This page sets the project’s public statements alongside the documentary record — including what the University told the State of Michigan when it applied for $100 million in public money, and how the project has changed since.
We are not claiming anyone has lied. In several cases the public statements are technically accurate and still leave a materially incomplete impression — a different and more common problem. Where the project is right, we say so. Read both and draw your own conclusion.
If you believe anything on this page is inaccurate, tell us. We will correct it and note the correction publicly.
How the project has changed
Much of what follows compares the University’s December 2024 application to the State against where the project stands now. That application is a public record and remains the most detailed description the University has published. It is not, however, current in every respect — the footprint in particular has grown substantially.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Dec 10, 2024 | Michigan Strategic Fund Board approves a $100 million Strategic Site Readiness Program grant. Application describes a 20-acre property in Ypsilanti Township.12 |
| Jun 12, 2025 | Board of Regents authorizes purchase of 124 acres at 10455 and 10635 Textile Road, at a negotiated $65,000 per developable acre.3 |
| Aug 2025 | Ypsilanti Township passes a resolution formally opposing the Textile Road location.4 |
| Dec 2025 | State Rep. Jimmie Wilson Jr. (D-Ypsilanti) introduces legislation to rescind the $100 million state grant.3 |
| Mar 18, 2026 | Purchase closes. The Township Supervisor is notified by text message, after closing. Total University holdings on Textile Road reach approximately 144 acres.56 |
| Apr 22, 2026 | YCUA votes for a 12-month moratorium on delivering, committing, reserving or approving water and sewer service to data centers and AI computing facilities.6 |
| Aug 2026 | The University announces Textile Road as its preferred site.7 |
The land holding has grown from 20 acres to roughly 144 — a sevenfold increase over what was described to the State. The University says the computing center itself will occupy only a small fraction of the site, with the majority preserved as natural space along the Huron River.7
1. Whose facility is this?
This is a specialized research hub, not a commercial data center … dedicated to advanced scientific research and high-performance computing in areas such as medicine, energy, climate science, engineering and national security.
Project materials8
What the state record shows
The application describes a 100-megawatt capacity for Los Alamos National Laboratory and a separate dedicated 10MW academic computing center for the University’s non-classified open research initiatives.1
By the University’s own figures, roughly 91% of the computing capacity belongs to a federal national security laboratory and about 9% to the University. The budget follows the same split: $685 million for the Los Alamos building against $100 million for the University building. The filing also states that Los Alamos would pay net construction costs of $285 million plus operating costs estimated at $78 million annually, and that the parties anticipated long-term lease or use agreements for Los Alamos’s occupancy.1
The University has since described the Los Alamos work more specifically as including computational modeling for nuclear stewardship — helping ensure the safety and reliability of the existing nuclear stockpile without live testing — alongside national security research in energy infrastructure and cybersecurity. The University states that no hazardous nuclear materials will be stored or used on site, no weapons production will occur there, and the facility will not conduct real-time defense operations.7
The FAQ also answers a question that had been open. Describing what will be built, it lists a Federal Research Facility of 240,000 square feet supporting national research and security challenges, including classified research, alongside an Academic Research Facility of roughly 50,000 square feet for non-classified work.8 By floor area that is about 83% federal and 17% academic — close to the 91/9 split in the capacity figures. It also settles a question residents had been asking: classified work will be performed at this site.
The question this raises
Article VIII, Section 5 of the Michigan Constitution gives the Regents supervision over the University’s own institution, and that autonomy is why this project is exempt from local zoning. If 91% of the capacity is a federal laboratory operating under a long-term lease and performing nuclear stockpile modeling, on what basis does that exemption extend to the whole facility? That question has never been tested in a Michigan court.
2. On the size of the facility
This facility will use less than 1/10th the energy of commercial data centers, starting at 50 megawatts with a maximum planned capacity of 100 megawatts. The physical footprint and energy usage of this facility will be comparable to a modest industrial facility rather than a commercial data center.
Project materials8
What the record shows
The two descriptions do not obviously reconcile. The state filing describes 100 MW for Los Alamos plus a dedicated 10 MW academic center — 110 megawatts in total.1 The current FAQ gives a maximum planned capacity of 100 MW without distinguishing the two.8 Either the total has been revised downward, or the public figure describes only the Los Alamos portion. This should be a simple thing to clarify.
