Coverage
What we actually have on file, state by state.
Every row below is a real, sourced fact — a tariff filing, an executive order, a PUC docket — not an inferred or scraped guess. A state with nothing on file says so here rather than being left looking covered. This is the same discipline every Kill Test report is held to.
Download the record list as CSV · Free JSON API · What changed · Compare utilities side by side
45
of 48 states with a verified large-load tariff on file
107
utility tariff records, referencing about 164 filings, schedules and dockets in 48 states
48
of 48 states with real, sourced interconnection research on file
6
live nationwide land-constraint GIS layers, every site
Large-load tariffs
ME1VT1NH1WA5ID2MT3ND3MN3IL1WI4MI2NY6MA1RI1OR2NV1WY3SD3IA2IN2OH4PA2NJ3CT1CA3UT1CO4NE2MO3KY5WV1VA6MD5DE1AZ2NM3KS1AR2TN1NC2SC3OK2LA2MS2AL2GA2TX6FL3
Tariff on fileFramework onlyNot yet researchedNumber = records we hold
“On file” means a specific utility's applied tariff, with a threshold and a primary source. “Framework only” means a commission-wide guidance document exists but no utility has an applied rate under it yet. Neither is legal advice — confirm directly with the utility before relying on a number here.
| State | Status | Utility / threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama (AL) | On file | Tennessee Valley Authority (data center rate / Capacity Commitment Charge) — New or expanding loads above 5 MW Alabama Power (Alabama PSC), large data center contract review and special contracts — 150 MW or more expected peak demand for the state-law review process (Act 2026-610, effective October 1, 2026); 30 MW or more for a special contract under Rate BTAL (Docket U-5024) |
| Arizona (AZ) | On file | Salt River Project (SRP) — 20 MW or more, or expected by SRP to reach 20 MW within five years (E-67 price plan, "Large Load Account") Arizona Public Service (APS), Extra High Load Factor (XHLF) rate — Existing XHLF: optional at 5,000 kW or more maximum demand and a 92% or higher load factor for at least nine of the prior 12 months. Proposed: mandatory for data centers that began service after January 2024 and similar large customers needing new generation outside APS's June 2025 resource plan. |
| Arkansas (AR) | On file | Entergy Arkansas -- dockets open, no data-center MW trigger found — No data-center-specific threshold found Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation (Arkansas), Transmission Extension of Facilities (TEOF) tariff — Power Intensive Users: demand above 50 MW, single user or aggregated for the same entity in a member cooperative's territory |
| California (CA) | On file | Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) — No explicit MW threshold found -- Rule 30 targets transmission-level (not distribution-level) interconnection, which in practice means large loads Imperial Irrigation District (California), Schedule LL Large Load — Expected monthly demand of 20 MW or more and an expected load factor above 80% Sacramento Municipal Utility District (California), large-load policy — 50 MW or higher defined as large load (staff presentation) |
| Colorado (CO) | On file | Xcel Energy / Public Service Co. of Colorado — 50 MW and above Black Hills Energy (Colorado) — No large-load tariff yet Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association (Colorado, wholesale to cooperatives), High Impact Load Tariff — Load additions above 45 MW, either at the request or forecast within 4 years Colorado Springs Utilities (Colorado), Schedule ELL Industrial Service - Large Load — Industrial customers with loads greater than 10 MW |
| Connecticut (CT) | On file | Eversource / United Illuminating (Connecticut, under HB 5469) — 50 MW or more peak demand |
| Delaware (DE) | On file | Delmarva Power & Light — 25 MW or more |
| Florida (FL) | On file | Florida Power & Light (LLCS-1 Large-Load Contract Service) — New or incremental load of 50 MW or more at a single location, with a projected load factor of 85% or more Duke Energy Florida, proposed Large Load Customer Policy (Florida PSC) — 50 MW or more of firm load (Peak Contract Demand reasonably expected at or above 50,000 kW at any time in the term) Tampa Electric, proposed Large Load Customer Service (LLCS-1 and LLCS-2) — 50 MW or more anticipated monthly peak load at a single location |
| Georgia (GA) | On file | Tennessee Valley Authority (data center rate / Capacity Commitment Charge) — New or expanding loads above 5 MW Georgia Power, Rules and Regulations revisions for new customers of 100 MW or more — 100 MW or more of new load |
