us datacenter geographic distribution

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

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 ( $M)</th> <th>Investment ($ B)	Power (MW)	Power (GW)	Operational	Under Construction	Planned	Other
New Mexico	6	$167,200</td> <td>$ 167.2	1,300	1.30	2	1	1	2
Kansas	9	$128,843</td> <td>$ 128.8	1,830	1.83	3	1	4	1
Pennsylvania	12	$125,050</td> <td>$ 125.0	16,893	16.89	0	2	10	0
Georgia	25	$79,800</td> <td>$ 79.8	5,010	5.01	9	5	10	1
Texas	27	$78,208</td> <td>$ 78.2	10,978	10.98	5	16	5	1
Arizona	22	$63,428</td> <td>$ 63.4	8,709	8.71	6	9	5	2
Virginia	40	$56,600</td> <td>$ 56.6	10,244	10.24	15	9	11	5
North Carolina	15	$49,255</td> <td>$ 49.3	796	0.80	7	3	2	3
Ohio	10	$33,202</td> <td>$ 33.2	4,214	4.21	1	5	3	1
Mississippi	10	$32,051</td> <td>$ 32.1	1,282	1.28	6	4	0	0
Indiana	12	$29,600</td> <td>$ 29.6	2,450	2.45	2	3	4	3
Iowa	12	$22,413</td> <td>$ 22.4	1,513	1.51	2	4	5	1
Oklahoma	9	$21,430</td> <td>$ 21.4	310	0.31	2	3	3	1
Oregon	15	$19,920</td> <td>$ 19.9	1,358	1.36	5	2	2	6
Wisconsin	10	$19,137</td> <td>$ 19.1	5,800	5.80	1	1	6	2
Alabama	11	$18,686</td> <td>$ 18.7	1,245	1.25	4	2	5	0
South Dakota	6	$16,000</td> <td>$ 16.0	980	0.98	3	0	3	0
Illinois	28	$14,607</td> <td>$ 14.6	4,726	4.73	14	6	8	0
Utah	12	$13,200</td> <td>$ 13.2	9,678	9.68	4	1	5	2
Louisiana	10	$12,500</td> <td>$ 12.5	3,025	3.02	8	2	0	0
South Carolina	9	$12,405</td> <td>$ 12.4	70	0.07	0	3	1	5
Delaware	6	$10,000</td> <td>$ 10.0	1,216	1.22	5	0	1	0
Nevada	20	$9,400</td> <td>$ 9.4	5,834	5.83	13	4	3	0
Arkansas	7	$9,008</td> <td>$ 9.0	1,000	1.00	2	1	4	0
New York	13	$7,880</td> <td>$ 7.9	1,322	1.32	7	3	1	2
Kentucky	8	$7,160</td> <td>$ 7.2	3,214	3.21	5	1	2	0
Washington	18	$7,160</td> <td>$ 7.2	358	0.36	12	2	4	0
Minnesota	14	$6,495</td> <td>$ 6.5	332	0.33	0	3	9	2
Maryland	8	$5,975</td> <td>$ 6.0	2,994	2.99	0	3	5	0
North Dakota	9	$5,500</td> <td>$ 5.5	2,276	2.28	5	3	1	0
Maine	6	$5,300</td> <td>$ 5.3	60	0.06	3	1	0	2
West Virginia	8	$5,000</td> <td>$ 5.0	7,456	7.46	3	1	4	0
Michigan	13	$4,345</td> <td>$ 4.3	693	0.69	5	0	3	5
Tennessee	10	$4,239</td> <td>$ 4.2	1,030	1.03	8	2	0	0
Wyoming	6	$4,000</td> <td>$ 4.0	4,802	4.80	1	3	1	1
Missouri	8	$3,793</td> <td>$ 3.8	1,263	1.26	3	2	1	2
Nebraska	10	$3,700</td> <td>$ 3.7	34	0.03	8	1	1	0
Massachusetts	12	$3,137</td> <td>$ 3.1	224	0.22	10	0	1	1
Colorado	8	$2,000</td> <td>$ 2.0	389	0.39	4	3	0	1
Idaho	7	$2,000</td> <td>$ 2.0	242	0.24	2	1	4	0
Montana	8	$1,750</td> <td>$ 1.8	1,802	1.80	5	0	2	1
New Jersey	22	$1,265</td> <td>$ 1.3	573	0.57	20	2	0	0
Connecticut	9	$561</td> <td>$ 0.6	331	0.33	3	0	4	2
Florida	12	$210</td> <td>$ 0.2	248	0.25	4	3	3	2
Hawaii	5	$30</td> <td>$ 0.0	7	0.01	4	1	0	0
New Hampshire	5	$2</td> <td>$ 0.0	0	0.00	5	0	0	0
Alaska	5	$0</td> <td>$ 0.0	122	0.12	2	1	2	0
California	25	$0</td> <td>$ 0.0	1,493	1.49	14	4	6	1
Rhode Island	8	$0</td> <td>$ 0.0	5	0.01	8	0	0	0
Vermont	4	$0</td> <td>$ 0.0	2	0.00	4	0	0	0
TOTAL	604	$1,123,445</td> <td>$ 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 ( $B)</th> <th>Power (GW)</th> <th>Avg Investment/Project ($ M)
1	Virginia	40	$56.6</td> <td>10.2</td> <td>$ 1,415
2	Illinois	28	$14.6</td> <td>4.7</td> <td>$ 522
3	Texas	27	$78.2</td> <td>11.0</td> <td>$ 2,897
4	California	25	$0.0</td> <td>1.5</td> <td>$ 0
5	Georgia	25	$79.8</td> <td>5.0</td> <td>$ 3,192
6	Arizona	22	$63.4</td> <td>8.7</td> <td>$ 2,883
7	New Jersey	22	$1.3</td> <td>0.6</td> <td>$ 58
8	Nevada	20	$9.4</td> <td>5.8</td> <td>$ 470
9	Washington	18	$7.2</td> <td>0.4</td> <td>$ 398
10	North Carolina	15	$49.3</td> <td>0.8</td> <td>$ 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.