Armada Nowlit Wabasca / Hoole Data Centre

Generation: 19.8 MW. Nine 2.2 MW natural-gas engines proposed across two phases. [6] Public record

Phase 1: 8.8 MW. Four 2.2 MW MWM TCG 3020 engines proposed for the first phase. [6] Proponent statement

Phase 2: Additional 11 MW. Five more 2.2 MW engines would bring the proposed facility to 19.8 MW total. [6] Proponent statement

Grid relationship: Off-grid?Non-grid-connected×The facility has no electrical connection to Alberta's interconnected grid and relies on supply available to the site.It does not directly draw from or send electricity to that grid. Power-plant approvals and local impacts can still matter.Learn more → and behind the fence. The application says all electricity would be consumed on site, with no Alberta Interconnected Electric System connection or export. [6] Proponent statement

Fuel: Natural gas. The filing proposes selective catalytic reduction on all nine engines for nitrogen-oxide control. [6][8] Proponent statement

Nitrogen dioxide: 95.4 µg/m³ hourly; 12.1 µg/m³ annual. The model includes background concentrations and compares these maxima with objectives of 300 µg/m³ hourly and 45 µg/m³ annually. These are modelled?Modelled versus measured×A modelled result is a prediction based on inputs and assumptions. A measured result comes from observations or instruments under particular conditions.A prediction is not verified operating performance. Check the location, period, operating scenario, and what the reported number actually represents.Learn more → applicant results, not operating measurements or an AUC finding. [8] Proponent projection

Earlier 9.5 MW applications: Closed without approval. Proceedings 30253 and 30707 remain historical. The current 19.8 MW application is not added to those earlier capacities. [4][5][6] Public record · Historical proposal

Cooling: Closed-loop?Closed-loop cooling×Cooling fluid circulates repeatedly through a contained loop instead of being routinely discharged after one pass.That describes the loop, not the whole site's water use. A separate heat-rejection system can still use water, and filling, maintenance, and leaks also matter.Learn more → system proposed. The filing says cooling would not require process-water withdrawal?Withdrawal, consumption, and discharge×Withdrawal is water taken from a source. Consumption is the portion not returned to the same water system. Discharge is water released after use or treatment.These are different quantities. Check which one a water figure describes before comparing projects.Learn more → or discharge. [6][10] Proponent statement

Total site water: Not established. The no-process-water statement is limited to cooling. Domestic, fire-protection, initial-fill, make-up, stormwater, and other site water needs are not quantified in the reviewed summary. [6][10] ADCW context

Wastewater and stormwater: No wastewater discharge proposed. WSP says runoff would continue through the existing on-site stormwater system and no changes to runoff management are proposed. [10] Proponent statement

Water Act status: Application statements conflict. TP2 says additional approvals such as Water Act authorizations would be obtained before development, while TP33 says no Water Act approval is required based on the current design and wetland avoidance. ADCW leaves the status unresolved. [6][10] ADCW context

Noise-control assumption: Hospital-grade mufflers or equivalent. The October 16, 2026 update assumes this level of noise reduction because actual muffler specifications were unavailable. Predicted sound levels depend on the modelled design; they are not operating measurements. [12] Proponent statement

Modelled sources: Nine data centres and nine engines. The assessment includes enclosed data-centre equipment, cooling fans, transformers, and the proposed gas engines. [12] Proponent statement

Phase 1 nighttime model: 35.1 to 35.3 dBA cumulative. The model predicts project-only sound of 20.3 to 22.9 dBA and adds an assumed 35 dBA ambient level. The nighttime permissible level is 40 dBA. [12] Proponent projection

Full-build nighttime model: 35.3 to 35.6 dBA cumulative. The model predicts project-only sound of 23.8 to 26.4 dBA at theoretical receptors 1,500 metres from the facility. These are modelled values, not operating measurements. [12] Proponent projection

Low-frequency tonality: Possible in report tables. The executive summary says the dBC-dBA difference is below 20 dB, but the phase tables show about 21 to 22 dB and the body labels the tonal component possible. ADCW does not repeat the executive-summary conclusion as settled. [12] ADCW context

Project footprint: 4.7 ha conservative study footprint. WSP says 92.6% is previously disturbed and the actual proposed disturbance would be smaller than the study footprint. [10] Proponent statement

