Michigan Data Center Tracker
Powered by Graham & Gold
Tracking the public record · live data

Dashboard / Live Diagrams

Our live diagrams — every chart drawn from the same sourced records that power the map. Press play, scrub the timeline, watch the fight move.

The dashboard Live · — · auto-refresh 10 min
20
Tracked projects +1
2.9GW
Disclosed load
33
Communities paused +1
1.65×
Pauses per project
Facilities by status
20
Proposed 10
Withdrawn 5
Approved 3
Projects by region
SE12
West5
Mid2
North1
The grid they plug into
Wind 6
Gas 5
Solar 5
Coal 4
Disclosed MW · trend
Jan '242.9 GW
Method

KPIs and the four panels above are drawn from our register of 20 tracked projects, built from municipal agendas & minutes, MPSC filings, and utility disclosures. Status & region reflect the latest public record. Disclosed load counts only the 6 of 20 projects that have published a nameplate figure — the real total runs higher. The grid mix shows Michigan's 2024 statewide generation (EIA), the pool new load draws on — not per-project sourcing. Full methodology →

Animated · plays over time

The Moratorium Wave

33 communities have paused data-center development. Press play to watch the wave spread, month by month.

0
Communities paused · Jan '24
Michigan Data Center Trackermichigandatacentertracker.com
Method

Each dot is a Michigan community that adopted a formal data-center moratorium, pause, or ban, placed at the community and dated to the month the measure passed. Built from municipal ordinances and meeting minutes; a community is counted once, at its first pause.

Live heat map

Communities under pressure

Every community weighted by what it faces right now — active projects, local pauses, and upcoming hearings. Bigger, hotter dots = more pressure.

Michigan Data Center Trackermichigandatacentertracker.com
High Moderate Watching
Size = projects + pauses + hearings
Most pressure right now
Method

Pressure score = active projects + adopted local pauses + hearings scheduled in the next 30 days, summed per community. It is an editorial index for triage — a relative signal of where to look, not an official measurement. Dot size and color scale with the score.

The buildout curve · disclosed MW
2.9GWverified · ≈ 2.3 million homes' worth of power
Jan 2024Jun 2026
Method

Cumulative disclosed nameplate load (MW) across tracked projects, plotted by the month each figure entered the public record. Only projects with a published load appear; the 14 undisclosed projects are excluded, so the curve is a floor, not a ceiling. Home-equivalent uses the U.S. average of ~10.8 MWh/home/yr.

The breakdown · from the record See all 19 projects →
Disclosed load by project
Only 6 of 20 projects have disclosed a load. Two dwarf the rest.
METHOD  Nameplate load (MW) as stated in filings or agendas. 14 of 20 projects have disclosed no figure and are omitted here.
Who's driving it
Developers behind the tracked projects — Big Tech included.
METHOD  Named applicant/developer per project. “Undisclosed” = shielded behind an LLC or NDA at time of filing.
Where the pipeline stands
Every project by status — proposals lead, but withdrawals are close behind.
METHOD  Current permitting status from the latest public record. Withdrawn + rejected are counted separately from active proposals.
Counties in play
Where the projects sit. Click any county to open it on the live map.
METHOD  Project count by county of record. Click a county to open its pins on the live map.
Deeper cuts · reading the record
The disclosure gap
What we still don't know
Of 20 tracked projects, most have never published how much power they'll draw. You can't weigh a data center's impact on the grid, water, or your bill without its load.
METHOD  A project is “disclosed” if a nameplate load (MW) appears anywhere in its public filings or agendas. Share-of-load computed across the five disclosed projects only.
Where the load concentrates
Two projects account for nearly all disclosed megawatts.
METHOD  Each disclosed project's MW as a share of the 2,550 MW disclosed to date.
From proposal to poured concrete
How far projects get — and how many fall away.
METHOD  Projects grouped by furthest stage reached. Withdrawn + rejected shown as attrition, not a stage.
Region × status
Where each kind of project sits. Southeast Michigan carries the active pipeline; the west is nearly all early proposals.
METHOD  Count of projects in each region/status cell. Darker = more projects. Region assigned by county.
The pause, cumulatively
Same moratorium data as the animated wave — here as a running total, so you can see the slope steepen.
METHOD  Running count of communities with an adopted pause, by month of adoption. Same source register as the Moratorium Wave above.
Dashboard sponsored by Your logo Become a sponsor →
Emmy Ask Emmy