What gives a data center away.

01 / THE SIGNALS

A code name tells you almost nothing. The name on the deed tells you a lot.

A code name, an NDA and a 30-year abatement look like the fingerprints of a data center. In practice they are the fingerprints of any large incentive deal. Intel ran a code name in Licking County, and so did Panasonic in Kansas, Samsung in Texas, Scout in South Carolina and Foxconn in Wisconsin. What a factory can’t imitate is the kind of company standing behind the shell LLC, and the number of permanent jobs it promises for every hundred million dollars it spends. Those two measures separated the data centers from the factories in our panel better than everything else combined.

How well each signal separates data centers from everything else

Area under the curve across 38 projects. 1.0 is perfect; 0.5 is a coin flip; below 0.5 the signal points the wrong way.

The interactive chart needs JavaScript. The data table follows.

Each signal scored 0–2 on evidence public before the end use was disclosed. Pooled panel: 22 data centers, 16 large non-data-center projects. AUC = probability a random data center outscores a random control.

Show signal data as a table

Signal	AUC	What it measures
Who's in the room (S6)	0.955	A known data-center developer, engineer or counsel behind the LLC
Jobs per dollar (S8)	0.938	Under 5 permanent jobs per $100M of capex
Power filings (S1)	0.679	Load-side utility, RTO or generator air-permit filings
Land assembly (S2)	0.624	100+ contiguous acres by a new LLC
Timing (S7)	0.592	Grading before disclosure; expedited review
Site specs (S4)	0.554	Water, parking, docks, fiber
Code name (S3)	0.445	Project X, NDAs in minutes
Capex-sized incentives (S5)	0.409	Equipment exemptions, 30-year abatements, IRBs

02 / THE TEST

Our first scoring rule failed. The fix worked well enough to make us suspicious.

The first version added up seven “secrecy” signals. When we froze that rule and tested it on 15 new cases, it caught one data center out of nine. Adding the jobs-per-dollar test and giving extra weight to the party behind the land repaired it, and then a much simpler rule (100 or more acres assembled, plus a recognizable data-center firm somewhere in the paperwork) did better than either.

Same 38 projects, two scoring rules

Each dot is a project. Above the dashed line, the rule calls it a data center. Hollow dark rings mark the mistakes.

The interactive chart needs JavaScript. The data table follows.

Data centerNot a data centerWrong call

Pre-specified rule: S1–S7 summed, flag at ≥10. Discriminated rule: adds 2×jobs-ratio + party, −3 if job-heavy, flag at ≥12. Hover or focus any dot for the project. Open the table for all cases.

Show all 38 projects as a table

Project	Place	Actual	First rule	Revised rule
Project Jupiter (Oracle/STACK)	Santa Teresa, NM	Data center	13	19
Meta Hyperion (Project Sucre)	Richland Parish, LA	Data center	12	17
Vantage Port Washington	Port Washington, WI	Data center	13	19
Amazon New Carlisle	St. Joseph County, IN	Data center	11	16
Google New Albany (Montauk Innovations LLC)	New Albany, OH	Data center	10	15
Meta New Albany	New Albany, OH	Data center	11	16
Google Fort Wayne	Allen County, IN	Data center	8	12
Oracle/Crusoe Stargate Abilene	Abilene, TX	Data center	11	17
Homer City Energy Campus	Homer City, PA	Data center	9	14
Microsoft Mount Pleasant	Mount Pleasant, WI	Data center	6	12
Slavic Village hyperscale	Cleveland, OH	Data center	5	10
Amherst Nordson campus	Amherst, OH	Data center	1	5
Microsoft Licking County	Heath/Hebron, OH	Data center	9	15
Intel Ohio One	New Albany, OH	Other	8	5
Anduril Arsenal-1	Pickaway County, OH	Other	6	3
Hadrian Mesa factory	Mesa, AZ	Other	2	-1
Honda-LG battery plant	Fayette County, OH	Other	8	5
Micron Clay megafab	Clay, NY	Other	10	7
Ford BlueOval City	Stanton, TN	Other	5	2
Scout Motors (Project Connect)	Blythewood, SC	Other	8	5
Foxconn Wisconn Valley (2017)	Mount Pleasant, WI	Other	11	8
Code-named fulfillment center (generic)	Ohio	Other	5	7
Supplier plant (generic)	Midwest	Other	3	0
Saline Twp (Related / Oracle-OpenAI)	Saline Twp, MI	Data center	7	13
Microsoft Project Nova	Caledonia, WI	Data center	9	14
PRSM Preble County	Preble County, OH	Data center	5	11
CRG Project Cumulus	St. Charles, MO	Data center	10	16
Hancock County MegaSite	Buck Creek Twp, IN	Data center	8	13
Bristol Innovation Park	Bristol, IN	Data center	7	12
Howell Twp (Randee LLC)	Howell Twp, MI	Data center	6	11
QTS Dane County	DeForest, WI	Data center	9	15
Google Franklin Township	Indianapolis, IN	Data center	6	12
Panasonic De Soto (Project Ocean)	De Soto, KS	Other	9	6
Samsung Taylor (Project Silicon Silver)	Taylor, TX	Other	9	11
Hyundai Metaplant	Bryan County, GA	Other	7	4
Oak Run Solar	Madison County, OH	Other	4	8
Nucor Mason County	Point Pleasant, WV	Other	6	3
300 MW battery storage (generic)	Midwest	Other	2	6

