Surge in computer data centers spark concern over water demands – TribLIVE.com

Report on Data Center Development in Pennsylvania and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction: Balancing Technological Advancement with Sustainability

The proliferation of proposed data processing centers in Pennsylvania, powered by large-scale natural gas plants, presents a significant challenge to the state’s commitment to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). A key case is the proposed 4.4-gigawatt Homer City Redevelopment Co. plant, which highlights the tension between advancing SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and safeguarding environmental resources critical to SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 13 (Climate Action). This report analyzes the environmental and regulatory landscape surrounding this trend, focusing on its alignment with sustainable development principles.

2.0 Water Resource Management and SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

The substantial water requirements for cooling data centers and their associated power plants pose a direct threat to the sustainable management of water resources, a core tenet of SDG 6. Local communities and environmental organizations have raised concerns over the potential strain on Pennsylvania’s watersheds.

• Homer City Project: The plan to draw an undisclosed amount of water from Two Lick Creek for a data center and power plant has caused alarm. The creek is a vital water source, and the lack of a cap on water withdrawal conflicts with principles of responsible water governance.
• Statewide Concern: With at least 23 data centers proposed across Pennsylvania, the cumulative impact on water availability for existing residential and commercial users is a primary concern. This challenges the goal of ensuring available and sustainable water management for all.
• Utility Challenges: Water utilities face difficulties in meeting sudden, massive increases in demand without impacting service or affordability for residential customers, potentially undermining equitable access to water.

3.0 Energy Consumption, Infrastructure, and Climate Impact

The development of data centers is intrinsically linked to energy infrastructure and climate goals. The current reliance on fossil fuels to power these facilities runs counter to the objectives of SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 13 (Climate Action).

1. Fossil Fuel Dependency: The construction of new, large-scale natural gas power plants, such as the 4.4-gigawatt facility in Homer City and a 3-gigawatt plant in Upper Burrell, entrenches fossil fuel dependency and increases greenhouse gas emissions.
2. Infrastructure Strain: The immense energy demand from these facilities places a significant burden on the existing power grid, raising questions about the resilience and sustainability of the state’s energy infrastructure as outlined in SDG 9.
3. Lack of Renewable Integration: The projects, as initially proposed, lack a clear commitment to integrating renewable energy sources, representing a missed opportunity to align industrial development with the global transition to clean energy.

4.0 Governance, Community Impact, and Legislative Responses

The situation underscores the critical role of governance and regulation in creating SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions). The legislative and community response to data center development reflects a broader debate on balancing economic growth with environmental protection and public oversight.

4.1 Proposed Regulatory Frameworks

• House Bill 1834: This proposal aims to enhance regulatory oversight and align development with sustainability targets. Key provisions include:
  • Granting the Public Utility Commission (PUC) oversight over commercial data centers.
  • Mandating that associated utilities generate at least 25% of their power from renewable sources, directly supporting SDG 7.
  • Requiring financial contributions to low-income energy assistance programs.
• Senate Proposal: A competing bill seeks to fast-track the permitting process by limiting public and environmental reviews. This approach could undermine the principles of transparent and accountable institutions (SDG 16) by:
  • Circumventing public review processes.
  • Eliminating permits related to water use, erosion control, and wastewater.
  • Granting the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) only three days for application review.

4.2 Community and Environmental Advocacy

Local watershed associations and statewide environmental groups like PennFuture are advocating for stronger institutional frameworks. Their call for mandatory water feasibility studies for data centers is a proactive measure to ensure that development does not compromise the objectives of SDG 6 and promotes the creation of sustainable and resilient communities under SDG 11.

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The article highlights several issues related to the development of data centers and their supporting power plants, which connect to the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

   • SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

     The primary concern discussed in the article is the “massive water demands” of the proposed power plant and data center on Two Lick Creek. The potential for this and other similar projects to “strain Pennsylvania’s water resources” directly relates to the goal of ensuring the availability and sustainable management of water.

   • SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

     The article focuses on a “4.4-gigawatt natural gas-fired power plant” built to power a data center. This touches upon energy generation, consumption, and efficiency. Furthermore, the proposed House Bill 1834, which would require utilities operating data centers to “generate at least 25% of their power from renewable sources,” directly addresses the transition towards cleaner energy.

   • SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

     The development of “hyperscale data centers” and associated power plants represents a significant investment in new infrastructure. The article discusses the proliferation of these projects (“at least 23 proposed data centers across the state”), linking to the goal of building resilient infrastructure and fostering industrialization.

   • SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

     The concerns of “local residents and environmental groups” about the impact of these large-scale industrial projects on local resources like Two Lick Creek are central to this goal. The article also mentions a “proposed zoning ordinance that would require a water feasibility study for data centers,” which is a tool for sustainable urban and settlement planning.

   • SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

     The article discusses the immense resource requirements (water and energy) of data centers. The core issue is the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources, as the projects’ water usage is currently “not capped,” and their energy needs are described as “intense.”

   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

     The article details the legislative and regulatory responses to the development of data centers. The introduction of House Bill 1834 to give the Public Utility Commission (PUC) “regulatory oversight” and a competing Senate bill that would “fast-track permitting” and “circumvent public reviews” highlights the importance of developing effective, accountable, and transparent institutions to manage development and its environmental impacts.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   Based on the article’s content, the following specific targets can be identified:

   • Target 6.4: By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity.

     The article’s focus on the “massive water demands” of data centers and the concern that this usage could “strain Pennsylvania’s water resources” directly relates to this target. The fact that the amount of water the plant can remove is “not capped” underscores the challenge of ensuring sustainable withdrawals.

   • Target 7.2: By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.

     This target is explicitly referenced in the proposed House Bill 1834, which would “require those utilities to generate at least 25% of their power from renewable sources.” This legislative proposal is a direct attempt to increase the share of renewable energy in the context of new, high-demand industrial facilities.

   • Target 9.4: By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes.

     The debate over how data centers will cool their processors—using water-intensive systems versus closed-loop systems or electricity—is central to this target. The proposal for a “closed-loop system” in Springdale, which requires significantly less water, is an example of adopting more resource-efficient technology.

   • Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.

     The involvement of the “Blacklick Creek Watershed Association” and PennFuture’s development of a “proposed zoning ordinance that would require a water feasibility study” are examples of participatory and integrated planning aimed at managing the impact of industrial development on local communities and their resources.

   • Target 12.2: By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.

     The entire article revolves around the efficient use of water and energy. The lack of disclosure on “how much water the two intake pipes will draw from the creek” and the uncapped withdrawal permit are in direct opposition to the goal of sustainable management of natural resources.

   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.

     The article contrasts two legislative approaches: one (House Bill 1834) that increases regulatory oversight and another (the Senate bill) that would “circumvent public reviews.” This highlights the ongoing debate about the level of public participation and institutional responsiveness in decision-making processes for major infrastructure projects.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   Yes, the article mentions or implies several quantitative and qualitative indicators:

   • Indicator for Target 6.4 (Water-use efficiency): The volume of water withdrawn from local sources. The article provides specific figures that can be used as indicators, such as the “5.6 million gallons of water per day” used by the previous plant, the “2.2 million gallons of water a day” drawn by the local water company, and the required minimum discharge of “7.1 million gallons per day” into the creek. The yet-to-be-disclosed water usage of the new plant is a key missing data point for this indicator.
   • Indicator for Target 7.2 (Renewable energy share): The percentage of energy generated from renewable sources. The proposed legislation provides a clear quantitative indicator: “at least 25% of their power from renewable sources.” The power capacity of the plants, such as “4.4-gigawatt” and “3-gigawatt,” also serves as a baseline indicator for energy consumption.
   • Indicator for Target 9.4 (Sustainable infrastructure): The number of facilities adopting resource-efficient technologies. The article contrasts different cooling systems: traditional water-based cooling versus a “closed-loop system” that requires only an initial “500,000 gallons.” The adoption rate of such closed-loop systems across the “23 proposed data centers” would be a measurable indicator.
   • Indicator for Target 11.3 (Sustainable planning): The existence and implementation of local planning regulations. The “proposed zoning ordinance that would require a water feasibility study” is a qualitative indicator of progress towards integrated and sustainable planning for industrial development.
   • Indicator for Target 16.7 (Participatory decision-making): The existence of laws and policies governing public access to information and participation. The article presents two opposing bills. The passing of a bill that strengthens regulatory oversight and public review versus one that would “circumvent public reviews” serves as a clear indicator of the state’s commitment to participatory decision-making.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

   SDGs	Targets	Indicators
   SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation	6.4: Increase water-use efficiency and ensure sustainable withdrawals.	Volume of water withdrawn daily (e.g., “5.6 million gallons of water per day”).
   SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy	7.2: Increase the share of renewable energy.	Percentage of power generated from renewable sources (proposed at “25%”).
   SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure	9.4: Upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable.	Adoption rate of resource-efficient technologies (e.g., “closed-loop system” for cooling).
   SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities	11.3: Enhance inclusive and sustainable planning and management.	Implementation of zoning ordinances requiring impact studies (e.g., “water feasibility study”).
   SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production	12.2: Achieve sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.	Existence of caps or limits on water withdrawal (currently “not capped”).
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions	16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, and participatory decision-making.	Legislative framework for public review of development projects (e.g., bills to increase oversight vs. “circumvent public reviews”).

Source: triblive.com