Measured, not asserted
Regional analytics
Pipeline coverage and data-quality metrics for all regions, including the two numbers Helios owes about itself: how complete its provenance is, and how long it takes to notice.
Sites tracked over time
11 months with activityNational coverage
38 states with reported facilities| State | Reported facilities | Helios sites | Coverage |
|---|---|---|---|
| VA | 132 | — | Declared, unread |
| IL | 33 | — | Declared, unread |
| OH | 20 | — | Declared, unread |
| AZ | 17 | 13 | Read |
| CO | 17 | — | Not in scope yet |
| IA | 16 | — | Not in scope yet |
| NE | 16 | — | Not in scope yet |
| PA | 16 | — | Not in scope yet |
| GA | 15 | — | Declared, unread |
| NJ | 15 | — | Not in scope yet |
| TX | 12 | — | Declared, unread |
| MD | 10 | — | Not in scope yet |
| IN | 9 | — | Not in scope yet |
| MN | 9 | — | Not in scope yet |
| TN | 9 | — | Not in scope yet |
| MO | 7 | — | Not in scope yet |
| NC | 7 | — | Not in scope yet |
| OK | 7 | — | Not in scope yet |
| MA | 6 | — | Not in scope yet |
| DE | 5 | — | Not in scope yet |
| NH | 4 | — | Not in scope yet |
| NV | 4 | — | Not in scope yet |
| AL | 3 | — | Not in scope yet |
| MI | 3 | — | Not in scope yet |
| NM | 3 | — | Not in scope yet |
| WY | 3 | — | Not in scope yet |
| AR | 2 | — | Not in scope yet |
| ME | 2 | — | Not in scope yet |
| CA | 1 | — | Declared, unread |
| CT | 1 | — | Not in scope yet |
| FL | 1 | — | Not in scope yet |
| ID | 1 | — | Not in scope yet |
| KS | 1 | — | Not in scope yet |
| KY | 1 | — | Not in scope yet |
| MS | 1 | — | Not in scope yet |
| NY | 1 | — | Not in scope yet |
| SC | 1 | — | Not in scope yet |
| WI | 1 | — | Not in scope yet |
| UT | 0 | — | Declared, unread |
A dash is not zero data centres. It is zero Helios sites, which means no county in that state has been read. Building sites needs parcel geometry and ownership, published county by county and often not at all.
What East Valley, Arizona already uses and can generate
Reported measured and publishedEvery figure in `totals` is reported: an agency measured and published it. Every figure in `comparisons` is inferred, and inherits the assumptions behind Helios's acreage-based estimates.
| Measure | Area | Published figure | Year | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industrial water | Maricopa County, AZ · county | 1.81 Mgal/d | 2015 | USGS Estimated Use of Water, County-Level |
| Population | Maricopa County, AZ · county | 4,167,947 people | 2015 | USGS Estimated Use of Water, County-Level |
| Public supply water | Maricopa County, AZ · county | 776.54 Mgal/d | 2015 | USGS Estimated Use of Water, County-Level |
| Thermoelectric water | Maricopa County, AZ · county | 24.08 Mgal/d | 2015 | USGS Estimated Use of Water, County-Level |
| Total water withdrawal | Maricopa County, AZ · county | 2,058.19 Mgal/d | 2015 | USGS Estimated Use of Water, County-Level |
| Industrial water | Pinal County, AZ · county | 0.23 Mgal/d | 2015 | USGS Estimated Use of Water, County-Level |
| Population | Pinal County, AZ · county | 406,584 people | 2015 | USGS Estimated Use of Water, County-Level |
| Public supply water | Pinal County, AZ · county | 63.24 Mgal/d | 2015 | USGS Estimated Use of Water, County-Level |
| Thermoelectric water | Pinal County, AZ · county | 1.45 Mgal/d | 2015 | USGS Estimated Use of Water, County-Level |
| Total water withdrawal | Pinal County, AZ · county | 1,020.61 Mgal/d | 2015 | USGS Estimated Use of Water, County-Level |
| Retail electricity sales (commercial) | AZ · state | 29,128,178 MWh/yr | 2020 | EIA Retail Electricity Sales by State |
| Retail electricity sales (industrial) | AZ · state | 14,113,139 MWh/yr | 2020 | EIA Retail Electricity Sales by State |
| Retail electricity sales (residential) | AZ · state | 38,707,416 MWh/yr | 2020 | EIA Retail Electricity Sales by State |
