Mississippi’s Air Quality is Worsening Amid AI Data Center Boom, Report Finds

The American Lung Association's 2026 "State of the Air" report reveals a decline in air quality across Mississippi's metropolitan areas, with DeSoto County receiving an "F" grade for ozone pollution for the second consecutive year. Calandra Davis, director of advocacy for the ALA in Mississippi, voiced concerns that air quality is worsening nationally, with over 65,000 children in Mississippi exposed to unsafe levels of air pollution. The report's findings precede a significant boom in data center development across the state. Increased pollution concerns are highlighted in areas like DeSoto County, where xAI is expanding its data center footprint. The NAACP recently filed a lawsuit against xAI, alleging violations of federal law and further degradation of local air quality due to the use of unpermitted gas turbines at a Southaven energy plant. These turbines are known to emit nitrogen oxides, which contribute to ozone and particle pollution. Additionally, Amazon is expanding data center campuses in Madison County. Despite objections, the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) last month approved a controversial permit allowing xAI to install 41 permanent gas turbines in DeSoto County. Legal organizations have since filed an appeal on behalf of residents. Davis urged the MDEQ to fully assess the climate and health impacts of data centers and their power sources before issuing permits, advocating for the rejection of applications that do not include such assessments and for increased air pollution monitoring statewide. In response, Jan Schaefer, spokesperson for MDEQ, stated that the agency evaluates permit applications in compliance with state and federal regulations designed to protect human health and the environment, asserting that permits are not issued without compliance and cannot be rejected without a legal basis. Schaefer also noted that Mississippi's air quality, as measured under EPA standards, is considered protective of public health, and that the ALA's evaluation methods differ from the EPA's regulatory approach.