Land & Renewables Connection

On September 5, 2025, Pennsylvania Senate Bill 991, the “Data Center Siting and Permitting Act”  began its legislative journey with the aim of reducing red tape and attracting substantial data center investment to the Commonwealth. While it is a reasonable goal, a close review of the draft reveals a fundamental flaw: in its desire to streamline a data site permitting process, Senate Bill 991 creates a system that is confusing, contradictory, and less certain than the unspecified statutes, rules and regulations it seemingly intends to replace. Senate Bill 991fails to provide property owners, investors, or the public with a clear, defined pathway to the ultimate construction of data centers, ultimately generating more legal ambiguity than regulatory relief.

Data centers are structures that house the physical infrastructure that makes much of our digital world work. That includes network devices, data storage devices, and servers. Data centers can serve and perform a variety of different tasks, from data storage (including, as the “cloud”), to providing processing power for cryptocurrency mining, to serving as a foundation for artificial intelligence (AI). When operational, this computing hardware generates considerable amounts of heat, creating substantial demand for power and water for cooling.

A review of the components of Senate Bill 991 reveals draft legislation that contains a number of good ideas but contains insufficient detail to accomplish its objective of providing a clear path for developers to follow to expedite data center construction.

Senate Bill 991 - Section 1

Section 1 of Senate Bill 991 is its title, the “Data Center Siting and Permitting Act.”

Senate Bill 991 - Section 2

There are a number of definitions in Section 2 of Senate Bill 991. There are two very important definitions. The first is “[d]ata center”, which the legislation defines as “[a] facility used to house computer systems and associated components, including servers, storage systems and networking equipment.” The second important definition is a “[p]pwer generation facility.” That is “[a] plant, equipment or system, whether located on a single site or across multiple contiguous parcels, that is designed and operated for the purpose of producing electricity from a fuel or energy source, including coal, natural gas, petroleum, nuclear, solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass, waste-to-energy or any other alternative resource, for delivery into the electric distribution system or regional transmission system or for on-site consumption.”

The definition of “data center” is interesting in this draft legislation. That is because the definition does not differentiate between sizes of data centers, nor their location. Senate Bill 991 treats a small on-site data center at a company in the same way that Senate Bill 991 addresess much larger, hyperscale data centers.

Senate Bill 991 - Section 3

This part of Senate Bill 991 is the beginning of the real substance to the legislation and where the questions begin. The title of this section is “Prepproved Sites” and it would require the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (the DEP”) to create a roster of at least 15 sites that it, and other state agencies, find suitable for data centers, with at least 5 of those sites being decommissioned power generation facilities or power generation facilities that will be decommissioned in the next 2 years.

Once that list is compiled, the DEP must do a few things. First, the DEP must post that list on its website. Second, the DEP has “. . . to commence work related to identifying which State environmental permits are required for a data center site and to take action deemed necessary by the [DEP] to expedite permit reviews for locating a data center . . .” on one of the rostered, “preapproved” sites. Third, if a prospective data center operator applies to locate a data center on one of those “preapproved” sites, the DEP “. . . shall provide to the applicant all preliminary work related to permitting that the department has conducted on the preapproved site. . .”

Senate Bill 991’s focus on decommissioned, or soon-to-be decommissioned, power generation facilities as locations for data centers makes sense. Defunct power plants, or power plants that are being retired, have been seen as attractive locations for data centers. Unsurprisingly, power plants have substantial electrical infrastructure on-site, along with robust water and sewer connections. That is not to say that all of this infrastructure is in ideal shape for a new data center, but it is a reasonable starting point to explore. Additionally, defunct power plants are already developed sites, thereby minimizing the impacts of greenfield construction and repurposing former industrial sites.

The balance of Section 3 raises a lot of questions that the balance of Senate Bill 991 does not answer and which would be important to property owners and investors interested in data centers. Section 3 focuses on “preapproved” sites for data centers, and the rest of Senate Bill 991 builds from this foundation. As its co-sponsorship memo makes clear, Senate Bill 991 is intended to speed regulatory review of data center projects in order to make Pennsylvania a more attractive location for data center investment and construction. But Senate Bill 991 does not address data center projects outside of these “preapproved” sites. It is not clear if the expedited review process in Senate Bill 991 is intended to be broadly applied, or whether it is only to occur for projects at “preapproved” sites.

