Who funds which county — datacenter tax impact by company
Every cited project in the Dimetrics coverage universe, modeled with the same calculator the county pages use: default build costs, the project's critical-IT MW (gross × 0.7 where the operator disclosed only gross capacity), and the county-granted abatement where our research found one. Search or filter to a company to see all of its sites side by side; select any row for the composition of the number, the county budget lines it compares against, and its sources.
| APLD· Dickey County, ND· operational | APLDApplied Digital | Dickey County, ND | 400 | operational | none | $22.3M | 34.0% |
| APLD· Cass County, ND· construction | APLDApplied Digital | Cass County, ND | 200 | construction | none | $14.7M | 1.0% |
| CIFR· Winkler County, TX· construction | CIFRCipher Digital | Winkler County, TX | 216 | construction | none | $88.7M | 79.6% |
| CIFR· Andrews County, TX· construction | CIFRCipher Digital | Andrews County, TX | 70 | construction | none | $28.6M | 13.7% |
| CIFR· Mitchell County, TX· construction· 100% abated | CIFRCipher Digital | Mitchell County, TX | 207 | construction | 100% | $0 | 0.0% |
| CLSK· Washington County, GA· operational | CLSKCleanSpark | Washington County, GA | 175 | operational | — | $49.5M | 35.4% |
| CORZ· Denton County, TX· operational | CORZCore Scientific | Denton County, TX | 260 | operational | — | $109.1M | 2.3% |
| CORZ· Reeves County, TX· operational | CORZCore Scientific | Reeves County, TX | 185 | operational | — | $71.6M | 18.2% |
| CORZ· Hunt County, TX· proposed | CORZCore Scientific | Hunt County, TX | 110 | proposed | none | $45.9M | 5.4% |
| CORZ· Whitfield County, GA· operational | CORZCore Scientific | Whitfield County, GA | 175 | operational | — | $30.3M | 3.3% |
| CORZ· Muskogee County, OK· construction | CORZCore Scientific | Muskogee County, OK | 82 | construction | none | $14.8M | 3.9% |
| CORZ· Muskogee County, OK· operational | CORZCore Scientific | Muskogee County, OK | 70 | operational | — | $12.6M | 3.4% |
| CORZ· Cherokee County, NC· operational | CORZCore Scientific | Cherokee County, NC | 65 | operational | — | $8.4M | 6.9% |
| CORZ· Lee County, AL· operational | CORZCore Scientific | Lee County, AL | 32 | operational | — | $8.2M | 0.6% |
| CRWV· Union County, NJ· construction | CRWVCoreWeave | Union County, NJ | 175 | construction | none | $21.7M | 0.5% |
| CRWV· Lancaster County, PA· proposed | CRWVCoreWeave | Lancaster County, PA | 210 | proposed | none | $17.9M | 0.6% |
| CRWV· Dickey County, ND· construction· not in totals | CRWVCoreWeave | Dickey County, ND | 280 | construction | none | $15.6M | 23.8% |
| CRWV· Laramie County, WY· construction | CRWVCoreWeave | Laramie County, WY | 62 | construction | none | $9.3M | 0.8% |
| CRWV· Travis County, TX· operational | CRWVCoreWeave | Travis County, TX | 11 | operational | none | $4.2M | 0.0% |
| CRWV· Washington County, OR· operational | CRWVCoreWeave | Washington County, OR | 6 | operational | review | $1.4M | 0.0% |
| CRWV· Douglas County, GA· operational | CRWVCoreWeave | Douglas County, GA | 6 | operational | none | $1.3M | 0.2% |
| Crusoe· Armstrong County, TX· construction· 100% abated | Crusoe | Armstrong County, TX | 350 | construction | 100% | $0 | 0.0% |
| Crusoe· Warren County, MO· construction· 75% abated | Crusoe | Warren County, MO | — | construction | 75% | — | — |
| Fluidstack· Hale County, TX· construction | Fluidstack | Hale County, TX | 168 | construction | none | $86.8M | 43.9% |
| GLXY· Dickens County, TX· construction | GLXYGalaxy Digital | Dickens County, TX | 260 | construction | review | $114.6M | 891% |
| GLXY· Dickens County, TX· proposed | GLXYGalaxy Digital | Dickens County, TX | 133 | proposed | review | $58.6M | 456% |
| GLXY· Dickens County, TX· operational | GLXYGalaxy Digital | Dickens County, TX | 133 | operational | — | $58.6M | 456% |
| Google· Montgomery County, MO· construction· 70% abated | Montgomery County, MO | — | construction | 70% | — | — | |
