Policy Priorities for Electro-industrial Growth in the Southeast United States

Executive Summary

The electro-industrial opportunity in the Southeast 
A new era of electro-industrial growth is underway in the American economy where energy, manufacturing, and computing are converging into a set of technologies that underpin economic competitiveness and energy security.  

States in the Southeast region are particularly well-suited to capture this opportunity. Roughly 30% of projected US electricity demand growth between 2025 and 2035 is concentrated in just seven Southeast states: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Combined with their existing industrial base, these states are especially well-positioned to scale new generation, transmission, and industrial capacity.¹

RMI’s ongoing work on electro-industrial growth across the United States is providing novel research,² regional economic development modeling,³ project cost-benefit analyses,⁴ and best-practice information sessions with state policymakers and economic developers.⁵ As part of this effort, RMI is conducting a series of regional policy gap analyses, starting with the Southeast. In our scan of the region, we identified 32 core state policy actions adopted across all seven states since 2022 to support electro-industrial growth. This paper identifies some of the emerging trends and gaps across these policies, organized by the four action areas where state policy plays a particularly important role in accelerating electro-industrial projects:

• Places: Coordinating site and delivery readiness 
• Powering the markets: Shaping load growth and market demand 
• Private capital: Improving project finance and bankability 
• People (workforce delivery): Building workforce pipelines to supply the labor

Understanding policy design matters just as much as identifying which policies states have adopted. Rather than treating each policy as a single lever, this paper uses RMI’s GREASE policy framework to highlight the design choices that shape whether policies can support delivery: Governance (who owns implementation), Regional targeting (where resources are targeted), Expansive ambition (whether the incentive is scaled to the need), Accountability (how results are tracked), Sector strategies (whether the incentive targets the largest bottlenecks companies face), and Environmental co-benefits (what public benefits are embedded). This paper applies the GREASE framework to current policies in the Southeast to surface design features that policymakers can consider carrying forward as they build future policies. 

Across the four action areas where state policy plays a critical role, this analysis suggests a practical agenda for Southeast states to strengthen their competitiveness for electro-industrial growth. 

In Places, states can build on existing policies in site readiness and permitting by adopting integrated site readiness programs and creating coordinated permitting programs to speed up timelines and ensure projects have the resources they need to operate. 

In Powering the Markets, states can adopt large-load performance standards, state purchasing programs with standards, and demand-bundling tools for both electricity commodities and physical products to establish local markets and clear demand signals for these products. 

In Private Capital, states can complement existing tax incentives, grants, and other financing tools by establishing dedicated public financing institutions and standardized incentive frameworks that make capital support more repeatable, transparent, and useful to strategically important projects. 

In People, states can build on current training programs by adopting outcome-based workforce funding that ties public training dollars to completion, placement, retention, and job quality. 

1. The Regional Opportunity: Why the Southeast, Why Now

1.1 The electro-industrial opportunity  

The United States is entering a new electro-industrial era in which energy, manufacturing, and computing are converging into a technology stack that underpins energy security and economic competitiveness. Electro-industrial technologies include the components and systems that digitize and electrify the economy, such as semiconductors, batteries, grid equipment, and renewable power generation. These technologies serve as core ingredients of the modern economy, from defense and consumer electronics to energy systems. Building them in the United States matters nationally, since many of these supply chains are overconcentrated, creating risks of price volatility, supply chain disruptions, and political coercion. Locally, this is one of the first moments in decades when states are competing not only for branch and subsidiary investments, but for the formation of entirely new industrial clusters.  

1.2 State policy is playing a key role in capturing electro-industrial opportunities 

The broader policy environment has shifted sharply. After decades in which market-first approaches dominated much of US economic policy, governments are again using public dollars and trade policy to compete for investment in electro-industrial sectors.⁶ This shift has taken different forms across administrations and parties, but the underlying competition for strategic industries is likely to persist.

As federal support retreats, states are playing an increasingly important role in capturing these opportunities. As Exhibit 1 shows, states and local governments have spent billions on incentives across the electro-industrial stack. 