| Idaho (ID) | On file | Idaho Power (Schedule 20, Speculative High-Density Load) — Rates mandatory at metered demand of 1,000 kW or more for three billing periods in 12; also for customers meeting four of seven high-density criteria Avista (Washington and Idaho), large-load service — No tariff threshold; the first deal is 125 MW growing toward 500 MW |
| Illinois (IL) | On file | Commonwealth Edison (ComEd), large demand project applicants (Rider DE) — Projected maximum kilowatts delivered of 50 MW or more before December of the 10th year after the requested service date |
| Indiana (IN) | On file | Indiana Michigan Power (AEP) — 70 MW single facility, or 150 MW aggregated NIPSCO GenCo (Indiana), megaload service through a separate generation company — A 'megaload' customer is 50 MW or more under the approved settlement (a consumer group argued for 100 MW) |
| Iowa (IA) | On file | Interstate Power and Light (Alliant Energy Iowa), Rider ICR Individual Customer Rate — 25 MW or more (25,000 kW) at a single metering point, served at 69 kV or above, with an expected 80% load factor and 175,000 MWh a year, or demonstrated ability to curtail to a firm demand level MidAmerican Energy (Iowa) -- no large-load tariff found — No Iowa large-load tariff found for MidAmerican |
| Kansas (KS) | On file | Evergy Kansas Central / Evergy Kansas South (Schedule LLPS) — Monthly maximum demand of 75 MW or more for a new facility, or an expansion of 75 MW or more |
| Kentucky (KY) | On file | Kentucky Utilities (Rate EHLF, Extremely High Load Factor Service) — Contract capacity greater than 50 MVA, with an expected average monthly load factor above 85% Tennessee Valley Authority (data center rate / Capacity Commitment Charge) — New or expanding loads above 5 MW Kentucky Power Company, Tariff I.G.S. large load provisions — 150 MW or more of new load, or of incremental load added by an existing customer, on or after the order date East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Rate DCP Data Center Power — Data center with an expected or actual peak of 15,000 kW (15 MW) or more and a monthly load factor of 60% or more; loads over 250 MW must be served with dedicated resources Louisville Gas & Electric (Kentucky), Rate EHLF Extremely High Load Factor Service — Contract capacity of 50 MVA or more (new customers only); expected average monthly load factor above 85% as in the sister KU tariff |
| Louisiana (LA) | On file | Entergy Louisiana (Schedule LLHLFPS-L, Large Load High Load Factor Power Service) — 70 MW or more of firm load, with at least an 80% average monthly load factor Cleco Power (Louisiana), Large Power Service and the Delta Forge data center contract — Large Power Service starts at 5,000 kW; the LPSC's large-load guidelines are non-binding and set no MW trigger |
| Maine (ME) | On file | Maine utilities (Central Maine Power, Versant Power) -- state inquiry, no tariff found — No large-load tariff found |
| Maryland (MD) | Framework only | Baltimore Gas and Electric (Maryland) -- large-load tariff under PSC Public Conference 72 — 25 MW and 60% load factor (per the Utility Relief Act); any data center regardless of size or load factor Pepco (Maryland) -- large-load tariff under PSC Public Conference 72 — 25 MW and 60% load factor (per the Utility Relief Act); any data center regardless of size or load factor Potomac Edison (Maryland) -- large-load tariff under PSC Public Conference 72 — 25 MW and 60% load factor (per the Utility Relief Act); any data center regardless of size or load factor Delmarva Power (Maryland) -- large-load tariff under PSC Public Conference 72 — 25 MW and 60% load factor (per the Utility Relief Act); any data center regardless of size or load factor Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative (Maryland) -- large-load tariff required by state law — 25 MW and 60% load factor (per the Utility Relief Act); any data center regardless of size or load factor |
| Massachusetts (MA) | On file | Massachusetts electric distribution companies (Eversource/NSTAR, National Grid, Unitil) -- state directive, no tariff yet — No tariff threshold yet; policy threshold is above 25 MW peak demand |
| Michigan (MI) | On file | Consumers Energy (Rate GPD large-load / data center provision) — 100 MW or greater; or an aggregate of 100 MW under common ownership where each site is 20 MW or more DTE Electric (special contract, not a generic tariff) — No generic threshold -- this is a one-off special contract for a specific ~1.4 GW customer (Green Chile Ventures LLC / Oracle), not a tariff schedule other customers can qualify under |
