Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC), Virginia General Assembly · December 9, 2024 (per Virginia legislative document listing RD206); landing page undated · Web summary with links to full report
JLARC reviewed the data center industry in Virginia at the Commission's 2023 direction. The summary finds that economic benefits come mostly from construction, that local governments with data centers collect substantial business personal property and real property tax revenue, and that an independent forecast shows unconstrained power demand in Virginia doubling within 10 years with data centers as the main driver. It finds data centers currently pay their full cost of service, but that growing demand is likely to raise costs for other customers, and it describes stranded cost risk for utilities and electric co-ops. It addresses backup diesel generator emissions, water use, homes near data centers, and low frequency noise, and lays out options to extend, let expire, or make partial the state sales and use tax exemption scheduled to expire in 2035. Recommendations include letting utilities delay but not deny service, a Dominion stranded cost plan filed with the SCC, and express local authority to require water use estimates, sound modeling studies and maximum sound levels.
“the data center industry is estimated to contribute 74,000 jobs, $5.5 billion in labor income, and $9.1 billion in GDP to Virginia's economy annually” (What We Found, economic benefits section)
“For the five localities with relatively mature data center markets, data center revenue ranged from less than 1 percent to 31 percent of total local revenue.” (What We Found, local tax revenue section)
“A typical residential customer of Dominion Energy could experience generation- and transmission-related costs increasing by an estimated $14 to $37 monthly in constant (or real) dollars by 2040” (What We Found, cost of service section)
“One-third of data centers are currently located near residential areas” (What We Found, residential impacts section)
“providing $928 million in tax savings in FY23” (What We Found, sales tax exemption section)
Who should read it:
Local elected officials, planning and zoning staff, finance directors and economic development staff weighing data center proposals, and state legislators considering incentives or ratepayer rules.
Limitations:
The report notes that state and customer actions such as demand response and efficiency "would have only a marginal impact on decreasing data center energy demand," and its forecasts depend on scenario assumptions about unconstrained and half-of-unconstrained demand. Findings are specific to Virginia.
Cite as:
Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC), Virginia General Assembly. “Data Centers in Virginia.” December 9, 2024 (per Virginia legislative document listing RD206); landing page undated. https://jlarc.virginia.gov/landing-2024-data-centers-in-virginia.asp
Brookings Institution, TechTank (Nicol Turner Lee and Darrell M. West) · July 28, 2026 · Web article
The article tracks the spread of moratoriums on data center construction, noting New York became the first state to impose one by executive order, pausing state environmental permits for data centers of at least 50 megawatts for up to one year, and that Maine's legislature passed a permitting bar that the governor vetoed. It notes a federal bill from Sen. Sanders and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez to pause AI data centers over 20 megawatts. It summarizes motivating concerns (electricity rates, water, air quality, noise, light) and the Memphis xAI dispute, and argues that moratoriums should be used for community benefit agreements, reporting requirements, town halls and state ratepayer protections, citing the Ratepayer Protection Act that advanced in the U.S. House.
“At least 15 states have weighed pauses on data center development, and at least 100 localities have already approved their own.” (Opening paragraph)
“New York recently became the first state to impose a moratorium through executive order, pausing state environmental permits for data centers using at least 50 megawatts of power for up to one year” (The rise of moratoriums section)
“officials and legislators at the state level need to implement protections for ratepayers whose electricity bills may be affected by surrounding developments” (Beyond moratoriums section)
“If enacted, moratoriums should provide time for raising questions, advancing community benefit agreements, and finding reciprocity in the infrastructure needs of host cities.” (Closing paragraph)
Who should read it:
Council members and commissioners considering a local pause, and staff designing what work a moratorium period should accomplish.
Limitations:
The authors note that impact estimates "vary greatly since analysts lack access to proprietary company data on data center construction and operations." The article's Table 1 of state moratoriums did not render as text and was not read.
Cite as:
Brookings Institution, TechTank (Nicol Turner Lee and Darrell M. West). “Data center moratoriums are not a substitute for oversight.” July 28, 2026. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/data-center-moratoriums-are-not-a-substitute-for-oversight/
Brookings Institution, TechTank (Nicol Turner Lee and Darrell M. West) · August 25, 2026 · Web article
The article describes candidates in both parties campaigning against data centers, citing the Ohio Senate race, the Texas governor's race, and Pennsylvania Gov. Shapiro's executive order placing new rules on data center authorization. It compares a September 2025 Heatmap poll showing an even split with a 2026 Reuters/Ipsos survey showing majority opposition to rapid buildout, and ties the backlash to affordability and electricity bills. It argues that midterm outcomes could drive more moratoriums, pauses and audits like New York's.
“Forty-four percent supported their construction, while 42% opposed them.”
“Seventy-seven percent say they worry data centers will increase their electricity rates, and in classic NIMBY ... fashion, only 14% say they would be willing to live close to a data center.”
“He recently signed an executive order imposing new rules on the authorization of data centers” (Discussion of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro)
Who should read it:
Elected officials and communications staff gauging public sentiment before hearings or votes on data center projects.
Limitations:
none stated; poll figures are reported secondhand from Heatmap and Reuters/Ipsos
Cite as:
Brookings Institution, TechTank (Nicol Turner Lee and Darrell M. West). “Why data centers are a top issue in the 2026 midterms.” August 25, 2026. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-data-centers-are-a-top-issue-in-the-2026-midterms/
Texas Senate Research Center, via Texas Legislature Online · 8/5/2025 · Official bill analysis
The analysis explains SB 6's four goals: allocating transmission costs properly, grid reliability protections, credible load forecasting, and requiring large loads to share load shed obligations. Section 2 adds Utilities Code Sec. 37.0561 requiring PUC standards for interconnecting large loads, including a 75 MW default threshold, disclosure of duplicate requests elsewhere in Texas, disclosure of backup generation, a minimum study fee, proof of site control and financial commitments. Section 4 adds Sec. 39.169 on co-locating large loads with existing generation, subject to ERCOT study and PUC approval, and Sec. 39.170 requiring curtailment equipment for new transmission-voltage loads and a demand reduction service for loads of 75 MW or more. Section 6 directs the PUC to reevaluate the four coincident peak transmission cost method and amend rules by December 31, 2026.
“ERCOT estimates additional load growth between 130-150 Gigawatts (GWs) by 2030. This amount is almost double ERCOT's peak load of 86 GWs in 2024.” (Author's / Sponsor's Statement of Intent)
“Requires the PUC to establish a demand threshold of 75 megawatts unless the PUC determines that a lower threshold is necessary”
“a flat study fee of at least $100,000”
“requiring customers to be held harmless for stranded or underutilized transmission assets resulting from the behind-the-meter operation”
“not later than December 31, 2026, to amend PUC rules to ensure that wholesale transmission charges appropriately assign costs for transmission investment”
Who should read it:
Officials in Texas and in other states considering statewide large-load interconnection standards; municipal utility and electric co-op boards (Sec. 37.0561(l) preserves their authority to add requirements).
Limitations:
Senate Research Center analyses summarize but are not the enrolled bill text itself.
Cite as:
Texas Senate Research Center, via Texas Legislature Online. “Bill Analysis, S.B. 6 (Enrolled).” 8/5/2025. https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/analysis/html/SB00006F.htm
Office of the Governor of New York (Gov. Kathy Hochul) · July 14, 2026 ("this fourteenth day of July in the year two thousand twenty-six") · Executive order
The order directs the Department of Public Service, in Case 26-E-0045 on large-load interconnection reforms, to prepare a Generic Environmental Impact Statement under SEQRA on data center energy, water, air, noise and disadvantaged community impacts. Until that report is done, DEC must hold in abeyance discretionary permit applications for new or expanded data centers not yet deemed complete; the order says this does not apply to local government permits. It directs Empire State Development to post a Community Investment Framework within 60 days to help localities and IDAs negotiate community investment funds, infrastructure, labor standards, local hiring and transparency. It also directs DPS to consider a New York Grid Acceleration Fund with upfront data center contributions, form a Data Center Interconnection Working Group on beneficiary-pays cost allocation, and directs DEC to report on water withdrawal rules within twelve months. Data centers are defined as facilities that consume or can consume 50 megawatts or more, with exclusions for manufacturing, research, education and medical uses.