Exhibit 1 

States also control many of the levers needed to build these technologies. RMI analysis has found there are four action areas where state policy can play a particularly important role in accelerating electro-industrial projects: 

• Places: Coordinating site and delivery readiness.

  Large projects need sites where land, infrastructure, utility service, power delivery, and permits can come together on a credible schedule. States that coordinate these pieces through site-readiness and permitting programs can improve competitiveness in site-selection processes.

• Powering the Markets: Shaping load growth and market demand. Developers and investors need confidence that electricity demand can be served reliably and that there will be market demand for products and infrastructure supporting the electro-industrial buildout. States can shape these markets through large load standards and purchasing tools. 

• Private Capital: Improving project finance and bankability.  The electro-industrial buildout is capital-intensive. Private capital will need to fill the gap that public budgets alone cannot provide, but it will only flow to projects with good economics and manageable risk. State financing institutions and incentives can provide public support to reduce these financial risks. 

• People (workforce delivery): Building workforce pipelines to supply the labor.  Projects stall without the people to build and run them. States that treat workforce as industrial infrastructure, as essential as roads and power, are more likely to attract investment and build these electro-industrial projects.  

1.3 The Southeast United States is well suited to capture this electro-industrial growth

Not all regions are equally positioned to capture this opportunity. This analysis targets the Southeast region because the region faces unusually strong electricity demand growth with a strong industrial base.⁷ Nationally, grid demand rose 2.4% in 2025 compared with 2024 — more than four times the prior decade’s average — and elevated load growth of 1.4%–1.9% annually is expected over the next 15 years, with roughly 30% of that new demand growth concentrated in these seven states.⁸ It also has growing electro-industrial clusters in the defense and automotive industries.

That combination makes the Southeast a particularly well-suited region for building electro-industrial industries. The region needs energy solutions to power its existing and growing load, and it also has the industrial base to manufacture the components of these technologies. Southeast states that can deliver sites, power, finance, and workers on credible timelines will be better positioned to power their load growth and build new industries off their existing industrial base. 

1.4 How Southeast states can capture these opportunities

Since 2022,⁹ state governments across these seven Southeastern states have taken 32 distinct policy actions across these four critical action areas:

Exhibit 2 

Based on recent policy momentum in the region, site-readiness and capital-mobilization account for most policy actions, while workforce policies have been less common. But policy coverage is uneven across the seven states in the region. States with fewer tools in place can look to what other states have done across these four action areas and consider whether any would help address their own coverage gaps as they work to compete for electro-industrial growth. Exhibit 3 below provides a representative sample of these policies, organized by action area. 

Exhibit 3

But passing new policies is only half the story; design matters just as much. Companies building electro-industrial technologies do not need generic incentives; they need incentives that solve the specific problem keeping a project from moving forward. For a tax credit, that might mean transferability. For a site readiness program, it might mean predictable timelines. Too often, public incentives are shaped by expediency and negotiation rather than by a deliberate view of what would actually get a project off the ground. 

As states write or upgrade these policies, it helps to treat each policy not as a single lever, but as a bundle of design choices. RMI’s GREASE framework offers one way to help states implement these design elements in their policies. Drawing on best-practice industrial strategy,¹⁰ GREASE breaks investment-led policy design into six key components that matter for delivery: Governance, Regional targeting, Expansive ambition, Accountability, Sector strategies, and Environmental co-benefits (Exhibit 4).

Exhibit 4 

To demonstrate how policy design elements show up in actual policy text, this analysis uses GABRIEL, a GPT-based tool developed by Harvard and NBER researchers for systematically measuring attributes in qualitative text, to scan the region’s 32 core policies and surface examples of each GREASE element across the 4 action areas, drawing on official state sources.¹¹ GABRIEL is used only to help surface policies whose official text illustrates GREASE design features.

