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.
New Jersey: inspect the evidence.
Counts are records, not unique projects. Records can overlap across trackers.
100 Jersey Avenue AI data center Record-specific: New Brunswick · rejected
City Council unanimously rejected
Feb 18 2026
Interconnected Capital ↗Alpha Borough data center ban Record-specific: Alpha Borough · moratorium
Alpha Borough is listed by the Pinelands Preservation Alliance, an advocacy group, among 97 New Jersey municipalities that had banned data centers as of 30 September 2026. The listing gives no adoption date, ordinance number or vote. Warren County Commissioner James Kern said in a 2 September 2026 release that 14 of the county's 22 municipalities had adopted the county's model data center ordinance.
Listed as banned as of 30 September 2026; adoption date not stated; advocacy group listing, single source
Pinelands Preservation Alliance (advocacy group) ↗ Pinelands Preservation Alliance and ANJEC release (2 September 2026) ↗Bass River Township data center ban Record-specific: Bass River Township · moratorium
Bass River Township is listed by the Pinelands Preservation Alliance, an advocacy group, among 97 New Jersey municipalities that had banned data centers as of 30 September 2026. The listing gives no adoption date, ordinance number or vote.
Listed as banned as of 30 September 2026; adoption date not stated; advocacy group listing, single source
Pinelands Preservation Alliance (advocacy group) ↗Bayonne citywide data center ban Record-specific: City of Bayonne · moratorium
The city council voted 5-0 to prohibit data centers citywide. A savings clause preserves three data center permissions granted before the ordinance. Hudson County View dated the vote 13 August 2026.
Aug 13 2026
Hudson County View ↗Bell Works data center application (Holmdel ban adopted after filing) Record-specific: Holmdel Township Committee; Holmdel Planning Board · other
The Holmdel Township Committee introduced an ordinance banning data centers township-wide on 21 July 2026 and unanimously adopted it on 11 August 2026. Somerset Development, owner of Bell Works, submitted a site plan on 24 July for a 40-megawatt, 108,000 square foot data center, citing a redevelopment agreement that lists data centers as a permitted use. The township attorney said on 11 August that an applicant is generally entitled to the zoning in effect when a complete application is filed, and the application sits before the Holmdel Planning Board. Residents organized against the project over water, power and noise concerns.
Ban introduced 21 July 2026 and adopted 11 August 2026; Bell Works application filed 24 July 2026 and pending before the planning board
NJ Advance Media via Yahoo News: N.J. landmark could be home to a massive data center despite township ban ↗ Asbury Park Press via Yahoo News: See plans for proposed data center at Bell Works, Holmdel ↗Berkeley Township data center ban Record-specific: Berkeley Township · moratorium
Berkeley Township is listed by the Pinelands Preservation Alliance, an advocacy group, among 97 New Jersey municipalities that had banned data centers as of 30 September 2026. The listing gives no adoption date, ordinance number or vote.
Listed as banned as of 30 September 2026; adoption date not stated; advocacy group listing, single source
Pinelands Preservation Alliance (advocacy group) ↗Bernards Township data center ban Record-specific: Bernards Township Committee · moratorium
The Bernards Township Committee unanimously adopted an ordinance banning data centers on 23 June 2026 by a 4-0 vote, with one member absent. The ordinance bars data centers in all township zones and removes data processing centers from the uses permitted in the E-1 through E-5 office zones, which are mostly developed office sites near Interstate 287 and Route 202. It was introduced on 26 May and the Planning Board found on 16 June that it was not inconsistent with the master plan. The mayor cited noise, sewer capacity and environmental concerns.
Adopted 23 June 2026
New Jersey Hills Media Group: Data center ban is adopted in Bernards Township ↗ Patch ↗Carneys Point Township data center ban Record-specific: Carneys Point Township · moratorium
Carneys Point Township is listed by the Pinelands Preservation Alliance, an advocacy group, among 97 New Jersey municipalities that had banned data centers as of 30 September 2026. The listing gives no adoption date, ordinance number or vote.
