Side-by-side comparison
Choose which states to compare. On a phone, scroll the table sideways.
Showing:
| Pennsylvania | Virginia | Ohio | Maryland | Georgia | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strategy and funding | |||||
| State quantum strategy | Keystone AI + Quantum Factory (April 2026), a statewide network of the seven R1 research universities with Commonwealth support; House Communications and Technology Committee informational meeting on quantum (Aug. 11, 2026); no quantum statute | Virginia Quantum Hub at George Mason University (September 2026); Joint Commission on Technology and Science quantum study (2025); no quantum statute | Ohio Institute for Quantum Computing Research, Talent, and Commercialization (Miami University with Cleveland Clinic), funded in the FY2026-27 budget; IBM Quantum System One installed at Cleveland Clinic in 2023; no quantum statute | Capital of Quantum initiative (January 2025), a public-private partnership seeking $1 billion in investment; December 2024 executive order named quantum a priority industry; DARPA benchmarking hub agreement (April 2025) | No state-level quantum action identified; activity is led by Georgia Tech, including its Quantum Applications Research Center (October 2026) and the Georgia Tech Research Institute's role in DARPA's Quantum Benchmarking Initiative |
| State funding (confirmed) | No quantum-specific appropriation identified | $3,684,912 GO Virginia Region 7 grant for the Virginia Quantum Hub | $7,000,000 in the enacted FY2026-27 budget (HB 96); $14M was originally proposed | FY2026 proposal: $27.5M initial investment; FY2027 budget: $54M ($20M for IonQ's headquarters, $22M for UMD quantum programs and testbeds, $12M for faculty and technical experts) | No quantum-specific appropriation identified |
| Key institutions | Carnegie Mellon, Drexel, Lehigh, Penn State, Temple, Penn, Pitt; Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center | George Mason University, Virginia Tech, Virginia Innovation Partnership Corporation | Miami University, Cleveland Clinic | University of Maryland, IonQ, Applied Research Laboratory for Intelligence and Security | Georgia Tech, Georgia Tech Research Institute |
| Tax incentives | |||||
| Quantum named in data center tax law? | No | No | No | No | No |
| Equipment language | Equipment used to "outfit, operate or benefit a computer data center," including mechanical equipment and refrigerant piping (Department of Revenue guidelines) | "Computer equipment or enabling software ... including ... other enabling hardware, including chillers and backup generators" (Va. Code § 58.1-609.3(18)); Tax Commissioner Ruling 23-92 extends to HVAC and cooling towers | Property used "to conduct a computer data center business, including equipment cooling systems" (Ohio Rev. Code § 122.175) | "Computer equipment or enabling software ... including servers, routers, connections, and other enabling hardware" (Md. Tax-General § 11-239) | Equipment used to "generate or provide constant delivery of power, environmental conditioning, air cooling" for computer equipment (Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 560-12-2-.117) |
| Cryogenic cooling plausibly covered? | Plausibly | Plausibly | Plausibly | Plausibly | Plausibly |
| Would a quantum facility qualify? | Unlikely: $75M or $100M investment and 25 or 45 jobs; qualified tenants must commit to at least 100 kW per month | Unlikely: $150M investment plus jobs under a VEDP memorandum of understanding | Unlikely: must be a computer data center business providing electronic information services, with $100M investment and $1.5M payroll; research use would not qualify | Possible: $2M (Tier 1 area) or $5M investment and five qualified positions; whether a quantum facility counts as a data center is untested | Unlikely: county-tiered minimums of $25M to $250M plus jobs |
| Quantum-specific tax incentive | None | None | None | None in tax law; support comes through appropriations and grants | None |
| Electricity and reporting | |||||
| Large-load threshold | 50 MW individually or 100 MW aggregate (PUC model tariff) | 25 MW (Dominion GS-5 rate class) | 25 MW (AEP Ohio data center tariff) | 25 MW (Utility RELIEF Act) | 100 MW (PSC large-load rule) |
| Would the tariff apply? | No | No | No | No | No |
| Facility reporting rule | Act 21 of 2026 covers facilities predominantly housing servers with peak demand of 10 MW or more; a quantum facility would meet neither test | No facility-level reporting rule; the SCC's annual report aggregates data center figures from utilities | None identified | None identified | None identified |
| Security | |||||
| State post-quantum cryptography mandate | None identified | None identified | None identified | None identified | None identified |
| Status and sources | |||||
| Still to verify | Nothing outstanding | Nothing outstanding | Nothing outstanding | Enacted FY2026 quantum total (sources conflict) | Nothing outstanding |
| Sources | keystonefactory.orgpalegis.uspenncapital-star.compa.gov | governor.virginia.govdls.virginia.govlaw.lis.virginia.govtax.virginia.gov | lsc.ohio.govmiamioh.edujobsohio.comcodes.ohio.gov | governor.maryland.govgovernor.maryland.govtoday.umd.edulaw.justia.com | hpcwire.comnewswise.comlaw.cornell.edu |
| Last updated | 2026-10-07 | 2026-10-07 | 2026-10-07 | 2026-10-07 | 2026-10-07 |
"Plausibly covered" means the statute's cooling or equipment language could reasonably reach cryogenic systems; no state agency has ruled on the question. Power comparisons use published measurements of superconducting quantum computers: about 26 kW for Google's Sycamore system (Arute et al.), about 15 kW in an Oak Ridge and NASA estimate (Villalonga et al.), and a 30 kW peak for a system integrated with a supercomputer (2025 case study). Trapped-ion and neutral-atom systems use different cooling, and their facility loads are less documented.
