On March 27, 2026, West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey (R) signed House Bill 4983, the rules bundle that completes the certification machinery for the state's high-impact data center and certified microgrid program created by 2025's House Bill 2014, the Power Generation and Consumption Act (W. Va. Code §5B-2-21 through §5B-2-21b). The same day, Morrisey announced that Google will build a data center campus in Putnam County, the program's second certified project in a month.
Key Takeaways
| 01 | Certification now runs through one office, on a sealed record. The Secretary of Commerce certifies, and 145 CSR 20 deems every petition and microgrid letter of intent confidential. |
| 02 | Every transparency and local-input amendment failed. The House rejected water disclosure 23-70 and a 500-foot buffer 6-87 on February 16, 2026. |
| 03 | Water is now in the rule, inside the sealed record. Developers must study water usage in the inordinate-burden analysis, but those filings stay confidential. |
| 04 | The 90 MW floor limits the program to hyperscale projects. A high-impact data center needs at least 90 megawatts of critical IT load, and smaller projects get no preemption. |
| 05 | HB 4983 took effect on passage, March 13, 2026, before the governor signed. The Penzance and Google campuses are certified. |
Under the two laws, one state officer certifies projects, local governments are preempted from regulating them, and nearly the entire application record is confidential. The state already has two certified campuses.
The rule drew heavy public comment. The December 2025 comment period on the Commerce rule drew 935 individual comments, which the agency sorted into economic, environmental, transparency, local-control, and infrastructure concerns. The Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee approved the rule with modest changes on January 28, 2026, and the Legislature enacted it, effective from passage, six weeks later.
Certification works by petition to the Department of Commerce. The certification rule filed with the Secretary of State, 145 CSR 20, the "Rule to Petition the Department of Commerce for Certification of a Microgrid District or Certification as a High Impact Data Center," sets out the sequence shown in Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 1
The 145 CSR 20 certification sequence, by step
| Step | What the rule provides |
|---|---|
| Letter of intent (microgrid) or certification petition (data center) | Filed with the Department of Commerce with economic, financial, and engineering detail; deemed confidential in full |
| Inordinate-burden analysis | Developer self-identifies unique physical or geological conditions on nearby parcels, proximity to schools, churches, residences, businesses, and historic sites, and (as amended) local water sources, plus any offsetting actions |
| Agency verification | Secretary may request additional data or verification, consult Economic Development, the Office of Energy, the PSC, DEP, and electric utilities on capacity and grid stability |
| Certification | Secretary of Commerce certifies the high-impact data center or microgrid district; no county or municipal approval required |
Sources: 145 CSR 20; W. Va. Code §5B-2-21 and §5B-2-21a.
Certification is the gateway to HB 2014's operating privileges. Under §5B-2-21b, certified projects are exempt from county and municipal zoning, noise, viewshed, lighting, development, and land-use ordinances, and from local building permitting, inspection, code enforcement, and license requirements. Microgrid districts, which can cover up to 2,250 acres, may generate and consume their own power behind the meter of any existing utility. State and federal environmental laws still apply, a point the enacted rule makes explicit: "Nothing in this rule is intended to exempt a certificated microgrid district from otherwise applicable state and federal environmental regulations."
The confidentiality is statutory as well as regulatory. §5B-2-21a(e) exempts from the Freedom of Information Act any information a data center identifies as confidential business information, and §5B-2-21 requires the department to hold microgrid letters of intent and all supplied information in confidence. Section 15.1 of the rule goes further and deems all letters of intent and all petitions confidential, with no listed exceptions. The state keeps a list of certified projects for the Governor and Legislature with identifying details removed.
"I don't think it's good practice for the [Department of Commerce] to be determining what's confidential and what's not. That should be the determination of the company."
Nicholas Preservati, Deputy Secretary, West Virginia Department of Commerce, to the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee, January 28, 2026
Source: West Virginia Watch, January 30, 2026.
The sealed record also leaves developers without public cover. Because the state's file is sealed and the burden analysis is self-reported, a developer's own diligence on water, air-permitting exposure, community opposition, and title is the only diligence that exists. We expect the Berkeley County pattern (certification announced first, organized opposition after) to repeat at the next three certified sites, and we expect the confidentiality provisions to draw a FOIA or constitutional test case within 18 months.
Every attempt to open the record or give residents a procedural foothold failed, most of them by wide margins. The House took up HB 4983 on February 16 and 17, 2026, and the Senate on March 11. Exhibit 2 lists each vote.
Exhibit 2
HB 4983 amendment and passage votes, January to March 2026
| Date | Action | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Jan. 28, 2026 | Rule-Making Review Committee: Del. Kayla Young (D-Kanawha) amendment to publish redacted filings | Failed, voice vote |
| Feb. 16, 2026 | House: Del. Evan Hansen (D-Monongalia) amendment requiring disclosure of water sources, volumes, and resident impacts | Failed, 23-70 |
| Feb. 16, 2026 | House: Dels. Henry Dillon (R-Wayne) and Chris Anders (R-Berkeley) amendment adding a 500-foot buffer, groundwater guardrails, notice, and a 10% resident petition right | Failed, 6-87 |
| Feb. 17, 2026 | House passage (Roll No. 108) | Passed, 78-16 |
| Feb. 17, 2026 | House: effective from passage (Roll No. 114) | Passed, 74-17 |
| Mar. 11, 2026 | Senate passage with Judiciary water amendment (Roll No. 464) | Passed, 28-6 |
| Mar. 11, 2026 | Senate: effective from passage (Roll No. 465) | Passed, 34-0 |
| Mar. 13, 2026 | House concurrence in Senate amendment (Roll No. 500) | Passed, 82-15 |
| Mar. 13, 2026 | House: effective from passage, as amended (Roll No. 501) | Passed, 91-6 |
Sources: West Virginia Legislature bill history and roll calls; LegiScan; West Virginia Watch.
