In general provisions, further providing for definitions; in comprehensive plan, providing for comprehensive plan element for commercial data centers; and, in zoning, providing for zoning, commercial data centers and agricultural land protections and for zoning, commercial data centers, approval procedure and minimum standards.
HB2516 amends Pennsylvania’s Municipalities Planning Code to create a new framework for “commercial data centers,” defined as facilities or campuses primarily used to store, process, manage, or transmit data and having a peak demand of 25 megawatts or more. The bill adds this term to the code’s definitions and directs municipalities that include data centers in their comprehensive plans to identify suitable areas with available or planned infrastructure and utility capacity, while also identifying agricultural resources that should be avoided, including prime farmland, agricultural security areas, and land under agricultural conservation easements.
The bill also establishes zoning standards for municipalities that choose to allow commercial data centers. Those standards must address setbacks and buffering from homes, noise, lighting, landscaping, water supply and sewage documentation, stormwater management, emergency response planning, and decommissioning of the site when operations end. It further bars data centers from being approved on land within an agricultural security area or subject to an agricultural conservation easement, and allows municipalities to adopt even stricter rules, including overlay districts and additional setbacks.
For approval procedures, the bill requires a data center applicant to provide a plain-language project summary for public inspection, including site location, project phases, expected electrical demand, water use, mitigation measures, and environmental review status. It also requires mailed notice to nearby property owners within one mile and posted notice on the site before the first hearing. Municipalities must make findings that the proposal complies with the ordinance and may impose reasonable conditions and safeguards. The bill also allows a municipality, after the required public hearing, to prohibit commercial data centers entirely if they are found inconsistent with community development objectives or harmful to infrastructure, emergency services, natural resources, or public health and welfare.
Overall, the bill’s impact would be to add detailed land-use, notice, and environmental planning requirements for large data center projects under state zoning law, while explicitly protecting agricultural land from such development. It would affect municipalities, zoning hearing boards, data center developers, nearby residents, and owners of farmland or conserved agricultural property by creating both procedural hurdles and substantive location restrictions. The bill takes effect 60 days after enactment.
The available context shows no recorded committee discussion or votes, so there is no documented legislative sentiment in the provided materials. Based on the bill text alone, it appears designed to balance economic development and infrastructure planning with farmland preservation and local control, but the absence of vote history means support or opposition cannot be measured from the supplied record.
HB2516 would amend the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code by adding a definition of “commercial data center” and creating new comprehensive planning and zoning requirements for those facilities. It would require municipalities that plan for data centers to identify appropriate infrastructure-ready areas and to avoid prime agricultural land, agricultural security areas, and land protected by agricultural conservation easements. It would also prohibit approval of data centers on land in agricultural security areas or under agricultural conservation easements, while preserving municipal authority to adopt stricter standards or ban the use entirely.
No committee transcripts or vote history were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative sentiment from debate or roll call. The bill’s structure suggests a policy approach aimed at accommodating data center development only with substantial local safeguards, farmland protections, and public notice requirements. That indicates an effort to appeal to both development and conservation interests, but the record supplied here does not show whether lawmakers or stakeholders were supportive or opposed.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s strict siting limits and setback requirements versus the desire to attract large data center investments. Agricultural interests would likely support the prohibitions on development in agricultural security areas and on conserved farmland, while developers and some municipalities may object to the 2,500-foot residential setback, the one-mile notice requirement, water-use documentation, and the ability of municipalities to prohibit data centers altogether. Water supply impacts, noise, lighting, emergency response, and local land-use autonomy are also likely to be disputed issues.