SUSTAINABLE NEWTON - Blog

Data Centers Are a Hot Mess, but Maybe There's a Way Forward

Wed, 18 Feb 2026 19:13:23 GMT

By Maurice Carter, Co-Founder & President

Is It a Data Center or A Power Plant?

Data centers are a hot mess! Whether you're a big supporter or the most ardent opponent, you don't need me to tell you that. There's every reason to want to slow things down, so it makes sense for the City of Covington and Newton County to put moratoriums in place, as they did recently. But it's critical we use these timeouts to better understand the issues and the not-so-obvious solutions to some of the most vexing problems these massive facilities pose.

Concerns over soil and water impacts, noise and light pollution, heavy water use, electricity consumption, and air pollution, have communities across Georgia and the Southeast pushing back on data centers in their area. Meanwhile, in the Georgia General Assembly, lawmakers are proposing a variety of bills meant to put guardrails around data center projects to protect Georgia taxpayers and ratepayers.

The concerns are many, but I am going to delve specifically here into issues around electricity demand: including risk to ratepayers, grid reliability, and air quality concerns. There are some emerging ideas we should be following.

If You Build It, Will They Come?

The extra electricity utility companies say they must generate for data centers is staggering. In December, the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) approved a request from Georgia Power to invest over $16B to build 10 gigawatts (GW) of new generating capacity and upgrade existing transmission infrastructure. Consumer watchdog and environmental groups have questioned the reliability of Georgia Power's estimates, raising concerns about the risk to Georgia ratepayers and the impacts of increased pollution from expanded fossil gas-fired generation.

But an even bigger threat is emerging. Facing delays of up to seven years for utilities to serve them power, a growing number of data center developers are turning to alternative solutions to generate their own electricity without connecting to the power grid.

Michael Thomas publishes the Distilled Newsletter, where he follows developments in clean energy technology. More recently, he founded the company Cleanview to aggregate and sell data and analysis to clients. Part of that analysis includes reporting on data center projects and industry trends. In a recent report titled "Bypassing the Grid: How Data Centers Are Building Their Own Power Plants," Thomas wrote:

"As a company, our main job is to track data centers and power projects. Still, much of this data shocked us. The public narrative is that data centers are waiting for grid connections and 5-7 year turbine backlogs. But that narrative is lagging what is actually happening on the ground in rural counties across the country."

Time Is Not on Our Side

What shocked Thomas and his colleagues was finding 46 data centers with a combined capacity of 56 GW planning to build their own “behind-the-meter” electricity generation, representing ~30% of all planned data center capacity in the United States. Aside from the obvious risk that Georgia Power might not find paying customers for that 10 GW of new capacity, the other major concern is air pollution. Lot's of it. One or more power plants operating in every community!

Thomas and his team compared the public statements about data center projects to the equipment orders and permits being sought. What they discovered: "Most of the press releases we found mentioned 'all of the above' strategies that include renewables. But ~75% of the generation equipment we could identify (23 GW) was natural gas-powered. Virtually none of the developers planned to build renewables in the short term."

They are also mostly planning to use less-efficient (read dirtier) equipment to achieve speed to market. "Power generation efficiency is out," he writes. "Speed to power is all that developers care about." Thomas even found one data center project purchasing equipment from a company that current only sells ship engines.

For a worst-case demonstration of how badly a singular focus on speed can harm a community, consider the two massive data centers Elon Musk's xAI is operating in Memphis with dozens of illegal, unpermitted gas turbines. Closer to home, Sustainable Newton is concerned about plans by the Houston-based energy company VoltaGrid to install gas-fired power generation for a data center on Hazelbrand Road being built by the company ServerFarm. In December, we joined the Southern Environmental Law Center and Altamaha Riverkeeper in filing comments challenging VoltaGrid's permit application to the Georgia Environmental Project Division (EPD).

What If We Told You None of This Is Necessary?

Regardless of where the electricity comes from -- building out centralized, utility-owned generation (the Georgia Power approach) or from tech companies installing their own on-site power capacity -- wouldn't we all be better off if neither of these had to happen?

Isn't there some other way? Yes.

Waste Not, Want Not

Spoiler Alert: Conservation isn't America's strong suit. It's a bi-product of generations growing up with what seemed like a limitless supply of land, water, and clean air, so we haven't been encouraged to use our resources efficiently. In the Southeast, it turns out, we are REALLY BAD at conserving energy. Worse than the rest of the country by far.

Last week, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) hosted a webinar to review their recent "Energy Efficiency in the Southeast Seventh Edition Report." In their report, SACE scores the efficiency performance of each utility using an index created by dividing energy efficiency program savings, expressed in megawatt hours (MWh), by the total MWh the utility sold its customers. Efficiency programs are the rebates and other incentives utility companies offer customers in order lower their energy consumption.

By rolling those performance figures up by state and region, SACE shows the Southeast is significantly behind other regions of the US. And, except for Duke Energy, every utility in the Southeast is performing well below the national average for large utility companies. We shared some of the key findings from the SACE report recently on our social media channels. Below also is the video replay of the webinar. Watching it will clue you in on just how big the efficiency opportunity is for Georgia Power and the other utilities in the Southeast.

It's disappointing utilities in our region haven't done more to help residential, commercial, and industrial customers use electricity more efficiently and consume less of it. But that weakness is also a major opportunity now, when we need every available kilowatt to meet escalating demand. The electricity we save is capacity we don't have to build and fossil fuels we don't have to burn.

A significant factor holding our region back on efficiency is a regulatory environment that incentivizes building new generation and transmission capabilities, rather than investing in efficiency. The non-profit American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) recently published a report arguing that implementing energy-efficiency measures and shifting electricity usage to lower-demand times are two of the fastest and cheapest ways to satisfy new demand for electricity. They estimate those methods could meet much, if not all, of the nation’s projected load growth at only half the cost of building new infrastructure.

The non-profit publication Grist interviewed the report's author, Mike Specian, who explained that building infrastructure is considered a capital investment, and utilities can pass that cost on to customers, plus an additional rate of return, or premium, which is typically around 10 percent. Energy-efficiency programs, however, are generally considered an operating expense, which aren’t eligible for a rate of return. This setup, he said, motivates utilities to build new infrastructure rather than conserve energy, even if the latter presents a more affordable option for ratepayers.

Changing the current dynamic will require a different posture from the Georgia PSC and other regulators. But just this week, PSC members voted 3-2 to reject an appeal from environmental groups asking the board to reconsider their approval in December of Georgia Power's 10 GW fossil-fuel buildout. Among data presented to encourage the PSC to reconsider was a report from Greenlink Analytics and Science for Georgia summarizing their findings after extensive modeling and analysis on data center load projections southeastern utilities used to justify building new capacity. Their findings say utility company load forecasts are likely grossly exaggerated:

"Across nearly all simulations, utility estimates landed above what the model considers a reasonable upper bound. Excluding the technological advancement model, the likelihood of utilities' predicted growth is approximately 1 in 500, or 0.22%."

But for now, changes to the incentive structure motivating utilities will have to come from new legislation or changes to the PSC makeup in future election cycles.

Of course, there are other ways to accelerate energy efficiency, and one of those is the federal government. The Biden administration passed the Federal Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) to provide homeowners tax credits and rebates for energy improvements. However, the Trump administration terminated the tax credits at the end of 2025, as part of a larger effort to roll back nearly all IRA provisions. One glimmer of hope for Georgians remains from the IRA, in the form of rebates for low and moderate-income households. While funded by the federal government, these programs are administered by the state. But Georgia and North Carolina are the only southeastern states able to lock in funding before it was gone. The Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA): offers two programs:

Home Energy Rebates (HER) -- focuses on whole-home energy efficient retrofits and upgrades, with the total rebate amount being affected by income level and the amount of energy saved.
Home Electrification & Appliance Rebates (HEAR) -- helps low-and-moderate income households secure savings on specific appliance purchases.

These programs were piloted in late 2024, before going live in 2025, and to-date, Georgians have claimed $17.8M in up-front cost savings. Another $155M remains available to these income-qualified programs. (We have a webinar coming up on February 26 to discuss these rebates and how to benefit from them. Register here.) The HER & HEAR rebates are good news for Georgia households seeking to use less energy and save money. But it's still a drop in the bucket vs. what it will take to move the needle on statewide electricity use.

So, with utility companies lagging behind and no incentives to do better, the Georgia PSC declining to change that, and the federal government rolling back its incentives, where can we turn for the investments required to free up wasted electricity to avoid building new generation?

How About These Guys?

Enter data center hyperscalers. They're hyper-focused on speed to market -- to the point they'll use anything they can get their hands on to generate electricity to power and cool their servers. Many of the larger companies (though not all) also have public images to bolster and sustainability commitments they can't just ignore. Locally, we've seen Amazon working with the City of Covington to build infrastructure for water reuse to lower consumption. What if something similar were possible on the energy side of the equation? A quick way to find electricity without a multi-year buildout of new fossil gas-fired power plants or firing up of hundreds of on-site gas turbine, engines, and generators?

