Static snapshot. This site serves two different things: 1,853 data centres reported by OpenStreetMap contributors nationwide, and 13 sites Helios infers from Arizona parcel records, exported on July 29, 2026. The first is a map of what has been recorded; the second is an argued hypothesis with an evidence chain. This is a point-in-time export, not a live view. See meta.json or the methodology.

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 activity
07132007-092013-022021-032022-012025-072026-07
Sites carrying at least one recorded stage transition, cumulative. Dated by the evidence each transition rests on, not by when Helios ingested it.
Stage progression is not yet observable. Every site in this corpus carries exactly one recorded stage transition, straight to its current stage, so a per-stage breakdown would draw one curve per stage and they would all be identical. This chart therefore counts sites, not progressions. It gains a stage dimension when the pipeline has watched projects actually move.

National coverage

38 states with reported facilities
Reported facilities
412
EPA records, 38 states
Helios sites
13
built from parcels, 1 state
States unread
37
facilities reported, no sites built
Counties read
2
Maricopa and Pinal, Arizona
These two columns are not comparable, and must not be added. Two different counts, deliberately not added together. A facility is an EPA ECHO record: a federal agency reports that a Clean Air Act permitted facility carries a hosting NAICS code, and Helios repeats that. A site is Helios's own hypothesis that a set of parcels forms one development, built from county parcel geometry and ownership and defensible line by line. Building sites needs parcel and ownership records, which are published county by county or not at all, so sites exist only where Helios reads a county. A state with facilities and no sites is unread, not empty, and no count here should be taken as the number of data centres in a state.
StateReported facilitiesHelios sitesCoverage
VA132—Declared, unread
IL33—Declared, unread
OH20—Declared, unread
AZ1713Read
CO17—Not in scope yet
IA16—Not in scope yet
NE16—Not in scope yet
PA16—Not in scope yet
GA15—Declared, unread
NJ15—Not in scope yet
TX12—Declared, unread
MD10—Not in scope yet
IN9—Not in scope yet
MN9—Not in scope yet
TN9—Not in scope yet
MO7—Not in scope yet
NC7—Not in scope yet
OK7—Not in scope yet
MA6—Not in scope yet
DE5—Not in scope yet
NH4—Not in scope yet
NV4—Not in scope yet
AL3—Not in scope yet
MI3—Not in scope yet
NM3—Not in scope yet
WY3—Not in scope yet
AR2—Not in scope yet
ME2—Not in scope yet
CA1—Declared, unread
CT1—Not in scope yet
FL1—Not in scope yet
ID1—Not in scope yet
KS1—Not in scope yet
KY1—Not in scope yet
MS1—Not in scope yet
NY1—Not in scope yet
SC1—Not in scope yet
WI1—Not in scope yet
UT0—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 published

Every 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.

MeasureAreaPublished figureYearSource
Industrial waterMaricopa County, AZ · county1.81 Mgal/d2015USGS Estimated Use of Water, County-Level
PopulationMaricopa County, AZ · county4,167,947 people2015USGS Estimated Use of Water, County-Level
Public supply waterMaricopa County, AZ · county776.54 Mgal/d2015USGS Estimated Use of Water, County-Level
Thermoelectric waterMaricopa County, AZ · county24.08 Mgal/d2015USGS Estimated Use of Water, County-Level
Total water withdrawalMaricopa County, AZ · county2,058.19 Mgal/d2015USGS Estimated Use of Water, County-Level
Industrial waterPinal County, AZ · county0.23 Mgal/d2015USGS Estimated Use of Water, County-Level
PopulationPinal County, AZ · county406,584 people2015USGS Estimated Use of Water, County-Level
Public supply waterPinal County, AZ · county63.24 Mgal/d2015USGS Estimated Use of Water, County-Level
Thermoelectric waterPinal County, AZ · county1.45 Mgal/d2015USGS Estimated Use of Water, County-Level
Total water withdrawalPinal County, AZ · county1,020.61 Mgal/d2015USGS Estimated Use of Water, County-Level
Retail electricity sales (commercial)AZ · state29,128,178 MWh/yr2020EIA Retail Electricity Sales by State
Retail electricity sales (industrial)AZ · state14,113,139 MWh/yr2020EIA Retail Electricity Sales by State
Retail electricity sales (residential)AZ · state38,707,416 MWh/yr2020EIA Retail Electricity Sales by State
Retail electricity sales (transportation)AZ · state11,341 MWh/yr2020EIA Retail Electricity Sales by State
Retail electricity sales (total) — sum of the sectors aboveAZ · state81,960,074 MWh/yr2020EIA Retail Electricity Sales by State
Generation capacity (nameplate)AZ · state36,345 MW2024EIA Existing Electricity Generation Capacity by State
Generation capacity (summer)AZ · state32,877 MW2024EIA Existing Electricity Generation Capacity by State
Water and electricity cover different areas. Water is published per county and electricity per state, because no public source breaks retail electricity sales to county nationally. A state total is a much weaker denominator for a metro-scale region, and the two are not comparable to each other. Each figure carries the area it actually covers.

Helios’s sites against those totals

Inferred derived from acreage
Public supply waterInferred

0.79% 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.

Generation capacity (summer)Inferred

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.

Retail electricity salesInferred

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 measured
Median lag
1,821 (~5.0 yr)
days between evidence and detection
90th percentile
5,665.4 (~15.5 yr)
the slow tail
Fastest
0
same-day at best
Slowest
6,886 (~18.9 yr)
oldest record reached back to
These are not operating characteristics. Lag is detection date minus the evidence date the transition rests on. On a fixture-seeded deployment every record was ingested at once, so these figures describe the recorded corpus, not live operation. A median measured in years reflects Helios reaching back over historical records in a single pass, not the delay a live deployment would show. The figure becomes meaningful only once the pipeline has been running against changing records over time.

Development Stages

13 total sites
StageSitesMean Confidence
Stage 0: No known development0—
Stage 1: Site speculation0—
Stage 2: Infrastructure intent0—
Stage 3: Regulatory commitment0—
Stage 4: Construction initiated0—
Stage 5: Structural buildout0—
Stage 6: Energization0—
Stage 7: Operational1342.0%
Stage 8: Expansion0—

Data Quality: Provenance Completeness

Overall Completeness100.0%

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 Records558
With Document Version558
With Text Snippet558
With Source Locator558
With Observation Date558

← Back to all sites