| Minnesota (MN) | On file | Northern States Power Co. (Xcel Energy Minnesota), very large customer tariffs — New loads of 100 MW or greater; or 20 MW to under 100 MW if system intensive Minnesota Power / ALLETE (Minnesota) -- very large customer class, pending — Otter Tail Super Large General Service: 25 MW single point, 80% load factor, 175,000 MWh a year (EEI); Minnesota Power and Otter Tail proposed classes: thresholds not confirmed (state law requires the PUC to set the very-large-customer definition by December 15, 2026) Otter Tail Power (Minnesota) -- Super Large General Service in effect; new tiers pending — Otter Tail Super Large General Service: 25 MW single point, 80% load factor, 175,000 MWh a year (EEI); Minnesota Power and Otter Tail proposed classes: thresholds not confirmed (state law requires the PUC to set the very-large-customer definition by December 15, 2026) |
| Mississippi (MS) | On file | Tennessee Valley Authority (data center rate / Capacity Commitment Charge) — New or expanding loads above 5 MW Mississippi Power and Entergy Mississippi (Mississippi), special contracts for data centers — No published threshold; contracts are negotiated (EEI refers to a Mississippi Power Rule 27) |
| Missouri (MO) | On file | Evergy Metro / Evergy Missouri West (Large Load Power Service, LLPS) — 75 MW or more of expected demand Union Electric Company d/b/a Ameren Missouri (Large Load Rate Plan) — Monthly maximum demand of 75 MW or more for a new facility, or an expansion of 75 MW or more Liberty (Empire District Electric), Missouri large load tariff case — 25 MW or more of new or expanded load (Schedule TS-LL, as filed); Liberty may aggregate nearby premises |
| Montana (MT) | On file | NorthWestern Energy (Montana) — 5 MW or greater of new electric service Flathead Electric Cooperative (Montana), Administrative Policy E&O 337 High Density Loads — No MW trigger: any load with an energy use intensity of 250 kWh per square foot per year or more, regardless of size Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Dakotas and Montana), Large Load Commercial Program — Not published in the sources found; applies to non-traditional large loads requesting service from member systems |
| Nebraska (NE) | On file | Nebraska public power suppliers (OPPD, NPPD, LES, and other municipal/cooperative utilities) — Large Load Customer Regulation Act — Large load customer: new/expanded interconnection request with total load at a single site exceeding 20 MW. Separately, a 'data center' for infrastructure-cost-recovery purposes is defined at 10 MW or more of peak electricity demand. Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association (Colorado, wholesale to cooperatives), High Impact Load Tariff — Load additions above 45 MW, either at the request or forecast within 4 years |
| Nevada (NV) | On file | Nevada Power Co. / Sierra Pacific Power Co. (NV Energy) — 5 MW or more average annual load (Clean Transition Tariff eligibility) |
| New Hampshire (NH) | On file | New Hampshire utilities (Eversource, Unitil, Liberty) -- HB 1722 only — No tariff or threshold found |
| New Jersey (NJ) | Framework only | PSE&G (New Jersey) -- state-mandated large-load tariff, not yet filed — 50 MW or more (per S731) Jersey Central Power & Light (New Jersey) -- state-mandated large-load tariff, not yet filed — 50 MW or more (per S731) Atlantic City Electric (New Jersey) -- state-mandated large-load tariff, not yet filed — 50 MW or more (per S731) |
| New Mexico (NM) | On file | Southwestern Public Service (Xcel, SPP) — 10 MW at 69 kV or below, or 50 MW above 69 kV (SPP High Impact Large Load) El Paso Electric (New Mexico), proposed Rate 50 High Load Factor Power Service and Rate 51 Large Load Power Service — Proposed: Rate 50 at 30 MW or more minimum monthly billing demand with a high load factor requirement; Rate 51 at 10 MW or more Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association (Colorado, wholesale to cooperatives), High Impact Load Tariff — Load additions above 45 MW, either at the request or forecast within 4 years |
| New York (NY) | Framework only | Consolidated Edison (New York) -- under PSC review, no large-load tariff yet — No statewide threshold filed yet -- PSC Case 26-E-0045 is reviewing what one should be National Grid / Niagara Mohawk (New York) -- under PSC review, no large-load tariff yet — No statewide threshold filed yet -- PSC Case 26-E-0045 is reviewing what one should be NYSEG (New York) -- under PSC review, no large-load tariff yet — No statewide threshold filed yet -- PSC Case 26-E-0045 is reviewing what one should be Rochester Gas and Electric (New York) -- under PSC review, no large-load tariff yet — No statewide threshold filed yet -- PSC Case 26-E-0045 is reviewing what one should be Central Hudson (New York) -- under PSC review, no large-load tariff yet — No statewide threshold filed yet -- PSC Case 26-E-0045 is reviewing what one should be Long Island Power Authority / PSEG Long Island (New York) -- not covered by the PSC case — No statewide threshold filed yet -- PSC Case 26-E-0045 is reviewing what one should be |
