Nebraska state-government finances, comparable debt and interest figures, and the enacted budget.
The national companion measures federal finances. Here the unit is Nebraska state government. Federal debt is not allocated to Nebraska; a state budget is not the federal budget.
Explore Nebraska readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Nebraska officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Nebraska effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Nebraska change.
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
No comparable time series is retained for this topic. The chart shows events and reviewed actions; current state comparisons appear below.
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
18 of 18 reviewed Nebraska actions match · 15 date markers shown. 67 major events shown separately.
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
Compare state-government balances and interest expenditure from the same Census fiscal-year survey.
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Long-term debt outstanding plus short-term debt outstanding at fiscal year end.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. Excludes local-government debt. Dollar ranks describe scale, not credit quality.
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Nebraska stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Nebraska has a dark outline.
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $166.39B | — |
| #2 | New York | $120.59B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $70.05B | — |
| #4 | Massachusetts | $65.87B | — |
| #5 | New Jersey | $57.23B | — |
| #6 | Pennsylvania | $48.67B | — |
| #7 | Illinois | $43.38B | — |
| #8 | Virginia | $33.73B | — |
| #9 | Connecticut | $33.27B | — |
| #10 | Ohio | $32.29B | — |
| #11 | Washington | $30.62B | — |
| #12 | Maryland | $25.9B | — |
| #13 | Michigan | $25.02B | — |
| #14 | Colorado | $23.57B | — |
| #15 | Wisconsin | $22.79B | — |
| #16 | Florida | $20.14B | — |
| #17 | Minnesota | $17.03B | — |
| #18 | Oregon | $16.91B | — |
| #19 | Louisiana | $16.09B | — |
| #20 | South Carolina | $15.36B | — |
| #21 | West Virginia | $15.08B | — |
| #22 | Georgia | $14.05B | — |
| #23 | North Carolina | $13.13B | — |
| #24 | Hawaii | $11.72B | — |
| #25 | Rhode Island | $11.41B | — |
| #26 | Alabama | $10.99B | — |
| #27 | Oklahoma | $10.15B | — |
| #28 | Kentucky | $10.08B | — |
| #29 | Tennessee | $9.03B | — |
| #30 | Indiana | $8.52B | — |
| #31 | Iowa | $8.06B | — |
| #32 | Arkansas | $8.05B | — |
| #33 | Mississippi | $7.72B | — |
| #34 | New Hampshire | $7.58B | — |
| #35 | Kansas | $7.16B | — |
| #36 | New Mexico | $7.12B | — |
| #37 | Missouri | $6.99B | — |
| #38 | Arizona | $6.88B | — |
| #39 | Alaska | $5.72B | — |
| #40 | Utah | $5.55B | — |
| #41 | Maine | $5.3B | — |
| #42 | North Dakota | $4.89B | — |
| #43 | South Dakota | $4.67B | — |
| #44 | Delaware | $3.69B | — |
| #45 | Nebraska · your comparison | $3.39B | — |
| #46 | Nevada | $2.89B | — |
| #47 | Montana | $2.76B | — |
| #48 | Vermont | $2.67B | — |
| #49 | Wyoming | $1.26B | — |
| #50 | Idaho | $728.59M | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
All measures use Census state-government records for FY2024. Categories describe collections; they do not rank statutory tax rates.
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Census category T09.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Nebraska stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Nebraska has a dark outline.