And, the concept of “preapproved” sites in Senate Bill 991 is too vague to render a verdict about its effectiveness to achieve the ultimate aim of the legislation. On one hand, it is possible that development will be spurred if developers have a clear idea and understanding of everything that is necessary to obtain the requisite development approvals at a given location. On the other hand, and paradoxically, this component of Senate Bill 991 runs a real risk of unnecessary government intervention into private enterprise.

While Section 3 of Senate Bill 991 identifies a minimum number of “preapproved” sites that the DEP must identify, and that at least 5 of them must be decommissioned power plants or power plants that will soon be retired, there is no other detail in this draft legislation about the characteristics that would make a site “preapproved” and the beneficiary of the expedited permitting process contained in Senate Bill 991. The legislation simply says that a “preapproved” site is that DEP “. . . in consultation with the Governor’s Office and any other relevant State agency, finds appropriate for locating data centers in this Commonwealth.” That introduces a political dynamic to the process and leaves property owners without an understanding of what they could do to improve their properties to gain “preapproved” recognition that could increase the prospects of data center development on them.

Another issue with Section 3 is its requirement that DEP “. . . take action deemed necessary by the [DEP] to expedite permit reviews for locating a data center on . . .” a “preapproved” site, and then to give that work to a prospective data center developer. Senate Bill 991 does not provide any detail about the nature and extent of the “action” that DEP must undertake to “expedite permit reviews” at any given location. Theoretically, this investigative work could be extensive and tag taxpayers with the costs of due diligence that will simply be turned over to private developers. This effectively transforms a public regulatory agency into a private development consultant, paid for by the taxpayer, while simultaneously introducing political risk into the selection of advantageous private properties.

It is conceivable that “preapproved” sites for data center projects under Senate Bill 991 would include former industrial sites and other brownfields suffering impacts from pollution. Therefore, constructing a data center on those sites (or constructing anything) may require extensive environmental remediation, which would require permits. Under Senate Bill 991, the costs of identifying the nature and extent of pollution and the permits necessary to rectify it would be the responsibility of DEP for these “preapproved” sites. And, developers of “preapproved” would seem to be entitled to receive this information for free.

This would place property owners at a significant disadvantage if their lands are not categorized as “preapproved” sites for data centers. Data center developers and investors would reasonably explore siting locations on “preapproved” sites with initial environmental due diligence paid for by the government versus expending those resources on their own to make a baseline determination about whether a site could be appropriate for a data center. But, even then, a data center developer could likely choose to perform its own diligence.

Section 3 raises two bigger questions that neither it, nor the balance of Senate Bill 991 answer. First, what permits does a data center developer need to obtain from the Commonwealth? Second, why is the DEP the state agency responsible for these tasks? Senate Bill 991 does not create a “data center permit”, nor does it suggest that such a permit exists at the state level. While legislation could be valuable if it specifically identifies the permits that may be required for any given data center project, and the agencies that issue such permits, Senate Bill 991 does not do that.

Senate Bill 991 - Section 4

Section 4 of Senate Bill 991 is entitled “Accelerated permitting initiation” and it creates some of the questions about the scope of the draft legislation. It establishes actions that “[a]n applicant that proposes to build or operate a data center within this Commonwealth . . .” must undertake. A data center developer would have to use a form on the DEP website to identify the geographic location of the proposed data center as well as “[t]he energy source and capacity of any proposed power generation facility that will at least partially be used to power the data center and any electric transmission infrastructure.”

A couple questions arise here. First, this draft legislation focuses on data centers at “preapproved” sites, but Section 4 of Senate Bill 991 does not contain such a limitation. It applies to any “. . . applicant that proposes to build or operate a data center . . .” in Pennsylvania. While the substance of Section 4 is not unreasonable, it is difficult to ascertain whether this is intended as part of an expedited permit review process for “preapproved” sites, or is intended as a part of the general process that any data center developer must follow.

