Review - S 3732 Introduce – AI Environmental Impacts

Earlier this month, Sen Markey (D,MI) introduced S 3732, the Artificial Intelligence Environmental Impacts Act of 2024. The bill would require the EPA to conduct a study on the environmental impacts of artificial intelligence. It would then require the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to convene a consortium “to identify the future measurements, methodologies, standards, and other appropriate needs, in order to measure and report the full range of environmental impacts of artificial intelligence”. No new funding is authorized by this legislation.

Moving Forward

Markey and one of his five cosponsors {Sen Welch (D,VT)} are members of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Technology Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration. This means that there may be sufficient influence to see the bill considered in Committee. With no funding, and no regulatory requirements, I see nothing in this bill would engender any organized opposition. I suspect that the bill would receive some level of bipartisan support were it considered. As with most bills introduced in the Senate, this bill is not politically important enough to take up the Senate’s time for consideration under regular order. I doubt that it would be a candidate for consideration under the unanimous consent process as it would draw the ire of a small number of Republicans who are almost knee-jerk opposed to any environmental legislation.

Commentary

I noted in an earlier blog post on this bill:

“Section 2, Findings, of that draft lays out the type effects that Markley, et al, expect to find in the reports required in the bill. While those concerns seem to be legitimate and should be substantiated and quantified by the reports, it is clear from the bill’s language that the AI concerns are really more appropriately concerns about the operation of large server farms regardless of the focus of the individual facilities.”

Singling out one type of server farm, one that is already under the political microscope, is political grandstanding. If this is a legitimate effort to look at environmental effects of large server farms, then it should not matter if they are in the service of AI, crypto mining, or a social media backbone, they have an environmental effect that may need to be regulated. The study and measurement system development would go a long way to determine if regulations is necessary.

 

For more details about the provisions of this bill, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/s-3732-introduce - subscription required.

Reader Comment – AI Environmental Problems

This last weekend, Eric Gallant (@eric_gallant), a fellow writer that I trade comments with on TWITTER.com, left a comment on one of my Short Takes posts. One of the articles pointed to in that post was a press release from the office of Sen Markey (D,MA) on the introduction of S 3732. Eric noted that:

“The environmental impacts of AI were thought-provoking.”

When I posted about the introduction of S 3732, I commented that:

“I will be watching HR 7197 [apparently a companion bill] and S 3732 for language or definitions that would explain how the crafters believe that there would be any significant environmental effects on the environment (the Terminator movies not withstanding).”

Well, the Markey press release provides that explanation:

“For example, increasing AI use could contribute to data center electricity demand doubling by 2026, leading to more carbon emissions. Demand for water to cool data centers is already creating concerns about water supplies, and the chips needed to run AI software are contributing to a growing mountain of electronic waste.”

While neither HR 7197 nor S 3732 have been published by GPO/Congress.gov, the press release provides a link to a draft copy of S 3723. Section 2, Findings, of that draft lays out the type effects that Markley, et al, expect to find in the reports required in the bill. While those concerns seem to be legitimate and should be substantiated and quantified by the reports, it is clear from the bill’s language that the AI concerns are really more appropriately concerns about the operation of large server farms regardless of the focus of the individual facilities.

If one wanted to focus on just a small part of the problem by looking at facilities of questionable societal utility, I would think that cryptocurrency farms would be a better target than AI. 

Bills Introduced – 2-1-24

Yesterday, with both the House and Senate in session (and the House preparing to leave for an extended weekend), there were 62 bills introduced. Four of those bills may receive additional coverage in this blog:

HR 7190 To require the Assistant Secretary for the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office of the Department of Homeland Security to treat illicit fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction, and for other purposes. Boebert, Lauren [Rep.-R-CO-3] 

HR 7197 To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out a study on the environmental impacts of artificial intelligence, to require the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to convene a consortium on such environmental impacts, and to require the Director to develop a voluntary reporting system for the reporting of the environmental impacts of artificial intelligence, and for other purposes. Eshoo, Anna G. [Rep.-D-CA-16]

HR 7200 To require the Secretary of Energy to establish a hydrogen infrastructure finance and innovation pilot program, and for other purposes. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [Rep.-R-PA-1]

S 3732 A bill to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out a study on the environmental impacts of artifical intelligence, to require the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to convene a consortium on such environmental impacts, and to require the Director to develop a voluntary reporting system for the reporting of the environmental impacts of artificial intelligence, and for other purposes. Markey, Edward J. [Sen.-D-MA]

I will be watching HR 7190 for language and definitions that would explain how the designation of fentanyl as a ‘weapon of mass destruction’ would help reduce the prevalence of fentanyl in the United States.

I will be watching HR 7197 and S 3732 for language or definitions that would explain how the crafters believe that there would be any significant environmental effects on the environment (the Terminator movies not withstanding).

I will be watching HR 7200 for language and definitions that would include hydrogen safety and security within the scope of coverage of the bill.

Realistically, I really believe that just HR 7200 has any chance of receiving additional coverage in this blog, and that is iffy at best.