The industry threshold for classifying a facility as hyperscale — the largest category there is — is at least 5,000 servers, 10,000 square feet, and 40 megawatts of capacity.9 This project is roughly two and a half times that threshold.
The “1/10th” comparison is unspecified. For 100 MW to be one tenth of its comparison class, that class would average roughly a gigawatt — a description fitting only the very largest AI training campuses now under construction, not commercial data centers generally.
On “modest industrial facility”: at 110 MW running continuously, consumption would be roughly 2,640 megawatt-hours per day. Against the U.S. average residential purchase of 10,791 kilowatt-hours per year,10 that is comparable to the daily electricity use of about 89,000 households. Ypsilanti Township has fewer than a quarter that many. The filing itself estimates $78 million a year in operating costs for electricity, water and maintenance.1
On the substation: the filing states DTE anticipated constructing a new substation in Ypsilanti Township, with two-thirds of its capacity supporting the Project and one-third for community benefit, and lists a $30 million substation capital contribution.1
That description has changed. The current FAQ says the University is funding a dedicated substation that will exclusively power the facility, and presents this as avoiding any burden on the local residential grid.8 Exclusive use and two-thirds use are not the same arrangement. The one-third earmarked for community benefit, which helped support a $100 million state grant application, no longer appears in the public description.
One further detail is worth reading closely. The FAQ states that the University has secured large-scale solar power agreements to account for the center’s academic energy needs.8 On the December 2024 figures, the academic portion is 10 of 110 megawatts. The clean energy commitment, as written, covers the smaller share of the facility — not the federal computing load that accounts for most of it.
The question this raises
Is the public figure of 100 MW the whole facility or only the Los Alamos portion? What is the substation’s design rating and the total interconnection capacity requested from DTE? If two-thirds of a substation serves this site, the remaining third sets the ceiling on every other future connection in that area. And with the site now seven times larger than described to the State, what is the ultimate build-out capacity of the parcel?
3. On water
What the state record shows
The filing states that water-cooling technology is being considered, and lists among concepts under consideration the use of non-potable or reclaimed water and opportunities for heat re-use. It also records that the Ypsilanti Community Utilities Authority had confirmed the location already has water and wastewater service capacity to immediately support the proposed initial demand.1
That position has since changed. On April 22, 2026, following a Township resolution, YCUA voted for a twelve-month moratorium on delivering, committing, reserving or approving water and sewer service to data centers and AI computing facilities.6
This matters because YCUA is a public authority governed by Ypsilanti Township and the City of Ypsilanti. Zoning exemption does not compel a municipal utility to extend service.
Recall the distinction that matters: a facility can truthfully say it does not withdraw from the Huron River while consuming very large volumes of municipal water. Those are different claims.
What the current FAQ says
The current FAQ states that the facility will not draw water from or discharge into the Huron River and will not use local groundwater, and that any municipal water required will be purchased through YCUA, which draws from the Detroit River. It says the university is reviewing designs to consider closed-loop cooling and reclaimed wastewater. It also states the facility will use direct-to-chip cooling, which is a liquid-cooling technology.8
So closed-loop cooling is under consideration, not committed. And the municipal supply the FAQ relies on runs through the authority that has imposed a moratorium on serving facilities of this kind.
The question this raises
What is the projected consumptive water use in gallons per day, at initial build and at full capacity? Will the closed-loop design be committed to, or only considered? What exactly did YCUA confirm in 2024, and on what terms?
4. On emissions
As a fully electric facility, the operation will not produce smoke, odors or harmful emissions. For essential backup power during emergencies, we have limited the system to just 10% of the facility’s load. These backup generators will utilize Hydro-treated Vegetable Oil (HVO), a renewable, bio-based fuel, which is significantly cleaner than traditional diesel and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by up to 95%.
Project materials8
What the record shows
Where the project is right: limiting backup generation to roughly 10% of load is a legitimate engineering choice for high-performance computing. An HPC site can checkpoint running calculations and shut the compute floor down in an orderly sequence, powering only storage, networking and critical cooling. This is a real technical distinction, not a marketing one.
On “no harmful emissions”: the first sentence describes the building, which has no gas-fired boilers or chillers. It sits immediately before a sentence describing combustion engines. Ten percent of 110 MW is approximately 11 MW of on-site generation.
