us datacenter geographic distribution
on this page
overview
datacenter development spans all 50 us states with significant geographic concentration in specific regions driven by power availability, fiber infrastructure, tax incentives, and climate considerations. this analysis examines the complete state-level distribution of 604 projects representing $1.1+ trillion in disclosed investment and 131.7 gw of power capacity.
key findings
- concentration: top 10 states account for $813.6b investment (73.3% of disclosed total)
- power leaders: pennsylvania (16.9 gw), texas (11.0 gw), virginia (10.2 gw) dominate capacity
- investment leaders: new mexico ($167.2b project jupiter), kansas ($128.8b), pennsylvania ($125.0b)
- emerging hubs: pennsylvania, texas, utah seeing explosive growth
- traditional strength: northern virginia remains dominant with 40 projects
- geographic diversity: all 50 states have at least one datacenter project
navigation
- state rankings - detailed top 10 analysis by investment, power, and project count
- main datacenter database - complete project inventory
complete state analysis
comprehensive table of all 50 states showing project count, investment, power capacity, and status breakdown.
| State | Projects | Investment (B) | Power (MW) | Power (GW) | Operational | Under Construction | Planned | Other | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Mexico | 6 | $167,200 | $167.2 | 1,300 | 1.30 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Kansas | 9 | $128,843 | $128.8 | 1,830 | 1.83 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 |
| Pennsylvania | 12 | $125,050 | $125.0 | 16,893 | 16.89 | 0 | 2 | 10 | 0 |
| Georgia | 25 | $79,800 | $79.8 | 5,010 | 5.01 | 9 | 5 | 10 | 1 |
| Texas | 27 | $78,208 | $78.2 | 10,978 | 10.98 | 5 | 16 | 5 | 1 |
| Arizona | 22 | $63,428 | $63.4 | 8,709 | 8.71 | 6 | 9 | 5 | 2 |
| Virginia | 40 | $56,600 | $56.6 | 10,244 | 10.24 | 15 | 9 | 11 | 5 |
| North Carolina | 15 | $49,255 | $49.3 | 796 | 0.80 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| Ohio | 10 | $33,202 | $33.2 | 4,214 | 4.21 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 1 |
| Mississippi | 10 | $32,051 | $32.1 | 1,282 | 1.28 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Indiana | 12 | $29,600 | $29.6 | 2,450 | 2.45 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Iowa | 12 | $22,413 | $22.4 | 1,513 | 1.51 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 1 |
| Oklahoma | 9 | $21,430 | $21.4 | 310 | 0.31 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 |
| Oregon | 15 | $19,920 | $19.9 | 1,358 | 1.36 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 6 |
| Wisconsin | 10 | $19,137 | $19.1 | 5,800 | 5.80 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 2 |
| Alabama | 11 | $18,686 | $18.7 | 1,245 | 1.25 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 0 |
| South Dakota | 6 | $16,000 | $16.0 | 980 | 0.98 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| Illinois | 28 | $14,607 | $14.6 | 4,726 | 4.73 | 14 | 6 | 8 | 0 |
| Utah | 12 | $13,200 | $13.2 | 9,678 | 9.68 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 2 |
| Louisiana | 10 | $12,500 | $12.5 | 3,025 | 3.02 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| South Carolina | 9 | $12,405 | $12.4 | 70 | 0.07 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 5 |
