South Dakota’s biggest disclosed data center developments range from a 500-megawatt proposal in Sioux Falls to a Bitcoin mining complex already using roughly 30 megawatts in Sully County, with a reported expansion target of 300 MW. A third project, near Leola, proposes a 50 MW facility but is still seeking local permission. Together, they show how the state is weighing construction, grid capacity and local revenue against concerns over electricity, water and land use.

The ranking compares publicly stated maximum project capacities, not computers currently powered on. In particular, Big Watt Digital’s 300 MW is an expansion target, not operating load. Gemini has not completed a 500 MW data center. The September 2026 South Dakota Legislative Research Council memorandum says the state has no operating hyperscale centers and identifies Big Watt’s existing 30 MW facility as its largest currently running data center. The rankings below use the latest public evidence available on October 30, 2026.

3. Leola Data Center — 50 MW Proposed, Local Permit Pending

A proposed 50 MW data center near Leola in McPherson County would occupy a site west of the town near 116th Street and 358th Avenue. Dakota News Now reported that county planners deferred a conditional-use permit decision in August after residents questioned the facility’s water needs and its implications for nearby farms and livestock. The project is proposed—not an operating installation.

Its electric-service arrangements made progress, but that did not settle its local approval. The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission’s docket EL24-027 records a September 11 order assigning Montana-Dakota Utilities as the project’s electric provider under a settlement with FEM Electric. County officials still must evaluate land-use permission; electric service assignment does not itself authorize construction. The Dakota Scout reported that officials wanted enforceable agreements governing proposed financial contributions before voting.

McPherson County’s August 11, 2026 meeting on the Leola project, linked by Dakota News Now in its account of the postponed vote.

The developer’s supporters cite jobs and potential revenue for rural services. Opponents say the actual water draw, noise and local obligations need clearer documentation. The project would enter a different stage only after the county grants the necessary land-use permit and a credible construction timetable is established. A utility agreement should not be presented as a finished facility.

2. Big Watt Digital, Sully County — 300 MW Expansion Target; About 30 MW Operating

Near Onida, approximately 23 miles north of Pierre, Big Watt Digital operates a roughly 30 MW Bitcoin mining facility. It is the state’s largest operating data center identified by the Legislative Research Council, even though its active size is far below the much larger proposals appearing elsewhere. Bitcoin mining equipment performs repeated SHA-256 hashing rather than general-purpose AI training, but both activities need substantial electrical infrastructure and cooling.

The project’s 300 MW future expansion was reported by South Dakota Searchlight on January 30, which interviewed utility and county officials. That projection is included in the planned-capacity ranking, with an important limitation: public reporting did not establish that the full 300 MW expansion had been built, energized, or assigned a binding delivery schedule by October. Big Watt therefore should not be described as a 300 MW operating mine.

The facility illustrates the tangible effects of an operating project. Oahe Electric’s chief executive told South Dakota Searchlight that the mine helped the cooperative recover infrastructure costs, while the local school district received around $850,000 a year in gross-receipts tax revenue according to the utility. That is a reported local figure, not proof that every new data center will deliver comparable tax benefits. County officials see expansion as a possible source of jobs in a sparsely populated area, but a larger facility would require its own technical and financial commitments.

Expanding from 30 MW to 300 MW would be a tenfold increase in nameplate capacity. Actual energy demand would depend on the number of miners deployed, their electrical efficiency, utilization, power agreements and curtailment practices. See BitcoinVersus.Tech’s data center capacity planning lesson for why facility ratings and actual operating loads differ.

1. Gemini Data Center, Sioux Falls — Up to 500 MW Proposed

The largest publicly reported active proposal is Gemini Data Center SD LLC’s 500 MW development on approximately 164 acres near East Rice Street and Veterans Parkway in northeast Sioux Falls. The city’s December 2025 planning materials describe the subdivision request and property size. The city council subsequently approved the necessary zoning and preliminary plans, but those decisions are not an operating permit or evidence of construction completion.

Developer Michael Anvar discussed the project in a January 8 interview with Dakota News Now. He described his company as a site developer, with a future end user still to be secured. Anvar offered estimates for water use and said the developer would cover electrical upgrades. Such claims are developer projections rather than independently measured performance from an operating 500 MW facility.

By October, local debate had shifted toward restrictions and public oversight. At an October 27 joint public meeting, residents raised concerns over environmental effects and electricity costs. The city announced a Regulatory Oversight Committee to gather comments and examine future rules, with meetings scheduled for November 9 and November 30 and a January 2027 report. These proceedings do not establish that Gemini has a completed server campus or an identified hyperscale tenant.

Sioux Falls City Council and Lincoln County’s August 25, 2026 joint meeting, linked by the South Dakota Data Center Transparency local-meetings page.

Gemini’s proposed 500 MW is approximately 17 times Big Watt’s currently operating 30 MW—not an indication that South Dakota’s actual data center consumption has already risen by that amount. The questions that will determine its real size are whether the developer secures a tenant, the power connection is contracted, required construction approvals are issued and the proposed load ultimately reaches commercial service.

Why Applied Digital’s 430 MW Toronto Proposal Is Excluded

Applied Digital once discussed a roughly 430 MW, $5 billion development near Toronto in Deuel County. It would have placed near the top of this ranking. But in 2026 the company indicated it would no longer pursue the original project after lawmakers declined proposed tax incentives. The state’s legislative issue memorandum explicitly distinguishes the discontinued Applied Digital plan from Gemini’s still-proposed campus. Reviving an old announced capacity without its cancellation would mislead readers about today’s pipeline.

Other proposed facilities, including a CleanSpark-related Rapid City project recorded in PUC docket EL26-011, lack enough comparable public capacity information to be placed confidently above the projects on this list. Existing carrier-colocation facilities in Sioux Falls provide important regional connectivity, but their building area and server load cannot be equated with hundreds of megawatts of proposed capacity.

Next Tests: Power Contracts, Water Disclosures and Actual Construction

As South Dakota evaluates major computing investments, the public measures that matter most are the same at each site: the amount of power contracted and energized; who pays for grid upgrades; the source and volume of cooling water; emissions, noise and land-use conditions; and how financial commitments to communities will be enforced. Project announcements, county zoning decisions and utility agreements each answer a different question. None should be confused with hundreds of megawatts of newly operating servers.

Earlier rankings reviewed South Carolina, Rhode Island, and North Dakota. South Dakota’s split between a small existing Bitcoin mine and far larger unbuilt proposals shows why planned capacity must be kept separate from operating IT load.

BitcoinVersus.Tech

BitcoinVersus.Tech Editor’s Note: We volunteer daily to ensure the credibility of the information on this platform is Verifiably True. If you would like to support our work and help further secure the integrity of our research initiatives, please scan the QR code below to donate 5,000 sats. For best results, scan the QR code from a laptop or larger screen.

Bitcoin address: 3C9o19EH5HSiwEPyCTmEKzxhNCbo2X6TTb. Confirm the destination address before sending.

BitcoinVersus.tech is not a financial advisor. This media platform reports on financial subjects purely for informational purposes.