyone outside of those who lived near them, if there were only 4 AI datacenters in the entire US.

"...hopefully cleaner energy will be more cost-effective..." why does the cost of being clean determine if a company will use clean power generation? Why do the people living near these data centers have to give up their health for someone else's profits? Why don't the people who paid for these data centers live near them? It's easy to criticize datacenters that are powered by a bunch of heavily pulluting generators when they currently exist: xAI Colossus campus in southern Memphis for example.

 

[Rudyduu]

...that didn't stop the author from spreading misinformation - 33 million tons CO2 per year is the approved amount they can reach, the actual value will be far less

How would you know how polluting these generators are going to be when you likely have no idea how many of these generators, they will use, who makes them, what model they are going to use, how much fuel is used, how much pollution each of them can produce and at what capacity they will run at.

How can you make such an outrageous statement in such a confident way without any evidence to support it all while claiming the author is spreading misinformation? You think the people generating power for these data centers are aiming to produce as few emissions as possible or are they going to generate the power they are contracted to produce and only care about the money they are making?

 

[Loadedaxe]

Texas and their corporate goons.....that's why every company sees Texas as the "out of jail card" for their terrible business practices.

But the people in that state keeps voting in all those closed minded politicians that care more about their pockets and how they keep restricting their citizens than looking out for their own health.

So we're discussing an Amazon data center and somehow managed to blame an entire state, its voters, and its politicians before discussing a single engineering or environmental detail of the project. Impressive efficiency.

Amazon isn't getting an “out of jail card.” The facility still requires permits and is subject to emissions limits. The 33 million tons being thrown around is the permitted maximum, not a prediction of actual annual emissions.

There are legitimate questions here...Is natural gas the best option? What will actual emissions be? How does Amazon reconcile this with its climate pledge? Those are worth discussing.

“Texas voters are closed minded corporate goons” isn't analysis. It's just politics wearing a hard hat.

Another day, another bout of madness from the United States of Dystopia.

“United States of Dystopia” sounds dramatic, but it doesn’t actually say anything about the project.

A private company needs an enormous amount of reliable electricity and is proposing to generate much of it itself instead of dumping that demand onto an already stressed grid. There are absolutely legitimate environmental tradeoffs worth debating.

But apparently “dystopia” is easier than discussing those.

Meanwhile, half the people horrified by the data center will probably use AWS, stream something tonight, ask an AI a question, and have Amazon deliver a package tomorrow.

The dystopia apparently has excellent shipping.

Before Trump, the US had reduced its emissions every year for 10+ years in a row.

Shocking how far we have gone in the other direction.

Won't be any bot accounts in this thread unless they come just to reply to other comments. None will comment on the topic itself.

Kirby, you might want to check the numbers before turning an Amazon data center article into another Trump post.

The U.S. did not reduce emissions every year for “10+ years” before Trump. There were increases before 2017, and emissions also rose in 2018 before falling again.

And somehow we’ve gone from “California haters are everywhere” in one thread to “Trump and bot accounts” in this one.

You have a remarkable talent for finding the same political argument hiding inside completely different articles. At this rate, TechSpot could publish a review of a toaster and you’d be in the comments looking for MAGA bots and California critics.

Maybe we could try discussing Amazon, natural gas, grid capacity and the actual article for a change.

Whatever official plunker got richer off this, should go in jail.

By that standard, every large permitted project is just one suspicious handshake away from a prison documentary.

If there’s evidence of corruption, post it. Otherwise this is less “follow the money” and more “invent the money, then follow it.”

The fact that people like you exist in number in 2026 is really sad. Do maga caps cut off the blood supply to your brain or do you just lack the ability to think? Even putting aside the overwhelming scientific evidence for a second, just the simple fact that 7 billion people adding energy to a system daily must surely have an effect right?

pnntmp makes a legitimate point...33 million tons is the permitted maximum, not a prediction of what this plant will emit every year.

I am not completely on board with carbon emissions have “no significance.”

But somehow your answer is completely less useful.

“MAGA caps cutting off blood flow” isn’t a rebuttal, and “7 billion people adding energy to a system” isn’t how the greenhouse effect works either.

CO2 matters because increasing its concentration changes how heat is retained and escapes through the atmosphere. We can debate how serious the consequences are, what policies make sense, whether net zero targets are realistic, and whether this Amazon project is justified.

That would actually be an interesting discussion. You should join it.

Drop the keyboard warrior routine, do a little research, and post something intelligent enough to argue with instead of immediately reaching for MAGA insults.

Instead we got MAGA hats and 7 billion human space heaters.

 

[poohbear]

If you watched the last quarterly report from Amazon, their AWS AI services are now more profitable than their entire Prime/e-commerce business! It has become a massive behemoth of a company. Maybe divide it into 2-3 companies so it becomes more manageable based on the needs of AWS and Prime?

 

[Loadedaxe]

Why are additional AI datacenters "essential"? Don't we really have enough? It likely wouldn't affect anyone outside of those who lived near them, if there were only 4 AI datacenters in the entire US.

