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.
Wyoming: inspect the evidence.
Counts are records, not unique projects. Records can overlap across trackers.
Cheyenne data center Record-specific: Cheyenne · announced
Cheyenne, Wyoming, will be home to Meta's newest data center, its 21st in the U.S. The 715,000-square-foot campus will represent an investment of more than $800 million and support approximately 100 jobs. an investment of more than $800 million
Announced July 2024
Meta Data Centers ↗Cox Ranch data center annexation and rezoning (Skybox Datacenters and ViaWest Group) Record-specific: Cheyenne City Council · approved_after_delay
The Cox Ranch annexation for a data center campus was introduced in April 2026, drew public backlash and was unanimously postponed by the Cheyenne City Council until September. On Monday 28 September 2026 the council approved the annexation 8-2 on third and final reading and approved the accompanying zoning, allowing Skybox Datacenters and ViaWest Group to proceed. Residents criticized the city's handling of data center expansion at the meeting.
Postponed April 2026; approved 8-2 on Monday 28 September 2026
Cowboy State Daily ↗ Wyoming Tribune Eagle ↗ Cap City News ↗ Wyoming Tribune Eagle ↗Cox Ranch data center campus Record-specific: Cheyenne · approved
The Cheyenne City Council voted 8-2 on third and final reading on Monday 28 September 2026 to annex Cox Ranch, an agricultural site west of Roundtop Road and adjacent to Happy Jack Road, and approved the zoning that lets Skybox Datacenters and ViaWest Group proceed with a planned data center campus. The annexation was introduced in April 2026, met public backlash and was postponed until September. The end user has not been named. Council members Lawrence Wolfe and Mark Moody voted no. Not disclosed Not disclosed; about 1,260 acres annexed (Wyoming Tribune Eagle gives about 1,198 acres for the owner-requested annexation, with a city-owned parcel zoned public)
Annexation and rezoning approved 8-2 on Monday 28 September 2026; first introduced April 2026 and postponed to September
Cowboy State Daily ↗ Wyoming Tribune Eagle ↗Crux AI (Google-Blackstone venture) Cheyenne site Record-specific: Cheyenne · delayed
Bloomberg reported on 8 September 2026 that the Google and Blackstone cloud venture has hit delays at major data center locations intended to run Google's chips, among them a data center being developed in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Executives involved with the venture, reported internally as Project Braid, are described as having accepted that data center projects now carry roughly a 50% chance of meeting delivery dates, against about 90% three years ago, with organized opposition, switchgear supply shortages and skilled labor constraints cited as causes. The venture, publicly named Crux AI, was launched with an initial $5 billion equity commitment from Blackstone and targets a first 500 MW in 2027. This record captures a reported schedule delay, not a cancellation, and the parties have not confirmed a revised delivery date.
Reported 8 September 2026
Bloomberg ↗ DCD ↗ Yahoo Finance ↗Microsoft Highlands data center campus annexation (about 3,460 acres, south Cheyenne) Record-specific: Laramie County District Court / City of Cheyenne · litigation
Laramie County homeowner Heather Madrid Donis filed two petitions in Laramie County District Court in September 2026 challenging the city's approval of the roughly 3,460-acre annexation for Microsoft's proposed 2.7 GW Highlands campus. One, filed 3 September, asks the court to void the 13 July annexation because the ordinance names U.S. Sen. Cynthia Lummis as landowner although Microsoft said it closed on the property 26 June; the other alleges the council violated the Open Meetings Act on 10 August when, after an executive session, it voted 8-1 to seek a court ruling on whether the annexation is subject to a referendum instead of acting on a petition with more than 3,000 signatures. The city declined to comment on ongoing litigation.
