Beacon Heartland AI Data Center Hub

Proposed data centre load: 800 MW. Four proposed data halls rated at 200 MW each. This is full-build capacity, not operating demand. [2][7] Proponent statement

Proposed power plant: 920 MW. Two hundred 4.6 MW lean-burn natural-gas engines in 40 modular enclosures. [2][1] Public record

Natural-gas demand: Up to 218 TJ/day. The federal filing's full-capacity estimate. The dedicated lateral route and approvals remain in development. [7] Proponent projection

Maximum annual GHG estimate: 4.401 million tonnes CO₂e. The proponent's estimate assumes 800 MW output at 100 per cent utilization. Environment and Climate Change Canada characterized the operating emissions as high and recommended full consideration of mitigation. This is a forecast, not measured emissions. [7][12] Proponent projection

Carbon capture: No committed system. The filing reserves space for possible future carbon capture and also mentions hydrogen, renewable gas, and offsets. It does not commit to equipment, a capture rate, funding, or an operating date. [7] ADCW context

Estimated yearly air pollution: 471 t NOₓ, 902 t CO, and 120 t fine particles. If the plant runs continuously, the developer estimates its smokestacks would release these yearly totals of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and fine particles. These figures describe pollution leaving the stacks, not the amount people would breathe at ground level, and they are estimates rather than measured results. [7][4] Proponent projection

Air pollution from Heartland alone: Developer predicts levels below Alberta limits. Looking only at Heartland, the developer's model predicts that the highest ground-level concentrations would reach 23% of Alberta's limit for nitrogen dioxide, 1.2% for carbon monoxide, and 44% for fine particles. Health Canada said meeting those limits alone does not settle the question of health risk. It recommended looking at combined pollution from the region, comparing results with health-based benchmarks, monitoring air quality, and reducing emissions where practical. [4][13] Proponent projection

Heartland's share of regional fine-particle emissions: About 1 in every 10 tonnes in the project case. Across the existing, approved, and proposed sources counted in the model, Heartland would contribute 0.327 tonnes per day, or 10% of fine-particle emissions. That is its share of emissions across the region, not its share of pollution at any one location. This is why Heartland can account for 10% overall while barely changing the model's worst existing hotspots. [4] ADCW context

Grid connection: Not included in current application. The filing describes a future transmission connection and an on-site substation currently configured at 400 MW, but says the final configuration is unresolved. The AUC application does not request a connection order. [2][7] Proponent statement

Gas pipeline: Separate approval path. The proponent expects a dedicated lateral from the NGTL and ATCO system about 0.5 km east of the site. The route remains in development, and the pipeline operator would obtain separate approvals. [7] Proponent statement

Projected campus demand: Up to 1,500 m³/day. Equivalent to 1.5 million litres per day, subject to final design. The proposed source is Sturgeon County's municipal system, not agricultural irrigation water. [7][17] Proponent projection

Power-plant share: About 100 m³/day. The filing assigns this volume to ancillary power-generation uses and says the engine cooling loops do not require process water or blowdown. [7] Proponent projection

Water agreement and capacity: Not publicly confirmed. The project says municipal and industrial supplies are planned. The reviewed sources do not include a final executed supply agreement, infrastructure-capacity confirmation, or approved operating water balance. [7][17][15] ADCW context

Wastewater: Municipal system if feasible. The proponent proposes Sturgeon County's sanitary system where capacity is available, with approved alternatives otherwise. Final acceptance, volumes, and disposal arrangements are not published. [7] Proponent statement

Nearest residence: About 200 m north. Health Canada's federal advice record identifies the closest residence as approximately 200 metres north of the project area. This is receptor context, not a finding that health effects will occur. [13] Public record

Nearest-receptor model: 46 dBA day; 40 dBA night cumulative. The filed assessment applies these cumulative values at R1, approximately 200 metres north of the project area. The applicable daytime and nighttime limits at R1 are 50 dBA and 40 dBA. 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 → values, not operating measurements. [8] Proponent projection

Project-only contribution: 36.4 dBA day and night. The assessment models the proposed project alone at R1 before combining it with the existing ambient sound used for the cumulative case. [8] Proponent projection

Proposed mitigation: Silencers, acoustic louvers, and a barrier. The federal response identifies engine exhaust and ventilation silencers, acoustic louvers for chiller equipment, and a noise barrier north of the northern data hall. These are proposed design measures; post-construction performance has not been measured. [10] Proponent statement