Together, this report gives policymakers a view of where current policy coverage stands across the region, highlights where additional tools may be worth considering, and underscores why design matters in building new policies. The sections that follow take each action area in turn, setting current Southeast policy against priority policy approaches and pointing to the gaps and design elements that matter most. 

2. Places

2.1 Why it matters: Site and delivery readiness

Meeting industrial load growth requires delivering land, power, and permits all on a credible schedule. A site that is certified on paper but still years away from power availability is not a competitive asset; it is a bottleneck. States that coordinate site-readiness, power delivery, and permitting are better positioned to convert project interest into actual investment. 

2.2 Priority policy approaches for power-ready sites

This analysis identifies two policy actions that address the highest-leverage bottlenecks for power-ready sites: converting land into integrated sites and converting permits into predictable timelines. 

1. Establish integrated site readiness programs that package zoning, utility services, environmental site assessments, power delivery, and other state and federal compliance requirements into a single, pre‑vetted offering. Large loads evaluating sites typically work on compressed timelines, and a site readiness program signals to developers that a state has done the diligence up front. Integrated site readiness programs are designed to shorten site selection timelines, lower total development costs, and improve site competitiveness.

   Emerging example: New Mexico’s SB 169 and SB 170 are newly enacted laws that offer an emerging example for designing integrated, power-ready site programs. SB 169 creates a strategic site-readiness framework that lets the state assess candidate sites across infrastructure, utilities, environmental constraints, workforce, housing, land use, and ownership. SB 170 builds on that framework with utility cost recovery and expedited ratemaking review for projects serving incremental load growth, so power infrastructure can move forward alongside site preparation rather than waiting on a signed tenant. Together, the bills show how a state can move beyond conventional site certification toward an integrated model that links site readiness, utility planning, permitting, and financing.¹²

2. Stand up a coordinated permitting program that converts multi‑agency permitting into a single, time‑bound process for large‑load infrastructure. Permitting is one of the biggest bottlenecks new loads face: multi‑agency processes compound delays and create uncertainty for developers. A coordinated program shortens timelines and gives applicants visibility into where their permits sit at any given moment.

   Operating example: Virginia Permit Transparency (VPT) is a centralized dashboard that tracks permits across eleven state agencies — including the Department of Environmental Quality, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission — covering more than 100,000 permits issued annually.¹³ The platform tracks each step in the process, the target and actual timeline, and the agency or applicant accountable for advancing the permit. The pilot at the Department of Environmental Quality, on which VPT is based, was reported to reduce average permit processing time by roughly 65%.¹⁴

2.3 Where current policy stands: What states have built since 2022

The seven states already have a variety of site-readiness and infrastructure programs in place. Site readiness and certification programs dominate, reflecting the region’s emphasis on land preparation and infrastructure-grade sites. Permitting reform, power infrastructure planning, and infrastructure investment programs are also in place.¹⁵

Exhibit 5 

2.4 What to do next: Priority upgrades for site readiness

Two priority actions stand out, both of which align directly with the policies identified above: 

1. Upgrade existing site-readiness programs into integrated, power-ready delivery systems: States in the region already have site-readiness and site-development tools in place. But these tools still function mainly as land-readiness or site-development programs, not consistently as fully packaged, power-ready site delivery systems. States could upgrade existing programs so zoning, utility services, power delivery, environmental site assessments, and other compliance requirements are packaged into a single offering. 

2. Coordinated industrial-project permitting: Virginia is the only state in scope with a clear statewide coordinated permitting model. Other states in the region could build from that model by establishing coordinated and time-bound permitting processes with a single process owner and a centralized dashboard that tracks permitting across state agencies. 

After states identify the site-readiness and permitting gaps to fill, they can use GREASE to stress-test whether new or upgraded instruments include the design elements needed for credible delivery. The table below applies the framework to current Southeast policies, showing features states can consider carrying into new site-readiness and permitting instruments. 

Exhibit 6 

Taken together, the priority for policymakers is to turn existing site readiness and permitting tools into power-ready, time-bound delivery systems, designed so the institutions running them can deliver projects reliably and at scale. 

