Fifty-seven projects on the state's list. Seven have money and a permit on the record.

Summary

Pennsylvania DEP's Data Center Permit Tracker listed 57 projects on 2026-08-19. We graded every one of them against three kinds of public evidence: a DEP filing, a local approval, and financing or a named end user. Seven have all three on the record. Twenty-six have one or two. Twenty-four have a DEP row, a press mention, or a land position, and nothing else.

Table A (20 projects with a DEP permit application): 7 Established · 13 Partial · 0 Announced only. Table B (37 projects DEP lists with no application): 0 Established · 13 Partial · 24 Announced only.

How to read a grade

A grade counts which of three kinds of public evidence exist for a project on the date shown:

1. A DEP filing. At least one permit application on DEP's tracker, applied or complete.
2. A local approval. A municipal zoning, conditional-use, or land-development approval on the record.
3. Money or a named end user. Committed financing, drawn debt, a power purchase agreement, a signed capital transaction, or a publicly named tenant or operator-owner.

Established

A DEP filing, a local approval, and financing or a named end user — all three on the record.

Partial

One or two of the three legs; the missing leg is named in the reason.

Announced only

A DEP row, a press mention, or a land position, and nothing else in the record.

In our working files these grades are called Real, Watch, and Zombie; the criteria are identical. Every row below carries its grade, a one-line reason, its source tags, the as-of date, and a Dispute this grade link. Blank or "not published" means no public document states it.

The reading

Seven of the 57 projects on the state's list have money and a permit on the record. Of the 57 on DEP's Data Center Permit Tracker [D], the grading pass finds 7 Established, 26 Partial, and 24 Announced only — consistent with the Executive Order's own finding that "most proposals are speculative, with no identified end user" [EO].

The seven Established projects share one shape: money and machine already on site — a power purchase agreement, a signed capital transaction, drawn project debt, unanimous final approvals, or active construction. They are A1 Salem Township (AWS) · A2 Falls Township (AWS) · A3 216 Greenfield Road (Chirisa / CoreWeave) · A4 Keystone Connect (TECfusions) · A6 Project Phoenix (Aligned) · A8 QTS Salem · A19 Sharon (Keel) [D][T]. Nothing in Table B — the 37 DEP-listed projects with no permit application filed — is Established; that half of the list is 13 Partial and 24 Announced only [D].

What the new regime does to the unfiled rows is the other half of the reading. Executive Order 2026-05 applies to applications submitted after 2026-08-18 [EO]; every Table A application predates that cutoff (the latest was submitted 2026-08-07 [DP]), so the order reaches each of those projects exactly where its unfiled phases live [COA]. For Table B the exposure is total: with nothing filed before the cutoff, every future permit application lands inside the order, and any project over 25 MW that wants the coordinated-review lane signs the full template Consent Order and Agreement with no Addendum A relief, because the existing-permittee gate requires a pre-order application [COA]. The agreement trades that one thing — staying in the coordinated-review lane — for perpetual, campus-wide obligations that reach tenants, carry per-megawatt-per-day penalties, and waive nearly all appeal rights [COA].

EO 2026-05 and the Consent Order in one page

The order. Executive Order 2026-05 was signed 2026-08-18 and took effect immediately. It covers data centers over 25 MW through DEP template Consent Orders and applies to applications submitted after 2026-08-18. Paragraph 1e removed all data centers from the Fast Track program (nine projects had been flagged) [SP][HN]. Paragraph 2a bans agency non-disclosure agreements. Paragraph 2b mandates a state-published public map of all proposed projects — the DEP tracker itself [D-APP]. It sits on top of the PA PUC large-load model tariff (final order 2026-05-13, for loads of 50 MW and up) [PUC].

What signing the template Consent Order and Agreement obligates [COA]:

• Disclosure. The Findings put into a public state document: acreage and floor area [¶F], peak MW now and future [¶G], power source and provider [¶H], percent non-emitting [¶I], PUE [¶J], heat reuse [¶K], backup MW [¶L], wastewater and water in gallons per day, source, and WUE [¶M–R]. The signer "shall not challenge or deny" any finding with DEP [¶2.a].
• Energy (¶4) — the expensive core. Unless a pre-order application for more than 25 MW and an executed energy-services or transmission-services agreement both existed at signing (in which case Addendum A softens only ¶4.a–c), the signer builds or buys Incremental Capacity and Incremental Energy covering full peak, within the local deliverability area, from resources in service on or after 2025-01-01 [¶4.a–c, ¶3.m–n]. Plus the Clean Firm ladder: 10% from 2027, 14.5% from 2030, 32% from 2035, procured in Pennsylvania [¶4.d]; gas is excluded [¶3.c]; shortfalls become an Alternative Compliance Payment to PEDA [¶4.e]. Binding documentation is due before the final operating permit [¶4.f]; the energy agreement must be no less stringent than the PUC model tariff [¶4.i]; roofs must be solar-ready [¶4.j].
• Community and jobs (¶5). Public meetings; at least 200 prevailing-wage construction jobs; 50 permanent full-time jobs at 125% of the statewide average wage by year four; at least $250M of New Investment; and a community-benefits-agreement offer to both the municipal and county governments with ten enumerated, open-ended items [¶5.d–e].
• Environmental operations (¶6). Third-party certification; zero-emission or Tier 4 backup generation; three public continuous air monitors; a Water Plan [¶6.a–d].
• The ratchet. The signer must propose these terms as conditions in all future site permits and may not challenge their inclusion [¶4.k, ¶5.f–g, ¶6.e–g, ¶7.c–d].
• Tenant disclosure. Any tenant must be named to DEP within five business days of a commercial agreement; tenant names become a public DEP record within five business days [¶8.c].
• Enforcement. Stipulated penalties of $25,000 to $100,000 per MW per day for ¶4 violations and $25,000 per day otherwise, applied automatically [¶10]; near-total waiver of appeal rights [¶12, ¶22]; no sunset clause — the obligations run with the project.