The second question prompted by Section 4 relates to the information that a data center developer must submit on the DEP website. The proposed location of the data center is relatively straightforward. But, the requirement to submit “[t]he energy source and capacity of any proposed power generation facility that will at least partially be used to power the data center and any electric transmission infrastructure” is less clear. It may not be possible to identify every power generation facility or electrical transmission component that will power the data center. And, whereas the cosponsorship memo generally speaks to “behind the meter” power generation, Section 4 of Senate Bill 991 does not specifically address that, nor is it limited to that.

Senate Bill 991 - Section 5

Section 5 of Senate Bill 991 contains the first part of what the draft legislation envisions as a two stage application process for data center proposals. As with other aspects of Senate Bill 991, it is not clear whether the stipulations in this Section 5 apply only to data centers proposed for “preapproved” sites, or whether these requirements generally apply to data centers across the Commonwealth. While it is intended to benefit data center developers by providing an expedited process for initial permit review, Section 5 of Senate Bill 991 creates a great deal of uncertainty.

If a data center developer has submitted the form discussed above on the DEP website (data center location and power sources), then the developer “. . . may file an application with the [DEP] to participate in an accelerated permit process for all required permits for a data center, a power generation facility and any transmission infrastructure associated with the data center.” That initial permit fee costs $10,000 and the application may only be submitted with “. . . a copy of any zoning clearance of approval and concept and commitment document for the project that contains such information as the [DEP] may require.”

That application must be “certified and sealed by a professional licensed to practice in this Commonwealth.” That certification entails a representation “. . . that the information in the application meets or exceeds the standards required by all applicable laws and regulations to which the permit pertains.” After a data center developer submits this application, the DEP has 3 days to provide notice of receipt. After that, “. . . the applicant may begin site preparation, brownfield rehabilitation, demolition work, storm water installation, earth moving and other preparatory site work, excluding building construction of the data center or associated power generation facility.” During, or after, that process, a data center developer has to submit “ . . . fully completed permitting for all environmental justice requirements, NPDES permits, earthmoving permits and brownfield requirements” before the developer can move to “Phase 2 permitting” under Senate Bill 991.

Putting aside the overarching question about whether Section 5 applies to all data centers, or just those located at preapproved sites, there is a substantial lack of clarity and guidance here. If a data center applicant may commence site work 3 days after receiving notice that DEP received the data center application, it is unclear why the application fee is $10,000, because there is likely not enough time for DEP to review an application before a developer could put a shovel in the ground.

While the cosponsorship memorandum highlights that complying with, or exceeding minimum standards should result in expedited permits, Section 5 of Senate Bill 991 does not identify “who” makes such a certification, and “what” they are certifying. The required certification is that the data center application “. . . meets or exceeds the standards required by all applicable laws and regulations to which the permit pertains”, but it does not identify what those laws and regulations “are”. The data center developer is left to guess. That is not helpful in streamlining a process or eliminating “red tape” because a developer must scour the public domain to find potentially applicable laws and regulations. And, to that end, since it is unclear “what” those applicable laws and regulations “are”, a data center developer could have a difficult time identifying the appropriate professional who could certify that the application meets or exceeds those unspecified standards.

Questions also arise about whether a data center developer could actually begin moving dirt just three days after submitting an application to the DEP. While reducing wait times for governmental reviews of applications is a worthy goal that most can support, this seems like too short a time period. Senate Bill 991 does not eliminate state-level approvals for development concepts that are needed for data centers. That recognizes that technical reviews are necessary. Allowing earth movement and the investment of capital just a few days after an application is submitted is abrupt and can lead to [unanswered] questions about what happens to the capital expended in those development activities if there are errors in the application materials.

Additionally, Section 5 requires data center developers to submit “. . . permitting for all environmental justice requirements, NPDES permits, [and] earthmoving permits . . .”, Senate Bill 991 places that as a condition that a data center developer must comply with “. . . [b]efore moving to Phase 2 permitting . . .” But, it is unclear how Section 5 of Senate Bill 991 can allow “earthmoving” just 3 days after a data center application is submitted, and potentially prior to any “earthmoving permits” being obtained. Just the same, it is not clear how Senate Bill 991 can seem to authorize land development activities which involve point sources of pollution discharges without proof of an NPDES permit being in place.

