Evidence & answers

Evidence limitation: The Energy Futures Group report behind the release's $50 billion figure, and the Task Force's next report, due 15 February 2027; the Task Force's work continues through December 2028.

Evidence limitation: CoreWeave's committed capital investment and job numbers, the board memo for this award, whether the project has been certified complete, whether any tax credit certificate has been issued or used, and whether the specially adopted rules were made permanent before their 23 September 2026 expiration date.

Evidence limitation: The text of Plan Approval 32-00457A (number and rating of turbines, permitted capacity), DEP's comment response on data center scope, whether construction has begun, whether power production will start in 2027, and any data center tenant. The plan approval documents could not be read.

Evidence limitation: Metered load at the site, whether the second 150 MW has since been approved and energized, and the substation numbering, which MLGW's update does not give.

Evidence limitation: Which data center contracts have been filed or approved under the law, and how incremental costs have been calculated in practice.

Evidence limitation: The adopted budget's data center revenue lines (the $1.3 billion figure was not found in the adopted documents read) and which base the county meant by 'total budget'.

Supported means these documents describe a dispute, not proof of a $587 million cost shift.

The financial question remains unresolved here. The underlying analysis, billing records and a commission determination were not reviewed.

Evidence limitation: The underlying analysis, billing and PSA records, and a commission determination were not reviewed. The allegation concerns large energy users including data centers; it is not an established data-center-only charge to residential customers. These sources do not determine which financial interpretation is correct or establish present regulator status.

Supported refers to this reading of the complaint. It does not verify the company’s figures, total site water use, the plaintiffs’ allegations or a court finding.

This is a party’s description of the Phase 1 application. Original applicant records and total site water demand were not reviewed.

Evidence limitation: These are a litigating party's descriptions and allegations about the Phase 1 application. The underlying applicant documents, hearing record, approval conditions and water-service agreements were not reviewed. Nothing here establishes measured use, total future demand, filing authenticity through the court docket, present litigation status or a court finding.

Supported refers to this explanation of the report’s figures, not proof that the forecast jobs will happen.

These are forecasts. This review does not establish delivered jobs, distinct workers, or whether the economic model is accurate.

Evidence limitation: Whether these projected jobs are delivered, the number of distinct construction workers, and independent validation of the economic model. The study’s employment forecast is not a measured payroll count.

Evidence limitation: Whether the Commission has approved a Delmarva large-load tariff, its terms, and whether any 25 MW-plus customer has been interconnected or has an interconnection date. The text of Order 10829, Delmarva's Dec 2025 tariff filing and the Hearing Examiner's findings were not read. Docket 25-0826 on DelaFile was not retrieved. No reviewed document in the sources checked establishes it.

Evidence limitation: The county threshold numbers (in the two linked PDFs, not captured), the number of certificates issued, the amount of tax exempted for any project, and jobs actually created and maintained. The Department's annual-report requirement was only seen as a link. No reviewed document in the sources checked establishes it.

Evidence limitation: Any state, county or utility incentive, tax credit or discount; the ordinance, development agreement or conditions of approval that would document the absence of a city abatement; actual assessed value and taxes paid after operations begin. No reviewed document in the sources checked establishes it.

Evidence limitation: Measured potable or recycled water use after opening; the recycled-water volume; the recycled-water agreements' terms and whether they were completed; the Water Supply Assessment (the page lists it as Appendix O of the environmental review, not read); and the conditions-of-approval text.

Evidence limitation: The definition of qualified data center in K.S.A. 74-50,331 and its thresholds; whether any Kansas utility serves a data center under a commission-approved contract rate outside this section; what tariff or contract any named Kansas project, including the tracked Beale Data Center record, would take service under; and the 'cooperative' exclusion's effect on data centers served by cooperatives. No reviewed document in the sources checked establishes it.

Evidence limitation: Whether the Task Force has issued any Framework Determination, Framework Guidance or Dashboard listing, and whether any data-center project has applied for a State incentive under the order. Which specific Maryland incentive programs are discretionary within the order's meaning, and whether any statutory by-right incentive is outside it. The Next Generation Energy Act of 2025 and Utility RELIEF Act of 2026, which the order cites, were not read. No reviewed document in the sources checked establishes it.