“as of May 2026, nearly 12 gigawatts (12,000 megawatts) of data center load requests are in the New York Independent System Operator interconnection queue” (Preamble (WHEREAS clauses))
“it is the policy of New York State that the cost of electric system upgrades required to provide electric utility service to large loads should not be paid for by every-day New Yorkers” (Preamble)
“This provision does not apply to permits, approvals, licenses, or similar forms of permission from local governments.” (Data Center Permitting Moratorium and GEIS section)
“Creation and maintenance of a community investment fund into which data center developers or operators provide capital that can be used for energy affordability efforts and enhancements to public services” (Developing a Community Investment Framework section)
“consume or can consume 50 megawatts of energy or more” (Definition section)
Who should read it:
Local officials anywhere who want a model of a state pause that also equips host communities to negotiate benefits, and New York localities and IDAs specifically.
Limitations:
The order text read here does not set a fixed end date; the pause lasts until DPS submits its final GEIS report and findings statement.
Cite as:
Office of the Governor of New York (Gov. Kathy Hochul). “Executive Order No. 62: Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on Data Centers in New York While the State Develops Higher Standards for Data Center Development and Benefits Blueprint to Support Localities.” July 14, 2026 ("this fourteenth day of July in the year two thousand twenty-six"). https://www.governor.ny.gov/executive-order/no-62-establishing-temporary-moratorium-data-centers-new-york-while-state-develops
Office of the Governor of Pennsylvania · August 18, 2026 · Press release describing Executive Order
The release describes Executive Order 2026-05, which directs the Department of Environmental Protection to review data center permit applications only where developers sign a Consent Order and Agreement committing to the Governor's Responsible Infrastructure Development (GRID) Requirements, and not to issue any permit until all local approvals are secured. The GRID Requirements cover paying the full cost of new generation, transmission and distribution, early community engagement, local hiring and community benefit agreements, and environmental and water standards. The order also removes data centers from the PA Permit Fast Track Program, bars nondisclosure agreements, requires annual energy and water reporting, conditions the Computer Data Center Equipment sales and use tax exemption on GRID compliance, directs DCED to publish municipal best practices on zoning and community benefit agreements, and tasks the Special Counsel for Energy Affordability with PUC reforms such as curtailing data centers first when the grid is stressed.
“DEP will not issue any permit unless the project has received all required local approvals” (Establishing Strict Guardrails section)
“Pay the full cost of new electricity generation, transmission, distribution, and other infrastructure needed to power their project without shifting costs to Pennsylvania households and businesses” (GRID Requirements list)
“Applicants who do not meet the GRID Requirements will not receive the existing tax exemption.” (According to the Executive Order list)
“with over 100 projects reported in publicly sourced databases, and 58 projects engaged with DEP to discuss permitting at some level of formality” (Listening to the People of Pennsylvania section)
“The use of nondisclosure agreements with data center projects is not permissible.” (According to the Executive Order list)
Who should read it:
Township supervisors, borough councils and county officials, since the order makes local approval a precondition for state permits and promises DCED zoning and community benefit agreement guidance.
Limitations:
This is the Governor's press release; the release says the General Assembly has not codified the GRID Requirements in law.
Cite as:
Office of the Governor of Pennsylvania. “Governor Shapiro Signs Executive Order on Data Center Development in PA.” August 18, 2026. https://www.pa.gov/governor/newsroom/2026-press-releases/governor-shapiro-signs-executive-order-on-data-center-developmen
Minnesota House of Representatives, Public Information Services (New Laws) · 2025 (law took effect June 15, 2025, except where noted; 2025 Special Session Chapter 12) · Official plain-language summary of an enacted law
The summary explains 2025 Special Session Chapter 12 (HF 16). It defines a qualified large-scale data center (at least 25,000 square feet and $250 million of investment within 60 months), routes new state permits through DEED's Minnesota Business First Stop, and adds special permit conditions for consumptive water use over 100 million gallons per year. It directs the PUC to create a very large customer class, approve each electric service agreement, and ensure no costs or stranded costs fall on other customers, and requires a voluntary clean energy and capacity tariff. It sets annual fees by peak demand that fund low-income utility programs, extends the sales tax exemption to 35 years for qualified data centers, removes the electricity exemption under a separate 2025 tax law, and adds prevailing wage and green building certification requirements with repayment if unmet.
“the commission must ensure that no costs attributable to very large customers are paid by other utility customers, who may also not be charged for any stranded costs” (Clean energy and capacity issues section)
“If an applicant's proposed consumptive water use exceeds 100 million gallons per year, the company will be subject to special permit conditions.” (New applicants section)
“100 to 250 megawatts, $2 million” (Fees for large-scale data centers section (first tier of the annual fee schedule))
“The fee revenue must be used only for utility programs benefiting low-income households.” (Fees for large-scale data centers section)
“qualified data centers are no longer exempt from paying sales and use taxes on electricity” (Tax exemptions section)
Who should read it:
Local officials and legislators looking for a single statute that combines ratepayer protection, water permitting, labor standards and a dedicated fee for low-income energy assistance.
Limitations:
A summary prepared by House staff; the session law itself (Minnesota Session Laws 2025, 1st Special Session, Chapter 12) is the controlling text.
Cite as:
Minnesota House of Representatives, Public Information Services (New Laws). “Data centers see changes in environmental and energy regulations, tax provisions.” 2025 (law took effect June 15, 2025, except where noted; 2025 Special Session Chapter 12). https://www.house.mn.gov/NewLaws/story/2025/5641
National Conference of State Legislatures (Alex McWard, Senior Policy Specialist), as posted by the Montana Legislative Fiscal Division · May 2026 (per file name; slides undated) · PDF presentation slides
The slides report that states considered more than 150 bills in 2026 on data center energy consumption and map states with introduced and enacted legislation. They list key enacted large-load tariff laws (Maryland SB 937 of 2025, Oregon HB 3546 of 2025, Minnesota HF 16 of 2025, Utah SB 132 of 2025, Idaho HB 911 of 2026), energy and water reporting bills (including Nebraska LB 1010, enacted 2026, and New Jersey SB 4293, vetoed 2025), and demand management laws (Virginia HB 284 of 2026, Texas SB 6 of 2025, West Virginia HB 2014 of 2025). They map the 38 states offering data center tax incentives, note that Massachusetts and Kansas adopted new incentives in 2025, and flag 2026 repeal proposals such as Georgia SB 410 and Connecticut SB 245 (failed).
“So far in 2026, states have considered more than 150 pieces of legislation addressing the energy consumption of data centers”
“State definitions of large loads range from 20 MW to 100 MW.”
“38 States Offer Data Center Tax Incentives”
“up to 1,500 during construction, and approx. 10 - 20 permanent positions”
“Incentive cost: Data centers use available incentives, and in some states the cost exceeds $1 billion annually.”
Who should read it:
Anyone who needs a quick list of named state bills to look up, and legislators comparing their state to national trends.
Limitations:
Presentation slides without narrative; bill statuses are as of the slide date. This copy was read from the Montana Legislature's website because ncsl.org returned server errors during this research session.