"...hopefully cleaner energy will be more cost-effective..." why does the cost of being clean determine if a company will use clean power generation? Why do the people living near these data centers have to give up their health for someone else's profits? Why don't the people who paid for these data centers live near them? It's easy to criticize datacenters that are powered by a bunch of heavily pulluting generators when they currently exist: xAI Colossus campus in southern Memphis for example.

This is a much better criticism than most of the thread, especially regarding local pollution. The xAI situation around Memphis is a legitimate warning about what happens when companies rush generation into service without adequate oversight.

But I disagree with “don’t we already have enough AI data centers?”

Enough according to who? Compute demand isn’t a fixed bucket that somebody filled last Tuesday. Companies keep building capacity because businesses and consumers keep using more cloud and AI services.

And of course cost matters when choosing cleaner energy. So do reliability, availability, transmission, permitting and how quickly generation can actually be built. A power source that is wonderfully clean but unavailable, unreliable or economically impossible at the required scale doesn’t power a 24/7 data center.

Where I absolutely agree with you is that nearby residents should not be expected to absorb unreasonable health risks so somebody else can make money. That is exactly why emissions limits, permitting and enforcement matter.

That’s a much stronger argument than simply saying “we already have enough data centers.”

How would you know how polluting these generators are going to be when you likely have no idea how many of these generators, they will use, who makes them, what model they are going to use, how much fuel is used, how much pollution each of them can produce and at what capacity they will run at.

How can you make such an outrageous statement in such a confident way without any evidence to support it all while claiming the author is spreading misinformation? You think the people generating power for these data centers are aiming to produce as few emissions as possible or are they going to generate the power they are contracted to produce and only care about the money they are making?

He is absolutely correct that 33 million tons is a permitted maximum, not a prediction that Amazon will emit exactly 33 million tons every year.

But saying the actual number “will be far less” is also speculation unless somebody has the expected utilization, turbine efficiency, operating schedule and fuel-consumption projections in front of them.

What we do know is that the project calls for roughly 35 natural gas turbines with up to 7.65 GW of generation capacity. That is a very large plant, so scrutiny of its emissions is perfectly reasonable.

Where I’d disagree with you is assuming the operators therefore “only care about money.” They’ll generate according to demand, contracts, operating economics and the conditions of their permits. Profit motive doesn’t automatically mean every environmental limit gets treated as a suggestion.

So yes...call out unsupported certainty when you see it. Just apply that standard in both directions.

“Could emit 33 million tons” is supported.

“Will emit 33 million tons” isn’t.

“Will be far less” isn’t either.

That’s the distinction the headline and the comments should probably have started with.

 

[Loadedaxe]

If you watched the last quarterly report from Amazon, their AWS AI services are now more profitable than their entire Prime/e-commerce business! It has become a massive behemoth of a company. Maybe divide it into 2-3 companies so it becomes more manageable based on the needs of AWS and Prime?

Small correction, Amazon doesn’t break out “AWS AI” profit separately, but AWS as a whole is absolutely becoming the profit engine. Last quarter AWS generated $16.6 billion in operating income versus about $10.8 billion combined from Amazon’s North American and international retail segments.

At some point it becomes fair to ask whether AWS and Amazon’s retail and logistics empire even belong under the same corporate roof anymore. They have wildly different margins, infrastructure requirements and increasingly different problems to solve.

I’m not convinced breaking Amazon up would automatically make either business better...there are enormous benefits to the ecosystem they’ve built, but this is a much more interesting discussion than “Texas bad” or “CO2 doesn’t matter.”

This is the kind of engagement I came to the comments section for.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Why are additional AI datacenters "essential"? Don't we really have enough? It likely wouldn't affect anyone outside of those who lived near them, if there were only 4 AI datacenters in the entire US.

So maybe look up what Datacenters are for... and then look up technology as a whole... like it or not, if you want the US to remain the most powerful nation on Earth, you will need to have LOTS more datacenters. I understand it's fun to post that most nations/big businesses are dumb but... maybe they're not?

"...hopefully cleaner energy will be more cost-effective..." why does the cost of being clean determine if a company will use clean power generation? Why do the people living near these data centers have to give up their health for someone else's profits? Why don't the people who paid for these data centers live near them? It's easy to criticize datacenters that are powered by a bunch of heavily pulluting generators when they currently exist: xAI Colossus campus in southern Memphis for example.

This is meaningless... datacentres need specific locations in order to work (see above re: look up datacentres), and those locations are rarely where rich business owners live... this has nothing to do with fairness and has everything to do with REALITY. Life isn't fair - you're supposed to learn that in elementary school, but I guess we dropped the ball somewhere down the line, as so many people think they're entitled to more...

 

[maxxcool7421]

TEXANS KILLING TEXANS FOR MONEY ... NEWS AT 11 <EYEROLL>

 

[Loadedaxe]

TEXANS KILLING TEXANS FOR MONEY ... NEWS AT 11 <EYEROLL>

“TEXANS KILLING TEXANS FOR MONEY” certainly saves time. Why bother with permits, emissions data, turbine efficiency, grid demand, actual health impacts, or evidence when all caps outrage can do the thinking for you?

