Questions from the neighborhood.

In an October 30, 2025 letter, PPL said it can supply about 1.35 gigawatts of peak demand to the site, and that “certain system upgrades will be required.” PPL says the cost of those upgrades “will be allocated in accordance with the Company's tariff,” and that connecting large customers like data centers “helps lower the transmission component of energy bills for all customers.”

Our grid's independent monitor found data centers added $29.4 billion to the region's capacity costs for June 2025 through May 2029. PPL says higher capacity prices have added about $20 a month to its average home's bill.

No independent analysis of what PAX-1 means for Middlesex ratepayers has been made public. The Township's zoning ordinance asks a data center applicant for its interconnection agreement with the utility, and for any known impacts on electric rates. When the Township's engineer asked for both, the developer replied that PPL “will not publicly release the interconnection agreement.” It also said the ratepayer study it had submitted would be removed from its environmental assessment and “treated as reference material only.”

It can draw up to 400,000 gallons a day from the public water system. On January 15, 2026, the Middlesex Township Municipal Authority approved that allocation, plus 273,000 gallons a day of sewer capacity. The authority's water comes from wells.

That's more than 40 percent of the system's spare capacity. In September 2025, the developer's own consultant put the system's available capacity at about 910,000 gallons a day, rising to about 1.35 million once a new municipal well comes online. Supervisor Phil Neiderer has told residents the authority will have a “kill switch” to shut off water to the data center if it goes over its allocation.

On the hottest days, the campus would need far more. That same consultant put peak demand at full buildout at roughly 3 to 4 million gallons a day, a figure not yet finalized. A November 2025 memo from the developer's water engineers estimated peak-day cooling needs of 850,000 gallons for the first phase and up to 2.55 million at full buildout. The plan is to fill large storage tanks on the site from the public supply over time, and draw them down in summer.

In January 2026, the Township's engineer wrote that the project “is taking all available additional capacity not currently identified by ‘Future Development Allocations.’” The engineer also wrote that the authority's new Well 2 should be finished, noted as June 2027, “before this project should be connected to the public potable water systems.” Those comments were advisory. The engineer noted that the authority “ultimately has jurisdiction over water and sewer service.”

In September 2026, the developer agreed not to ask for more than 400,000 gallons a day, based on the authority's current capacity.

The data center is to run on public water, not wells on the site. The Township's approvals bar new wells on the property and require existing ones to be sealed. But public water here is groundwater too: the authority pumps it from wells.

The Township's own ordinance says “No data center shall be approved without sufficient water and/or for a use that poses adverse impact on existing wells in the vicinity.” It requires a water feasibility study that maps the wells within 1,000 feet and looks at the effects on nearby wells, streams and groundwater. When the Township's engineer asked for that study, the developer answered that its water and sewer agreement with the authority “was executed on 01/15/2026.” Our appeals argue that the study, and the river basin commission's approval the ordinance also requires, are still missing.

About 16 of the homes within 1,000 feet of the site likely rely on private wells, and Pennsylvania's rules for construction blasting require no survey of nearby wells. The side agreement approved September 2, 2026 calls for the developer to test the wells of willing owners within 1,500 feet of blasting, and to fix or replace any well that blasting harms. If your well is in that zone, ask the Township or the developer about signing up.

At least 582. The developer's April 2026 noise study counts 566 emergency generators rated 2.5 megawatts each, plus 16 smaller house generators. That's more than 1,400 megawatts of diesel generating capacity.

Cumberland County's air already gets an F from the American Lung Association for short-term particle pollution. The developer's engineer told the Supervisors that because of the number, testing the generators is “a daily activity that will occur.” How often they'll actually run, and what they'll emit, hasn't been settled. In June 2026, Supervisor Phil Neiderer said the tenant will determine the number of generators, and that DEP's air quality permit, issued at final land development, will set when they can run.

As of September 23, 2026, the developer hadn't applied for the campus's air quality permits. The side agreement requires it to give the Township copies of its air permit filings. We'll post them when they're public.

Middlesex's rule for data centers sets one number: noise “shall not exceed 70 dBA, as measured at the property line.” That limit “does not apply during a time of power outage,” which is when the developer's study runs every generator on the site at once. The rule sets no separate limit for low-frequency sound.

