Center for Public Enterprise

Contemporary zone-based industrial development models in the United States

Tags:

When you hear of economic development “zones,” what comes to mind? The landscape of American economic development is full of them. Two famous programs are Opportunity Zones and Enterprise Zones, which are different flavors of tax incentives, both sector-agnostic. While they can be successful at attracting private investment to things like commercial office buildings and housing development, there is ongoing debate around their effectiveness. Readers may also be familiar with international models, like Special Economic Zones in China; we’ll be writing more about those in the future.

Manufacturers certainly look to jurisdictions with friendly tax environments, like any business. Yet, just as often, they cite state and local coordination, utility infrastructure, local talent, permitting certainty, and other place-based ingredients as being the primary factors in site selection and final investment decision (FID). In my work at CPE and beyond, I am looking to develop a new model for industrial development in the U.S., one we are calling Advanced Industrial Zones (AIZs). The goal of these zones is to align the physical, infrastructural, and procedural ingredients to develop next-generation industry clusters.

States of all ideological stripes have shown a willingness to experiment with geographically-targeted or zone-based industrial planning. Here, we take a look at a handful of contemporary examples. This is not meant as an endorsement of any particular approach. Rather, the below case studies illustrate that place-based and “zone”-style programs (whether they are marketed that way, or not) are regularly deployed to develop real estate and infrastructure, streamline procedures, and coordinate workforce and industry transition. Each offers a different tool in the toolkit for policymakers, workers, and clean energy advocates who wish to see revitalized U.S. manufacturing hubs.

Texas Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ)

Focus: Energy infrastructure | Mechanism: Ratepayer financing


Texas’s Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) effort is famous in energy circles. Under a 2005 law, S.B. 20, the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) and ERCOT were directed to identify geographic zones with high wind generation potential, largely in the western half of the state and the Texas Panhandle. Then, they were to develop a plan for transmission lines to deliver that wind power to the state’s population centers. The theory was that proactive planning of cross-state transmission could unlock under-utilized renewable capacity that was being curtailed, alleviate grid congestion, and stabilize prices for consumers. These investments were to be covered by utility ratepayers, with the knowledge that they would pay back rapidly as new power came online.

By 2008, the state had selected five zones from the 24 candidate areas. By 2014, the full set of transmission lines were placed in service—a whopping 3,600 miles of them, representing 23% of all transmission built in the U.S. in that time period.

Policy mechanism

The CREZ program raised $7 billion by imposing a transmission and distribution charge on ratepayers’ utility bills. Ten different transmission and distribution utilities (TDUs) used those charges to finance the actual infrastructure buildout.

Early impact

CREZ enabled 18.5 GW of new wind interconnection and reduced curtailment from 17% to less than 1%. A 2014 presentation by the director of system planning at ERCOT, the Texas grid operator, calls it a “success.” ERCOT estimates that the upgrades save ratepayers $2 billion per year, repaying the initial investment many times over the multi-decade lifetime of the infrastructure.

Clean energy advocates also support CREZ; some have pushed for a second iteration to alleviate ongoing congestion on the Texas grid. Still others have pointed to the fact that the open-access transmission lines have enabled shale gas from West Texas to come online and, now, are contributing to a solar boom in the state. One 2020 study suggests that the CREZ transmission upgrades led to a significant decrease in the curtailment of wind power, an absolute reduction in prices (as well as a reduction in price fluctuation and geographic variability), and significant environmental and health benefits (e.g., reduced NOx).

The Utah Inland Port Authority

Focus: Logistics infrastructure | Mechanism: Tax increment financing

The Utah Inland Port Authority (UIPA), self-described as “the single largest economic development effort in the history of the state,” aims to grow Utah’s industrial economy, strengthen Utah’s supply chains, and position the state as a crossroads for Western U.S. commerce through development of inland logistics hubs. The original authorizing legislation in 2018 established a first “jurisdictional area” in Northwest Salt Lake City. Since then, UIPA has expanded to 15 project areas across the state, and their authority has been modified several times to prioritize environmental stewardship (H.B. 347), clarify the ability of UIPA to create public infrastructure districts (S.B. 241), enable UIPA to fund land development (S.B. 239), and more.

In designated project areas, UIPA leverages tax increment financing to invest in critical infrastructure – think roads, rail spurs, utilities, and site remediation – that improve logistics and connectivity for advanced manufacturers and other industrial tenants. For example, in the Salt Lake City project area, UIPA is working to develop a clean refueling station servicing electric, hydrogen, and compressed natural gas vehicles.

It is worth noting that Utah has had a proliferation of zone-based programs for housing, energy, and infrastructure development. In March 2026, H.B. 507 attempted to improve coordination of these efforts by establishing an umbrella Regionally Significant Development Zones (RSDZ) program and a consolidated statewide fund. The bill promulgates rules for overlapping zones, including the Port Authority’s project areas. Given the recent passage, we’re still assessing the implications of this bill on UIPA’s operations.