If the project creates unacceptable local pollution, prove it with the numbers and argue against it. That would be worth discussing.

But reducing a 7.65 GW energy and infrastructure project to “Texans murdering Texans for profit” isn’t critical thinking. It’s a simpleton bumper sticker with Caps Lock on.

Next time, bring an argument of your own instead of repeating the same tired, exhausting talking points already littering the thread.

 

[pnntmp]

How would you know how polluting these generators are going to be when you likely have no idea how many of these generators, they will use, who makes them, what model they are going to use, how much fuel is used, how much pollution each of them can produce and at what capacity they will run at.

How can you make such an outrageous statement in such a confident way without any evidence to support it all while claiming the author is spreading misinformation? You think the people generating power for these data centers are aiming to produce as few emissions as possible or are they going to generate the power they are contracted to produce and only care about the money they are making?

CO2 emissions per year per GW of continuous output is ~3 million tones for nat. gas generation.

7.65 GW * 3 = 23 million tones per year, providing all turbines work at full capacity all the time.
Of course that never happens, a large plant typically has at least 25% spare capacity. 23 * 0.75 = 17, which is roughly half of the allowed emissions.
Indeed there are other factors that further reduce the emissions, so in reality they are extremely unlikely to exceed 40% of the allowed amount.

All that is really simple math you can do on a napkin. Of course it doesn't matter at all, because the amount of CO2 doesn't matter - it's a totally meaningless metric.

I don't understand what CO2 has to do with pollution, given that it's not a pollutant.

 

[Loadedaxe]

How would you know how polluting these generators are going to be when you likely have no idea how many of these generators, they will use, who makes them, what model they are going to use, how much fuel is used, how much pollution each of them can produce and at what capacity they will run at.

How can you make such an outrageous statement in such a confident way without any evidence to support it all while claiming the author is spreading misinformation? You think the people generating power for these data centers are aiming to produce as few emissions as possible or are they going to generate the power they are contracted to produce and only care about the money they are making?

CO2 emissions per year per GW of continuous output is ~3 million tones for nat. gas generation.

7.65 GW * 3 = 23 million tones per year, providing all turbines work at full capacity all the time.
Of course that never happens, a large plant typically has at least 25% spare capacity. 23 * 0.75 = 17, which is roughly half of the allowed emissions.
Indeed there are other factors that further reduce the emissions, so in reality they are extremely unlikely to exceed 40% of the allowed amount.

All that is really simple math you can do on a napkin. Of course it doesn't matter at all, because the amount of CO2 doesn't matter - it's a totally meaningless metric.

I don't understand what CO2 has to do with pollution, given that it's not a pollutant.

Let’s actually do the math. Bear with me I am doing this on MS Calculator.

A 7.65 GW facility operating at full nameplate output for an entire year would generate 7.65 GW × 8,760 hours = 67.0 TWh/year.

Now the important variable is not “spare capacity.” It is capacity factor, heat rate, turbine configuration and actual dispatch.

Using EIA’s observed natural gas generation emissions intensity of roughly 0.8 to 0.9 lb CO2/kWh as a reasonable reference range, 67 TWh of continuous generation would put annual CO2 emissions somewhere in the neighborhood of 24 to 27 million metric tons before adjusting for the actual equipment and operating profile.

That alone demonstrates why saying “3 million tons per GW” and then simply multiplying by 0.75 because the plant supposedly has “25% spare capacity” is not sufficient.

Reserve capacity is not equal to capacity factor.

A plant can have excess installed capacity and still operate selected turbines at high utilization. Conversely, maintenance, load variation, renewable supplementation and demand fluctuations could substantially lower annual output. Without the actual turbine heat rates, combined cycle/simple cycle configuration, dispatch schedule and annual fuel consumption, nobody here can calculate the final emissions number from their keyboard.

So...33 million tons is a permitted ceiling, not guaranteed annual emissions.

17 million tons is also not established simply because somebody multiplied nameplate capacity by 0.75.

Both numbers require assumptions.

As for CO2 being “meaningless” because it supposedly isn’t pollution, that mixes two different environmental issues.

CO2 is primarily a greenhouse gas concern rather than a conventional local toxic pollutant like NOx, SO2, CO, VOCs or particulate matter. But fossil fuel turbines produce those pollutants as well, and EPA specifically regulates stationary combustion turbines for emissions including NOx and SO2. CO2 remains physically relevant because increasing atmospheric CO2 alters Earth’s radiative energy balance.

So the scientifically defensible position is actually pretty boring...We know the maximum permitted emissions.

We know the plant’s maximum generating capacity.

We do not yet know its eventual annual capacity factor or exact emissions intensity.

Therefore we cannot honestly claim it WILL emit 33 million tons, and we also cannot honestly claim it will be “extremely unlikely” to exceed some arbitrary percentage of that ceiling without more operating data.

Congratulations. We have successfully discovered uncertainty.

I realize this is considerably less exciting than “Amazon is killing Texans” or “CO2 is meaningless,” but unfortunately physics has terrible engagement metrics.

Sources:
EIA - CO₂ produced per kWh of electricity generation
EPA - Stationary gas and combustion turbines