| Google· Botetourt County, VA· proposed | Botetourt County, VA | — | proposed | review | — | — | |
| HUT· Nueces County, TX· construction | HUTHut 8 Corp | Nueces County, TX | 352 | construction | none | $127.3M | 5.3% |
| HUT· Nueces County, TX· construction | HUTHut 8 Corp | Nueces County, TX | 352 | construction | none | $127.3M | 5.3% |
| HUT· West Feliciana Parish, LA· construction | HUTHut 8 Corp | West Feliciana Parish, LA | 245 | construction | review | $48.9M | 36.0% |
| IOND· Ward County, TX· operational | IONDIonic Digital Inc. | Ward County, TX | — | operational | none | — | — |
| IREN· Nolan County, TX· construction | IRENIREN Limited | Nolan County, TX | 420 | construction | none | $161.5M | 74.9% |
| IREN· Childress County, TX· operational | IRENIREN Limited | Childress County, TX | — | operational | none | — | — |
| IREN· Pittsburg County, OK· proposed | IRENIREN Limited | Pittsburg County, OK | — | proposed | review | — | — |
| Meta· Richland Parish, LA· construction | Meta | Richland Parish, LA | 3,500 | construction | review | $476.2M | 248% |
| Meta· El Paso County, TX· construction· 80% abated | Meta | El Paso County, TX | 700 | construction | 80% | $61.6M | 1.0% |
| Meta· Dodge County, WI· construction | Meta | Dodge County, WI | 154 | construction | none | $14.5M | 3.6% |
| Meta· Boone County, IN· proposed· 100% abated | Meta | Boone County, IN | 700 | proposed | 100% | $0 | 0.0% |
| Meta· Crook County, OR· operational | Meta | Crook County, OR | — | operational | review | — | — |
| Meta· Polk County, IA· operational· 100% abated | Meta | Polk County, IA | — | operational | 100% | — | — |
| Meta· Rutherford County, NC· operational· 85% abated | Meta | Rutherford County, NC | — | operational | 85% | — | — |
| Meta· Valencia County, NM· operational | Meta | Valencia County, NM | — | operational | review | — | — |
| Meta· Sarpy County, NE· operational | Meta | Sarpy County, NE | — | operational | review | — | — |
| Meta· Tarrant County, TX· operational· 60% abated | Meta | Tarrant County, TX | — | operational | 60% | — | — |
| Meta· Henrico County, VA· operational· 89% abated | Meta | Henrico County, VA | — | operational | 89% | — | — |
| Meta· Newton County, GA· operational | Meta | Newton County, GA | — | operational | review | — | — |
| Meta· Licking County, OH· operational | Meta | Licking County, OH | — | operational | review | — | — |
| Meta· Madison County, AL· operational | Meta | Madison County, AL | — | operational | none | — | — |
| Meta· DeKalb County, IL· operational· 55% abated | Meta | DeKalb County, IL | — | operational | 55% | — | — |
| Meta· Utah County, UT· operational· 80% abated | Meta | Utah County, UT | — | operational | 80% | — | — |
| Meta· Maricopa County, AZ· operational | Meta | Maricopa County, AZ | — | operational | none | — | — |
| Meta· Platte County, MO· operational· 100% abated | Meta | Platte County, MO | — | operational | 100% | — | — |
| Meta· Bell County, TX· operational | Meta | Bell County, TX | — | operational | review | — | — |
| Meta· Sumner County, TN· operational | Meta | Sumner County, TN | — | operational | review | — | — |
| Meta· Montgomery County, AL· construction | Meta | Montgomery County, AL | — | construction | none | — | — |
| Meta· Clark County, IN· construction | Meta | Clark County, IN | — | construction | review | — | — |
| Meta· Dakota County, MN· construction | Meta | Dakota County, MN | — | construction | review | — | — |
| Meta· Laramie County, WY· construction | Meta | Laramie County, WY | — | construction | none | — | — |
| Meta· Aiken County, SC· construction | Meta | Aiken County, SC | — | construction | review | — | — |
| Meta· Ada County, ID· construction | Meta | Ada County, ID | — | construction | review | — | — |
| Meta· Wood County, OH· construction· 75% abated | Meta | Wood County, OH | — | construction | 75% | — | — |
| Microsoft· Racine County, WI· construction | Microsoft | Racine County, WI | 1,050 | construction | none | $108.1M | 9.7% |