Table A — projects with a DEP permit application (20)

DEP Permits=YES rows. MW is the announced or filed capacity; DEP's tracker carries no capacity field. "COA-likely" is our read of whether the project has unfiled phases that would put it inside the Consent Order regime. The tables scroll sideways on small screens.

† Row updated in the 2026-08-20 verification pass against DEP's permit-level data and named press. Table A: 7 Established · 13 Partial · 0 Announced only.

Table B — DEP-listed projects with no permit application (37)

DEP Permits=NO rows: DEP lists them as "Proposed (No Applications Received)." None can be Established without a filing.

Table B: 0 Established · 13 Partial · 24 Announced only. B35 and B36 are one land assemblage that DEP lists as two projects.

Coverage and limits

• What is covered. All 57 projects on DEP's tracker CSV as of 2026-08-19 — the 20 with a permit application (up from the 15 DEP cited in May 2026 testimony) and the 37 listed without one. That CSV is the base list; the May count of "about 58" is superseded by it.
• The list has since grown. DEP's tracker listed 65 projects on 2026-09-01. The eight added after 2026-08-19 are not graded here and will be picked up in the next version.
• Not accessed or not pulled:
  • Department of Revenue certified-facility names. The 14 holders of the Computer Data Center Equipment exemption are counted in the Executive Order but never named publicly; DOR's annual reports are aggregate-only [DOR]. A Right-to-Know request is the unlock. No row states whether the project holds the exemption.
  • PUC large-load dockets and PJM queue positions were not queried per project; MW figures are announced, not filed, unless the row says otherwise.
  • MW is not published for about half the rows. DEP publishes no capacity field and many developers never state one.
• Per-permit detail is now covered. The DEP tracker app also publishes a permit-level CSV — authorization type, eFACTS ID, permit number, submission date, and status for every permit on the 20 Table A projects (108 permit rows) [DP]. It was pulled 2026-08-20 and used to verify Table A. It is not reproduced in this report.
• Caveat on the citizen tracker [T]: citizen-maintained, published "as is," last updated 2026-08-16; its zoning and land flags are its editors' judgment. Table A grade-driving facts were re-verified against primary and named press sources on 2026-08-20; Table B facts drawn from it were not.
• Adjacent but out of scope. The citizen tracker carries about 29 more Pennsylvania proposals that are not on DEP's list — among them Pennhurst (Chester, rejected), four MLP Ventures sites in Upper Merion (all rejected), Limerick / Project Laurel (750 MW, PECO letter), Linfield, South Hanover (Dauphin), Watts Township (Perry), Muncy (Lycoming), Granville (Mifflin), Allenwood (Union), Champion, Fort Cherry, and Starpointe-NGL (Washington), Cumru (Berks), Quakertown (Bucks), Stonebridge (Lawrence), Project Triboro (Lackawanna), and Conshohocken (Montgomery), plus withdrawn or rejected entries in the northeast. Those are the "100-plus proposed" beyond DEP's list, and a second table for a future report.
• DEP data-quality note. Storage-tank Site Specific Installation Permit 25001 (eFACTS 1532915, submitted 2025-07-02) appears under both A1 Salem Township and A2 Falls Township in DEP's permit-level CSV — an apparent duplicate or mis-mapping in DEP's own data [DP]. Two Table A rows (A14, A16) show a project-level status of Pending while every listed permit is Issued; either an unlisted application exists or the project-level status lags.

Request the full research

Dispute a grade

Tell us the project, what you think the record shows instead, and where. We check the claim against the cited source and post the outcome on this page under Revisions.

Sources

• [D]DEP Data Center Permit Tracker, project-level CSV — pulled 2026-08-19
• [DP]DEP Data Center Permit Tracker, permit-level CSV — pulled 2026-08-20
• [D-APP]DEP Data Center Permit Tracker app — viewed 2026-08-19 and 2026-09-01
• [T]PA Data Center Proposal Tracker (citizen-built) — tracker last updated 2026-08-16; pulled 2026-08-19
• [EO]Executive Order 2026-05, executed text — pulled 2026-08-19
• [PR]Governor's Office press release on EO 2026-05, 2026-08-18 — pulled 2026-08-19
• [COA]DEP template Consent Order and Agreement, 2026-08-18 — pulled 2026-08-19
• [PUC]PA PUC large-load model tariff final order, 2026-05-13 — pulled 2026-08-19
• [SP]Spotlight PA, March 2026 — Fast Track, AWS Salem and Falls — pulled 2026-08-19
• [HN]HNGN, 2026-08-18 — Fast Track removal — pulled 2026-08-19
• [PAED]PA Environment Digest, May 2026 — DEP testimony (17 under review, 34 proposed, 9 Fast Track) — pulled 2026-08-19
• [UD]Utility Dive, August 2026 — EO two-track analysis — pulled 2026-08-19
• [NLR]National Law Review — Two Tracks, One Choice — pulled 2026-08-19
• [TP]TierPoint — $240M securitization and Pennsylvania campus acquisition — pulled 2026-08-19
• [DCD]Data Center Dynamics — TierPoint TekPark 100 MW expansion — pulled 2026-08-19
• [DOR]PA Department of Revenue — Computer Data Center Equipment Program — pulled 2026-08-19

Row-level facts marked † were checked on 2026-08-20 against the DEP permit-level CSV and named local and trade press (township notices, county and borough minutes, Times Leader, TribLive, WVIA, WESA, Fox56, Lehigh Valley Press, Sharon Herald, Beaver County Radio, Cumberlink, and company releases and SEC filings). Those citations are in the full research.