Scrutica
Power
H100 Equiv
Supply Chain
Not yet available
Facility-level telemetry including power capacity, hardware deployments, supplier relationships, and downstream dependencies. Linked to Microsoft Corporation with cross-referenced BIS Entity List matches.
Detailed intelligence on Microsoft Fairwater Wisconsin. Tracks operational capacity, ownership structure, and the facility's strategic position within the global AI supply chain, including relevant export control restrictions.
As of 2026-04-27
Direct operator or owner of this facility per the Scrutica facility record.
Description
Microsoft Fairwater Wisconsin is set to be the tech giant’s most powerful data center yet. The buildings have a two-story structure, with GPU racks networked vertically as well as horizontally. Each of these GPU buildings is paired with a one-story building dedicated to data storage and processing using CPUs. We estimated compute capacity based on disclosures from Microsoft, and permit applications showing the layout of server racks. Data on Building 3 and 4 is more uncertain, as it is based on
Notes
Total capital cost (2025 USD): $17.71B
Nearby Facilities (within 100 km)
Energy Profile
Grid Carbon
413.41 gCO2/kWhCarbon Intensity
413.41 kg CO2/MWhBalancing Authority
MISONERC Region
RFCeGRID Subregion
RFCWOther Microsoft Corporation Facilities
Parent / controlling entity, documented through a public filing or LEI registry.
Source: SEC EDGAR · Confidence HIGH · As of 2026-02-13
Chain terminates at a publicly-listed entity (EXPEDIA GROUP INC). Subsequent ownership is observable via SEC filings or the equivalent national registry.
Sweden (SE)
Inspektionen för strategiska produkter (ISP) administers EU dual-use controls.
Regimes: Wassenaar Arrangement; EU Dual-Use Regulation 2021/821; EU Delegated Regulation 2025/2189
Established via: Microsoft Corporation
No flags found across the chain (BIS Entity List, designation-cascade closures, or compute-threshold reporting obligations) as of 2026-04-27. Cascade closures evaluated: 0.
No ownership-change events documented in Scrutica’s available substrate for any entity in this chain over the last 5 years. Events draw from PitchBook deal records (M&A, buyout, divestiture, asset sale, JV formation); PitchBook coverage is strongest for private US/EU transactions and partial for state-owned-enterprise restructurings or non-Western private deals. Subsequent ingestion runs may add events here.
No documented sovereign or state-linked LP investment touches any entity in this chain. PitchBook LP-disclosure rate is partial; absence of evidence here is not evidence of absence.
The walk for Microsoft Fairwater Wisconsin starts at the operator org id (or owner org id when no operator is recorded) and climbs upward through the unified affiliate graph (ownership_chain_edges), normalized child→parent via the ownership_upward_edgesview. At each hop, the highest-authority parent edge wins (priority ordering: SEC EDGAR / 10-K / LEI registry > FactSet Workstation / Revere > Compustat > BIS / Federal Register > PitchBook). Confidence and recency break ties.
The walk terminates on (a) a node with a public-filing-grade ancestor edge — a SEC filer, an LEI-registered listed entity, or a 10-K-disclosed parent — (b) a government entity, (c) a 10-hop limit, or (d) a detected cycle. When termination is not at a public filer or government, the panel labels the chain's end-state as opaque beyond that point. Opacity is reported, never implied.
Per-source confidence (PitchBook): HIGH for Parent / Subsidiary edges; MEDIUM for JV and AFFILIATE edges. Known limitations: (1) shell companies with undisclosed principals terminate the public-record walk; (2) recent transactions reach the panel after PitchBook's weekly refresh; (3) cross-jurisdiction private holding structures may carry intermediate hops that are not in any ingested source. Each row carries an edge-level as of date so freshness is auditable per hop.
Two further caveats are inherent to how the walker and substrate compose. The walker selects a single highest-authority parent per hop, so JV or multi-parent ownership structures collapse to one displayed path; alternate parents exist in the substrate but are not surfaced on this card. And some PitchBook edges encode parent-of relations against entity-resolved stub IDs whose display name reflects a sub-entity (a business unit, an acquired-then-renamed line) rather than the canonical parent — when a chain reads structurally surprising, the per-row source citation is the authoritative reference, not the chain's narrative shape.
Computed at: 2026-04-27. Walk depth observed: 2 hops. Sources combined: Scrutica facility record + PitchBook affiliate graph + SEC CIK cross-reference + LEI registry + (where applicable) FactSet Revere supply-chain graph + Federal Register designation closures.
AMS08
Netherlands