Goldman's 'largely unchanged' data-center forecast cuts 2027 capacity additions by more than a quarter

Before the October note ^[1], Goldman's figures put US data-center capacity at 59 GW at the end of 2026 and roughly 95 GW a year later ^[14][4]. Moving those to 64 GW and 90 GW ^[3] shrinks the capacity added during 2027 from 36 GW to 26 GW, a cut of about 28% to a single year's build ^[15]. The bank described the same numbers this way. "While US data center development faces increasing political and community opposition, project data and our updated capacity estimates suggest that the US data center growth outlook through 2027 remains largely unchanged," Goldman said ^[6].

Demand was reshaped the same way, into two even 38% years ^[2]. The May path of 31 GW, 41 GW and 66 GW ^[5] meant growth of about 32% in 2026 and 61% in 2027 ^[17]. The new 12 GW for 2026 is 38% of about 31.6 GW, so the 2025 base barely moved. Adding 12 GW and then 17 GW to that base gives roughly 61 GW of demand in 2027, about 5 GW below May ^[18].

Projects arriving early would explain part of the capacity move. Pure timing would have left the end-2027 total at 95 GW, though, so it covers at most 5 GW of the 10 GW cut, and the other 5 GW drops out of the two-year forecast ^[16]. Another possibility is that opposition is starting to reach later-dated projects. In Crypto Briefing's account, Goldman concludes that resistance has had limited effect on growth so far ^[12], and a cut to the later year is where an early effect would show first. Or the cause is something else. The reports do not say what drove the cut, and they do not identify electricity supply as the limit on the build.

Goldman's argument, as Crypto Briefing summarised the note, is that AI infrastructure spending by large technology firms will likely offset permitting and political barriers, with a near-term supply pipeline behind it ^[11]. The evidence the bank cites is project data ^[6]. "Public sentiment has also turned more negative," Goldman said ^[7]. About a third of Americans approve of the pace of construction, according to a June Reuters/Ipsos poll ^[8], and the objections center on electricity demand, utility costs and other local impacts ^[13]. The midterms are on November 3, and CNA's report calls the backlash a political challenge for Republicans ^[10].

I'd expect the lost 5 GW to be where opposition shows up first, because it falls in the year furthest from the near-term pipeline Goldman leans on ^[16][11]. The counter-case is the bank's own: its project data show the outlook holding, and it expects spending to outrun the barriers ^[6][11]. A later Goldman revision that restores the 2027 figure, or attributes the cut to equipment or power, would show that expectation to be wrong.