Skip to content
DataCentersExposed
County data-center profile

King County, Washington

DataCentersExposed tracks 8 AI data centers in King County, Washington — 5 operating and 0 in the pipeline, drawing 48 MW of reported power demand, led by Sabey Data Centers. Its transparent data-center risk score is 0/100.

Sources: Methodology, Coverage scorecard

Facilities
8
Operating
5
Pipeline
0

Reporting by · Updated May 29, 2026

Risk breakdown
16Low
  • Project exposure · 28
  • Power demand · 0
  • Water draw · n/a
  • Land footprint · n/a
Overview

What's happening in King County

Facilities here with disclosed capacity draw 48 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.

Sabey Data Centers has the largest presence in King 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.

8 facilities

Every tracked facility

FacilityOperatorStatusMW
Intergate Seattle West Building C
Tukwila
Sabey Data CentersOperating28
Westin Building
Seattle
Digital Realty Trust, Inc.Operating13
Equinix SE3 Data Center
Seattle
Equinix, Inc.Operating7
CTI Biopharma
Seattle
Mapped (unverified)
Intergate Seattle East Building 4
Tukwila
Digital Realty Trust, Inc.Mapped (unverified)
KOMO Plaza East
Seattle
Operating
KOMO Plaza West
Seattle
Mapped (unverified)
The Seattle Times
Seattle
H5 Data CentersOperating
Accountability

County commissioners

How the King 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.