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Texas | $54.35B | — |
| #2 | California | $53.33B | — |
| #3 | Florida | $40.09B | — |
| #4 | Washington | $22.81B | — |
| #5 | New York | $19.99B | — |
| #6 | Ohio | $16.33B | — |
| #7 | Illinois | $16.05B | — |
| #8 | Pennsylvania | $15.6B | — |
| #9 | New Jersey | $14.31B | — |
| #10 | Tennessee | $14.08B | — |
| #11 | Arizona | $13.16B | — |
| #12 | Michigan | $12.7B | — |
| #13 | North Carolina | $12.16B | — |
| #14 | Indiana | $10.96B | — |
| #15 | Massachusetts | $9.4B | — |
| #16 | Georgia | $9.01B | — |
| #17 | Minnesota | $8.49B | — |
| #18 | Nevada | $8.4B | — |
| #19 | Wisconsin | $7.59B | — |
| #20 | Virginia | $7.4B | — |
| #21 | Maryland | $6.85B | — |
| #22 | South Carolina | $6.44B | — |
| #23 | Connecticut | $6.23B | — |
| #24 | Kentucky | $5.8B | — |
| #25 | Missouri | $5.26B | — |
| #26 | Mississippi | $5.07B | — |
| #27 | Arkansas | $5.07B | — |
| #28 | Louisiana | $4.87B | — |
| #29 | Hawaii | $4.79B | — |
| #30 | Colorado | $4.67B | — |
| #31 | Iowa | $4.64B | — |
| #32 | Utah | $4.63B | — |
| #33 | Alabama | $4.59B | — |
| #34 | Kansas | $4.33B | — |
| #35 | New Mexico | $4.33B | — |
| #36 | Oklahoma | $3.81B | — |
| #37 | Idaho | $3.09B | — |
| #38 | Nebraska · your comparison | $2.97B | — |
| #39 | Maine | $2.35B | — |
| #40 | West Virginia | $1.82B | — |
| #41 | South Dakota | $1.68B | — |
| #42 | Rhode Island | $1.63B | — |
| #43 | Oregon | $1.34B | — |
| #44 | North Dakota | $1.32B | — |
| #45 | Wyoming | $1.01B | — |
| #46 | Vermont | $597.33M | — |
| #47 | Alaska | $0 | — |
| #47 | Delaware | $0 | — |
| #47 | Montana | $0 | — |
| #47 | New Hampshire | $0 | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Census categories allow consistent comparisons. These selected categories are not a breakdown of the current Nebraska appropriations act.
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Current operations for public welfare institutions and other public welfare, excluding capital and transfers.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Nebraska stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Nebraska has a dark outline.
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $156.71B | — |
| #2 | New York | $97.35B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $57.32B | — |
| #4 | Illinois | $41.13B | — |
| #5 | Florida | $40.11B | — |
| #6 | Ohio | $39.77B | — |
| #7 | Pennsylvania | $39.34B | — |
| #8 | Massachusetts | $34.12B | — |
| #9 | North Carolina | $30.64B | — |
| #10 | New Jersey | $28.06B | — |
| #11 | Arizona | $26.02B | — |
| #12 | Michigan | $24.37B | — |
| #13 | Virginia | $23.68B | — |
| #14 | Minnesota | $23.37B | — |
| #15 | Indiana | $22.93B | — |
| #16 | Maryland | $21.61B | — |
| #17 | Kentucky | $20.54B | — |
| #18 | Oregon | $20.47B | — |
| #19 | Washington | $19.6B | — |
| #20 | Georgia | $18.99B | — |
| #21 | Louisiana | $18.69B | — |
| #22 | Tennessee | $16.42B | — |
| #23 | Wisconsin | $16.26B | — |
| #24 | Missouri | $15.65B | — |
| #25 | Oklahoma | $14.57B | — |
| #26 | Colorado | $13.6B | — |
| #27 | South Carolina | $12.84B | — |
| #28 | New Mexico | $10.72B | — |
| #29 | Iowa | $10.26B | — |
| #30 | Alabama | $9.73B | — |
| #31 | Arkansas | $8.67B | — |
| #32 | Mississippi | $8.08B | — |
| #33 | Utah | $6.91B | — |
| #34 | Kansas | $6.84B | — |
| #35 | Nevada | $6.62B | — |
| #36 | West Virginia | $6.24B | — |
| #37 | Maine | $5.7B | — |
| #38 | Nebraska · your comparison | $4.97B | — |
| #39 | Connecticut | $4.88B | — |
| #40 | Rhode Island | $4.54B | — |
| #41 | Hawaii | $4.14B | — |
| #42 | Delaware | $3.97B | — |
| #43 | Idaho | $3.73B | — |
| #44 | Alaska | $3.27B | — |
| #45 | Montana | $2.89B | — |
| #46 | New Hampshire | $2.72B | — |
| #47 | Vermont | $2.69B | — |
| #48 | North Dakota | $2.09B | — |
| #49 | South Dakota | $1.95B | — |
| #50 | Wyoming | $1.09B | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
The enacted plan, spending categories and audited activity use different periods and accounting scopes; they are kept separate.
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Sum of Census current-operation expenditure categories, excluding capital outlay, interest, and assistance/subsidy expenditure.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. This FY2024 comparison differs in scope and period from Nebraska’s FY2026-27 appropriations and Fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 audit shown below.
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Nebraska stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Nebraska has a dark outline.