Nearest residence: About 200 m north. Health Canada's federal advice record identifies the closest residence at approximately 200 metres. Distance is important context but does not, by itself, establish whether an impact will occur. [13] Public record

Campus area: 320 acres. Beacon's current project page rounds the site to 320 acres. The federal filing describes a 317-acre campus and a 32-acre power-plant footprint. [17][7] ADCW context

Wetlands in project area: 20 wetlands; 13.3 ha. The federal filing also identifies 13 ephemeral water bodies and three dugouts. It says wetlands would be directly affected except for one semi-permanent marsh in the northeast corner. [7] Proponent statement

Wetland approvals: Water Act authorization required. The filing says an impact report was submitted and approvals would be sought before construction for wetland loss and ephemeral water bodies. The final authorization and compensation requirements were not found in the reviewed sources. [7][11] Public record

Species-at-risk observation: Western toad heard at Wetland 19. The project survey recorded one calling western toad at a semi-permanent marsh and recommends a 100-metre setback plus seasonal or salvage measures if work affects the wetland. This is a survey observation, not a population estimate. [7] Proponent statement

Federal ecological advice: Cumulative habitat risk flagged. Environment and Climate Change Canada identified wetland drainage, vegetation clearing, lighting, spills, and cumulative habitat effects as potential risks to migratory birds and species at risk in the Industrial Heartland region. These are federal expert concerns and mitigation advice, not findings that the effects will occur. [12] Public record

Treaty geography: Treaty 6 territory. The project lies in Treaty 6 territory. This is geographic context and does not by itself determine consultation adequacy or effects on rights. [16][10] ADCW context

Provincial pre-consultation: ACO said consultation was not required. The proponent's federal response says Alberta's Aboriginal Consultation Office reached this conclusion for the Water Act pre-consultation request because of the proposed activities and private-land context. The proponent says it nevertheless notified 23 Indigenous communities. [10] Proponent statement

AUC participants with standing: Five Indigenous groups. Lac Ste. Anne Métis Community Association, Samson Cree Nation, Whitefish (Goodfish) Lake First Nation #128, Ermineskin Cree Nation, and Louis Bull Tribe received standing in the power-plant proceeding. [3] Public record

Federal issues list: Rights and cumulative effects required clarification. IAAC's issues list asked the proponent to clarify meaningful engagement, Section 35 rights, cumulative effects on traditional land use, and meaningful long-term economic benefits. [9][11] Public record

Economic-benefit evidence disputed: Samson asked for little or no weight. Samson Cree Nation argued that the fiscal assessment arrived too late to test, omitted the value of lost ecological services and alternatives, and relied on shifting job claims. This is Samson's submission, not an AUC finding. [6] Public record

Indigenous procurement: No formal policy confirmed. Samson's submission cites a proponent response stating that no formal Indigenous procurement policy had been established, despite general commitments to seek employment and contracting opportunities. [6][10] Public record

AUC status: Decision pending. The evidentiary record closed July 31, 2026. The AUC says it will issue a decision by October 29, 2026. [1][5] Public record

Municipal permit: Master site permit amended. Sturgeon County says it approved Beacon's data-centre master site 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 → in 2025 and amended it in February 2026 to include a gas-to-electric generation facility. Permit conditions and later construction authorizations remain separate. [15][17] 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 →: 30518. The Commission used a written hearing to review the 920 MW plant. The public record closed July 31, 2026, and a decision is due by October 29. [1][3][5] Public record

Federal planning decision: No further impact assessment required. IAAC concluded that possible federal effects would be limited or addressed through existing laws. The March 9 decision did not approve the project or replace provincial, municipal, pipeline, or utility approvals. [11] Public record

Provincial environmental approval: EPEA approval required. The AUC application says an Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act application was being submitted concurrently. A final project-specific approval was not found in the reviewed public sources. [2][7] ADCW context

Initial public outreach: 18 landowners within 2 km. The federal filing says introductory packages went to approximately 18 landowners and an open house was held in Gibbons on November 18, 2025. Later federal-registry comments include concerns about the narrow notification radius, water, noise, land, and cumulative effects. [7][14] ADCW context

Direct permanent jobs: About 55–110. The proponent's February federal response estimates 15–30 power-plant jobs and 40–80 data-centre jobs. Beacon's website separately advertises up to 300 operating jobs, and the AUC record disputes how the larger figure is presented. [10][17][6] ADCW context

Target initial operation: Fall 2027. A proponent schedule that remains subject to regulatory decisions, construction, utility connections, financing, and customer commitments. [17][7] Proponent projection