Marlowe’s dossiers
Longer readings of real infrastructure proposals, public records, and the questions they leave behind.
Start with the lead file, or choose a subject below. Each dossier keeps its source trail beside Marlowe’s reading.
Featured article · Analysis, September 25, 2026
How Project Jupiter’s discounted loans, off-balance-sheet structures and guarantees could turn an AI infrastructure problem into a credit problem.
The collection
26 investigations and related records · latest substantive updates first
Analysis · September 25, 2026 · Original article
How Project Jupiter’s discounted loans, off-balance-sheet structures and guarantees could turn an AI infrastructure problem into a credit problem.
Original publication: September 25, 2026
Read the article ↗Pima County / Tucson · land and disclosure · proposed / approval and land-use · Updated
One city vote did not settle Project Blue; the land and electric agreements followed separate tracks.
Original publication: Date not retained · Last substantive update: September 21, 2026
What changed: The September 21 source review adds the county’s phase and site description and its stated disclosure limit. These are plans and disclosure context, not a measured operating campus.
Read the investigation ↗Investigation & analysis · September 12, 2026 · Original investigation
An investigation into money, institutions, and the people shaping AI policy before government writes the rules.
Original publication: September 12, 2026
Read the investigation ↗Box Elder County, Utah · power and public infrastructure · Original investigation
Stratos is sold as a new energy-and-compute economy, while the county says the plan is not final and full construction is not approved.
Original publication: Date not retained
Open the dossier →Marion County, South Carolina · disclosure and utility power · Original investigation
Project Liberty withdrew after community opposition and utility power-timing problems, leaving a quiet deal and an incomplete cost trail to examine.
Original publication: Date not retained
Open the dossier →Little Rock, Arkansas · wetlands and planned utilities · Original investigation
A federal notice, a city agreement, and a proposed exception from a permitting pause put the physical and civic footprint of Project Boar on paper.
Original publication: Date not retained
Open the dossier →Bessemer, Alabama · land, secrecy, and public terms · Original investigation
Project Marvel keeps growing in the public record, but the operator, customer, tax treatment, and full terms remain separate questions.
Original publication: Date not retained
Open the dossier →Franklin Township, Indiana · rezoning and disclosure · Original investigation
Deep Meadow moved through rezoning while key details stayed private; later public records identified Google before the proposal was withdrawn.
Original publication: Date not retained
Open the dossier →Palm Beach County, Florida · zoning and challenge · Original investigation
Project Tango’s expansion request was denied and then challenged. The land-use record is real; a built campus or public subsidy is not established here.
Original publication: Date not retained
Open the dossier →Greensburg, Indiana · tax treatment and proposed capacity · Original investigation
Jumping Bison has an approved public incentive before the record shows a clear power, water, or operating-facility trail.
Original publication: Date not retained
Open the dossier →Prince George’s County, Maryland · permitting pause · Original investigation
Brightseat names an applicant and a proposed technology park, then runs into a county pause that leaves the operator, workload, and public cost unsettled.
Original publication: Date not retained
Open the dossier →Santa Teresa, New Mexico · financing, land, and power · Original investigation
Project Jupiter separates county approval, reported financing scale, the permit fight, and a changing power plan instead of treating them as one number.
Original publication: Date not retained
Open the dossier →Carroll County, Georgia · withdrawal and public process · Original investigation
Atlas Development withdrew Project Bus after annexation and community opposition concerns, but the basic accounting questions remain in the record.
Original publication: Date not retained
Open the dossier →College Station, Texas · land and projected revenue · Original investigation
College Station rejected Project Aggie’s proposed contract. The documented vote is clear; projected revenue never became a receipt.
Original publication: Date not retained
Open the dossier →DeForest, Wisconsin · land, services, and power · Original investigation
DeForest left the queue after annexation and urban-service questions, without leaving a clean public ledger for the underlying proposal.
Original publication: Date not retained
Open the dossier →Walnut Cove, North Carolina · rezoning and utility costs · Original investigation
Project Delta pairs developer promises about energy costs and tax revenue with a rezoning that was voided and later reapplied for.