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $287.03B | — |
| #2 | New York | $161.37B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $136.18B | — |
| #4 | Florida | $86.61B | — |
| #5 | Pennsylvania | $77.15B | — |
| #6 | Illinois | $75.67B | — |
| #7 | Ohio | $66.77B | — |
| #8 | New Jersey | $64.53B | — |
| #9 | Massachusetts | $61.38B | — |
| #10 | North Carolina | $59.01B | — |
| #11 | Michigan | $57.27B | — |
| #12 | Virginia | $53.45B | — |
| #13 | Washington | $49.82B | — |
| #14 | Georgia | $45.19B | — |
| #15 | Maryland | $45.06B | — |
| #16 | Oregon | $41.41B | — |
| #17 | Arizona | $38.71B | — |
| #18 | Minnesota | $38.1B | — |
| #19 | Indiana | $37.4B | — |
| #20 | Kentucky | $36.94B | — |
| #21 | Wisconsin | $34.5B | — |
| #22 | Missouri | $34.43B | — |
| #23 | South Carolina | $32.85B | — |
| #24 | Colorado | $32.73B | — |
| #25 | Louisiana | $31.67B | — |
| #26 | Tennessee | $31.12B | — |
| #27 | Alabama | $26.99B | — |
| #28 | Oklahoma | $24.28B | — |
| #29 | Utah | $22.7B | — |
| #30 | New Mexico | $21.94B | — |
| #31 | Connecticut | $21.22B | — |
| #32 | Iowa | $19.89B | — |
| #33 | Kansas | $18.39B | — |
| #34 | Hawaii | $16.62B | — |
| #35 | Mississippi | $16.46B | — |
| #36 | Arkansas | $16.28B | — |
| #37 | West Virginia | $13.19B | — |
| #38 | Nevada | $12.43B | — |
| #39 | Nebraska · your comparison | $10.41B | — |
| #40 | Maine | $10.12B | — |
| #41 | Delaware | $9.24B | — |
| #42 | Rhode Island | $8.93B | — |
| #43 | Alaska | $8.4B | — |
| #44 | Idaho | $8.21B | — |
| #45 | New Hampshire | $7.12B | — |
| #46 | Montana | $6.44B | — |
| #47 | Vermont | $6.28B | — |
| #48 | North Dakota | $5.63B | — |
| #49 | South Dakota | $4.55B | — |
| #50 | Wyoming | $4.01B | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
The Legislative Fiscal Office's final FY2026-27 appropriations across General, Cash, Federal, and Revolving/Other funds after the 2026 mid-biennium session. The total and fund mix follow Tables 52 and 54. The adjacent Table 53 reports Cash Funds and the statewide total one dollar higher; Table 54 reconciles to the report's separately published official total.
Shares of the $7.053 billion in taxes reported as general revenue for Nebraska's primary government. The chart reflects State-government revenue and does not include all property and other taxes retained by counties, municipalities, school districts, and other local governments.
FactVote groups the exact agency totals in the Legislative Fiscal Office's Table 52 into seven service areas. The grouped amounts reconcile exactly to the enacted all-funds total.
Government-wide activity for Nebraska's primary government on the accrual basis. Revenue combines program revenues and general revenues; transfers cancel within the primary-government total.
Explore statements about budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt from FactVote’s Nebraska candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
We will provide this information, as required by statute, to all policymakers and taxpayers through written reports and our Internet based Budget and Audit databases.
We will provide this information, as required by statute, to all policymakers and taxpayers through written reports and our Internet based Budget and Audit databases.Mike Foley — official Nebraska office primary source 3 ↗
Property taxes and taxes in general are too high. I will responsibly look at ways to cut taxes while ensuring vital services remain strong and that we can balance our budget. That relief needs to be more targeted so it helps the working families, not just the state’s top earners. I have a proven tra…
Property taxes and taxes in general are too high. I will responsibly look at ways to cut taxes while ensuring vital services remain strong and that we can balance our budget. That relief needs to be more targeted so it helps the working families, not just the state’s top earners. I have a proven track record of producing bipartisan plans to help all Nebraskans.Ben Steffen campaign source 1 ↗
Government Spending
Property taxes and taxes in general are too high. I will responsibly look at ways to cut taxes while ensuring vital services remain strong and that we can balance our budget. That relief needs to be more targeted so it helps the working families, not just the state’s top earners. I have a proven tra…
Property taxes and taxes in general are too high. I will responsibly look at ways to cut taxes while ensuring vital services remain strong and that we can balance our budget. That relief needs to be more targeted so it helps the working families, not just the state’s top earners. I have a proven track record of producing bipartisan plans to help all Nebraskans.Lynne Walz — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
PROPERTY TAX RELIEF- My plan creates $300,000,000+ annually in new revenue for the state. This can fix all our budget problems and lower your property taxes forever in 2-3 years.
PROPERTY TAX RELIEF- My plan creates $300,000,000+ annually in new revenue for the state. This can fix all our budget problems and lower your property taxes forever in 2-3 years.Rick Beard — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗
Reduce the growth and burden of the national debt.