Cite as:
National Conference of State Legislatures (Alex McWard, Senior Policy Specialist), as posted by the Montana Legislative Fiscal Division. “Data Centers: Legislative Trends.” May 2026 (per file name; slides undated). https://static.legmt.gov/Divisions/LFD/Committees/MARA/NCSL-Data-Centers-Legislative-Trends-May2026.pdf
Utah State Legislature · 2025 General Session · PDF enrolled bill
SB 132 enacts Utah Code Title 54, Chapter 26, Large-Scale Electric Service Requirements. Section 54-26-101 defines a large-scale service request as new or added service expected to reach 100 megawatts within five years, and defines closed private generation systems and connected generation systems that can serve large load customers. Section 54-26-102 exempts service under a large-scale service request from ordinary rate regulation and tariff filing requirements. Section 54-26-201 lists what a large-scale request must include, such as load profile and proof of financial capability, and Section 54-26-401 gives the qualified utility the sole right to serve large loads in its territory while allowing it to decline if it cannot serve in time or terms cannot be agreed. The long title says the bill also creates accounting and transparency requirements to protect retail customers, registers large-scale generation providers, and directs the Public Service Commission to study a large load flexible tariff and report periodically to the Legislature.
“creates accounting and operational transparency requirements to protect retail customers” (Long title, Highlighted Provisions)
“requires the Public Service Commission (commission) to investigate the feasibility of a large load flexible tariff” (Long title, Highlighted Provisions)
“a qualified electric utility has the sole right to provide electric service to a large load customer in the qualified electric utility's service territory”
Who should read it:
Officials in states weighing whether to let data centers build or contract for their own generation outside normal utility rate cases.
Limitations:
Only the long title and Parts 1, 2 and the start of Part 4 were read for this entry; the customer protection and accounting sections were not reviewed in detail.
Cite as:
Utah State Legislature. “S.B. 132 Electric Utility Amendments (Enrolled Copy), 2025 General Session, State of Utah.” 2025 General Session. https://le.utah.gov/Session/2025/bills/enrolled/SB0132.pdf
Virginia Legislative Information System (LIS), Virginia General Assembly · Approved by Governor 4/8/2026, Chapter 377 (effective 7/1/2026) · Bill status page with summary and chaptered text
The summary as passed says HB 284 (identical to SB 371), introduced by Del. Michael B. Feggans, directs Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power to petition the State Corporation Commission by January 15, 2027 for approval of voluntary demand flexibility programs for high energy demand customers as defined in the bill, and requires the SCC to consider all forms of demand flexibility. Cooperatives serving such customers must establish programs by January 1, 2029. Utilities must file status reports three years after approval and every three years after, and the SCC must report on program performance starting in 2028. The history shows approval by the Governor as Chapter 377.
“Directs Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power to file a petition with the State Corporation Commission by January 15, 2027, for approval of voluntary demand flexibility programs that apply to high energy demand customers” (Summary As Passed)
“The bill directs each cooperative that serves one or more high energy demand customers to establish a voluntary demand flexibility program for such customers by January 1, 2029.” (Summary As Passed)
“Approved by Governor-Chapter 377 (effective 7/1/2026)”
Who should read it:
Officials interested in making data centers reduce use when the grid is stressed, including electric cooperative boards.
Limitations:
Programs are voluntary for customers; the bill's definition of high energy demand customer was not read for this entry.
Cite as:
Virginia Legislative Information System (LIS), Virginia General Assembly. “HB284 - 2026 Regular Session: Electric utilities; electric demand flexibility programs, high energy demand customers, report.” Approved by Governor 4/8/2026, Chapter 377 (effective 7/1/2026). https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HB284
West Virginia Legislature · 2025 Regular Session; signed April 30, 2025 per the Governor's release · PDF signed enrolled bill
The bill creates a certified microgrid program and a certified high impact data center designation, both certified by the Secretary of the Department of Commerce under new sections 5B-2-21 and 5B-2-21a. A section beginning on PDF page 16 states its purpose is to coordinate and expedite development, including site selection and permitting, and in subsection (c) prohibits counties and municipalities from adopting or enforcing ordinances or rules that limit certified microgrid districts or certified high impact data centers. The Governor's April 30, 2025 signing release describes the law as making West Virginia attractive to data centers and creating funds to lower the income tax, support economic development and stabilize the grid. For local officials it is the clearest example of state preemption of local data center regulation.
“Counties and municipalities, whether by ordinance, resolution, administrative act, or otherwise, from enacting, adopting, implementing, or enforcing ordinances, regulations, or rules which limit, in any way, the creation of, and acquisition, construction, equipping, development, expansion, and operation of any certified microgrid district or certified high impact data center project”
“Counties and municipalities from imposing or enforcing local laws and ordinances concerning the creation or regulation of any certified microgrid district or certified high impact data center therein”
Who should read it:
Local officials in any state where preemption of local zoning for data centers is being proposed.
Limitations:
Only the preemption section and the Governor's summary were read for this entry; other sections, including exceptions listed after subsection (c), were not reviewed in full.
Cite as:
West Virginia Legislature. “Enrolled Committee Substitute for House Bill 2014 (Power Generation and Consumption Act), 2025 Regular Session, West Virginia (signed).” 2025 Regular Session; signed April 30, 2025 per the Governor's release. https://code.wvlegislature.gov/signed_bills/2025/2025-RS-HB2014-SUB%20ENR_signed.pdf
Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program, Electricity Law Initiative (Eliza Martin and Ari Peskoe) · March 5, 2025 · Research paper
The summary page describes a paper by Eliza Martin and Ari Peskoe on how utilities serving new data centers for Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft and others expand their systems with new power plants and transmission lines, which utilities profit from building. It explains that regulated rates socialize a utility's costs among ratepayers and argues that the same structures now make the public pay for infrastructure built for a few large corporations. The authors reviewed regulatory proceedings on data center rates, describe how rate structures and secret contracts between utilities and data centers could transfer costs to the public, and offer recommendations to limit hidden subsidies. They also question whether utility regulators should be the ones deciding whether to subsidize data centers.
“The authors reviewed nearly 50 regulatory proceedings about utility rates for data centers.” (Summary page, third paragraph)
“the paper explains how rate structures, as well as secret contracts between utilities and data centers, could be transferring Big Tech's energy costs to the public” (Summary page, third paragraph)
“It also provides recommendations to limit hidden subsidies in utility rates.” (Summary page, third paragraph)
Who should read it:
Local officials and residents who intervene in or comment on utility rate cases, municipal utility boards, and anyone asking whether a data center deal will raise household bills.
Limitations:
none stated on the summary page (the full PDF was not read for this entry)
Cite as:
Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program, Electricity Law Initiative (Eliza Martin and Ari Peskoe). “Extracting Profits from the Public: How Utility Ratepayers Are Paying for Big Tech's Power.” March 5, 2025. https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/extracting-profits-from-the-public-how-utility-ratepayers-are-paying-for-big-techs-power/
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) · July 9, 2025 · Regulator news release
The release announces the PUCO order in case 24-508-EL-ATA adopting a settlement reached by AEP Ohio, PUCO staff, the Ohio Consumers' Counsel and others. It recognizes unprecedented load growth requiring major transmission construction and states the settlement protects non-data center customers from the cost-shifting risk of underused investments. It orders AEP Ohio to file updated tariffs and lift its moratorium on connecting new data centers, and gives the case history, including a competing settlement filed by Microsoft, the Data Center Coalition, Amazon Data Services, Google and others.
“the settlement safeguards other non-data center customers from cost-shifting risks of underused investments made to serve Ohio's growing data center industry” (Third paragraph)
“AEP Ohio is ordered to file updated tariffs and lift its moratorium on connecting new data centers as soon as possible.” (Fourth paragraph)
“On May 14, 2024 AEP Ohio filed an application requesting new tariffs related to data center customers.” (Case Background)
Who should read it:
Local officials in utility service territories facing data center load, and consumer advocates tracking how settlements are structured.
Limitations:
none stated
Cite as:
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO). “PUCO orders AEP Ohio to create data center specific tariff.” July 9, 2025. https://puco.ohio.gov/news/puco-orders-aep-ohio-to-create-data-center-specific-tariff
AEP Ohio · undated (describes a tariff effective July 23, 2025, with a February 2026 update) · Utility web page
The page states that PUCO adopted the Data Center Tariff settlement on July 9, 2025 and the tariff took effect July 23, 2025. It explains the mandatory application process, tiered load study fees for projects of 25,000 kW or more, a load ramp of up to four years, contract terms of the ramp plus eight years, collateral requirements for customers without strong credit, minimum demand charges, capacity assignment rules, aggregation of affiliated loads, behind-the-meter generation rules, and exit fees. It also notes the next study tranche begins October 1, 2026.
