DC DataCentreDebate.ca

The basic test

My data-centre checklist

The checklist is simple: prove the power, publish the water, model the noise, explain the land, bind the benefit, and secure the cleanup.

The questions

This is the page councils, neighbours, reporters, and regular taxpayers should be able to use before they get buried in project language.

IssuePass looks likeFail looks like
PowerDay-one supply, ramp schedule, dedicated generation, grid upgrades, backup plan, and proof that project-caused costs stay with the project. Any claimed residential bill impact should identify which charge changes, by how much, and why.“Alberta has natural gas” or “we are working with partners” with no numbers, dates, or responsibility.
WaterA water balance separating data centre cooling, power plant water, domestic use, fire protection, makeup water, blowdown, and discharge.Closed-loop marketing with no explanation, or panic claims that treat every data centre like an evaporative cooling tower.
NoiseProperty-line noise modelling, equipment lists, generator testing limits, monitoring, complaint response, and enforcement.Either dismissing all noise concerns or claiming mystery AI hum will sterilize cattle.
Land useClear planning history, zoning status, farmland impacts, roads, emergency response, and cumulative industrial footprint.Quiet land conversion, vague maps, or pretending old industrial planning decisions happened yesterday.
OwnershipClear owner, funders, operator, data/control location, public benefit, local procurement, and Canadian access where appropriate.Construction jobs as the whole answer while the long-term strategic value leaves Alberta.
Canadian computeForeign-controlled gigawatt-scale AI projects should guarantee measurable Canadian compute access or credits before the application is treated as complete.Hosting foreign compute while Canadians get only construction jobs, slogans, and no priority access.
Jobs and benefitReal construction and permanent job numbers, wage ranges, apprenticeship commitments, training seats, and local procurement targets.Big investment number, tiny permanent workforce, and no binding local commitments.
CleanupDecommissioning plan and financial security posted up front, including attached power plants, substations, fuel systems, and interconnection assets where relevant.Trust-us cleanup promises, or treating the data centre and its power plant as separate problems after the business case fails.

What I would require

Require

  • Publish actual numbers.
  • Separate the data centre from the power plant.
  • Make public benefit enforceable.
  • Monitor after approval, not just during the sales pitch.
  • Secure cleanup money before the company has a reason to leave.
  • Require a second-life or decommissioning plan for any dedicated power plant.

Do not accept

  • Approve a gigawatt because the renderings are shiny.
  • Let opponents win with bad technical claims.
  • Let proponents win with press-release math.
  • Hide public costs in grid upgrades, roads, water, or emergency services.
  • Confuse “possible economic benefit” with a binding commitment.
No project should get public credibility just because it has a dollar figure and a podium. Fine. Build it. But first, prove the basics.
Apply the checklist to projectsSee minimum conditions
For cooling-specific review, use the water-use comparison. For the planned Meta site, use the Meta Sturgeon County setup page.

Sources and notes