States stop just courting data centers and start writing their operating rules

Virginia acts by executive order

Governor Spanberger issued Executive Order 22 to regulate older data center backup generators, and the Governor's Office is conducting a review of backup-generation operations by data centers. Virginia is the first state to conduct an analysis of data center backup generator emissions, which makes the order more than a paperwork exercise: the state is measuring the thing it now proposes to regulate. m:…3699

The order's Data Center Accountability Framework also includes a directive to expedite the development of data center noise regulations, and it bans state employees from entering into non-disclosure agreements for data center projects. Those two provisions address the complaints that usually surface only after a project is announced: what residents hear, and what officials are allowed to say about a deal while it is being negotiated. m:…3699

Taken together, the Virginia move treats backup power as an operating question, not just a permitting checkbox. Older generators are singled out for regulation, noise rules are to be developed faster, and secrecy around projects is restricted for state employees. For a developer, the signal is that the backup fleet and the neighborhood interface are now part of the approval conversation from the start. m:…3699

New Jersey works through the legislature

New Jersey's legislature introduced A5811, titled the Ratepayer-Indifference Act, which establishes requirements for the provision of electric public utility service to certain data centers. Its last recorded action occurred on October 29, 2026. The title states the policy question plainly: when a very large new load connects to the grid, who bears the cost of serving it, and what rules keep other ratepayers from carrying it. m:…1430

Two companion measures address standards and local process. A5754 establishes a Data Center Standards Task Force within the Department of Community Affairs, with its last date of action on October 29, 2026. A5755 directs the Division of Local Planning Services in the Department of Community Affairs to develop and publish a Data Center Planning and Community Engagement Toolkit, also with a last recorded action on October 29, 2026. One bill sets up an expert body, the other gives local planners a shared playbook. m:…9435 m:…5238

The New Jersey package is at an earlier stage than Virginia's order. These are introduced bills with recorded actions, not enacted laws, so their requirements are proposals whose details will be fought over in committee and amendment. But the three levers they pick, utility service terms, statewide standards, and local engagement, map closely onto the points where data center projects most often stall: power, rules, and community consent. m:…1430 m:…9435 m:…5238

The shift in state posture

The common thread across both states is a change in posture. For years, the state role in data center siting was mainly promotional: land, power, and tax treatment to win the project. Virginia's order and New Jersey's bills keep the door open to development but add operating conditions around emissions, noise, secrecy, utility service, and local planning. The negotiation is no longer only about whether a data center comes, but about how it runs once it is there. m:…3699 m:…1430

That shift also changes who needs a seat at the table. Utility regulators matter because service terms decide who pays for new load. Local planning offices matter because a toolkit implies that towns, not just state agencies, will judge projects. And environmental review matters because an emissions analysis of backup generators turns a previously invisible fleet into a measured source. Developers who treated those as late-stage checks may find them moved to the front of the process. m:…3699 m:…5238

What remains uncertain is pace. Virginia's review and expedited noise rules have no completion dates in these announcements, and New Jersey's bills have only reached their recorded October 29 actions. The direction is clear, but the binding terms, the timelines, and the enforcement mechanisms are still to be written. Anyone siting a project in either state should read the current texts as the opening of a rulemaking conversation, not its conclusion. m:…3699 m:…1430