Last September, the home electrification non-profit Rewiring America published a report titled "Homegrown energy: How household upgrades can meet 100 percent of data center demand growth." The authors assert data centers can meet all of their electricity needs from the grid by investing in just two home energy solutions, which will provide a third overarching benefit beyond meeting the data center energy needs:

"Hyperscalers could meet one third of their projected additional capacity needs by paying for heat pumps in select households that currently use inefficient electric heating, cooling, and water heating, thereby creating capacity on the grid from a subset of households."
"Hyperscalers could more than meet their total planned capacity needs by paying for battery storage as well as rooftop solar for homes well suited for it. This will create new generation capacity on the grid."
"Hyperscalers’ immediate investments in these solutions will forge the technological and economic pathways that transform America’s entire energy system. What starts as an urgent solution to AI’s power hunger becomes the foundation for an all-electric economy — efficient, resilient, affordable for households, and perfectly suited to position the U.S. as a global leader in the industries that will define this century."

"Nationally, peak demand is roughly 850 gigawatts (GW), while average load sits just over half that level. The real challenge lies in fewer than 200 hours per year — typically during heat waves or cold snaps — when demand spikes. So this is not primarily a generation problem; it’s a utilization problem."

Smart Appliances, Smarter Grid

In December, the industry publication Utility Dive reported on analysis by the energy policy group AnnDyl, examining data center buildout in Ohio. Their research determined a hypothetical 200-MW data center could offset 10% of its peak load by investing $50 million in low-cost residential efficiency upgrades. That same story provided updates on the Rewiring America report, including a follow-on finding that data center hyperscalers investing in millions of heat pumps, batteries and solar systems across the United States would create up to 1.1 million new jobs over the next five years.

Installing well-understood, field-proven home energy solutions is an actionable strategy that can produce immediate results -- exactly what the data center companies need. Longer term, energy technology experts are already developing and piloting advanced solutions to give utility companies even greater control over how electricity demand impacts their grids. Former US Department of Energy Director for Loan Programs, Jigar Shah, described those possibilities recently in an article for another utility industry publication, T&D World, explaining "How Electric Utilities Can Lead Through the Affordability Crisis."

In the piece, Shah writes "So far, the conversation about powering AI has focused almost entirely on building new generation. But the grid already has substantial unused capacity. Nationally, peak demand is roughly 850 gigawatts (GW), while average load sits just over half that level. The real challenge lies in fewer than 200 hours per year — typically during heat waves or cold snaps — when demand spikes. So this is not primarily a generation problem; it’s a utilization problem. The opportunity is to get far more value out of the grid we’ve already paid for."

He then explains how adding grid storage, rewarding consumers for demand flexibility, deploying grid-enhancing technologies, and leveraging virtual power plants (VPP), can all help utilities to get more out of the existing grid, without imposing costs or risks on existing customers. These are also places where utility companies, data center hyperscalers, utility regulators, and local governments can all collaborate for the benefit of everyone involved.

And THAT's the bottom line. These are the conversations that should be taking place now, alongside discussions about tax incentives, increasing the tax base, and creating jobs. The local ordinances being rewritten at the City of Covington, Newton County, and elsewhere need to be focused on putting these discussions and collaboration at the center of of the development process. We must find ways to grow and adapt that don't require sacrificing the reliability and sustainability of our water and energy systems and the livability of our community. Thankfully, there are encouraging avenues to explore.

EPA Should Protect Human Health & the Environment -- They Aren't

Fri, 13 Feb 2026 16:21:59 GMT

By Maurice Carter, Co-Founder & President

Surprisingly, the federal website for the United States Environmental Protection Agency still says "The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment." (My apologies if reading that caused you to spew coffee, a soft drink, or something stronger through your nose. If we couldn't laugh, we would cry.) But, after over a year of bad news, things got much worse last week for anyone not spending their days in the boardroom of a major oil company.

On February 12, President Trump and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the Trump administration was officially rescinding the 2009 "Endangerment Finding," which had given US agencies authority for over 16 years to regulate six greenhouse gases (including CO2) as harmful pollutants that endanger American health and wellbeing. This action removes the legal basis by which the EPA has regulated fuel efficiency and tailpipe emissions standards. It also paves the way for repealing rules that restrict pollution from power plants and oil and gas operations.

In announcing the change, President Trump claimed "this has nothing to do with public health," adding "This was all a scam, a giant scam." Neither of those statements could be farther from the truth.

Though disturbing and dangerous, this action was not unexpected. Administrator Zeldin first announced the proposed rule change on August 1, 2025. Which meant, by process, public comments could be submitted up until September 15, 2025.

One of the most thorough and authoritative responses was submitted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicines, which produced the consensus study report "Effects of Human-Caused Greenhouse Gas Emissions on U.S. Climate, Health, and Welfare*," authored by 16 scientists and eight study staff and then peer-reviewed by 15 other scientists. Before I share their findings, let me give some context to the weight and meaning of their report.

What Are the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicines?

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine operate under a congressional charter signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, at the height of the Civil War, to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. The work of the academies is carried out by a network of thousands of renowned experts, practitioners, and thought leaders who volunteer their service to solving society’s toughest challenges.

What Is a Consensus Study Report?

As explained by the Academies: "Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task."

To respond to the rule changes proposed by Administrator Zeldin last August, the Academies assembled a team of volunteers and tasked them as follows:

"The impetus for this report was a notice of proposed rulemaking issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicating its intention to rescind the 2009 action titled “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.” Recognizing that significantly more evidence is available today, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine launched this study to review newly available scientific evidence on the topics considered in the Technical Support Document that EPA prepared in considering whether to make the finding (see Box 1.2 for the Statement of Task). The committee’s report focuses on evidence gathered by the scientific community since the Technical Support Document was published in 2009 and describes supporting evidence, the level of confidence, and areas that are under continuing debate or are unknown."

The team of 16 scientists and eight study staff completed a draft report that was then peer-reviewed by 15 other experts in the field. The final report submitted to the EPA by the September 15 deadline presented the conclusions and supporting data outlined below. (Use areas to scroll.)

The full report is 112-pages-long, filled with extensive data and additional citations to support each conclusion above. The summary finding delivered to the EPA was as shown below:

In summary, the committee concludes that the evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused GHGs is beyond scientific dispute. Much of the understanding of climate change that was uncertain or tentative in 2009 is now resolved, and new threats have been identified.

A Dangerous Rule Change Based on Dubious "Science"

When EPA Administrator Zeldin revealed his proposed rule change last August, the announcement came on the heels of a report issued on July 23, 2025 by the US Department of Energy titled "A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate." Purported to be an objective assessment of the current science around climate change, the report was put together in secrecy by a team of five scientists, handpicked by US Energy Secretary Chris Wright, each well-known for holding dismissive views on climate change risks and impacts.

Though it was published without peer-review or comment, the DOE report was universally condemned by the scientific community as misleading, error-filled, and lacking in scientific rigor. Much of the criticism came from climate scientists who argued their work cited in the report was misquoted, misconstrued, or taken out of context. Reporting from Politico Energy & Environment News shows the DOE report was even strongly criticized by scientists inside the department who called it "Misleading. Unjustified. Hypocritical." Secretary Wright formally disbanded the working group on the eve of a lawsuit filed by multiple non-profits arguing the process to create the report violated the law by operating in secret with authors "of only one point of view." A US District Court judge agreed and declared the report was created illegally, but did not order that it be stricken from the public record.

Climate Scientist Overwhelmingly Agree Human Activity Is Causing Climate Change

The decision by the EPA to repeal the Endangerment Finding -- and the clumsy work of the DOE used to justify the action -- both fly in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is caused by greenhouse gases generated from human activities. A 2021 survey of 88,125 climate-related studies by Cornell University Researchers found: "More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans.

Flawed DOE Report Was Preceded by Overt Actions to Silence Real Science

At the same time Energy Secretary Wright was convening his secret panel of five climate-denying scientists, the Trump administration was actively shutting down valid scientific research and reporting on climate change. In April 2025, the President Trump dismissed the group of 400 scientists and other experts working on the Sixth National Climate Assessment scheduled to be published in 2027. The assessment published every four years is the US Government’s preeminent report on climate change impacts, risks, and responses. It is congressionally mandated by the 1990 Global Change Research Act to provide the scientific foundation to support informed decision-making across the United States.

In June 2025, all five prior editions of the National Climate Assessment were suddenly removed without comment from federal government websites. Thankfully, quick-thinking former employees of the government cloned the Fifth National Climate Assessment and have published in on the climate.us website, which is the non-profit successor to the climate.gov website previously run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). That government site was also shut down by the Trump administration.

The climate report released by the Department of Energy in July 2025 includes a summary statement from Energy Secretary Chris Wright stating:

"Climate change is real, and it deserves attention. But it is not the greatest threat facing humanity. That distinction belongs to global energy poverty. As someone who values data, I know that improving the human condition depends on expanding access to reliable, affordable energy."

This was Wright's way of telling us: stop worrying about climate change and just "drill, baby, drill." Not coincidentally, Wright joined the Trump administration after serving 14 years as CEO of a gas fracking company he founded. It's his word (plus five hand-picked climate deniers) against hundreds of climate scientists whose work was done transparently and published only after extensive peer-reviews and revisions as The Fifth National Climate Assessment in 2023. Their work should be the basis for driving EPA rule-making. You can read the entire report here, but below are links to some important graphics from the report:

The yawning chasm between what climate science is telling us and what Secretary Wright, Administrator Zeldin, and President Trump want you to believe makes the Grand Canyon look like a backyard ditch. On something this consequential -- a move that affects not only you, but your entire family, their quality of life, and prospects for their future -- consider this.

