Skip to content
DataCentersExposed
U.S. data-center footprint

Missouri

DataCentersExposed tracks 49 AI data centers in Missouri — 5 operating and 21 in the pipeline — across 14 counties, drawing 3.2 GW of reported power demand from 8 tracked corporate operators.

Sources: Methodology, Coverage scorecard

Reporting by · Updated May 29, 2026

Tracked
49
data centers
Operating
5
live today
Pipeline
21
proposed / building
Demand
3.2 GW
9 w/ capacity
Counties
14
touched
Operators
8
corporate parents
The story so far

Missouri at a glance

The largest footprint in Missouri belongs to Prime Data Centers, behind 4 tracked facilities. TierPoint, LLC, Lumen Technologies, and Alphabet Inc. round out the most active operators in the state. Many of these sites are filed under shell or project names rather than the parent's — our operator column resolves them back to the real corporate parent wherever the chain is documented.

Geographically, the buildout clusters: St. Louis County leads Missouri with 5 facilities and a composite risk score of 7/100. Jackson County and Clay County follow. Our county risk score weights project exposure (40%), power demand (30%), water draw (15%), and land footprint (15%); the full breakdown is shown on each county page.

Missouri is not done growing. 21 facilities are in the pipeline — proposed, permitted, or under construction — which is where residents still have a say at zoning hearings and in rate cases. Each pending project is a decision about land, water, electricity prices, and tax revenue that hasn't been finalized.

We also surface the accountability trail: 3 state bills mentioning data centers and 6 recent news items are tracked for Missouri below, pulled from LegiScan and GDELT and refreshed automatically. Legislation is linked to the counties and operators it names; news is classified by community sentiment.

Modeled scenario · not announced

2035 Buildout Outlook

via PNNL IM3 (CC BY 4.0)

Under the model's moderate-growth scenario (5%/yr annual load growth), PNNL's IM3 model sites about 2 standardized 36 MW campuses in Missouri by 2035 — roughly 72 MW of new electricity demand and ~70 M gal/yr of cooling water. Under the higher-growth scenario (15%/yr) that climbs to 12 campuses (432 MW). For scale, we currently track 49 real data centers in Missouri (3.2 GW of reported power).

Modeled new campuses by demand-growth scenario
  • Low growth1
    36 MW · ~35 M gal/yr cooling water
  • Moderate growth2
    72 MW · ~70 M gal/yr cooling water
  • High growth5
    180 MW · ~174 M gal/yr cooling water
  • Higher growth12
    432 MW · ~418 M gal/yr cooling water

The model assigns ~100% of these campuses' cooling to evaporative water cooling in Missouri (the rest to mechanical/air cooling), a split it derives from local water stress and wet-bulb temperature.

These are modeled candidate sites, not announced or permitted facilities. PNNL's IM3 model places identical 36 MW unit-campuses at feasible locations under each scenario — it shows where demand could concentrate, never a specific parcel. Figures use a market-gravity weight of 50. How the model works.

Who's building

Top operators in Missouri

Where it's concentrated

County risk leaderboard

Risk methodology
Still contested

Pipeline & proposals

50 of 49 shown

All tracked facilities

FacilityOperatorStatusCountyMW
Google Montgomery County Data Center (Project Spade)Alphabet Inc.ProposedMontgomery1,200
Metrobloks/ Lincoln Data Center—ProposedClay150
Swarm Systems Data Center—ProposedWebster20
Amazon Montgomery County Data Center (Project Green)Amazon.com, Inc.ProposedMontgomery—
BLE Landholdings Data Center—ProposedFranklin—
Columbia Data Center—ProposedBoone—
Crusoe Warrenton Data Center (Meta)CrusoeProposedWarren—
Festus Data CenterCRGProposedJefferson—
Lumon Solutions Data Center—ProposedWebster—
Metrobloks data center—ProposedClay—
Project Cumulus—ProposedSt. Charles—
Project Kestrel—ProposedPlatte—
Project Tiger Zou—ProposedRandolph—
Provident Data Center—ProposedFranklin—
Sarcoxie Data Center—ProposedJasper—
St Charles Data Center—ProposedSt. Charles—
Tierpoint Data Center—ProposedSt Charles County—
Nebius Data CenterPatmosUnder constructionJackson880
Project MicahAlphabet Inc.Under constructionClay700
Wildwood Ranch Data Center—Under constructionJasper200
Lambda Kansas City AI FactoryLambda LabsUnder constructionJackson County24
Level(3) Kansas CityLumen TechnologiesMapped (unverified)—30
Netrality Data CentersPrime Data CentersOperatingSt. Louis12
1530 Swift - Nocix—Mapped (unverified)——
1831 Chestnut Condominium Data Center—OperatingSt. Louis—
710 Tucker St Louis—Mapped (unverified)——
Black Rock Financial Management—Mapped (unverified)Platte—
Bluebird Underground Data Center—Mapped (unverified)——
Carfax—Mapped (unverified)Boone—
Cogent St LouisCogent CommunicationsMapped (unverified)——
Genome Data CenterPrime Data CentersMapped (unverified)St. Louis—
H5 Data Centers St. Louis (MO01)H5 Data CentersMapped (unverified)——
IP Pathways KC1—Mapped (unverified)——
Iron Mountain Data Center - Kansas City (KCM-1)—Mapped (unverified)——
LightEdge Kansas City Subtropolis (KCI1)—Mapped (unverified)——
Lumen Kansas CityLumen TechnologiesMapped (unverified)——
Meta Data CenterPrime Data CentersMapped (unverified)Clay—
Meta Kansas City (Golden Plains)Facebook USA, Inc.OperatingPlatte County—
NOCIX Clay Facility—Mapped (unverified)——
NetSolus Inc—Mapped (unverified)——
Netrality Data CentersPrime Data CentersOperatingJackson—
Netrality St. Louis - 900 Walnut—Mapped (unverified)——
Patmos Hosting, Inc.—OperatingJackson—
Patmos KC1—Mapped (unverified)——
Project HarperDiode VenturesWithdrawnCass—
TierPointTierPoint, LLCOperatingSt. Louis—
TierPoint St. Louis - LocustTierPoint, LLCMapped (unverified)——
TierPoint St. Louis - WalnutTierPoint, LLCMapped (unverified)——
TierPoint St. Louis – MillparkTierPoint, LLCMapped (unverified)——
UnReal Servers—Mapped (unverified)——

Methodology & sources

Facility counts include operating, under-construction, proposed, and permitted sites. Capacity (MW) combines operator disclosures, interconnection-queue estimates, and research datasets; see each facility for provenance. County risk scores weight project exposure (40%), power demand (30%), water draw (15%), and land footprint (15%), renormalized over measured factors.

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