| North Carolina (NC) | On file | Tennessee Valley Authority (data center rate / Capacity Commitment Charge) — New or expanding loads above 5 MW Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress (North Carolina), proposed Large Load Tariff settlement — Proposed: 50 MW or more of contract demand with an expected 80% load factor, or 150 MW or more at any load factor (premises within one mile counted together) |
| North Dakota (ND) | On file | Otter Tail Power Company (North Dakota) — New very-large-customer class; a specific data-center rate schedule also proposed Montana-Dakota Utilities (North Dakota), high density computer processing demand tariff — 10 MW or more of high density computer processing demand with a load factor of at least 85% (as reported by EEI) Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Dakotas and Montana), Large Load Commercial Program — Not published in the sources found; applies to non-traditional large loads requesting service from member systems |
| Ohio (OH) | On file | AEP Ohio — 25 MW and above (study fee applies) FirstEnergy Ohio (Ohio Edison, Cleveland Electric Illuminating, Toledo Edison), proposed Data Center Tariff — Not confirmed (the proposed threshold was not read) Duke Energy Ohio, proposed Data Center Service (Rate DC) — Not confirmed (the proposed threshold was not read) AES Ohio (Dayton Power and Light), proposed Data Center Tariff (Schedule D23) in rate case settlement — Not confirmed (a settlement was filed; its terms were not read) |
| Oklahoma (OK) | On file | Oklahoma Gas & Electric (OG&E) — New customers: 75 MW minimum demand. Existing customers: adding 75 MW incremental, or growing past 125 MW total. Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO) — Not independently confirmed during this research -- cost-causation basis similar to OG&E's filing, but PSO's own specific numeric thresholds were not found in the sources reviewed. |
| Oregon (OR) | On file | Portland General Electric (Schedule 96; large load agreements under Rule I) — 20 MW or more for a large load customer agreement (LLCA); Schedule 96 applies to large energy use facilities of 20 MW or more Pacific Power / PacifiCorp (Oregon), Schedule 401 and POWER Act data center implementation — 20 MW or more, data center-type facilities (NAICS 518210), under Oregon's POWER Act |
| Pennsylvania (PA) | On file | Pennsylvania PUC large-load model framework (guidance for EDC filings) — At or over 50 MW individually, or 100 MW in the aggregate (model framework) PPL Electric Utilities (Pennsylvania), Rate Schedule LP-6 large load / data center — 50 MW or more at a single facility, or 75 MW or more in aggregate at 69 kV or above within a 10-mile radius |
| Rhode Island (RI) | On file | Rhode Island Energy -- legislation only — No tariff or threshold found |
| South Carolina (SC) | On file | Santee Cooper (South Carolina, state-owned utility) — Not independently confirmed during this research -- a specific numeric threshold was not found in the sources reviewed. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress (South Carolina), service regulations for new loads of 50 MW or more — More than 50 MW of new non-residential load (service regulations); terms for the contract itself are still being set Dominion Energy South Carolina, large-load rules (generic PSC docket 2026-138-E) — Not set. An advocacy filing in the generic docket refers to 25 MW or more of measured or contracted demand, but it is not adopted. |
| South Dakota (SD) | On file | Otter Tail Power (South Dakota) -- petition pending — 75 MW and above (proposed) Black Hills Power (South Dakota), Economic Flexible Load Service tariff for blockchain loads — Interruptible loads of 10 MW (10,000 kW) or more connected to Black Hills' system; written for new blockchain customers Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Dakotas and Montana), Large Load Commercial Program — Not published in the sources found; applies to non-traditional large loads requesting service from member systems |
| Tennessee (TN) | On file | Tennessee Valley Authority (data center rate / Capacity Commitment Charge) — New or expanding loads above 5 MW |