Original publication: Date not retained
Open the dossier →Lancaster, Texas · zoning and public terms · Original investigation
Lancaster approved zoning for seven planned data centers, but the reviewed record does not identify an operator, utility deal, or public-money trail.
Original publication: Date not retained
Open the dossier →Prince William County, Virginia · rezoning and water · Original investigation
A court decision stopped Prince William Digital Gateway, but it did not settle the regional water system or the project-specific terms.
Original publication: Date not retained
Open the dossier →Beaver Dam, Wisconsin · secrecy, power, and tax policy · Original investigation
The campus is under construction, but private entities, confidentiality agreements, utility negotiations, and tax policy obscure what was visible before commitments hardened.
Original publication: Date not retained
Open the dossier →Yellowstone County, Montana · money, power, and secrecy · Original investigation
Quantica’s paper trail offers a tax-impact projection, a reported labor agreement, and a large power plan without showing what the public approved or will pay.
Original publication: Date not retained
Open the dossier →Oldham County, Kentucky · power and land · Original investigation
Project Lincoln changed sites and scale faster than the public record could explain the bargain, leaving infrastructure cost and consumption questions open.
Original publication: Date not retained
Open the dossier →Leavenworth County, Kansas · power, land, and permits · Original investigation
Bluestem tests how a large data-center pitch becomes public policy before it becomes a permitted facility.
Original publication: Date not retained
Open the dossier →El Paso, Texas · money, water, and power · Original investigation
Seafox has published agreements, water-allocation ceilings, and a proposed power bridge; the remaining work is separating commitments from projections.
Original publication: Date not retained
Open the dossier →Memphis, Tennessee · secrecy and operating power · Original investigation
Memphis Colossus is operating, which makes reporting about NDAs, shell-company layers, and alleged power violations more immediate to document.
Original publication: Date not retained
Open the dossier →Columbia County, Georgia · money and power · Original investigation
Pumpkin’s county records connect a proposed campus to a private energy-cost promise that still needs a contract and bill trail.
Original publication: Date not retained
Open the dossier →Public records and permitting fights · multiple locations · Original investigation
Brookwood, an EPA proposal, and Leon County’s pause show how records, permitting, electricity, water, and public cost become one control question.
Original publication: Date not retained
Open the dossier →Featured case · Project Blue, Arizona
Tucson ended negotiations over bringing Project Blue into the city. Months later, Pima County recorded a completed land sale. The two decisions belonged to different governments.
Source review:
Land · Public money · Electric service
One city vote did not settle the project. The land deal and electricity agreement were handled elsewhere. That is the question worth following: who has the authority, who gets paid, and how much of the deal can the public actually see?
Arizona Luminaria reported that Tucson’s council voted on August 6, 2025 to end negotiations and remove the annexation and development agreement from its agenda. Its reporting described public anger over transparency and debate about nondisclosure agreements. Beale Infrastructure said it was disappointed and would share future plans.
Pima County’s April 2026 update, pages 1–2, says its board approved zoning and a land agreement in June 2025. The sale closed on December 24. The site is in unincorporated Pima County. Tucson’s decision and the county’s transaction concern separate approvals.
AZPM reported that Arizona water officials approved two commercial wells tied to Project Blue under three existing groundwater rights totaling 96.5 acre-feet per year. The Department of Water Resources told AZPM that the company must report its water use annually; the article says each well was described as having 600 gallons-per-minute pumping capacity. That establishes a permitted supply path, not measured use, wastewater discharge, or proof of the developer's estimate of 15,000–20,000 gallons per day once fully operational.
TEP's own agreement summary says the deal caps service at up to 286 MW and includes minimum monthly bills, financial security, and a termination fee if the project does not meet its obligations. Those are contract protections described by the utility, not evidence that the campus is energized or that the safeguards have been tested in practice.
The Arizona Corporation Commission’s account records a 4–1 vote approving a special service agreement in December 2025. It says the agreement protects existing TEP customers through measures including termination fees and minimum payments. It also attributes to TEP a commitment that the data center would fund new generation needed beyond the initial 286 MW.
Those are the regulator’s stated protections. Testing their effect means following the agreement, construction costs and later bills.
