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 Mexico: inspect the evidence.
Counts are records, not unique projects. Records can overlap across trackers.
Google potential Lea County data center Record-specific: · exploring
Google said it is exploring a potential data center in Lea County, New Mexico and began community engagement, noting many details remain outstanding and no final decision has been made. No investment amount, capacity or timeline was disclosed. On Thursday 24 September 2026 Google and partner Excelsior Energy Capital presented the project to Lea County commissioners, who voted to consider over $134 billion of industrial revenue bonds. The plan is two 900,000-square-foot buildings on 1,890 acres, about 1,700 construction jobs and 125 permanent jobs, a 9.6 million gallon one-time fill for closed-loop cooling and about 42,000 gallons a day of municipal water once staffed. 2 GW solar field by Excelsior Energy Capital about 3 miles from the site; companies say they will cover 100% of new generation costs Lea County commissioners on 24 September 2026 agreed to consider more than $134 billion of industrial revenue bonds; an IRB authorization ceiling for the abatement structure, not a disclosed construction budget No IT MW disclosed; Excelsior Energy Capital to build a 2 GW solar field about 3 miles away
Announced 14 September 2026; IRB consideration approved by Lea County commissioners 24 September 2026
Google blog ↗ Santa Fe New Mexican (via Yahoo News), 25 September 2026 ↗Green Chile gas pipeline route for Project Jupiter (Oracle, Doña Ana County) Record-specific: New Mexico State Land Office · denied
New Mexico Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard denied, in a letter dated 14 July 2026, Energy Transfer's renewed request to route 0.6 miles of the 17-mile pipeline serving Project Jupiter across state trust lands, after first rejecting applications in March 2026. She said the request was not in the best interest of the state trust. Energy Transfer's Transwestern unit then told federal regulators the Green Chile Project's in-service date had moved from 15 August 2026 to 1 February 2027. Oracle's 8 September 2026 release said its commitments assume the air permit and pipeline are approved as originally planned
Route denied by letter dated 14 July 2026; in-service date moved to 1 February 2027 per a filing reported 14 August 2026
KFOX14 ↗ The Next Web ↗ Oracle ↗H5 505 Marquette, Albuquerque Record-specific: Albuquerque · operating
H5 acquired the 225,000 sq ft, 18-floor 505 Marquette Hotel in Albuquerque, New Mexico on June 23, 2022; operational status not stated in the source. 225,000 sq ft, 18-floor building
acquired June 23, 2022
PitchBook ↗Project Jupiter (10,000-acre Green Data Center) Record-specific: Socorro County, NM · moratorium
One-year moratorium after 2+ months of opposition. A resident suit alleges $165 billion in industrial revenue bonds were issued for the Oracle/OpenAI development before the Planning and Zoning Commission voted; a judge has allowed an amended complaint to proceed.
Jun 10 2026; dollar value n.a.
