BY Kristi Smith, President, Board of Commissioners, Hampden Township
It all started before I was elected as a commissioner. A developer approached a couple of sitting commissioners with an idea for his tract of land: a data center. Zoning ordinances would need to be changed, but the developer emphasized benefits to the township….jobs, revenue, etc. The commissioners bit. In short order, the commissioners held a public hearing to discuss a zoning ordinance change that would allow a data center in an area zoned for office park, rather than locating it in an industrial zone. A seven-page data center ordinance was suddenly proposed. The commissioners began the hearing by explaining that the township was exposed because it had no ordinances governing data centers in the Township’s current zoning ordinance. They further explained that without rules, a data center could be located anywhere, and we would have no control over where it might be constructed. The commissioners told the standing-room-only crowd that they were trying to protect the township. They failed to mention that they had been approached with a specific location for a data center, and that the tract of land they had in mind would put a sprawling data center in the backyard of many township neighborhoods, in violation of current zoning. Fortunately, Township residents were not fooled! They did their homework, they were passionate, and they spoke up. The overwhelmingly negative responses were emotional and moving. The commissioners, four of whom were up for re-election in a few months, voted not to adopt the proposed ordinance.
With the election, I changed from a concerned citizen to a concerned President of the Board of Commissioners. It was now my job to address the data center risk. My quest to research the impacts of data centers, educate myself, and find a way to protect Hampden Township was not a task I took on unaided. Commissioner John Matthew Smith was a partner on this project, and together we drew on the expertise of a wide range of experts. We felt that the original ordinance was designed to give developers the upper hand by building in maximum flexibility for data center owners without appropriate protections for residents and our environment. Our task was clear: we needed to draft a comprehensive ordinance that would ensure residents were protected from development that came too quickly and without enough thought for the long-term consequences data centers apparently hold.
We identified multiple areas of concern, including local climate implications, land use provisions, air quality impacts, power generation/grid requirements, water impacts, noise and light pollution, and decommissioning ramifications. The following information is offered as a blueprint for other communities facing similar data center challenges. Specifically, I will elaborate on the topics we considered most important and the parties we contacted to help establish an ordinance framework. Local climate implications. Our first advice came from a retired Penn State meteorology professor. He noted that Three Mile Island Unit 2 produced approximately 840 megawatts of power—less than the projected demand of some proposed single data centers—yet required two massive hyperbolic cooling towers to safely lift and disperse waste heat. Even with that infrastructure, some scientists found that Pennsylvania has experienced localized “nuclear effect” snowfall events near large thermal facilities, in some cases producing one to two inches of snow due to heat and moisture interactions in the atmosphere. A one-gigawatt data center pulling such a massive continuous electrical load will generate a commensurate amount of waste heat. In the professor’s opinion, the operation of a large data center in Hampden Township, a narrow valley between mountain ranges, without cooling towers or equivalent heat-dispersion systems, raises serious unanswered questions about amplified heat-island effects, altered wind and inversion patterns, and the formation of high-level cirrus clouds that could affect regional temperature and precipitation. The professor emphasized that the atmospheric consequences of injecting this magnitude of heat into a topographically constrained area have not been adequately studied and that, unlike traditional power plants, data centers often proceed without rigorous meteorological modeling, underscoring the need for site-specific climate and weather impact analysis before approval.
Because there were a range of other environmental impacts to be considered – including impacts to the land, air, and water- we reached out to Hampden residents with specialized Environmental proficiency to review the proposed draft ordinance, and they provided valuable assistance. Many townships have Environmental Advisory Councils (EACs), which could provide similar expertise. These residents also connected us with Penn Future (a non-profit environmental advocacy organization based in Harrisburg), which provided additional environmental knowledge to craft and evaluate the proposed ordinance.
Air quality and power generation. Not all power is created equally. We saw news reports regarding a spectacularly dirty data center in Tennessee. This was particularly troubling for us because our area already suffers from air quality challenges. Therefore, we were concerned about the additional problems on-site power generation could cause.
A nearby municipality is served by a major high-voltage transmission line, making it an obvious candidate for large-scale data center development. I found through my research that Hampden Township currently lacks a grid interconnection of that magnitude, but it possesses a potentially more strategic asset: close proximity to the Mariner East Pipeline, which delivers abundant, relatively inexpensive natural gas from the Marcellus Shale to export terminals at Marcus Hook. That access creates a fundamentally different economic pathway—one centered on “bring-your-own-power” and behind-the-meter generation—where on-site electricity can be produced more reliably and, in some cases, more affordably than grid-supplied power. I felt it was important not to focus so narrowly on grid capacity that you missed how these behind-the-meter economics could reshape both development pressures and environmental risks.