| Texas (TX) | On file | Southwestern Public Service (Xcel, SPP) — 10 MW at 69 kV or below, or 50 MW above 69 kV (SPP High Impact Large Load) Oncor / ERCOT TDUs — 75 MW and above (ERCOT Large Load Interconnection Study) Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO, Texas), proposed Large Load standard contract — 75 MW or more of contract capacity at one facility or in aggregate (EEI summary) Tri-County Electric Cooperative (Texas), large load request framework — Applied to all large loads from 2 MW up Austin Energy (Texas), large-load service — No data center tariff; Texas SB 6 defines large load at 75 MW; Austin Energy's new inquiries are mostly 20 to 74 MW Texas PUC large-load interconnection rule under SB 6 (Project 58481, proposed 16 TAC 25.194), all Texas utilities — New or expanded load of 75 MW or more at one site |
| Utah (UT) | On file | Rocky Mountain Power (Utah), Large Load Act (SB 132) and rules — 100 MW or more of requested retail service (Utah Code Title 54, Chapter 26) |
| Vermont (VT) | On file | Vermont distribution utilities (Green Mountain Power, others) -- H.727 pending — 20 MW and above (H.727 definition); GMP Rate 70 applies above 10 MW at transmission voltage |
| Virginia (VA) | On file | Virginia Electric and Power Co. (Dominion Energy Virginia), GS-5 rate class — 25 MW or greater on a contiguous site, and load factor of at least 75% Tennessee Valley Authority (data center rate / Capacity Commitment Charge) — New or expanding loads above 5 MW Appalachian Power Company (Virginia), Schedule L.P.S. large load terms — 100 MW or more at an individual site, or 150 MW or more aggregated (new load or expansion after July 1, 2025) Mecklenburg Electric Cooperative (Virginia), Schedule LPS-U large power service — Annual demand averaging 5,000 kW or more a month, and an actual and projected annual average of 25 MW or more (large load consumer, per the cooperative's terms and conditions) Rappahannock Electric Cooperative (Virginia), Schedule LP-DF Large Power and Dedicated Facilities — Contracted billing demand above 25 MW, served at 34.5 kV or higher from dedicated substation facilities, at an annual average load factor of at least 75% Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative (NOVEC), Schedule HV-1 Large Power Dedicated Distribution Service — New or additional separately metered load of at least 5,000 kW (5 MW), with an average annual load factor of at least 70%, served at 115 kV or higher |
| Washington (WA) | On file | Seattle City Light (Washington), new large data center load contracts — Data center service of 10 MVA or more of capacity installed within any five-year period after January 1, 2027 Grant County PUD (Washington), Rate Schedule 94 New Large Load — Not stated: a New Large Load is defined in the District's Customer Service Policies (not read) Chelan County PUD (Washington), Rate 36 Data Centers and Similar Loads — Applies to data center and similar loads; service is limited to 3 MW per service point Snohomish County PUD (Washington), large-load review — Any request above 2.5 MW is treated as a large load Avista (Washington and Idaho), large-load service — No tariff threshold; the first deal is 125 MW growing toward 500 MW |
| West Virginia (WV) | On file | Appalachian Power and Wheeling Power (West Virginia), Schedules LCP and IP large load terms — 100 MW or more of new load or expansion at an individual site, or 150 MW or more aggregated |
| Wisconsin (WI) | On file | We Energies (Very Large Customer tariff) — 100 MW or more of energy demand Xcel Energy / NSP-Wisconsin (Wisconsin) -- Very Large General Time of Day service, pending — Proposed: about 100 MW or more (reported for Xcel Wisconsin); other utilities not confirmed Wisconsin Power and Light / Alliant (Wisconsin) -- Large Load Power Service, pending — Not confirmed (the filing was not read; Xcel Wisconsin proposed about 100 MW and the We Energies decision set 100 MW) Madison Gas and Electric (Wisconsin) -- Very Large Customer tariff, pending — Not confirmed (the filing was not read; Xcel Wisconsin proposed about 100 MW and the We Energies decision set 100 MW) |
| Wyoming (WY) | On file | Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power (Black Hills Energy Wyoming), Large Power Contract Service — Expected capacity requirement of 5,000 kW (5 MW) or greater Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association (Colorado, wholesale to cooperatives), High Impact Load Tariff — Load additions above 45 MW, either at the request or forecast within 4 years Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Dakotas and Montana), Large Load Commercial Program — Not published in the sources found; applies to non-traditional large loads requesting service from member systems |
Statewide interconnection & regulatory guidance
Resolved with no specific utility named — a state whose most detailed guidance depends on naming a particular utility (we cover several) may still have real research on file even if it doesn't show as verified here.