1 of 9

new data centers caught by the first rule (recall 0.11)

9 of 9

caught by “100+ acres + a known data-center party”

false alarms in 38 under that rule

misses that survive every rule: both announced themselves on day one

The two projects no version of the rule catches are Cleveland’s Slavic Village campus, which was filed as a data center the day after council introduced a moratorium, and the Nordson campus conversion in Amherst, which the developer described plainly at its first hearing. Neither one hid, so there was nothing to detect. The method is built for the ones that do.

03 / THE CLOCK

Catch the deed and you have about a year. Wait for the hearing and you have a few weeks.

When the first anyone hears of a project is the rezoning hearing, the public typically has one to four months before the decision. When the first trace is a land record, an LLC filing or a signed NDA, the median warning in our panel was 14 months. Toledo’s Meta site is the extreme case: a shell company’s rezoning in late 2022, the words “data storage” in a zoning text amendment nine months later, and the tenant’s name a full 28 months after the first filing.

Months from first public record to disclosure of the end use

Thirteen Midwest projects where both dates are on the record.

The interactive chart needs JavaScript. The data table follows.

Toledo’s Meta site: 9 months to “data storage” use, 28 to the tenant’s name. Sources: Toledo Blade, DCD, Business Journal Daily, Journal-News, Wisconsin Watch, Crain’s Grand Rapids, IBJ, STLPR, Pittsburgh Business Times.

Show lead times as a table

Project	Months	First record to disclosure	Dates
Meta, Middleton Twp (Toledo)	28	Shell LLC rezoning → tenant named	Liames LLC, late 2022 → Apr 2025
Aligned, Pataskala (Columbus)	24	Deed → application	Nov 2023 → Nov 2025
Meta, Lebanon (Indianapolis)	24	Mayor's pursuit → disclosure	~2022 → Nov 2024
Prologis, Trenton (Cincinnati)	18	Purchase agreement → plans	Apr 2024 → Jan 2026
Bristolville 25, Lordstown (Youngstown)	17	Rezoning → site plan	May 2024 → Oct 2025
Meta, Beaver Dam (Madison)	14	Shell LLC NDA → announcement	Balloonist LLC, Dec 2023 → Feb 2025
Microsoft, Gaines Twp (Grand Rapids)	14	Deed → rezoning	Aug 2024 → Dec 2025
Bitdeer, Weathersfield (Youngstown)	9	Deed → investor update	May 2025 → Feb 2026
Google, Monrovia (Indianapolis)	9	PUD filing → tenant named	Jan 2025 → Oct 2025
Cloverleaf, Edwardsville (St. Louis)	9	City emails → disclosure	May 2025 → Feb 2026
QTS, DeForest (Madison)	8	State NDA → announcement	Feb 2025 → Oct 2025
Microsoft, Mount Pleasant (Milwaukee)	2	Village NDA → announcement (voluntary)	Jan 2023 → Mar 2023
Springdale (Pittsburgh)	1	Deed → council vote (voluntary)	Nov 2025 → Dec 2025

04 / THE NETWORK

A few familiar names, across four states

The shell companies repeat. Filings in Indiana and Missouri tie the same two managers to a group of Google-affiliated LLCs, and the same Indianapolis lawyer appears on both of Google’s Indiana filings. Meta and Oracle have their own recurring names. If you only have time for one search a month, make it the new LLC filings at the Secretary of State, checked against this list.

