Skip to the content
Data Centers Near Me

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.