PA Chamber’s ‘No Technology Pledge’ Challenges Data Center Opponents

The Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry has issued a challenge that’s as provocative as it is revealing. In response to a growing legislative push for moratoriums on data center development, the Chamber is proposing a “No Technology Pledge.” The gist is straightforward: if you support halting the construction of these facilities, you should also agree to stop using the digital services they power. It’s a rhetorical gambit, but it cuts to the heart of a modern economic paradox we’re seeing play out from coast to coast. We want the fruit of the digital age but we’re increasingly reluctant to host the orchards.

Jon Anzur, the PA Chamber’s Senior Vice President of Public Affairs, framed it as a question of accountability. “What we cannot do,” he stated, “is demand instant access to every digital convenience while opposing the infrastructure that makes those conveniences possible.” His point underscores a tension I’ve observed for years in financial hubs and now in state legislatures. Economic development is rarely a clean, silent process. The engines of growth—whether manufacturing plants a century ago or server farms today—come with trade-offs: land use, energy demand, community impact. The Chamber’s list of technologies to forsake reads like a manifesto for modern exile:

• No social media
• No streaming
• No online banking
• No GPS
• No telemedicine
• No cloud services

This isn’t just a Pennsylvania story. It’s a microcosm of a national recalibration. States are grappling with the explosive growth of artificial intelligence and cloud computing, which has sent demand for data center capacity soaring. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that data centers could consume up to 9% of the nation’s total electricity by 2030, a staggering leap from about 2% today. In Northern Virginia, the world’s largest data center market, local officials have begun pushing back on new projects over grid strain. The Pennsylvania debate mirrors this, centering on two primary concerns: energy infrastructure and local autonomy.

Governor Josh Shapiro’s recent executive order is a telling compromise, a move I see as an attempt to thread the needle. It pulls data centers from the state’s fast-track permitting process and institutes new “GRID” requirements. Crucially, it mandates that new facilities must provide their own electricity, shielding utility ratepayers from shouldering the cost of grid upgrades. This is a significant, market-oriented intervention. It doesn’t say no to development; it says development must come with its own power solution. This aligns with a broader trend where the true cost of digital infrastructure—long hidden from end-users—is being forced into the open.

The legislative proposals in Harrisburg vary in severity. A 180-day pause, as suggested by Senator Jarrett Coleman, aims to give municipalities breathing room to craft local ordinances. A more drastic three-year moratorium from Senator Katie Muth signals deeper skepticism. Neither has advanced to a full vote, reflecting the political stalemate that often surrounds complex infrastructure issues. The Chamber’s “pledge” is a lobbying tool in this fight, a stark reminder that blocking construction in Pennsylvania doesn’t eliminate demand—it simply shifts the investment, jobs, and tax revenue to Ohio, Virginia or Arizona.

From my vantage point in Lower Manhattan, where financial transactions pulse through miles of fiber-optic cable, the necessity of this physical infrastructure is undeniable. The seamless trade execution, the real-time risk analytics, the cybersecurity protecting trillions in assets—all of it lives in these warehouses. But the Pennsylvania conversation is a healthy, if messy, democratic process. It’s about siting, scale, and sustainability. The Chamber is right that broad moratoriums can cede competitive advantage. Yet communities are equally right to ask for guardrails, especially concerning their power grids and landscape.

The ultimate path forward likely lies in the middle, far from the absolutism of the “No Technology Pledge.” It involves nuanced policy like Shapiro’s GRID requirements, incentivizing on-site power generation through renewables or natural gas, and truly transparent community engagement. The data center industry, for its part, must evolve its value proposition beyond property taxes. It must become a partner in grid stability and demonstrate its role as critical infrastructure, not just an industrial tenant.

Pennsylvania’s choice, as the Chamber notes, is existential. It can be a leader in building the physical backbone of the 21st-century economy or it can outsource that role. But you cannot log off the modern world. The debate isn’t about whether we need data centers; it’s about how we build them responsibly. The pledge is a clever piece of theater, but the real work is in the less glamorous details of megawatt contracts, watershed impact studies, and community benefit agreements. That’s where Pennsylvania’s future as a tech state will be decided.