| Retail electricity sales (transportation) | AZ · state | 11,341 MWh/yr | 2020 | EIA Retail Electricity Sales by State |
| Retail electricity sales (total) — sum of the sectors above | AZ · state | 81,960,074 MWh/yr | 2020 | EIA Retail Electricity Sales by State |
| Generation capacity (nameplate) | AZ · state | 36,345 MW | 2024 | EIA Existing Electricity Generation Capacity by State |
| Generation capacity (summer) | AZ · state | 32,877 MW | 2024 | EIA Existing Electricity Generation Capacity by State |
Helios’s sites against those totals
Inferred derived from acreage0.79% of Maricopa County, AZ, Pinal County, AZ’s 839.78 Mgal/d (2015)
0.08%plausible range3.15%
13 sites totalling 6.62 Mgal/d. Summed site water estimates against reported public-supply withdrawal.
What this comparison does and does not show
A ratio of an inference to a measurement is weaker than either. The area total is reported and whole-area, covering every existing user; the Helios figure is inferred from acreage for sites that in most cases are not built. This is a sense of scale, not a forecast of what the area will consume.
Public supply is the municipal water a data centre on the city system competes for. Agricultural and thermoelectric withdrawals are reported separately and are not in this denominator.
1.68% of AZ’s 32,877 MW (2024)
0.84%plausible range3.36%
13 sites totalling 551.7 MW. Summed site power estimates against reported net summer generating capacity.
What this comparison does and does not show
This is not spare capacity. Existing demand already consumes most of that figure, and Helios does not know how much, so a share of total capacity is not a share of what is unused. Whether any individual site can be served is an interconnection question, answered by filings Helios cannot read.
The only comparison here that needs no unit conversion: both sides are a peak figure in MW, so it carries one assumption fewer than the annual-energy one. Net summer capacity is used rather than the more-quoted nameplate figure because it is what the grid can deliver on the afternoon that decides whether there is room.
4.42% of AZ’s 81,960,074 MWh/yr (2020)
1.77%plausible range10.62%
13 sites totalling 3,624,669 MWh/yr. Estimated capacity x hours per year x assumed load factor.
What this comparison does and does not show
A ratio of an inference to a measurement is weaker than either. The area total is reported and whole-area, covering every existing user; the Helios figure is inferred from acreage for sites that in most cases are not built. This is a sense of scale, not a forecast of what the area will consume. The denominator is statewide while the sites are in East Valley, Arizona, so this understates the local share.
Capacity is not consumption. This converts one to the other so it can be set beside a reported energy total, and inherits every assumption in the capacity estimate before adding its own.
Detection lag
13 transitions measuredDevelopment Stages
13 total sites| Stage | Sites | Mean Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Stage 0: No known development | 0 | — |
| Stage 1: Site speculation | 0 | — |
| Stage 2: Infrastructure intent | 0 | — |
| Stage 3: Regulatory commitment | 0 | — |
| Stage 4: Construction initiated | 0 | — |
| Stage 5: Structural buildout | 0 | — |
| Stage 6: Energization | 0 | — |
| Stage 7: Operational | 13 | 42.0% |
| Stage 8: Expansion | 0 | — |
Data Quality: Provenance Completeness
An evidence record counts as complete only when it cites an immutable document version, quotes a snippet, names a locator within that document, and carries an observation date.
| Total Evidence Records | 558 |
| With Document Version | 558 |
| With Text Snippet | 558 |
| With Source Locator | 558 |
| With Observation Date | 558 |