Skip to content
DataCentersExposed
County data-center profile

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

DataCentersExposed tracks 7 AI data centers in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania — 5 operating and 2 in the pipeline, drawing 211 MW of reported power demand, led by DataBank Holdings, Ltd.. Its transparent data-center risk score is 0/100.

Sources: Methodology, Coverage scorecard

Facilities
7
Operating
5
Pipeline
2

Reporting by · Updated May 29, 2026

Risk breakdown
6Low
  • Project exposure · 10
  • Power demand · 0
  • Water draw · n/a
  • Land footprint · n/a
Overview

What's happening in Allegheny County

Facilities here with disclosed capacity draw 211 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.

DataBank Holdings, Ltd. has the largest presence in Allegheny 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.

7 facilities

Every tracked facility

FacilityOperatorStatusMW
Springdale Data Center
Springdale
Allegheny DC Property CoProposed180
McKees Rocks Rock Point Industrial Site Data Center
Stowe Township
SunCap Property GroupProposed
Northern Data/ Ardent Data Center
McKees Rock
Northern DataOperating20
DataBank Pittsburgh PIT2
Pittsburgh
DataBank Holdings, Ltd.Operating5
Consolidated Communications Pittsburgh Data Center
Pittsburgh
Operating4
Expedient Pittsburgh South
Pittsburgh
Expedient, LLCOperating1.8
Tarentum (Rockpointe) Data Center
Tarentum
Operating
Accountability

County commissioners

How the Allegheny 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.