The extreme actions by the Trump administration to shut down, thwart, and hide real climate science and supplant it with shoddy work by the Department of Energy happened for just one reason: to justify EPA's repeal of the Endangerment Finding. It's a payback to big donors in the 2024 presidential campaign. We are endangered not only by greenhouse gas emissions, but also by the very agency tasked with the mission "to protect human health and the environment." For they have chosen to protect nothing more than the profits of big oil, gas, and coal.

The EPA's missions statement includes as a core responsibility that EPA works to ensure that "National efforts to reduce environmental risks are based on the best available scientific information." Well, in this administration, are they?

Sustainable Newton Joins Federal Lawsuit over EtO Regulations

Wed, 28 Jan 2026 20:25:14 GMT

By Maurice Carter, Co-Founder & Current President

Today, Sustainable Newton joined the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and other environmental non-profits to file a lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia challenging two-year renewable exemptions the Trump administration issued in July to allow 40 commercial sterilizer facilities nationwide, including nine in Georgia, to bypass stricter ethylene oxide (EtO) regulations implemented in 2024.

EtO is a cancer-causing chemical classified as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The stricter standards being bypassed were implemented by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after extensive scientific studies found EtO to be 60-times more toxic that previously thought. The 2024 rule has been shown to reduce EtO emissions by more than 90% and to reduce cancer risk by 92%. Read more about EtO and reasons for filing the complaint on the SELC website.

For Sustainable Newton, joining this lawsuit was an easy decision, given our history of working to encourage transparency, safety monitoring, and a science-based approach to public health. Through our Environmental Hazards Committee, we have made a commitment to do all we can to protect our Newton County community from harm through advocacy and education. As an organization, Sustainable Newton is "working to build a world where people and planet are as important as profit and future generations matter." Challenging this presidential exemption is a vital to that cause.

Meet Sherryn Lo

Thu, 15 Jan 2026 13:59:43 GMT

Editor's Note: The Oxford College Office of Civic & Community Engagement recruits first and second-year students who are paid for part-time work by the college and assigned to organizations within the community to serve as Oxford Service Leaders. Sherryn Lo joined Sustainable Newton as our Oxford Service Leader in the 2025 fall semester and will continue working with us during her time at Oxford College. As we begin spring semester, we asked Sherryn to introduce herself.

By Sherryn Lo, Oxford College Community Service Leader

Hi! My name is Sherryn Lo, currently a freshman at Oxford College of Emory University. I’m an Oxford Service Leader, helping Sustainable Newton out wherever support is needed. I got to learn about the organization and its different committees, and I’ve really enjoyed getting to see how much thought and care go into making Newton County a more sustainable place to live. I wanted to use this post to share a little about who I am, where I’m from, and why sustainability matters to me!

I grew up in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, a coastal city that feels alive all the time, from early morning to late at night. Going around the city, you can see tree-lined streets run alongside busy roads, and it’s normal to see parks, public bikes, night markets, and apartment buildings all sharing the same space. The weather is very warm most of the year, so people spend a lot of time outside. We love walking, eating, talking, and just being around each other. The city is very lively; neighborhoods feel close, and daily life happens in public and shared spaces. Growing up there made me used to paying attention to my surroundings and the people around me, because everything, such as nature, city life, and community, all exist side by side.

Before working with Sustainable Newton, I interned with the Lovely Taiwan Foundation, an organization focused on revitalizing towns and communities across Taiwan. Through that experience, I learned that revitalization isn’t just about trying to make a place look better and improve economically. It is actually about helping communities stay alive, connected, and meaningful to the people who live there. Whether it was supporting local culture, small businesses, or community spaces, the goal was always long-term. This experience changed how I think about sustainability. I started to see it not just as an environmental issue, but as something tied to people, identity, and place.

For me, sustainability is about paying attention to the places we live, the people around us, and the long-term impact of our choices.

When I moved to the U.S., I began noticing how these ideas show up differently in transportation, land use, energy choices, environmental health, etc., in Newton County. Even though the context is different, the underlying question feels the same: how do we care for a place in a way that allows it to last? This is basically why I appreciate and am interested in Sustainable Newton. What I like most about Sustainable Newton is its committee-based approach. I see different groups, led by a bunch of enthusiasts, focus on specific issues, like electric vehicles or chemical safety. It has helped me understand how sustainability is built through many small, focused efforts. Being able to support this work, even behind the scenes, has been a meaningful way for me to keep learning.

I’m still early in my time with Sustainable Newton, but I’m grateful for the opportunity to be involved and looking forward to the future. For me, sustainability is about paying attention to the places we live, the people around us, and the long-term impact of our choices. I’m excited to continue growing with Sustinable Newton and contributing in whatever ways I can!

The Resolution We Need Most in 2026 Is One We've Had Since 2020

Tue, 30 Dec 2025 15:49:29 GMT

By Maurice Carter, Co-Founder & President

This time of year, thoughts turn naturally to what to make of the new year ahead. But perhaps I'm not the only one still struggling with what to make of the year just passed? Has it really even passed?

It's been a tough 12 months for those of us committed to forging concern about the climate crisis into productive climate action. It's not that we aren't making progress -- the trend lines and momentum on the clean energy transition are extremely positive. But across the climate movement, we've been buffeted and battered by political headwinds emanating from Washington, DC, making every ounce of progress hard-earned.

Yet, I have faith the market advantages of clean energy (faster & cheaper than fossil fuels) and electric vehicles (beloved by their owners) will prevail. Where our future feels less certain and our anxiety most intense is locally -- where a proliferation of data center projects stand poised to erase much of the progress our state and local community have made on improving air quality, reducing climate pollution, conserving water, and controlling growth. The energy, water, and land demands of explosive AI data center growth are one of the biggest issues of our time, and we can't simply turn the page to a clean start. Indeed, we've spent the closing days of 2025 joining other concerned organizations to inject some reasonableness into data center plans, while our Environmental Hazards Committee is working to surface all of the potential projects and assess the community risks of each.

All of this has me thinking not about new resolutions for 2026, but instead about an old resolution adopted -- but never fully operationalized -- by the Covington City Council for Earth Day in April of 2020. First a little background, and then I'll explain the connection to our current data center crossroads in Covington and Newton County...

Then Covington City Manager Scott Andrews asked Sustainable Newton to draft an Earth Day resolution for the mayor and council to read and adopt at their April 20, 2020 council meeting. Rather than focus narrowly on a handful of tangible, immediate actions -- recycle more, save energy, etc. -- we crafted a statement to capture the essence of sustainability in a way that could guide the council through any opportunities and challenges that might arise.

We were inspired by our own vision to "build a world where people and planet are as important as profit and future generation matter."

With all the appropriate "whereases," we sought to connect Covington's past to our present and future, arriving at a statement we hoped the councilmembers, mayor, and staff would embrace. The first two bullet points below are key and should provide clarity today as the council and other local government agencies grapple with the demands of AI data centers. The resolution unanimously adopted by the Covington City Council on April 20, 2020 said:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Covington commit to making sustainability a core consideration in how we operate by taking the following steps:

Applying a decision-making process that explicitly examines economic, social, and environmental implications of actions taken by the Mayor and City Council.
Proactively recognizing conflicting economic, social, and environmental interests in those decisions and striving to manage tradeoffs between those interests in a way that maintains long-term balance for the good of all current citizens and with consideration for impacts to future generations of citizens.

Money Matters -- But So Do People, Planet, and Future Generations

Let's be very clear on this point: We've never said "ignore the economics." But we are saying financial gain or loss alone is not an adequate measure of impact. Profit is not the only goal of any human enterprise. Taking our inspiration from the "Triple Bottom Line," we call for a balancing of economic gain or loss with the impacts on society (the people) and environment (the planet). And that balance must extend beyond just thinking about current day impacts to considering how future generations will be affected.

We're also pragmatic realists. In any situation, interests often conflict. What's critical is making explicit compromises that are recognized, documented, and balanced in the long-run by offsetting actions to preserve all of the objectives.

It's a Data Center and a Power Plant!

A prime opportunity to apply the principles of that 2020 resolution is the data center planned for an existing 498,960-square-foot warehouse building at 10835 Hazelbrand Road in Covington. The 97-acre site was annexed into the City of Covington by a 5-1 vote of the city council in January 2025 at the request of the developer, Serverfarm.

What makes this project unique in Georgia are plans to go live generating baseload electricity with gas-fired reciprocating internal combustion engines, rather than a connection to an electric utility. To protect their 24x7 operations, all data centers have some sort of diesel or gasoline backup generators on-site to insure against loss of power. But Serverfarm has contracted with a Houston-based energy company, VoltaGrid to provide baseload power with methane gas engines running 24 hours a day, seven days a week. VoltaGrid has applied to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) Air Branch for a permit to operate the following:

33 Jenbacher J620 natural gas-fired, four-stroke lean-burn, reciprocating internal combustion engines;
two Mesa Solutions natural gas-fired fuel gas heaters;
one Algas natural gas-fired black start emergency engine generator;
and five Caterpillar temporary engines.