| Delaware | 6 | $10,000 | $10.0 | 1,216 | 1.22 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Nevada | 20 | $9,400 | $9.4 | 5,834 | 5.83 | 13 | 4 | 3 | 0 |
| Arkansas | 7 | $9,008 | $9.0 | 1,000 | 1.00 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 0 |
| New York | 13 | $7,880 | $7.9 | 1,322 | 1.32 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Kentucky | 8 | $7,160 | $7.2 | 3,214 | 3.21 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Washington | 18 | $7,160 | $7.2 | 358 | 0.36 | 12 | 2 | 4 | 0 |
| Minnesota | 14 | $6,495 | $6.5 | 332 | 0.33 | 0 | 3 | 9 | 2 |
| Maryland | 8 | $5,975 | $6.0 | 2,994 | 2.99 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 0 |
| North Dakota | 9 | $5,500 | $5.5 | 2,276 | 2.28 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| Maine | 6 | $5,300 | $5.3 | 60 | 0.06 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| West Virginia | 8 | $5,000 | $5.0 | 7,456 | 7.46 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 0 |
| Michigan | 13 | $4,345 | $4.3 | 693 | 0.69 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 5 |
| Tennessee | 10 | $4,239 | $4.2 | 1,030 | 1.03 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Wyoming | 6 | $4,000 | $4.0 | 4,802 | 4.80 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Missouri | 8 | $3,793 | $3.8 | 1,263 | 1.26 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Nebraska | 10 | $3,700 | $3.7 | 34 | 0.03 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Massachusetts | 12 | $3,137 | $3.1 | 224 | 0.22 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Colorado | 8 | $2,000 | $2.0 | 389 | 0.39 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| Idaho | 7 | $2,000 | $2.0 | 242 | 0.24 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 0 |
| Montana | 8 | $1,750 | $1.8 | 1,802 | 1.80 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| New Jersey | 22 | $1,265 | $1.3 | 573 | 0.57 | 20 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Connecticut | 9 | $561 | $0.6 | 331 | 0.33 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 2 |
| Florida | 12 | $210 | $0.2 | 248 | 0.25 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Hawaii | 5 | $30 | $0.0 | 7 | 0.01 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| New Hampshire | 5 | $2 | $0.0 | 0 | 0.00 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Alaska | 5 | $0 | $0.0 | 122 | 0.12 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| California | 25 | $0 | $0.0 | 1,493 | 1.49 | 14 | 4 | 6 | 1 |
| Rhode Island | 8 | $0 | $0.0 | 5 | 0.01 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Vermont | 4 | $0 | $0.0 | 2 | 0.00 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| TOTAL | 604 | $1,123,445 | $1123.4 | 131,732 | 131.7 | 264 | 127 | 155 | 58 |
top 10 states by investment
the top 10 states by disclosed investment account for 73.3% of the total $1.1+ trillion. new mexico leads with $167.2b from project jupiter alone.
| Rank | State | Investment | Projects | Power (GW) | Key Projects |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | New Mexico | $167.2B | 6 | 1.3 | Project Jupiter (Stargate Santa Teresa Campus) ($165.0b, BorderPlex Digital Assets); Meta Los Lunas Data Center Campus ($2.2b, Meta Platforms (Facebook)) |
| 2 | Kansas | $128.8B | 9 | 1.8 | Project Kestrel ($100.0b, Hunt Midwest); Red Wolf DCD Properties Data Center Campus ($12.6b, Red Wolf DCD Properties LLC); Project Mica (Google AI Campus) ($10.0b, Google LLC) |
