# AI Data Center Delays: What the 35 Percent Pipeline Really Means > A big announcement tells you what a sponsor wants to build. It does not tell you when usable compute will turn on. This is how we tell the difference, phase by phase, using public records. Source: https://savrn.com/blog/ai-data-center-delays-bernstein-35-percent Author: Chad Everett Harris Published: 2026-10-19 --- AI data center delays are now front-page news. On October 18, the Financial Times ran an investigation titled "America's $10tn AI infrastructure boom is starting to fray." One line in it has been repeated everywhere since. In particular, Bernstein analysts estimate that only about 35% of the planned US data center pipeline is credible.^{1, 2} I read that and my first reaction was that we have been saying this for a year. Our delay tracker has been counting stalled, cancelled and contested projects since August. As a result, I wanted to know if the number proves the point. The short answer is that it supports the point, although not the way most headlines use it. The 35% is a credibility screen rather than a forecast that 65% of projects will be cancelled. Those are two different claims. That difference matters, in particular, to anyone putting money, land or a research program behind a promised opening date. This article does three things. First, it traces what the 35% figure is and is not. Second, it walks through the physical and financial reasons projects slip, using primary records from grid operators, utilities, regulators and courts. Third, it lays out the method we use at SAVRN to grade a project one phase at a time, with a worked example. ## Key figures

Table 1 Key figures

Metric

Value

Period · Source

Share of planned US data center pipeline rated credible

About 35%

Period: Reported Oct 18, 2026 · Source: Bernstein, via Financial Times^{1, 2}

Large US data center projects delayed, withdrawn or blocked

At least 47 (called "conservative")

Period: 2026 to date · Source: RegLayer, via FT^{2, 3}

Projects blocked or delayed by local opposition

75 projects, about $130 billion

Period: Q1 2026 · Source: Data Center Watch⁴

Projects blocked or delayed by local opposition

45 projects, about $68 billion

Period: Q2 2026 · Source: Data Center Watch⁵

Investment cancelled after sustained local opposition

At least $260 billion

Period: 2026 to date · Source: Heatmap Pro⁶

ERCOT large-load requests

More than 438,000 MW, nearly 89% data centers

Period: June 18, 2026 · Source: ERCOT⁷

AEP Ohio collateral for customers below credit tests

50% of total minimum charges for the contract term

Period: Live tariff page · Source: AEP Ohio⁹

Large power transformer lead times

Up to and beyond 36 months

Period: July 2024 · Source: US DOE¹²

Generator step-up transformers above 50 MVA

100 to 150+ weeks

Period: 2026 · Source: Terrapin¹³

US data center electricity use

176 TWh (2023); 325 to 580 TWh scenario range (2028)

Period: Dec 2024 · Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory¹⁴

SAVRN delay watchlist

390 projects delayed, cancelled or under review; 1,449 local restrictions; 289 utility actions; 96 active lawsuits

Period: Oct 19, 2026 · Source: SAVRN¹⁵

National interconnection queue (all resource types)

32,447 rows; 4,465 GW requested

Period: Oct 19, 2026 · Source: SAVRN¹⁵

## What the 35% number actually is ### The attribution chain Every public use of the 35% figure I could find traces back to the FT. For example, Techmeme indexed the FT piece on October 18 under the headline "RegLayer: 47+ large US data center projects were delayed, withdrawn, or blocked in 2026; Bernstein says ~35% of the planned US data center pipeline is credible."² Similarly, Seeking Alpha's summary repeats the same pair of numbers.³ However, I have not obtained Bernstein's client report, and nobody quoting it in public seems to have either. Because the report is private, that leaves open questions only it can answer: - What was counted? Projects, planned IT megawatts, total facility megawatts, or a stage-weighted total. - What universe? Announced only, or announced plus under construction plus existing. - What horizon? Credible by 2028, by 2030, or ever. - How were duplicates handled? For instance, one hyperscaler shopping three sites for one cluster can look like three projects. - What does "not credible" mean? Not enough public evidence yet, likely to slip, likely to shrink, or likely to die. One write-up put it well. The 35% is the share that could be executed credibly, rather than a prediction for each project, and the other 65% is not necessarily unbuildable.¹⁶ ### Why "65% are fake" is the wrong headline If you turn 35% credible into 65% cancelled, you are adding a claim the source did not make. A project can fail a credibility screen today because its utility agreement is not signed yet. However, in six months it may have the agreement. Another project may pass the screen and still slip a year because a transformer is late. As a result, I will not run a pie chart that says 35% built and 65% dead, because that chart would invent a measured outcome and a denominator that nobody has published. ### The other counts do not add up, and should not Several trackers now count trouble in the pipeline, although they measure different things.

Table 2 The other counts do not add up, and should not

Tracker

What it counts

Figure · Can it be added to the others?