At peak operation the maximum power output of the fleet would be 90 megawatts of electricity, which is enough to power roughly 67,500 homes. In that January 2025 council meeting, Serverfarm representative, Josh Volk told council members the facility will use “about as much [gas] as you can pump through the existing pipes — in fact, upgrades will be required." Volk said the gas would be used for "a number of years," until Georgia Power can develop a substation to serve the site. Later, in a September council meeting where the gas contract was approved, City of Covington Gas Director Mike Jewell said the additional gas consumption by Serverfarm "will pull our system operating pressure down significantly for a couple of months during peak demand."

No data center or other type of facility in Georgia has ever been permitted for onsite generation of baseload power. But, similar projects are creating controversy in other states. One of those making headlines and attracting lawsuits is Elon Musk's xAI Data Center in Memphis, TN, which originally employed 35 unpermitted temporary gas turbines for power. Activists and health officials have documented the health impacts suffered by residents living near the supercomputing complex the company calls "Colossus."

Sustainable Newton is concerned about the potential for similar health impacts on Covington and Newton County residents if the VoltaGrid project is permitted to continue as proposed, so we recently joined the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) and Altamaha Riverkeeper in filing public comments regarding the VoltaGrid permit application.

In a newly released fact sheet, on "Protecting Our Environment in the Digital Age," SELC states the following:

Data centers are an integral part of our modern economy but consume vast amounts of energy, water, and land. SELC is working to ensure that data centers undergo a fair and transparent review and permitting process, rely on clean energy sources, pay their fair share for energy and water to protect consumers from rate hikes, and do the least amount of harm possible, including by limiting air pollution and water consumption and pollution.

At Sustainable Newton, we agree and will continue working with allies to ensure the fairness, transparency, and protection citizens of Covington and Newton County deserve. We also believe the Covington City Council and other local government agencies should do the same.

The Money Is Huge, but So Are Impacts to Health & Wellbeing

With so many players profiting, who will look out for the interests of the people who live here and the planet we live on?

Serverfarm profits by building and operating AI-ready data centers across North America, Europe, and the Middle East. Their clients for the Covington site have not been identified.
VoltaGrid makes money by providing turnkey power solutions to clients like data centers.
The City of Covington generates additional revenue by selling gas to industrial customers like Serverfarm and Voltagrid.

But what about the rest of the balance sheet -- the Triple Bottom Line? What is the cost to the community in terms of public health and environmental harm?

From the AJC article cited earlier:

Joe Bozeman III, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Georgia Tech, said the facility will generate cleaner electricity than a coal-fired power plant. Still, burning natural gas produces carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas responsible for global warming. Extracting and transporting natural gas also releases methane, an even more potent greenhouse gas that’s heating up the planet. “I would not categorize this as a clean energy source,” Bozeman said.

And later, from the same article:

VoltaGrid’s air permit application says each RICE unit features a “built-in combustion exhaust treatment system,” but the company’s modeling shows the emissions will still contain compounds that could pose health hazards.
Those include a class of ultrafine particle pollution called PM 2.5, which has been linked to a range of cardiovascular and respiratory problems. The units will also release nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, two known contributors to ground-level ozone, an air pollutant that can trigger breathing problems, especially in people with asthma, children and the elderly.

The entire point of the resolution the city council adopted in April 2020 is that the financial cost/benefit of any major decision must be examined within the context of equal consideration for impacts on people and planet. This is where the municipal utility model gets complicated. As a business selling gas (or electricity or water), the City of Covington has a vested interest to maximize sales to drive more revenue. But, as a body charged with serving and protecting the public, the mayor, council, and city staff also have an obligation to act in the best interest of current and future citizens.

Another Example Shows How This Could Work

In its December 15 meeting, the Covington City Council approved four agreements with Amazon Data Services that will have the tech giant fund $100M for construction of an on-site wastewater reuse treatment plant for Amazon's Alcovy Road data center. The treatment plant is similar to one managed by the Newton County Water & Sewerage Authority to serve industrial users in the Stanton Springs Business Park. The authority will collaborate with the city and Amazon on this project as well. According to Covington City Attorney Frank Turner Jr, the treatment plant and other agreements with Amazon "will keep them completely off of our potable water supply, other than what their water needs are for their domestic consumption requirements.”

Water consumption and electricity demand are the top two concerns data centers pose for local communities. It's easy to understand clean drinking water as a finite resource, the impacts of electricity demand are more varied. In most cases, the data center operators look to the electric utility company to supply power, in which case the concerns are how that load affects grid stability and electricity prices for existing customers. In the earlier example with Serverfarm/Voltagrid, they intend to generate their own electricity, in which case our local concerns become issues of air quality and public health. And, whether power is supplied by the utility company or generated onsite, the use of fossil fuels generates more planet-warming climate pollution that exacerbates climate change.

It's not clear yet how the Amazon data center will be powered -- and that will likely raise additional concerns to be addressed. But we commend the City of Covington and Amazon for working to find innovative water solutions funded by the data center developer, just as we commend the Newton County Water & Sewerage Authority, Meta, and other customers in Stanton Springs for their example of partnering to lower water usage there too.

What we need from those same players, now, is to see that same level of transparency, proactivity, and collaboration applied to powering data centers in our community with methods that don't cause public health or environmental issues. It is imperative that local and state officials not jeopardize people and planet for the sake of profit.

Energy Audit Surprise Yields a Big Opportunity for Savings

Mon, 29 Sep 2025 13:05:35 GMT

By Sara Vinson, Sustainable Newton Co-Founder & Secretary

This year, we're highlighting Newton County residents who have used Inflation Reduction Act tax credits and rebates, most of which end this year. We call these individuals our Sustainable Stars. They have used the incentives to increase household energy efficiency and transition to clean energy.

Our fourth and final Sustainable Star for 2025 is Nancy Schulz. Nancy is a wife, mother, and grandmother who has served Newton County as a former commissioner and continues to lead through civic engagement. She is a past president and dedicated member of Sustainable Newton, where she chairs the Waste Reduction and Diversion Committee. She also currently serves on the board of Newton County Tomorrow. We asked Nancy some questions about her efforts to improve her home's energy efficiency.

What inspired you to start with a home energy audit, and what did you learn from the process?
Honestly, had it not been for having an energy audit, I would not have known that I had NO insulation in the roof or walls of my office. I learned about the home energy audit through Sustainable Newton. Frankly, when I heard Sara Vinson speak about her energy audit experience, I thought, "why not". Interestingly, my home was inspected 2 years prior and the home inspection did not reveal the missing insulation because my office is in a space technically considered an auxiliary space.

How did the Inflation Reduction Act tax credits and rebates influence your decision to move forward with spray foam insulation?

Once the home energy audit revealed the missing insulation, I had a contractor install the spray foam and it was an added benefit to take the 30 percent tax credit.

What changes have you noticed in your home since the insulation was installed—comfort, energy bills, or both?
The difference is startling. Last summer, I was miserable in my office. No amount of air conditioning, fans or working at certain hours could provide relief. Now I look forward to spending time in my office. I was also able to install an energy-efficient glass door that provides natural light and allows me to see the birds on the adjacent trees while I work in comfort. The energy audit also revealed that the largest percentage of energy demand was from my office. Since adding the insulation and the energy efficient door, my electric bill has dropped 20 percent.

Were there any surprises or challenges along the way as you worked on improving your home’s efficiency?
The biggest surprise was realizing I had no insulation in the office. On the other hand a welcome surprise was knowing how efficient the main portion of my home is. The only additional recommendation for the main portion of my home was to add an insulation blanket to my water heater -- which is relatively inexpensive.

What final thoughts do you have for other Newton County residents who are thinking about getting an energy audit and possibly upgrading their home’s insulation?
The cost of the $500 audit for my home was worth every penny. I cannot tell you how dumbfounded I was that there was no insulation in a portion of my home that was otherwise so energy efficient.

Editor’s note: The federal tax credit for home insulation and air sealing is 30 percent up to $1,200 and is 30 percent up to $150 for household energy audits. See 2025 IRS instructions for more information.

A Step in the Wrong Direction Makes Floyd Street More Dangerous for All

Tue, 26 Aug 2025 18:39:23 GMT

By Maurice Carter, Sustainable Newton Co-Founder & Current President

Sign the Petition

I don't doubt City of Covington officials were acting in good faith to solve a real problem with speeding and reckless driving when they implemented "traffic calming" measures on Floyd Street recently -- in the form of traffic islands, bump outs, and the mother of all speed bumps.

But, while only time will tell if these changes slow traffic and keep cars between the lines, what is immediately clear is that Floyd Street is now a much more dangerous place for bicyclists, joggers, walkers, and residents retrieving mail from their mailboxes. To prove it, I mounted a camera on my bicycle handlebars last Friday afternoon to ride in the "bike lane" (what's left of it) from my house near the Cricket Frog Trail crossing to the Library and back. I made it safely home, thank goodness! But it was much scarier than I imagined. I can't really recommend anyone else try it. But here's a video from one of the worst moments.