TEP's June 2026 Form 10-Q says FERC approval of an amended transmission-and-switchyard construction agreement triggered a $20 million advance payment from the customer. TEP says the agreement requires the customer to pre-fund project costs and that another $24 million is expected when remaining conditions are complete. That is a reported customer advance and an expected future payment—not public spending, a completed campus, or proof that minimum bills and termination protections have been tested.
Project Blue is a useful stress test for public oversight because the decisions arrived in pieces: Tucson ended negotiations, Pima County closed a land sale, and the state regulator approved utility terms. The records establish those separate actions. They do not establish a coordinated plan, name the future operator or customer, or disclose what the campus will actually run.
That is the sharper issue than whether one meeting looked secretive. When land, power and compute are split across different institutions, each decision can look narrow while the public bargain stays hard to see. That is an interpretation of the paper trail, not proof of hidden coordination.
Research chronology
Original investigation · Read the original
Update — · proposed / approval and land-use
Pima County describes a 290-acre proposed campus with four buildings in the first phase and as many as ten across the property. Its Project Blue FAQ says it publishes what can be released under the developer nondisclosure agreement. The accepted September 21 dossier brings those records into the Project Blue chronology; they do not establish a final operator, built capacity, measured water use, or actual future tax receipts.
Reviewed September 21, 2026 · Task 7.2 reviewed dossier · aebaeed; e9430cf; Project Blue source review September 21, 2026
Investigation & analysis · September 12, 2026
Dustin Moskovitz invested in Anthropic and helped finance the institutions shaping AI policy. Follow the money from private philanthropy to the people defining risk—and ask who gets to decide what the machines may say.
Read the investigationAnother paper trail · Box Elder County, Utah
Stratos is being sold as a new energy-and-compute economy for rural Utah. The county says full construction is not approved and the plan is not final. Meanwhile, the project site says the development team will fund public infrastructure and $16.2 million in up-front county service-impact costs. Those are commitments to check, not payments to count.
Box Elder County's background page describes a proposed project area combining energy generation and data-center development. The county's FAQ says the exact plan is not finalized and full construction is not approved. The project site describes 3 GW in Phase One and 9 GW at full buildout; those are attributed project and generation figures, not confirmed data-center IT load or energized capacity.
The developer's project page says the team committed to fund public infrastructure and $16.2 million in up-front county service-impact funding. The County-hosted May 4 agreement sets out three annual $5.4 million payments, with the first due within 30 days of the first building permit. The County's referendum page describes Resolution 26-12 as authorizing an agreement that obligates County services. MIDA's current project page says that interlocal agreement was approved in substantial form and remains a draft and unsigned during the referendum process. Execution of the operative agreement remains unverified; the published terms are not a verified payment, subsidy, bond receipt, or public ledger. The County-hosted terms also give MIDA exclusive police powers over the private land while limiting the County's services to listed municipal obligations. A Utah Clean Energy analysis describes water and emissions concerns around the proposal; it does not establish a granted water right or measured use.
The same County fiscal analysis estimates that repealing the resolutions would mean losing $5.4 million in annual revenue and, if development moves forward without the resolutions, could leave the County facing about $5.4 million a year in added fire, ambulance, and police costs. It also estimates a $55,000 special-election bill. Those are the County's counterfactual estimates, not receipts, payments, or proof that the project will deliver the promised revenue. They show exactly why the agreement-status question matters: public exposure can be described before the public can see a clean ledger.
A second paper trail · Marion County, South Carolina
Project Liberty was reported as an $800 million data center. The existing record now says Stream withdrew after community opposition and utility power-timing problems. Before that exit, reporting described a deal that was kept unusually quiet. The record supports a disclosure question—not a conspiracy theory.
The FracTracker record marks an NDA as confirmed and identifies the proposal as a 2-million-square-foot, 400-acre project. Its source trail also carries the reported $2.4 billion project-cost field, but that is a dataset figure—not proof of money spent or public money committed.
Capital B reported on a secret data-center deal in Marion County. Data Center Dynamics reported that Stream later pulled out, citing the time required for utility power. The proposal had also faced community opposition. Those reports establish competing pieces of the timeline; they do not establish why every decision was made or who ultimately bore a cost.
