PA Data Centers: Beyond the Slogan — Conditional Growth or Resource Raid?

Pennsylvania's data center boom demands a grown-up answer: conditional growth that pays its own way on power, water, and taxes — or no deal. Here are the seven standards the commonwealth must demand.

"Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful" should not become a nostalgic slogan. It should be a development standard. Across the commonwealth, data center proposals are multiplying fast enough that the exact count now depends on the tracker, the date, and what gets included. Reports have mapped anywhere from 47 to 71 planned or operating sites across Pennsylvania — and that number keeps climbing. Pennsylvania needs a grown-up answer. Not panic. Not blind boosterism. Not a free pass for every project with a glossy rendering and a promise of "innovation." The right approach is conditional growth : allow projects that truly pay their own way, conserve water, protect the grid, reuse appropriate land, and produce measurable local benefit. Reject the ones that do not. The Bottom Line No hidden subsidy. No resource raid. Pennsylvania grows only on its own terms. The Real Benefits — They Are Not Imaginary The case for data centers is not imaginary. When done right, these projects deliver: Major Private Investment Large-scale capital spending that doesn't come from taxpayers — funding construction, infrastructure, and local supply chains. Long-Term Technical Jobs Skilled, well-paying positions in data operations, cybersecurity, and systems management — not just construction-phase work. New Local Tax Revenue Property taxes, earned income contributions, and business taxes that fund schools, roads, and local services. Brownfield Redevelopment The U.S. EPA confirms data centers can revitalize large industrial sites — turning abandoned land into productive, taxable assets. Digital Infrastructure Pennsylvania Needs Hospitals, universities, logistics, finance, and public services all depend on data infrastructure. Pennsylvania cannot pretend it belongs somewhere else. The Hard Numbers — Scale Changes Everything Metric Figure Source U.S. data center electricity use (2023) 176 TWh (4.4% of all U.S. electricity) Congressional Research Service Projected U.S. data center electricity use (2028) 325–580 TWh (6.7–12% of all U.S. electricity) Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Pennsylvania current peak load ~30 gigawatts PA DEP Citizens Advisory Council Projected additional data center demand (PPL area) 5 gigawatts added PA DEP Citizens Advisory Council Water use — 100 MW data center (air-cooled) Equivalent to ~2,600 households Congressional Research Service Blakely Borough proposed daily water draw Up to 300,000 gallons/day Bay Journal Water saved by Quincy, WA closed-loop reuse system 138 million gallons/year U.S. EPA Case Study The Seven Standards Pennsylvania Must Demand My view is simple: Pennsylvania should welcome only projects that meet a "no hidden subsidy, no resource raid" standard. Here is what that looks like in practice: Standard 1 Full Grid Cost Accountability Data centers pay the full cost of connecting to the grid, dedicated substations, upgrades, and capacity. Those costs do not get smeared across family electric bills. Standard 2 A Real Power-Supply Plan Before Approval Not vague promises. A real plan showing where hundreds of megawatts come from, how interconnection works, and what new generation backs it up. Vaporware promises do not qualify. Standard 3 A Water Hierarchy — Drinking Water Is the Last Resort The best projects use closed-loop systems, reclaimed water, or industrial reuse water. Potable drinking water is not the default cooling source. Full stop. Standard 4 Brownfields First — Strict Siting Rules Pennsylvania should prioritize former industrial sites and already-disturbed land. If a project wants forest clearing or farmland conversion, it should face a high bar — not a rubber stamp. Standard 5 Annual Public Transparency — No Exceptions Pennsylvania should require large data centers to publicly report electricity use, water withdrawals, water source, water discharge, generator run hours, and peak demand — every year, without exception. Standard 6 Tighter Backup Generator Rules Reliability does not mean a free air-quality pass. Communities deserve the cleanest feasible backup equipment, strict testing windows, emissions monitoring, and real noise setbacks. Standard 7 Performance-Based Tax Policy — Not Faith-Based Any tax advantages must be tied to measurable public returns: local hiring, apprenticeship commitments, minimum efficiency standards, reclaimed water use, and full payment of grid costs. Incentives sunset. Clawbacks apply if promises don't materialize. What a Good Project Looks Like vs. a Bad One A Good Project Built on brownfield or industrial land Uses reclaimed or non-potable water Pays all grid connection costs Discloses all resource impacts annually Limits diesel emissions and noise Leaves the host community better off A Bad Project Vague economics, heavy subsidy demands Speculative power requests on the grid Drinking water as default cooling Greenfield or farmland siting No transparency, no reporting Local residents absorb the risk; others book the profit Final Judgment Pennsylvania does not need to choose between "beautiful" and "modern." It needs to choose between disciplined development and careless development. If a project cannot meet the good-project standard, Pennsylvania should say no. The commonwealth moves forward — but only on Pennsylvania's terms. Sources: Congressional Research Service, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, U.S. EPA, PJM, PA DEP Citizens Advisory Council, Bay Journal, PublicSource/Inside Climate News. Water reuse case study: EPA Water Reuse Program .