Bernstein (via FT)

Share of planned pipeline rated credible

Figure: About 35% · Can it be added to the others?: No. It is a ratio, not a count

RegLayer (via FT)

Large projects delayed, withdrawn or blocked in 2026

Figure: 47+ · Can it be added to the others?: No. Different scope and size threshold

Data Center Watch Q1

Projects blocked or delayed by local opposition

Figure: 75, about $130B · Can it be added to the others?: No. Opposition only, delays and blocks mixed

Data Center Watch Q2

Same, April to June

Figure: 45, about $68B · Can it be added to the others?: Only with Q1 if de-duplicated

Heatmap Pro

Investment cancelled after local opposition

Figure: $260B+ · Can it be added to the others?: No. Cancellations only, by announced dollar value

SAVRN delay watchlist

Named projects delayed, cancelled or under review

Figure: 390 · Can it be added to the others?: No. Includes "under review," which is not a failure

One outlet that covered both RegLayer and Data Center Watch said it is "inappropriate to treat the quarterly counts as 120 unique failed developments."¹⁶ I agree, because a project that was delayed in Q1 and approved in Q2 is not a failure. Similarly, a project that shows up in three trackers is still one project. In particular, the Heatmap data is worth a closer look. Heatmap says about half of projects that met local backlash this year were ultimately cancelled, and that about $130 billion was cancelled in the three months ending September 30 alone.⁶ Its Q1 review found at least 20 projects cancelled after local pushback in the first quarter, worth more than $41.7 billion.⁶ That is a sharp rise across two quarters, although it is a measure of announced investment value rather than money spent. ### Demand is not the problem In fact, none of this says AI demand is fading. For example, Berkeley Lab estimated US data centers used 176 TWh in 2023 and modeled 325 to 580 TWh for 2028.¹⁴ Similarly, the IEA's 2025 analysis said around one fifth of planned data center projects globally could face delays if grid bottlenecks are not addressed, and described four to eight years to build new transmission lines in advanced economies.¹⁷ Its 2026 follow-up keeps the central demand outlook close to the 2025 path while flagging stretched planning systems and financing sensitivity.¹⁸ Strong demand and pipeline attrition can both be true. When demand is strong, a finished building is worth more, while a crowded pipeline means more proposals fail. In addition, a cancelled site can be replaced by another site for the same customer, and the national total holds. Therefore, the useful question is not "will AI data centers get built?" Instead, it is "will this phase get the right power, equipment, permits and money, in this location, by this date?" ## Start with the megawatt being promised Most confusion starts with the unit, since "a 1 GW campus" can mean seven different things.

Table 3 Part 2. Start with the megawatt being promised

Measure

What it represents

What it does not prove

Announced campus capacity

The sponsor's final build-out intention

What it does not prove: Funded or approved near-term construction

Requested utility load

Demand entered into a utility or ISO process

What it does not prove: Available energy or permission to energize

Contracted service capacity

Rights and obligations under a service agreement

What it does not prove: Completed network work or unrestricted service

Facility electrical capacity

Total load including cooling and losses

What it does not prove: Equivalent IT capacity

Critical IT capacity

Power available to computing equipment

What it does not prove: Installed accelerators or real utilization

Energized phase

Electrical systems commissioned for a defined phase

What it does not prove: Customer acceptance of the full service

Operating compute

Installed hardware passing specified tests

What it does not prove: Demand for all future phases

### Worked conversion: facility power vs IT power Power usage effectiveness (PUE) is total facility energy divided by IT energy. - For example, at a PUE of 1.20, 100 MW of IT load needs 120 MW of facility power. - Conversely, 100 MW of total supply supports about 83.3 MW of IT load, before any design margin. Now run a year. For instance, a 100 MW IT phase running at an average 80% of nameplate uses 700,800 MWh a year (100 × 0.8 × 8,760 hours). At PUE 1.20, the facility uses about 840,960 MWh, or 0.84 TWh. As a result, two projects both marketed as "100 MW" can be a 20 MW difference in IT load depending on which meter the number came from. Any serious comparison names the meter boundary, the phase and the date. ## Grid access is a sequence of permissions ### ERCOT shows the gap between requests and capacity On June 18, 2026, ERCOT said it was tracking more than 438,000 MW of large-load requests, with nearly 89% tied to data centers.⁷ Those are requests in a queue, rather than plants that will run. ERCOT's answer was "Batch Zero." It groups qualified projects of 75 MW and larger into a single study so the grid operator can see total future demand and plan transmission once, instead of project by project.⁷ In addition, it added two paths: customers can bring onsite generation for some or all of their supply, or accept curtailment during local transmission constraints. ERCOT expected to tell Batch Zero applicants their classification in August 2026 and to finish a transmission plan in fall 2027, while Batch 1 applications are expected to open in summer 2027.⁷ Then the process tightened. First, an August 3 market notice pushed back the planned classification notice after the governor required verification.¹⁰ Second, a September 9 notice sent requests for information that asked for supporting documents and notarized attestations, generally due within ten business days, and made passing verification a condition of staying in the batch.⁸ That is the core lesson. A spot in a queue now has to be backed by evidence, since a June forecast is not an October approval. ### PJM is building the same filter Similarly, on October 9, 2026, FERC approved PJM's new large-load registry, which tracks facilities of 50 MW or more: location, expected operating date, projected consumption, supply arrangement and backup generation.¹⁹ However, FERC rejected the rest of PJM's package, including the Interim Resource Adequacy Service and the "Bring Your Own New Capacity" proposal, saying parts were outside its authority or not shown to be just and reasonable.¹⁹ Most of PJM's proposed tariff changes were not meant to take effect until June 1, 2027, and PJM lists the registry tool as ready January 1, 2027.^{19, 11} The two largest US grid regions are both building a registry of who is real. That is what a credibility screen looks like when a grid operator does it. ### Questions to ask for each electrical phase