Reduce the growth and burden of the national debt.Chris Backemeyer campaign source 2 ↗
This section matches specific budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt terms in retained, attributed source text from published Nebraska candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Nebraska legislators and Nebraska’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Nebraska’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
2 matching sponsorships or proposals · 2 Nebraska incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
Nebraska Senate, District 40 · –NE
1 proposalApr 14, 2026 · Approved by governor April 14, 2026
Barry DeKay · Sponsored
Governor Jim Pillen approved LB1261A on April 14, 2026. Senator Barry DeKay introduced the companion appropriation bill on March 19. It appropriates $4,750 from the Nebraska Power Review Fund for FY2026–27 and $4,750 for FY2027–28 to the Nebraska Power Review Board, Program 72, to carry out LB1261. The appropriation cannot fund permanent or temporary state-employee salaries or per diems. It is a Power Review Fund appropriation, not a General Fund appropriation, a customer rebate or evidence of a payment already made. A separate commencement date for this appropriation has not been verified here. The original fiscal note estimates more hearings, with a rough average cost of $950 per hearing and a scenario of up to five applications and hearings, especially in the first two or three years. Its analyst table also estimates $4,750 for FY2028–29. Those are forecasts; the enacted companion appropriates only for FY2026–27 and FY2027–28, and does not establish that five hearings or those expenditures occurred. The law appropriates $4,750 from the Nebraska Power Review Fund in each of two fiscal years, with a specific salary and per-diem prohibition. Appropriations and estimated costs are distinct from actual spending.
Approved April 14, 2026; enacted provisions verified. Provision-specific commencement, later changes and implementation remain separate.
The law appropriates $4,750 from the Nebraska Power Review Fund in each of two fiscal years, with a specific salary and per-diem prohibition. Appropriations and estimated costs are distinct from actual spending.
Retained Nebraska evidence context: energy · reviewed policy context · deficit-debt-interest · reviewed policy context. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Governor Jim Pillen approved LB1261A on April 14, 2026. Senator Barry DeKay introduced the companion appropriation bill on March 19. It appropriates $4,750 from the Nebraska Power Review Fund for FY2026–27 and $4,750 for FY2027–28 to the Nebraska Power Review Board, Program 72, to carry out LB1261.Review official supporting evidence ↗
Nebraska Senate, District 32 · –NE
1 proposalApr 14, 2026 · Approved April 14, 2026; changes effective July 18, 2026
Tom Brandt · Sponsored
Governor Jim Pillen approved LB1010 on April 14, 2026. Senator Tom Brandt is its recorded primary introducer. The official history posted the approval entry on April 17 but expressly says approval occurred April 14; the enacted heading agrees. LB1010’s changes became effective July 18, as documented by the reviewed codified sections. Approval, effectiveness and implementation are distinct. The new Large Load Customer Regulation Act applies to a retail customer requesting a new or expanded interconnection whose total load at one site would exceed 20 megawatts. Exactly 20 MW does not meet that threshold. This differs from both the data-center definition’s peak demand of at least 10 MW and LB1261’s protection for generation serving new industrial load greater than 1,000 MW. Public power suppliers must establish interconnection standards including protected disclosure of competing requests, disclosure of onsite backup generation, site control and financial commitments. Initial studies require the greater of $50,000 or $1,000 per MW; additional capacity requests after the study require an additional fee based on the new request. Studies must be completed within one year after the fee is received. Suppliers may negotiate rates and operating standards that allocate costs and mitigate resource and financial risks to other customers, and must develop demand-response and emergency curtailment or backup-generation procedures. These powers do not verify any actual rate reduction. Qualifying onsite backup generation must be at least 1 MW and satisfy one of two stated conditions: inability to operate parallel with the grid for more than one-tenth of a second, or continuous parallel operation that is non-exporting and meets applicable interconnection requirements. The enacted definition does not require backup capable of serving 50% of onsite demand. The law adds storage to district eminent-domain scope and cooperative powers, and defines energy storage and associated renewable-facility storage. Associated storage must be on the renewable facility’s premises, primarily store its production, and keep aggregate output within that facility’s nameplate capacity. Reactive-power-only equipment and equipment solely providing electric energy for vehicles are excluded from the storage definition. Private storage requires Power Review Board approval before construction or acquisition, evidence of a contract for all energy and capacity maintained throughout operational life, the specified supplier consents and a joint transmission development agreement. The agreement governs construction, ownership, operation and maintenance, and private construction of needed improvements is at the private supplier’s cost. The law does not force a utility into a joint project or authorize private retail sales, distribution facilities or eminent domain. The storage-protection subsection retains the printed phrase “associated energy resource”; its relationship to the