“The Letter of Agreement (LOA) requires customers to reimburse AEP Ohio 100% of the buildout costs if the customer cancels” (Steps for Processing New Service Requests)
“the minimum demand cannot exceed 85% of the total contract capacity” (Minimum Demand Charges)
“must provide a guarantee or collateral at the time of signing the contract equal to 50% of the total minimum charges for the full term of the contract” (Collateral Requirement)
“The initial term of the contract will equal the load ramp period (no greater than four years) plus eight years.” (Contract Term)
Who should read it:
Local officials, economic developers and municipal utility staff who want to see concrete tariff terms that make a data center carry its own grid costs.
Limitations:
Utility-authored summary; the page says the full terms are in Schedule DCT itself.
Cite as:
AEP Ohio. “Data Center Tariff.” undated (describes a tariff effective July 23, 2025, with a February 2026 update). https://www.aepohio.com/company/about/rates/data-center-tariff/
Georgia Public Service Commission · January 23, 2025 · PDF news release
The release says the Georgia PSC unanimously approved a Georgia Power rule letting it bill new large customers under terms beyond standard rates. It ties the rule to the interim Integrated Resource Plan decision in docket 55378. Data centers would pay for upstream generation, transmission and distribution costs as construction progresses, contracts can run longer, minimum billing applies, and contracts at the 100 MW level go to the PSC for review. Commissioners say the rule is one of several actions and that data center usage will be addressed further in the 2025 Integrated Resource Plan.
“The new rule also allows for longer contract lengths (from 5-year contracts to 15-year contracts) and minimum billing requirements for high-load customers.”
“any new Georgia Power contract with a company that fits the 100 MW usage category must be submitted to the PSC for review”
“data centers will need to bear the cost of their electricity acquisition”
Who should read it:
Officials in states with investor-owned utilities who want a short example of a regulator-approved ratepayer protection rule.
Limitations:
none stated
Cite as:
Georgia Public Service Commission. “PSC Approves Rule to Allow New Power Usage Terms for Data Centers.” January 23, 2025. https://psc.ga.gov/site/assets/files/8617/media_advisory_data_centers_rule_1-23-2025.pdf
Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) · November 25, 2025 · Regulator news release
The release covers the SCC final order in Dominion Energy's 2025 biennial review, case PUR-2025-00058. It creates a GS-5 rate class for customers of 25 megawatts or more, effective January 1, 2027, with minimum payment obligations to insulate other ratepayers from build-out costs. It also cuts Dominion's requested base rate increases, sets the typical residential monthly increase, and sets the authorized return on equity at 9.8%.
“the new GS-5 rate class will comprise customers demanding 25 megawatts or more” (Second paragraph)
“certain large-scale customers will be required to pay a minimum of 85% of contracted distribution and transmission demand, and 60% of generation demand” (Third paragraph)
“For a typical residential customer, the approved rates would mean monthly increases of $11.24 in 2026” (Fifth paragraph)
Who should read it:
Officials in data center markets and anyone comparing how state regulators build a separate rate class for very large users.
Limitations:
none stated
Cite as:
Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC). “In Biennial Review Ruling, SCC Creates New Class for Large-Scale Energy Users.” November 25, 2025. https://www.scc.virginia.gov/about-the-scc/newsreleases/release/scc-issues-order-on-dev-biennial-review-2025/scc-rules-in-dev-biennial-review-case.html
Stateline (Kevin Hardy) · February 5, 2026 · News article
It includes the Data Center Coalition's objection to rate structures that single out data centers, comments from mayors at the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and PJM's new data center plan. It is useful for seeing how states of both parties are approaching ratepayer protection.
“Republican and Democratic leaders in at least a dozen states have targeted data centers with separate, higher electric rates to protect other customers.” (Early in article)
“Oregon last year became one of the first states to enact a law requiring utilities to charge data centers different electric prices than other industries” (Early in article)
“His bill would prohibit utilities from passing along the fuel, generation or transmission costs of data centers to other customers.” (A bipartisan push section, on Georgia Sen. Chuck Hufstetler's bill)
“Proposed regulations would require certain preapproval analysis for heavy power users, a separate rate tariff for data centers and collateral” (A complex challenge section, on Maryland)
Who should read it:
Local officials who want a quick national picture of how states are handling data center electricity costs, including mayors weighing recruitment against bill impacts.
Limitations:
News roundup of bills, many of which were pending at publication; outcomes should be checked against each state's legislature.
Cite as:
Stateline (Kevin Hardy). “With electricity bills rising, some states consider new data center laws.” February 5, 2026. https://stateline.org/2026/02/05/with-electricity-bills-rising-some-states-consider-new-data-center-laws/
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Natalie Mims Frick and Peter Cappers) and The Brattle Group · August 2026 · Technical brief
The brief updates January 2025 research by analyzing a sample of 55 large-load tariffs drawn mainly from Halcyon's Large Load Tariff Tracker as of March 2026. It sorts tariff design elements into established, stable, emerging and declining practices (Table 4), covering minimum demand thresholds, minimum contract duration, monthly demand charges, minimum billing demand, load ramp periods, study and load forecast requirements, collateral, exit fees, direct assignment of costs and hold harmless provisions. Each element includes real examples, including AEP Ohio's Schedule DCT, Dominion's Schedule GS-5, Georgia Power, Evergy Missouri's Large Load Power Service, Salt River Project and Colorado Springs Utilities. It is written as a foundation for regulators, utilities, customers and stakeholders reviewing large-load tariffs.
“While thresholds vary widely, ranging from 0.3 MW to 150 MW, the majority (75%) of the tariffs fall between 5 and 100 MW, with a median of 25 MW.”
“the median increasing from 5 years for tariffs proposed before 2025 to 12 years for tariffs proposed since 2025”
“Minimum billing demands are typically defined as a percentage of the customer's contract demand, with a median of 80% across the tariffs reviewed.”
“Evergy Missouri's Large Load Power Service has a 75 MW minimum load requirement.”
Who should read it:
Municipal utility boards, public power and co-op officials, and local governments that intervene in state rate cases and want to benchmark a proposed tariff.
Limitations:
The authors state the sample excludes most special contracts, transmission service agreements and line extension policies, and was drawn primarily from one tracker supplemented through April 2026. Quotes are from the full report PDF linked from the Berkeley Lab publication page.
Cite as:
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Natalie Mims Frick and Peter Cappers) and The Brattle Group. “Electricity Rate Designs for Large Loads: Evolving Practices and Opportunities 2026 Update.” August 2026. https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/2026-08/rate_designs_large_loads_2026.08.10.pdf
Smart Electric Power Alliance (SEPA) and NC Clean Energy Technology Center (NCCETC) · undated (database updated quarterly per the page) · Interactive map and downloadable database
The page describes DELTa as the first public, user-friendly database of contemporary utility tariffs and service rules for large loads such as data centers, with an interactive map, case summaries of approved and proposed tariffs, and a way to compare utility approaches. It states that SEPA and NCCETC track state regulatory activity and update it quarterly. Each included tariff targets objectives such as transparency and customer protection, customer commitments before utility investment, peak load management and clean energy, and size or operational thresholds.
“Explore this first-of-a-kind comprehensive map of over 100 large-load utility tariffs and service rules” (Introduction)
“NCCETC and SEPA regularly track state regulatory and policy activity and update DELTa quarterly.” (Smarter Rates for Large Loads section)
Who should read it:
Local officials who want to look up whether their own utility has a proposed or approved large-load tariff and compare it with others.
Limitations:
Downloading the full database requires submitting a name, email and company through a form.