Table 4 Questions to ask for each electrical phase

Evidence requested

Decision it supports

Confirmed serving utility and point of connection

Who is responsible for service

Completed studies and classification

System impacts and conditional status

Executed agreement and capacity ramp

Entitlement dates, limits and obligations

Network work scope and funding

Construction that must happen outside the fence

Equipment orders and field schedule

Whether network dates are physically possible

Protection and dynamic model, operating requirements

How the load may connect and behave

Energization authorization and test records

Permission and readiness for a specific phase

A nearby transmission line on a map is not available capacity, because voltage, substation configuration, competing loads, contingencies and protection all matter. Those need engineering evidence for the actual connection rather than a map radius. Service quality belongs in the commercial model too, since 100 MW that can be curtailed on short notice is worth something different from 100 MW of firm service. Interruptible research jobs can live with it, while latency-sensitive inference and tightly synchronized training often cannot. ## Utility tariffs move financial risk forward For example, AEP Ohio's data center tariff is one of the clearest public examples of how reserving power now creates obligations before revenue.⁹ - Study fee. $100,000 for requests of 100,000 kW and greater, while smaller requests pay $50,000 for 50 to 100 MW and $10,000 for 25 to 50 MW. - Ramp. It can run no longer than four years, while minimum contract capacity steps through 50%, 65%, 80% and 90% in years one to four. - Term. The ramp period plus eight years. As a result, the term can run up to 12 years. - Minimum billing demand. Specifically, for contracts above 75,000 kW, at least 57,500 kW plus 100% of capacity above 75,000 kW, capped at 85% of contract capacity. - Credit support. Customers without both an A-/A3 rating and audited cash above ten times the collateral requirement must post a guarantee or collateral equal to 50% of total minimum charges for the full term. Surety bonds are not accepted. For example, using the published formula, a 100 MW contract has a minimum billing demand of 57.5 MW plus the 25 MW above 75 MW, or 82.5 MW. That is a capacity charge floor rather than a requirement to consume that power around the clock. That matters because the party that books power can owe infrastructure costs before compute service starts. For instance, if the customer ramps slowly, the project carries land, shell and utility obligations against partial revenue. If a tenant can walk after a missed delivery date, the mismatch gets worse. A 12-year utility term may also outlast the first accelerator generation and a shorter customer contract, so refinancing or re-leasing stops being upside and becomes an assumption. Collateral is not an expense on day one, although it ties up cash or guarantee capacity that could fund the next project. Instead, model it as a funding requirement with release conditions. ## Procurement sets the real schedule Electrical equipment is not one market, because each class has its own lead time.