| State | Status | What's on file |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama (AL) | Utility-specific | Real tariff entry on file for Tennessee Valley Authority (data center rate / Capacity Commitment Charge) and Alabama Power (Alabama PSC), large data center contract review and special contracts; other utilities not yet researched. |
| Arizona (AZ) | On file | Arizona — statewide tax-incentive freeze (FY2027 budget) |
| Arkansas (AR) | On file | Arkansas — no generic large-load tariff yet; precedent-setting case-by-case PSC-approved contracts |
| California (CA) | On file | California — statewide 7-bill data center package |
| Colorado (CO) | On file | Colorado (non-Xcel utility) |
| Connecticut (CT) | On file | Connecticut — statewide large electric load customer framework (HB 5469) |
| Delaware (DE) | On file | Delaware — PSC-mandated Delmarva Power large-load tariff (Docket No. 25-0826), in progress |
| Florida (FL) | Utility-specific | Real tariff entry on file for Florida Power & Light (LLCS-1 Large-Load Contract Service) and Duke Energy Florida, proposed Large Load Customer Policy (Florida PSC) and Tampa Electric, proposed Large Load Customer Service (LLCS-1 and LLCS-2); other utilities not yet researched. |
| Georgia (GA) | Utility-specific | Real tariff entry on file for Tennessee Valley Authority (data center rate / Capacity Commitment Charge) and Georgia Power, Rules and Regulations revisions for new customers of 100 MW or more; other utilities not yet researched. |
| Idaho (ID) | Utility-specific | Real tariff entry on file for Idaho Power (Schedule 20, Speculative High-Density Load) and Avista (Washington and Idaho), large-load service; other utilities not yet researched. |
| Illinois (IL) | On file | Illinois — no statewide tariff law enacted yet; the POWER Act failed to advance in 2026 |
| Indiana (IN) | On file | Indiana (non-AEP utility) — MISO |
| Iowa (IA) | Utility-specific | Real tariff entry on file for Interstate Power and Light (Alliant Energy Iowa), Rider ICR Individual Customer Rate and MidAmerican Energy (Iowa) -- no large-load tariff found; other utilities not yet researched. |
| Kansas (KS) | Utility-specific | Real tariff entry on file for Evergy Kansas Central / Evergy Kansas South (Schedule LLPS); other utilities not yet researched. |
| Kentucky (KY) | Utility-specific | Real tariff entry on file for Kentucky Utilities (Rate EHLF, Extremely High Load Factor Service) and Tennessee Valley Authority (data center rate / Capacity Commitment Charge) and Kentucky Power Company, Tariff I.G.S. large load provisions and East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Rate DCP Data Center Power and Louisville Gas & Electric (Kentucky), Rate EHLF Extremely High Load Factor Service; other utilities not yet researched. |
| Louisiana (LA) | Utility-specific | Real tariff entry on file for Entergy Louisiana (Schedule LLHLFPS-L, Large Load High Load Factor Power Service) and Cleco Power (Louisiana), Large Power Service and the Delta Forge data center contract; other utilities not yet researched. |
| Maine (ME) | On file | Maine — statewide data-center moratorium (through Nov 1, 2027) + Executive Order 5 ratepayer-protection council |
| Maryland (MD) | On file | Maryland — statewide Utility Relief Act (large-load threshold lowered to 25 MW) |
| Massachusetts (MA) | On file | Massachusetts — statewide community-benefits requirement (Executive Order 658) |
| Michigan (MI) | On file | Michigan — no statewide law enacted yet; real bipartisan proposals and a stated gubernatorial position on file |
| Minnesota (MN) | Utility-specific | Real tariff entry on file for Northern States Power Co. (Xcel Energy Minnesota), very large customer tariffs and Minnesota Power / ALLETE (Minnesota) -- very large customer class, pending and Otter Tail Power (Minnesota) -- Super Large General Service in effect; new tiers pending; other utilities not yet researched. |