Cite as:
Smart Electric Power Alliance (SEPA) and NC Clean Energy Technology Center (NCCETC). “DELTa: Database of Emerging Large-Load Tariffs.” undated (database updated quarterly per the page). https://sepapower.org/large-load-tariffs-database/
Oregon Public Utility Commission · 2026 (no day printed; cites events through August 11, 2026) · PDF legislative report
The report explains that the POWER Act directs the PUC to create a separate rate class and tariff schedule for data centers using 20 MW or more, directly assign their costs, mitigate cost shifting, and require contracts of 10 years or longer. It describes implementation through docket UM 2377 for Portland General Electric, approved in Order No. 26-239 on July 10, 2026, and docket UE 463 for Pacific Power, expected in late 2026. It reports measured rate changes after the PGE order, estimates the data center share of investor-owned utility load now and in 2030, and notes the PUC lacks visibility into data centers served by consumer-owned utilities and BPA. It also records municipal moratoriums in Hillsboro and Salem and 45-day notices by Woodburn and Clackamas County, plus FERC's June 2026 show cause orders on large-load interconnection.
“PGE customers have experienced an average decrease in electricity rates of 1.3 percent for residential customers, 2.1 percent decrease for commercial customers, and 1.4 percent decrease for industrial customers. Data centers within PGE's territory have seen an average rate increase of 29 percent.”
“The PUC estimates that data center load comprises roughly 15 percent of the IOUs' current load, and will continue to grow, reaching 25 percent of IOU load by 2030.”
“Oregon is the first in the nation to create a specific data center customer classification for electricity rate schedules.”
“the Commission decided on a 10-year minimum contract length that scales up depending upon the anticipated electricity demands of the facility”
“Hillsboro was the first City in Oregon to enact a moratorium on new data center development applications.”
Who should read it:
Officials in any state considering a statutory data center rate class; this is one of the few documents reporting actual bill outcomes after such a law.
Limitations:
The report states "The PUC lacks visibility into data center impacts outside of IOU service territories" and that the Pacific Power decision was not yet final.
Cite as:
Oregon Public Utility Commission. “POWER Act Biennial Report 2026: Oregon PUC Report to the Oregon Legislature.” 2026 (no day printed; cites events through August 11, 2026). https://www.oregon.gov/puc/forms/Forms%20and%20Reports/2026%20POWER%20Act%20Legislative%20Report.pdf
Maryland Office of People's Counsel (David S. Lapp, People's Counsel) · August 10, 2026 · PDF regulatory filing
The filing responds to the Maryland PSC's July 13, 2026 request for comments in docket PC 72. It summarizes large-load provisions of the 2025 Next Generation Energy Act as amended by the 2026 Utility RELIEF Act, and explains how PJM's proposed Reliability Backstop Procurement (FERC Docket ER26-3380) would assign 15 years of capacity costs to Maryland utility zones based on forecasted, not actual, data center demand. OPC estimates the potential cost to residential customers in the Potomac Edison and BGE zones and recommends that the PSC require large-load tariffs making data centers either commit to pay those costs by October 21, 2026 or provide load flexibility, and that it review utility Large Load Adjustments before they go to PJM. It cites Amazon abandoning a planned Calvert Cliffs data center as an example of forecast risk.
“OPC estimates that PJM's proposed methodology, if the RBP capacity is procured at the maximum price of $555/MW-day, exposes PE and BGE residential customers to as much as $483.2 million and $79.6 million in additional costs, respectively, over the next 15 years.”
“The Utility RELIEF Act directs the Commission to take the actions necessary to prevent Maryland ratepayers from bearing costs and risk attributable to the development of new large load customers.”
“Those LLA submissions can include data centers that may decide to abandon their project without making a commitment to fully cover the costs they cause.”
Who should read it:
Officials in PJM states (including Maryland, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Illinois) who want to understand how regional capacity markets pass data center costs to households even without local projects.
Limitations:
An advocacy filing by one party in a pending docket; the cost figures are OPC estimates under a maximum-price assumption and the filing notes they "could be reduced based on opt-out or offset adjustments."
Cite as:
Maryland Office of People's Counsel (David S. Lapp, People's Counsel). “Maryland Office of People's Counsel Response to the Commission's Request for Comments, Administrative Docket PC 72 (Large Load Customer Regulations and Tariffs Interconnecting to the Electric System Servicing Maryland).” August 10, 2026. https://opc.maryland.gov/Portals/0/Files/Publications/Others/20260810%20-%20OPC%20Comments%20-%20PC72.pdf
The article reports that on Feb. 19, 2025 the IURC approved a settlement among Indiana Michigan Power, the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, Citizens Action Coalition, Amazon Data Services, Google, Microsoft and the Data Center Coalition that amends I&M's industrial tariff for large new loads. The terms apply to new or expanded facilities of at least 70 MW, or 150 MW aggregated across a company, and defer cost allocation methodology to future proceedings. The IURC added a requirement that large planned reductions in contracted capacity come to the commission for approval. It gives context on the Amazon, Google and Microsoft projects driving I&M's load forecast.
“It applies to new or expanded facilities with contract capacity of at least 70 MW or 150 MW aggregated across a company.” (Mid-article)
“I&M expects peak load in Indiana will jump to more than 7,000 MW by 2030 from 2,800 MW” (Mid-article, citing the IURC decision)
“the IURC ordered that any planned reduction of more than 20% of a large load customer's contracted peak capacity must be submitted to the agency for its review and approval” (Mid-article)
“The agreement defers cost allocation issues to future proceedings, such as a tracker filing or rate case” (Mid-article)
Who should read it:
Indiana local officials and others in AEP territories; a useful example of a settlement that included the state consumer counselor and a citizens group.
Limitations:
Trade press summary; the IURC order is the primary document. The article notes cost allocation was left to later proceedings.
Brookings Institution, TechTank (David M. Klaus and Mark MacCarthy) · October 30, 2025 (updated Oct. 31 and Nov. 3, 2025) · Web article
The article explains three features of data center power demand that create risk for other ratepayers: its scale and geographic concentration, a mismatch between two-to-three-year developer timelines and eight-to-ten-year infrastructure build times, and uncertainty because developers file duplicate requests with multiple utilities while shopping for incentives. It walks through generation, transmission and substation costs, argues that regulators should set separate data center tariffs instead of discounted industrial rates, and recommends that data centers prepay or frontload infrastructure costs and sign take-or-pay contracts, citing Ohio and Texas actions as examples.
“There is an emerging consensus that protecting non-data center ratepayers from massive electric rate increases will require utilities to establish a separate tariff structure for data centers users.” (Rate protection for residential non-data center ratepayers section)
“One option would be to require data center users to prepay or frontload the costs for the infrastructure they require.” (Options for policymakers section)
Who should read it:
Local officials who are asked to support utility economic development rates for a data center, and residents' advocates in rate cases.
Limitations:
Commentary drawing on secondary sources (Bloomberg, IEA, Goldman Sachs and others); Brookings notes the piece was corrected on Oct. 31 regarding Goldman Sachs estimates.
Cite as:
Brookings Institution, TechTank (David M. Klaus and Mark MacCarthy). “Boom or bust: How to protect ratepayers from the AI bubble.” October 30, 2025 (updated Oct. 31 and Nov. 3, 2025). https://www.brookings.edu/articles/boom-or-bust-how-to-protect-ratepayers-from-the-ai-bubble/
DLA Piper (Paul Wight and Sophia Browning) · 30 March 2026 · Law firm client alert
The alert explains that on March 12, 2026 the PUCT proposed 16 TAC 25.194 in Project No. 58481 to implement SB 6, applying to new or expanded ERCOT interconnections of 75 MW or more. It summarizes the two-step process with an intermediate agreement showing site control and permitting progress, minimum study fees, per-megawatt financial security and a non-refundable interconnection fee, a 30-day deadline to sign an interconnection agreement after studies, full funding of direct interconnection costs, and limits on refunds when projects are delayed or withdrawn. It notes the fees would exceed those of other major grid operators and lists the comment deadline and expected adoption later in 2026.