Listed as banned as of 30 September 2026; adoption date not stated; advocacy group listing, single source
Pinelands Preservation Alliance (advocacy group) ↗Cherry Hill large-scale data center ban Record-specific: Cherry Hill Township · moratorium
Cherry Hill Township Council unanimously passed an ordinance on 28 July 2026 listing large-scale AI and cloud data centers as a non-permitted land use. Small server rooms for business file storage remain allowed. The Inquirer also reported bans in Medford, Mansfield, and Chesterfield Townships in June and July 2026. 70and73.com reported the council adopted the ordinance unanimously at its Monday meeting, which was 27 July 2026.
Adopted unanimously 27 July 2026; reported 28 July 2026
The Philadelphia Inquirer ↗ 70and73.com ↗Chesterfield data center moratorium Record-specific: Chesterfield · moratorium
Chesterfield, New Jersey, enacted a local data center moratorium or ban, recorded in SAVRN's moratorium tracker as dated July 2026. Ban on data centers in all zones, adopted alongside Mansfield Township. The measure has no end date by design.
Enacted July 2026
inquirer.com ↗Cranford data center moratorium Record-specific: Cranford · moratorium
Cranford, New Jersey, enacted a local data center moratorium or ban, recorded in SAVRN's moratorium tracker as dated January 2026. Township Committee unanimously approved ordinance removing data centers as a permitted use in all commercial zones. Prompted by CoreWeave data center under construction in nearby Kenilworth. The measure has no end date by design.
Enacted January 2026
patch.com ↗DataOne Vineland AI data center campus (neighbor noise class action) Record-specific: Cumberland County Superior Court; Vineland Planning Board · litigation
Three Vineland residents filed a lawsuit in Cumberland County Superior Court on 15 June 2026 alleging excessive noise from the DataOne campus and seeking class action status, according to the Press of Atlantic City, which in July had separately reported that two residents filed a noise complaint in federal court in late May. On 27 August DataOne asked the court to dismiss the suit or deny class certification, and Judge James Swift said the motion will be decided on 25 September. Separately, the Vineland Planning Board voted 8-1 on 17 August to approve the campus's next phase, which includes an onsite natural gas power system and a 1.5 million gallon liquefied natural gas tank. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection said it had issued no permits for generators at the site, which it noticed during a 29 July inspection, and had not made a compliance determination. On 22 September 2026 the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection fined DataOne $1.07 million for operating 62 natural gas-powered generators without permits, which the DEP called the largest enforcement action it has taken against a data center. A DEP spokesperson told Floodlight the company must obtain the permits or cease operating the generators and has 45 days to do so, during which the generators may keep running. DataOne said the engines are temporary until Bloom Energy fuel cells are operational.
Suit filed 15 June 2026; dismissal motion filed 27 August 2026, decision set for 25 September 2026; next phase approved 17 August 2026
Press of Atlantic City: DataOne asks court to toss noise lawsuit over Vineland data center ↗ NJ Advance Media via Yahoo News: N.J. town approves next phase of massive AI data center as residents erupt ↗ Floodlight: One of East Coast's largest data centers accused of violating federal law ↗ The Guardian: New Jersey lawsuit takes on datacenter's noise pollution ↗ Press of Atlantic City: Hamilton Township adopts data center moratorium ↗ WHYY ↗ Floodlight ↗Delaware Township data center ban Record-specific: Delaware Township · moratorium
Delaware Township is listed by the Pinelands Preservation Alliance, an advocacy group, among 97 New Jersey municipalities that had banned data centers as of 30 September 2026. The listing gives no adoption date, ordinance number or vote.
Listed as banned as of 30 September 2026; adoption date not stated; advocacy group listing, single source
Pinelands Preservation Alliance (advocacy group) ↗Downe Township data center ban Record-specific: Downe Township · moratorium
Downe Township is listed by the Pinelands Preservation Alliance, an advocacy group, among 97 New Jersey municipalities that had banned data centers as of 30 September 2026. The listing gives no adoption date, ordinance number or vote.
Listed as banned as of 30 September 2026; adoption date not stated; advocacy group listing, single source
Pinelands Preservation Alliance (advocacy group) ↗East Brunswick ordinance banning data centers Record-specific: East Brunswick · moratorium
The Township Council unanimously adopted an ordinance prohibiting data centers on Aug. 25, 2026, after a clerical correction changing 'primary use' to 'principal use' to match the land use code. East Brunswick acted the same night as North Brunswick and Stafford Township.
Adopted August 2026
Source ↗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