Data center development
Large U.S. Data Center Projects: Plans, Power and Delivery Phases
Large U.S. data center announcements describe different things: a land development, a generation plan, an expanded campus or a customer delivery phase. Compare the stated power measure and milestone before using a headline number or target year to schedule equipment installation.
Eight large project plans, with their boundaries intact
These examples were discovered through the US Data Center Map’s October 2026 pipeline page and checked against operator, developer and government publications. The selection illustrates different planning objects and delivery stages. It is not an exhaustive national inventory or a verified largest-project ranking.
Each card keeps a reported plan attached to its source date. A source checked today can still describe an earlier milestone; it does not certify current completed capacity, available space or installation access. Project references do not establish Leviathan involvement.
References: [D02]
Hyperion / Richland Parish Data Center
Meta’s July 2026 expansion announcement puts Hyperion’s Richland Parish campus at 5 GW of planned compute capacity. Construction follows a December 2024 groundbreaking. The release does not divide that campus figure into hall-level capacities or handover dates.
- Location
- Richland Parish, Louisiana
- Reported scale
- 5 GW compute capacity; expanded campus plan
- Delivery statement
- Hall-level delivery dates absent from the cited release
- Status evidence
- Expansion/construction reported by operator; groundbreaking in December 2024. Source date: 2026-07-13.
Planning question: Which hall and released handover milestone apply to the equipment delivery?
References: [S01]
Monarch Compute Campus
Nscale separates Monarch’s long-term 8 GW+ power potential from Phase 1’s planned 1.35 GW of AI computing capacity. Those figures describe different boundaries. Its project page targets early 2028 delivery; an August 2026 community update reports construction activity.
- Location
- Mason County, West Virginia
- Reported scale
- 8 GW+ potential power; 1.35 GW planned Phase 1 AI computing
- Delivery statement
- Phase 1 delivery targeted early 2028
- Status evidence
- Developer reported building computing capacity in August; current project page retains a future first-phase target. Source date: Dated 2026-08-25 status; undated project page checked 2026-10-14.
Planning question: Does the milestone cover onsite power, the Phase 1 computing package or customer access?
PORTS-Pike Technology Campus
SB Energy’s August announcement distinguishes at least 10 GW of new generation from 8 IT-GW of planned AI capacity. The compute plan comprises an initial 4.25 IT-GW and an option for 3.75 IT-GW more. DOE reported a March groundbreaking; phased capacity remains a future target.
- Location
- Pike County, Ohio, at and around DOE’s Portsmouth Site
- Reported scale
- At least 10 GW generation; 8 IT-GW planned compute, including an option
- Delivery statement
- Planned capacity expected in phases beginning in 2028
- Status evidence
- Government reports March 20 groundbreaking; August developer announcement describes a developing campus with future phased capacity. Source date: 2026-08-17 update; 2026-03-20 event reported 2026-03-24.
Planning question: Is your milestone tied to the initial allocation or the optional later capacity?
Project Matador
Fermi’s long-term Matador plan calls for an approximately 17 GW private grid, subject to customer agreements and commercial progress. Its August announcement identifies a smaller customer package: 222 MW of total facility power for TensorWave, with phased delivery and conditional expansion rights. A September update reports turbine arrivals.
- Location
- Carson County, Texas, near Amarillo
- Reported scale
- Approximately 17 GW private-grid plan; 222 MW total facility power for the first customer package
- Delivery statement
- First customer delivery phased from the second half of 2027; conditions remain
- Status evidence
- Developer reported construction in August and on-site turbine arrivals/operating preparation in September. Source date: 2026-09-28.
Planning question: Which contracted facility and delivery tranche—not the full campus target—is relevant?
Homer City Energy Campus
The current Homer City developer overview describes up to 4.4 GW of generation serving data centers and the grid. A 2025 OEM announcement used 4.5 GW; the reason for that difference is not established here. The developer reported vertical construction in May 2026. Neither generation figure identifies a tenant’s IT allocation.
- Location
- Indiana County, Pennsylvania, at the former Homer City Generating Station
- Reported scale
- Up to 4.4 GW generation in newer developer sources; older OEM figure 4.5 GW
- Delivery statement
- Tenant hall handover dates not established by these sources
- Status evidence
- Developer reported vertical construction and outstanding permit categories at a May meeting. Source date: 2026-05-07 meeting reported 2026-05-11.
Planning question: What accepted tenant power allocation and building handover exist beyond the power-plant milestone?
Project Jupiter
Oracle’s April update replaces Jupiter’s earlier power design with a plan for up to 2.45 GW of Bloom fuel-cell capacity. The operator reports ongoing construction. Separate New Mexico records describe a July denial of a specific pipeline route and a draft air-permit process; later dispositions are not established here.
