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.
Maine: inspect the evidence.
Counts are records, not unique projects. Records can overlap across trackers.
Androscoggin Mill data center (Jay) Record-specific: Town of Jay · withdrawn
Jay's town manager said on 11 June 2026 that Sentinel Data Centers had advised it does not intend to move forward with the planned $550 million data center at the former Androscoggin Mill. The information came from mill owner JGT2 Redevelopment, which had planned to partner with Sentinel and said it was pursuing talks with other parties while the project is on hold. Gov. Janet Mills had vetoed a statewide data center moratorium in April because it did not exempt the Jay project.
Reported 11 June 2026; project on hold after developer exit
Sun Journal: Plan for $550M data center in Jay on hold, official says ↗ Maine Public ↗Bangor data center moratorium Record-specific: Bangor City Council · moratorium
The Bangor City Council first approved a 180-day data center moratorium in April 2026, fast-tracked after a developer with San Francisco-based Kratos AI approached the city in March about building a data center. On Monday 28 September 2026 the council voted 8-0 to extend the moratorium by another 180 days so staff and consultants can draft zoning rules on infrastructure, environmental and neighbor impacts.
Adopted April 2026 for 180 days; extended 28 September 2026 by 180 days
WABI ↗ Bangor Daily News ↗Bates Mill No. 3 data center Record-specific: City of Lewiston · rejected
A developer proposed a $300 million data center in Bates Mill No. 3 in Lewiston, with the public notified six days before the council vote. The Lewiston City Council unanimously rejected it on 16 December 2025. Councilors cited limited notice and engagement, environmental concerns near the riverfront, about 30 jobs, and a requested 90 percent tax break for 10 years.
Rejected 16 December 2025
The Maine Monitor ↗Brunswick 180-day data center moratorium Record-specific: Town of Brunswick · moratorium
The Brunswick Town Council unanimously passed a 180-day data center moratorium in early June 2026, running until December. Existing smaller facilities in town include Enable IT and FirstLight. The Portland Press Herald reported the council approved the pause on Monday 1 June 2026; the town will not process applications for new or expanded data centers of 1 MW or more during the 180 days.
Passed 1 June 2026; 180 days
Spectrum News Maine ↗ Portland Press Herald ↗Dixfield 180-day data center moratorium Record-specific: Town of Dixfield · moratorium
Dixfield residents voted 35-3 by secret ballot at a town meeting to enact a 180-day moratorium on data centers, effective immediately. The Select Board said no one had requested permits for a data center despite local rumors. The planning board will research data centers and draft an ordinance during the moratorium.
Approved 14 September 2026; 180 days
Sun Journal ↗Dover-Foxcroft 180-day data center moratorium Record-specific: Town of Dover-Foxcroft · moratorium
The Dover-Foxcroft Select Board passed a resolution on Monday 28 September 2026 temporarily banning data center applications and projects for 180 days while officials review whether existing ordinances are sufficient. Select Chair Steve Grammont said no data center proposal is pending. The resolution defines data centers broadly, including server farms, cryptocurrency mining operations and AI training or processing facilities.
Resolution passed Monday 28 September 2026; 180 days
Piscataquis Observer ↗ Bangor Daily News ↗Eastport data center moratorium (DeepGreen Western Passage) Record-specific: City of Eastport · moratorium
City councilors unanimously adopted a 180-day moratorium on 12 August 2026 barring approval of any permit, license or application for industrial data centers or computing facilities and associated infrastructure, on land or underwater. On 27 August 2026 the Planning Board unanimously recommended that the city adopt a permanent ban. The measures respond to DeepGreen Western Passage's February 2026 application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a preliminary permit to study a tidal-powered subsea data center in Passamaquoddy Bay; federal regulators accepted that application in the week after the moratorium took effect. A separate citizen petition from the Eastport Coalition for Healthy Oceans seeks an ordinance prohibiting data centers larger than 25,000 sq ft in the city and its coastal waters. The city held a public hearing on citizen-initiated ordinances in September 2026 while residents sought intervenor status in the FERC preliminary permit proceeding for the DeepGreen project. On Tuesday 29 September 2026 the City of Eastport filed a formal motion to intervene at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in DeepGreen Western Passage's application for a 48-month preliminary permit, and in a letter posted 30 September asked FERC to deny it. The letter states that on 9 September 2026 the City Council unanimously enacted ordinance provisions prohibiting large-scale data centers, including underwater data centers, in the areas those provisions cover. The 60-day FERC intervention window that opened with the August acceptance of the application closes in October 2026.