Someone Is Going to Get Hurt -- or Worse

This clip shows only one intersection where "traffic furniture" causes the bike lane on each side of the road to suddenly end, forcing people on bikes, joggers, walkers, etc. to merge into 35 MPH+ motorized vehicle traffic. If you have moving traffic to your left when the bike lane runs out -- as I did here -- there's nowhere for a bicyclist to go. I was forced to take the lane in front of the third car blocking me in, but I could just as easily have ended up vaulting over the curb if that car did not yield. Also, as the video shows, accelerating away from a stop sign at a crowded intersection with no bike lane is an unsafe situation. If you want to see more, I've posted the full videos of my eastbound & westbound adventure on YouTube.

As a local doctor said to me: "Someone is going to get killed." (Jump to the petition.)

When we make our community safer and more inviting for pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons using other mobility devices, we directly benefit everyone by reducing air pollution and traffic congestion on our streets.

It's Not Like We Hadn't All Prepared for this Moment

Even if you sympathize with the plight of everyone forced to navigate this dangerous street by bike or foot, you may still wonder why this is a sustainability issue? As I wrote in a blog post early last year titled, Two Wheels, Four Wheels, No Wheels, Go!, walking and biking are important as zero-emissions, healthy transportation alternatives. They are a part of the Drawdown Georgia solutions framework. And, as I said then "When we make our community safer and more inviting for pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons using other mobility devices, we directly benefit everyone by reducing air pollution and traffic congestion on our streets."

However, Sustainable Newton is not the only entity promoting more walking and biking in the community. Just look at these excerpts below from the City of Covington's own 2023-2027 Comprehensive Plan adopted by the city council in early 2023. The city's official plan, filed with the State of Georgia's Department of Community Affairs, calls for putting a priority on active transportation (walking & biking), trail connectivity, and a "complete streets and trails" plan.

The very first paragraph in the city's official document explains the purpose and intent of having a formal comprehensive plan:

A Comprehensive Plan is a community’s long-range guide for growth and development and is a living and breathing document that is publicly accessible. This plan, designed distinctively for the City of Covington, outlines the vision and goals identified by the community, and establishes the actions required to achieve those vision and goals. The plan serves as a decision-making guide for local government officials and community leaders and was developed based on input from the public, city staff, elected officials, and a steering committee. The document illustrates Covington’s needs and opportunities, goals and policies, land use practices, and implementation framework, also known as a community work program. The plan seeks to answer three questions: Where are we now? Where do we want to be? How do we get there?

The city's Comprehensive Plan was developed with extensive public input -- including a survey, a series of public input sessions, and two public hearings. I know, because I attended every session (see the sign-in sheets). So I know how much active transportation, connectivity, and complete streets were discussed. Simply put, this SHOULD have been the first place Covington officials looked when considering how to address their concerns with speeding on Floyd Street.

We Already Had a Better Way

No matter how well-intentioned the modifications to Floyd Street are, it's crystal-clear they don't promote bicycle and pedestrian connectivity or safety. Indeed, they have accomplished the opposite, making it impossible for any reasonable, sane person to bike or jog there. (My temporary insanity to film the video not withstanding.) When the mayor, council, and staff decided they needed to slow traffic on Floyd Street, they were within their authority to act. But that requirement could have been met without sacrificing the connectivity provided between the Cricket Frog Trail and the Eastside Trail by the Floyd Street bike lanes, which are now useless because they are too dangerous. As just one example, here is the design proposed for the City of Covington and Newton Trails by the PATH Foundation and Kaizen Collaborative when they developed a master plan for the Cricket Frog Trail and connecting streets in 2018. To connect the Cricket Frog Trail and the Eastside Trail, PATH and Kaizen proposed this street design between the points where each trail intersects with Floyd Street.

Note: the proposed trail, buffer, and travel lanes in the second figure fit within the same width as the then-existing sidewalk, bike, and travel lanes in the first figure. Implementing this design would have required no additional right of way be taken from property owners. The design would have both calmed traffic in the travel lanes and provided a much safer, buffered path for bicyclists and pedestrians. That this design was not considered or discussed publicly suggests that the city's documented objectives to IMPROVE active transportation and connectivity were not considered at all in the planning for what has now been implemented on Floyd Street.

Connecting the Cricket Frog and Eastside trails is important not only for recreation, but also as a vital active transportation linkage for residents of the Render Covington apartments and the Neely Farms and Wildwood neighborhoods, making it possible for them to safely bike to town instead of driving. It also provides downtown residents with safe access to the grocery store, bike shop, doctors offices, banks, restaurants, the pharmacy, and other services. Not implementing a complete streets design like the one put forth in the 2018 masterplan is a big miss. It sets us back substantially relative to the objectives and actions laid out in the comprehensive plan.

And so, we find ourselves faced with the predicament lamented by John Greenleaf Whittier in his poem Maud Muller: "Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: 'It might have been!'"

So, Now What?

Since the traffic islands went in, I hear every day from people who -- for a variety of reasons -- want what I want: "Pull those islands out and put the road back the way it was!" The practical side of me says "That will never happen. We can't just rewind the tape and have a do-over" But then, are we willing to just let people get hurt or die because someone is unwilling to say "we were wrong"? There are really three steps the City of Covington needs to take:

The current conditions on Floyd Street are unacceptable and cannot be allowed to stand as is. The city must Immediately act to eliminate the hazards posed by the compromised bike lanes.
City officials must recommit and develop a plan of action to honor the promises they made when they adopted the 2023-2025 Comprehensive Plan. Live up to those objectives. Make future decisions with the committed plan in mind. And start working now -- with broad stakeholder input -- on the "Citywide Complete Streets & Trails Plan" referenced with a 2025-2026 timeline in the city's Short Term Work Program of the Comprehensive Plan.
City staff should reach out for professional assistance with expertise in active transportation planning to help the city plan comprehensively to meet the needs of all transportation system users -- not just motor vehicle drivers. Go Georgia (formerly Georgia Bikes) is a statewide non-profit working to "advance safe, equitable, and sustainable transportation and recreation as vital components of a thriving, livable Georgia." (Full disclosure: I am a current board member with Go Georgia. I am not suggesting they are the only resource to assist in this, but they do offer programs specifically designed for this situation.)

Sustainable Newton wants to be a stakeholder in all of the above activities, and we encourage Newton Trails, the Covington Conyers Cycling Club (C4), our local bicycle shop (C-Town Bikes), and the walking, biking, and running community in general to join us in pushing for the actions outlined above. We will need more transparency and collaboration from all parties to achieve the immediate and long-term objective our community wants and needs.

Sign the Petition

If you support these requests and are willing to join us in pressing for more accountability from city officials to the maintain safe streets and fulfill the active transportation objectives spelled out in the Comprehensive Plan, please sign the petition.

Sign the Petition

Making the Switch: From Gas Truck to F-150 Lightning

Wed, 13 Aug 2025 19:01:52 GMT

By Sara Vinson, Sustainable Newton Co-Founder & Secretary

This year, we're highlighting Newton County residents who have used Inflation Reduction Act tax credits and rebates, some of which end this year. We call these individuals our Sustainable Stars, and they have used the incentives to increase household energy efficiency and transition to clean energy.

Our third Sustainable Star for 2025 is Jay Lanners. Jay is a retired IT professional who lives on a small farm in Newton County. We asked Jay some questions about his decision to purchase a Ford F-150 Lightning truck, his experience transitioning to an EV, and what advice he has for others considering an EV purchase.

How long have you had your F-150 Lightning, and what made you decide to make the purchase?
I’ve had it about two years. I love technology, and I need a truck for my lifestyle. The F-150 Lightning is a great match for me.

How did the Inflation Reduction Act incentives influence your decision?

Without that extra $7,500 I don’t think I would have made the purchase. In my mind, the transition to an EV is simple economics: when the cost to buy and operate an EV is the same as gas or diesel, people will move en masse to electric.

Were there any challenges or surprises you encountered while transitioning to an EV?
It was surprising to realize that the cost to operate my new truck is so much cheaper than my previous gas truck. The greatest challenge is charging on a long trip. Most of the time, it’s fine, but there are times where I get to the committed charging station and it’s full or not working correctly. Now that Ford is compatible with Tesla chargers, it is much better.

How has your experience been so far in terms of performance, range, and overall satisfaction?
I am extremely satisfied with my truck. It is virtually maintenance free and really quiet. It handles really well. The range is fine for me, however, I would say count on 80% of what you’re told. There are many variables that impact range like temperature, payload, speed, etc.

What advice would you give to others considering an EV?
Go for it. I don’t ever see myself going back to a gas powered vehicle.

Electric Vehicle Tax Credits/Rebates End on September 30

If you’re thinking about buying an electric vehicle or a plug-in hybrid,
be aware that the federal tax credit/rebate of $7,500 for new and leased vehicles as well as a $4,000 tax credit/rebate for used vehicles will end on September 30, 2025.

EPA Won't Protect the Environment -- or American Families

Fri, 01 Aug 2025 17:19:02 GMT

By Dana Nuccitelli, Yale Climate Connections

Editor's Note: This week's headlines have been dominated by reaction to US Environmental Projection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin's announcement that the EPA intends to rollback the 2009 "Endangerment Finding" declaring greenhouse gases like CO2 are air pollutants that harm public health and welfare. That finding has served as the basis for EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, which would end if Zeldin is successful in rescinding the finding.

