State Connections
Explore a state’s data center issues, find states with similar evidence, and assemble a sourced working brief.
Matches reflect shared provisions or tracker classifications, not identical laws. Local actions keep their local scope.
Source statuses are retained as recorded. Existing tracker records have not all been freshly reverified for this view.
Start with Connected states. Review why a state matches, then add it to your working group.
Who is working through similar issues?
Open a state to inspect its evidence. Add states to a potential working group.
Use the map or state selector above to explore each state's published evidence.
Colorado: inspect the evidence.
Counts are records, not unique projects. Records can overlap across trackers.
Aerotropolis Logistics Center data center Record-specific: Aurora · proposed
A development application by Aerotropolis Industrial Development envisions a 1 million sq ft, 11-building data center on a 500-acre site south of East 48th Avenue, north of 26th Avenue, east of Aerotropolis Parkway and west of Monaghan Road, part of the Aerotropolis Logistics Center master plan of more than 1,200 acres near the Aurora Highlands. The city said the application was determined to be incomplete and had not been accepted for review. The county is inferred from the location and is not stated in the source. Not disclosed Power demand not stated; about 1 million sq ft in 11 buildings on a 500-acre site
Reported 29 September 2026; application incomplete and not yet accepted for review; single-outlet report (Sentinel Colorado)
Sentinel Colorado ↗Archuleta County data center moratorium Record-specific: Archuleta County · moratorium
Archuleta County, Colorado, enacted a local data center moratorium or ban, recorded in SAVRN's moratorium tracker as dated January 2026. Resolution 2026-47; 6-month moratorium on data centers. Unanimous vote. County infrastructure and water cannot support data centers. The measure runs to 16 December 2026.
Enacted January 2026
pagosasun.com ↗Aurora six-month data center moratorium proposal (rejected) Record-specific: City of Aurora · other
On 10 August 2026 the Aurora City Council rejected a six-month moratorium on new data centers proposed by Councilmember Amy Wiles, with Mayor Mike Coffman casting the tie-breaking vote. Council instead approved 7-4 a resolution to set development standards, including a prohibition on evaporative cooling and setbacks and landscape buffers near residences. The city manager was given 35 days to recommend further changes.
Moratorium rejected and regulations resolution approved 10 August 2026
Sentinel Colorado ↗ Denver7 ↗Berthoud one-year data center moratorium Record-specific: Berthoud Board of Trustees · moratorium
On Tuesday 22 September 2026 the Berthoud Board of Trustees voted 5-2 for a year-long moratorium on data center applications.
Approved 5-2 on 22 September 2026; one year
BizWest ↗Boulder County six-month data center moratorium Record-specific: Boulder County · moratorium
In early June 2026 Boulder County enacted a six-month moratorium on new data centers.
Enacted early June 2026; six months
Westword ↗ Colorado Politics ↗Broomfield 18-month data center moratorium (10 MW and above) Record-specific: City and County of Broomfield · moratorium
The Broomfield City Council unanimously approved an 18-month moratorium on land-use approvals for new data centers and expansions using 10 MW or more. It runs until December 2027 or until council adopts regulations, and does not apply to data centers already operating. The 10 MW threshold was set at half the designed capacity of the city's largest data center.
Approved unanimously at the Tuesday council meeting reported 8 July 2026; runs to December 2027
Colorado Politics ↗ Denver7 ↗ Data Center Bans ↗Commerce City six-month data center moratorium Record-specific: Commerce City City Council · moratorium
On Monday 21 September 2026 the Commerce City City Council voted 7-1 for a six-month moratorium barring acceptance of new data center applications while the city writes rules; Council Member Rocky Teter voted no. It took effect immediately. The city currently allows data centers through a conditional use permit.
