Data Center Developers Face Tough Crowd in Lower Mount Bethel Tp

Late Thursday afternoon, I barreled up Rte. 611 through Lower Mount Bethel to meet Ron Angle and his son to attend a town hall meeting at Bangor Middle School for a proposed data center next to the PPL power plant. Whenever I approach Angle country, the skies usually turn dark and forbidding. As I get closer to his estate, hailstones start pounding my car and lightening streaks across the sky. Not this time. The weather was unusually balmy, and I was actually able to see the road. I passed no less than six "NO DATA CENTERS ON OUR FARMS" signs along the way, and one of them was actually on a farm. The rest were located at small residences or along public rights of way. I wondered to myself just how many people could possibly feel that strongly. Would they be willing to give up their Thursday evening to attend a meeting during which the developer would outline the proposal? The answer is Yes. There were well over 300 angry people jammed into the school's auditorium, and it quickly became apparent that they would rather see no development at all. They like things the way they are, and I doubt very much that any developer could do anything about it. 

Those developers, by the way, are two of the classiest developers in this area - Mike Perrucci and JG Petrucci. They both have proven records of responsible residential and industrial development, particularly in the Bethlehem area. They brought a team of people from Talen Energy, PPL, to answer questions. They included a former EPA lawyer and even had Slate Belt's very own Lenny Zito, who has represented or sentenced nearly everyone in that area, sitting there as a "legal consultant." Occasionally, when a member of the public would say he or she knew him, Zito would look down from the stage with a knowing smile. 

Governor Ed Rendell's former press secretary acted as facilitator. While she did a fairly good job of making sure everyone could be heard, she did commit a rather serious blunder at the onset. She started the meeting without a pledge of allegiance, which really riled Angle. That's no biggie to me, but I see enough American (and Trump) flags throughout that neck of the county to know he was likely one of several people in an already hostile crowd who got even more upset. 

There's things you just don't do in the slate belt. You don't say professional wrestling is fake. You don't turn down Little Debbie snack cakes. You don't refer to farmland as "underutilized." And you sure as hell don't skip the pledge. If the developers wanted to get on the good side of these people, they should have brought pork rinds or at least a few rolls of duct tape.

John Callahan, Bethlehem's former Mayor, was the pitchman. And don't let him fool you. He's smart as shit. He and Don Cunningham, another of Bethlehem's former Mayors, miraculously prevented Bethlehem from going tets up when Bethlehem Steel suddenly closed. Cunningham gave Bethlehem hope. Callahan gave Bethlehem a casino. (They both were smart enough to rely on Tony Hanna to completely revitalize the city's south side with one of the only TIFs that even I would support.)

Callahan started off by complimenting his audience for being there, saying that they obviously care. Things got ugly for awhile when the mike stopped working, but it was eventually fixed. 

Peter Polt, one of JG Petrucci's top lieutenants, told the audience that they are only in a "very early part of the process," which I'd translate to mean that they're willing to make changes to address public concerns. 

He's proposing a 1.2-gigawatt data center "campus" (meaning more than one) that is sustainable. He said there would be no manufacturing, no warehouses, no heavy traffic, no light pollution, buffering against noise and minimal use of water. He said stories about noisy data centers that gobble up water and power are older facilities and that new technology has greatly reduced both water and power needs.

Another speaker from Talen Energy stated that the average golf course uses about 80 million gallons of water a year, but the data center proposed will use only 60% of that, about 50 million gallons.

Importantly, no groundwater will be used, as Lower Mount Bethel residents rely on ground water for their own needs. Instead, the date center will be cooled by leveraging the existing water infrastructure around the power plant, which uses water from the Delaware River for cooling. The data center will also recycle nonpotable and storm water. He added that water b=pulled in from the river is regulated by the Delaware River Basin Comm'n as well as the DEP..

The power would come from the existing power plant and would in no way reduce power available to local consumers. 

When Polt showed a map of the data center, it became apparent that there likely will be more than one. This seemed to make people angry. When he referred to those lands as "underutilized," people got even more worked up.

The very first public of several dozen speakers from the audience saud that "two companies and developers cannot be trusted to tell the truth about all these details of their builds, how much power, water, etc., they can use, nor the noise levels nor the environmental violations that the center is capable of accomplishing ... .She referred to "what monstrosities have been built in Tatamy, East Allen, Macungie, Nazareth, I could keep going. They are all ugly, no matter how many arbor vitae you plant. ... You say that our land is underutilized. It's farmland. And you guys are just consuming. The only thing you care about is utilizing our land for your profit and your unnamed end user. 

And so it continued.

There was strong community opposition, with many residents expressing concerns about the environmental, social, and economic impacts of the project. Several speakers emphasized their deep connection to the area, noting its rural, agricultural character and the reasons they chose to live there, including peace, natural beauty, and wildlife.

A primary concern raised was the potential environmental impact of the data center. Residents cited worries about excessive electricity usage, water consumption, noise pollution, and harm to local ecosystems, including wildlife such as bald eagles. There is a bald eagle nest on one of the sites being considered, where the developer has proposed a 600" radius around the nest. 

There was also skepticism and distrust toward the developers. They even objected to the way developers were dressed, most with sports jackets. 

In Lower Mount Bethel, the appropriate attire for men is a sports hat or Carhart, preferably both. Women seem to like stretch pants. 

"We don't want to be Bethlehem, we don't want to be Forks Tp," said one resident who prefers driving a little more each day to her job so she can enjoy living near farms. Residents expressed fears that the project would permanently alter the quiet, rural environment they value. Noise from cooling systems, potential industrial expansion, and visual impacts were all cited as threats. Some residents stated clearly that no level of mitigation would be acceptable if it changed the character of the township.

Developers and representatives responded by emphasizing that the project is still in early stages and that no final designs have been determined. They highlighted potential economic benefits, including increased tax revenue and investment, and stated that regulatory processes would govern water usage, environmental protection, and noise standards. They also noted that infrastructure such as the nearby power plant makes the site attractive for development. When they noted the tax benefit, they were accused of bribing residents.

Additional concerns included:

- Lack of early community engagement and communication

- Potential rezoning of agricultural land

- Impacts on neighboring communities and shared natural resources

- Long-term expansion beyond the initially proposed footprint

- Accountability if negative outcomes occur

Several speakers called on local officials to prioritize residents’ voices, uphold environmental protections, and ensure transparency throughout the decision-making process. One key question posed to the developers was whether they would withdraw the project if it is ultimately rejected by local governing bodies, to which the developers responded that they would not pursue a project that is formally denied.