Table 5 Part 5. Procurement sets the real schedule

Equipment

Public planning range

Note

15 kV medium-voltage switchgear

52 to 80 weeks

Note: Terrapin 2026 observations¹³

Substation transformers, 5 to 50 MVA

75 to 110 weeks

Note: Different class from a large GSU¹³

Generator step-up transformers above 50 MVA

100 to 150+ weeks

Note: Model and factory slot matter¹³

Diesel generators above 3 MW

90 to 110 weeks

Note: Not every generator size¹³

Modular UPS, 2 MVA or larger

40 to 60 weeks

Note: Configuration changes the order¹³

Large power transformers

Up to and beyond 36 months

Note: DOE report to Congress, July 2024¹²

These are contractor-reported planning ranges, not guaranteed dates. Instead, a real project uses its own specification and quote. The words "secured equipment" need unpacking. First, a quote is not a factory slot. Second, a slot is not a binding order. Third, a binding order is not delivered equipment. Finally, delivered equipment still needs installation and testing. GE Vernova's July 22, 2026 results separate 53 GW of gas equipment backlog from 63 GW of slot reservations.²⁰ The combined 116 GW is not a shipment schedule, and not all of it is data center demand. That is why "we have turbines" means little to a lender without the contract terms. Cooling works the same way, because liquid cooling needs compatible cold plates, coolant distribution, water chemistry, heat rejection, controls and service procedures. Because of that, faster delivery of one part does not finish the system. Linesight's June 2026 Americas review called electrical equipment a major constraint, while it described the mechanical market as more moderate.²¹ So not every category is equally scarce, and a plan should say which one is the critical path. ## Timelines follow dependencies, not press releases Virginia's legislative audit staff (JLARC) found that building an individual data center building takes roughly 12 to 18 months.²² However, that interval does not include land, power, permits or long-lead equipment. Compare it with the IEA's four to eight years for new transmission lines, and you can see the sequencing problem.¹⁷ In fact, the shell is often the fast part. Illustration: say the building finishes in month 18, the transformer arrives in month 25, utility work finishes in month 31, and integrated tests need two more months. First service is month 33. Speeding up the shell by three months earns nothing unless it changes another dependency. A phased plan helps only if the utility will authorize a smaller first load and the electrical design supports commissioning that phase on its own. It hurts if shared infrastructure gets mobilized over and over, if the first phase cannot carry operating overhead, or if the customer needs the full cluster before acceptance. A credible schedule is a version-controlled dependency model with owners and change dates. Publish a base date and a stress date, and name the event that moves them. ### Santa Clara: the network date matters For example, Santa Clara's October 2026 council record describes more than $450 million of electrical projects underway, with individual projects coming online starting in 2028 and major improvements scheduled for completion by 2030.²³ The city also says its utility, Silicon Valley Power, has not accepted new data center applications since 2023, and that it has no single data center with an electric load of 100 MW or more.²³ Therefore, a local supply bottleneck is not only a gigawatt AI campus problem. A large investment in buildings does not settle the power question either, since a finished shell waiting on a 2030 network upgrade is a carrying cost, not a data center. ## Financing follows the delivery structure Capital is available, although it comes with terms tied to milestones. - Abilene: Crusoe, Blue Owl and Primary Digital announced a second phase of a $15 billion joint venture in May 2025. In addition, transaction counsel described a 1.2 GW campus, eight buildings and 300 MW of onsite generation.^{24, 25} That confirms a funding structure and scope at that date, although it does not confirm the full campus is energized. - CoreWeave: its 2025 annual report separates more than 850 MW of active power at year-end 2025 from about 3.1 GW of contracted power for future deployment.²⁶ Active and contracted are different columns. The gap between them is normal in a build-out, while it becomes a problem only if contracts and timing do not line up. - Milestone clauses: the FT reporting, as summarized by Seeking Alpha, describes an Anthropic agreement with Nscale for a West Virginia development that lets Anthropic withdraw if financing or delivery milestones are missed, and says Nebius estimated about $250 billion for a planned 5 GW expansion, roughly one fifth financed as of September.³ I have not checked those against the companies' own filings, so treat them as reported. That last point is the heart of it, because customers are writing delivery dates into contracts with exit rights. As a result, a missed power date is no longer only a schedule problem; it can be a revenue problem. ### Who carries which exposure

Table 6 Who carries which exposure

Party

Exposure to examine

Protection to ask for

Land and development sponsor

Carrying costs, failed entitlement

Protection to ask for: Staged purchase rights, termination terms

Campus owner or lender

Completion cost, tenant acceptance

Protection to ask for: Contingent completion support, step-in rights

Compute operator

Hardware funding, service credits, demand

Protection to ask for: Matched deployment and customer milestones

Utility

Infrastructure built for load that never shows

Protection to ask for: Security, minimum billing, cancellation recovery

Equipment supplier

Reserved production, design changes

Protection to ask for: Deposits, milestone releases, cancellation rights

Institutional buyer

Budget and workload delivery

Protection to ask for: Defined acceptance, portability, fallback service

Backlog is not cash. Remaining performance obligations describe future contracted business under accounting rules. However, the terms that start billing, the customer's remedies, and what a lender will advance against the contract decide how much money is actually available to finish the building. ## The cost of a slip can be modeled All inputs here are assumptions for illustration rather than a forecast for any company. For instance, assume a 100 MW IT phase with $1.2 billion of facility capital (excluding GPUs), 60% debt-funded, at 8% interest, plus $1 million a month in preservation and overhead during delay. - Debt is $720 million. - Interest on a constant balance is $4.8 million a month. - With overhead, carry is $5.8 million a month.

Table 7 Part 8. The cost of a slip can be modeled

Delay

Interest

Preservation and overhead · Combined carry

6 months

$28.8 million

Preservation and overhead: $6 million · Combined carry: $34.8 million

12 months

$57.6 million

Preservation and overhead: $12 million · Combined carry: $69.6 million

24 months

$115.2 million

Preservation and overhead: $24 million · Combined carry: $139.2 million

At 10% interest, twelve months of interest becomes $72 million and total carry $84 million. Each extra point on $720 million adds $7.2 million a year. That excludes principal, utility minimum charges, extra collateral, hardware depreciation, penalties and lost operating income. In addition, if the finished phase would have produced $3 million a month of operating cash before financing, a twelve-month delay defers $36 million of that. The point is not the exact figure. Rather, it is that the same network delay pushes revenue out, raises carry, and makes the lender less willing to advance funds, all at once. A model that tests one stress at a time misses that. ## Permits, lawsuits and water set the operating rights ### Permits are site-specific

