Evidence, not talking points
Power, water, cooling, jobs, taxes and community outcomes—separated into what was announced, what was promised and what the record actually supports.
National structure, honest coverage
Indiana has the first statewide pass. Ohio, Washington, Wisconsin and Oregon have selected evidence only. Every untouched state displays “research not started,” with blank counts instead of false zeroes.
Explore U.S. coverage →The evidence chain
Headlines routinely mix projections, enforceable commitments and measured outcomes. We preserve those distinctions—and mark gaps instead of turning missing data into zero.
Who said it, when and about which project?
Is it written into an agreement or permit?
Has the relevant phase or deadline arrived?
What do operating, fiscal or regulatory records show?
Supported, partial, contradicted—or not verifiable.
Evidence desk
Meta is mostly not yet due. AWS has positive company-reported delivery awaiting independent reconciliation. Hammond’s proposed expansion expired while its existing facility remains open.
Quincy, Washington
The EPA documents a closed-loop utility operating since 2021 and estimates 138 million gallons of potable-water savings each year. Microsoft’s launch account cited 380 million. The numbers measure different claims and should not be silently merged.
Open the evidence ledger →The city reports approximately $10 million in 2024 community-development charges, collected in 2025. “Payroll equivalent” is a comparison—not payroll.
Review the distinction → Company-reported deliveryThe $11B and 1,000-job baselines now appear met or exceeded in AWS-linked reporting. County compliance evidence is the next check.
Compare promise to report → Not yet dueA 1 GW design, ~$300 operating jobs and per-phase city payments are prospective. No operating outcome is graded as failure.
See what becomes testable → Agreement expiredThe proposed expansion expired after milestones were unmet. The contemplated payments were never shown due; existing DX-1 remains open.
Read the clause-level record →Signature dataset
“Closed loop” does not necessarily mean zero water consumption. A facility may recirculate cooling water and still lose water through evaporation. Site-specific evidence matters.
| Project | Cooling architecture | Water source | What is quantified | Evidence state | Primary source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microsoft QuincyQuincy, Washington | Evaporative cooling with a city-operated, closed-loop blowdown treatment and recirculation systemGovernment-documented operation | Recycled cooling water; canal water for make-up; about 5% potable groundwater make-up annuallyGovernment-documented mix | EPA estimate: 138M gal/year potable-water savings; 260M gal/year canal make-upEstimated savings + reported flow; not total consumption | Supported as delivered | US EPA case study |
| Microsoft Mount PleasantMount Pleasant, Wisconsin | Company says site will pilot closed-loop chip-level liquid cooling with no water evaporation for coolingCompany-announced design | Initial system fill; other site water uses not quantified in reviewed disclosureCompany design description | Microsoft identified a 2026 pilot; the same disclosure says new sites begin online in late 2027Milestones announced; no operating result verified | Announced | Microsoft design disclosure |
| Google The DallesThe Dalles, Oregon | Not established in the reviewed primary sourceNot verifiable | Site-specific cooling source not established; separate aquifer storage project transferred to cityCooling source not verifiable | Google says the city received 100M+ gallons/year of additional stored-water capacityCompany-reported community capacity; not data-center consumption | Mixed evidence | Google project announcement |
| AWS New CarlisleSt. Joseph County, Indiana | AWS says the site uses outside air for cooling about 98% of the yearCompany operating/design claim; multi-site cluster | Not disclosed in the reviewed sourceNot verifiable | Approximately 18M gal/year at full buildoutCompany projection; not permitted or measured consumption | Announced projection | AWS economic-development account |
| Google Fort WayneFort Wayne, Indiana | Not disclosed in the reviewed utility orderNot verifiable | Not disclosed in the reviewed utility orderNot verifiable | No water metric in the reviewed order; it confirms the site was energized in November 2024Water quantity not verifiable | Not verifiable | Indiana IURC order 46276 |
| Meta JeffersonvilleJeffersonville, Indiana | Not established in the reviewed project announcementNot verifiable | Not established in the reviewed project announcementNot verifiable | No permitted or measured water quantity established in the reviewed sourceNot verifiable | Not verifiable | Meta project announcement |
Coverage is intentionally small. “Not verifiable” means the reviewed primary source did not establish the field; it is not a finding of zero use or noncompliance. Read the field definitions and full notes →
Evidence briefs
The answer often changes by tariff, project phase and who bears the cost. These briefs show what current public evidence can—and cannot—establish.
Current rate design can allocate present costs appropriately while future system expansion still raises broader bills.
See the evidence → Measured carefullyConstruction workers, job-years, permanent employees and contractors are four different quantities.
See the evidence → Follow the cashGross tax revenue, abatements, special charges and infrastructure debt belong in separate ledgers.
See the evidence →