“$300,000 for projects with a requested peak demand of 250 MW or more”
“Customers would also be required to post financial security of $50,000 per MW of requested peak demand upon execution of the intermediate agreement” (Upfront fees and financial security)
“the proposed rule generally limits refunds of posted financial security to 20 percent, with the remaining 80 percent applied to the transmission provider's rate base” (Defined financial consequences for delay or withdrawal)
“Taken together, the proposed requirements would establish conditions to discourage speculative or duplicative interconnection requests” (Overview of the proposed Texas rule)
Who should read it:
Officials who want to see how a state turns a large-load statute into specific financial commitments that protect other ratepayers from speculative projects.
Limitations:
Describes a proposed rule as of March 2026; the final adopted rule was not verified. Written by a law firm for large energy users.
Cite as:
DLA Piper (Paul Wight and Sophia Browning). “Texas proposes new interconnection standards for large electric loads: Regulatory implications for large energy users.” 30 March 2026. https://www.dlapiper.com/en-us/insights/publications/2026/03/texas-proposes-new-interconnection-standards-for-large-electric-loads
Missouri Public Service Commission · undated (web page; also offered as a PDF fact sheet) · Regulator web page / fact sheet
The page explains that Missouri Senate Bill 4 of 2025 required the PSC to adopt rates for large load customers, including data centers, that reflect their costs and keep other customers from unjust or unreasonable costs. It states that Ameren Missouri and Evergy have approved large-load tariffs and that the Liberty Utilities case (ET-2026-0184) is in progress. It lists the protections adopted: minimum service contracts, financial security and collateral, exit and early termination fees, a minimum monthly bill, cost stabilization recovery, and optional renewable and carbon-free programs at the customer's expense.
“provide collateral in the amount of two years of minimum monthly bills” (Financial Security and Collateral Requirements)
“a monthly demand charge set at 80% of the agreed upon rate” (Minimum Monthly Bill)
Who should read it:
Kansas City area and other Missouri local officials evaluating data center proposals in Ameren, Evergy or Liberty territory.
Limitations:
none stated
Cite as:
Missouri Public Service Commission. “Utility Tariffs for Large Load Customers in Missouri.” undated (web page; also offered as a PDF fact sheet). https://psc.mo.gov/General/Utility_Tariffs_for_Large_Load_Customers
Kansas Reflector (Morgan Chilson), via News From The States · Nov 14, 2025 · News article
The article reports that the Missouri PSC approved Evergy's large-load tariff, supported by most parties but opposed by PSC staff and the Office of Public Counsel, whose alternative the chair called too complex. It notes large-load users are defined at 75 megawatts, paralleling the Kansas Corporation Commission order approved Nov. 6, where a large-user tariff was unanimously agreed to by all intervenors. Commissioners and Evergy describe the tariff as making large users bear infrastructure costs, with a premium rate higher than existing commercial and industrial customers pay.
“Large-load users were defined in the order as those requiring 75 megawatts per month at peak times, a parallel to the Kansas order approved Nov. 6 by the Kansas Corporation Commission.” (Mid-article)
“Missouri Public Service Commission staff and the Missouri Office of Public Counsel ... did not support the order.” (Early in article)
“The rate for these new large customers is higher than that paid by existing commercial and industrial customers.” (Near end, attributed to Evergy spokeswoman Gina Penzig)
Who should read it:
Kansas City metro officials on both sides of the state line.
Limitations:
News coverage; the underlying orders are the primary documents.
Cite as:
Kansas Reflector (Morgan Chilson), via News From The States. “Missouri passes new rules, costs for data centers and large power users.” Nov 14, 2025. https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/missouri-passes-new-rules-costs-data-centers-and-large-power-users
The release announces KCC approval of a unanimous settlement creating Evergy's Large Load Power Service (LLPS) plan for new or expanding customers of 75 MW or more, such as data centers and large manufacturers. Parties included KCC staff, the Citizens Utility Ratepayer Board, Kansas Industrial Consumers, the Data Center Coalition, Google, Evergy, Sierra Club, NRDC and several school districts. It sets a 12-year minimum contract plus up to 5 years of ramp, a minimum bill at 80% of contract demand, collateral of two years of minimum bills, and an exit fee equal to remaining minimum bills. Upgrades needed solely for the new customer are directly assigned to it, while transmission network upgrades are directed by the Southwest Power Pool under FERC.
“Customers on the plan will pay a minimum monthly bill based on 80% of their contract demand, regardless of actual usage.” (Sixth paragraph)
“The contract term will be a minimum of 12 years, plus an optional load ramp period of up to 5 years” (Fifth paragraph)
“any system upgrades that are necessary solely to serve the new/expanded customers will be directly assigned to the new/expanded customer” (Seventh paragraph)
“Efforts were also made to design a plan that was competitive with other Large Load Tariffs throughout the country” (Eighth paragraph)
Who should read it:
Kansas City metro and other Kansas local officials, school districts and ratepayer advocates in Evergy territory.
Limitations:
none stated
Cite as:
Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC). “KCC approves large load rate plan with consumer protections.” November 6, 2025. https://www.kcc.ks.gov/news-11-6-25
Missouri Senate · 2025 (First Regular Session, 103rd General Assembly) · PDF enacted bill text
SB 4 repeals and re-enacts dozens of utility statutes, enacting thirty-two new sections relating to utilities. In the section immediately preceding 393.135 (subsection 7, on pages 40 to 41 of the PDF), it requires each electrical corporation serving more than 250,000 customers to submit tariff schedules for customers projected to have an annual peak demand of 100 megawatts or more, designed so those customers pay their representative share of costs and other classes are protected from unjust or unreasonable costs. Utilities with 250,000 or fewer customers must do the same at 50 megawatts, and the commission may order similar tariffs for smaller loads. Section 393.135 also allows construction work in progress for new natural gas generating units to be placed in rate base under limits. This is the statute that led to the Evergy and Ameren large-load tariffs described by the Missouri PSC.
“applicable to customers who are reasonably projected to have above an annual peak demand of one hundred megawatts or more”
“prevent other customer classes' rates from reflecting any unjust or unreasonable costs arising from service to such customers”
Who should read it:
Missouri city and county attorneys and officials who need the statutory basis for large-load protections, and legislators in other states drafting similar language.
Limitations:
Long omnibus bill; only the large-load tariff provision and the construction work in progress provision were read for this entry.
Cite as:
Missouri Senate. “Senate Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 4, 103rd General Assembly 2025 (Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed).” 2025 (First Regular Session, 103rd General Assembly). https://www.senate.mo.gov/25info/pdf-bill/tat/SB4.pdf
Kansas Department of Commerce · date not printed on the page · PDF program guidelines
The guidelines explain that SB 98 creates a 20-year state and local sales tax exemption for qualified data centers covering construction, equipment, eligible site costs and installation labor. Eligibility requires at least $250 million of investment within five years of operations, 20 new full-time Kansas jobs at the site within two years, a ten-year electricity purchase agreement with the certificated utility, a water conservation and reuse plan, fiber connectivity, and review by the Kansas Intelligence Fusion Center. Qualified data centers cannot also receive discounted economic development electricity rates. Sections 5 to 7 cover the application, the binding Incentive Agreement, Department of Commerce compliance reviews including a mandatory five-year review, reporting to the Statewide Incentive Transparency Database under K.S.A. 74-50,226, and clawbacks.
“Qualified firms making a minimum investment of $250 million and creating at least 20 new Kansas jobs within the statutory timelines may receive exemption from sales tax”
“Each applicant must enter into a ten-year (10) electricity purchase agreement with the utility certified to provide retail electric service at the project location.”
“Qualified data centers are ineligible for discounted economic development electricity rates offered to other types of projects.”
“Sensitive project information submitted to Commerce or KIFC is protected from public disclosure through 2030 (unless required for transparency reporting)”
“Applicants are not precluded from other state and local tax incentives”
Who should read it:
Kansas city and county officials, since the exemption includes the local sales tax share and projects may also seek local incentives.