Approved 7-1 on 21 September 2026; six months, effective immediately
The Denver Post ↗ Westword ↗CoreSite DE3 (Stonepeak / American Tower JV) Record-specific: Denver · construction
Stonepeak formed a JV with American Tower to build DE3 in downtown Denver, an 18MW facility in three 6MW phases, within a CoreSite platform of 28 facilities across 11 US markets. estimated total development cost over $250 million 18MW facility in three 6MW phases
JV formed July 31, 2024
Stonepeak ↗Denver one-year data center moratorium Record-specific: Denver City Council · moratorium
On Monday 18 May 2026 the Denver City Council unanimously approved a one-year moratorium on new data center construction while a working group of community advocates and experts recommends regulations. The city has about 50 data centers; projects already under construction, including one in north Denver, were allowed to proceed.
Approved unanimously 18 May 2026; one year
The Denver Post ↗ Westword ↗ Colorado Politics ↗Flexential Parker data center Record-specific: Parker · under_construction
Douglas County commissioners unanimously approved a $19.3 million incentive agreement rebating 100% of the county's share of business personal property tax on the facility over 35 years. The rebate covers equipment, machinery and certain leasehold improvements, not land and buildings, and Flexential continues to pay real property, school district and fire district taxes. County documents estimate 16 permanent jobs. The Town of Parker approved the project in 2024 About $205 million planned investment per Colorado Politics 22.5 MW per Colorado Politics and the Denver Gazette; 249,000 sq ft facility under construction
Approved 11 August 2026
Denver Gazette ↗ Colorado Politics ↗ Denver7 ↗Global AI Windsor data center (Weld County) Record-specific: Weld County · approved_after_delay
The Weld County Board of Commissioners voted 5-0 on Wednesday 9 September 2026, after an eight-hour hearing and hours of objections, to approve the zoning permit for Global AI's data center on roughly 41 acres of the former Carestream Health site in unincorporated Weld County near Windsor. Commissioners attached conditions requiring a closed-loop cooling system, noise limited to established ambient levels with continuous monitoring, and a decommissioning plan and bond within six months. The proposal had faced sustained community opposition over noise, power and transparency. This entry records an approval reached over opposition rather than a block, and is carried in this table so the record shows both directions. On Monday 28 September 2026 the Weld County Clerk and Recorder approved two petitions for circulation, backed by the citizens group Protect Our Water and Energy Resources (POWER). One would force a referendum on the commissioners' 9 September approval; the other is an initiative barring the county from issuing an occupancy permit to any data center unless approved by a majority of voters. Each needs 9,103 valid signatures, and opponents have 45 days to collect them for the referendum. Colorado Newsline reports the facility's initial capacity as 27.5 MW, served by Poudre Valley REA, with long-term plans for up to 1 GW.
Approved 5-0 on 9 September 2026; referendum and initiative petitions approved for circulation 28 September 2026 (9,103 signatures each, 45 days)
Rocky Mountain Voice ↗ 9News ↗ Colorado Public Radio ↗ Colorado Newsline (via Yahoo News) ↗ Colorado Newsline via Pagosa Daily Post ↗Global AI data center, former Carestream Health site Record-specific: Windsor (unincorporated Weld County) · approved
The Weld County Board of Commissioners voted 5-0 on Wednesday 9 September 2026 to approve a Use by Special Review permit for Global AI, a New York-based company, to build a data center on 41 acres at the former Carestream Health property at 2000 Howard Smith Avenue W, in unincorporated Weld County between Windsor and Greeley. Coverage says it could become the largest data center in Colorado. Global AI said Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association is prepared to deliver 35 MW and provided a will-serve letter; conditions include closed-loop cooling (about 65,000 gallons initial fill), noise limits and a decommissioning bond. The company cited 1,500 construction jobs and 200 long-term jobs. Greeley approved a pre-annexation agreement the day before. Neighbors questioned power and water delivery, and the county had cited the site for construction code violations. No investment figure was given in the fetched coverage. Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association, 35 MW will-serve letter Investment not disclosed in the fetched coverage 35 MW per a Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association will-serve letter cited at the hearing; not a stated build-out capacity
Use by Special Review permit approved 5-0 on Wednesday 9 September 2026; Planning Commission recommendation 1 September 2026
Greeley Tribune (via Yahoo News) ↗ The Denver Post ↗Jefferson County data center moratorium (to March 2027) Record-specific: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners · moratorium
Jefferson County commissioners froze new rezoning and development applications for data centers for 10 months, as reported by the Denver Post on 19 May 2026. Westword describes it as an extension of the county's moratorium to March 2027. Commissioner Rachel Zenzinger cited wildland-urban interface, water supply, environmental and public health concerns.