The opposition was bipartisan but small. All nine House Democrats and seven Republicans voted against passage on February 17, and five Republicans and Sen. Joey Garcia (D-Marion) opposed it in the Senate. Del. Jonathan Pinson (R-Mason) captured the majority's view of the buffer amendment: "This really just sends the message, 'We don't want a single data center in the state of West Virginia.'" Del. Hansen described the water amendment's purpose: "The intent is to make sure that serious consideration is given up front to make sure that they're not impacting other water users."
The Senate's one substantive change moved water into the developer's analysis without moving it into public view. The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Tom Willis (R-Berkeley), amended the rule to require that potential water usage be studied and that water sources receive "mindful protections" in developer applications and building plans. Willis called it "a more burdensome requirement" intended to address community concerns. Sen. Rupie Phillips (R-Logan) opposed it on the ground that it "could affect a lot of other industries."
The enacted rule now defines an inordinate burden to include loss of water access. The final rule's definition reads: "a parcel's use is so severely restricted that it deprives the owner of nearly all of its economically beneficial use or access of water." A neighboring landowner could rely on that definition only if the filing were public. Preservati confirmed during the January rulemaking that water-related information would remain confidential because it may contain trade secrets.
Petitions now need a water study. A defensible study covers source, withdrawal volumes, competing users, and mitigation. The state will not publish it, but the Secretary may verify it, and the DEP may be consulted on it. A record that stays sealed under 145 CSR 20 may not stay sealed under a court's reading of §5B-2-21a(e), so the study may face both an agency challenge and a later public records fight.
The fast track also carries a tax split that sends most of the revenue away from the host county. Under HB 2014, codified at W. Va. Code §11-6N-4, property tax revenue from certified high-impact data centers is distributed: 50% to the state Personal Income Tax Reduction Fund, 30% to the host county, 10% to counties statewide on a per-capita basis, 5% to the Economic Enhancement Grant Fund administered by the Water Development Authority, and 5% to the Electric Grid Stabilization and Security Fund. Exhibit 3 applies the split to a $20 million annual bill.
Exhibit 3
Where a certified West Virginia data center's property tax goes, on a $20 million annual bill
| Recipient | Share | On a $20M annual bill |
|---|---|---|
| Personal Income Tax Reduction Fund (state) | 50% | $10.0M |
| Host county | 30% | $6.0M |
| All counties, per capita | 10% | $2.0M |
| Economic Enhancement Grant Fund | 5% | $1.0M |
| Electric Grid Stabilization and Security Fund | 5% | $1.0M |
Sources: W. Va. Code §11-6N-4 (HB 2014, 2025).
For a certified campus generating $20 million in annual property tax, the host county keeps $6 million. Ten million dollars reduces state income taxes for all West Virginians, $2 million is spread per capita across counties that host nothing, and $2 million funds state grant and grid programs. A county absorbing 100% of the traffic, water, and emergency-service impacts retains less than one-third of the revenue, which is why county commissions pushed back on the formula in 2025 and why the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy has argued the redistribution of locally levied tax dollars raises state constitutional questions.
The formula is also the state's leverage in every certification conversation. Berkeley County Commission President Eddie Gochenour publicly welcomed the Penzance project's "annual revenue" on announcement day. At 30%, that revenue is bounded, and a county that wants more than the statutory share has to negotiate it directly with the developer, outside a certification process it has no role in.
Two high-impact data centers have been certified since the rule took shape.
The confidentiality provisions have not yet been tested. Two certified projects, one organized opposition campaign, and a statutory FOIA exemption that turns on what the company labels confidential make a likely set of facts for a court challenge. Exhibit 4 sets out the dates ahead.
Exhibit 4
Timeline and next steps, April 2025 to January 2027
| Date | Milestone |
|---|---|
| Apr. 30, 2025 | HB 2014, Power Generation and Consumption Act, signed |
| Jul. 11, 2025 | HB 2014 effective |
| Dec. 22, 2025 | Emergency rule effective; comment period draws 935 comments |
| Jan. 28, 2026 | Rule-Making Review Committee approves rule; redaction amendment fails |
| Feb. 26, 2026 | Penzance Berkeley County campus certified (first) |
| Mar. 13, 2026 | HB 4983 completes legislative action, effective from passage |
| Mar. 27, 2026 | Governor signs HB 4983; Google Putnam County campus certified (second) |
| Jan. 2027 | 2027 Regular Session; expect renewed transparency and buffer bills |
Sources: West Virginia Legislature bill histories; West Virginia Secretary of State; Office of Gov. Patrick Morrisey; West Virginia Watch, as listed in References below.
If you are weighing a West Virginia site for a data center of 90 MW or more, the certification lane is open and two campuses have already used it. Projects below 90 MW stay under local zoning and permitting. If you want a read on fit before the 2027 Regular Session, reach out to our team.
© Copyright 2026 TC Policy Group, LLC (d/b/a Crawford Partners). The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of Crawford Partners, its management, its subsidiaries, its affiliates, or its other professionals. Crawford Partners is not a law firm and cannot provide legal advice.