Lawmakers on the Pennsylvania House Energy Committee on Monday approved two bills aimed at addressing the growing number of data centers across the commonwealth, including one that requires data centers to submit annual reports to the state detailing their water and electricity use.<\/p>\n
The Democratic-controlled committee passed the first bill, House Bill 2150<\/a>, with a party-line vote. That legislation, sponsored by state Rep. Kyle Mullins of Lackawanna County, requires data centers to submit yearly reports to the state Department of Environmental Protection that outline each center\u2019s total energy and water consumption for the previous calendar year, as well as any measures undertaken in the previous calendar year to improve energy or water efficiency and reduce consumption.<\/p>\n House Energy Committee Chair Elizabeth Fielder, who represents part of Philadelphia, said she\u2019s hopeful that the House will advance the bill and send it to the Senate for consideration, noting that it would establish transparency requirements that could shed light on how data centers impact local communities.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIt is important that we are transparent, and that we ask those companies that are coming to do business in our commonwealth to be transparent about the potential impacts that they could have on the people who are already living there \u2013 and those folks are our constituents,\u201d she said. \u201cTo me, that piece is incredibly important.\u201d<\/p>\n Republicans weren\u2019t sold on the legislation and expressed concerns that it could hurt the state\u2019s competitiveness in the burgeoning AI economy.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m concerned that the legislation specifically singles out one industry in Pennsylvania. So that\u2019s a No. 1 concern,\u201d said House Energy Committee Minority Chair Martin Causer, a Republican who serves Cameron, McKean and Potter counties. \u201cIt also places requirements with a regulatory agency to collect this information. So I\u2019m questioning why this regulatory agency needs this data. There\u2019s also a significant penalty on the reporting side of this. So overall, I think that this makes our state less competitive when looking at the legislation that\u2019s been proposed.\u201d<\/p>\n The bill, which was amended to exclude businesses with small data-center operations, such as telecommunications services, was reported out of the committee by a 14-12 vote.\u00a0<\/p>\n The committee also voted 14-12 to advance legislation<\/a> from Democratic state Rep. Kyle Donahue, also of Lackawanna County, that would direct the state Department of Community & Economic Development to develop a model zoning ordinance to assist municipalities in regulating data centers in their communities.\u00a0<\/p>\n Republican members of the committee expressed concerns that developing a state-level model ordinance would create an environment ripe for litigation.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cBy putting a standard out there that is ostensibly embraced by the commonwealth, you set up litigation for the municipalities about their own ordinances,\u201d said GOP state Rep. Craig Williams, \u201cwhich, of course, I don\u2019t think the maker of the bill intended whatsoever, but it is absolutely in the same way that we see constant litigation over zoning regulations and ordinances.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n That concern was echoed by a coalition of environmental organizations that oppose the bill, including the Better Path Coalition and No False Climate Solutions PA. In a position statement<\/a> sent to committee members last week, leaders of the organizations, as well as advocates against data center developments from across the state, outlined their concerns.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe current language states more clearly that municipalities can opt out of using the specific language of the model ordinance, but that further begs the question of the need for a law in the first place,\u201d the statement reads. \u201cIn fact, we are concerned that a statute will have the opposite effect \u2013 that municipalities will feel the need to use the ordinance as written and that the industry could cite it in legal challenges to more strongly worded ordinances.\u201d<\/p>\n Fiedler, meanwhile, stressed that the legislation \u2013 House Bill 2151<\/a> \u2013 is not a requirement.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIt is not a mandate, and it does not, in fact, restrict local officials\u2019 decision-making in any way. It is optional,\u201d she said. \u201cIt is thoughtful, and it gives local elected officials another tool as they seek to do their work in their neighborhoods.\u201d<\/p>\n As the AI boom has led to proposals for data centers across the commonwealth and the country, opposition to the projects has surfaced throughout the state. A recent Pennsylvania-focused poll<\/a> from Quinnipiac University found that opposition to data center development stretches across party lines.\u00a0<\/p>\n