Annexation approved 13 July 2026; petitions filed September 2026 (one on 3 September); reported 25 September 2026
Cowboy State Daily ↗Microsoft southeast Cheyenne data center expansion annexation (3,460 acres) Record-specific: Cheyenne · approved
Cheyenne City Council approved Microsoft's request to annex about 3,460 acres east of South Greeley Highway and south of the Sweetgrass subdivision to expand its Cheyenne data center operations, with Councilmen Mark Moody, Larry Wolfe and Pete Laybourn voting against after a motion to delay six months failed. Microsoft officials have said the buildout will take 10 to 20 years. Public debate centered on water use, environmental impact, infrastructure demands and transparency Not disclosed in the fetched coverage Not disclosed in the fetched coverage
Approved in the early hours of Tuesday 14 July 2026; reported 16 to 17 July 2026; single-outlet report (Wyoming Tribune Eagle via Yahoo News)
Wyoming Tribune Eagle via Yahoo News ↗Orchard Hills data center rezoning (Trammell Crow) Record-specific: City of Cheyenne · other
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the land-use map and rezoning amendments on 8 September 2026; the council held first reading and a public hearing without a vote on 14 September 2026, and the first annexation vote is set for 28 September 2026. On Monday 21 September 2026 the council's Public Services Committee recommended approval of the annexation and initial agricultural zoning on second reading, voted to amend the zoning map and to overrule the Planning Commission's denial of the future land-use map amendment, and postponed the land-use map item to align with the annexation process. The 162-acre site adjoins Meta's Cheyenne campus. The council did not take final action on 28 September 2026; Cowboy State Daily reported on 29 September 2026 that final votes on the 162-acre Orchard Hills annexation are scheduled for 12 October 2026. At the same 28 September meeting the council approved, 8-2 on third reading, the separate 1,260-acre Cox Ranch annexation and business park rezoning for a Skybox Data Centers and ViaWest Group data center. The Wyoming Tribune Eagle reported on 1 October 2026 that at the Monday 28 September 2026 meeting the council approved on second reading the annexation of the 162-acre site, its initial agricultural zoning and the change to light industrial zoning, and voted to overrule the Planning Commission's unanimous denial of the related future land-use map; the resolution changing the land-use designation was postponed to 12 October 2026 to align with the annexation.
Denial recommended by Planning Commission 8 September 2026; council approved annexation and zoning on second reading and overruled the commission 28 September 2026; final votes scheduled 12 October 2026
Wyoming Tribune Eagle via Yahoo News ↗ Wyoming Tribune Eagle via Buffalo Bulletin ↗ Cowboy State Daily ↗ Wyoming Tribune Eagle ↗Project Jade (Crusoe and Tallgrass Cheyenne campus) Record-specific: Laramie County · restarted
On Tuesday 9 June 2026 Crusoe said that, at the request of its customer, it had paused development activities on Project Jade, the 1.8 GW campus it was developing with Tallgrass; Tallgrass confirmed Crusoe had demobilized and left the site months earlier and said its power work continued. Bloomberg, as relayed by TechRadar, reported that customers including Google had raised concerns over cost and construction time. The campus has since moved forward as Google's Project Tembo with Tallgrass, with four data center buildings instead of five (see site google-project-tembo-laramie-wy).
Crusoe pause statement 9 June 2026; campus presented by Google as Project Tembo 9 September 2026
Wyoming Tribune Eagle (via Yahoo), 9 June 2026 ↗ TechRadar Pro (via MSN), 12 June 2026 ↗ Stocktwits (via MSN), 11 June 2026 ↗ Wyoming Tribune Eagle, 12 September 2026 ↗Project Latigo campus Record-specific: Cheyenne · announced
The Laramie County Board of County Commissioners approved a zone change from Land Use to Planned Unit Development on 1 September 2026 for 1,835 acres about 12 miles south of Cheyenne, near Terry Ranch Road between Interstate 25 and U.S. Highway 85. Vantage Data Centers described an investment of up to $20 billion at completion and up to 2,000 jobs, across four data center buildings with staging areas, access routes and modular worker housing. Vantage must submit a site plan to the county for approval before construction. First-phase construction is slated to begin as early as 2027, with phase one completion targeted in 2030. On-site natural gas generation using Wyoming gas; closed-loop cooling, with the permit application stating that for every 100 gallons of water used 110 will be restored up to $20 billion when completed, as stated by the developer to the county Reported as a 480 MW project; permitting is stated to begin in late 2026 and continue into 2027
Zone change approved 1 September 2026; permitting late 2026 into 2027; construction from 2027; phase one completion targeted 2030
Cap City News ↗ Wyoming Tribune Eagle ↗Project Tembo (formerly Project Jade), Switchgrass Industrial Park Record-specific: Cheyenne (8 miles south) · approved