A third paper trail · Little Rock, Arkansas
Project Boar is still proposed, but the public record is already concrete: a federal notice describes wetlands and streams in the path, a city agreement describes planned utility infrastructure, and a later agenda proposes an exception from Little Rock's hyperscale application pause. That is a disclosure problem before it is a construction story.
The U.S. Army Corps notice identifies Willowbend Capital's proposed five-building data center near Fourche Bayou. It says the project would likely draw more than 100 MW and describes proposed filling of about 16.8 acres of wetlands and 6,419 linear feet of streams. Those are project-scale plans, not proof of operation or measured demand.
Little Rock's April 2025 resolution and MOU describe an approximately 300,000-square-foot facility under evaluation, with planned water-supply, sewer and cooling-tower blowdown infrastructure. The August 2026 agenda then listed a proposed clarification that would except that MOU facility from the city's broader hyperscale application pause; the item was deferred.
A fourth paper trail · Bessemer, Alabama
Project Marvel keeps getting bigger in the public record. The City of Bessemer says its planning framework was updated after public feedback; reporting ties the proposal to a confirmed NDA and ongoing opposition. That is enough to demand the documents. It is not proof that the project received a tax break, spent $14.5 billion, or has a settled customer.
The City of Bessemer's notice says the proposed data-center project's planning and development framework was updated in response to public feedback. Existing reporting describes an expanded 1,600-acre plan and a proposed substation; the dataset's 1,200 MW remains proposed project-scale context, not confirmed utility service or IT load.
WBRC reported that environmental groups questioned the NDA tied to Project Marvel. The story identifies a real transparency dispute and public opposition. It does not establish wrongdoing, a hidden agreement, or the final terms of the project.
A fifth paper trail · Franklin Township, Indiana
Deep Meadow Ventures' proposed campus moved through a public rezoning process while confidentiality agreements kept key details out of view. WFYI later identified Google through public records; local reporting says the proposal was withdrawn after community opposition. The record raises a transparency question, not a claim of misconduct.
The city staff report names Deep Meadow Ventures as the petitioner for a rezoning covering nearly 468 acres. It documents a real land-use decision, but it does not establish a completed campus, utility service, water use, or public spending.
WFYI reported that confidentiality agreements surrounded the proposal and that later documents identified Google. Mirror Indy reported that the rezoning proposal was withdrawn in September 2025 after local opposition. That is a documented sequence; it does not tell us what commitments, costs, or negotiations ended with the withdrawal.
A sixth paper trail · Palm Beach County, Florida
Project Tango's expansion request was denied, then challenged. The public record shows a real land-use fight around a proposed data-center footprint; it does not show a built campus, operating workload, or public subsidy.
Palm Beach County's zoning page identifies PBA Holdings as the applicant for an April 2026 expansion request: 1,032,000 square feet of data-center use inside a 3,594,564-square-foot mixed-use plan on 202.67 acres. That is proposed floor area, not operating capacity or measured demand.
Stet News reported that the requested expansion was denied on July 15, 2026 and challenged on August 5, with a later hearing before a special magistrate. The challenge is a live procedural question; it is not proof that the expansion will proceed. The tracker's other Tango site applications are separate and should not be collapsed into this decision.
A seventh paper trail · Greensburg, Indiana
Jumping Bison has a public incentive on the record before the public has a clear record of power, water, or a working facility. That is the useful distinction: an approved abatement is not money spent, and a large proposal is not proof of delivery.
The FracTracker record identifies Jumping Bison LLC's proposed 550-acre Greensburg site. WRBI reported two phases of about $400 million each and the Greensburg City Council's approval of a 10-year, 60% real-property tax abatement. The incentive is an approved tax treatment; without the underlying schedule and fiscal records, it is not a verified subsidy value or spending total.
Public utility trackers associate the proposal with Duke Energy and report about 50 MW. No reviewed utility filing establishes that figure as requested, approved, energized, generation, or data-center IT-load capacity. That gap is not a technicality. It is the difference between a project pitch and a bill the public can audit.
An eighth paper trail · Prince George's County, Maryland
Brightseat is a useful test of how quickly a development headline can outrun the public record. The county names an applicant and a proposed five-data-center park, then pauses new data-center applications while the case remains pending. The big numbers still do not tell us who would run the site, what it would run, or what the public would pay.