The Google shell network, as documented in public filings

Managers and counsel in the center; the LLCs they appear on; where each LLC surfaced.

The interactive chart needs JavaScript. The data table follows.

Deep Meadow Ventures: counsel stated on the record it “was created by Google” (MDC hearing, Aug 20, 2025). Spark Innovations and Groot linked by STLPR, Sept 8, 2025. Meta’s shells (Liames, Balloonist, Degas, Sidecat) and Oracle’s Green Chile Ventures follow the same pattern.

Show network names as a table

Name	Type	Where it appears
Michael Montfort	Manager	Indiana and Missouri public filings
David Thomas	Manager	Indiana and Missouri public filings
Joseph Calderon	Counsel	Indiana Google filings
Deep Meadow Ventures	LLC	Franklin Township, Indiana
Morgan County Data Center I PUD	Filing	Monrovia, Indiana
Spark Innovations LLC	LLC	St. Charles, Missouri
Groot	LLC	St. Charles, Missouri
AG Rose Solutions	LLC	Kansas City
Peanut LLC	LLC	Virginia

05 / THE MAP

Northeast Ohio keeps saying no. Pittsburgh follows a different path.

Run across fourteen metros, the same records also map where the resistance is. The four Northeast Ohio metros have seen 15 proposals since 2022; seven are dead or stalled, and the metro counties have recorded 30 local moratoriums in this sweep. Two hours east, three campuses measured in gigawatts are under construction on an old coal plant, a shuttered coal plant and a former Alcoa research site, and Allegheny County’s neighbors have passed one moratorium.

Pipeline and pushback, fourteen Midwest metros

Projects proposed since 2022 (bar), of which withdrawn, rejected or stalled (dark segment), and local moratoriums in force (number).

The interactive chart needs JavaScript. The data table follows.

Live or builtWithdrawn, rejected or stalled

Counts from the Oct 21, 2026 metro sweep; litigated-but-proceeding projects are counted as live. Moratoriums are municipal and county pauses in the metro’s counties, not statewide totals (Ohio ≥138; Michigan ≥52; Indiana ~17 counties).

Show metro data as a table

Metro	Proposed	Dead or stalled	Moratoriums	Largest live proposal
Chicago	14	7	2	Joliet 1.8 GW; Project Cardinal 1.8 GW
Detroit–Ann Arbor	9	7	2	Saline 1,383 MW
Indianapolis	8	2	3	Meta Lebanon $10B
Pittsburgh	7	1	1	Homer City 4.5 GW; Shippingport 2 GW; Upper Burrell 3 GW
Columbus	7	2	6	Meta Prometheus ~1 GW
St. Louis	7	1	3	CRG Festus $6B
Minneapolis–St. Paul	7	3	13	Tract Farmington ~$5B
Milwaukee–Madison	7	3	2	Vantage Port Washington $15B
Akron–Canton	5	2	11	Bitdeer/Geis Shalersville to 750 MW
Youngstown	5	3	7	McDonald Works to 900 MW (paper)
Cincinnati–Dayton	4	2	10	Trenton 250 MW
Grand Rapids	4	1	4	Microsoft Gaines 414 ac
Cleveland	3	2	7	H5 downtown expansion
Toledo	2	0	5	Meta Middleton $800M

Pittsburgh’s edge has little to do with being friendlier to the industry. The land was already zoned for a power plant.Homer City (4.5 GW), Shippingport (2 GW) and Upper Burrell (3 GW) needed no rezoning and faced no referendum.

