Texas data center coverage needs to get more precise about the unit being counted: a campus, a phase, an expansion, or a power project.
OpenAI says its Abilene site is already training and serving AI systems. Separately, it selected SB Energy to build and operate the announced 1.2 GW Milam County site. These are different projects with different delivery paths. [1][2]
That distinction matters when an operator is deciding where its next deployment can actually go. A statewide pipeline total cannot answer whether the required capacity will be available at one location on one date.
In our tracker refresh, we reconciled the duplicate Abilene announcement and Epoch site entry. Announced campus capacity and estimated current IT capacity now occupy separate fields. Subtracting one from the other would imply a completion measure the evidence does not support.
The questions I want answered for each phase: What is the initial service level? What triggers the next increment? Which equipment and network upgrades sit on the critical path? What public evidence establishes those milestones?
Texas operators, utilities, and developers: share a dated phase milestone or a correction. Liquid Labor is building a record that helps people evaluate delivery, and I would like your perspective on the evidence that matters.