Reported 19 May 2026; 10 months, to March 2027
The Denver Post ↗ Westword ↗ Colorado Politics ↗Larimer County data center moratorium Record-specific: Larimer County · moratorium
Larimer County adopted a temporary moratorium on new land use applications for data center facilities in the unincorporated county on 27 January 2026. The county extended it on 9 February 2026, then extended it again on 13 July 2026 to 25 February 2027. The county is developing land use code definitions and standards covering water consumption, power usage, nuisances and suitable zoning before the moratorium expires. Vote counts not disclosed on the county page.
Jan 27 2026; extended Jul 13 2026 to Feb 25 2027
Larimer County Planning ↗Lochbuie data center moratorium Record-specific: Lochbuie · moratorium
Lochbuie, Colorado, enacted a local data center moratorium or ban, recorded in SAVRN's moratorium tracker as dated July 2026. 5-year pause approved 6-1, the longest active moratorium in Colorado. Residents cited drought as the driving concern. The measure runs to 21 July 2031.
Enacted July 2026
rmpbs.org ↗Follow the issue to the utility and the customer.
Named organizations come from explicit record fields. Their presence is not confirmation of a serving-utility relationship, service availability, or customer eligibility.
Named parties in this state's evidence
Start from your position.
Screen an individual location ↗Address-level utility verification and service agreements belong in the site screen. Private account data and individual household identities are not part of this public dataset.
Regional grid context and rules
Open the complete grid operator watchlist ↗Explore generation and interconnection queues ↗ · Explore scarcity and market constraints ↗
See what your selected states have in common.
We bring together the shared issues and source records for the states you choose.
States appear side by side. Compare each topic, then open a cell for sources.
Add your own notes Optional
Notes are included when you open or save the comparison. Save a copy to keep them after leaving this page.
Sharing and data options
The link includes your states and issue filter. It does not include private notes. Source data downloads as JSON.
Coverage, sources and how states are connected
All 50 states are selectable. A connection requires the same documented policy mechanism or the same structured tracker classification and status. The map is a discovery tool, not a legal-equivalence score, a project-risk ranking, or a complete census. No match means no matching evidence in this view.
Existing tracker publications supply most records. Their source status and date are retained; a page load is not a new source verification. Proposed, failed, enacted and reversed records remain distinct. Explicitly unverified or pending-review rows are excluded. Narrative and status can disagree in the underlying publication; inspect both before treating a restriction as active. No state-wide effect is inferred from a local action.
Data is read from the current tracker files and published overlays. Source changes invalidate the server's cached connections. Policy mechanisms use a separately reviewed evidence set. Generation queues and broad company commitments are not assigned to a data center or customer. Federal records and records without an explicit state are not assigned to a state by inference.