| Mississippi (MS) | Utility-specific | Real tariff entry on file for Tennessee Valley Authority (data center rate / Capacity Commitment Charge) and Mississippi Power and Entergy Mississippi (Mississippi), special contracts for data centers; other utilities not yet researched. |
| Missouri (MO) | On file | Missouri — statewide large-load cost framework (SB 4, enacted 2025) |
| Montana (MT) | Utility-specific | Real tariff entry on file for NorthWestern Energy (Montana) and Flathead Electric Cooperative (Montana), Administrative Policy E&O 337 High Density Loads and Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Dakotas and Montana), Large Load Commercial Program; other utilities not yet researched. |
| Nebraska (NE) | Utility-specific | Real tariff entry on file for Nebraska public power suppliers (OPPD, NPPD, LES, and other municipal/cooperative utilities) — Large Load Customer Regulation Act and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association (Colorado, wholesale to cooperatives), High Impact Load Tariff; other utilities not yet researched. |
| Nevada (NV) | On file | Nevada — NV Energy large-load framework (proposed, not yet a generally adopted tariff) |
| New Hampshire (NH) | On file | New Hampshire — no tariff or moratorium enacted yet; Gov. Ayotte has stated support for one |
| New Jersey (NJ) | On file | New Jersey — statewide data-center tariff mandate (S731) |
| New Mexico (NM) | Utility-specific | Real tariff entry on file for Southwestern Public Service (Xcel, SPP) and El Paso Electric (New Mexico), proposed Rate 50 High Load Factor Power Service and Rate 51 Large Load Power Service and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association (Colorado, wholesale to cooperatives), High Impact Load Tariff; other utilities not yet researched. |
| New York (NY) | On file | New York — statewide moratorium (Executive Order No. 62) |
| North Carolina (NC) | On file | North Carolina — statewide repeal of the data-center electricity tax exemption (SB 257) |
| North Dakota (ND) | Utility-specific | Real tariff entry on file for Otter Tail Power Company (North Dakota) and Montana-Dakota Utilities (North Dakota), high density computer processing demand tariff and Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Dakotas and Montana), Large Load Commercial Program; other utilities not yet researched. |
| Ohio (OH) | Utility-specific | Real tariff entry on file for AEP Ohio and FirstEnergy Ohio (Ohio Edison, Cleveland Electric Illuminating, Toledo Edison), proposed Data Center Tariff and Duke Energy Ohio, proposed Data Center Service (Rate DC) and AES Ohio (Dayton Power and Light), proposed Data Center Tariff (Schedule D23) in rate case settlement; other utilities not yet researched. |
| Oklahoma (OK) | On file | Oklahoma — statewide enabling law (signed) + OG&E and PSO large-load tariff filings, pending OCC review |
| Oregon (OR) | Utility-specific | Real tariff entry on file for Portland General Electric (Schedule 96; large load agreements under Rule I) and Pacific Power / PacifiCorp (Oregon), Schedule 401 and POWER Act data center implementation; other utilities not yet researched. |
| Pennsylvania (PA) | On file | Pennsylvania — statewide GRID Requirements (Executive Order 2026-05) |
| Rhode Island (RI) | On file | Rhode Island — S2427 would create a large-load rate classification; status as introduced bill, not yet confirmed enacted |
| South Carolina (SC) | On file | South Carolina — PSC large-load docket (mandated, in progress) + Santee Cooper's own enacted rate |
| South Dakota (SD) | On file | South Dakota — signed statewide law (10 MW+) + Otter Tail Power's proposed large-load rate (75 MW+), pending PUC approval |
| Tennessee (TN) | Utility-specific | Real tariff entry on file for Tennessee Valley Authority (data center rate / Capacity Commitment Charge); other utilities not yet researched. |
| Texas (TX) | On file | Texas — ERCOT |