3. Powering the Markets

3.1 Why it matters: Establishing demand signals

States also need to shape incoming load into durable market demand. That demand matters because companies and financiers are more likely to back new facilities when there is confidence that customers will exist beyond a single project cycle. In the electro-industrial era, large loads (e.g., data centers, battery plants, semiconductor fabs) can either strain the grid or support durable grid investment, depending on how this load is governed. Policy tools can play a key role in turning that demand signal into durable markets. 

3.2 Priority policy approaches for power and market demand

This analysis identifies two distinct roles that states play in establishing new markets. One role targets non-electricity products and materials, where state purchasing and buyer coordination can make demand more predictable. The other role targets electricity demand from large new loads, where standards can help shape this new load into electro-industrial markets. 

On generating markets for non-electricity products and materials: 

1. State purchasing with standards. States can use public budgets to purchase electro-industrial products, creating more predictable demand. States can also publish forward-looking procurement pipelines, create common product specifications, and create purchasing rules around these priority categories. The state acting as the buyer while setting standards helps shape markets by making demand repeatable.
   1. Operating example: Colorado’s Buy Clean Act offers a model; it requires state contractors on projects over $500,000 to submit Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) for materials like concrete and steel. The policy is primarily an emissions-reduction tool, but it shows how state procurement standards can shape demand for products that meet state-defined specifications.¹⁶

2. Buyer coordination. States can also act as the buying coordinator by aggregating demand across public agencies and other institutions for non-electricity products and materials. For example, states can coordinate purchase plans across transportation departments, local governments, universities, and private employers. Economic developers and commerce agencies can play a key role in this coordination. A visible pipeline of future purchases from multiple entities is more likely to create a durable market for certain products than a one-off purchase. Current state-run examples are limited, so this is best presented as an emerging practice in the literature rather than a fully demonstrated state model. 

On shaping electricity demand from large loads: 

1. Set standards around large load users. States can require large loads like data centers and advanced manufacturers to meet energy and storage requirements through regulatory standards. Large new loads can support new investment from electro-industrial sources if the surrounding policy framework sets clear performance expectations for these projects.
   1. Emerging example: Few enacted state models exist at this level of specificity, but Illinois SB 4016 offers an emerging example for aligning hyperscale data center growth with new electricity supply. The bill would require data centers to file a Clean Energy Supply Plan and provide “bring your own (BYO) clean capacity” equal to their maximum demand— or accept mandatory load flexibility for any portion not covered on a BYO basis.¹⁷ Because the bill remains proposed and untested, it is best framed as a frontier load policy model. Before passing a bill of this scope, policymakers in the Southeast would want to ensure that it protects ratepayers and provides economic development benefits.

3.3 Where current policy stands: How states are shaping demand today

The seven Southeastern states have built some demand-side policy tools, but the landscape remains uneven. Recent policies passed are concentrated in nuclear strategy, clean transportation, EV coordination, and utility planning. Broader market-creation tools for electro-industrial products and large new loads are less developed across the region.¹⁸

Exhibit 7 

3.4 What to do next: Priority upgrades for demand-side policy

Three priority actions stand out in the region’s demand-side policy toolkit, each aligned with the policies identified above: 

1. Standards for large new loads: Virginia has begun addressing large-load cost responsibility,¹⁹ but this scan did not identify states in the region with large-load performance standards that tie new load to electro-industrial markets. States could explore large-load standards that clarify cost responsibility, capacity expectations, and flexibility requirements.

2. State purchasing standards for priority products: This scan did not identify states in the region with state-level purchasing standards that use public budgets to create repeatable demand for electro-industrial products. States could develop purchasing standards, forward procurement pipelines, or common specifications where public demand can help suppliers see a predictable market. 

3. Demand bundling for physical products and materials: There is currently no durable state platform in the region that aggregates demand for non-electricity electro-industrial products and materials. The region has universities, manufacturers, and other large institutions, but those buyers are not yet organized into a visible demand pipeline for suppliers. States could convene these buyers around priority electro-industrial products so suppliers can see a larger and more predictable market. 

