Plain-English framing. Most states do data-center tariff fights utility-by-utility — every utility files its own version, every commission re-litigates from scratch. Pennsylvania did the opposite: the PUC wrote one model and each utility has to file a tariff that conforms to it. This is structurally faster — and importantly, it spreads the same rules to every developer interconnecting anywhere in PA without months of utility-specific docket time. The 50 MW individual / 100 MW aggregate threshold is the lower of the recent precedents, which means it catches more projects. Wisconsin set 100 MW. Pennsylvania set 50 MW (and 100 MW aggregate, which is the meaningful filter against 'split the project into two 95 MW phases under the line' structuring plays). North Carolina HB 1063 set 40 MW. Oregon set 20 MW. The trendline is clearly downward. 'But for' cost recovery is the principle PA chose. It is more permissive than Wisconsin's 100% allocation but more restrictive than the legacy 75% allocation. Specifically: if an upgrade would have been built anyway for other reasons, the data center doesn't pay for it; if the upgrade is solely caused by the data center's interconnection, the data center pays the full cost — and pays it even if the upgrade later turns out to also benefit other customers. That last clause is the developer-unfavorable one and is a meaningful break from the 'shared benefit, shared cost' principle that has historically applied. 80% take-or-pay is lower than Oregon's 90% but higher than the legacy ~60-70% range. Combined with the 'but for' cost allocation, a developer's break-even utilization rate to make the contract economic moves up materially. Sources: PA PUC press release 'PUC Releases Final Order Establishing First-of-Its-Kind Large Load Model Tariff Framework' (May 13); Utility Dive 'Pennsylvania releases first-of-its-kind large-load model tariff'; National Law Review 'Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Adopts Model Interconnection Tariff for Large Load Customers'; CPBJ 'PA Public Utility Commission adopts framework for data centers, large energy users'; PA PUC final order at puc.pa.gov/pcdocs/1929842.pdf.
Primary source · PA PUC / Utility Dive / National Law Review ↗
Why it matters
The 'model tariff' format is the key insight to track because it is administratively faster — every PA utility now has to file a conforming tariff in a short window, which means PA's data-center tariff picture will be fully baked nationwide-fastest. Two implications. (1) Pennsylvania becomes the first state where a Cliff site-readiness view can show, with high confidence, what the tariff economics will be for any utility territory in the state — because they're all converging to the same template. That makes PA the cleanest state to build the 'tariff exposure' field against first and use as the canonical reference implementation. (2) Other states' commissions will copy the model-tariff PROCESS (not just the parameters), because it gets to a final answer in months instead of years. The likely next adopters of the model-tariff process: Ohio (PUCO), Indiana (IURC), Maryland (PSC), Illinois (ICC). Specifically watch for 'model tariff' language in any 2026 H2 generic docket in those states. Once the process spreads, the underwriting product can shift from per-utility-tariff lookups to per-state-template lookups across most of PJM and MISO, which is materially less manual work to maintain.
Related filings
CO HB 1030 / killed 11-2
HB 1030 was Colorado's primary 2026 attempt to attract data-center investment via tax incentives — the bill was first introduced in January and modeled loosely on the sales-and-use exemption regimes that Texas, Virginia, Georgia, Ohio, Iowa, Nebraska, and...
KUNC / CPR News / The Colorado Sun / The Durango Herald ↗
T+2 county moratorium wave / Clark County IN 1-year proposed Jul 3 Bryan Glover / Whitley County IN active moratorium state-law authorized 1-year while ordinance drafted / Lakeland FL first reading Jul 6 9 AM 12-month moratorium > 50 MW/month final vote Jul 20 / neighboring Zephyrhills FL 1-year Jun 24 / 6 moratorium actions single week / highest single-week friction load 2026 / FL SB 484 July 1 producing city-cluster moratorium pattern / Cliff forecast: 5-10 day post-state-event window
Plain-English background on why county moratoriums matter more than they look. A county moratorium is a temporary local ordinance that suspends new development permits or rezoning applications for a specific category of use (in this case, data centers) for a...
PA + OR + WI + FL / 14-day cluster
Three regulatory events in the same 24-hour window on May 8 — Pennsylvania PUC's model-tariff vote, PPL Electric's pending rate-case settlement (filed March 13, ALJ recommendation April 17, effective July 1), and Oregon PUC's PGE Schedule 96 directive —...
WHYY / WESA / Utility Dive / KGW / KOIN / Beaver County Radio / RTO Insider ↗
Oracle sued Wisconsin PSC Jun 19 Ozaukee County / challenging April tariff rule / $100M/year financial security / very large customer >20 MW sub-A credit / Oracle BBB / Port Washington $15B 672 acres 1 GW 4 buildings We Energies / statutory-authority + discrimination + due-process theories / parallel administrative reconsideration / first hyperscaler-vs-PSC ratepayer-protection lawsuit / template for VA SCC MD FERC IL DCIP TX SB6 / AWS BBB+ adjacent risk / expected 6-12 months to ruling
Plain-English background on why this lawsuit matters more than a single facility dispute. Multiple states have enacted or are enacting 'ratepayer protection' rules for hyperscaler-scale customers in 2025-2026: Virginia's SCC rate class (approved Nov 2025,...