How loud is 70? The developer's own noise study says a 60 dBA setting, like a large business office, is one where “sleep might be difficult.” It also says a 10-decibel increase sounds about “twice as loud.” To protect sleep, the World Health Organization advises no more than 45 decibels outside homes at night.

That study predicts about 50 dBA at the nearest property line in normal operation, and about 51 during generator maintenance. Those are computer-model predictions, prepared for the developer's engineers. The side agreement calls for 24 months of noise monitoring at the property line after construction, with the results posted online every month.

The developer's June 2025 traffic study projects about 2,900 vehicle trips a day at full buildout. It recommended no improvements at the three nearby intersections it studied, including Harrisburg Pike and Country Club Road. Its recommendations covered only the site's own driveways.

The developer's agreement with the Township, approved September 2, 2026, goes further. It requires:

• a right turn lane on Harrisburg Pike;
• monthly reports on the condition of Country Club Road during construction, with a repair plan for any stretch whose pavement score drops below 50;
• a full rebuild of Country Club Road once construction is complete.

The plans also call for widening Country Club Road along the site. Before Phase 3 can get final approval, the developer must submit a detailed plan for Country Club Road.

We don't know of any study of property values around this site. The only study we've found in Township records is a George Mason University note on Northern Virginia, which the developer's lobbyist sent to Township, county and state officials in September 2025. It found no statistical evidence that being near a data center lowered home values there in 2023. We haven't seen an independent study of this site, and we won't guess at a number.

Through a zoning overlay. Think of it as a sticker placed on top of the zoning map that adds a new use for the land underneath.

On May 30, 2025, the Supervisors adopted Ordinance 3-2025. It put a Data Center Overlay on four parcels covering 694 acres on Country Club Road, and made data centers a use “permitted by right” there. On September 3, 2025, the Township adopted its new zoning ordinance, Ordinance 7-2025, with the overlay built in.

Before the overlay, the land had been planned for housing. Part of it was covered by a state stormwater permit first authorized in December 2018 for a 58-unit housing development. That same permit has since been amended to cover the data center.

Read the emails and decide for yourself.

On December 4, 2024, nearly six months before the public hearing, the developer's attorney emailed the Township's zoning officer and copied its planning consultant: “Attached is a draft of a data center overlay for the Township's draft new Zoning Ordinance.” He included a map of the overlay's boundary. On January 7, 2025, the consultant wrote back to him: “we're getting close and we have the Data Center Overlay language incorporated into the draft.” These were private emails. Residents got copies later through Right-to-Know requests.

Today about 80 percent of the overlay in the zoning law matches the attorney's draft, word for word.

At the May 30, 2025 hearing, the attorney told the Supervisors, “it's not like this amendment was, you know, we submitted something and, you know, it's what you are adopting.” He said the Township's planning consultant, working with the county planning department, developed the standards.

• April 17, 2025: The County Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny approval of the Township's whole draft zoning rewrite “until CCPC comments are addressed.” The developer's overlay had already been folded into that draft.
• April 25, 2025: The developer's attorney asked the Supervisors to adopt the overlay on its own, as an amendment to the Township's 1989 zoning ordinance. He called it a backup plan, saying PPL was allocating power “on a first-come, first available basis.” The Supervisors set a hearing for May 30 at 7:30 a.m. The developer offered to pay “any and all advertising costs.”
• May 15, 2025: County planners recommended approving the standalone overlay, with comments. They recommended putting it in the new ordinance instead, while noting that “a major data center project warrants an expedited update.” They suggested buffers to protect sensitive features such as the views from the Appalachian Trail, and said the Township should consider adopting a new comprehensive plan to replace its plan from 2003.
• May 30, 2025, 7:30 a.m.: Five people spoke during public comment. Each raised concerns or asked the Supervisors to wait for more information on water, power and noise. One asked whether the water authority had been told how much water the data center would use. The Township solicitor said he had no idea. So did the Board's chairman, who also sits on the water authority, adding that it was drilling another well. The developer's attorney said those details would come later, at the land development stage. The Supervisors adopted the overlay unanimously that morning, 35 days after they first took up the request.

The Supervisors have voted not to consider new data center zoning for now. In February 2026, they voted to allow no zoning changes or new overlays “permitting or expanding data center use” until the Township adopts an updated comprehensive plan. The current plan dates to 2003. A request to stretch the overlay over about 214 more acres along Harrisburg Pike is on hold under that vote, and county planners recommended against it.

