State Connections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The state may not limit local authority to regulate data-center development or operation.

Shared mechanism

Preserved local authority

Scope

Statutorily defined data centers; electricity providers, water providers, and local governments.

Important difference

Preservation of local authority is not evidence that a local ban exists.

Source location

Section 4

Session law · Source reviewed 2026-10-03

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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