As states consider new demand-side policies, GREASE can help policymakers design those tools from the start with the elements needed for effective delivery. Exhibit 8 below applies the framework to current Southeast policies, showing features states can consider carrying into demand-side policy upgrades. 

Exhibit 8 

Taken together, the priority for policymakers is to build load governance structures and targeted demand tools that make future demand more certain, designed so suppliers and investors can trust that markets will persist. 

4. Crowding in Private Capital

4.1 Why it matters: Project bankability

The electro-industrial buildout is capital-intensive, and most of the required investment will need to come from private capital. But private capital only commits when project economics are clear and execution risk is manageable. States shape both through incentives, public financing, and infrastructure investment. The most effective tools do not just lower costs, they reduce deal-by-deal friction and compress the timeline from announcement to financial close. 

4.2 Priority policy approaches for project finance and bankability

RMI’s review of state capital mobilization approaches suggests a three-step framework for closing the bankability gap:²⁰

1. Diagnose the binding constraint. The right tool depends on the right diagnosis: whether the barrier is first-of-a-kind technology risk, high upfront capital expenditure, or a delivery and construction risk. Each of these constraints requires a different state instrument — which may be in the form of regulatory or programmatic assistance, rather than financial — and misdiagnosis leads to capital tools that look generous on paper but fail to move projects forward.

2. Deploy instruments along the capital stack.

   States can combine grants, loans, credit enhancements, and public financing entities so that each tool addresses a specific market constraint. Where possible, states can make these tools easier to use by publishing standardized terms that reduce transaction costs and help programs scale.

   1. Operating example: New York illustrates this approach through a combination of clean energy policy standards, NYSERDA financing programs, and green bank financing. Each of these instruments target a specific barrier, and developers can combine them with other incentives when building a broader capital stack.²¹

3. Institutionalize delivery.

   States can organize these instruments through public finance institutions, such as infrastructure banks, rather than through one-off programs to strengthen governance, accountability, and long-term delivery.

   1. Operating example: The Connecticut Green Bank, the nation’s first state green bank, reports nearly $3 billion in total investment since inception and $8.60 in private capital attracted for every public dollar invested in FY2024.²²

As seen in Exhibit 9, public finance institutions are already mobilizing substantial private capital for clean energy and related infrastructure, with green banks catalyzing more than $10 billion in investment in 2023 alone.²³

Exhibit 9 

4.3 Where current policy stands: How states are mobilizing capital today

The seven states studied here have a broad capital-tool base, including incentives, exemptions, grants, C-PACE authority, emerging public financing tools, and sector-specific funds. Recent policies show active use of these tools, but the landscape still leans toward project-specific incentives and sector funds rather than a standing, repeatable capital stack.²⁴

Exhibit 10 

4.4 What to do next: Priority upgrades for capital tools

Two priority actions stand out, both of which align directly with the policy approaches identified above: 

1. Establish dedicated public financing institutions: Alabama and Virginia are two states in the region that have created dedicated public-financing institutions: Alabama’s Energy Infrastructure Bank (enacted in 2025, with capitalization dependent on future appropriations) and the Virginia Clean Energy Innovation Bank. But most states in scope still do not have comparable standing public-finance institutions. States with recurring financing gaps and sufficient administrative capacity should consider building broader public infrastructure funds, financing institutions, or green banks that can leverage private capital across a range of electro-industrial projects. 

2. Standardized incentive frameworks: Every state in scope has some form of incentive or grant that can be applied to electro-industrial sectors. But states need clearer frameworks around these tools so each instrument targets a specific barrier, such as infrastructure cost, early project risk, or financing friction. Where appropriate, states can also make terms more transparent and compatible with other sources of capital so developers and lenders understand how public support fits into a broader capital stack. 