| Microsoft· Fayette County, GA· operational | Microsoft | Fayette County, GA | — | operational | review | — | — |
| Microsoft· Laramie County, WY· proposed | Microsoft | Laramie County, WY | — | proposed | none | — | — |
| Microsoft· Catawba County, NC· construction | Microsoft | Catawba County, NC | — | construction | review | — | — |
| NBIS· Jefferson County, AL· construction· 32% abated | NBISNebius Group | Jefferson County, AL | 210 | construction | 32% | $43.9M | 0.9% |
| NBIS· Jackson County, MO· construction· 90% abated· not in totals | NBISNebius Group | Jackson County, MO | 840 | construction | 90% | $39.2M | 0.7% |
| NBIS· Jackson County, MO· construction· 90% abated | NBISNebius Group | Jackson County, MO | 700 | construction | 90% | $32.7M | 0.6% |
| NBIS· Cumberland County, NJ· construction | NBISNebius Group | Cumberland County, NJ | 210 | construction | review | $31.2M | 2.3% |
| Nscale· Mason County, WV· proposed | Nscale | Mason County, WV | 5,600 | proposed | none | $645.2M | 913% |
| Nscale· Rockingham County, NC· construction | Nscale | Rockingham County, NC | 69 | construction | review | $14.1M | 3.8% |
| OpenAI· Pike County, OH· proposed | OpenAI | Pike County, OH | 4,250 | proposed | none | $399.8M | 257% |
| OpenAI· Milam County, TX· construction | OpenAI | Milam County, TX | 840 | construction | none | $366.9M | 300% |
| OpenAI· Shackelford County, TX· proposed | OpenAI | Shackelford County, TX | 770 | proposed | review | $324.2M | 1,413% |
| OpenAI· Effingham County, GA· proposed· 50% abated | OpenAI | Effingham County, GA | 2,240 | proposed | 50% | $275.9M | 68.7% |
| OpenAI· Washtenaw County, MI· construction· 50% abated | OpenAI | Washtenaw County, MI | 770 | construction | 50% | $154.7M | 6.5% |
| OpenAI· Doña Ana County, NM· proposed | OpenAI | Doña Ana County, NM | 700 | proposed | review | $123.4M | 10.2% |
| OpenAI· Trumbull County, OH· construction | OpenAI | Trumbull County, OH | 770 | construction | none | $100.6M | 10.1% |
| OpenAI· Ozaukee County, WI· construction | OpenAI | Ozaukee County, WI | 770 | construction | review | $58.5M | 12.6% |
| RIOT· Milam County, TX· operational· 75% abated | RIOTRiot Platforms | Milam County, TX | 241 | operational | 75% | $26.3M | 21.5% |
| SPCX· Shelby County, TN· operational | SPCXSpaceX | Shelby County, TN | 700 | operational | none | $241.3M | 3.3% |
| SPCX· DeSoto County, MS· operational | SPCXSpaceX | DeSoto County, MS | 700 | operational | review | $195.0M | 24.7% |
| SPCX· Shelby County, TN· operational | SPCXSpaceX | Shelby County, TN | — | operational | — | — | — |
| WULF· Hancock County, KY· proposed | WULFTeraWulf | Hancock County, KY | 401 | proposed | none | $140.6M | 333% |
| WULF· Niagara County, NY· operational | WULFTeraWulf | Niagara County, NY | 438 | operational | review | $60.5M | 3.7% |
| WYFI· Rockingham County, NC· operational | WYFIWhiteFiber, Inc. | Rockingham County, NC | 40 | operational | — | $8.1M | 2.2% |
Company totals sum each campus once — tenant-side and duplicate-campus rows stay visible in the table but are excluded from the rollup — and are not additive across companies that share a campus. Granted local abatements stack on top of each state's statutory incentive treatment: distinct mechanisms, not double-counting. These are modeled figures at default build costs, not observed tax bills.
Each project row is cited to an operator disclosure, county document, or major trade press; abatement findings cite the granting document or contemporaneous coverage. Capacity is modeled on a critical-IT basis — for power shells and neoclouds it is contracted capacity from disclosed leases, so uncontracted sites show “—” rather than a capacity we cannot evidence. Where an operator disclosed only gross site power, the ×0.7 derate documented in the methodology applies. “% of county” is the share of all local-government revenue in the county area, shown as a multiple once it passes 100%.