We are rerunning the piece below published originally by Yale Climate Connections because it explains with great clarity the history of the endangerment finding, the motivations for rescinding it, and the implications for efforts to address climate change in the US. It also provides coverage of the scientific pushback against the EPA's plans.

The Republican campaign to stop the U.S. EPA from protecting the climate

by Dana Nuccitelli, Yale Climate Connections
August 1, 2025

In a stark juxtaposition, while nearly half of all Americans sweltered under a life-threatening extreme heat wave made several times more likely by climate change, the Environmental Protection Agency declared this week that it will roll back the agency’s 2009 determination that climate pollution endangers public health and welfare.

Known as the “endangerment finding,” this determination has been the basis of the EPA’s efforts over the past 15 years to regulate climate pollutants from vehicles, power plants, and other major sources.

“Today is the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen,” said EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, the head of the agency whose mission is to protect human health and the environment, using regulations as a primary tool. “We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.”

It’s an audacious move that the EPA did not pursue in President Donald Trump’s first term, despite being led for several years by former coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler. But the new Trump administration appears emboldened by Supreme Court decisions in the intervening years that may enable opponents of climate regulations to successfully roll back their legal basis.

This action is the latest in the Trump administration’s six-month onslaught against the climate that has included efforts to gut federal climate science research, bury federal climate reports, withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, claw back federal funding for clean energy, and repeal dozens of regulations designed to keep pollution out of Americans’ air and water.

“Trump's EPA is trying every trick in the book to deny and avoid their mission to protect people and the environment from the ravages of unchecked climate pollution,” former EPA administrator and White House National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy said in a statement. “Instead of doing their job, this EPA is putting the safety of our loved ones at risk while ratcheting up grid instability, energy bills, and disaster costs.”

What is the endangerment finding?

The endangerment finding came into being after a coalition of environmental groups and states led by the Massachusetts attorney general’s office sued the EPA under then-President George W. Bush.

The plaintiffs argued that the agency was legally obligated to regulate climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions as air pollutants that endanger public health or welfare. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, which in 2007 ruled in a slim 5-4 decision that “the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles in the event that it forms a ‘judgment’ that such emissions contribute to climate change.”

Notably, Chief Justice John Roberts dissented at the time, arguing that there was no traceable causal connection between the EPA's refusal to enforce pollution standards and specific climate harms and that other countries like China are responsible for most climate pollution. (Meanwhile, China is crushing the U.S. in the race to adopt clean, climate-friendly technology.)

After President Barack Obama came into office, the EPA examined the body of scientific evidence and concluded in December 2009 that climate pollutants “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” The agency then finalized its first regulations on climate pollution from vehicles in 2010.

In the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, Congress further codified EPA’s mandate by explicitly defining climate-warming greenhouse gases as air pollutants and amending the Clean Air Act to enable the EPA to further regulate climate pollution.

In the 15 years since the endangerment finding, the scientific evidence has only grown that climate pollution endangers public health and welfare in every corner of the country, as seas rise and wildfires, heat waves, droughts, and floods grow more frequent and extreme.

“The science of human-caused climate change has not only become increasingly solid over the past decade and a half, but the impacts have become visceral and pervasive,” said University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann via email. “It takes a special sort of cognitive dissonance to deny, as the current administration is doing, that fossil fuel burning endangers us at a time when this is plain as day to the person on the street.”

But on Day One of his second term in office, Trump issued an executive order that directed EPA Administrator Zeldin to investigate the endangerment finding’s “legality and continuing applicability.”

Zeldin delivered the proposed rollback six months later.

The Trump EPA’s arguments for rolling back the basis of climate regulations

In order to justify a decision that seems to fly in the face of legal precedent and overwhelming scientific evidence, the EPA relies primarily on a two-part argument. First, it notes that historically, the EPA only applied the Clean Air Act to direct health impacts from local and regional pollution, whereas climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions have an indirect impact on public health and welfare. The new proposed rollback then reinterprets the law as only applying to these direct local and regional health impacts. In this way, it argues that the law does not permit the EPA to regulate climate-warming pollution.

Second, the administration points out that after the 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court decision, and after Trump appointed several conservative, regulation-hostile justices, the Supreme Court invented and began applying the “major questions doctrine.” Under this new doctrine, Congress must clearly and explicitly delegate to federal agencies the authority to address an issue of major political or economic significance. So the Trump EPA is now arguing that because Congress did not explicitly delegate to EPA the authority to regulate pollutants based on their indirect global impacts on public health, the agency cannot do so.

University of Oregon Environmental and Energy Law Professor Gred Dotson did not find these arguments persuasive.

“This local and regional language is not something you find in the Clean Air Act and conflicts with the Act’s purpose of protecting the public’s health and welfare,” Dotson said in an interview. “Additionally, it runs counter to numerous Supreme Court cases over the last 20 years.”

He has published research on Congress’s long history of supporting EPA climate-related regulations, including very recently in the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA.

“The IRA really showed that Congress understood how the Clean Air Act was being used to address climate change and supported that approach, and they asked the EPA to do more. And if you look at this history dating back to the 1990s, you see a lot of Congressional engagement,” Dotson explained.

Read: Our elected officials have known about climate change for decades

But Dotson said the administration is hoping the Supreme Court will look favorably on its arguments.

“They’re trying to capitalize on the fact that the composition of the Supreme Court has changed,” he said.

Disputing consensus science

In a secondary justification for undermining the endangerment finding, the Trump EPA questions the accuracy of consensus climate science. The agency relies in part on a new draft ‘critical review’ report commissioned by the Department of Energy and written by five fringe scientists. It has not been peer-reviewed.

As Texas A&M climate scientist Andrew Dessler noted, “The authors of this report are widely recognized contrarians who don’t represent the mainstream scientific consensus. If almost any other group of scientists had been chosen, the report would have been dramatically different. The only way to get this report was to pick these authors.”

The administration did cite one mainstream climate science paper. But that paper’s lead author, Zeke Hausfather, a former Yale Climate Connections contributor, immediately said that the EPA had gotten his findings “completely backwards.”

“This is a general theme in the report,” Hausfather told E&E News, which fact checked some of the report’s many faulty scientific claims. “They cherry-pick data points that suit their narrative and exclude the vast majority of the scientific literature that does not.”

“Both the scientific certainty around climate change and evidence of the dangers it is causing have grown stronger since 2009,” he added.

What’s more, the administration relies on cherry-picked economic data in claiming that regulating climate pollution from tailpipes increases vehicle costs. This argument neglects the cost savings from reduced vehicle fueling bills and lessened climate damage. The Biden EPA estimated that its 2023 vehicle tailpipe rules would have generated about $1 trillion in net benefits over the next three decades.

What happens next?

The EPA’s proposed rollback of the endangerment finding is open to public comments until September 15, and the agency will hold virtual public hearings on August 19 and 20. After responding to the public comments, the EPA will finalize the rule.

Assuming the EPA moves ahead with the rollback, lawsuits will soon follow, and the case will gradually be appealed up to the Supreme Court. This whole process is expected to take several years. In the meantime, Trump’s EPA will likely proceed with unwinding dozens of federal regulations related to climate pollution that were supported by the endangerment finding.

There are three broad potential outcomes from an eventual Supreme Court decision.

First, the justices might rule that the EPA’s proposal violates the Clean Air Act and decades of Congressional support for EPA climate-related regulations. Such a decision would require the EPA to reissue a broad swath of climate pollutant regulations in the ensuing years.

Alternatively, the court could issue a relatively narrow decision in the EPA’s favor, ruling that one of its secondary justifications for questioning the endangerment finding is valid. This could mean that the EPA would have the discretion to decide whether to regulate climate pollutants – a decision that could potentially change with each new presidential election, creating long-term uncertainty for the regulated industries.

Or a majority of the court could decide that the EPA is correct in its interpretation that it does not have the authority to regulate climate pollutants under the Clean Air Act. This would mean that, unless Congress writes a new law or amends the Clean Air Act to even more explicitly grant the EPA the authority to regulate climate pollution, the EPA could no longer issue climate regulations. This would leave American climate policy almost exclusively in the hands of Congress.

The Trump administration had always planned to undo as many climate regulations as possible, as it did during his first term. Now the long-term fate of those rules likely hinges on a Supreme Court decision that may not come until near the end of Trump’s second term.

This article first appeared on Yale Climate Connections and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

It's 'Show Your Stripes' Day, Ya'll

Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:32:00 GMT

By Maurice Carter, Sustainable Newton Co-Founder & President

This Saturday, June 21, is "Show Your Stripes Day" -- an annual, global event calling attention to our changing climate and the urgent need for action to slow global warming. The "warming stripes" were developed in 2018 by climate scientist Professor Ed Hawkins at the University of Reading in England, who has published a new edition every year since. Each stripe represents the average global temperature for one year, going back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1850. The colors transition from cool blues to warm reds to reflect the increases in average temperatures experienced over time. Darker reds are the warmest, while darker blues are coolest.

In the video below, Climate Central meteorologist Shel Winkley explains the warming stripes and describes how they depict in a visual manner the warming of our planet, a particular country, or a specific city. As he says, "These warming stripes turn climate science into art, helping to spark conversations about climate change's impact to the places we love."