| 3 | Pennsylvania | $125.0B | 12 | 16.9 | Blackstone-QTS Northeastern Pennsylvania Data Centers ($25.0b, Blackstone); Google PJM Data Center Infrastructure ($25.0b, Google); Amazon Web Services AI Innovation Campuses ($20.0b, Amazon Web Services) |
| 4 | Georgia | $79.8B | 25 | 5.0 | Project Bunkhouse ($19.0b, Digital Realty); Project Sail ($17.0b, Atlas Development LLC); T5 Data Centers - Georgia Campus ($16.0b, T5 Data Centers) |
| 5 | Texas | $78.2B | 27 | 11.0 | Stargate Project - Abilene Campus (Oracle/Crusoe) ($40.0b, OpenAI); Vantage Data Centers - Frontier Campus ($25.0b, Vantage Data Centers); ECP & KKR - Bosque County Campus ($4.0b, Energy Capital Partners) |
| 6 | Arizona | $63.4B | 22 | 8.7 | Vermaland La Osa Data Center Park ($33.0b, Vermaland LLC); Tract Buckeye Data Center Park ($20.0b, Tract); Amazon AWS Project Blue (Tucson) ($3.6b, Amazon Web Services) |
| 7 | Virginia | $56.6B | 40 | 10.2 | Prince William Digital Gateway ($24.7b, QTS Realty Trust); EdgeCore Louisa County Campus ($17.0b, EdgeCore Digital Infrastructure); AWS Louisa County Campus 1 ($11.0b, Amazon Web Services) |
| 8 | North Carolina | $49.3B | 15 | 0.8 | Tract Mooresville Technology Park ($30.0b, Tract); Amazon Web Services (AWS) Richmond County Campus ($10.0b, Amazon Web Services); Apple Maiden Data Center ($5.0b, Apple) |
| 9 | Ohio | $33.2B | 10 | 4.2 | AWS US East (Ohio) Region ($10.3b, Amazon Web Services); Cologix Johnstown Campus ($7.0b, Cologix); Google Central Ohio Campuses ($6.7b, Google) |
| 10 | Mississippi | $32.1B | 10 | 1.3 | AWS Madison County Data Center Campus ($16.0b, Amazon Web Services); Compass Datacenters Meridian Campus ($10.0b, Compass Datacenters); AVAIO Digital Taurus Data Center Hub ($6.0b, AVAIO Digital Partners) |
top 10 states by power capacity
pennsylvania leads power capacity with 16.9 gw, followed by texas (11.0 gw) and virginia (10.2 gw). power leadership reflects grid availability and energy cost advantages.
| Rank | State | Power | Projects | Investment ($B) | Largest Power Project |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pennsylvania | 16.9 GW | 12 | $125.0 | Homer City Energy Campus (4,500 MW, Homer City Redevelopment) |
| 2 | Texas | 11.0 GW | 27 | $78.2 | Data City Texas (5,000 MW, Energy Abundance Development Corp) |
| 3 | Virginia | 10.2 GW | 40 | $56.6 | Prince William Digital Gateway (2,700 MW, QTS Realty Trust) |
| 4 | Utah | 9.7 GW | 12 | $13.2 | Delta Gigasite / Fibernet MercuryDelta (4,000 MW, Fibernet MercuryDelta LLC) |
| 5 | Arizona | 8.7 GW | 22 | $63.4 | Vermaland La Osa Data Center Park (3,000 MW, Vermaland LLC) |
| 6 | West Virginia | 7.5 GW | 8 | $5.0 | Adams Fork Data Center Energy Campus - Harless Site (2,400 MW, TransGas Development Systems LLC) |
| 7 | Nevada | 5.8 GW | 20 | $9.4 | Tract Silver Springs Data Center Park (1,600 MW, Tract) |
| 8 | Wisconsin | 5.8 GW | 10 | $19.1 | Cloverleaf Infrastructure Data Center Campus - Port Washington (3,500 MW, Cloverleaf Infrastructure) |
| 9 | Georgia | 5.0 GW | 25 | $79.8 | Project Bunkhouse (1,830 MW, Digital Realty) |
| 10 | Wyoming | 4.8 GW | 6 | $4.0 | Crusoe/Tallgrass AI Data Center (1,800 MW, Crusoe Energy Systems) |
top 10 states by project count
virginia leads with 40 projects, reflecting data center alley’s dominance in northern virginia. illinois (28) and texas (27) follow.
