xAI
Colossus, 3231 Paul R. Lowry Road, with Colossus 2 and a paused water recycling plant
other, approved, approved 2025-08-19
Operator: xAI
Developer: CTC Property LLC, an xAI subsidiary
Scale: 300 MW · 5,000,000,000 USD
300 MW of grid supply approved by the TVA board in two 150 MW steps, November 7, 2024 and February 11, 2026, plus on-site gas turbines permitted separately. Capex is the figure reported around the project; no capital figure appears in the city ordinance. Campus acreage and square footage are not stated in the documents I have. The ordinance identifies the site by metes and bounds in Exhibit A rather than by area.
Verification: read from the signed document
A strong version: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it
amount: $100,000,000 · cadence: annual · scales with project: yes · community seat: no
The most interesting community fund in this benchmark, and the one that shows how much work the word "allocate" can do. Ordinance 5953 sets a "Public Purpose Amount" equal to 25% of the city property tax revenue collected on the AI property, to be spent in a five mile radius on public projects, programs, and grants to nonprofits including affordable housing. It states an intent that $100 million be allocated in the aggregate, and once that is reached the Council is directed to review whether to keep going. Three things cut against it. The money is subject to annual budgeting and appropriation, so no year's payment is owed. The amount decreases by whatever other public entities allocate to the same area that year, so a county or state contribution reduces the city's rather than adding to it. And the $100 million target is inclusive of those other entities' money, so the city's own obligation is smaller than the headline. There is no community seat, no advisory board, and no reporting or audit requirement anywhere in the ordinance.
Softening languageSection 2(a): "Subject to annual budgeting and appropriation by Council." The preamble adds that the Council intends to appropriate "so much of the Public Purpose Amount as it deems necessary and appropriate," "as the Council may in its discretion approve."
A strong version: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed
Not addressed in the agreement.
Nothing to claw back and nothing that triggers. Ordinance 5953 is the city allocating its own funds, not a subsidy to xAI, so it carries no performance conditions on the company at all. If the facility closes, the AI property simply stops being AI property under Section 1(h) and the allocation stops, which protects the city's money but returns nothing to the public for what has already been spent on the company's behalf. I have not located a payment in lieu of taxes agreement or an incentive agreement between xAI and EDGE in primary form, so I cannot say whether a clawback lives in a document I have not read.
A strong version: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks
Not addressed in the agreement.
instrument: none
No bond, escrow, letter of credit, or removal covenant appears in the ordinance or in the utility and TVA records.
A strong version: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving
interconnect paid by: operator · governed by: MLGW electric service at the prevailing industrial rate, TVA board approvals of the two 150 MW increments, and a signed curtailment agreement that has not been published
On the part that is public, this is the strongest cost allocation in the benchmark: MLGW says in its own document that the transmission upgrades and both substations were built at xAI expense, and that xAI pays the prevailing industrial rate. What is not public is the contract. TVA approved the first 150 MW on a resolution contingent on the company agreeing to "certain demand response terms offered for similar customer loads," and approved the second 150 MW on February 11, 2026 on a confidential memorandum, delegating approval of the contractual, financial, and operational requirements to a single executive. So I can tell you who paid for the poles, and I cannot tell you whether there is a minimum bill, a term, or an exit charge if the load leaves.
Softening languageTVA's own resolution language is conditional: firm power was approved "contingent on the new customer's agreement to certain demand response terms," with the terms themselves never described in public.
A strong version: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting
cap: 1,000,000 gal/day · reporting: no · recycling required: no · cooling: unknown
A number that is a capacity, not a cap. MLGW's quick facts say the site draws up to 1 million gallons a day from an existing 20 inch main and pays the prevailing commercial rate. No document I have found sets an enforceable ceiling, requires reporting, or publishes actual consumption. The recycled water plant, which would produce 13 million gallons a day for xAI, TVA, Nucor and others, was offered and to be built at xAI expense rather than required by any agreement, and it has since been paused. As late as April 29, 2026 a coalition letter to the mayors was still asking, as an open question, how much aquifer water the facility uses per day. Figures circulating between 700,000 gallons and 5 million gallons a day come from advocacy estimates and from journalists reading billing records, not from a permit or a published meter.
Softening languageEvery water number in the public record is framed as capacity available or volume expected, never as a limit the operator agreed not to exceed.
A strong version: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line
Not addressed in the agreement.
No noise limit, measurement point, or setback appears in the ordinance or the utility records. The contested environmental terms here are air emissions from the on-site turbines, litigated separately, not noise.
A strong version: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections
Not addressed in the agreement.
local hire: no · prevailing wage: no · enforceable: no
No job commitment exists in any document I have. MLGW's quick facts forecast "~300+ new, high paying jobs," which is a utility's projection of the project's effect, not a promise by the company and not enforceable by anyone. The ordinance says nothing about employment. Worth noting for context that the building itself was constructed with a 2010 state grant and a local abatement tied to an earlier tenant's job commitments, not xAI's.
Softening languageMLGW's own phrasing is a forecast: "The project is forecast to create ~300+ new, high paying jobs."
A strong version: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator
Not addressed in the agreement.
local subcontracting: no · road repair: no
No local hiring or subcontracting preference and no road commitment. The one adjacent fact is that xAI paid for its own utility infrastructure, including a $1.7 million improvement to a 161 kV transmission line identified in MLGW's system impact study, which spares ratepayers but is not a contribution to the community.
A strong version: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule
agreement public: no · dashboard: no · audit: none · independent: no
Split down the middle, and the public half is the half that matters least. The ordinance is public, readable, and was voted on in open session with residents speaking from the audience. The power arrangement, which is where the real money and the real risk sit, is not: TVA approved the second 150 MW on a confidential memorandum and delegated the terms to an executive, and the curtailment agreement among TVA, xAI and MLGW is described in public but never published. The ordinance itself sets no reporting, no audit, and no dashboard for the Public Purpose Amount, so there is no mechanism by which a resident can check whether the 25% was calculated correctly or spent nearby.
Softening languageTVA's minutes describe the governing memorandum as containing "information that the customer considers confidential and business sensitive."
A strong version: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated
Unresolved, and I would rather say so than guess. Ordinance 5953 assumes the city collects property tax on the AI property, since it allocates a share of that revenue, which implies the property is at least partly taxable. Separately, MLGW's own background says the building was constructed under a 2010 state grant and a 15 year local property tax abatement of 75%, but that abatement was granted to the earlier manufacturing tenant and I have not found a primary document establishing what xAI holds today. I have not located a payment in lieu of taxes agreement between xAI and EDGE. Until I read one, this clause stays unknown rather than being scored from a news summary.
Turbines ran without a permit from June 2024, at one point 35 units exceeding 420 MW, according to the NAACP appeal. source
The permit allows 87 tons of nitrogen oxides a year in an area with ozone problems, in a historically Black neighborhood already carrying industrial pollution. source
The Justice Department moved to dismiss the NAACP Clean Air Act suit on national security grounds in June 2026, without disputing that the turbines lack permits. source
Boxtown residents say the tax reinvestment fund does not reach them and report fumes. source