Even Hotter 'lanta

Climate Central has also provided access to download and share warming stripes for 195 U.S. cities, 49 states, the country, and the globe. The ones for Georgia and Atlanta are shown below. (Note: Start dates for the measurement period vary based on the data available for constructing each graphic.)

It's Code Red(er) Time

When Hawkins released the 2024 edition of the global warming stripes in January of this year, he noted that he'd had to introduce a new deeper shade of red for 2023 and 2024 to represent the unprecedented heat of the two warmest years on record.

"These 'warming stripes,' adopted around the world as a symbol of climate awareness, action and ambition, have just been updated to include a new dark red stripe for 2024," he said. "It was a colour that I had to add for the first time last year when 2023 shattered the previous records."

The Future We Get Is the One We Choose

While the warming stripes are useful as a visual telling of just how quickly our planet and the places we live have warmed in the past, the more important question is "where do we go from here?" On his website, Hawkins has shared numerous other climate visualizations, including the "future warming stripes" shown below.

The warming our planet has experienced from 1850 to 2024 is directly attributable to human activities -- primarily the burning of fossil fuels and the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and housing. But our future will also be determined by our actions (or lack of them) going forward. At our current rate of accelerating greenhouse gas emissions, Earth is headed towards a hellish future 3°C (5.4°F) or more warmer than 1850 by the end of this century. We are already approaching 1.5°C (2.7°F) and must act quickly to slow the increase and hold our world closer to that 1.5°C level. Here, Hawkins is reminding us we have a choice. The future is up to us.

Perhaps We Need a Ghost of Climate Future?

In showing us our past and present climate, and now the possible futures, Ed Hawkins is taking us on a journey much like the Christmas Eve one taken by Ebenezer Scrooge with the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future. And we find ourselves in much the same place as Scrooge in that graveyard scene with the last of his three visiting spirits. And like Ebenezer, we ask:

"Are these the shadows of the things that will be, or are they shadows of the things that may be only? Men's courses will foreshadow certain ends, to which, if persevered in, they must lead. But if the courses be departed from, the ends will change. Say it is thus with what you show me!"

Hawkins is showing us it is indeed thus. Our deeds from this point forward will determine our future. But for how much longer? Watch the short video clip below and let Professor Hawkins explain how Show Your Stripes Day can inspire you to start conversations with your friends and family about our shared climate future.

New Georgia Rebates Make Energy Upgrades Affordable

Wed, 14 May 2025 19:59:53 GMT

By Sara Vinson, Sustainable Newton Co-Founder & Secretary

If you’ve been thinking about replacing your old water heater, upgrading your insulation, or switching to an electric stove, now is a great time to take advantage of Georgia’s newly available rebates for homeowners and renters. Thanks to funding from the federal Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), households across the state can now access thousands of dollars to electrify appliances and improve their home's energy efficiency.

The two IRA-funded programs available in Georgia are the Home Electrification and Appliance Rebates (HEAR) and the Home Efficiency Rebates (HER). Both are administered through the Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA) and offer significant savings, especially for households earning below or near the Area Median Income (AMI).

Home Electrification and Appliance Rebates (HEAR)

The HEAR program supports low- and moderate-income households in purchasing and installing high-efficiency electric appliances and making key upgrades to home infrastructure. Qualified applicants can receive rebates for upgrades such as:

Heat pump water heaters (up to $1,750)
Heat pumps for space heating or cooling (up to $8,000)
Heat pump clothes dryers, electric stoves, cooktops, and ovens (up to $840)
Electric load service centers (up to $4,000)
Insulation, air sealing, and ventilation (up to $1,600)
Electric wiring (up to $2,500)

It is important to note that replacing one electric appliance with another electric appliance does not qualify for the rebates. The one exception to this rule is upgrading from an electric water heater to a heat pump water heater.

Also, participants must use a GEFA-approved contractor in order to receive the rebates. The one exception to this rule is a Do-It-Yourself (DIY) pathway for those who want to replace a gas stovetop or range with an electric alternative.

Income Requirements

Households earning less than 80% of their area’s median income (AMI) may be eligible for rebates that cover up to the full cost of their project. Those with incomes between 80% and 150% of AMI can receive up to half of their costs covered by the rebates. Because eligibility is also based on household size, income limits adjust depending on how many people live in your home.

Home Efficiency Rebates (HER)

While HEAR focuses on individual electrification projects, HER supports whole-home retrofits that improve energy efficiency across the board. To get started, households must schedule a home energy audit with a program-approved contractor. Using that assessment, your contractor will create a plan that can qualify you for rebates based on energy savings achieved and your income bracket.

From cutting monthly utility bills to creating a healthier home environment, the benefits of energy upgrades are now within closer reach for Georgia households.

Program Requirements

The amount you can receive through HER depends on your household income, household size, and how much energy your upgrades are expected to save. If your income is below 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI), you could receive up to $10,000 for projects that cut your energy use by 20–34%, and up to $16,000 if your savings reach 35% or more.

For households earning 80% of AMI or higher, the rebates are lower—but still significant. You may be eligible for up to $2,000 for improvements that save 20–34%, or up to $4,000 if you reach at least 35% in energy savings.

Resources

To quickly estimate your eligibility and potential savings, use the Rewiring America IRA Savings Calculator. It’s a helpful tool to understand what federal and state incentives you can access.

To see where your income stands relative to the AMI for Newton County, you can use the HUD Area Median Income data tool.

For more details about the program, including access to the approved contractor list, income documentation requirements as well as instructions on how to get started, visit Georgia’s Home Energy Rebates website.

From cutting monthly utility bills to creating a healthier home environment, the benefits of energy upgrades are now within closer reach for Georgia households. Georgia’s Home Energy Rebates are more than just financial incentives—they’re an opportunity to upgrade your home, reduce your environmental footprint, and invest in long-term comfort. If you're ready to electrify and save, now is the time to act.

From Sunlight to Savings: A Rooftop Solar Success Story

Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:58:35 GMT

By Sara Vinson, Sustainable Newton Co-Founder & Secretary

Mike McQuaide is our second Sustainable Star of 2025. Mike is a professor emeritus of sociology at Oxford College and a former Sustainable Newton board member. Mike and his wife Stacy Bell installed solar panels on their historic Oxford home in 2023. We asked Mike some questions about the decision to go solar, the process and the results that they’ve seen.

What inspired you to install rooftop solar panels?
We were inspired to install solar panels for several reasons. When we learned about the many positive consequences of solar panels in reducing greenhouse gasses we also learned about the number of trees that would have to be planted to sequester the same amount of gases that the solar panels would save in emissions. Our 5.67 kW, 14-panel system will reduce carbon emissions equivalent to planting 580 trees. Put another way, they’re the equivalent of 56,000 car miles avoided.
We all contribute to global climate change. Installing solar panels was one decision we could make to reduce our carbon footprint.

How did the Inflation Reduction Act tax credits and rebates influence your decision?
We had been considering solar panels for our house for awhile When the 30 percent incentive to install was restored under the Inflation Reduction Act, we decided to move ahead with the solar installation. This is an important incentive and it played a key role in our decision to install the panels. For us, this tax credit was more than $6,500 in a reduced federal income tax bill.

What was the installation process like? Were there any challenges or surprises?
Alternative Energy Southeast is the company that installed the panels, and the installation of our fourteen panels was flawless. I highly recommend AES to anyone who needs a reliable partner in their decision to install solar panels. Alternative Energy Southeast was also the installer that worked with Sustainable Newton on the Solarize campaign back in 2019. They’ve installed panels on friends' homes nearby. The installation crew was friendly and professional. Their work was done promptly and effectively, with no unpleasant surprises or disappointments of any kind. Everyone I know is more than satisfied with their service.

How has switching to solar impacted your energy costs?
AES had made predictions regarding the savings we would have as a consequence of installing the panels, all of which have come true. I’m happy to report that we have enjoyed considerable savings in our electricity bill because we’re purchasing less electricity and selling some electricity back to the city of Oxford, our electricity provider, each month. However, the true financial savings are less from the electricity that we sell back to the provider and more from the electricity that we avoid purchasing.

On average, our monthly electricity bill has declined by approximately 35 percent. Our savings over 25 years is currently predicted to be about $29,900. The AES team said that the return-on-investment period is approximately seven years.

What advice would you give to other Newton County residents thinking about going solar?
Based on our recent experience with solar panels, we would advise people in Newton County to consider the long term positive consequences put in motion through solar generated energy. When you are ready to significantly reduce your carbon footprint for your children’s and your grandchildren’s sakes, please work with one of the reliable solar panel companies and make your stand for a sustainable future.

More About Solar from Our YouTube Channel:

Beyond Anxiety to Community Action

Sun, 26 Jan 2025 12:45:03 GMT

By Maurice Carter, Sustainable Newton Co-Founder & President

We thank everyone who provided feedback last fall to students from the University of Georgia Interdisciplinary Certificate in Sustainability Program working with us to develop deeper insights about attitudes towards climate change and climate solutions among Sustainable Newton's members, supporters, and followers. Their survey was one of the tools our Capstone Project Team used to assess the effectiveness of our current communications and make strategy recommendations to improve our engagement. So thank you for helping them help us.