06 / THE ROUTINE

Six steps, in the order that worked

Unmask the LLCs

Every deed, option or easement over 50 acres in the last 90 days: pull the grantee from the Secretary of State, note the organizer, agent and formation date, and match against the watchlist. A match is enough to open a case file by itself.

Map the land

Group recordings by grantee, map contiguity, check annexation petitions. In Wisconsin, the DOR transfer return is free where the recorder charges by the search.

Pull load-side filings only

Large-load and special-contract dockets, the RTO load queue, air permits for generators and fuel cells. Skip generation-only filings with an offtake deal: under the first rule, an 800 MW solar farm scored as a data center.

Get the jobs number

From any incentive application or release. Under 5 permanent jobs per $100M of capex is a data center until shown otherwise; over 20 is a factory.

Then read the agendas

Code names, NDAs, executive sessions. Agendas will tell you something large is in the works, but rarely what it is, which is why they come last rather than first.

Score, log, diff monthly

Expect two to five hits per metro per year. Enter each on the ledger at “detected,” not “announced,” so the announced-versus-built gap counts the ones that never got a press release.

Nine more records worth checking

Utility land sales

Xcel sold 348 acres at Becker to a Black & Veatch subsidiary for $7.7M in a regulatory filing. It flipped to Amazon for $73.5M.

MN PUC, Sept 2022 → 2024

Load forecasts filed with the grid

AES Ohio told PJM of nine hyperscale sites totaling 6,485 MW by 2033, none named.

PJM LAS, Sept 2026

NDA logs

Four Wisconsin villages and the state signed NDAs with Balloonist, Degas, Vantage and Microsoft. The agreement itself is a public record, even when what it covers is not.

Wisconsin Watch, Jan 2026

Generator air permits

One Elk Grove Village site was noticed for 112 three-megawatt backup generators. There is no other kind of building that needs that many.

IEPA, Aug 2025

Federal water permits

Groot, a Google-linked LLC, applied to the Army Corps for the St. Charles site while the city’s staff were under NDA.

USACE / STLPR, 2025

Gas-supply contracts

EQT signed with Homer City and Shippingport before site plans existed.

BusinessWire, Jul 2025

EDC email

“Project Peninsula,” 800 acres in Solon Township, surfaced only through a county records request.

DCD, Jun 2026

Flips and renames

Magellan Scientific held a Niles plant for five weeks before selling to Bitdeer’s White Tail Creek LLC. Acoma became Yucca Growth. Western Hospitality became Bristolville 25.

Business Journal Daily, 2025–26

Transfer returns

Wisconsin DOR data showed Vantage still buying in Port Washington, parcel by parcel, in Sept 2026.

Ozaukee Press, Oct 2026

How we did this, and where it could be wrong

We built an eight-signal rubric, scored 23 projects (13 data centers, 10 large non-data-center projects such as Intel Ohio One, Micron and Foxconn 2017), then froze the rubric and scored 15 more: nine data centers that reached the covert stage and were later withdrawn, and six controls chosen to stress the power signal. Signals are scored on what was public before the end use was disclosed.

One person scored every case and knew every answer. Freezing the rule before the second panel protects the weights, but it doesn’t protect the individual scores. A second reader working blind from the filings is the obvious next check.
Thirty-eight cases is a small panel, and the accuracy figures are almost certainly flattering. A properly cross-validated version needs sixty or more.
The “who’s in the room” signal depends entirely on recognizing the names. A reader who didn’t look up PRSM, a land developer formed in 2022 that specializes in digital infrastructure, would have scored that case zero.
Our control cases are famous projects. The false alarms you’d hit in practice are anonymous LLCs that turn out to be warehouses or solar farms, and we haven’t built that panel yet.
We’ve logged two predictions to be checked later. Sidecat LLC’s $42 million parcel in New Albany, bought in December 2025, scores as a data center. Las Cruces, New Mexico, as of October 2026, scores as having nothing of the kind in its pipeline.

Data files: dc_backtest_v0.csv (38 cases), metro_dc_profiles_v0.csv (14 metros), dc_watchlist_v0.csv (69 parties). Source document: AI Forecast 2027 working draft, Appendix E. These local data files are named in the source HTML but were not supplied with it; the charts use the arrays embedded in that HTML.