Download state evidence JSON · SAVRN methodology
Underlying dataset credits
- 6abc Philadelphia
- AEP Ohio Transmission Company (filed with Ohio Power Siting Board)
- AI GridWatch moratorium tracker, CC BY 4.0 (aigridwatch.com)
- Alabama Reflector
- Alaska Beacon
- American Transmission Company LLC (filed with PSC of Wisconsin)
- Americus Times-Recorder
- Arizona Mirror
- Arkansas Advocate
- Axios Pro Energy
- Bisnow
- Bisnow National
- Bradenton Herald
- CNBC Technology
- Cardinal News VA
- Central Florida Public Media
- Chesterfield County public permit records
- Chicago Construction News
- City of Atlanta public permit records
- City of Austin issued construction permits open data
- City of Buckeye public permit records
- City of Chandler public permit records
- City of Charlotte public permit records
- City of Chicago building permits open data
- City of Fort Worth public permit records
- City of Goodyear public permit records
- City of Hillsboro public permit records
- City of Mesa building permits open data
- City of Mesa public permit records
- City of Minneapolis construction permits (CCS) open data
- City of Papillion public permit records
- City of Phoenix public permit records
- City of Red Oak public permit records
- City of Reno public permit records
- City of San Antonio public permit records
- City of Statesboro, Georgia
- City of Temple, Texas
- Clearfield City Council (Utah Public Notice Website)
- Colorado Newsline
- Colorado Public Radio
- Congress.gov (Library of Congress, public domain)
- ConstructConnect News
- Construction Dive
- CourtListener DataCenter Dockets
- CourtListener Opinions
- Data Center Dynamics
- Data Center Dynamics news
- DataCenterTracker.org, CC BY 4.0
- Dominion Energy Virginia
- EIN News
- East Bay Insiders Newsletter
- Energy Central
- FOX19 | Cincinnati
- FOX5 Vegas
- FOX6 News Milwaukee
- Facilities Dive
- Fairfax County public permit records
- Florida Phoenix
- Georgia Department of Community Affairs
- Georgia EPD air permit records
- Georgia Recorder
- GovTech
- Greensboro News and Record
- Grist
- Idaho Capital Sun
- Illinois EPA air permit records
- Indiana Capital Chronicle
- Indiana Department of Environmental Management
- Indiana IDEM air permit records
- InkFreeNews.com
- Iowa Capital Dispatch
- Iowa DNR air permit records
- KERA News
- KEYC News Now
- KGW
- KRON4
- Kansas City MO city issued permits open data
- Kansas Reflector
- Kentucky Lantern
- Law360
- Law360 Energy
- LegiScan (legiscan.com) and the state legislature
- Lehigh Valley Planning Commission
- Local News Matters
- Loudoun County public permit records
- Loudoun Times-Mirror
- Louisiana DEQ air permit records
- Louisiana Illuminator
- Maine Morning Star
- Maricopa County Air Quality Department air permit records
- Maricopa County public permit records
- Maryland Matters
- Mecklenburg County public permit records
- Michigan Advance
- Mid Bay News
- Missouri Independent
- Montana Free Press
- NBC Bay Area
- NBC4 Washington
- NC Newsline
- Native News Online
- Nebraska Examiner
- Nevada Current
- Nevada NDEP air permit records
- New Hampshire Bulletin
- New Mexico Environment Department
- North Carolina DEQ Division of Air Quality air permit records
- North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality
- North Dakota Monitor
- Ohio Capital Journal
- Ohio EPA air permit records
- Oklahoma DEQ air permit records
- Oklahoma Voice
- OpenStates v3 (openstates.org), CC BY 4.0
- Oregon Capital Chronicle
- Orlando Sentinel
- Pennsylvania Capital-Star
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate (filed with PA PUC)
- Pioneer Press
- Prince William County public permit records
- Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
- Public record (Legistar Web API, Granicus)
- Rhode Island Current
- Route Fifty
- SEC EDGAR company submissions, public domain
- SEC EDGAR full-text search, public domain
- Searchlight New Mexico
- Smithfield Township, Monroe County, PA
- Source New Mexico
- South Carolina Department of Environmental Services
- South Dakota Searchlight
- Springfield Daily Citizen
- Stafford County public permit records
- Statesman Journal
- Strisker data center notes
- Tennessee Lookout
- Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
- Texas TCEQ air permit records
- The Baltimore Banner
- The Current (GA)
- The Detroit News
- The Hill Energy
- The North State Journal
- The Pantagraph
- The Real Deal
- The Register
- The Texas Tribune
- The Verge
- Times-Standard
- Town of Culpeper public permit records
- Tuscaloosa Thread
- U.S. EPA ECHO
- Union-Bulletin
- Uprise RI
- Utah Division of Air Quality
- Utah Division of Air Quality air permit records
- Utah News Dispatch
- Utah Public Radio
- Utility Dive
- Virginia Business
- Virginia DEQ air permit records
- Virginia Electric and Power Company (filed with Virginia SCC)
- Virginia Mercury
- Visalia Times-Delta
- WBUR
- WCPO 9 Cincinnati
- WGLT
- WHEC.com
- WJON
- WKYT
- WLOS
- WLUK
- WPBF
- WQCS
- WRAL (NC)
- WUNC News
- WVPE
- Washington County public permit records
- Washington Ecology air permit records
- Washington State SEPA Register public permit records
- Washington State Standard
- Washoe County public permit records
- Wausau Pilot & Review
- West Virginia Watch
- Winston-Salem Journal
- Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
- Wisconsin Examiner
- Yale Daily News
- citybiz
- contracosta.news
- ictnews.org
- indianapublicradio.org
- inkfreenews.com
- lex18.com
- mountaintimesoregon.com
- newmedia-wi.com
- newscentermaine.com
- thegazette.com
- tuscaloosathread.com
- wcpo.com
- www.cities929.com
SAVRN Policy Connections
How state policies connect.