Evidence limitation: Which applications are pending, whether any application has been brought to the Board under the order, and what rate or amount any approved abatement carries. The published standard form of the Community Support Commitment (due 2026-11-06) was not found in the sources checked. Whether the 4.6 percent combined rate equals the ordinary statewide combined rate was not established from the documents read. No reviewed document in the sources checked establishes it.

Evidence limitation: Whether generation, transmission, capacity-market, wholesale-market or pre-tariff contracts can affect household bills remains a separate question from this tariff arithmetic. The saved record holds the tariff sheets and the PUCO docket listing, not a PUCO or Ohio Consumers' Counsel analysis of household bill effects and not the text of the 5 August 2026 order or the 30 September 2026 entry on rehearing.

Evidence limitation: The completion year. Whether any building or substation is finished. Utility capacity as distinct from the 216 MW critical IT figure. Measured water use.

Evidence limitation: Measured withdrawal, consumption, discharge, or make-up water. Whether the air-cooling design is built. What the $10 million fund spends, and where.

Evidence limitation: Whether any of that generation is built, energized, or metered. The split of the gigawatt figure among wind, solar, and batteries. The capacity of the on-site gas. Data-center IT load. Hourly matching between generation and the data center.

Evidence limitation: The tariff, rate, or interconnection agreement that would show who pays. Any later bill or regulator order.

Evidence limitation: A counted permanent headcount, construction payroll, or opening date. How many of the stated jobs are at the data center rather than the company-wide multiplier.

Evidence limitation: The individual Clearway contracts, their dates, and whether any energy is generated or matched to a named facility. The linked social post was inaccessible; its wording was not reviewed.

Evidence limitation: Whether the plants are built or the energy is generated. Which Google facility takes it. Hourly or physical matching. The contract text itself.

Evidence limitation: Whether construction has started, any building is operating, or the stated IT load, area, or water-use figure has been measured. Utility power is a separate figure on the same page.

Evidence limitation: The wording of the unopened social post and wire release. Any permit or company record that states a phase size or a job count.

Evidence limitation: Whether the substation is built or energized, and any utility filing that states its capacity.

Evidence limitation: Whether either building is under construction or operating. Utility power. Metered load. The wording of the unopened construction post.

Evidence limitation: Whether the $25 million was ever written into an executed instrument; the executed agreement, the extension resolutions and any City payment ledger are not in the saved record.

Evidence limitation: The executed agreement and its payment-trigger clauses, the two extension resolutions, which milestones failed and any City payment ledger are not in the saved record; whether any payment was ever due or made is not established.

Evidence limitation: The executed agreement, any separate abatement or deduction instrument (and whether one was ever adopted, claimed or received), the extension resolutions and any payment or abatement ledger are not in the saved record.

Evidence limitation: Whether a NIPSCO agreement was ever executed, and which milestones failed; the executed development agreement, the extension resolutions and any NIPSCO filing for this expansion are not in the saved record.

Evidence limitation: Critical IT capacity; measured load; owner/operator legal roles distinct from applicant; actual occupancy or opening date (the city's revenue FAQ projects the first building 'expected online in 2028').

Evidence limitation: Whether any construction-related permit has since issued; current construction or opening status; street address and parcel (not given on the county news page).

Evidence limitation: Current measured withdrawal or consumption; operator and title-owner legal roles; reconciliation of 2100 versus 2400 and 2700 Bermuda Hundred Road.

Evidence limitation: Executed agreement, phase-completion definition, first due date and receipts.

Evidence limitation: Exemption dollar value (the list does not state one); exemption end date for this row; construction or operating status; IT load.

Evidence limitation: Maricopa County approval; Luke Air Force Base approval; construction start; critical IT capacity; operator.

Evidence limitation: MPSC final disposition of U-22058; whether load has materialized; measured load; critical IT capacity; executed public (non-confidential) contract text.

Evidence limitation: Rescheduled hearing date and outcome; whether NSR 10883 is later issued, denied, or withdrawn; data-center IT load; utility demand.

Evidence limitation: Effects outside the reviewed site-specific commitment, including other tariffs, projects and wholesale-market costs, are not established here.