The county's planning case describes a proposed technology park at the former Landover Mall site and identifies Brightseat Associates LLC as the applicant. The county economic-development corporation names a Lerner Enterprises and Tower Cos. affiliate as developer context. Neither source discloses a tenant or facility workload.
The county council then adopted a two-year pause on accepting, processing, reviewing, and approving data-center applications. That is a documented permitting decision, not proof that Brightseat is canceled. The tracker's reported $5 billion cost and 820 MW remain proposal context—not spent money, an approved subsidy, energized service, or IT load.
A ninth paper trail · Santa Teresa, New Mexico
Project Jupiter puts the central data-center question in plain view: who gets to structure the deal, who gets the power, and what can the public actually inspect? County approval is documented. The reported financing scale, permit fight, and changing power plan still need to be read as separate records.
El Paso Matters reported that Doña Ana County commissioners approved the Project Jupiter data-center proposal in September 2025. The tracker record reports a $165 billion project-cost field and a 700 MW figure, but those are project context—not proof of public spending, an executed financing amount, energized service, or IT load.
In January 2026, the New Mexico Environmental Law Center described a demand for public access around the air-quality permits. Then Oracle opened public review of an updated power plan describing a Bloom fuel-cell microgrid. That planned onsite-generation design does not answer the separate questions about utility terms, fuel supply, ratepayer exposure, water quantities, or who ultimately controls the campus.
A tenth paper trail · Carroll County, Georgia
Project Bus shows how a data-center fight can disappear from the agenda before the basic accounting is done. Atlas Development proposed a large campus near Temple, then withdrew it after annexation and community opposition concerns. That is a documented turn in the process—not proof that the project was harmless, or that every rumor around it was true.
Data Center Dynamics reported a proposed 350-acre campus with up to 12 buildings and two substations. The state's Development of Regional Impact filing gives the proposal a public planning record. Neither source establishes a requested or approved load, an operating site, a tenant, or a disclosed workload.
A local report says the proposal was pulled on August 4, 2026 amid annexation and community opposition concerns. The tracker's reported $11 billion project-cost field is still an unverified lead—not public spending, a subsidy, or a receipt. The withdrawal also does not answer what utility, water, wastewater, land, or tax arrangements were being discussed.
An eleventh paper trail · College Station, Texas
Project Aggie puts the public bargain in plain view: a proposed data-center campus, a city-owned land decision, and projected revenue that never became a receipt. College Station rejected the contract. That is a documented vote—not proof that every concern was right, or that the underlying proposal was fully understood.
Data Center Dynamics reported a conceptual two-building, 600 MW campus from Priority Power Management on roughly 200 acres in Midtown Business Park. Local reporting and the City of College Station's meeting record show Council unanimously rejected the proposed real-estate contract on September 11, 2025.
Reporting described roughly $10–22 million in projected annual city revenue from property and sales taxes and an electric-fund transfer. Those are projections, not collected revenue or public spending. The 600 MW figure is conceptual project-scale context—not confirmed requested, approved, energized, generation, or data-center IT-load capacity.
A twelfth paper trail · DeForest, Wisconsin
QTS's DeForest proposal shows how a project can leave the queue without leaving a clean public ledger. Local records describe annexation and urban-service questions around a proposed campus; the town later said the project was not feasible and QTS withdrew. That is a documented outcome, not proof that every objection was correct or that the proposal was ready to build.
The Village of DeForest's project materials describe a proposed campus on roughly 1,570 acres while annexation and urban-service processes were still under consideration. The Town of Vienna's withdrawal notice says QTS later concluded the project was not feasible and withdrew. Data Center Dynamics reported the withdrawal amid opposition from local officials.
The record does not establish a numeric utility load, requested or approved capacity, generation, energized service, or data-center IT load. The tracker's reported $12 billion project-cost field is project context, not public spending, a subsidy, or a receipt. A withdrawal ends this proposal's immediate path; it does not tell the public what land, utility, water, or service terms were discussed before the exit.