Find shared policy mechanisms, compare the differences, and assemble a framework from documented state provisions.
An initial evidence set, not an exhaustive survey. A missing relationship means not documented here, never no policy. Source review verifies the cited instrument, not every later amendment or implementing action. Sources reviewed 3 October 2026.
Shared goals. Different requirements.
Each number opens the provisions connecting a state to a policy family. States can belong to several groups. A shared family is not proof of identical law.
Find states sharing a combination of policies
Choose several mechanisms to find their intersection, or include states with any selected mechanism. These matches use documented records only.
| State | Project readiness | Cost responsibility | Grid flexibility | Water safeguards | Reporting & oversight | Energy & emissions | Local authority | Environmental review |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AlabamaNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| AlaskaNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| ArizonaNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| ArkansasNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| CaliforniaNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| ColoradoNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| ConnecticutNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| DelawareNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| FloridaNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Georgia | – | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| HawaiiNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IdahoNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IllinoisNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Indiana | – | 3 | – | – | 1 | – | – | – |
| IowaNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| KansasNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| KentuckyNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| LouisianaNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| MaineNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| MarylandNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| MassachusettsNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| MichiganNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Minnesota | – | 2 | – | 1 | – | 1 | – | – |
| MississippiNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| MissouriNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| MontanaNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| NebraskaNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| NevadaNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| New HampshireNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| New JerseyNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| New MexicoNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| New York | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | 2 |
| North CarolinaNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| North DakotaNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Ohio | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| OklahomaNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Oregon | – | 2 | – | – | 1 | 1 | – | – |
| PennsylvaniaNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Rhode IslandNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| South CarolinaNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| South Dakota | – | 2 | – | 1 | 1 | – | 1 | – |
| TennesseeNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Texas | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | 1 | – | – |
| UtahNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| VermontNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Virginia | – | – | – | – | 2 | – | – | – |
| WashingtonNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| West VirginiaNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| WisconsinNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| WyomingNot yet documented | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Choose a mechanism to see states connected by that specific policy tool.
Compare two states.
Compare documented mechanisms, then inspect each provision's scope and status. Unrecorded mechanisms remain unknown.
Inspect the provision, not just the category.
All 29 documented provisions. Open a record for its source, scope, and difference from similar tools.
Texas Verify the proposed site Documented in cited instrument
Interconnection standards must include a way to demonstrate a legal interest in the proposed location.
- Shared mechanism
- Evidence of site control
- Scope
- ERCOT large-load interconnection; applicability and exceptions in the statute.
- Important difference
- Evidence of site control does not establish that all permits or financing are secured.
- Source location
- Section 37.0561(g)
Statutory text · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
Texas Back transmission commitments Documented in cited instrument
Standards must set financial commitments supporting transmission infrastructure for covered loads.
- Shared mechanism
- Financial security
- Scope
- ERCOT large-load interconnection; applicability and exceptions in the statute.
- Important difference
- Permitted security forms and release rules depend on implementation; not a minimum energy bill.
- Source location
- Section 37.0561(h)-(j)
Statutory text · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
Texas Define emergency response Documented in cited instrument
Covered backup-equipped loads may be directed to deploy backup generation or curtail after the specified market-service sequence.
- Shared mechanism
- Emergency response
- Scope
- ERCOT large-load interconnection; applicability and exceptions in the statute.
- Important difference
- An emergency mechanism, not a general voluntary demand-response tariff.
