CtrlS describes a 40-acre park at Chandanvelly, near Hyderabad, as over 700 MW and scalable to 1.4 GW. The number that actually exists on paper is a 700 MVA approved power sanction — and MVA is not MW. At a realistic power factor that connection supports somewhere between 595 and 665 MW of load, before any efficiency loss in the plant. An earlier 2025 release from the same company described 600+ MW of IT capacity and a 250 MW first-phase sanction. This page holds all three numbers apart instead of picking the biggest.
1At a glance
2Seven hundred MVA is not seven hundred megawatts
This is not a nitpick. It is the difference between a number a utility will actually supply and a number a marketing page liked the sound of.
| Power factor | Deliverable megawatts | Gap against the 700 MW claim |
|---|---|---|
| 0.95 — a well-run facility | 665 MW | 35 MW short |
| 0.90 — a normal industrial connection | 630 MW | 70 MW short, 10% |
| 0.85 — a conservative assumption | 595 MW | 105 MW short, 15% |
MVA is apparent power: volts times amps. MW is real power, what the servers and the cooling actually consume. Every megawatt of IT load needs its share of apparent power for transformers, chillers and losses. So a 700 MVA sanction is an electrical ceiling above the IT load, never a megawatt figure for it.
The operator may well hold a 700 MW figure separately from the sanction — the page does not say. What this record does say is that the one number a utility has approved is in a unit that is larger than the number it is being quoted alongside, which is the wrong direction for a capacity claim.
If you are sizing Telangana supply for 2029, 700 MW and 630 MW are different markets. One is a third of Hyderabad’s counted capacity on its own; the other is a corner of it.
Ask for the sanctioned load in MW and the contracted demand. An operator with a real 700 MVA connection will have both numbers in a filing.
3Land is not the constraint
Forty acres is a small parcel for a data centre park. The claims built on it are not small.
| Measure | Chandanvelly | Future City | Reads as |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acres | 40 | 36 | both are small parcels |
| Headline MW | 700 | 750 | near-identical claims on near-identical land |
| MW an acre at the headline | 17.5 | 20.8 | 2 to 2.4 times the registry average |
| Stated ceiling | 1.4 GW | 1.2 GW | 35.0 and 33.3 MW an acre at the ceiling |
| At the 2 GW figure reported for Future City | — | 55.6 MW an acre | not a data centre density; a power station density |
Thirty-five megawatts an acre means every acre of the site carries 35 MW of connected load. For comparison, a serious hyperscale campus in this registry averages under nine. That does not make the claim false — density of land use is a different thing from density of building, and a park can stack halls and put its substation on a shared corner.
It does mean the land parcel tells you nothing about the timeline. A 40-acre site can hold a 700 MW park on paper in a press release and 60 MW of buildings in reality for the first five years.
4How 600 became 700
Two operator statements, nineteen months apart, describing the same park.
| When | What was said | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| January 2025 | 600+ MW of IT capacity on a 40-acre parcel, first phase with a 250 MW power sanction | explicitly IT load |
| 2026, current page | Over 700 MW, scalable to 1.4 GW, 700 MVA approved power sanction | basis not stated |
| Difference | +100 MW, and the unit changed | not like for like |
The 2025 statement was cleaner than the 2026 one: it said IT load, it named a first phase, and it tied the phase to a specific sanction of 250 MW. The current page is bigger and vaguer. That is the usual direction of travel on operator pages, and it is why a record like this should hold both versions rather than overwrite the older one.
The honest reading: the park is planned at several hundred megawatts, the first phase was sanctioned at 250 MW of power, and the current headline is a ceiling that has not been restated in a comparable unit since.
5Timeline
- CtrlS announces a data centre park on a 40-acre parcel near Hyderabad: 600+ MW of IT capacity, first phase with a 250 MW power sanction
- State and business press carry the 600 MW figure. No construction milestone is reported
- The operator page is updated to over 700 MW scalable to 1.4 GW, with a 700 MVA approved power sanction
- Reporting on Hyderabad’s data centre pipeline treats the park as part of the state’s announced capacity
- Carried as a planned campus claim at 700 MW, counted at zero, with the MVA sanction kept in its own field
6Procurement
7Limits and open questions
- No building. Nothing in the public record establishes that any of the 700 MW is built.
- Unit mismatch. The only sanctioned figure is 700 MVA; the headline is 700 MW. They are not interchangeable and this record does not convert one into the other.
- Two eras of claim. 600+ MW of IT load in 2025, over 700 MW of unstated basis in 2026. The later figure is not a refinement of the earlier one.
- The 1.4 GW ceiling is a scalability statement, not capacity, and is not counted anywhere.
- Confusable with Chandanvelly vs Future City. Two separate CtrlS sites in the same region, both with several-hundred-megawatt claims. They are not one park and this registry does not merge them.
- What would close it. A phase schedule in MW, or one commissioned building on the site.
8Sources
Sources: CtrlS Hyderabad data centre page, CtrlS 2025 park announcement, The Hindu BusinessLine on the 600 MW plan, Data Center Dynamics on the Hyderabad buildout, Telangana state industrial material, dcmarketinsights, and Indian market commentary on the Hyderabad data centre corridor.