Policy mechanisms

The primary mechanism for funding the infrastructure upgrades for these “inland ports” is through tax increment financing (TIF). When a project area is established, local property tax revenues for existing services are effectively frozen at current levels for 25 years. The differential between the base tax revenues and future property tax revenues above that level—which are expected to grow as investment in the area moves forward—are split 75%/25% between the UIPA and municipal governments, respectively. Then, the UIPA uses that differential to bond for eligible infrastructure upgrades within the project area—effectively borrowing against the next quarter-century of tax growth.

The UIPA also has access to its own revolving loan fund, the Authority Infrastructure Bank (AIB), which provides low-cost loans to revenue-generating infrastructure projects consistent with the UIPA’s mission. Revolving loan funds are self-replenishing pools of capital to provide low-cost financing to projects while minimizing budgetary impact; as loans are paid back, they are channeled into new projects (this is the “revolving” part). The AIB is funded by the state legislation, including through an initial $75 million capitalization. The authority claims it can deploy AIB financing in as little as 60-90 days.

Finally, UIPA may sponsor the creation of a separate Public Infrastructure District (PID) within the jurisdictional area. PIDs are governed separately from the UIPA, but can also use tax increment financing for additional infrastructure investments.

Designating new geographies

Outside of the original project area established in Northwest Salt Lake City by law, UIPA project areas are nominated through a municipal or county resolution. This is brought to the UIPA board for approval. For each project area, UIPA works with local stakeholders to establish a Project Area Plan that includes information on area boundaries, existing infrastructure and assets, documentation of legal consent from local authorities, and an estimated budget based on the aforementioned 75/25 tax differential split. The authority also helps to recruit businesses to the project area.

Map of the Northwest Quadrant jurisdictional area from the final Project Area Plan. Source: UIPA

Massachusetts’s Devens Regional Enterprise Zone

Focus: Workforce and industry transition | Mechanism: Permitting reform

Fort Devens Army Base in Massachusetts closed in 1996 after eight decades of operations, leading to the displacement of roughly 7,000 workers. In response, the state legislature established the Devens Regional Enterprise Zone, a 4,400 acre master-planned community that now serves as a major industrial hub. MassDevelopment, the state’s land bank, purchased the property and serves as master developer of the community; Devens Enterprise Commission serves as the regulatory and permitting authority.

Policy mechanisms

The original authorizing statute for the Devens Enterprise Commission requires it to oversee a Unified Permitting Process for all local permits that takes 75 days or less. This regulatory certainty has been one of the most compelling tools for bringing new employers to Devens, and  sets it apart from the rest of the state.

Additionally, from the start, “eco-industrial development” was built into the Devens Reuse Plan. DEC runs a range of sustainability programs, such as a procurement policy that prioritizes low-embodied carbon concrete and other materials. Clarity of purpose around this eco-industrial vision serves to reinforce the streamlined permitting process.

Early impact

Devens has met its original goal of replacing the 7,000 jobs lost when the Army base closed, and DEC has called it a “successful model for the nation.” According to a 2025 study commissioned by MassDevelopment, Devens is home to 95 organizations that generate $8 billion in annual output and employ 7,675 workers—earning an average annual salary of $113,000. Major employment categories include manufacturing (3,500), transportation and warehousing (1,100), and utilities and green energy (950)—that certainly sounds like an “advanced industrial zone.”

Bristol Myers Squibb and Commonwealth Fusion Systems are among the high-tech firms that have opened massive campuses and R&D facilities in Devens. The Pathway Devens Manufacturing Campus is actively recruiting clean energy and biomanufacturing firms, such as Electric Hydrogen, to “shovel-ready” sites. Devens is recognized by U.S. Green Building Council as a LEED city.

Top: Employment data (MassDevelopment). Bottom: VulcanForms’ additive manufacturing facility in Devens (3D Print).

Note on BRAC at Fort Devens: Devens also receives federal investment through a longstanding federal program for workforce transition after a military base is shuttered, called Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). Through BRAC, the Army continues to support environmental remediation efforts at Fort Devens, no doubt contributing to its industrial re-use. While not perfect, BRAC is often cited as one the few successful examples of government policy to manage economic transition in the United States. In 2020, I co-authored a research series on fairness for workers and communities in the energy transition, including one report that explored the applicability of the BRAC model.