separately defined term remains a clarification question. Storage is added to applicable military-proximity certifications, termination reporting and enforcement. The military-equipment rules retain compliance exemptions and a Board-preapproval exception with stated findings. Terminating an approved project requires a reasons filing within 30 days; the Board’s hearing is advisory and does not approve or deny termination. These provisions do not eliminate contract-breach claims or establish a new criminal offense. A data center under the amended electricity section must meet the stated digital-service and equipment conditions and have peak demand of at least 10 MW. Suppliers may require fair and reasonable infrastructure-cost payments or terms protecting other retail customers, after a load study. Planned facilities must notify their local supplier and meet its interconnection requirements. Data-center owners or operators must report annually by September 30 to the Department of Water, Energy, and Environment and the Legislature’s Natural Resources Committee. The report covers ownership, size, location, electricity demand, water use, tax exemptions, incentive payments, efficiency and conservation measures, renewable-energy commitments and service life. They must bear decommissioning costs and enter community benefit agreements with affected communities. The existing crypto-operation website-reporting and interruption provisions are not blanket data-center requirements. An energy storage resource with nameplate capacity of at least 100 kW is subject to the annual $3,518-per-MW nameplate capacity tax on commissioned capacity, with the stated public-ownership/operation and customer-generator exemptions. The source measures alternating-current capacity in MW, not stored energy in MWh. Depreciable storage personal property subject to this tax is exempt from the depreciable-personal-property tax. This is not an exemption for every tax or every property associated with a storage project. Storage enters the existing tax reporting, proration, payment, penalty and county-remittance framework. Its presence or supporting infrastructure cannot be a factor in valuing or classifying underlying or adjacent real property under the stated section. Receipts are nonrestricted funds for the first five years after commissioning; that status does not waive the tax for five years. The county treasurer distributes 5% of these receipts to the community-college area where the storage resource is located and the remainder to eligible local taxing entities using the statutory levy fractions. The 5% rate already applied to qualifying renewable facilities; LB1010 extends it to storage. The law retains the prohibition on Department of Revenue retention for General Fund allocation. It does not verify actual collections, college spending or a state-debt effect. The February fiscal note addresses the introduced storage bill. The March revision addresses AM2422 and AM2387 and forecasts zero state-agency revenue and expenditure in its four-year table, while explicitly leaving the amount and timing of local taxing-district revenue effects uncertain. Power Review Board cost estimates and the State Electrical Division’s assessment concern their own agency scope. These are estimates, not proof of no local impact or actual spending; final enacted numbering and provisions control over the earlier note’s section descriptions. The current official 13-518 text also correlates LB1114 changes operative April 17, and 77-202 combines LB1010 with LB1114 and LB901 changes stated to become operative January 1, 2027. This review attributes only the storage addition verified in LB1010; it does not treat every consolidated-page difference or future-operative change as LB1010 policy already in force. The complete correlated acts and applicable historical versions still require separate review. The complete enacted LB1010 does not expressly impose a blanket ban on data-center incentives. Its reporting provisions require disclosure of exemptions and incentive payments. This does not resolve the separately retained Order26-17 announcement-versus-signed-original discrepancy, or prove an application was approved, denied or paid. Storage nameplate-tax receipts, nonrestricted-fund treatment and local revenue allocation change public-finance rules. The fiscal analyst leaves local revenue amount/timing uncertain; this does not prove a General Fund receipt, state debt reduction or actual expenditure.
Complete enacted provisions and July 18 effective dates verified. Approval posted April 17 expressly records April 14 approval. Implementation and correlated-law review remain separate.
Storage nameplate-tax receipts, nonrestricted-fund treatment and local revenue allocation change public-finance rules. The fiscal analyst leaves local revenue amount/timing uncertain; this does not prove a General Fund receipt, state debt reduction or actual expenditure.
Retained Nebraska evidence context: energy · reviewed policy context · income-taxes · reviewed policy context · education · reviewed policy context · deficit-debt-interest · reviewed policy context · cpi · reviewed policy context · real-gdp · reviewed policy context. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Governor Jim Pillen approved LB1010 on April 14, 2026. Senator Tom Brandt is its recorded primary introducer. The official history posted the approval entry on April 17 but expressly says approval occurred April 14; the enacted heading agrees. LB1010’s changes became effective July 18, as documented by the reviewed codified sections. Approval, effectiveness and implementation are distinct.Review official supporting evidence ↗
Only current Nebraska officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Nebraska statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 6, 2026.