- Source location
- Section 37.0561(e)
Statutory text · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
Texas Retain emissions limits Documented in cited instrument
Emergency direction does not authorize violation of emissions or environmental requirements.
- Shared mechanism
- Emissions safeguards
- Scope
- ERCOT large-load interconnection; applicability and exceptions in the statute.
- Important difference
- Backup generation remains constrained by applicable environmental rules.
- Source location
- Section 37.0561(e)(1)
Statutory text · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
Minnesota Assign attributable utility costs Documented in cited instrument
Commission review of very-large-customer service terms must address attributable costs and protection of other customers.
- Shared mechanism
- Attributable-cost allocation
- Scope
- Scope varies by section: data-center water provisions, public-utility service, and optional clean-energy contracts.
- Important difference
- A regulatory framework with customer-class and agreement decisions, not a uniform minimum billing percentage.
- Source location
- Section 9, subdivision 2
Session law · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
Minnesota Protect against stranded costs Documented in cited instrument
Tariff or agreement review must include protections against other customers paying stranded service costs.
- Shared mechanism
- Departure / reduced-load protection
- Scope
- Scope varies by section: data-center water provisions, public-utility service, and optional clean-energy contracts.
- Important difference
- Existing-service exceptions appear in subdivision 3.
- Source location
- Section 9, subdivision 2(3)
Session law · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
Minnesota Evaluate consumptive water demand Documented in cited instrument
Preapplication review links covered consumptive demand and permit needs to site-specific water availability.
- Shared mechanism
- Water-supply review
- Scope
- Scope varies by section: data-center water provisions, public-utility service, and optional clean-energy contracts.
- Important difference
- Facility definition and water-use/permit conditions apply together; not all withdrawals trigger this review.
- Source location
- Sections 3-4
Session law · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
Minnesota Offer optional clean-energy service Documented in cited instrument
Utilities must offer a clean-energy and capacity tariff with participating customers paying proportional resource costs.
- Shared mechanism
- Clean-energy service terms
- Scope
- Scope varies by section: data-center water provisions, public-utility service, and optional clean-energy contracts.
- Important difference
- Customer participation is optional; do not classify it as a universal clean-energy purchase mandate.
- Source location
- Section 10
Session law · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
South Dakota Recover attributable electricity costs Documented in cited instrument
Separate service terms must recover costs fairly attributable to the data center.
- Shared mechanism
- Attributable-cost allocation
- Scope
- Statutorily defined data centers; electricity providers, water providers, and local governments.
- Important difference
- Applies through provider terms rather than a published statewide minimum billing percentage.
- Source location
- Section 3
Session law · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
South Dakota Address departure and reduced load Documented in cited instrument
Cost responsibility includes costs incurred if the customer departs or materially reduces load.
- Shared mechanism
- Departure / reduced-load protection
- Scope
- Statutorily defined data centers; electricity providers, water providers, and local governments.
- Important difference
- The law states cost responsibility; it does not supply a universal exit-fee formula.
- Source location
- Section 3
Session law · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
South Dakota Obtain local supply determinations Documented in cited instrument
Water providers assess compatibility, with board review and allocation limits protecting priority uses.
- Shared mechanism
- Water-supply review
- Scope
- Statutorily defined data centers; electricity providers, water providers, and local governments.
- Important difference
- Local supply determinations are distinct from the Minnesota consumptive-use permit review.
- Source location
- Section 5
Session law · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
South Dakota Publish water-use data Documented in cited instrument
Operators report usage to the board, which makes usage data available to the public.
- Shared mechanism
- Water-use reporting
- Scope
- Statutorily defined data centers; electricity providers, water providers, and local governments.
- Important difference
- Operator reporting differs from Virginia supplier category reporting.
- Source location
- Section 6
Session law · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
Ohio Address underused infrastructure risk Documented in cited instrument
PUCO adopted a settlement aimed at protecting other customers from cost shifting due to underused data-center investments.
- Shared mechanism
- Attributable-cost allocation
- Scope
- AEP Ohio data-center tariff proceeding; not a tariff for every Ohio utility.
- Important difference
- The cited announcement directs tariff filing; consult the filed tariff for binding customer terms.
