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

Tennessee

DataCentersExposed tracks 18 AI data centers in Tennessee — 5 operating and 2 in the pipeline — across 8 counties, drawing 487 MW of reported power demand from 7 tracked corporate operators.

Sources: Methodology, Coverage scorecard

DataCentersExposed tracks 18 data centers in Tennessee — 5 operating and 2 proposed. The 5 Tennessee facilities with disclosed electrical capacity account for 487 MW of demand on the grid — power that competes with homes and businesses for the same generation and transmission.

Reporting by · Updated May 29, 2026

Tracked
18
data centers
Operating
5
live today
Pipeline
2
proposed / building
Demand
487 MW
5 w/ capacity
Counties
8
touched
Operators
7
corporate parents
The story so far

Tennessee at a glance

The largest footprint in Tennessee belongs to Alphabet Inc., behind 4 tracked facilities. Flexential Corp., Meta Platforms, Inc., and xAI Corp. 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: Williamson County leads Tennessee with 5 facilities and a composite risk score of 9/100. Montgomery County and Davidson 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.

Tennessee is not done growing. 2 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: 8 state bills mentioning data centers and 6 recent news items are tracked for Tennessee 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.

Who's building

Top operators in Tennessee

Where it's concentrated

County risk leaderboard

Risk methodology
Still contested

Pipeline & proposals

26 of 18 shown

All tracked facilities

FacilityOperatorStatusCountyMW
DC BLOX Nashville (Grassmere Park)DC BLOXProposedDavidson50
Fisk University Data CenterProposedDavidson
Colossus 2Mapped (unverified)Shelby661
xAI Colossus (South Memphis)xAI Corp.OperatingShelby422
BnymMapped (unverified)Davidson
DC Blox ChattanoogaOperatingHamilton
Flexential Brentwood Data CenterFlexential Corp.Mapped (unverified)Williamson
Flexential Nashville - BrentwoodFlexential Corp.OperatingWilliamson
Flexential Nashville - Cool SpringsFlexential Corp.OperatingWilliamson
Flexential Nashville - FranklinFlexential Corp.OperatingWilliamson
Frontier (supercomputer)Mapped (unverified)Roane
Gallatin Data CenterPrime Data CentersMapped (unverified)Sumner
GoogleAlphabet Inc.Mapped (unverified)Montgomery
Google Montgomery Data CenterAlphabet Inc.Mapped (unverified)Montgomery
HCA Information Technology & Services Data CenterMapped (unverified)Davidson
Meta Gallatin Data CenterMeta Platforms, Inc.Mapped (unverified)Sumner
Meta Gallatin Data CenterMeta Platforms, Inc.Mapped (unverified)Sumner
Meta Gallatin Data CenterMeta Platforms, Inc.Mapped (unverified)Sumner
Newrays Two LLC MiningMapped (unverified)Henry
Spc3aAlphabet Inc.Mapped (unverified)Montgomery
Spc4aAlphabet Inc.Mapped (unverified)Montgomery
Tennessee Processing Center LLCMapped (unverified)Davidson
Tennessee South Data CenterMapped (unverified)Rutherford
TierPointTierPoint, LLCOperatingWilliamson
Verizon WirelessVerizon Communications Inc.Mapped (unverified)Davidson
xAI Colossus 2 (building)xAI Corp.Mapped (unverified)Shelby

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.