Bigstone Cree Nation participation: Consultation and Treaty rights concerns raised. In Exhibit 31058-X0037, reviewed November 5, 2026, Bigstone Cree Nation says it has not been meaningfully consulted and that the project could affect its Treaty 8 rights and traditional land uses. The Nation describes hunting, trapping, medicine gathering, and berry harvesting around the site, and raises concerns about wildlife, noise, surface water, groundwater, cumulative effects, and passing cultural knowledge to future generations. Its proximity map places the project boundary 2,380 metres from reserve lands. These are the Nation's submissions, not AUC findings. [1] Public record

Hearing requested: Participation and oral Indigenous knowledge. The Nation asks for a hearing before any approval, an opportunity to present oral Indigenous knowledge in a session held in its community, mitigation of cumulative effects, habitat protection, and input into reclamation. The statement requests participation; it does not establish that the AUC has granted standing or ordered a hearing. The earlier Alberta Consultation Office advice concerned a specific Public Lands Act disposition and does not resolve the Nation's concerns in this power-plant proceeding. [1][13] Public record

Treaty geography: Treaty 8 territory. Regional context only. It does not establish consultation, consent, effects, or any community's position. [17] ADCW context

ACO assessment: No consultation required for the referenced disposition. File FNC202600711-001 covers a 1.96-hectare Public Lands Act disposition for commercial data-centre development at NE 36-80-25 W4M. The advice says separate Water Act or EPEA authorizations may require their own consultation. It is not a finding of Indigenous support. [13] Public record

AUC proceeding?AUC proceeding×A proceeding is the Alberta Utilities Commission's formal record for reviewing an application, including evidence, submissions, and a decision when issued.A proceeding number helps locate the record. The existence of a proceeding does not mean the application has been approved.Learn more →: 31058. Application 31058-A001 was filed on September 14, 2026 for the Hoole Natural Gas Power Generation Facility. [6] Public record

Municipal development permit?Development permit×A municipality's approval allows a specified use or development on a particular site, subject to its land-use rules and any conditions.Separate provincial or utility approvals may still be needed. A permit does not establish that construction has begun or that the facility is operating.Learn more →: 26-DP-001 issued. The signed municipal engagement form says the project complies with the land-use bylaw, requires no land-use amendment, and left the municipality with no unresolved concerns. The full permit conditions were not included in the PDFs reviewed by ADCW. [6][13] Public record

AUC application: Under review. Proceeding 31058 is a Rule 007 power-plant application. Filing the application does not authorize construction or operation of the power plant. [6] Public record

Participant notification: Two rounds completed. The filing says the full 19.8 MW configuration was included in the second notification round in August 2026 and reports no unresolved municipal concerns. [13] Proponent statement

Earlier AUC concerns: Corrected in a new filing; not adjudicated. The 2025 closure identified inaccurate Crown-land information, incorrect distances to nearby First Nations communities, and an incomplete record on whether appropriate consultation had occurred. The closure was not a permanent ban or a finding of support or opposition. [4][6] Public record

EPEA document: Draftv2. The filed appendix is a draft approval document. It is not evidence that Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act approval has been issued. [9] ADCW context

Crown-land disposition: Required before construction. The application says Armada must obtain an industrial disposition from Alberta Forestry and Parks and/or amend the existing well-site disposition through the Alberta Energy Regulator, as applicable. [6] Proponent statement

Applicant schedules: Conflicting completion targets. The application targets construction in the first quarter of 2027 and service in the third quarter of 2027. Appendix V of the October 16, 2026 noise update instead lists Phase 1 completion in the fourth quarter of 2026 and Phase 2 in June 2027. The applicant schedules conflict; neither establishes actual progress. [6][12] Proponent projection

Data infrastructure: Nine enclosed units. The noise assessment models one enclosed data centre, cooling fans, and transformers alongside each engine. [12] Proponent statement

Ownership: 100% Armada Nowlit Energy Ltd.. The applicant identifies itself as the sole owner and operator of the proposed power facility. [6] Proponent statement

Closure-cost estimate: Approximately CA$2.05 million. The filed planning estimate combines CA$1.71 million for decommissioning and CA$341,735 for reclamation. Final financial-assurance terms are not settled. [11] Proponent statement

Closure security: Approximately CA$2.05 million proposed basis. The filed estimate proposes a demand forfeiture bond, equivalent surety bond, or another acceptable instrument before commercial operation. The final amount, form, timing, and beneficiary remain subject to approval requirements. [11] Proponent statement