- Source location
- Decision announcement, case background
Commission decision announcement · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
Indiana Set minimum billing obligations Documented in cited instrument
The approved settlement establishes minimum billing-demand and charge provisions for covered large loads.
- Shared mechanism
- Minimum payment commitments
- Scope
- Indiana Michigan Power Tariff I.P., Indiana jurisdiction; covered large-load customers.
- Important difference
- The approved settlement differs from the original utility proposal; I&M territory only.
- Source location
- Order pp. 32-35 and ordering paragraphs p. 49
Commission order · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
Indiana Address early termination Documented in cited instrument
The approved settlement contains contract termination protections for covered large-load service.
- Shared mechanism
- Departure / reduced-load protection
- Scope
- Indiana Michigan Power Tariff I.P., Indiana jurisdiction; covered large-load customers.
- Important difference
- Customer-specific conditions and the settlement govern; not statewide terms for every provider.
- Source location
- Settlement agreement; order approval pp. 49-50
Commission order · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
Indiana Require collateral arrangements Documented in cited instrument
The approved settlement includes financial-security terms for covered large-load customers.
- Shared mechanism
- Financial security
- Scope
- Indiana Michigan Power Tariff I.P., Indiana jurisdiction; covered large-load customers.
- Important difference
- Collateral and exceptions depend on tariff eligibility and customer circumstances.
- Source location
- Settlement agreement; order approval pp. 49-50
Commission order · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
Indiana Report large-load developments Documented in cited instrument
The order addresses recurring reports and protection of confidential information.
- Shared mechanism
- Regulatory reporting
- Scope
- Indiana Michigan Power Tariff I.P., Indiana jurisdiction; covered large-load customers.
- Important difference
- Regulator access is not equivalent to public disclosure of all reported data.
- Source location
- Order p. 49
Commission order · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
Georgia Allocate infrastructure costs Documented in cited instrument
The PSC approved additional service terms addressing site and upstream power-system costs.
- Shared mechanism
- Attributable-cost allocation
- Scope
- Georgia Power covered new large-load customers; not every Georgia utility.
- Important difference
- Applies to the specified Georgia Power customer category; implementation is contract-specific.
- Source location
- Commission announcement p. 1
Commission decision announcement · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
Georgia Allow longer contracts and minimum bills Documented in cited instrument
The approved rule allows longer contracts and minimum billing for covered high-load customers.
- Shared mechanism
- Minimum payment commitments
- Scope
- Georgia Power covered new large-load customers; not every Georgia utility.
- Important difference
- Authority to impose terms is not a universal mandatory billing percentage.
- Source location
- Commission announcement p. 1
Commission decision announcement · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
Oregon Create a separate service class Documented in cited instrument
The act calls for tariffs assigning covered service costs to large energy use facilities and mitigating cost shifts.
- Shared mechanism
- Attributable-cost allocation
- Scope
- Covered large energy use facilities served by electric companies; tariff and contract provisions have distinct applicability.
- Important difference
- Separate tariff approval and transition provisions matter; a statute is not itself a completed tariff.
- Source location
- Section 2
Enrolled text; Chapter 323 confirmed · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
Oregon Require contractual minimum payments Documented in cited instrument
Covered service contracts must include a minimum payment amount or percentage determined by the commission.
- Shared mechanism
- Minimum payment commitments
- Scope
- Covered large energy use facilities served by electric companies; tariff and contract provisions have distinct applicability.
- Important difference
- The law leaves the amount or percentage to the commission.
- Source location
- Sections 5-6
Enrolled text; Chapter 323 confirmed · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
Oregon Consider clean-energy compatibility Documented in cited instrument
Commission tariff review must consider effects on clean-energy targets and compatible resource procurement.
- Shared mechanism
- Clean-energy service terms
- Scope
- Covered large energy use facilities served by electric companies; tariff and contract provisions have distinct applicability.
- Important difference
- A tariff-review criterion differs from Minnesota optional clean-energy procurement.
