Methodology
How this data is built
Every number on this site comes from a document we retrieved and kept. This page says which documents, how well we know where each campus is, how far we can honestly go in naming an owner, and what we have not collected. If any of it is wrong, tell us and we will fix it.
In one paragraph
We collect public records: federal environmental permits, county and state planning layers, assessor parcels, grid interconnection queues and the annual federal utility filing. We add OpenStreetMap building footprints and several public directories, labelled as such. Records describing the same site are merged into one campus. Every field keeps a pointer to the document it came from, and the site shows that pointer rather than asking you to trust us. 4,091 campuses, 201 documents.
How precisely we know where each one is
This is the most important table on the site. A wrong pin near a house is the one thing here that can genuinely damage somebody.
| Level | What it means | Campuses |
|---|---|---|
| parcel | Matched to an assessor parcel. The boundary is the parcel. | 669 |
| exact | A coordinate as filed with a government agency. | 350 |
| rooftop | A mapped building outline from OpenStreetMap. | 394 |
| street | An approximate point. Good for a neighbourhood, not a driveway. | 2,547 |
| area | County only. No pin, no address, no distance, anywhere on this site. | 131 |
A directory coordinate does not say how it was derived, so it is recorded at street level and labelled on every page and every distance. We never upgrade a pin because it looks precise.
Who owns it
The honest answer is that we usually cannot prove it, and the number below says so. A public benchmark of 41% is often quoted for this field. Ours is lower, because we count it differently.
| Basis | Campuses | Share | How a page writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traced by a document | 488 | 11.9% | Named as the owner, with the chain shown |
| One circumstantial signal | 438 | 10.7% | "Likely X", with the signal named |
| A directory says so | 703 | 17.2% | "Listed as X by that directory, unverified" |
| Nothing | 2,417 | 59.1% | "Owner not resolved" |
The 41% published by datacentersexposed.com is their share of facilities linked to a corporate parent, most of it their own attribution. The comparable figure here is the chain-backed one, and it is lower. The directory-attributed figure is not comparable to it, because a large part of ours is DCE's own attribution carried through.
Walking shell companies through state corporate registries is the work that moves the first row, and it is not done yet. When it is, this number changes and this page will say by how much.
What we collected, state by state
National sources cover every state. County filings, assessor parcels and planning layers are collected only where a government publishes them, which is why an empty county is an absence of records rather than an absence of data centers. 6 states are at the deepest level, 13 in the middle, 33 at national sources only.
| State | Campuses | Collected at | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Virginia | 609 | tier3 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · government GIS layers · assessor parcels · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Texas | 443 | tier2 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · assessor parcels · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| California | 269 | tier3 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · government GIS layers · assessor parcels · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Georgia | 237 | tier3 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · government GIS layers · assessor parcels · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Ohio | 189 | tier2 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · assessor parcels · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Pennsylvania | 177 | tier2 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · assessor parcels · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| New York | 158 | tier2 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · NYISO load queue · EIA-861 · TIGER · assessor parcels · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Arizona | 131 | tier2 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · assessor parcels · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Indiana | 127 | tier2 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · assessor parcels · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Illinois | 116 | tier2 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · assessor parcels · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Oregon | 89 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Iowa | 87 | tier2 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · assessor parcels · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Florida | 81 | tier3 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · government GIS layers · assessor parcels · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Missouri | 81 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| New Jersey | 81 | tier2 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · assessor parcels · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| North Carolina | 77 | tier2 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · assessor parcels · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Utah | 72 | tier3 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · government GIS layers · assessor parcels · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Colorado | 69 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Minnesota | 68 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Washington | 66 | tier3 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · government GIS layers · assessor parcels · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Nebraska | 62 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Nevada | 61 | tier2 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · assessor parcels · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Oklahoma | 58 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Michigan | 57 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Tennessee | 53 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Wisconsin | 50 | tier2 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · assessor parcels · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Massachusetts | 47 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Maryland | 45 | tier2 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · assessor parcels · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Kentucky | 36 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Alabama | 35 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Wyoming | 35 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| South Carolina | 30 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Kansas | 29 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| New Mexico | 29 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Louisiana | 28 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Mississippi | 26 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| West Virginia | 23 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| North Dakota | 22 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Arkansas | 20 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Connecticut | 17 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Idaho | 15 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Montana | 15 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| South Dakota | 13 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| New Hampshire | 12 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Maine | 11 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Delaware | 9 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Alaska | 6 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Vermont | 6 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Hawaii | 5 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Rhode Island | 4 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| District of Columbia | 3 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
| Puerto Rico | 2 | tier1 | EPA ECHO/FRS · OSM · EIA-861 · TIGER · directories (DataCentersExposed, Cleanview), labelled unverified |
What we do not claim
- We do not state an effect on property values. The evidence cuts both ways. One study found homes near data centers appreciated 42% against 41% for comparable homes; other work finds a discount for industrial adjacency inside a quarter mile. We report both and conclude neither.
- We do not say a data center caused a rate increase. Utility rate cases and data centers both appear on this site because both are public. The causal picture is genuinely contested, and sequence is not causation.
- We do not call a status something it is not. Proposed means proposed. It is never written as "coming" or "planned for", and withdrawn and rejected projects are kept visible rather than quietly deleted.
- We do not give a distance we cannot support. 131 campuses are known only to the county. They appear on their county page and shade the county on the map, and they never produce a pin or a mileage.
- We are not the government or the operator. We are an independent aggregator of public records, and not a consultant, a valuer, a law firm or an environmental assessor.
Licences
Facts are not owned by anyone, but access to some of these compilations comes with terms, and we keep to them.
- DataCentersExposed: ODbL 1.0 share-alike (contains OpenStreetMap data) · 2,402 records
- Cleanview (cleanview.co): public pages; redistribution governed by their data licence · 1,619 records
- Google first-party data center locations page · 40 records
- Meta first-party data center locations page (city-level) · 24 records
- Microsoft first-party Azure regions feed (metro-level) · 10 records
The bulk download on the data page is the subset we may redistribute, offered under the Open Database License because some of its sources are share-alike.
Found a mistake
Email corrections@datacentersnearme.org with the page and what is wrong. We answer within 48 hours. We will get something wrong about a real property eventually, and how fast we fix it is the whole point.