H1007Introduced in the House
Data Centers
Introduced by Commerce Committee
What does this bill do?
Plain-English breakdown
Writing a plain-English summary of this bill… this can take a few seconds the first time.
Official description
Prohibits agency from entering into nondisclosure agreement or other contract that restricts agency from disclosing certain information to public; specifies that local governments maintain authority to exercise power & responsibility over comprehensive planning & land development regulations related to large load customers; prohibits large load customer from being considered electric substation; requires applicants for construction permits for certain new data center in specified areas to demonstrate that operation of data center will comply with certain provisions & submit specified study in support of such application; requires PSC to develop minimum tariff & service requirements for large load customers; prohibits governing board of water management district or DEP from issuing permit for consumptive use of water to large-scale data center; requires governing board or DEP to require use of reclaimed water for large-scale data center applicant's allocation when certain requirements are met.
Where it stands
Laid on Table, refer to CS/CS/SB 484
March 11, 2026
How did lawmakers vote?
HouseStage: House Commerce Committee · February 26, 2026
18
Yes
7
No
2
Absent or Not Voting
27 representatives recorded in this House vote. Colors show vote categories only, not whether a vote was good or bad.
What do people think?
Citizen Voice
How would you vote on this bill?
An unofficial public opinion poll. It does not affect the bill or the official vote.
One response per device. Location is self-reported and not verified. Results are informal and not a scientific survey.
See how each representative voted
| Representative | District | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Michelle Salzman | 1 | Yes |
| Jason Shoaf | 7 | No |
| Gallop Franklin | 8 | No |
| Chuck Brannan | 10 | Yes |
| Wyman Duggan | 12 | Yes |
| Kimberly Daniels | 14 | Yes |
| Chase Tramont | 30 | Yes |
| Tyler Sirois | 31 | Yes |
| Erika Booth | 35 | Yes |
| David Smith | 38 | Absent |
Bill history
Filed
Referred to State Affairs Committee
Referred to Budget Committee
Referred to Commerce Committee
Now in State Affairs Committee
1st Reading (Original Filed Version)
PCS added to State Affairs Committee agenda
Favorable with CS by State Affairs Committee
Reported out of State Affairs Committee
Laid on Table under Rule 7.18(a)
CS Filed
Referred to Commerce Committee
Now in Commerce Committee
Added to Commerce Committee agenda
1st Reading (Committee Substitute 1)
Favorable with CS by Commerce Committee
Reported out of Commerce Committee
Laid on Table under Rule 7.18(a)
CS Filed
Bill referred to House Calendar
1st Reading (Committee Substitute 2)
Added to Second Reading Calendar
Laid on Table, refer to CS/CS/SB 484
Verify the information
Our commitment to neutrality
We provide factual information only. We never tell you which politicians or bills to support, and we do not rank, score, or endorse anyone.