- Source location
- Section 2(3)
Enrolled text; Chapter 323 confirmed · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
Oregon Report load trends to lawmakers Documented in cited instrument
The commission must report on large-load trends and implications while protecting proprietary information.
- Shared mechanism
- Regulatory reporting
- Scope
- Covered large energy use facilities served by electric companies; tariff and contract provisions have distinct applicability.
- Important difference
- A legislative reporting mechanism, not disclosure of every customer contract.
- Source location
- Section 7
Enrolled text; Chapter 323 confirmed · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
Virginia Separate potable and reclaimed volumes Enacted, future effective
The future-effective code adds supplier reporting by customer category, separating potable and reclaimed water.
- Shared mechanism
- Water-use reporting
- Scope
- Registered water users supplying water offsite; categorized reporting, not universal facility-level public disclosure.
- Important difference
- Monthly data can be replaced by quarterly totals where unavailable; facility-specific disclosure is not established here.
- Effective date in source
- 2027-01-01
- Source location
- Subsection C, version effective January 1, 2027
Enacted, future effective · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
Virginia Connect electricity, water and generators Official report listed
The official report listing describes a cross-resource account of service agreements, water usage and generator permits.
- Shared mechanism
- Regulatory reporting
- Scope
- Report description covers utility agreements, water use and generator permitting; underlying report data not ingested.
- Important difference
- This confirms the report description, not completeness or accuracy of individual facility records.
- Source location
- RD637 executive summary
Official report listing · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
New York Assess cumulative development impacts Documented in cited instrument
The order directs a generic environmental impact statement for covered data-center development.
- Shared mechanism
- Environmental assessment
- Scope
- Covered data centers and discretionary DEC permits; definition and exemptions must be checked.
- Important difference
- A statewide review process differs from a project-specific approval.
- Source location
- Order section 1
Executive order · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
New York Link permit restraint to review Documented in cited instrument
The order holds covered discretionary DEC permits in abeyance subject to its scope and exclusions.
- Shared mechanism
- Interim permit restraint
- Scope
- Covered data centers and discretionary DEC permits; definition and exemptions must be checked.
- Important difference
- Applies to covered DEC applications not determined complete before the order; local-government permits are excluded. Not proof that a named project stopped.
- Source location
- Order section 1 and definition in section 6
Executive order · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
New York Review water-withdrawal rules Agency review directed
DEC must assess whether water-withdrawal rules, reporting or guidance should change for large users.
- Shared mechanism
- Water-supply review
- Scope
- Covered data centers and discretionary DEC permits; definition and exemptions must be checked.
- Important difference
- Agency review direction, not an enacted new facility-level water cap.
- Source location
- Order section 5
Executive order · Source reviewed 2026-10-03
SAVRN synthesis · proposed framework
Combine provisions into a coherent system.
Select state provisions above. The builder organizes their purposes, surfaces dependencies and tradeoffs, and preserves the source of every selection. It does not turn selected provisions into enacted law or establish which policy works best.
How relationships and coverage are defined
One relationship joins a state, an instrument, and a specific provision to a normalized mechanism. States are connected when documented provisions share a mechanism. Groups overlap; the system does not infer legal equivalence, adoption by neighboring states, policy effectiveness, or an absence of policy from missing records.
The matrix counts provisions in this dataset, not laws or affected projects. Comparison and framework selections can be shared by URL. Downloads preserve scope, source location, status, and review date. Future-effective provisions and agency review directions keep their labels.
The initial taxonomy was informed by Ahmed Saeed and Josiah Hester's Governing Datacenter Growth and research paper. SAVRN's source-backed comparison extends beyond the study. Framework purposes, dependencies, and tradeoff prompts are SAVRN analysis, not measured outcomes or statements of law.
Explore the full trackers
Go deeper into a topic. Each tracker opens in a new tab, keeping your state comparison here.
Moratorium tracker ↗Local restrictions and pauses
Delay watchlist ↗Projects and schedule risks
Grid operator watchlist ↗Utility rules and grid access
Water tracker ↗Water supply and cooling
Permits and development ↗Permits, facilities and power development
Capital Atlas ↗Capital and project activityScarcity tracker ↗Power and market constraints