Table 8 Permits are site-specific

Permission

Evidence required

Key risk

Land use and building

Adopted zoning approvals and conditions

Key risk: Approval may cover a different use or phase

Air emissions

Final permit, equipment and hours

Key risk: Backup authorization may not allow prime power

Water and wastewater

Supply contract, discharge rights, drought terms

Key risk: Annual allocation may not cover peak demand

Electric works and access

Easements, utility approvals, field acceptance

Key risk: Third-party construction may not be done

Community commitments

Enforceable noise, traffic and reporting measures

Key risk: Informal assurances may not survive a dispute

Litigation and appeals

Complaint, orders, deadlines, latest docket

Key risk: A filing is not a stay or a final ruling

Texas shows how fast this changes. For example, on September 21, 2026, the governor directed TCEQ to halt permits sought by data centers pending completion of the ERCOT audit.²⁷ That is evidence of the directive, although whether a given permit is held, exempt, or later cleared takes the agency record for that permit. ### Lawsuits are allegations until a court rules The April 14, 2026 complaint in NAACP v. xAI, case 3:26-cv-00074 in the Northern District of Mississippi, challenges the Southaven gas plant and seeks relief under the Clean Air Act, alleging unpermitted turbine operation.²⁸ Those are the plaintiffs' allegations. The case shows that fast onsite generation can produce a permitting and community fight even after equipment is installed. However, it does not show that onsite generation is unlawful. A notice of intent to sue, a filed complaint, an injunction request, an injunction and a final judgment are five different states. Our watchlist counts 96 active lawsuits.¹⁵ That is not 96 cancelled projects. ### Water is local and seasonal Withdrawal, consumption and discharge are different flows. Microsoft's December 2024 design describes closed-loop cooling with no evaporative water use for cooling, while keeping administrative water use and accepting an energy tradeoff.²⁹ That is a design direction for new sites rather than proof the whole fleet uses no water. For example, at an illustrative direct cooling WUE of 0.5 liters per IT kWh, a 100 MW IT phase at 80% average load uses about 350.4 million liters a year, or about 92.6 million US gallons. The annual average can still hide a hard summer peak. Dry cooling cuts direct water use while raising electric load in hot weather, which can push the facility peak past its electrical allocation. Therefore, test water and power together. ## How we grade a project at SAVRN This is the part I care about most. Trackers count trouble, although they do not tell you if a specific phase will deliver. For that you need a method that is applied the same way every time and can be checked. Here is the method. It is ours rather than Bernstein's. However, it has not been back-tested on a fixed cohort yet, and I will say that every time we publish a score. ### Rule 1. Grade a dated phase, not an announcement Before any status, define: assessment date, phase, IT MW, facility MW, target service date, tenant acceptance criteria, and maximum allowed curtailment. A campus can have an energized first phase and a speculative fourth phase, so grade them separately. ### Rule 2. Six stages, each needing more evidence Announced → Studied → Contracted → Built → Energized → Accepted. For example, a press release gets you to Announced, while a completed utility study gets you to Studied. An executed service agreement and binding equipment orders get you to Contracted. Energized means a defined electrical system passed commissioning. By contrast, Accepted means a customer took the service under its own tests. These are conceptual stages rather than a conversion rate. ### Rule 3. Label evidence quality separately from status - E0. Unsupported statement. - E1. Dated public announcement. - E2. Corroborated filing or study. - E3. Executed site-specific agreement or final approval. - E4. Witnessed completion or measured operation. A project can have E4 land and E1 power. We report that gap instead of averaging it away. Ultimately, a critical unknown should stay visible. ### Rule 4. Eight gates