Limitations:
Agency guidelines interpreting the statute; the document says to "See SB98 for a complete list of qualifying equipment."
Cite as:
Kansas Department of Commerce. “Data Center Sales Tax Exemption Program (SB98) Program Guidelines.” date not printed on the page. https://www.kansascommerce.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Data-Center-Sales-Tax-Exemption-Program-Guidelines_20251124_FINAL.pdf
Missouri Revisor of Statutes (Missouri General Assembly) · Effective 28 Aug 2018 (enacted L. 2015 S.B. 149, amended 2018 S.B. 975 & 1024) · State statute
Subsection 1 defines data storage centers by NAICS codes 518210 and 519130 and sets thresholds: new facilities need at least $25 million of investment within 36 months and ten new jobs paying at least 150 percent of the county average wage; expanding facilities need $5 million and five new jobs. Subsection 2 grants new projects up to fifteen years of a 100 percent exemption from state and local sales and use taxes on utilities (electricity, gas, water, telecom and internet), machinery, equipment, computers and construction materials, capped at the projected ten-year net fiscal benefit to the state as calculated by the Department of Economic Development. Subsection 4 gives expanding facilities up to ten years on incremental utilities and equipment. Subsection 6 requires an agreement with repayment penalties for noncompliance, subsection 8 calls for random audits, and subsection 9 bars recipients from business recruitment tax credits.
“an exemption of one hundred percent of the state and local sales and use taxes”
“All electrical energy, gas, water, and other utilities including telecommunication and internet services used in a new data storage center”
“The amount of any exemption provided under this subsection shall not exceed the projected net fiscal benefit to the state over a period of ten years”
“The new facility project investment is at least twenty-five million dollars”
“the project taxpayers shall enter into an agreement with the department of economic development providing for repayment penalties”
Who should read it:
Missouri city and county finance officers, because the exemption covers local sales and use taxes, including taxes on the data center's utility purchases.
Limitations:
The statute text does not itself require public disclosure of recipients; Good Jobs First lists Missouri among states that do not disclose.
Cite as:
Missouri Revisor of Statutes (Missouri General Assembly). “RSMo Section 144.810: Data storage centers, exemption from sales and use tax.” Effective 28 Aug 2018 (enacted L. 2015 S.B. 149, amended 2018 S.B. 975 & 1024). https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=144.810
The article traces local fights from Peculiar, Missouri (which rejected a 500-acre data center rezoning in October 2024) to Festus, St. Charles (which passed a one-year moratorium on new applications in August 2026), Tonganoxie and Leavenworth County in Kansas, Otoe County, Nebraska, and Linn County and Palo, Iowa. It discusses nondisclosure agreements and public trust, the mostly short-term nature of data center jobs, and state-level actions: Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen's August executive order rescinding data center tax incentives, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker halting data center incentives, the Illinois POWER Act that did not pass, and Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe's continued support for data center investment.
“In August 2026, the St. Charles City Council unanimously passed a one-year moratorium on new data center applications.” (A cost to public trust section)
“In August, Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, a Republican, signed an executive order that rescinds a package of tax incentives for data centers.” (Finding a way forward section)
“Illinois' Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker recently halted tax incentives for data centers, a reversal from legislation he signed in 2019.” (Finding a way forward section)
“According to Pew, 67% of planned data centers are in rural areas, while 87% of existing data centers are in urban ones.” (The rush to regulate section)
Who should read it:
Kansas City region officials and rural county leaders facing a first data center proposal, especially where nondisclosure agreements are in play.
Limitations:
News reporting; state actions are described secondhand. The article says Nebraska's order came "In August," but the Nebraska Governor's own release is dated July 21, 2026.
Cite as:
KCUR / Midwest Newsroom (Holly Edgell). “Data center backlash unites some Missouri and Kansas towns against lawmakers and big tech.” September 2, 2026. https://www.kcur.org/housing-development-section/2026-09-02/data-center-backlash-missouri-kansas
Good Jobs First · undated on page (report PDF is stored in the site's November 2025 uploads folder; cites sources accessed October and November 2025) · Research report
The study finds that at least 36 states have subsidies crafted for data centers, mostly sales and use tax exemptions, but only 11 disclose recipients (Table 1) while 24 do not (Table 2, which lists Missouri among non-disclosing states and notes Kansas's program is too new to assess). It examines disclosure of parent companies, subsidy amounts, jobs promised and created, wages, capital investment, locations and facility type, and highlights Indiana, Illinois, Nevada, Ohio and Washington as partial models. It computes subsidy cost per permanent job where data allow, describes double standards in North Carolina, Iowa and Virginia, and recommends eliminating data center subsidies or, short of that, sunsetting or reforming them with full disclosure of recipients, parent companies, amounts, jobs, wages and street addresses.
“At least 36 states have economic development subsidies specifically crafted for data center projects, but only 11 disclose which companies receive them” (Executive Summary, first sentence)
“Not one state reports on both jobs promised and jobs actually created” (Executive Summary)
“they lose between 52 and 70 cents for every dollar they spend on data center sales tax exemptions” (Executive Summary, describing states that computed returns)
“Illinois spends on average of $1.4 million per job at subsidized data centers.” (Subsidy Cost per Permanent Job section)
“(Already, the legislatures of Georgia and Ohio voted to sunset, but their governors vetoed both bills.)” (Executive Summary)
Who should read it:
Local finance directors, economic development staff and elected officials asked to layer local abatements on top of state exemptions, and anyone seeking to verify job promises.
Limitations:
The report says it focuses on state-level sales and use tax exemptions; the companion Stateline summary notes it does not account for local property tax abatements, corporate income tax credits, or discounts on electricity and water rates.
Cite as:
Good Jobs First. “Cloudy Data, Costly Deals: How Poorly States Disclose Data Center Subsidies.” undated on page (report PDF is stored in the site's November 2025 uploads folder; cites sources accessed October and November 2025). https://goodjobsfirst.org/cloudy-data-costly-deals-how-poorly-states-disclose-data-center-subsidies/
Good Jobs First (Kasia Tarczynska) · April 2025 · Research report
The report examines state-level tax incentive programs crafted for data centers in 32 states, finding that 12 do not disclose even aggregate revenue losses. It lists what the exemptions typically cover (construction materials, servers and replacements, generators, cooling and more) and notes that state certification usually includes the local share of sales tax, effectively preempting local sales tax authority. Table 1 ranks the ten programs costing over $100 million a year. It describes reform efforts in Georgia, Washington and Virginia, argues that data center exemptions meet the GASB Statement No. 77 definition of tax abatement that governments using GAAP should disclose, and recommends canceling, capping or pausing the programs with robust disclosure.
“At least 10 states already lose more than $100 million per year in tax revenue to data centers” (Executive Summary)
“in the space of just 23 months, Texas revised its FY 2025 cost projection from $130 million to $1 billion” (Executive Summary)
“states effectively preempt local sales tax authority on data centers” (Data Center Subsidies: Sales and Tax Use Exemptions section)
“in 2025, Georgia localities involuntarily lost $136 million to data center subsidies” (Transparency of Data Center Subsidy Costs section)
“every local government which uses GAAP accounting and which foregoes income to data centers, should be disclosing those revenue losses in a note in their Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, as prescribed by GASB Statement 77” (Tax Abatement Disclosure Compliance Problem)
Who should read it:
Local finance officers and auditors (for the GASB 77 point), and officials whose local sales tax share is swept into a state exemption.
Limitations:
The report says it "looks only at state- level programs specifically crafted for the industry" and treats electricity rate discounts, local property tax abatements and dedicated infrastructure as beyond its scope.
