Sunday, April 19, 2026
Ohio Data Centers.
Est. 2026 · Independent
Tracking every proposed hyperscale data center in Ohio's 88 counties.
Ohio / Risk Calculator / Methodology
Methodology

How we score 88 Ohio counties.

The Risk Calculator is a weighted index built from four public-data factors. It does not predict specific data center announcements. It surfaces the structural conditions that hyperscale developers evaluate when selecting sites. Transparency is the product. Every input, every weight, and every adjustment is documented below.

How this site scores Ohio counties

Each of Ohio's 88 counties is assigned a numerical risk score from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicate greater structural attractiveness to hyperscale data center developers. The score is the sum of four weighted components.

The four scoring components

1. Power availability (30 points)

Reflects the high-voltage transmission infrastructure available in or adjacent to the county and the spare capacity at substations. Counties served by AEP Ohio's central-Ohio backbone (Columbus through Newark and Marysville) score highest because of dense 138 kV and 345 kV transmission. Counties on the FirstEnergy northeast Ohio system (Cleveland, Akron, Youngstown) and the Duke Energy Ohio southwest system (Cincinnati metro) score next. Rural counties served only by 69 kV distribution score lowest. The Ohio Power Siting Board's 2024-2026 transmission upgrade docket is the primary public source.

2. Current exposure to known projects (40 points)

The largest single component. Counties with named, public hyperscale projects (the 9 deep county pages) score 35-40 points. Counties with documented LLC parcel transfers, NDA-shielded development agreements, emergency zoning ordinances, or utility-survey activity score 20-30 points. Counties adjacent to active-project counties score 10-15 points. Counties with no documented activity but matching infrastructure profile score 5-10 points.

3. Water capacity (15 points)

Reflects municipal water-system peak-day capacity at the county seat plus available aquifer or surface-water resources in the surrounding area. Counties on Lake Erie (Cuyahoga, Lake, Lorain, Erie, Sandusky, Lucas) and on the Ohio River (Hamilton, Brown, Lawrence, Scioto, Belmont, Jefferson) score higher because of effectively unlimited surface-water access. Counties on central Ohio aquifer systems (Franklin, Licking, Delaware, Pickaway) score moderately, with the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission's 2024 groundwater subsidence findings noted. Rural counties dependent primarily on private wells score lowest.

4. Land availability (15 points)

Reflects the density of agriculturally-zoned parcels of 100+ acres within 5 miles of high-voltage transmission and within 10 miles of an interstate highway interchange. Counties with large industrial-zoned brownfields or former military / DOE land (Pike County, Trumbull County) score higher. Counties with most land already developed (Cuyahoga, Hamilton, Franklin proper) score lower despite their infrastructure advantages.

Data sources for scoring

  • Power: Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) territory maps; AEP Ohio, FirstEnergy, AES Ohio, and Duke Energy Ohio infrastructure filings; PJM Interconnection regional capacity data.
  • Current exposure: Local Ohio news reporting, county auditor parcel transfer records, Ohio Secretary of State LLC filings, Ohio EPA permit notices, county and municipal council meeting minutes.
  • Water: Ohio EPA water service area maps; Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission Central Ohio Regional Water Study; municipal water department capacity reports.
  • Land: County auditor parcel data; Ohio Department of Development industrial site directory; ODOT interstate access maps.

What the score is and is not

  • It is a measure of structural attractiveness to a hyperscale developer who has not yet selected a site.
  • It is not a prediction that a data center will be built in any specific county.
  • It is updated as new data becomes available (typically monthly) and after any documented project announcement.
  • It does not measure resident sentiment, local opposition, or zoning resistance — those factors slow projects but do not change the underlying structural attractiveness.

Updates and corrections

The methodology is reviewed quarterly. Material changes to scoring components are documented on this page with a dated revision note. Corrections to specific county scores are applied within 48 hours of verification. Reader-submitted corrections are welcome via the contact form.

Reading the risk map

The interactive risk map on the homepage shades each county by tier:

  • Very High (80-100): named active hyperscale project, advanced approval stage. The 9 deep county pages.
  • High (60-79): documented project activity (LLC parcel transfers, NDAs, emergency ordinances) without finalized public approval. Includes Lake, Hancock, Seneca, Lawrence, Allen, Union counties as of April 2026.
  • Moderate (40-59): adjacent to active-project counties, or matching infrastructure profile with utility-survey activity. Includes Madison, Delaware, Warren, Greene, Clermont, Mahoning, Stark counties.
  • Low (20-39): structural conditions present but no documented developer activity. Most rural Ohio counties fall here.
  • Very Low (0-19): limited transmission, water, or land for hyperscale-class facilities. Appalachian and far-rural counties.

Counties to investigate first

Beyond the 9 deep county pages, readers in the following counties have specific, documented near-term reasons to monitor local government activity: Hancock (Findlay moratorium), Seneca (Tiffin moratorium), Lawrence (Ironton moratorium + 5,178-signature petition), Lake (Perry Village 215-acre proposal), Allen (Lima 115-generator proposal), Union (Marysville Amazon facilities + Jerome Township first-Ohio moratorium). Each of these counties has its risk profile linked from the risk map.

Free Alerts Defense Kit $39