Table 9 Rule 4. Eight gates

Gate

Minimum evidence to proceed

Reason to hold

Site and use

Land control plus entitlement path

Reason to hold: No documented right to build

Electrical service

Written utility route, capacity ramp, dependencies

Reason to hold: Unconfirmed utility or connection basis

Generation and fuel

Executable supply design and fuel rights

Reason to hold: Nameplate offered without fuel or permit

Technical design

Coordinated electrical, thermal, IT and network basis

Reason to hold: Rack, cooling or redundancy mismatch

Procurement

Critical orders with release terms and delivery evidence

Reason to hold: Quotes treated as secured equipment

Permits and disputes

Approval register and treatment of open challenges

Reason to hold: A material restriction left out of the schedule

Finance and demand

Funded stress case and executable customer acceptance

Reason to hold: Funding gap or unmatched termination exposure

Commissioning and operations

Test plan, staffing, spares, authorized energization

Reason to hold: No evidence the service can be accepted

### Rule 5. Weighted screen, with fatal flaws overriding the math

Table 10 Rule 5. Weighted screen, with fatal flaws overriding the math

Dimension

Weight

Electrical service and upstream works

Finance and contracted demand

Permits, site rights and litigation

Equipment and construction

Technical readiness and operations

Water, environment and community

Each dimension is rated 0 to 4. 0 is no evidence. 1 is an announcement. 2 is documented feasibility with open commitments. 3 is executed commitments with controlled dependencies. 4 is verified readiness or operation for that phase. Score equals the sum of weight × rating ÷ 4. An 80-point threshold is a prioritization rule rather than an 80% chance of completion. In addition, any unresolved fatal constraint overrides the number. ### Worked example: a 40 MW phase Take an unnamed 40 MW IT proposal rated: power 1, finance 3, permits 3, procurement 2, technical 2, water and community 3. - Power: 25 × 1 ÷ 4 = 6.25 - Finance: 20 × 3 ÷ 4 = 15.0 - Permits: 15 × 3 ÷ 4 = 11.25 - Procurement: 15 × 2 ÷ 4 = 7.5 - Technical: 15 × 2 ÷ 4 = 7.5 - Water and community: 10 × 3 ÷ 4 = 7.5 - Total: 55.0 Strong money and good permits do not fix an uncommitted power path. For instance, if an executed utility agreement moves power to 3, the score becomes 67.5. That earns a fresh review, although it still needs a reconciled procurement and acceptance schedule before it is ready. This is what "credible" should mean in practice. Rather than a yes or no on a whole campus, it is a dated phase, a score, the evidence behind each rating, and the one thing that would change it. ### Four decisions, not a score The score feeds a decision: - Proceed. The next defined commitment is supported, rather than every future phase. - Proceed with conditions. Dependencies are named, budgeted and owned. - Hold. A critical input is unresolved. - Stop. The evidence shows an unacceptable constraint, or the sponsor rejects a workable fix. Each decision names its owner, evidence links, open condition, deadline and next review. In fact, a clean Hold can save more money than an optimistic score. ## Where the SAVRN platform fits Here is how the public research we already publish maps onto the gates. Each page is a discovery tool, although none of them replaces the primary record for a specific parcel.

Table 11 Part 11. Where the SAVRN platform fits

SAVRN source

What it helps you find

Gate it feeds · Control we apply

Delay watchlist¹⁵

Named projects and adverse events

Gate it feeds: Permits and disputes; Finance · Control we apply: Keep "under review" separate from confirmed delay or cancellation

Grid operator watchlist³⁰

Tariff proceedings and interconnection milestones

Gate it feeds: Electrical service · Control we apply: Follow the regulator's or operator's current document

Moratorium tracker³¹

Local restrictions

Gate it feeds: Site and use · Control we apply: Read the adopted instrument and its geographic scope

Water tracker³²

State rules and water evidence

Gate it feeds: Water and community · Control we apply: Separate withdrawal, consumption, discharge and reclaimed supply

Supply chain report³³

Equipment claims and supplier citations

Gate it feeds: Procurement · Control we apply: Recheck equipment class and quote date

Capital Atlas³⁴

Owners, financing structures, transaction leads

Gate it feeds: Finance and demand · Control we apply: Separate fund size, enterprise value, debt and committed project spend

Site selection³⁵

Public site screening and evidence workflow

Gate it feeds: Site and use; Electrical · Control we apply: Not a substitute for utility serviceability

### How a review runs, step by step Take any campus announcement that lands in the news this week. 1. Define the phase. First, pull the sponsor's own numbers. Write down IT MW versus facility MW and which meter it came from. If the release only says "1 GW," the phase is not defined yet. As a result, every gate starts at 0 or 1. 2. Find the utility. Check the grid operator watchlist for the serving utility, its large-load tariff and the current queue process. In ERCOT, for example, ask whether the project passed Batch Zero verification. Similarly, in PJM, ask whether it is in the new registry. No named utility means Electrical stays at 1. 3. Check local rights. Search the moratorium tracker for the county, city and township. A pause in the jurisdiction does not kill the project. Instead, it goes on the schedule as a dated dependency. 4. Check disputes. Search the delay watchlist for the sponsor, the site and the county. Record each item by status: notice, complaint, injunction, ruling. In particular, do not count a lawsuit as a cancellation. 5. Check water. Look up the state in the water tracker, then ask the sponsor for the executed supply agreement and the peak-day balance. That matters because a state summary is not a supply right. 6. Check equipment. Ask which critical orders are binding, with release terms. Compare the claimed dates with the class-specific ranges in the supply chain report. For instance, a 2027 energization with no GSU order placed is a flag. 7. Check the money. Use the Capital Atlas to find who owns what. Then separate sponsor equity, funded debt, undrawn commitments, collateral and supplier deposits. Ask whether the phase stays funded through its stress date rather than just its base date. 8. Score, decide, and date it. Finally, apply the weights, record the E-levels, name the fatal flaw if there is one, and set the next review event. That review produces a short, sourced record: here is the phase, here is what is proven, here is what is missing, here is the date it would change. It explains a project's position instead of inventing a headline total. ### What we will not claim I want to be clear about the limits so the method stays credible. - First, our tracker totals describe different populations. As a result, 390 projects, 1,449 restrictions, 289 utility actions and 96 lawsuits cannot be added up into a single failure rate.¹⁵ - Second, the 32,447-row national queue mixes generation, storage and load requests across all resource types. Only 46 rows are flagged data center, and 92 are large-load or data center studies.¹⁵ The 4,465 GW total is not a measure of AI demand. - Third, we have checked our six headline figures against the live page. However, we have not done a full row-by-row audit of every record. "SAVRN reports" is the right attribution, while "an independent audit confirmed" is not. - Finally, the scorecard above has not been back-tested. Before we publish scores as predictions, we will freeze a cohort, record the evidence available on each date, and compare predicted readiness with actual energization and customer acceptance. In addition, we will publish the unknown-data rate next to any score. ## What a stronger delivery model looks like We build data centers, so this is not only a research question for us. In fact, it is how we plan our own work. For universities and research institutions, in particular, capacity should follow approved work and a real operating plan. Start with the actual research workloads, the data rules, the grant periods and the service level the institution can accept. Then size the first phase to that, with a documented power path and economics that work at realistic utilization. Finally, later phases stay conditional on demand and infrastructure evidence. Modular construction, dedicated onsite power and low-water cooling are options to evaluate against that plan, because each brings its own fuel, permit, maintenance and commissioning obligations. None of them is an automatic exemption from the constraints above. A practical first ninety days on a new institutional program looks like this:

Table 12 Part 12. What a stronger delivery model looks like

Period

Deliverable

Decision it supports

Days 1 to 15

Demand baseline, phase definition, site shortlist

Decision it supports: What capacity is actually needed

Days 16 to 30

Utility correspondence, permit register, technical basis

Decision it supports: Drop unsupported connection assumptions

Days 31 to 45

Vendor quotes, fuel study, cooling comparison

Decision it supports: Pick feasible configurations for detailed review

Days 46 to 60

Integrated schedule, contracts matrix, stress model

Decision it supports: Funding and risk allocation

Days 61 to 75

Procurement governance and acceptance plan

Decision it supports: Authority to commit and operate

Days 76 to 90

Independent review and proceed, hold or stop

Decision it supports: Approve only the next supported commitment

Ninety days is how we organize the work rather than a promise that a grid connection, permit or factory slot can be secured in that time. Those can take much longer, and the work product should show it. Any claim we make about faster delivery or lower cost should come from measured operating results on completed phases. Until then, what we sell is the evidence and the coordination. ## Before the next big announcement Ask for the evidence behind the first phase: - Which electrical works are funded, and by whom? - Which equipment orders are binding? - Which permits apply, and are any challenged? - When does the customer accept the service, and what can the customer do if it is late? - How much cash is available if the date slips twelve months? Ultimately, those answers tell you more about the next usable megawatt than the size of the announcement. So, was the reading right? Mostly, because the physical and financial reasons behind the 35% figure are real and documented in public records. However, the figure is a credibility screen rather than a body count. The useful work, therefore, is grading each phase on its own evidence, and that is the work we have built SAVRN to do. *Chad Everett Harris is the founder of SAVRN. Figures checked October 19, 2026.*

Sources

Financial Times; "America's $10tn AI infrastructure boom is starting to fray." October 18, 2026; Body not accessed; URL recovered from Techmeme
Techmeme; Entry for the FT investigation: RegLayer 47+ projects and Bernstein ~35% credible; October 18, 2026; Secondary attribution
Seeking Alpha via TradingView; "Funding strains, construction delays test America's $10T AI buildout: FT." October 2026; Secondary summary of FT reporting: RegLayer, Bernstein, Nscale, Nebius, Cipher, SB Energy figures
Data Center Watch (10a Labs); Q1 2026 report page; 75 projects, about $130 billion, blocked or delayed by local opposition; Free page does not publish method
Political.org; Coverage of Data Center Watch Q2 2026: 45 projects, about $68 billion, 843 opposition groups in 49 states; September 21, 2026; Secondary
Heatmap; "$260 billion" data center opposition analysis, Heatmap Pro data; October 2026; Paywalled; opening section read; Cancellations after local opposition, by announced value
ERCOT; "PUCT Approves ERCOT's Batch Zero Process." June 18, 2026; 438,000+ MW of requests, ~89% data centers, 75 MW threshold, onsite and curtailment pathways
ERCOT; Market notice M-A090926-01, Issuance of Batch Zero Verification Requests for Information; September 9, 2026; RFIs, notarized attestations, response deadlines
AEP Ohio; Data Center Tariff information page; Study fees, ramp, term, minimum demand formula, credit support
ERCOT; Market notice M-A080326-01, Update Regarding Batch Zero Timelines and Processes; August 3, 2026; Verification directive deferred the planned classification notice
PJM Interconnection; Large load page; Registry and BYONC tool listed as ready January 1, 2027
US Department of Energy; Large Power Transformer Resilience Report to Congress; July 2024; Lead times up to and beyond 36 months
Terrapin Construction Group; Switchgear, transformer and generator lead times 2026; Contractor observations by equipment class
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Report on electricity demand from data centers; December 2024; 176 TWh in 2023; 325 to 580 TWh in 2028 scenarios
SAVRN; Nationwide Data Center Delay Watchlist; Live snapshot October 19, 2026; First-party tracker; headline figures matched live display; no full row audit
The Deep Dive; "One Tracker Found 47 Troubled US Data Centres, Another Found 75 in Just One Quarter." October 2026; Secondary; comparability caveat
International Energy Agency; Energy and AI, executive summary; 2025; About one fifth of planned projects at risk of delay; four to eight years for transmission
International Energy Agency; Key Questions on Energy and AI, executive summary; 2026
Utility Dive; FERC order on PJM large-load proposal, October 9, 2026: registry approved (50 MW+), IRAS and BYONC rejected; Docket ER26-3515
GE Vernova; Q2 2026 results, Form 8-K exhibit; July 22, 2026; 53 GW gas backlog and 63 GW slot reservations
Linesight; Industry trends and supply chain dynamics, 2026 Americas; June 2026
Virginia JLARC; Data Centers in Virginia; December 9, 2024; Construction time, electricity, water and community effects
City of Santa Clara; Council record, File 26-1037; October 2026; $450M+ electrical projects; 2028 first projects; 2030 major completion; no new data center applications since 2023
Crusoe; Second phase of joint venture with Blue Owl and Primary Digital Infrastructure; May 21, 2025
Kirkland & Ellis; Advises Blue Owl on data center development; May 22, 2025; 1.2 GW, eight buildings, 300 MW onsite generation
CoreWeave; Form 10-K for year ended December 31, 2025; Active vs contracted power; risk factors
Office of the Texas Governor; "Governor Abbott Directs TCEQ To Halt Data Center Permits." September 21, 2026
NAACP; Complaint against xAI and MZX Tech, N.D; Miss., case 3:26-cv-00074; Filed April 14, 2026; Allegations only
Microsoft; "Sustainable by design: next-generation datacenters consume zero water for cooling." December 9, 2024
SAVRN; Data Center Grid Operator Watchlist
SAVRN; US Data Center Moratorium Tracker and Map
SAVRN; Data Center Water Tracker
SAVRN; The Data Center Supply Chain Crisis 2024 to 2026
SAVRN; Data Center Capital Atlas
SAVRN; Data Center Site Selection
FERC; PJM co-location rehearing record, EL25-49-002; June 2026