All of these points go to a larger fundamental question, which is “how” the data center application is actually created. Subpart (a) in Section 5 of Senate Bill 991 permits a party to “. . . file an application with the department to participate in an accelerated permit process for all required permits for a data center . . .” That does not actually establish a “one-stop” application for state-level data center approval. Instead, it allows a prospective data center developer to file an application to participate in a process that could involve more applications. This is one of the basic flaws of Senate Bill 991. It aims to increase investment in data centers by streamlining a process, but it does not clearly identify what the processes must be followed. That identification remains for property owners and data center developers.

Senate Bill 991 - Section 6

After completing the “Phase 1” permitting process, one can embark on “Phase 2” permitting. An applicant must submit all final design and engineering permits to the DEP, along with air quality permit applications, at least 60 days before starting construction on a data center. Like in “Phase 1” discussed above a “professional licensed to practice in this Commonwealth” must sign off that the application “meets or exceeds the standards required by all applicable laws and regulations to which the permits pertain”.

Once those materials are submitted, the DEP has 3 days to confirm receipt of that information and to issue a notice to proceed to the applicant. When the applicant receives confirmation that the DEP received the submitted materials, final project construction can begin.

This Section 6 shares the same issues as Section 5. It contemplates data center developers submitting “ . . . all final design and engineering plans” to the DEP without identifying what those plans are. Senate Bill 991 is not clear whether those plans are actually new, state-level requirements that must be met for a data center to proceed, or if that reference is used generally to describe materials that need to be submitted as part of other types of permits. Again, Senate Bill 991 contemplates a “professional licensed to practice in this Commonwealth” making representations about the contents of application materials without clearly identifying what those application materials “are” and the field that this “professional” must practice in.

In its haste to move a development process forward, Section 6 is internally contradictory. It requires “ . . . all final design and engineering plans along with air quality permit applications” to be submitted to the DEP “[a]t least 60 days before commencing the building construction stage of the project. . .” But, “[w]ithin three days of receipt . . .” of that application, “. . . the department shall confirm receipt to the applicant and issue a notice to proceed. . .” which allows the applicant to “ . . . begin final construction of the project.” In other words, the 60 day lead time before construction serves no purpose. Site construction can begin 3 days after “Phase 2” application materials are submitted. That timeline feels too expedited.

Senate Bill 991 - Sections 7 through 11

The last several sections of Senate Bill 991 do not contain the same level of detail as the preceding sections. Section 7 allows for the DEP to conduct a site inspection after a “Phase 1” application is submitted and authorizes the DEP to issue a stop-work order if the development is violating a statute or regulation. Again, as noted above, “Phase 1” development may, in and of itself, be in violation of statutes and regulations, so the method of enforcement here seems unclear.

Under Section 9, if a lawsuit is filed “. . . against any permit or aspect of a data center project. . .” the DEP must toll timelines for use of a permit while the lawsuit is pending. This is not an unreasonable provision, but it seems to assume that the only relevant state-level permitting is issued by DEP and that no other agency is involved. Or, Section 9 may be contemplating a singular application process that is entirely within the scope of DEP authority - which Senate Bill 991 does not establish.

Section 10 of Senate Bill 991 prohibits a person from submitting an application under this framework after December 31, 2040. But, Section 11 stipulates that if a person begins the permitting process before that, they can continue the process even if it extends beyond December 31, 2040.

Conclusion

On balance, Senate Bill 991 aims at a reasonable land development and economic goal—attracting data center investment to Pennsylvania. But, in its effort to dramatically streamline the permitting process, the bill is fundamentally undercut by its own lack of detail and internal contradictions. It sets unreasonably short timelines that preclude necessary administrative reviews, and—most critically—it repeatedly references a "one-stop" application process that this legislation fails to clearly define or to create. This leaves prospective developers and property owners at a loss regarding exactly what is needed at the state level, and ultimately, the uncertainty injected by Senate Bill 991 may do more to deter investment than the "red tape" it was intended to eliminate.

As Senate Bill 991 moves through the legislative process, we will review any updates or changes to its text and scope. In the interim, if you have any questions, please contact the author, Brendan A. O’Donnell at 412-288-2226 or odonnellba@hh-law.com and visit Houston Harbaugh’s Renewable Energy, Zoning and Land Use practice page.