A thirteenth paper trail · Walnut Cove, North Carolina
Project Delta puts a familiar promise under a brighter light: the developer says it will pay the energy upgrades and utility costs, while advertising more than $40 million in annual local tax revenue at full buildout. Those are commitments and projections from the developer, not receipts. The first rezoning was voided after notice-related litigation, and a new application was reported later.
Engineered Land Solutions' project page says Project Delta would use the adjacent Belews Creek infrastructure and pay its energy upgrades and utility costs. The same public pitch advertises more than $40 million in projected annual local tax revenue at full buildout. That is a developer-stated plan and forecast, not verified public spending, collected revenue, or proof that the campus will be built.
Data Center Dynamics reported that Stokes County officials voided the initial rezoning after a legal challenge over notice. Clean Water for North Carolina's status trail describes the later application and the continuing land, water, and public-process fight. The reviewed record does not establish a utility approval, energized service, facility IT load, or a water or wastewater quantity.
A fourteenth paper trail · Lancaster, Texas
Project Oranger shows how a clean approval can still leave the important questions unanswered. Lancaster approved zoning changes for seven planned data centers, but the reviewed record does not identify an operator, a facility-specific utility deal, or a public-money trail.
The FracTracker record and its ArcGIS source row identify Project Oranger in Lancaster. Data Center Dynamics reported seven planned 36 MW buildings totaling 252 MW, and said Lancaster City Council approved zoning changes for the project. That is planned project/buildout context, not confirmed utility load, energized capacity, generation, or data-center IT load.
The existing source trail does not disclose cooling, water, wastewater, utility-service terms, a named operator, or verified public funding. An approval answers where a developer may build; it does not answer who pays for the infrastructure or what the site will run.
A fifteenth paper trail · Prince William County, Virginia
Prince William Digital Gateway is a useful reminder that a court decision can stop a project without making the public record complete. The rezoning was invalidated, the county stopped defending it, and the regional water system still leaves the project-specific terms open.
The FracTracker record and its ArcGIS source row identify the proposed Digital Gateway in Gainesville. Data Center Dynamics reported that the rezoning was invalidated and Prince William County voted not to continue defending it. The record describes a 22-million-square-foot, multi-gigawatt campus, but that is historical planned-project context—not confirmed utility load, energized capacity, generation, or data-center IT load.
Prince William Water says western-county data centers use regional Fairfax Water service and wastewater treatment through the Upper Occoquan system. That describes the system, not this project's withdrawal, consumption, service quantity, or wastewater allocation. A dead rezoning does not tell us who paid for the process, what infrastructure was reserved, or whether another version of the plan can return.
Data Center Dynamics also reported county legal fees tied to the fight. Those are a public-process cost, not proof of project spending, a subsidy, or a private infrastructure commitment. The next filing should make those categories auditable instead of letting one headline stand in for the ledger.
Secrecy · Utility power · Tax policy
Meta's Wisconsin campus is under construction, but the deal was assembled through layers of private entities, confidentiality agreements, utility negotiations, and tax policy. The question is not whether the project is real. It is what the public was allowed to see before the commitments became difficult to unwind.
Wisconsin Watch reported that local officials used confidential agreements while Meta-linked Degas LLC and Balloonist LLC shielded the end user's identity. The reporting says Meta later confirmed its involvement and construction was underway. That is evidence of secrecy around the process, not proof of unlawful conduct.
The City of Beaver Dam FAQ says the city and Beaver Dam Area Development Corporation signed an agreement with the site developer on December 9, 2024. The record also ties the project to Wisconsin's data-center sales-tax exemption and local approvals. A tax exemption is policy; it is not the same thing as a published subsidy amount or money spent.
Wisconsin Watch reported that the Public Service Commission approved an Alliant-Meta contract while criticizing its lack of transparency, and that a transmission line was being built to serve the campus. Those are utility-service and planned-supply facts—not a disclosed energized capacity or data-center IT load.
Money · Secrecy · Yellowstone County, Montana
Quantica's Big Sky campus is pitched as an energy-and-technology hub. The paper trail offers a tax-impact projection, a reported labor agreement, and a very large power plan. It still does not show the public what it will pay, what it has approved, or what the machines will actually do.
Big Sky Digital's public development material cites an economic analysis estimating about $33.2 million in annual property-tax payments for a 500 MW data center. That is a developer-attributed projection, not recorded revenue, public spending, or a confirmed Quantica-specific tax bill.