| Utah (UT) | On file | Utah — statewide 'Higher Bar' policy framework (Executive Order 2026-03) |
| Vermont (VT) | On file | Vermont — H.727 Sustainable Data Centers Act passed both chambers in amended form but was vetoed; no current statutory mandate |
| Virginia (VA) | On file | Virginia — statewide SCC oversight and cost-reallocation framework (HB 155 / SB 253, 2026) |
| Washington (WA) | On file | Washington — UTC large-load tariff docket (UE-260162), in progress |
| West Virginia (WV) | On file | West Virginia — High Impact Data Center Program (HB 2014) + PSC-approved Appalachian Power/Google terms |
| Wisconsin (WI) | Utility-specific | Real tariff entry on file for We Energies (Very Large Customer tariff) and Xcel Energy / NSP-Wisconsin (Wisconsin) -- Very Large General Time of Day service, pending and Wisconsin Power and Light / Alliant (Wisconsin) -- Large Load Power Service, pending and Madison Gas and Electric (Wisconsin) -- Very Large Customer tariff, pending; other utilities not yet researched. |
| Wyoming (WY) | Utility-specific | Real tariff entry on file for Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power (Black Hills Energy Wyoming), Large Power Contract Service and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association (Colorado, wholesale to cooperatives), High Impact Load Tariff and Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Dakotas and Montana), Large Load Commercial Program; other utilities not yet researched. |
Parcel records for land search
Where a public parcel layer exists, the land search reads it for lot size and, where the layer publishes one, the owner of record. 31 states are covered, some statewide and some county by county. Owner names come from county records and say nothing about whether anyone wants to sell. States not listed are not searched yet.
| State | Parcel source |
|---|---|
| Alabama (AL) | 1 county |
| Arizona (AZ) | 1 county |
| Arkansas (AR) | Statewide layer |
| Colorado (CO) | Statewide layer plus 1 county |
| Connecticut (CT) | Statewide layer |
| Florida (FL) | Statewide layer |
| Georgia (GA) | 3 counties |
| Idaho (ID) | Statewide layer |
| Illinois (IL) | 1 county |
| Indiana (IN) | Statewide layer |
| Iowa (IA) | Statewide layer plus 1 county |
| Maryland (MD) | Statewide layer |
| Michigan (MI) | 1 county |
| Montana (MT) | Statewide layer |
| Nebraska (NE) | Statewide layer plus 1 county |
| Nevada (NV) | 2 counties |
| New Jersey (NJ) | Statewide layer |
| New Mexico (NM) | 2 counties |
| North Carolina (NC) | Statewide layer |
| North Dakota (ND) | Statewide layer |
| Ohio (OH) | Statewide layer plus 3 counties |
| Oklahoma (OK) | 1 county |
| Pennsylvania (PA) | 1 county |
| South Carolina (SC) | 1 county |
| Tennessee (TN) | Statewide layer |
| Texas (TX) | 97 counties |
| Utah (UT) | Statewide layer plus 3 counties |
| Virginia (VA) | Statewide layer plus 2 counties |
| Washington (WA) | Statewide layer plus 1 county |
| Wisconsin (WI) | Statewide layer plus 1 county |
| Wyoming (WY) | Statewide layer |
Land-constraint screening, every site
These 6 layers are genuinely nationwide — no state-by-state gaps — and run on every Kill Test automatically.
FEMA Flood Zone
Point-in-polygon flood zone lookup at the parcel centroid.
Nearby Wetlands
Wetland features within 1 mile, aggregated by type and acreage.
Protected / Conservation Land
Fee-owned protected land at the parcel centroid (easements/MPAs not covered).
Critical Habitat
Final-designated endangered-species habitat within 3 miles.
Seismic Hazard
Peak horizontal ground acceleration, 2% exceedance probability in 50 years.
Tribal Land
Federal Indian reservations and trust/restricted-fee land within 5 miles — reference boundaries only, per BIA's own disclaimer.
Don't see your state's utility listed above? We still take the engagement — “not yet researched” means exactly that, and real research starts the day you qualify, not before.
Start a Qualification Review