Federal timeline and the states
What the federal orders require. Executive Order 14412 (June 22, 2026) requires federal agencies to move their most sensitive systems to post-quantum cryptography for key establishment by December 31, 2030, and for digital signatures by December 31, 2031. It directs the FAR Council to propose a rule holding covered federal contractors to the same standards by the end of 2030. Executive Order 14413, signed the same day, creates a national effort to deliver at least one quantum computer "at a scale intended to initiate the era of quantum-enabled scientific discovery" to a Department of Energy facility, and directs at least three quantum sensor projects to be fielded by September 30, 2028.
Who they bind. Federal agencies and, once the rule is final, federal contractors. Neither order binds state governments.
How states get pulled in anyway. Executive Order 14412 directs federal agencies to help critical infrastructure owners and operators with their transitions, and states regulate or run much of that infrastructure, including utilities overseen by state commissions. State systems also exchange data with federal agencies every day. And major technology companies have set earlier targets: Google and Cloudflare have each set 2029 goals for their own post-quantum migrations.
The continuity question. The 2030 and 2031 deadlines fall after the January 2029 inauguration, and a future administration can revise an executive order. Underneath the orders, the Quantum Computing Cybersecurity Preparedness Act, enacted in 2022, requires federal agencies to inventory their cryptographic systems, and executive action has built on earlier policy rather than replacing it: Executive Order 14412 moved an earlier 2035 target up to 2030. The open question is whether the accelerated dates hold, and whether states set timelines of their own.
What stands out
Quantum is not in any state's data center law
All five exemptions define covered equipment in terms of classical computing: servers, routers, and equipment for processing and storing data. None mentions quantum, and no state agency has ruled on whether a quantum processor counts as computer equipment.
The equipment could fit; the facilities mostly would not
Cooling and equipment language in every state is broad enough to plausibly reach cryogenic systems. The barrier is the facility test: what counts as a data center, and investment floors of $75 million to $250 million in four states. Maryland's $2 million to $5 million floor is the exception.
Power rules do not reach today's quantum systems
A superconducting quantum computer draws roughly 15 to 30 kilowatts, about one-thousandth of a 25 MW large-load threshold and about one-four-hundredth of Pennsylvania's 10 MW reporting trigger. Future utility-scale quantum campuses, and quantum systems inside large AI and supercomputing campuses, could change that.
State support runs through budgets, not tax law
Maryland's appropriations, Ohio's $7 million institute, and Virginia's regional grant all fund quantum directly rather than through tax exemptions. Unlike open-ended exemptions, budget lines come up for decision every cycle, which makes them easier to evaluate.
What to watch
- Whether any state revenue agency rules on quantum equipment under its data center exemption.
- Maryland's FY2028 budget and construction of IonQ's College Park headquarters.
- Whether Pennsylvania legislation follows the House committee's August 2026 quantum hearing.
- Reauthorization of the National Quantum Initiative (S. 3597), introduced January 8, 2026, which is pending in Congress.
- The FAR Council's proposed rule holding federal contractors to post-quantum standards by the end of 2030.
- Whether any of the five states sets its own post-quantum timeline for state systems.
- Hybrid facilities: whether quantum systems placed inside AI data centers fall under those campuses' tariffs and reporting rules.
The question I expect to shape the next round: whether states clarify how quantum fits rules written for server farms before the first large quantum facilities arrive, rather than after.