| Rank | State | Projects | Investment (M) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Virginia | 40 | $56.6 | 10.2 | $1,415 |
| 2 | Illinois | 28 | $14.6 | 4.7 | $522 |
| 3 | Texas | 27 | $78.2 | 11.0 | $2,897 |
| 4 | California | 25 | $0.0 | 1.5 | $0 |
| 5 | Georgia | 25 | $79.8 | 5.0 | $3,192 |
| 6 | Arizona | 22 | $63.4 | 8.7 | $2,883 |
| 7 | New Jersey | 22 | $1.3 | 0.6 | $58 |
| 8 | Nevada | 20 | $9.4 | 5.8 | $470 |
| 9 | Washington | 18 | $7.2 | 0.4 | $398 |
| 10 | North Carolina | 15 | $49.3 | 0.8 | $3,284 |
geographic trends analysis
concentration patterns
investment concentration:
- top 3 states (new mexico, kansas, pennsylvania): $421.0b (37.5%)
- top 10 states: $823.8b (73.3%)
- bottom 40 states: $299.6b (26.7%)
power concentration:
- top 3 states (pennsylvania, texas, virginia): 38.1 gw (28.9%)
- top 10 states: 85.4 gw (64.8%)
- bottom 40 states: 46.3 gw (35.2%)
project distribution:
- top 3 states (virginia, illinois, texas): 95 projects (15.7%)
- top 10 states: 199 projects (32.9%)
- bottom 40 states: 405 projects (67.1%)
state selection factors
power availability & cost:
- pennsylvania: marcellus shale natural gas advantage
- texas: deregulated market, cheap power, 186 gw interconnection queue
- virginia: dominion energy 40 gw datacenter pipeline commitment
- utah: municipal power advantages, two competing 4 gw projects
tax incentives:
- virginia: $928m annual tax exemptions (largest in us)
- georgia: $296m sales tax exemptions
- north carolina: $1.2b incentive packages for individual projects
- ohio: $1.5b in datacenter incentives 2024-2025
fiber infrastructure:
- virginia: data center alley fiber density
- new york: carrier-neutral metro facilities
- california: silicon valley/bay area connectivity
- texas: diverse carrier presence
climate considerations:
- northern states: free cooling advantage (reduced cooling costs)
- arid regions: water availability challenges
- renewable energy: wind (texas, iowa), solar (arizona, california)
emerging vs traditional hubs
traditional hubs (established 2000-2015):
- northern virginia: 40 projects, $56.6b, 10.2 gw
- silicon valley: 25 projects (california total)
- chicago: 28 projects (illinois total)
- new york metro: 13 projects
emerging hubs (rapid growth 2020-2025):
- pennsylvania: 12 projects, $125.0b, 16.9 gw (marcellus shale advantage)
- texas: 27 projects, $78.2b, 11.0 gw (deregulated market)
- utah: 12 projects, $13.2b, 9.7 gw (two 4gw projects)
- arizona: 22 projects, $63.4b, 8.7 gw (tax incentives, solar)
mega-project states (single large projects):
- new mexico: $167.2b (project jupiter)
- kansas: $128.8b (multiple gigawatt projects)
- mississippi: $32.1b (amazon project)
regional patterns
south central (texas, oklahoma, kansas, arkansas):
- 55 projects, $237.5b, 14.5 gw
- driven by: deregulated power, natural gas, land availability
- key players: meta, oracle, google, aws
mid-atlantic (pennsylvania, virginia, maryland, delaware):
- 66 projects, $197.6b, 31.1 gw
- driven by: data center alley legacy, marcellus shale, fiber density
- key players: aws, microsoft, google, meta
southeast (georgia, north carolina, south carolina, alabama):
- 60 projects, $160.1b, 7.1 gw
- driven by: tax incentives, utility partnerships, lower costs
- key players: google, meta, microsoft, qts
west (utah, arizona, nevada, oregon):
- 69 projects, $105.9b, 25.6 gw
- driven by: renewable energy, municipal power, tax incentives
- key players: meta, google, switch, edgecore
future outlook
projected geographic shifts (2025-2030)
power-constrained regions:
- northern virginia: interconnection delays, utility capacity limits
- california: grid reliability concerns, high costs
- new york: space constraints, high real estate costs
growth regions:
- pennsylvania: marcellus shale buildout continues
- texas: deregulated market attracts hyperscalers
- midwest: low costs, renewable energy, cooling advantages
- mountain west: land availability, renewable energy
infrastructure requirements
grid capacity expansion: 131.7 gw existing → 250-300+ gw by 2030 fiber buildout: rural areas, redundant paths, international connectivity water resources: liquid cooling requires 1-2 million gallons per mw-year land availability: 100-1000 acre campuses for gigawatt projects
geographic distribution reflects complex interplay of power availability, fiber infrastructure, tax incentives, climate, land costs, and regulatory environment. success in emerging hubs requires addressing utility capacity constraints, permitting processes, and community concerns while maintaining competitive economics.