BY John F. Walko, Esq. and Finn L. Skovdal, Esq. of Kilkenny Law, LLC.
Pennsylvania is standing at the center of a global AI gold rush. With potential multi-billion-dollar investments from tech giants, state lawmakers are racing to modernize the Commonwealth’s regulatory landscape to prepare for a surge in data center development across Pennsylvania. In doing so, lawmakers are attempting to strike a balance between the immense economic advantages inherent in data centers and the significant demands data centers place on local infrastructure, the environment, and surrounding residents. To navigate these competing interests, several legislative bills are proposed that would “fast-track” data center development throughout the Commonwealth by preempting local municipal land use and zoning laws.
As expected, the prospect of Commonwealth preemption of local laws to benefit data center development has sparked significant pushback from municipal leaders throughout the Commonwealth. Some municipal leaders and residents argue that these “fast-track” laws prioritize corporate growth over community safety, taxpayer costs, and environmental protections. However, proponents of local preemption argue that state-level oversight is necessary to transform Pennsylvania into a global tech leader by removing the “regulatory patchwork” that commonly exists in and between local municipalities that delay or discourage multi-billion-dollar projects.
Municipal officials should be aware of the mechanics and potential results of these proposed data center preemption laws so, if such legislation is enacted, the municipality can avoid the need to amend or revise their conflicting and unenforceable code requirements, and better plan for permitted land development, noise control, and zoning regulations.
Artificial Intelligence and Data Center Act
The most apparent example of the Commonwealth’s proposed preemption of local zoning laws is found in the Artificial Intelligence and Data Center Act, proposed under Senate Bill 939. This Act would preempt certain zoning regulations of “high impact data centers,” defined as a data center with a “critical IT load of 50 megawatts or higher.” Specifically, local zoning codes would be prohibited from establishing certain siting and dimensional standards, requirements, conditions, or limitations that are more stringent than “other industrial uses or other land development within the particular zoning district where the high impact data centers are situated within the local government.” Such compelled uniformity mandates identical requirements of heights of structures, screening, fencing, lighting, and noise generation. As a result, if a municipality allows a warehouse to be 60 feet tall and requires 50 feet of natural screening from a residential property, it cannot limit a high impact data center to a height of 50 feet and/or require 100 feet of natural screening, even if believed that the data center would generate greater noise or light pollution. In such circumstances, local officials are forced to “level the playing field,” effectively stripping them of the power to create data-center-specific protections.
In addition to the zoning preemption that would be established, the Artificial Intelligence and Data Center Act would also impose a strict “shot clock” on local permit reviews. Specifically, a municipality would have no more than 30 days to process a use permit and 120 days for a conditional use approval. If a municipality fails to act within these windows, the application is approved by default. This compelslocal planning boards, zoning officials, and governing bodies to prioritize data center developers over other community business, and prevents ongoing negotiations and community feedback meetings that draw out the length of the application review and approval timeline.
In addition to proposed legislation, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro introduced the “Governor’s Responsible Infrastructure Development” (“GRID”) standards in his February 2026 budget proposal to establish a state-mandated “responsible” framework for data center development. While the Governor frames these as “guardrails” to protect residents, they also serve as a blueprint that municipalities are expected to follow. Notably, much like the zoning and shot-clock mandates in the Artificial Intelligence and Data Center Act, one guardrail is designed to promote speed and certainty in the permitting of data centers.
Data Center Siting and Permitting Act
Another bill that would result in preemption for limited properties, the Data Center Siting and Permitting Act, proposed under Senate Bill 991, aims to establish a streamlined process where the Department of Environmental Protection selects at least fifteen preapproved sites—such as decommissioned power plants—and provides an accelerated two-phase permitting process intended to bypass the typical local municipal land use review, permitting, and approval process for the construction of a data center, a power generation facility, and any transmission infrastructure associated with the data center. Although a data center applicant is required to submit a “zoning clearance or approval” with their application, which presumably would be issued from the local municipality, the DEP would oversee the land development approval, construction, and inspection process that is traditionally reserved for the governing body. Although limited in scope to the sites selected by the DEP, the land development process for a data center on a site selected under this Act would be dictated by the DEP and not the local municipality.
Reliable Energy Siting and Electric Transition Board
Finally, Pennsylvania House Bill 502 (2025–2026 session) aims to streamline the development of large-scale energy infrastructure by shifting certain land-use approval powers from local municipalities to a state-appointed board, referred to as the Pennsylvania Reliable Energy Siting and Electric Transition (RESET) Board. Although not specifically directed at data centers, House Bill 502 would permit an energy generation facility constructed with/for a data center to bypass local land development regulations. Namely, if a data center is built with its own on-site energy generation facility (25 MW or more), the data center can apply to the RESET Board for a Certificate of Reliable Energy Supply (CRES). The RESET Board would serve as the sole entity for approving major energy-related projects, thereby bypassing local approval and superseding local zoning and land-use restrictions for the energy-generation portion of a data center project.
In line with House Bill 502, one of Governor Shapiro’s GRID “guardrails” is designed to promote power self-sufficiency by requiring developers to pay for their own new power generation rather than passing those costs on to existing utility customers. As such, if House Bill 502 is enacted, this guardrail would effectively require that all data centers are built with their own on-site energy generation facility. In turn, such on-site energy generation facilities would be approved by the RESET Board and not the local municipality.
In addition to the preemption of energy generation facility development, House Bill 502 also includes a critical “look-back” provision that restricts the RESET Board from issuing a CRES for an energy generation facility proposed in an area zoned as residential since January 1, 2024. As such, any rezoning to residential since January 1, 2024 to block a RESET Board approved project would likely be deemed invalid, if challenged.
Conclusion
Since the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code requires a municipality to provide for all legitimate land uses within its borders, including data centers, a municipality likely cannot entirely ban data centers. Accordingly, the Commonwealth does not need to pass legislation to compel municipalities to permit data centers. Rather, any local ordinance that attempts to ban data center uses would likely be deemed unconstitutionally exclusionary, which could then permit the data center developer to build their project anywhere in the municipality, regardless of local preference.
To prepare for this potential preemption and the pervasiveness of data centers, it is recommended that municipalities ensure that their existing industrial zoning regulations and noise controls are robust enough to handle data center impacts before such laws may take effect. If a municipality’s general industrial standards—such as maximum height, decibel limits, and setbacks—are already well-defined and defensible, the “compelled uniformity” from the Commonwealth becomes less of a threat. By strengthening these standards now, local governments may be able to establish certain vested rights and a baseline of protection that may remain enforceable through the Commonwealth’s “fast-track” approval process.
In addition, even though the possibility of preemption in looming, it is recommended that municipalities specifically address data center development in their zoning and land use codes to better regulate any data center applications that could be submitted. In this regard, Pennsylvania House Bill 2151 directed the Department of Community and Economic Development to create a model ordinance that local governments can use to set clear standards for data center development. Although this may be a useful tool, ultimately local governments should enact what works best for their community. In the race for AI infrastructure, the best defense for a local municipality is a proactive and modern land use and zoning code.
Article from the February 2026 Municipal Reporter | Pennsylvania Data Centers Edition
