The Project Analyzer
Not all data centres are the same. This is a published standard for what a good one does for the place it lands — and a grade for every proposed Alberta project, with a plain sentence on what would have to change to move it up.
A resident who hears “a data centre is coming” should be able to open one page and know in a minute whether to relax, ask questions, or organise — and exactly which questions to ask. Every project is scored against the same twelve tests. Where the public record is silent, we say so: a proponent that will not disclose is not treated as a good neighbour.
Score 80+, nothing below 2, no unknowns in Power or Water.
Score 55–79, or any single criterion at 1.
Below 55, or a zero on water, power source, noise or transparency.
Fewer than 8 of 12 criteria have public evidence. Never blended into a grade.
The standard
Each test is scored 0 to 4 on published evidence, weighted by group. Every threshold and benchmark is sourced in the evidence file behind this page.
1Where the electricity comes from
GoodBrings firm new supply or a signed curtailment deal, so it doesn't push residential rates or reliability.
BadTakes scarce grid capacity with no offset and no demand-response commitment.
~20 GW requested by 2031 vs. under 5 GW of proposed generation; only two projects hold allocations. Ireland is reported to now refuse connections over 10 MVA without full on-site dispatchable supply — reported, not yet verified against the regulator's decision.
2Carbon intensity of that supply
GoodStated fuel and CUE, with offsets that are contracted rather than aspirational.
Bad“Gas and geothermal” with no technical document behind it.
Every Alberta bring-your-own-power project so far is natural gas.
3Grid citizenship
GoodWilling to curtail at peak, join demand response, share interconnection cost, and publish load data.
BadWants grid load with nothing behind it and no willingness to curtail.
Only two Alberta projects hold grid allocations against roughly 20 GW requested.
4Cooling technology
GoodClosed-loop, dry or liquid cooling with a published WUE; near-zero consumptive water at full build.
BadEvaporative cooling on a licensed river or aquifer draw in a closed or stressed basin.
Meta Sturgeon: zero operational cooling water. EU pact ceiling 0.4 L/kWh in stressed areas; only 5 of 34 active Alberta projects publish any water figure.
5Water source & licence
GoodSource named, basin status known, licence in the proponent's own name, consumptive number per MW published.
BadA licence held by someone else, or no consumptive number at all.
Wonder Valley's water licence is held by the municipality, not the proponent.
6Backup generation & air
GoodTier 4 or equivalent, permitted run hours and fleet size stated, emissions controls in place.
BadA backup fleet larger than the prime plant.
Virginia averages 54 diesel units per site. Olds was reported to propose 1.8 GW of backup diesel, exceeding its prime plant — reported, not yet verified against a filing.
7Siting
GoodExisting heavy-industrial land near transmission.
BadFarmland conversion, floodplain, or homes within earshot.
Olds refused on siting; Rocky View refused on farmland; Meta's site was already heavy-industrial.
8Noise
GoodA pre-development model at the nearest homes, an enforceable limit, and a low-frequency metric.
BadA perimeter number offered instead of a number at the nearest home.
AUC Rule 012 sets a 40 dBA Leq nighttime *basic* sound level, which is then adjusted to a permissible level by dwelling category and density — it is not a flat 40 dBA cap, and we have not yet opened the rule itself, so we do not score against a number. What we do score is whether a receptor model exists at all. Wonder Valley offered “around 55 decibels” at the perimeter — a perimeter figure is not a measurement at the nearest home.
9Heat, waste & land after
GoodA heat-reuse commitment and a decommissioning plan with a bond.
BadNothing said about reuse, end-of-life, or reclamation.
No Alberta project commits to heat reuse; Alberta has no data-centre reclamation requirement.
10Jobs, truthfully stated
GoodBoth construction and permanent numbers stated, matching what comparable facilities actually employ, with local-hire commitments.
BadA press-release jobs figure with no permanent number.
Greenlight: $4.6B for 30 permanent jobs; Meta: 300+ permanent, ~$60M in roads and water.
11Tax & community benefit
GoodAssessment contributions net of abatement disclosed, plus a signed community benefit agreement.
BadNo net contribution shown and no signed benefit agreement.
Sturgeon County requires annual public reporting; Meta committed ~$60M in local infrastructure.
12Transparency & consultation
GoodPublic filings and numbers on the record, open houses before rezoning, written answers, a named accountable person, Indigenous consultation above Level 1.
BadBooths and soft language, NDAs, a licence held by someone else.
The EU is reported to require PUE/WUE/ERF/REF reporting by regulation — reported, not yet verified. Verified: Wonder Valley's water licence is held by the municipality, not the proponent.
The launch set
These grades are provisional. They are drafts, scored from the public record only, and are being sent to each proponent for right of reply before publication — every grade changes when a proponent supplies what is missing. Three underlying sources are still being verified. Grades are opinions built on stated facts, and they say so.
Publish design and measured PUE and WUE (including the Greenlight plant's own cooling water), a noise model at the nearest homes, a heat-reuse commitment, and a decommissioning bond. Gas supply caps the carbon score.
Volunteer a full environmental assessment; put the licence and a published consumptive number per MW in the proponent's name; commit to closed-loop cooling in writing; model noise at the nearest homes with an enforceable limit; raise Indigenous consultation and answer in writing; publish jobs and a decommissioning plan.
Publish the plant's cooling method and water use, and a heat-reuse or carbon-capture commitment.
Disclose the basics. This one could grade well quickly because the site is already industrial.
A different site. Note the fuller sequence: the AUC closed a first application in March 2026 over errors and incomplete information, rejected the second in August 2026 on siting.
Industrial land and a non-potable, closed-loop water plan. The county said it would still pursue data centres at better-suited sites, then on July 21, 2026 voted 5–2 for a moratorium on new applications until its sector strategy and regulatory framework are complete.
Publish cooling type, WUE and a noise model. Tier III says nothing about water or noise.
Disclose the basics for all six sites and adopt Sturgeon County's annual reporting on every one.
Publish the sound model at the 22 homes with an enforceable limit, and state the generation fuel and backup plan.
Two operating bitcoin sites (Hut 8 Medicine Hat, Drumheller) and the legacy Calgary and Edmonton colocation halls are shown elsewhere as context, not graded — they are the “old normal” a resident has already lived beside. See every project on the tracker; the tests trace back to the concerns and their sources.
Every project below Good comes with a fix list — the specific changes, ordered by how many points each is worth, each with a precedent where another project made that change. The standard is public and free. Closing the gap is where we can help.
Right of reply is open to every proponent before a grade publishes, and every correction is logged in public.