For capital tools, the design challenge is to ensure the public finance institutions and incentive frameworks actually crowd in private investment and improve bankability. The table below applies GREASE to current private-capital mobilization policies in the region, showing features states can consider carrying into private capital mobilization policy upgrades: 

Exhibit 11 

The priority for policymakers is to shift from individual incentives that do little to improve bankability to dedicated public financing institutions with incentive frameworks, so electro-industrial projects can attract more private capital. 

5. People (Workforce)

5.1 Why it matters: Labor certainty 

Even with capital committed, projects stall without the people to build and run them. The workforce constraint is current and acute: Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute estimate that 1.9 million manufacturing jobs could go unfilled between 2024 and 2033 if workforce constraints persist.²⁵ In the 2025 Associated General Contractors of America and National Center for Construction Education and Research workforce survey, 45% of construction firms reported project delays caused by worker shortages.²⁶

In the Southeast the employment metrics are strong in many areas, but there are gaps as well. As Exhibit 12 shows, the seven states have varying employment concentrations across four electro-industrial job families: Make (factory operations & engineering), Build (construction & installation), Run (operations & maintenance), and Enable (supplier development & support).  

Exhibit 12 

Electro-industrial job family scorecard by top southeast deployment clusters 

Closing these gaps requires treating workforce as delivery infrastructure, not an afterthought. Therefore, states that treat workforce as essential as roads, water, and power can ensure these projects get built on predictable timelines. For economic developers, workforce is increasingly the deciding factor: in a recent survey of site-selection professionals, workforce availability ranked among the top location criteria.²⁷

5.2 Priority policy approaches for workforce delivery 

Research across US states identifies two core policy actions that address the workforce barriers holding back electro-industrial growth: 

1. Build employer-driven training pipelines.

   This means locking in employer demand — e.g., specific roles, competencies — and translating it into training programs built around the project pipeline.

   1. Operating examples: Virginia’s Talent Accelerator Program²⁸ and Georgia’s Quick Start program offer no-cost, customized recruitment and training services for qualifying companies, by preparing workers for company-specific roles. In Georgia, SK Battery America’s president said Quick Start training was “crucial” to meeting production timelines at its first US plant.

2. Tie public funding to placement, retention, and job quality rather than enrollment.

   This means worker pay after training completion and after a retention window, not upfront for enrollment.

   1. Operating example: California’s Employment Training Panel provides a model of performance-based contracting at scale, with reimbursement earned per trainee only after minimum training hours and a 90-day employment retention period. This structure aligns public investment with actual labor market outcomes rather than just program enrollment.²⁹

5.3 Where current policy stands: How states are building pipelines today 

Southeast states have begun connecting workforce policy to electro-industrial opportunities, but recent policy activity is limited. Recent policy activity is concentrated in customized training, EV and nuclear-related workforce activity, and retraining-credit. The broader landscape shows sector-linked workforce activity, but fewer policies that make placement, retention, and job quality core performance requirements.³⁰

Exhibit 13 

5.4 What to do next: Priority upgrades for workforce programs 

Based on the policy actions identified above, outcome-based funding represents the clearest gap. The region has strong employer-driven training programs, such as Georgia’s Quick Start and Virginia’s Talent Accelerator that have helped land major EV and battery investments — but few states in the region tie public training dollars to placement, retention, and job quality for electro-industrial sectors rather than enrollment alone. Rigorous evaluations of sector-based workforce programs document participant earnings gains of roughly 11%–40%, driven largely by placement into higher-wage occupations; outcome-based funding rewards exactly these placement and retention results.³¹ States could adopt outcome-based funding models that reimburse training providers after verified placement and a retention window.

For workforce policy, the GREASE framework can aid in the policy design process by showing features states can consider carrying into workforce policy upgrades. 

Exhibit 14 

Taken together, the priority for policymakers designing workforce policies is to organize workforce tools around electro-industrial clusters and tie funding to real employment outcomes, designed so training translates into hiring and retention. 