Interconnected Capital ↗ KOB ↗ Organmountainnews ↗ Sourcenm ↗Project Jupiter force majeure notice (Oracle, Doña Ana County) Record-specific: Contract between Oracle and the Project Jupiter developer · other
Bloomberg News reported on 24 September 2026, citing people familiar with the situation, that Oracle sent a notice citing force majeure to the project's developer, which Bloomberg describes as a unit of Blue Owl Capital. The notice is intended to let Oracle put off payments if Project Jupiter is derailed and fails to come online in 2028 as planned, rather than to exit as the main tenant; Bloomberg said it is not certain the notice would release Oracle from its agreed financial obligations. Reuters, which carried the report, could not independently verify it, and Oracle and Blue Owl did not immediately comment. Oracle shares fell about 4 percent in premarket trading after the report, per Reuters. The notice follows the Financial Times report on 18 September 2026 that the roughly $18 billion of construction loans for the campus were quoted at 89 to 91 cents on the dollar, the New Mexico Supreme Court permitting stays (row 131) and the July 2026 denial of the Green Chile gas pipeline route (row 346). The Wall Street Journal reported on 25 September 2026 that Oracle delivered the notice earlier that week to Stack Infrastructure, the Blue Owl-owned developer, to push back the date at which it pays full rent; the lease, on hell-or-high-water terms per people familiar with it, lets Oracle do so for up to three years, with the lease term extended correspondingly. The first phase had been expected in the third quarter of 2028. Oracle said Project Jupiter remains on its planned schedule and that such notices are commonplace; Blue Owl said the notice does not change the financial commitments. The WSJ also reported that Oracle removed one of its land and power partners, identified by the Daily Caller as BorderPlex Digital Assets, and that about 20 banks provided $18 billion of construction financing with Blue Owl funds contributing about $3 billion of equity. A New Mexico Environment Department spokesman told the Daily Caller News Foundation that no replacement hearing officer had been appointed for the air permit and that 23 November 2026 remains the department's decision deadline. ENR reported on 28 September 2026 that Oracle sent the force majeure notice on 24 September; Oracle Vice President Michael Egbert said in a written statement that Project Jupiter remains on its planned schedule and that such notices do not, by themselves, establish a project delay or change delivery expectations. STACK said it, Blue Owl and Oracle remain fully aligned, and Bloom Energy said Oracle remains committed to its 2.4 GW fuel-cell contract. Oracle said more than 3,600 construction workers are on the campus. The 2,462 MW Yucca Growth Infrastructure fuel-cell microgrid still awaits its NMED air permit (decision deadline 23 November 2026) and the supply pipeline's reported in-service target is February 2027. In a joint statement on 30 September 2026, during flooding across southern New Mexico, Oracle and STACK Infrastructure said floodwater reached the Project Jupiter campus but no critical infrastructure was damaged, and Oracle said the planned timeline is unchanged (American Bazaar, single outlet).
Notice delivered the week of 21 September 2026 and reported 24 September 2026; WSJ detail 25 September 2026; NMED air permit decision deadline 23 November 2026
Bloomberg News, 24 September 2026 ↗ Reuters (via The Economic Times), 24 September 2026 ↗ The Wall Street Journal via MSN ↗ Reuters via MSN ↗ Daily Caller ↗ El Paso Matters, 24 September 2026 ↗ ENR ↗ The American Bazaar ↗Project Jupiter permitting stay (Oracle campus) Record-specific: Doña Ana County · delayed
The New Mexico Supreme Court unanimously granted two stays reported 24 August 2026. It halted the New Mexico Environment Department air quality permit hearing set to open 14 September 2026 in Sunland Park on the campus's on-site methane fuel-cell microgrid, and it ordered the Office of the State Engineer to pause emergency authorization of water from a newly constructed well used for construction. New Energy Economy petitioned on the air permit, arguing the department cannot hold a hearing before the project's fuel source is established; the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned on the water authorization. The designated hearing officer withdrew from the case, and a replacement will be appointed after the stay is lifted. Site work continued after the New Mexico Supreme Court order pausing the air quality permit process and the State Engineer water permit, with 2,105 construction workers on site as of 30 June 2026 per Oracle records reported by Searchlight New Mexico. On 8 September 2026 Oracle issued an RFP for 2 GW of new New Mexico renewable generation deliverable between 2027 and 2031, tied to 100% carbon-free matching for Project Jupiter by 2031, and offered up to $1 million for carbon capture research on the Bloom fuel cells On Thursday 17 September 2026 the New Mexico Supreme Court unanimously denied, without comment, New Energy Economy's air-permit petition and the Center for Biological Diversity's air-permit and emergency-well petitions and lifted both stays, so the air permit and State Engineer proceedings can resume; no replacement hearing officer or hearing date had been named. Separately, the FT reported via Reuters on 18 September 2026 that about $18 billion of loans tied to the campus were quoted at 89 to 91 cents on the dollar. As of 25 September 2026 the New Mexico Environment Department had not appointed a new hearing officer for the air quality permit; the department said the new officer will set the hearing schedule once appointed and that 23 November 2026 remains its deadline for a permit decision. On Friday 2 October 2026 New Mexico Environment Secretary James Kenney filed the appointment of retired U.S. District Judge James O. Browning as hearing officer for the Project Jupiter air quality permit proceeding, replacing attorney Max Shepherd, who recused himself in August 2026. No new hearing schedule has been set, and the Santa Fe New Mexican reported that the decision by November sought by the developers now appears unlikely.
