Checked claims with the verdict “Supported”

Evidence limitation: CoreWeave's committed capital investment and job numbers, the board memo for this award, whether the project has been certified complete, whether any tax credit certificate has been issued or used, and whether the specially adopted rules were made permanent before their 23 September 2026 expiration date.

Evidence limitation: Which data center contracts have been filed or approved under the law, and how incremental costs have been calculated in practice.

Supported means these documents describe a dispute, not proof of a $587 million cost shift.

The financial question remains unresolved here. The underlying analysis, billing records and a commission determination were not reviewed.

Evidence limitation: The underlying analysis, billing and PSA records, and a commission determination were not reviewed. The allegation concerns large energy users including data centers; it is not an established data-center-only charge to residential customers. These sources do not determine which financial interpretation is correct or establish present regulator status.

Supported refers to this reading of the complaint. It does not verify the company’s figures, total site water use, the plaintiffs’ allegations or a court finding.

This is a party’s description of the Phase 1 application. Original applicant records and total site water demand were not reviewed.

Evidence limitation: These are a litigating party's descriptions and allegations about the Phase 1 application. The underlying applicant documents, hearing record, approval conditions and water-service agreements were not reviewed. Nothing here establishes measured use, total future demand, filing authenticity through the court docket, present litigation status or a court finding.

Supported refers to this explanation of the report’s figures, not proof that the forecast jobs will happen.

These are forecasts. This review does not establish delivered jobs, distinct workers, or whether the economic model is accurate.

Evidence limitation: Whether these projected jobs are delivered, the number of distinct construction workers, and independent validation of the economic model. The study’s employment forecast is not a measured payroll count.

Evidence limitation: Whether the Commission has approved a Delmarva large-load tariff, its terms, and whether any 25 MW-plus customer has been interconnected or has an interconnection date. The text of Order 10829, Delmarva's Dec 2025 tariff filing and the Hearing Examiner's findings were not read. Docket 25-0826 on DelaFile was not retrieved. No reviewed document in the sources checked establishes it.

Evidence limitation: The county threshold numbers (in the two linked PDFs, not captured), the number of certificates issued, the amount of tax exempted for any project, and jobs actually created and maintained. The Department's annual-report requirement was only seen as a link. No reviewed document in the sources checked establishes it.

Evidence limitation: Any state, county or utility incentive, tax credit or discount; the ordinance, development agreement or conditions of approval that would document the absence of a city abatement; actual assessed value and taxes paid after operations begin. No reviewed document in the sources checked establishes it.

Evidence limitation: The definition of qualified data center in K.S.A. 74-50,331 and its thresholds; whether any Kansas utility serves a data center under a commission-approved contract rate outside this section; what tariff or contract any named Kansas project, including the tracked Beale Data Center record, would take service under; and the 'cooperative' exclusion's effect on data centers served by cooperatives. No reviewed document in the sources checked establishes it.

Evidence limitation: Whether the Task Force has issued any Framework Determination, Framework Guidance or Dashboard listing, and whether any data-center project has applied for a State incentive under the order. Which specific Maryland incentive programs are discretionary within the order's meaning, and whether any statutory by-right incentive is outside it. The Next Generation Energy Act of 2025 and Utility RELIEF Act of 2026, which the order cites, were not read. No reviewed document in the sources checked establishes it.

Evidence limitation: Which applications are pending, whether any application has been brought to the Board under the order, and what rate or amount any approved abatement carries. The published standard form of the Community Support Commitment (due 2026-11-06) was not found in the sources checked. Whether the 4.6 percent combined rate equals the ordinary statewide combined rate was not established from the documents read. No reviewed document in the sources checked establishes it.

Evidence limitation: Critical IT capacity; measured load; owner/operator legal roles distinct from applicant; actual occupancy or opening date (the city's revenue FAQ projects the first building 'expected online in 2028').

Evidence limitation: Current measured withdrawal or consumption; operator and title-owner legal roles; reconciliation of 2100 versus 2400 and 2700 Bermuda Hundred Road.

Evidence limitation: Exemption dollar value (the list does not state one); exemption end date for this row; construction or operating status; IT load.

Evidence limitation: Benefits earned, claimed and received; the meaning of DATA's $611,502,328 Paid/Certified to Date field; whether SEF is executed; RTC status meaning; independently observed jobs and placed-in-service investment.

Evidence limitation: Current measured withdrawal, consumption and discharge; a reconciled explanation of Microsoft's separate 380-million-gallon estimate; and operating changes after EPA's dated observations.

Evidence limitation: Controlling agreement and exemptions claimed.