Montana Free Press reported that the developer and a labor federation had an agreement that left important details unclear. A named partner or an agreement is not proof of misconduct. It is a reason to ask for the terms, the decision-makers, and the obligations that do not fit in a press release.
NorthWestern Energy identifies Big Sky Digital Infrastructure as a Quantica platform and describes a proposed Yellowstone County hub. Quantica's reported 1,100 MW plan is prospective project and power context—not confirmed generation, energized service, or data-center IT load.
Power · Land · Oldham County, Kentucky
Project Lincoln shows how a data-center pitch can change sites and scale faster than the public record can explain the bargain. The reviewed trail has a utility-demand lead, a withdrawn application, and a smaller replacement path. It still does not show who pays for the infrastructure or what the replacement would actually consume.
The FracTracker record and its ArcGIS source row identify a proposed Oldham County campus associated with Western Hospitality Partners. Kentucky Public Service Commission filings identify Project Lincoln as an anticipated 600 MW data-center demand lead. That is proposed project and utility context—not approved service, energized capacity, generation, or data-center IT load.
Data Center Dynamics reported that the original Highway 53 application was withdrawn and replaced by a smaller site after local resistance. That is a status change, not proof of misconduct. But when the site, size, and application change, the public should not have to guess which promises, costs, and approvals carried over.
The existing record does not establish a project-specific abatement, infrastructure payment, water allocation, or operator commitment. Kentucky's broad tax framework is not the same thing as an approved benefit for this project, and a reported project-cost field is not public spending.
Power · Land · Leavenworth County, Kansas
Project Bluestem is a useful test of how a multi-billion-dollar data-center pitch becomes public policy before it becomes a permitted facility. Cloverleaf is describing a large taxable investment and developer-funded infrastructure. Local reporting says the concept is still moving through questions, not construction.
The FracTracker record and its ArcGIS source row identify a proposed Cloverleaf Infrastructure campus near Tonganoxie. The developer's site describes closed-loop cooling, community investment, and funding for incremental power and transmission infrastructure. Those are stated plans, not a water right, utility agreement, public subsidy, or measured use.
The reviewed record says Cloverleaf's FAQ calls Bluestem conceptual, with Evergy studying potential capacity and no formal local approval or permit request submitted. The developer told local reporters the site could require up to 1.2 GW, but said the figure would depend on utility confirmation. That number is planned project and power context—not requested, approved, energized, generation, or IT-load capacity.
The Mirror reported that county officials slowed or reversed course in August. That does not prove wrongdoing. It does show why the next filing matters: a headline investment figure cannot answer who pays for roads, wires, water, or the public process.
Money · Water · El Paso, Texas
Meta's Project Seafox is not just a giant number on a tracker. El Paso has published agreements, water-allocation ceilings and a proposed power bridge. That makes the real question harder to dodge: what is committed, what is merely projected, and who carries the risk?
The City of El Paso's resource hub describes a five-phase Meta/Wurldwide campus with Phase 1 underway and publishes tiered water-allocation ceilings. At full buildout, its Tier III figures reach a maximum of 2.5 million gallons per day and an average of 1.5 million. Those are agreement or allocation ceilings, not a meter reading, a wastewater discharge record, or proof of what any current phase consumes.
In its project update, El Paso describes approved land, Chapter 380 and tax-abatement agreements, projected tax revenue, and up to $5 million in roadway and intersection funding for the wider Northeast community. The city's wording does not turn those references into verified project spending or a direct facility subsidy. The reviewed tracker record separately carries a reported $10 billion project-cost field; that is investment context, not public money.
The city's June filing describes a proposed 366 MW McCloud natural-gas facility as a bridge for the project and says another 525 MW of Meta-related generation remains to be defined. The record still does not establish energized capacity, data-center IT load, measured water use, or who ultimately pays for the power path.
Secrecy · Power · Memphis, Tennessee
xAI's Memphis Colossus is an operating supercomputer campus, which makes the questions more immediate than a proposal headline. Reporting describes NDAs and shell-company layers around the buildout; environmental advocates allege an unlawful power plant. Those are documented reporting and allegations, not a finding of wrongdoing.
