Skip to content
DataCentersExposed
County data-center profile

Los Angeles County, California

DataCentersExposed tracks 10 AI data centers in Los Angeles County, California — 5 operating and 2 in the pipeline, drawing 50 MW of reported power demand, led by American Tower Corporation. Its transparent data-center risk score is 0/100.

Sources: Methodology, Coverage scorecard

Facilities
10
Operating
5
Pipeline
2

Reporting by · Updated May 29, 2026

Risk breakdown
13Low
  • Project exposure · 23
  • Power demand · 0
  • Water draw · n/a
  • Land footprint · n/a
Overview

What's happening in Los Angeles County

Facilities here with disclosed capacity draw 50 MW from the local grid. Data-center load on this scale is the single biggest driver of recent capacity-market price increases — costs that flow through to every ratepayer in the service territory, not just the operators.

American Tower Corporation has the largest presence in Los Angeles County. We resolve project codenames and shell LLCs back to the corporate parent wherever the public record allows, so the table below names who is actually behind each site.

Below: every tracked facility in the county, the active state legislation that names it or its county, and local news. Commissioner vote records arrive in a later release; the placeholders show where that accountability data will land.

10 facilities

Every tracked facility

FacilityOperatorStatusMW
Digital Data Center
Vernon
American Tower CorporationProposed32
AWS
Pasadena
Proposed
Drt Lax12
El Segundo
Digital Realty Trust, Inc.Operating18
CoreSite - LA2
Los Angeles
American Tower CorporationOperating
Drt Lax10Mapped (unverified)
Equinix
Torrance
Equinix, Inc.Operating
Monterey Park Data Center
Monterey Park
HMC StratCorp and subsidiary DigiCo REITBlocked
One Wilshire
Los Angeles
CoreSite, LLCOperating
Serverfarm - LAX1
El Segundo
ServerfarmOperating
USPO Terminal Annex
Los Angeles
Mapped (unverified)
Accountability

County commissioners

How the Los Angeles County board votes on each data-center matter — the rezonings, the abatements, the water permits — is built from public-meeting minutes and roll-call records. Know of a vote we should be tracking? Tell us.

Methodology & sources

The risk score weights project exposure (40%), power demand (30%), water draw (15%), and land footprint (15%). Water and land are not yet measured for our facilities, so those arcs render as "not yet measured" and the weights are renormalized over the factors we can source today — when the data lands, the score updates.

Every row carries a confidence level (high / medium / low) and a source URL. Spot an error? Tell us.