A site-plan amendment filed 30 June 2026 with Laramie County Planning and Development identified Google, through Jupiter Star Holdings LLC, as the owner of the 716-acre campus previously known as Project Jade. The plan covers four data center halls, an office hub, logistics and network buildings, new access roads off U.S. 85 and on-site wastewater lagoons. The original Project Jade received a conditional-use permit in January 2026, and a public hearing on the amendment was scheduled for 13 August 2026. The outcome of that hearing was not confirmed in the fetched sources At a community meeting in Cheyenne on 9 September 2026 Google said Project Tembo represents a $17 billion investment. The resubmitted, scaled-back site plan has four data center buildings instead of five with about 1 million fewer square feet and was handled administratively by the county; Google added a two-story office building that requires a conditional use permit. Related Digital is lead developer managing construction, Tallgrass will develop adjacent power generation keeping the campus off the local Cheyenne grid, and Google said it did not pursue local incentives. Site development may begin by the end of 2026, with some data halls operating in the second half of 2028 and full build-out near the end of 2031, and the project is expected to employ up to 2,500 construction workers and about 250 operations staff Tallgrass Energy to combine energy resources from Black Hills Energy, fuel cells and its power plant to serve the campus Google stated a $17 billion investment at a Laramie County community meeting on 9 September 2026 2.7 GW initially, scalable to 10 GW, per the site-plan amendment coverage; planned completion by 2031
Google ownership reported 8 July 2026 from the 30 June 2026 county filing
Cowboy State Daily ↗ Data Center Knowledge (August 2026 roundup) ↗ Oil City News (Cap City News) ↗Site Layer 4 Goshen Hole data center and energy campus Record-specific: near Wheatland · rezoning approved
Platte County commissioners unanimously rezoned 5,344 acres of ranchland in Goshen Hole, northeast of Wheatland, to industrial for a utility-scale energy generation, storage and data center campus proposed by Site Layer 4, LLC. Conditions include reversion to prior zoning if construction does not begin within five years and a special-use permit for any use. At a 2 September 2026 public hearing, Platte County commissioners approved rezoning 5,344 acres of Lazy V6 Ranch land along the Goshen Hole rim from RAM to Industrial for the Site Layer 4 energy and data center campus, with conditions: a five-year sunset reverting the zoning if construction does not begin, county review of any subdivision, and a required Special Use Permit with full engineering, environmental, water and traffic studies before construction. The developer said it expects to use about 15 acre-feet of water a year with closed-loop cooling from a private commercial supplier Co-located utility-scale generation and energy storage planned; project would generate its own power Local reporting in July 2026 described a $26 billion project; no developer filing or release confirming the figure was fetched, so capital is left null No MW disclosed
Rezoning approved early September 2026 (reported 3 September 2026); project first reported 13 July 2026
Cowboy State Daily (rezoning vote) ↗ Cowboy State Daily (project proposal) ↗ Wyoming Tribune Eagle (Platte County Record-Times) ↗Vantage Data Centers Project Latigo (Terry Ranch Road) Record-specific: South of Cheyenne · rezoning approved
The Laramie County Board of County Commissioners approved rezoning the site 12 miles south of Cheyenne from Land Use to Planned Unit Development for Project Latigo, framing a campus with cooling plants, onsite generation and temporary workforce housing. Vantage said the project could bring up to 2,000 jobs and hopes to begin construction in 2027 with work continuing into 2030. Vantage described the rezoning as one of its first entitlement steps Onsite power generation planned using Wyoming natural gas; closed-loop cooling with onsite wells Up to $20 billion at completion per Vantage government affairs manager Matt Clark 480 MW on an 1,835-acre site
Rezoning approved Tuesday 1 September 2026; reported 3 September 2026; single-outlet report (Wyoming Tribune Eagle)
Wyoming Tribune Eagle ↗Wyoming pipeline capacity Record-specific: · announced
The Series E first-close disclosure cited 1.8GW in Wyoming alongside 1.2GW at Abilene within a 45GW pipeline. No city or further detail is given. County 17 reported on 11 September 2026 that the 700-acre Laramie County project switched from Crusoe to Google earlier in summer 2026 and is now Google's Project Tembo, which Google representatives described as a $17 billion investment with four data center buildings n.a. 1.8GW in Wyoming, cited in the Series E disclosure within a 45GW pipeline
cited October 24, 2025
Crusoe ↗ County 17 ↗Black Hills Corporation Record-specific: WY · approved
Black Hills Corporation serves data center and blockchain customers in the Cheyenne, Wyoming area under approved tariffs using a market energy procurement model. Earnings from these customers are separated from retail customers for rate-making purposes, providing utility-like returns without utility capital investment.
Date not recorded
www.investing.com ↗Black Hills Energy Record-specific: WY · approved
The Wyoming Public Service Commission approved Black Hills Energy’s Large Power Contract Service Tariff. The tariff allows qualifying Wyoming retail customers with loads over 13 MW to use customer-owned, behind-the-meter dispatchable generation during periods of high demand while Black Hills Energy purchases market power, including renewable energy, at a firm price.
2020-05
datacenters.blackhillsenergy.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.
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