## Frequently asked questions ### Does Bernstein say 65% of US data centers will be cancelled? No. As reported, Bernstein rated about 35% of the planned pipeline credible. However, the remaining share is not necessarily unbuildable. In addition, the original report, its project universe and its method have not been made public.^{1, 2, 16} ### How many US data center projects have been cancelled in 2026? There is no single agreed count. For example, RegLayer reported at least 47 large projects delayed, withdrawn or blocked. Data Center Watch counted 75 projects blocked or delayed by local opposition in Q1 and 45 in Q2. Heatmap counts at least $260 billion in investment cancelled after local opposition. These use different definitions and should therefore not be added together.^{2, 4, 5, 6} ### Why do AI data centers get delayed? They are delayed most often because of grid connection and network upgrades, long-lead electrical equipment such as transformers and switchgear, local permits and opposition, water supply, and financing tied to delivery milestones.^{7, 12, 13, 6, 3} ### How long does it take to get power for a large data center? The sources do not publish a single national average. For example, a building itself can take 12 to 18 months in Virginia, new transmission lines can take four to eight years in advanced economies, and large transformers have run to 36 months or more. The answer depends on the utility, the network work and the phase size.^{22, 17, 12} ### Is announced capacity the same as IT capacity? No, because announced capacity is usually a campus-wide total, often measured at the facility meter. At a PUE of 1.20, 100 MW of facility power supports about 83 MW of IT load. ### Does onsite power solve the grid problem? It moves the constraints. Onsite generation brings fuel, air permit, maintenance and redundancy obligations, while network interactions do not disappear. FERC's June 2026 PJM co-location rehearing record discusses the need for clearer services and cost allocation even when generation sits next to the load.³⁶ ### What is ERCOT Batch Zero? It is ERCOT's group study for qualified large loads of 75 MW and larger, approved in June 2026. Instead of studying each project alone, ERCOT studies them together to plan transmission once. In addition, in September it began requiring supporting documents and notarized attestations to stay in the batch.^{7, 8} ### What does a data center tariff like AEP Ohio's require? For large loads it sets a study fee of up to $100,000, a ramp of up to four years, a term of the ramp plus eight years, a minimum billing demand, and collateral equal to 50% of total minimum charges for customers that fail its credit tests.⁹ ### How long are transformer and switchgear lead times in 2026? Contractor observations put 15 kV switchgear at 52 to 80 weeks, 5 to 50 MVA substation transformers at 75 to 110 weeks, and generator step-up transformers above 50 MVA at 100 to 150 weeks or more. Similarly, DOE reported large power transformer lead times up to and beyond 36 months in 2024.^{13, 12} ### How does SAVRN grade whether a data center project is credible? We grade one dated phase at a time against eight gates, label each piece of evidence E0 to E4, and score six weighted dimensions from 0 to 4, with any fatal flaw overriding the score. However, the method has not been back-tested yet, and we say so when we publish a score.¹⁵