There are three caveats. The vote is a Board decision, not an ordinance. It doesn't touch the existing overlay. And the 2025 zoning law also permits data centers by right in the Township's industrial district.

Final plans for Phases 1C, 2 and 3 still have to come before the Supervisors.

Before voting on September 2, 2026, Supervisor Phil Neiderer pointed to this website to make the point: if a use is permitted by right and meets the zoning ordinance, the Supervisors must approve it.

That's why the 2025 overlay vote mattered so much. In Middlesex, a warehouse, a truck terminal and a solid waste facility each need a public hearing, where the Supervisors can set conditions or say no. A data center doesn't. Once data centers were permitted by right on these 694 acres, the fight turned to two questions. Is the overlay itself lawful? And do the plans meet every requirement?

The Supervisors still made choices along the way. They voted on every waiver, modification and deferral the developer asked for, in motions separate from the plan approvals, including 29 on May 6 and 18 more on September 2.

There are five, all filed by local residents.

• The spot zoning challenge, filed with the Zoning Hearing Board on May 13, 2026. The board never advertised or held a hearing, and the residents argue that after 60 days, that counts as a denial under state law. On August 6, 2026, they took the challenge to the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, No. 2026-08758. They're asking the court to hold hearings and declare the overlay invalid.
• The appeal of the May 6 approvals, filed June 5, 2026, No. 2026-06465.
• The appeal of the July 1 approvals of Phase 1C and Phase 2, filed July 31, 2026, No. 2026-08652.
• The appeal of the September 2 approvals of the Phase 1B final plan and the Phase 3 preliminary plan, filed October 2, 2026, No. 2026-11177.
• The stormwater permit appeal, filed with the Environmental Hearing Board on August 13, 2026, No. 2026-095-CS.

In plain English, spot zoning is when a township singles out a parcel for the benefit of one user and treats it differently from the land around it. Our challenge relies on Pennsylvania court decisions going back to 1965. It argues that's what happened here:

• The overlay covers only the developer's four parcels.
• When it was adopted in May 2025, data centers were permitted by right there “and nowhere else in the Township.”
• Its text started as a draft from the developer's attorney.
• It went from request to adoption in 35 days, under a 2003 comprehensive plan that county planners said the Township should consider replacing.
• A hyperscale campus is incompatible with the farms and homes around it.

The challenge also argues that the overlay violates the Environmental Rights Amendment of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article I, Section 27. We're asking the court to strike it down.

Yes, in two of the cases. On September 22, 2026, the Court of Common Pleas ruled on the developer's motion to quash, or dismiss, our appeal of the May 6 approvals:

• It dismissed the parts challenging the final subdivision and the Phase 1A final plan.
• It kept alive the challenge to the Phase 1B preliminary plan, which covers Campus 1's six buildings. Our brief is due by November 2, and the Township and the developer have 30 days after that to respond. Oral argument is set for January 12, 2027, at 10:30 a.m., in Courtroom No. 4 of the Cumberland County Courthouse.
• It denied our request to pause the approvals while the appeal goes on, “without prejudice to refile.” That means we can ask again.

On September 30, in the spot zoning case, we asked the court to halt construction and further approvals until that case is decided. On October 5 the court ruled on part of that request:

• It found that the mandatory hold in state law doesn't apply, because it covers only hearings pending before the Zoning Hearing Board.
• On our request for a new hold, it scheduled an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the case for November 13, 2026, at 2 p.m., in Courtroom No. 1 of the Cumberland County Courthouse.

The other cases are at earlier stages. In the stormwater appeal, the Environmental Hearing Board has set discovery to close on February 10, 2027.

Yes, bulldozers are rolling. That doesn't settle the legal questions.

• Our land use appeals ask the court to reverse plan approvals, and the spot zoning challenge asks it to throw out the overlay itself.
• Only Phases 1A and 1B have final approval. Phases 1C, 2 and 3 still need it.
• The river basin commission says the operator needs its approval for consumptive use before it can operate.
• The state's finding of an adverse effect on the Appalachian Trail was still unresolved as of May 26, 2026.
• Even the developer's $14 million agreement acknowledges “several legal challenges pending,” and holds its payments in escrow until they're resolved.

The developer has chosen to keep building while the appeals are pending.