Stays ordered August 2026; lifted by the New Mexico Supreme Court 17 September 2026; new hearing officer (retired Judge James O. Browning) appointed 2 October 2026; hearing schedule not yet set; NMED decision deadline 23 November 2026
Source New Mexico ↗ KOB 4 ↗ Albuquerque Journal ↗ Searchlight New Mexico ↗ Oracle ↗ KFOX14 ↗ Source NM via Yahoo News ↗ KRWG ↗ Daily Caller (NMED spokesman Drew Goretzka) ↗ Daily Caller via MSN ↗ Santa Fe New Mexican (via Yahoo), 2 October 2026 ↗ Santa Fe New Mexican, 2 October 2026 ↗Rio Communities data center moratorium Record-specific: Rio Communities · moratorium
Rio Communities, New Mexico, enacted a local data center moratorium or ban, recorded in SAVRN's moratorium tracker as dated August 2026. 365-day moratorium on uses not defined in the zoning code exceeding 20,000 sq ft in commercial, industrial, and manufacturing zones, 4-0 vote; prompted by CBRE marketing 365+ acres as premier data center development site; council also directed staff to draft data center zoning definitions. The measure runs to 26 August 2027 and applies at a threshold of 20,000 sq ft.
Enacted August 2026
news-bulletin.com ↗Santa Fe County 18-month data center moratorium Record-specific: Santa Fe County Commission · moratorium
Santa Fe County adopted an 18-month moratorium on new data center development on 1 July 2026. Officials plan to use the pause to develop land-use and environmental rules. It was described as the second New Mexico county to impose a data center moratorium in 2026.
Adopted 1 July 2026; 18 months
Data Center Bans ↗Sierra County 18-month data center moratorium (Spaceport America area) Record-specific: Sierra County Commission · moratorium
The Sierra County Commission unanimously approved an 18-month data center moratorium at a meeting in Truth or Consequences on Tuesday 21 July 2026. The item began as a resolution opposing large-scale data centers and sending concern letters to state leaders, but Commissioner Sandy Jones proposed amending it into a county moratorium. Source NM reports residents were protesting a data center proposal linked to Spaceport America.
Approved unanimously 21 July 2026; 18 months
Source NM via Yahoo News ↗ Albuquerque Journal ↗Stargate site, Dona Ana (announced) Record-specific: Santa Teresa · announced
Listed in the summary table among the 7+ announced US Stargate sites. No site-level dollar or MW figure appears in this part. Dona Ana County commissioners voted 4-1 on 19 September 2025 to approve up to $165 billion of industrial revenue bonds for Project Jupiter in Santa Teresa, developed by BorderPlex Digital Assets and STACK Infrastructure for lease to Oracle Cloud Infrastructure. The campus remains in press coverage in the week of 17 to 24 September 2026 over its $18 billion construction loans and permitting. Bloomberg News reported on 24 September 2026, citing people familiar with the situation, that Oracle sent a notice citing force majeure to the project's developer, which Bloomberg describes as a unit of Blue Owl Capital. The notice is intended to let Oracle put off payments if Project Jupiter is derailed and fails to come online in 2028 as planned, rather than to exit as the main tenant; Bloomberg said it is not certain the notice would release Oracle from its agreed financial obligations. Reuters, which carried the report, could not independently verify it, and Oracle and Blue Owl did not immediately comment. Oracle shares fell about 4 percent in premarket trading after the report, per Reuters. Oracle told El Paso Matters on 24 September 2026 that the project remains on schedule; Bisnow, citing Reuters, reported a one-year delay over power. Bisnow reports Blue Owl contributed $3 billion of equity alongside the $18 billion debt commitment and that Bloom Energy fuel cells are planned to power the 2.4 GW campus. $165 billion of industrial revenue bonds approved by the Dona Ana County commission 4-1 on 19 September 2025; a financing authorization, not a disclosed construction budget
Force majeure notice reported 24 September 2026; Oracle says on schedule; one-year delay reported 25 September 2026
OpenAI Oct 2025 ↗ OpenAI Jan 2025 ↗ El Paso Matters ↗ Bloomberg News, 24 September 2026 ↗ Reuters (via The Economic Times), 24 September 2026 ↗ El Paso Matters, 24 September 2026 ↗ Bisnow, 25 September 2026 ↗Bernalillo County county: Bernalillo County · in_force
Bernalillo County guardrails resolution (proposed by Commissioner Eric Olivas) passed 4-1 (Benson dissent) on February 11, 2026. Project Jupiter (Oracle / $50B / ~1,400 acres) is a SEPARATE project in Doña Ana County , it was incorrectly conflated with this resolution in earlier entries.