Cite as:
Good Jobs First (Kasia Tarczynska). “Cloudy with a Loss of Spending Control: How Data Centers Are Endangering State Budgets.” April 2025. https://goodjobsfirst.org/cloudy-with-a-loss-of-spending-control-how-data-centers-are-endangering-state-budgets/
Stateline (Kevin Hardy) · April 15, 2026 · News article
The article reports a new Good Jobs First finding that 14 states, including Missouri, do not disclose how much revenue they lose to data center tax breaks, while Georgia, Virginia and Texas report losses of $1 billion or more a year. It cites NCSL's count of states offering dedicated data center incentives and Good Jobs First's view that nondisclosure conflicts with Governmental Accounting Standards Board standards. It also notes Maine lawmakers' approval of a moratorium on data centers larger than 20 megawatts through November 2027, then pending before the governor.
“14 states do not disclose how much revenue they lose to data center tax breaks” (Lead paragraph)
“report losing $1 billion or more per year to data center incentives” (Second paragraph, referring to Georgia, Virginia and Texas, attributed to Good Jobs First)
“Currently, 38 states offer dedicated tax incentives for data centers, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.” (Fifth paragraph)
“Maine lawmakers this week approved a moratorium on data centers larger than 20 megawatts” (Later in article)
Who should read it:
Missouri and other officials in non-disclosing states, and local budget staff tracking the cost of state incentives.
Limitations:
Part of this note was removed because a number in it could not be matched to the source page.
Cite as:
Stateline (Kevin Hardy). “Many states don't report losses from data center tax breaks, study says.” April 15, 2026. https://stateline.org/2026/04/15/many-states-dont-report-losses-from-data-center-tax-breaks-study-says/
Office of Governor Jim Pillen, Nebraska · July 21, 2026 · Press release
The release announces Executive Order 26-17, which prohibits approval of data center applications under the ImagiNE Nebraska Act, requires the Departments of Economic Development, Revenue, and Water, Energy and Environment to jointly review data center proposals for the state's best interest, and creates a task force on protecting natural resources that will work with Natural Resources Districts and help county officials with zoning tools. It notes 2026 legislation LB1261 allowing large industrial users to build their own behind-the-meter power to protect ratepayers, and quotes Sen. Mike Jacobson on planned legislation.
“Governor Jim Pillen signed an executive order ending access to tax incentives provided through the state's ImagiNE Nebraska Act for data centers” (First paragraph)
“This is not a moratorium on data centers” (Quote from Gov. Pillen)
“Another aspect will be making sure that county officials have the necessary tools for zoning and other activities.” (Description of the task force)
“Tax incentive programs should not return or waive the very revenue that could support our counties, cities, schools, and other political subdivisions” (Quote from Sen. Mike Jacobson)
Who should read it:
County and city officials in states reconsidering incentives, and rural officials who want an example of a state pairing incentive withdrawal with zoning support.
Limitations:
Press release; the full text of Executive Order No. 26-17 is linked but was not read for this entry.
Cite as:
Office of Governor Jim Pillen, Nebraska. “Gov. Pillen Signs Executive Order on Data Centers.” July 21, 2026. https://governor.nebraska.gov/gov-pillen-signs-executive-order-data-centers
Office of the Governor of Illinois (State of Illinois Newsroom) · June 5, 2026 · Press release with policy framework
The release directs the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity to pause processing Data Center Investment Program agreements starting July 1, 2026, while honoring existing agreements. It sets out the Governor's framework: a separate data center rate class with grid and water costs assigned to it, efficiency standards, interruptible service for data centers that do not self-supply clean energy, requirements to generate or pay for new clean energy, comprehensive water permits, clean air protections with cumulative impact review, and transparency measures including a ban on nondisclosure agreements with local governments, public notice of permits, regular energy and water reporting, and mandatory community benefits agreements.
“directing the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) to pause processing agreements for the Data Center Investment Program starting July 1” (Opening paragraph)
“Create a rate class for data centers and establish data center electricity rates.”
“Ban nondisclosure agreements between data centers and local governments.”
“Require data centers to enter into community benefits agreements with the communities where they locate”
“In PJM, the electric grid that serves 67 million people across 13 states including Illinois, demand from data centers has already raised costs by $13 billion”
Who should read it:
Illinois municipal officials and anyone drafting local policy on nondisclosure agreements, community benefits agreements and public notice.
Limitations:
The framework items are proposals the release asks the General Assembly to enact; only the incentive pause is an executive action.
Cite as:
Office of the Governor of Illinois (State of Illinois Newsroom). “Gov. Pritzker Pauses New Data Center Tax Incentives.” June 5, 2026. https://gov-pritzker-newsroom.prezly.com/gov-pritzker-pauses-new-data-center-tax-incentives
The Current (Alander Rocha, Georgia Recorder) · March 7, 2026 · News article
The article reports the Georgia Senate's 32-21 passage of Senate Bill 410, sponsored by Sen. Matt Brass, which would phase out tax breaks for new data centers and computer equipment ahead of their original expiration and write the PSC's existing large-load rule into law. It covers Sen. Chuck Hufstetler's objection that his SB 34, which would have barred passing data center costs to other customers, was weakened, and criticism from Georgia PIRG and Senate Democrats that redacted Georgia Power contracts leave ratepayers exposed if forecast data center load does not materialize.
“Senate Bill 410, sponsored by Newnan Republican Sen. Matt Brass, passed Friday with a 32-21 vote.” (Early in article)
“The bill would phase out tax breaks for new data center developments and computer equipment ahead of the original expiration dates.” (Early in article)
“Residential and small business customers could still be on the hook for billions of dollars in data center energy costs.” (Quote from Georgia PIRG)
Who should read it:
Officials following how state incentive repeal and ratepayer protection get bundled, and the gap between regulator rules and statute.
Limitations:
Reports a Senate vote only; the bill's final outcome in the House and with the Governor was not verified for this entry.
Cite as:
The Current (Alander Rocha, Georgia Recorder). “Georgia Senate votes to end tax breaks for new data centers.” March 7, 2026. https://thecurrentga.org/2026/03/07/georgia-senate-votes-to-end-tax-breaks-for-new-data-centers/
Office of Ohio Governor Mike DeWine · May 27, 2026 · Press release
The release says Governor DeWine directed the chair of the Ohio Tax Credit Authority to stop considering new data center tax exemption requests while the General Assembly's Joint Data Center Committee studies data center growth, including local benefits when exemptions are granted. The authority would stop accepting new proposals after its next scheduled meeting. The release reports the capital investment reported by data centers previously granted exemptions and states the pause is not a ban.
“he has directed the chair of the Ohio Tax Credit Authority to pause consideration of any new data center tax exemption requests while the Ohio General Assembly's Joint Data Center Committee studies the growth of data centers in Ohio” (First paragraph)
“Data centers that have previously been granted sales and use tax benefits in Ohio have reported a total capital investment of $27.2 billion in 2025.” (Second paragraph (Governor's statement))
“This action only suspends the ability for data centers to request tax exemptions in Ohio; it is not a data center ban.” (Final paragraph)
Who should read it:
Ohio local officials and others tracking how governors are pausing incentives while legislatures study costs and benefits.
Limitations:
Short release; it does not state how long the pause will last.
Cite as:
Office of Ohio Governor Mike DeWine. “Governor DeWine Announces Pause of Data Center Tax Exemption.” May 27, 2026. https://governor.ohio.gov/media/news-and-media/governor-dewine-announces-pause-of-data-center-tax-exemption
About this library
Why we put this together.
When a data center shows up on an agenda, the questions come fast, and the answers are scattered across federal reports, utility filings, state bills and local ordinances. We wanted one place a council member, a planner or a neighbor could start. We read what we list, and if we only got through part of a long report, we tell you which part. If something sat behind a paywall or the link was dead, we left it out.
Each entry includes
Who published it, when, and a link.
A short description of what it covers.
Quotes taken directly from the source.
Who should read it.
Its limits, including who paid for it.
A citation for your staff report.
We update the library as new information becomes available. No one paid to be listed, and government, industry and advocacy sources sit side by side, each one labeled.
Is a data center coming to your community?
The library is free. If you want an independent read before the first hearing, we can help.