6. From Analysis to Action: A Policy Upgrade Agenda

6.1 Address the policy gaps and design questions 

The analysis identifies both potential coverage gaps to fill and design questions to consider. Comparing policies currently in place with priority policy actions highlights the immediate priority: fill the policy gaps that address real bottlenecks across the four action areas: 

• Places: Integrated site readiness systems and coordinated industrial-project permitting 
• Powering the Markets: Standards for large new loads, state purchasing standards, and demand bundling for physical products and materials
• Private Capital: Dedicated public financing institutions and standardized incentive frameworks
• People: Outcome-based workforce funding

These are practical upgrades that turn partial coverage into comprehensive programs that attract electro-industrial investment: sites that can actually receive projects, market demand, capital tools with institutional delivery, and workforce programs tied to actual hiring and retention. 

Beyond putting these policies in place, policymakers need to design these new instruments. GREASE is one policy design framework that helps policymakers implement the design choices that matter most: who owns delivery, where resources are targeted, whether the tool is scaled to the need, how results are tracked, whether the incentive targets the largest bottlenecks companies face, and what public benefits are embedded. Illustrative examples in RMI’s policy scan of the region show how these design elements can be made visible in policy text. Used this way, GREASE helps policymakers ask better design questions and can highlight design elements that policymakers can integrate during the policy design process. 

6.2 Priority actions by stakeholder

These are the first actions each actor group can take. 

Governors could create a cross-agency electro-industrial delivery platform with a public quarterly dashboard tracking site readiness, power delivery, permitting, capital deployment, and workforce milestones. 

Legislatures could authorize multi-year funding for integrated site-readiness systems and public financing institutions, enact purchasing standards or demand-aggregation tools for electro-industrial products, clarify regulatory standards around large loads, and tie incentive and workforce contracts to measurable delivery conditions. 

Public utility commissions, energy offices, and utilities could clarify expectations for very large loads, and set performance standards so new demand supports electro-industrial buildout rather than straining existing capacity. 

Economic developers, development organizations, and site authorities could build pipelines of power-ready sites with sector-fit designations. They could also coordinate one-stop permitting and incentive support, create demand-bundling platforms that turn fragmented buyer needs into clear market signals, and help connect employers with workforce and training partners. 

Technical colleges and workforce boards could adopt outcome-based training contracts tied to verified completion, placement, retention, and job quality, and publish program metrics. And they could target these training programs around the priority electro-industrial clusters in the region. 

By implementing the actions outlined above, these seven states can convert recent policy momentum into stronger delivery capacity and compete more effectively in the electro-industrial era. 

Appendices

Appendix A: Policy Inventory and GABRIEL Scorecard 

Policy selection guardrails  

This inventory is a conservative core inventory, not an exhaustive scan of all state economic development, energy, infrastructure, and workforce policies in the Southeast. Policies were included only if they were state-created statutory, executive, regulatory, budgetary, or agency actions adopted, funded, or materially implemented since January 1, 2022. They also had to directly change investment, delivery, power or site readiness, demand creation, financing, or workforce conditions for electro-industrial growth. Repeated appropriations, technical corrections, eligibility updates, or implementation steps were folded into an existing row unless they materially changed the program. Company-specific awards, proposed bills, and generic economic development, childcare, housing, education, or workforce policies were excluded unless they had a clear electro-industrial delivery mechanism. 

The table below presents RMI’s Southeast policy inventory of 32 investment-led policy actions (2022–2025). Higher scores from GABRIEL indicate greater visibility of a design element in the text; they do not represent policy strength, state performance, or predicted project outcomes. To reduce AI-error risk, every policy included in the inventory was checked against official state source material. 

Appendix B: Methodology — GREASE Scoring Rubric and GABRIEL QA 

Each policy is scored 0–100 on six GREASE dimensions using the anchors below. GABRIEL, an AI-assisted scoring tool, draws on official state sources (.gov domains) to produce evidence-based scores. The neutral default for unclear evidence is 50. Scores are intended as decision-support tools for surfacing visible design features in official text, not definitive legal assessments, effectiveness ratings, or state rankings. 

Endnotes