The underlying filing, hearing outcome and any certificate remain unverified. Company generation figures are not data-center IT capacity.

Evidence limitation: Underlying application and staff report; reason for the official/company MW discrepancy; hearing outcome; any OPSB certificate or construction authorization.

The hearing notice is historical. Its outcome and any certificate remain unverified; the follow-up is overdue.

Evidence limitation: The underlying OPSB application, hearing outcome, certificate status, and future effect on retail bills.

Evidence limitation: Cooling architecture, source water, and permitted or measured withdrawal, consumption, and discharge.

Evidence limitation: Site-specific cooling design, cooling-water source, and measured data-center withdrawal, consumption, and discharge.

Evidence limitation: Cooling architecture, source water, and permitted or measured withdrawal, consumption, and discharge.

Evidence limitation: Operating configuration, initial-fill volume, other site water uses, and measured withdrawal, consumption, and discharge.

Evidence limitation: Actual annual withdrawal and consumption, potable and nonpotable shares, the heat-rejection architecture used in operation, and operating measurements.

Evidence limitation: The remaining New Carlisle building count, buildout schedule and full-campus completion milestone are not established in the reviewed source.

Evidence limitation: Benefits earned, claimed and received; the meaning of DATA's $611,502,328 Paid/Certified to Date field; whether SEF is executed; RTC status meaning; independently observed jobs and placed-in-service investment.

Evidence limitation: Independent utility/meter corroboration; cooling share; peak-day demand; operators other than Google.

Evidence limitation: Adopted resolution text and full legal effect; whether the IEDC DATA offer has been executed.

Evidence limitation: Current measured withdrawal, consumption and discharge; a reconciled explanation of Microsoft's separate 380-million-gallon estimate; and operating changes after EPA's dated observations.

Evidence limitation: Whether any OH1 building has opened or is serving load.

Review limitation: No limitation was recorded in this review. That does not establish that none exists.

Evidence limitation: Observed employment; whether the 200-by-2032 and 600+ first-phase figures describe the same scope.

Evidence limitation: The hyperscaler's identity, underlying component revenue records, actual payroll and employee or contractor headcount.

Evidence limitation: Independent utility/meter records; cooling-only share; peak-day demand; operators other than Google's company-reported 2025 campus rows.

Evidence limitation: A statewide census with consistent record units, lifecycle rules, deduplication and a dated coverage audit.

Evidence limitation: Net fiscal result of any named project; whether a named project complied with or received an exemption.

Evidence limitation: The governor's direct May communication was not independently retrieved. Official Tax Credit Authority text of the pause was not obtained.

Evidence limitation: Individual permits for named data-center outfalls were not inventoried. An individual NPDES permit is permission, not measured discharge or proof of compliance.

Evidence limitation: Final campus scope and completion.

Evidence limitation: Recipient-level awards and payment records.

Evidence limitation: Source water, permitted quantity, current metered withdrawal/consumption, and completion.

Evidence limitation: Eligible-capital, placed-in-service and geographic scope.

Evidence limitation: Annual gross taxes, abatements and net receipts.

Evidence limitation: Project-specific CF-1, payroll definition, count date, residency and contractor treatment.

Evidence limitation: Permit quantity, current metered withdrawal/consumption, source-water mix and completion.

Evidence limitation: Exact unsatisfied milestones.

Evidence basis: city-council projection

Evidence limitation: Observed peak, period and job-years.

Evidence limitation: Operating configuration, total site water and measured consumption.

Evidence limitation: Completed or placed-in-service capital.

Evidence limitation: Operating payroll and delivery schedule.

Evidence limitation: Contracted, energized and measured load.

Evidence limitation: Utility contract and regulatory cost-allocation record.

Evidence limitation: Controlling agreement and exemptions claimed.

Evidence limitation: These records do not freshly confirm the existing facility’s current operating status.

Review limitation: No limitation was recorded in this review. That does not establish that none exists.

Review limitation: No limitation was recorded in this review. That does not establish that none exists.

Review limitation: No limitation was recorded in this review. That does not establish that none exists.

Evidence limitation: Capacity scope is not classified as critical IT load.

Evidence limitation: Independently reconstructed statewide operating-facility count.