- Location
- Doña Ana County, New Mexico
- Reported scale
- Up to 2.45 GW planned installed fuel-cell capacity
- Delivery statement
- Customer delivery targeted from the first half of 2027 by Oracle’s project index
- Status evidence
- Operator reports ongoing construction and a future delivery target; separate government records show specific pipeline/permitting dependencies. Source date: 2026-04-27 release; undated operator/docket pages checked 2026-10-14; state-land letter 2026-07-14, published 2026-07-15.
Planning question: Which current facility and regulatory releases support the relevant customer handover?
Caldwell Valley
Tract lists Caldwell Valley as a 2,973-acre development between Austin and San Antonio. Its project page states 4,000 MW capacity and a 2028 site-energization target. The page does not specify whether that number represents IT load, generation or contracted utility service, or allocate it to buildings.
- Location
- Texas, between Austin and San Antonio; cited page does not name a municipality
- Reported scale
- 4,000 MW developer-listed capacity; basis unstated
- Delivery statement
- Site energization listed for 2028; building handover not established
- Status evidence
- Developer labels the land owned and in development. Source date: Undated page checked 2026-10-14.
Planning question: Which parcel and documented service milestone support the proposed building schedule?
References: [S14]
Virginia Highlands Technology Park
Despite its name, Virginia Highlands Technology Park is in Nevada. Tract lists an 8,590-acre development with 11 parcels and 2,500 MW capacity. The undated page does not state that capacity’s measurement basis or supply parcel-level delivery dates.
- Location
- Storey County, Nevada
- Reported scale
- 2,500 MW developer-listed capacity; basis unstated
- Delivery statement
- No dated energization or customer-delivery milestone in the cited page
- Status evidence
- Developer labels the land owned and in development. Source date: Undated page checked 2026-10-14.
Planning question: Which of the 11 parcels is covered by the offered power and delivery evidence?
References: [S15]
Compare the measurement before comparing the number
A project’s stated scale is useful only with its boundary. A generation plan and an IT-capacity allocation answer different questions. Where a developer does not define the basis, keep that uncertainty visible rather than converting the number into a rack count or an inferred IT load.
Scroll the table horizontally on smaller screens.
| Published measure | Example in this comparison | Record still needed for an installation decision | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Generation plan | Homer City; PORTS-Pike; Jupiter’s fuel-cell plan | The relevant customer/facility allocation and its release milestone | [S10][S09][S16] |
| Operator-described IT or compute capacity | PORTS-Pike IT-GW; Hyperion compute; Monarch Phase 1 computing | The intended phase or hall, equipment configuration and accepted handover date | [S09][S01][S05] |
| Total facility power | Matador’s first TensorWave customer facility | The facility boundary, delivery tranche and conditions relevant to the purchased equipment | [S02] |
| Developer-listed capacity with an unstated basis | Caldwell Valley; Virginia Highlands | A written definition of the measure, parcel allocation and service milestone | [S14][S15] |
These are questions for the responsible project owners. No total, capacity ranking, efficiency calculation, rack count or current available-power figure is derived.
Ask for evidence tied to the phase you intend to enter
Before discussing an installation window, identify the phase, equipment configuration and work package. Ask each responsible owner for the current record that supports its milestone. A press release helps identify the question; the project record supplies the answer.
Scroll the table horizontally on smaller screens.
| Question | Evidence to request | Responsible owner | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which exact planning object does the announcement describe? | Campus/parcel/building/hall/phase identifier, owner and controlled site plan. | Developer/customer project owner | Planning analysis |
| What does the MW/GW value measure? | Written measurement basis and boundary: generation, utility service, facility power or IT/compute; gross/net and nameplate/contracted/commissioned if stated. | Qualified facility/electrical owner with operator/OEM evidence | Planning analysis |
| Which milestone is the published date attached to? | Dated phase schedule separating generation, utility connection, shell, facility release, customer access and equipment handover. | Developer/facility/customer schedule owners | Planning analysis |
| Which capacity is committed and which is optional? | Customer-authorized phase allocation and conditions; identify expansion options separately. | Customer commercial owner; qualified counsel for contractual meaning | Planning analysis |
| Which dependencies remain unresolved for this phase? | Current permit/land/utility/fuel/facility disposition references, named decision owners and last-checked dates. | Developer and authorized utility/regulatory/facility specialists | Planning analysis |
| What physical installation package is actually released? | Exact equipment configuration, approved receiving/placement plan, rack interfaces, point-to-point schedule, labeling scope and handoff criteria. | Customer/OEM/facility and agreed physical installation owners | Planning analysis |
| What event changes the mobilization decision? | A short exception log: missing document, affected phase, decision owner, needed-by date and accepted resolution reference. | Customer project manager and each technical disposition owner | Planning analysis |
Resolve the missing milestone before fixing the crew date
Consider a fictional project record, EX-PH02. The developer has issued a shell-handover date, and the customer has identified a receiving area. The facility-interface release for the intended hall has not been supplied. Record those facts separately rather than labeling the entire campus ready or not ready.
