House Bill 2359 would prohibit state and local governments from entering nondisclosure agreements with data center operators

Decision Lens

Pennsylvania’s House has passed a legislative package with direct implications for energy procurement strategy: mandatory energy and water consumption reporting with $10,000-per-day non-compliance penalties, a prohibition on ratepayer cost-shifting for data center grid interconnection, and a $40,000-per-megawatt annual levy on facilities above 25 MW peak load. These are not aspirational policy positions — they cleared a floor vote. The remaining gate is the Republican-controlled Senate, which introduces real but unresolved uncertainty. The operational and financial exposure for portfolio-scale operators in Pennsylvania is material and warrants evaluation now, not after Senate action.

90-Second Brief

This week, pennsylvania’s House passed four data center bills in March and April 2026, including annual energy and water reporting requirements beginning July 2027 and a framework directing the PUC to prohibit ratepayer subsidization of data center interconnection costs. Facilities with peak loads of 25 MW or more face a mandatory contribution to a low-income energy assistance fund at $40,000 per megawatt. All four bills now face the Republican-controlled Senate, where their prospects remain uncertain. The legislative driver is acute community pressure in Lackawanna County, where at least 13 data center projects are pending across multiple municipalities.

What’s Actually Happening

The Pennsylvania House passed House Bill 2150 — the Data Center Energy and Water Reporting Act — requiring annual disclosure of energy consumption by source and month, peak-load energy usage, water consumption by source and purpose, efficiency measures, waste-heat recovery activity, and a forward projection of demand. Reporting begins July 1, 2027. Non-compliance carries a $10,000-per-day penalty.

House Bill 1834 directs the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission to build a regulatory framework for data centers and explicitly bars electric distribution companies from passing data center interconnection, service, or incremental load costs onto other ratepayers. This is a direct policy intervention into how grid connection costs are allocated — a consequential change for operators who have benefited from cost socialization in utility rate structures.

House Bill 2151 establishes an optional model zoning ordinance for municipalities that lack planning resources, including provisions requiring utility certification of grid capacity. House Bill 2359 would prohibit state and local governments from entering nondisclosure agreements with data center operators. The Data Center Coalition — representing AWS, Google, Microsoft, Meta, Oracle, and OpenAI — opposed the package.

Why It Matters for Global Heads of Data Center Energy?

The cost-shifting prohibition in H.B. 1834 carries the most immediate portfolio implication. If enacted, it removes the implicit subsidy that data centers have received when utilities spread interconnection and grid upgrade costs across their full customer base. Operators planning large-load interconnection in Pennsylvania must now model full cost internalization — which can materially alter the levelized cost of power for new sites.

The $40,000-per-MW levy under H.B. 1834 for facilities above 25 MW adds a recurring operational obligation with direct budget impact. For a campus at 100 MW peak load, that is $4 million annually directed to LIHEAP. A proposed 1,600 MW campus in Archbald would face a theoretical $64 million annual levy under this structure, illustrating the scale exposure for hyperscaler-class builds.

The reporting mandate in H.B. 2150 also has procurement implications: monthly energy source disclosure and projected demand reporting will require tighter integration between energy procurement, sustainability, and operations data — and expose consumption patterns to state regulatory scrutiny at a level not previously required in Pennsylvania.

The Forward View

The Senate is the next decision point, and the Republican majority’s position is not declared. The presence of at least one Republican Senate co-sponsor on the moratorium proposal signals cross-party concern, but the full legislative package is unlikely to pass unchanged. The more probable near-term outcome is selective advancement — reporting requirements and ratepayer protection provisions have broader political support than the cost-levy structure.

If any version of H.B. 1834’s ratepayer protection clause reaches the Governor’s desk, it will likely be cited in other states facing similar data center load growth pressures. Pennsylvania would establish a replicable model for cost internalization that utility commissions in PJM-adjacent states could reference. Operators should treat Pennsylvania as a leading indicator for regulatory posture in mid-Atlantic and Northeast markets, not an isolated state-level event.

A 180-day municipal moratorium bill and a separate three-year statewide moratorium are also in the legislative pipeline, neither formally introduced as of April 2026. Their trajectory will depend heavily on Senate appetite and judicial outcomes from ongoing zoning challenges in Lackawanna County.

What We’re Uncertain About?

  • Senate passage probability and timeline. The Republican-controlled Senate has not signaled which bills, if any, it will advance. Resolution depends on committee assignments, lobbying outcomes, and whether any Republican members in high-density data center districts break from caucus position. No confirmed timeline exists.

  • Scope of ratepayer cost-shift prohibition. H.B. 1834’s language covers costs “directly attributed to data centers’ electric service” or costs “otherwise not incurred” without data center demand — but the precise regulatory definition will be set by PUC rulemaking. How utilities and operators classify shared infrastructure upgrades remains open until that process concludes.

  • Whether model zoning ordinance becomes de facto mandatory. Legal advocates have flagged that codifying H.B. 2151 within state statute — rather than as an advisory resource — could allow data center developers to invoke it in curative amendment proceedings. Whether Pennsylvania courts treat it as a baseline standard is unresolved.

  • Statewide moratorium viability. The proposed three-year statewide moratorium has not yet been formally introduced. Its legislative and legal durability — given municipalities’ obligation to permit all lawful land uses somewhere within their borders — is genuinely uncertain.

One Question to Bring to Your Team

If Pennsylvania’s ratepayer cost-shift prohibition becomes law and is replicated in one or two adjacent PJM states, how does that change the all-in cost model for sites currently in our interconnection queue — and do any of those sites cross a viability threshold that requires us to revisit queue strategy now?

Sources

  • Standardspeaker — Locally sponsored bills addressing data centers pass state House (Link)

Tags