Forbes reported that local agencies and utility officials signed NDAs before the project was public and that shell-company structures obscured who was involved. Public Citizen's review places the Memphis project in a wider pattern of data-center secrecy. That establishes an access problem, not proof that the agreements were unlawful or that every public claim was false.
The existing record describes reported utility demand and temporary gas-generation concerns. The Southern Environmental Law Center alleges that xAI built an illegal power plant to serve the data center. The allegation requires attribution and does not establish a final legal finding, but it gives the public a concrete question: what permits, emissions controls, fuel costs, and grid protections govern an operating AI campus?
Money · Power · Columbia County, Georgia
Pumpkin Tech Campus is a proposed Cloverleaf-backed site near Harlem. County records describe an agreement tied to Google's Kinetic Infrastructure Solutions and a promise that ratepayers will not carry certain energy costs. That is a public claim about a private deal—not proof that the promise is enforceable, complete, or already delivered.
The zoning report says Columbia County approved the project's zoning change but required a Georgia Power letter showing that the proposed site's power needs could be met before construction. The reviewed tracker record describes a 500 MW project context; that is not a confirmed utility request, approval, energized service, generation capacity, or IT load.
In its July partnership notice, the county says Google committed to pay associated energy costs and that ratepayers would not bear additional infrastructure, transmission, or capacity expenses. Its August announcement identifies Kinetic Infrastructure Solutions, an Alphabet subsidiary, as the private counterparty for the broader county data-center project and describes at least $17 billion in private investment. That is company-and-county agreement context, not a verified public subsidy or spending total; the allocation across projects and final payment terms remain open.
The county describes closed-loop cooling and a ban on private wells for its data-center projects. No reviewed source discloses Pumpkin's project-specific withdrawal, consumption, water service, or wastewater quantity. The infrastructure pitch is large; the operating paper trail is not yet there.
Secrecy · Public records · Permitting fights
Brookwood, an EPA proposal, and Leon County's pause show three versions of the same problem: the public is asked to absorb concentrated computing power before it can see who holds the land deal, which permit rules apply, or what electricity, water, and rate burden is being priced. That is not proof of wrongdoing. It is a control question—and secrecy decides who gets to answer it.
WBRC reported that records requests found rezoning documents tied to entities connected to a proposed development, while an Alabama permit record described a possible 2-million-square-foot data center. Applied Digital said no decision had been made. The city said an NDA would be held through the county economic-development authority, not in the city's files. That documents a disclosure gap—not proof of a signed project, unlawful conduct, or what the NDA legally does.
The file is also easier to misunderstand because there is more than one proposal. The Tuscaloosa Thread reported that a separate Project Brookwood LLC petition, tied to Youngwoo & Associates, sought annexation and rezoning of 374 acres; the planning commission recommended it, with a city-council vote scheduled for September 15. That land is distinct from Applied Digital's larger tract. A rezoning recommendation is not a signed buildout, and neither report establishes the projects' final power, water, tax, or public-cost terms.
An earlier WBRC report says Mayor Joe Barger told residents he had signed an NDA when he joined the county authority and described confidentiality agreements as standard economic-development practice. The same report says a city handout made claims about quality of life, tax revenue, and jobs, but cited a source only for the jobs claim. That is a records-and-evidence problem, not proof that the NDA hides misconduct or that the handout's claims are false.
The city's official government page identifies the mayor and council, but does not publish the rezoning packet there. That keeps the operative file—and which public body can release it—an open records question, not an accusation.
The Associated Press reported that EPA proposed ending a federal public-notice and comment requirement for some minor-source air permits, leaving states to decide whether to keep their own rules. The proposal was not final in the report. If fewer notices arrive before permits move, communities have less time to test emissions, backup generation, water demands, and who pays for the buildout.
Tallahassee Reports says Leon County scheduled the first of two hearings on a proposed 18-month pause for large-load facilities in unincorporated areas. The proposal would give officials time to study electricity, water, utility rates, environmental effects, and local rules. The report says it is not a permanent ban and that no large-scale data-center application is currently approved or pending there. That is a proposed review process, not proof that a project is coming or that the county has solved the cost question.