A completed shell does not establish the facility-interface decision. A missing interface record does not erase the shell milestone. Keep the open item attached to its owner and affected work package. Authorized facility and site specialists control electrical, energization and equipment-movement releases.
Scroll the table horizontally on smaller screens.
| Record | Known evidence | Open question | Decision owner | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shell handover | Dated building milestone | Does it include customer access to the intended hall? | Developer/facility owner | Planning analysis |
| Facility interface | Release reference not supplied | What accepted record covers the purchased configuration? | Authorized facility/electrical owner | Planning analysis |
| Physical installation | Work package still to be agreed | What receiving, mounting, cabling and handoff scope is released? | Customer/OEM and agreed physical installer | Planning analysis |
Common planning questions
Is this a ranking of the largest operating data centers?
No. It compares eight selected announced or developing U.S. projects. Their figures cover different objects and measures, and the sources do not establish comparable operating IT capacity for a national ranking.
Does a target year establish when equipment installation can start?
A target must be attached to a specific milestone and phase. Generation delivery, site energization, shell handover, customer access and equipment handover can be separate events. Request the current phase-specific record from its responsible owner.
What should I bring to an installation-scope discussion?
Bring the project phase, exact equipment configuration, available drawings, site constraints, target window and unresolved prerequisite records. Leviathan’s physical planning or installation scope must be agreed for the engagement; broader campus development and facility decisions remain with their authorized owners.
Primary sources
- [D02] US Data Center Map — October 2026 pipeline discoveryChecked 2026-10-14. Discovery only; primary publications support the project facts below.
- [S01] Meta — Richland Parish expansion, July 13, 2026Checked 2026-10-14. Campus expansion and construction report; no hall-level delivery schedule supplied.
- [S02] Fermi — TensorWave customer-facility announcement, August 10, 2026Checked 2026-10-14. Long-term campus plan and smaller conditional customer-facility package use different boundaries.
- [S03] Fermi — Matador gas-fleet operations update, September 28, 2026Checked 2026-10-14. Developer reports turbine arrivals and preparation for first power.
- [S05] Nscale — Monarch project overviewChecked 2026-10-14. Undated project page; distinguishes potential power from Phase 1 computing capacity and a delivery target.
- [S06] Nscale — Mason County construction and education update, August 25, 2026Checked 2026-10-14. Dated developer/community report of construction activity.
- [S08] U.S. DOE — Portsmouth groundbreaking report, March 24, 2026Checked 2026-10-14. Reports the March 20 groundbreaking; a land/development milestone.
- [S09] SB Energy — PORTS-Pike compute and generation plans, August 17, 2026Checked 2026-10-14. Generation and IT-GW are separately stated; initial and optional capacity are distinct.
- [S10] Homer City — current project overviewChecked 2026-10-14. Undated developer overview using up to 4.4 GW generation.
- [S11] Homer City — generation air-quality plan approval announcement, November 20, 2025Checked 2026-10-14. Published November 20, updated November 21, 2025; developer’s generation-plan approval announcement.
- [S12] Homer City — vertical-construction update, May 11, 2026Checked 2026-10-14. Published May 11, 2026, reporting a May 7 site meeting and vertical construction.
- [S13] GE Vernova — historical Homer City announcement, April 2, 2025Checked 2026-10-14. Historical OEM release using 4.5 GW generation; retained to show the dated source difference.
- [S14] Tract — Caldwell Valley project listingChecked 2026-10-14. Undated developer listing; capacity basis and building allocation are not supplied.
- [S15] Tract — Virginia Highlands project listingChecked 2026-10-14. Undated developer listing; parcel-level delivery dates and capacity basis are not supplied.
- [S16] Oracle — revised Jupiter fuel-cell plan, April 27, 2026Checked 2026-10-14. Revised power-system plan, not a reported IT-load figure.
- [S17] Oracle — data center project indexChecked 2026-10-14. Undated operator index; first-half-2027 Jupiter customer-delivery target.
- [S18] New Mexico State Land Office — specific Jupiter pipeline-route denial, July 15, 2026Checked 2026-10-14. Reports denial of a specified state-land pipeline route; later disposition is not established here.
- [S19] New Mexico Environment Department — YGI microgrid permit docketChecked 2026-10-14. Undated live docket includes draft permits and amended hearing records; no final legal disposition inferred.