Emergency generators do not run only during emergencies. Under EPA rules, emergency stationary engines may run without time limit during genuine emergencies, plus up to 100 hours per calendar year for maintenance checks and readiness testing, of which up to 50 hours may cover certain non-emergency purposes.1112 Monthly load-bank testing is standard industry practice.
On the 95% figure: that is a lifecycle greenhouse gas reduction, not a local air quality figure. Caterpillar reports HVO carbon intensity at 15–78% of fossil diesel depending on feedstock, using the Department of Energy’s GREET model.13 Cummins puts well-to-wheels emissions roughly 70% below diesel.14 The reduction comes from the carbon being biogenic, not from cleaner exhaust.
On the pollutants that determine what neighbors breathe, the picture narrows sharply. Particulate matter does drop — Cummins measured 30–60% lower PM on HVO versus ultra-low-sulfur diesel in generator testing.15 Nitrogen oxides largely do not. Cummins states that criteria pollutants such as NOx are comparable to diesel,14 and Caterpillar’s own generator set testing found NOx equivalent to diesel at loads above 35% and below 15% of rated power.13 NOx is a precursor to ground-level ozone.
The question this raises
How many generator sets, at what rating, for what total emergency generating capacity? How much fuel stored on site, in what containment, with what spill response plan? What is the testing schedule and the EGLE air permit basis? Is the HVO commitment contractual, for what term, enforceable by whom — given that the same engines run on ordinary diesel with no modification?
And a commitment is implied here that has not been offered. A facility that can shed most of its load on command is an interruptible load, which burdens the grid very differently from a firm load that must run through peak demand. If the 10% figure describes a real operating capability, the project could commit to curtailment during grid stress events at no cost to itself.
5. On jobs
The project is expected to create approximately 300 union construction jobs, more than 200 high-paying permanent research positions, and 30–50 technical support roles.
Project materials8
What the state record shows
Where the project is right: the construction jobs are real. A build of this size draws substantially on regional building trades. These are good jobs and the people who take them will have earned them. They are also temporary; the facility is expected to operate for decades.
The 200 figure is described differently in the state filing. There it appears as a minimum of 200 direct permanent jobs expected to be created over 10 years, and separately as Los Alamos estimating up to 200 jobs in Michigan over the next 10 years, and again as plans to accommodate up to 200 National Lab employees.1
Three differences from the public description matter. The state filing frames these as national laboratory positions rather than University research positions. It measures them in Michigan rather than at the site. And it spreads them across a decade. The same document uses both “minimum of 200” and “up to 200” — those are not the same commitment.
Researchers also do not work inside data centers. They submit jobs to a scheduler from wherever they are. A position enabled by a computing facility is not a position located at it.
The University of Michigan’s own Ford School of Public Policy examined this question in a July 2025 policy brief with the Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition. It concluded that data centers operate as infrastructure projects rather than job-creating businesses, and that once built they require relatively few employees because the facilities primarily house computers.16 Independent analysis puts operations at roughly 0.15 to 0.35 full-time equivalents per megawatt, with highly automated campuses above 100 MW running on as few as 20 to 30 permanent staff.17 The Brookings Institution describes data centers as among the least labor-intensive structures in the economy.18
The project’s own figure of 30–50 technical support roles falls squarely within that range.
The question this raises
Of the 200: how many will have a duty station in Ypsilanti Township? How many on University payroll versus Los Alamos payroll? How many are new rather than reallocated? Is the number a minimum or a ceiling — the state filing says both.
6. On community engagement
Once a site is selected, U-M will work with local leaders and residents to identify opportunities for the project to provide meaningful long-term value to the Ypsilanti Township community.
Project materials8
What the record shows
The site has now been selected. In August 2026 the University announced Textile Road as its preferred location.7 By its own terms, that commitment is now due.
The commitment itself contains no figure, no timeline, no obligation and nothing measurable. It is a commitment to hold a conversation.
The record of engagement to date is a matter of public documentation. The University purchased the 124-acre parcel and notified the Township Supervisor by text message after the sale had closed; the Township attorney recorded the notification and objected to it in writing.56
The Strategic Site Readiness Program also requires applicants to document local support. Asked to explain the degree to which the project is a priority for the local government or economic development organization, the 2024 filing cited Ann Arbor SPARK — a regional economic development organization, not Ypsilanti Township. Asked to explain the extent of regional and local support, it offered that support is evidenced by the preferred site being in Ypsilanti Township.1 Choosing a location is not evidence that the location supports the choice.