I learned that in areas without natural gas or adequate grid connectivity, data centers rely on diesel- or natural-gas internal-combustion gensets because they are cheap and readily available, despite being highly emissions-intensive. Cleaner turbine-based systems are far more expensive and face multi-year waitlists, yet they still emit PM2.5 (particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers) and other harmful pollutants. In response to these “dirty air” outcomes, Hampden’s then proposed ordinance was updated to strictly limit on-site generation: it is prohibited except for backup purposes, testing is restricted to normal business hours, and only clean, non-combustive technologies—such as natural-gas-powered fuel cells—are permitted, where the primary byproduct is carbon dioxide rather than criteria pollutants. The ordinance also includes a fail-safe tied to public health, requiring operations to be curtailed when the EPA Air Quality Index reaches 70 or higher, using two designated monitoring stations to ensure clear, enforceable accountability.
Water impacts. Public comments at the Board of Commissioners meeting and public hearing raised concerns about water use and its potential effects on the water table, including wells running dry and impacts on natural waterways such as creeks, runs, and rivers. For advice on how to handle this issue, we turned to Ginny Kerslake with Food & Water Watch. She provided insight and suggestions to added drought and water-table protection component that relies on warnings and thresholds issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission to require curtailment of withdrawals from the water table. Additionally, we reviewed testimony from the public hearing indicating that local water tables are already running low and that area creeks are at historic lows. The ordinance includes provisions addressing private wells, requiring data center operators to pay for the redrilling or restoration of wells if their operations cause water loss to well-dependent homes.
Protecting the water table was not the only water- related issue. We learned that Data centers require huge volumes of water to cool their operations, and various systems are used to achieve this. While closed-loop systems pose minimal risk to groundwater, some facilities use open-loop systems that withdraw water from the aquifer and then reinject or discharge it. I conferred with Environmental attorney Jennifer Gates, with Pearl Legal Group in Portland, Oregon, who suggested requirements in the proposed ordinance to ensure these systems do not contaminate drinking water or degrade the aquifer. The ordinance requires testing and verification that any water returned to the ground is of equal or better quality than when it was withdrawn. These safeguards were added to protect local wells and groundwater resources from unintended contamination.
Noise and vibration. Based on comments from a Loudoun County, Virginia, resident at the prior Board of Commissioners public hearing and meeting, we learned this is a significant problem for residents near data centers, so we included strict noise and vibration limitations in the ordinance.
Decommissioning. While artificial intelligence and data centers are currently experiencing rapid growth—often compared to the dot-com boom of the late 1990s—history shows that not every boom lasts forever. To protect the community in the event of abandonment caused by financial failure, mismanagement, or industry contraction, Gates suggested that the ordinance require a decommissioning bond. This ensures that funds are available to properly dismantle facilities and remediate sites if operations cease. Hampden Township has already experienced the long-term consequences of abandonment, including a former manufacturing facility that shuttered its operations, leaving deteriorating buildings and environmental contamination. This bond requirement is intended to ensure that such a burden never again falls on taxpayers or future generations.
Light pollution. During discussions at an environmental meeting, we learned that data centers are frequently over-illuminated and can generate significant light pollution. Unlike traditional industrial uses, these facilities often operate around the clock and rely on extensive exterior lighting for security and operations. Excessive nighttime lighting can disrupt migratory bird navigation, which depends on natural light cues, and can interfere with the sleep, health, and quality of life of nearby residents. In response, the proposed ordinance addresses lighting impacts to ensure that necessary illumination is carefully controlled, appropriately shielded, and designed to minimize off-site glare and environmental disruption while maintaining safety and operational needs.
Land use considerations. The proposed ordinance changed data centers from permitted use to conditional use in appropriate zoning districts. As a proposed Conditional use, I felt it ensured the Township would have tighter controls on what could be built and the specifications developers would have to meet.
Having what we thought was a fairly thorough ordinance drafted, we were able to develop a comprehensive, forward-looking ordinance which is now working its way through an official review with Township Staff, Planning Commission, and County Planning Agency, and for public hearing and action by the Board of Commissioners.
Data center operations are evolving quickly, and, to some degree, this evolution is intended to mitigate negative impacts and risks. For that reason, ongoing monitoring of this issue is important. It is possible that data centers could be a net positive development for a community if these impacts and risks are well-managed, not just by local ordinances, but by technological changes. On the other hand, the size, scale, and number of data centers can cumulatively increase otherwise manageable individual impacts. Data centers perform better when grouped, so the proliferation of centers in one area is a major consideration. Another fact worth noting is that data center impacts extend beyond a township’s authority to regulate. A collective effort is needed to ensure the Public Utility Commission and the state are effectively regulating data centers to avoid those impacts. For example, utility rates for residents could increase because the costs of new and improved electricity infrastructure solely to support data centers are charged to all residents rather than just the data centers.
I will conclude with a few lessons we learned from this experience. First, remember that you represent your residents, so I encourage you to consider their thoughts and concerns. Next, don’t try to act fast. Instead, take time to understand the potential effects and do it right. Finally, don’t feel like you have to do it alone. I encourage you to reach out to experts for help. The long list of individuals and nonprofits included in this article is a sample of the resources available to help any township facing the daunting task of creating a data center ordinance.
Article from the February 2026 Municipal Reporter | Pennsylvania Data Centers Edition