California Green Empowerment Zone

Focus: Workforce and industry transition | Mechanism: Technical assistance and coordination

The Northern Waterfront of Contra Costa County, northeast of San Francisco, is a petroleum refining hub. For many decades, these refineries have been a major source of regional employment and tax base, but have also left a devastating environmental justice legacy. Driven by a combination of cost pressures, declining in-state demand for refined products, and environmental regulation, the Marathon and Valero refineries in Contra Costa have recently shuttered, and many argue that the writing is on the wall for the few remaining facilities in the region. For years, groups like BlueGreen Alliance have been advocating for a thoughtful transition to these refineries that cleans up old sites and drives diversified economic activity and high-road jobs in clean manufacturing.

In 2021, California legislation established the Green Empowerment Zone in Contra Costa and Solano counties to transition these communities from the legacy refinery industry to emerging low-carbon manufacturing sectors. The GEZ region is home to 45,000 oil and gas workers.

Policy mechanisms

An initial appropriation of $5 million to Contra Costa County has supported initial planning activities, including a strategy for the development of a “high-road clean energy manufacturing” cluster in the GEZ and technical assistance resources for employers.

While the GEZ does not currently have its own dedicated set of incentives or financing authorities, it works with state and local partners to recruit firms, connect employers with existing incentives at the federal, state, and local levels (e.g., Opportunity Zones), and provide workforce training. The GEZ is governed by a board of directors that represents a diverse array of employer, labor, environmental justice, and government stakeholders. The zone was recently expanded geographically and extended through 2040.

The GEZ’s geographic footprint

The GEZ is a bespoke program to address economic transition occurring for oil and gas communities in a particular region; as such, it is tailored to a very specific geography. However, the board of the GEZ has the ability to add new cities to its jurisdiction, and follow-on legislation in 2025 codified a geographic expansion. Additionally, legislators have introduced a proposal to establish another GEZ in the Salton Sea region of southern California, home to Lithium Valley.

Source: greenempowermentzone.org

Virginia’s Business Ready Sites Program

Focus: Site prep | Mechanism: Grants

Virginia’s economic development ecosystem is highly decentralized, with much of the power vested in regional Economic Development Authorities (EDAs)—also called Industrial Development Authorities (IDAs), though the remit is the same. Any municipal entity can create an EDA/IDA, which then works to finance infrastructure projects, administer economic development programs, or offer tax abatements. The statewide Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) is the umbrella organization that administers place-based economic development programs, including the Business Ready Sites Program (BRSP), in partnership with the local EDAs/IDAs.

The Business Ready Sites Program aims to prepare sites for industry investment and growth. This is accomplished in two phases: (1) site characterization and (2) site development. Eligible parcels must be at least 50 contiguous acres (or 25 acres for smaller communities) or a brownfield. BRSP prioritizes “high-win potential” geographies that could land a project within 18-24 months of site prep.

BRSP aims to move sites from undeveloped land to shovel-ready through a five-tier system:

Policy mechanisms

BRSP issues grants from a dedicated fund established by the Virginia legislature. After a site is characterized and approved by a review board, it can apply for matching grant funding on a reimbursable basis. Local IDAs often take the lead on this application process.

Grants may cover site prep expenses including, but not limited to:

  • Engineering and design studies
  • Site acquisition
  • Physical site improvements (e.g., drainage, grading, etc.)
  • Road and rail access
  • Utility right-of-way acquisition

Additionally, projects located on BSRP sites are eligible for the state’s Expedited Permitting Process (EPP) program. Under Virginia’s Expedited Permitting Process, projects can apply for expedited review with VEDP. If approved, the applicant, VEDP, and all relevant authorities agree to process permits to the best of their ability within a set timeline (generally, 180 days).

Early impact

Virginia BRSP maintains a dashboard with all awardees, their status, and notable project wins. Since the program’s inception in 2017, the state has awarded $278 million in grants. Those BSRP sites have received 27 projects accounting for 11,000 jobs and $28 billion in CapEx invested.  Examples of projects include Fairwinds Landing, a massive defense, maritime, and offshore wind logistics hub in Norfolk that received $3 million in BSRP funds in 2023; Commonwealth Crossing, home to an advanced manufacturing workforce training facility; and Wythe County Progress Park, which has a range of industrial tenants and recently announced a major data center investment.

You can check out the BSRP grant and project dashboards here.

Grant dollars are in high demand. In fiscal year 2025, applications requested $262 million against just $40 million in available funding – a 6.5X oversubscription.

A note on Virginia’s Green Development Zones:In a discussion on place-based, low-carbon industrial development efforts, we would be remiss if we did not also mention Virginia’s Green Development Zone (GDZ) program, also established in 2017. Communities can establish Green Development Zones to attract businesses that either produce low-carbon products or utilize energy-efficient buildings. Eligible entities within these zones may receive tax abatements or streamlined regulatory processes. However, since the main thrust of GDZs is more of a traditional tax incentive a la Enterprise Zones, and there is limited evidence of their uptake, we decided to focus our Virginia case study on BSRP.