Moratorium adopted 12 August 2026; ordinance prohibiting large-scale data centers enacted 9 September 2026; city motion to intervene filed at FERC 29 September 2026
Maine Public ↗ The Maine Monitor ↗ Bangor Daily News ↗ Strisker daily notes ↗ The Maine Monitor, 2 October 2026 ↗Ellsworth 180-day data center moratorium Record-specific: Ellsworth City Council · moratorium
The Ellsworth City Council voted 4-1 on 17 August 2026 to adopt a 180-day moratorium on data center development with an immediate effective date, with two members absent. The pause gives the city time to study impacts and decide whether to amend ordinances, which currently contain no specific data center standards. Councilor Steve O'Halloran voted against it.
Adopted 17 August 2026; 180 days
The Ellsworth American: Ellsworth City Council approves data center moratorium ↗Gorham 180-day data center moratorium Record-specific: Town of Gorham · moratorium
The Gorham Town Council voted 7-0 to adopt a 180-day moratorium on large-scale data center proposals, with an option to extend another 180 days. In September 2026 the council voted unanimously to send a proposed permanent ban to the planning board for a public hearing.
Adopted June 2026 (reported 4 June 2026); permanent ban referred to planning board September 2026
Portland Press Herald ↗ WGME ↗Gray 180-day data center moratorium Record-specific: Town of Gray · moratorium
The Gray Town Council unanimously approved a 180-day data center moratorium on 4 August 2026, retroactive to 14 July 2026. The action followed Governor Janet Mills' veto of LD 307, a statewide measure.
Approved 4 August 2026; retroactive to 14 July 2026; 180 days
Portland Press Herald ↗LD 307 Moratorium Amendment Record-specific: Maine (statewide) · denied
Governor Janet Mills VETOED LD 307 on April 24, 2026, "An Act to Establish the Maine Data Center Coordination Council and Place a Temporary Limitation on Certain Data Centers."
April 24, 2026
www.maine.gov ↗ www.maine.gov ↗ www.bangordailynews.com ↗ mainemorningstar.com ↗ techcrunch.com ↗ mainemorningstar.com ↗ www.bostonglobe.com ↗ themainemonitor.org ↗ legislature.maine.gov ↗ www.nrcm.org ↗North Berwick data center ban referendum (November ballot) Record-specific: North Berwick Select Board · other
The North Berwick Select Board approved on a Tuesday, reported 19 August 2026, a November ballot question asking voters whether to enact a zoning amendment that defines and permanently prohibits data centers. The ban would apply to facilities with 25,000 square feet or more of aggregate data center area. Town officials had decided in June to skip a temporary moratorium and let voters decide. The outcome is pending the November vote.
Ballot question approved on a Tuesday (reported 19 August 2026); vote pending in November 2026
Portland Press Herald: North Berwick to ask voters about data center ban, comprehensive plan change ↗ WGME ↗Saco temporary data center moratorium Record-specific: Saco City Council · moratorium
Saco enacted a 61-day data center moratorium in August 2026 to give staff time to write data center rules into the city code. On Monday 28 September 2026 the City Council voted to extend it by 60 days, to 28 November 2026. The city administrator said the city will likely keep extending it until the Maine Data Center Advisory Task Force reports in December.
Enacted August 2026 for 61 days; extended 28 September 2026 to 28 November 2026; single outlet
Portland Press Herald ↗Sanford Woods data center (Sanford emergency moratorium extension) Record-specific: Sanford City Council · moratorium
The Sanford City Council voted unanimously on a Tuesday, reported 5 August 2026, to extend an emergency data center moratorium for 180 days, to expire 31 January 2027. The extension replaces an initial 91-day emergency moratorium, born of a citizen initiative, that would have ended 18 August. The moratoriums halted a data center proposed as part of the Sanford Woods Industrial and Technical Campus while a city task force drafts development standards.
Extended on a Tuesday (reported 5 August 2026); expires 31 January 2027
Portland Press Herald: Sanford extends data center moratorium for 180 days ↗ WMTW via Yahoo ↗Scarborough Technology Park Record-specific: Town of Scarborough · moratorium
The Scarborough Town Council unanimously enacted a 180-day data center moratorium on 3 June 2026, retroactive to applications submitted on or after 1 April 2026. The proposed Scarborough Technology Park by developer Daniel Dickinson on 52 acres was the project cited in coverage.
Enacted 3 June 2026; retroactive to 1 April 2026; 180 days
Portland Press Herald ↗ Spectrum News Maine ↗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