The same filing cites Ypsilanti Township’s Future Land Use Plan to establish that the site sits in an Innovation and Employment District intended for “technology, office, craft manufacturing or light industrial uses.”1 The University invoked the Township’s land use plan when it was useful for obtaining a state grant.
The question this raises
The site is selected. Will the University now enter a binding community benefits agreement, negotiated in public and enforceable in court, including an annual payment in lieu of taxes? Is the commitment to preserve the majority of the 144 acres as natural space legally binding, and by what instrument — a conservation easement, a deed restriction, or a press release? And if the Township’s Future Land Use Plan was relevant enough to cite to the State, is it relevant enough to comply with?
The pattern
Read together, these statements share a structure. Each is defensible on its own terms and each omits the number that would let a resident evaluate it. The comparison class for “1/10th” is unnamed. The capacity figure appears to describe part of the facility. The emissions claim describes the building rather than the site. The job figure was presented to the State as national laboratory positions across Michigan over a decade. The community commitment contains no commitment — and the site it was contingent on has now been chosen.
None of this is hidden. Most of it sits in public state and township records that the project’s own materials do not mention. Every question on this page has a specific factual answer the University already possesses. Publishing those answers would settle most of this.
Sources
- Michigan Economic Development Corporation, memorandum to the Michigan Strategic Fund Board, “University of Michigan – Strategic Site Readiness Program Grant,” December 10, 2024; MSF Resolution 2024-176; and attached Summary of Terms. December 2024 MSF Board Packet, pp. 52–65. Full packet (PDF) · board packet index. Retrieved August 28, 2026.
- Michigan Economic Development Corporation, “600 New Jobs, $1.5 Billion in Investment Coming to Ypsilanti and Redford Townships,” December 10, 2024. michiganbusiness.org
- Planet Detroit, “University of Michigan buys possible data center site on Huron River, informs Ypsilanti Township supervisor via text,” March 2026. planetdetroit.org
- The Eastern Echo, “Ypsilanti Township strengthens opposition to data center as U-M confirms land purchase,” April 2026. easternecho.com
- The Michigan Daily, “UMich finalizes purchase of Textile Road parcel for planned Ypsilanti data center,” March 2026. michigandaily.com
- Charter Township of Ypsilanti, “Data Center Information” timeline and document archive, including Resolutions 2026-05 and 2026-08 and correspondence from the Office of McLain & Winters. ypsitownship.org
- The University Record, “University of Michigan selects Textile Road as preferred site for landmark research computing center,” August 2026. record.umich.edu
- University of Michigan Office of the Vice President for Research, “University of Michigan × Los Alamos Research Computing Center” (LANL FAQ). Page last modified August 19, 2026; retrieved August 28, 2026. research.umich.edu
- Data Center Dynamics, “What is a hyperscale data center?” datacenterdynamics.com
- U.S. Energy Information Administration, “How much electricity does an American home use?” (2022: 10,791 kWh per residential customer). eia.gov
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Understanding the Stationary Engines Rules.” epa.gov
- 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ, §63.6640(f). ecfr.gov
- Caterpillar, “3500 and C175 Series Generator Sets Frequently Asked Questions” (renewable liquid fuels). cat.com
- Cummins, “Comparing emission reductions across alternative fuels.” cummins.com
- Cummins, “Generator Set Performance on HVO Fuel: QSK95 Test Report Summary.” cummins.com
- Terry Nguyen and Ben Green, What Happens When Data Centers Come to Town?, Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan, with the Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition, July 2025, p. 7. stpp.fordschool.umich.edu (PDF)
- Hamm Institute for American Energy, Data Center Employment Forecast Analysis, November 2025. hamminstitute.org (PDF)
- Bahar and Wright, “New evidence on data center employment effects,” Brookings Institution, May 2026. brookings.edu
Last updated August 28, 2026. All quotations from the University’s project FAQ were checked against the live page on that date; that page was last modified August 19, 2026. The Michigan Strategic Fund board packet is dated December 2024 and describes the project as proposed at that time, not as it stands today. Where the two differ, both are shown.
Found an error? Email us and we will correct it and note the correction on this page.