Meet the UGA Student Team

71% Alarmed or Concerned

Getting to Know You

The students worked with a representative from the partnerships program at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communications (YPCCC) to construct their survey, analyze the results, and develop findings and strategies they presented to us in early December. We gained great insights, including the following:

Of the audience we are reaching, 71% are either alarmed or concerned about global warming.
Many of you are already acting in your homes or businesses to be more sustainable. The greatest number of you are recycling and/or composting, decreasing usage of single-use plastics, and reducing energy consumption through efficiency measures.
Just over 61% of you are either very aware or somewhat aware of the clean energy incentives available to homeowners through the federal Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). However, 39% fall somewhere between just aware or not familiar at all. So, there is continued opportunity for us to help Newton County households take greater advantage of the IRA.

Zooming in on Newton County

The student's findings are consistent with public opinion surveying and statistical modeling Yale has been conducting annually since 2008 for every state, county, and congressional district in the US. Because climate change has become politically polarized like many other issues in American, we don't talk about it often enough with family, friends, and neighbors. Even though 71% of our audience feel concerned or alarmed, if you are one of them, you may well believe yours is a minority opinion. YPCCC publishes their Climate Opinion Maps annually showing attitudes across the US on global warming and key issues. They are publish fact sheets for each state, county, and congressional district. The Newton County Fact Sheet contains numbers that may surprise local residents and officials:

73% say global warming is happening and 62% say they are worried about it.
80% support funding for renewable energy research.
75% want to regulate CO2 as a pollutant.
74% support tax rebates for energy efficient vehicles or solar panels.
Only 31% say they discuss global warming at least occasionally

The numbers show you are not alone in your concern.

Making you alarmed is not the goal. We exist to help you take action and to connect with a community of experts and early adopters who can help each other to apply climate solutions in their lives.

We're All in This Together

A key takeaway for us from the student's report is that a large percentage of you already understand the urgency of the climate crisis and are looking for concrete, practical solutions you can apply. Making you alarmed is not the goal. We exist to help you take action and to connect with a community of experts and early adopters who can help each other to apply climate solutions in their lives. And especially to share the solutions that not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also save money and make energy more affordable for everyone.

We are continuing to work with the YPCCC Partnerships Program to leverage their deep knowledge on how to effectively communicate about climate change in ways that shift the conversation from problems to solutions and mobilize communities for action. We are also extremely excited that one of students, Kendall Lippe has volunteered to continue working with us on implementing the strategies she and the team have recommended.

We have the opportunity to build a richer, more collaborative community of early adopters and experts in Newton County to assist one another. Look to hear more from us soon, but also please reach out to us if you have ideas and suggestions. We all move forward together!

Oxford's Eve Mullen Transitions to EV

Sat, 25 Jan 2025 15:42:11 GMT

By Sara Vinson, Sustainable Newton Co-Founder & Secretary

This year, we're highlighting Newton County residents who have used Inflation Reduction Act tax credits and rebates to increase household energy efficiency and transition to clean energy. These individuals and families are our Sustainable Stars.

Our first Sustainable Star is Eve Mullen. Eve is an associate professor of religion at Oxford College of Emory University. Since completing a home energy audit in 2023, Eve and her husband, Florian Pohl, who joined the Sustainable Newton board this year, have been taking steps to make their home more energy efficient. In December 2024, Eve took advantage of the IRA’s $7,500 new-EV rebate, to purchase her first electric vehicle, a Chevy Equinox, from Ginn Chevrolet in Covington. We asked Eve some questions about making the leap to an EV.

What made you decide to purchase an electric vehicle?
I had been looking at EVs for some time. It's an environmentally friendly way to get around, and my family wanted to do our part by cutting emissions.

How did the Inflation Reduction Act incentives influence your decision?

The tax credit made it an easy decision for us. At the time of purchase dealerships can directly lower the EV's price for the customer as a “point of sale rebate.” There was no difficult paperwork at all, and the savings were considerable.

Were there any challenges or surprises you encountered while transitioning to an EV?
The EV is very quiet, which was a pleasant surprise. And the option for one-pedal driving, in which regenerative braking helps replenish battery power, is fantastic. I thought that driving mode would be a challenge, but after a few minutes of cruising around town I found it was simple and effortless.

The Equinox EV has an 85 kWh battery that can provide about 310 miles of range. Plugging in at home is convenient, and every morning we have a "full tank," so to speak.

What features of your EV do you like the most?
The Equinox EV has an 85 kWh battery that can provide about 310 miles of range. Plugging in at home is convenient, and every morning we have a "full tank," so to speak. Car maintenance is simple and inexpensive. It also has DC fast-charging abilities, which is great when you're on a long road trip. The safety features are impressive, too. My parents-in-law recently visited us and were impressed by the number of airbags for both the front and rear seats. I feel safe in the car. My very favorite features in cold weather, though, are the remote start and heated seats!

What advice would you give to others considering an EV?
I would encourage anyone to consider an EV. Test drive various EVs, keeping in mind your driving habits on a day-to-day basis, and make sure your choice fits your needs. Educate yourself, especially on battery economy. Be aware that EV efficiency is spoken of differently than that of gas vehicles. Kilowatt-hours (kWh) per 100 miles is the most common measure. Shop in an informed manner, and enjoy your test drive.

Which Car's Right for You?

Choosing the right vehicle for you and your family -- be is a battery electric (BEV), plug-in hybrid (PHEV), or traditional hybrid -- depends greatly on your personal driving pattern and where you live. The US Department of Energy offers an array of useful tools on their Alternative Fuels Data Center website to help you compare the total cost of ownership and tailpipe emissions for various various vehicle makes and models.

This Vehicle Cost Calculator lets you see and compare data on up to eight different vehicles based on your personal driving patterns.

For the greatest convenience and lowest cost, you can't beat a 240V home charger like Eve and Florian installed.

But, if you rent or just don't have a place to put a charger at home, Covington, Oxford, and the surrounding community have plenty of public EV chargers for you to use.

Paper & Plastic & Glass, Oh My!

Sat, 03 Feb 2024 13:00:44 GMT

By Cameron Skinner, Sustainable Newton Board Member

With the City of Covington announcing the return of glass recycling for city residents, we asked board member Cameron Skinner to explain why glass recycling is different from other materials usually picked up curbside and how Sustainable Newton worked to make this drop-off service possible. With several certifications and a career working in the field of corporate environmental sustainability, Cameron is uniquely qualified to explain the market dynamics of recycling. We are blessed to have him living in Covington and serving on our board.

Recycling & the Georgia Economy

Recycling everyday consumable materials such as cardboard, paper, plastic, aluminum, and glass isn’t only great for the environment. It also helps bolster the economy by creating well-paying jobs throughout the entire resource conservation value chain. In fact, companies in Georgia are trailblazing the future of recycling in the US with the help of The Center of Innovation Energy Technology, which is a division of the state government that provides industry expertise and connections to all types of Georgia businesses who are looking to strengthen the state’s sustainability ecosystem. According to the Georgia Center of Innovation’s website focused on recycling and sustainability:

One-third of all plastic beverage containers recycled in North America end up in Georgia and are turned into carpet (mainly in northwest Georgia).
Georgia’s Paper Industry recycles almost eight percent of all the paper consumed in the United States.
More than 120 Georgia businesses use recovered materials to manufacture a variety of new consumer products.

While many businesses have been successful with material recovery and transformation of paper, cardboard, aluminum, and even plastics, glass has continued to pose a challenge in the U.S. recycling industry for several years.

Glass Recycling & Sustainable Newton

Because we understood the environmental and economic benefits of recycling and observed a gap in local glass collection opportunities, Sustainable Newton decided to partner with the The Ray C. Anderson Center for Sustainable Business at Georgia Tech in the fall of 2021 to investigate and define a circular economy for recyclable waste, particularly glass, in Newton County. The result was a robust proposal that outlined the current state of glass recycling in Newton County and an analysis of potential stakeholder partners and solid waste infrastructure in the metro Atlanta area. The final recommendation from Georgia Tech and Sustainable Newton was for the City of Covington to partner with the Newton County Solid Waste Management Authority to expand drop-off opportunities that would supplement the existing glass recycling infrastructure in the county.

If that recommendation sounds familiar, it may be because you have received word of the City of Covington’s pending launch of the glass and cardboard recycling center. A post made to the City’s social media accounts on January 24, 2024 revealed details surrounding the expected reopening of the transfer station located at 5120 Turner Street. The station will accept broken down cardboard and glass and will be open for residential drop-off Monday through Friday from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm. Watch the News page on the city's website for more details.

What Happens to My Glass?

When you drop your glass into the bin, you may wonder where it goes and what happens to it. It's really all quite fascinating, as we learned from the work our Georgia Tech team did for us. The glass from the new drop-off center in Covington will be picked up by the Newton County Solid Waste Management Authority and taken, with the recyclable glass deposited at the county's "convenience centers" to Strategic Materials, Inc. (SMI) in College Park. The video below shows what they do with it. The glass you drop off in Covington may very will end up in a new glass bottle like the ones Verescence makes in their Covington factory using recycled glass from SMI..

Glass bottles from Covington going to College Park and returning to places like Covington as ready-to-use pellets. That's why it's called a Circular Economy.