2026-02-11
www.bernco.gov ↗ www.abqjournal.com ↗ citydesk.org ↗Clovis (Curry County) city: Clovis (Curry County) · denied
The Clovis City Commission voted 5-3 on Thursday, September 17, 2026 to reject a proposed 120-day moratorium on building data centers within city limits. Mayor Mike Morris said the city will instead develop a policy on the facilities, citing the need to protect the city's water supply.
2026-09-17
abc7amarillo.com ↗Dona Ana County county: Dona Ana County · approved
Doña Ana County, New Mexico approved a historic Industrial Revenue Bond for Project Jupiter, a $165 BILLION (over 30 years) AI data center campus by STACK Infrastructure and BorderPlex Digital Assets, with Oracle as anchor tenant. On April 14, 2026, the County Commission adopted a resolution directing the County Manager to independently verify Project Jupiter's water use claims, responding to public pressure over water transparency. On March 31, 2026, the New Mexico State Land Commissioner rejected the gas pipeline application needed to power Project Jupiter, a major energy obstacle. The project faces two lawsuits, 7,000+ public comments on air permits, and growing community opposition.
2025-08-27
www.donaana.gov ↗ www.datacenterdynamics.com ↗ www.oracle.com ↗ sourcenm.com ↗ www.krqe.com ↗ projectjupitertogether.com ↗ www.nmborderplex.com ↗ www.abqjournal.com ↗ www.organmountainnews.com ↗ truthout.org ↗ www.datacenterdynamics.com ↗ kfoxtv.com ↗Doña Ana County county: Doña Ana County · enacted
At its September 22, 2026 meeting the Doña Ana County Commission announced an 11-member Project Jupiter monitoring committee that will hold forums on environmental concerns. Commissioners also unanimously adopted transparency policies that go beyond the Open Meetings Act, including posting agendas 144 hours in advance and livestreaming meetings. Two Project Jupiter opponents were accused of disorderly conduct at the meeting.
2026-09-22
searchlightnm.org ↗Grant County (New Mexico Environment Department) county: Grant County (New Mexico Environment Department) · pending
2026-09-24: Grant County commissioners on Thursday, September 24, 2026 approved, 4-1, a notice of intent to consider a one-year moratorium on data centers, with Commissioner Tom Shelley dissenting. The proposal by Commissioner Nancy Stephens is modeled on Socorro County's ordinance and responds to a data center proposed by Site Layer 1, LLC near Hachita and Playas in southern Grant County. The next hearing is October 8, 2026. The state Environment Secretary said the department will not act on the project's air quality permit until the developer carries out acceptable community engagement. 2026-09-29: New Mexico Environment Secretary James Kenney sent a letter dated September 29, 2026 to the developers of a proposed data center tied to Site Layer 1, LLC in Grant County criticizing their lack of community outreach and engagement. It followed a September 18 letter expressing disappointment with the developers' lack of communication. The Santa Fe New Mexican reported that Grant County commissioners have a vote on a data center moratorium set for October 22, 2026. Next date: 2026-10-22.
2026-09-29
searchlightnm.org ↗ www.santafenewmexican.com ↗ www.santafenewmexican.com ↗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.
Permits and development ↗Permits, facilities and power development