Sturgeon Data Centre

Announced capacity: 1 GW. Meta's announced data-centre capacity remains ADCW's headline figure. Clark Builders reports a different figure below. [6][18][19] Proponent statement

Different capacity reported by builder: Approx. 1.6 GW. Clark Builders, a project delivery partner, reports this compute capacity. The sources do not explain how it relates to Meta's 1 GW announcement. A larger build-out is possible, but not confirmed. [19][18] Proponent statement

Initial grid supply: 250 MW. Capital Power disclosed an energy-supply agreement lasting more than 10 years, with service anticipated in the second half of 2028. [9] Public record

Dedicated gas generation: 932 MW. Greenlight's committed first phase is a combined-cycle natural-gas plant expected in service in the second half of 2030. [10][14] Public record

Backup generators?Backup generation×Backup generators provide electricity when the normal supply is unavailable. They may also run for testing or maintenance.Installed capacity does not establish continuous operation, annual fuel use, or emissions. Operating hours and permit conditions are separate evidence.Learn more → shown in appeal filing: 848 diesel units. The appellants say drawings in the data-centre application show 848 backup generators and estimate associated on-site diesel storage at more than 1 million litres. They argue that this infrastructure was deferred to a future AUC process. The figures and legal argument have not been adjudicated. [2] Public record

Permitted expansion: Up to 1,864 MW. The AUC record describes two stages and full development in 2031. [10] Public record

Natural-gas demand: Approximately 150 million cubic feet/day. Pembina's disclosed requirement for the current 932 MW Greenlight project. [14] Proponent projection

Full-build GHG estimate: 5.677 million tonnes CO₂e/year. Greenlight's federal filing estimate for the maximum 1,864 MW plant without carbon capture. It is not an estimate for only the current 932 MW phase. [15] Proponent projection

Clean-energy matching: 100% annual matching promised. Meta says it will add or contract enough clean energy to match annual electricity use. This accounting commitment does not mean the facility's physical electricity supply is fossil-free at all times. [6][14] ADCW context

Cooling design: 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 → liquid cooling?Liquid cooling×Liquid carries heat away from computing equipment, for example through cold plates at the chips.This describes how heat leaves the equipment. It does not identify how heat is ultimately released outside, or establish the site's water demand.Learn more → with dry cooling?Dry cooling×Dry cooling releases heat to the air without relying on water evaporation for that heat rejection.Fans and other equipment still use electricity and can produce sound. Check whether the design also uses wet or water-assisted equipment during hot weather.Learn more →. Meta says the cooling system will require no operational water. This is a design claim; measured use will not exist until operations begin. [6][7] Proponent projection

Other on-site use: Still required. Meta identifies construction, facility/domestic use, fire protection and equipment maintenance as continuing water demands. [6][7] Proponent statement

Associated power-plant water: 538,000 m³/year (538 million L/year). Greenlight estimates this volume for its power plant, averaging about 1,474 m³/day (1.47 million L/day). It is not a Meta data-centre water-use estimate. The proposed supply is a new Capital Region Northeast Water Services Commission pipeline loop along Highway 643, connected to Sturgeon County's municipal system. [11][12] Proponent statement

Power-plant water approval: Municipal agreement still required. The AUC accepted Greenlight's estimate for its decision but did not approve the water use. Greenlight must confirm and summarize its municipal approval or agreement in the final project update. [12] Public record

Associated power-plant cooling: Dry cooling; no cooling towers. Greenlight told the AUC it plans to use air-cooled heat exchangers and an air-cooled condenser. It said this design is not expected to cause local fogging or icing. [11] Proponent statement

Associated power-plant wastewater: Municipal sewer proposed; agreement not confirmed. Greenlight told AEPA that there would be no on-site wastewater treatment. It proposed sending qualifying wastewater to Sturgeon County's sewer for Arrow Utilities treatment, with up to 61 m³/hour of reverse-osmosis reject routed to an effluent tank first. Wastewater the system cannot accept would be stored and disposed of off-site. [11] Proponent statement

Public infrastructure: Approximately CA$60 million. Meta says this includes roads and water infrastructure; an itemized public breakdown was not found in the reviewed sources. [6] Proponent statement

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 → cumulative sound: 50.4 dBA day; 43.1 dBA night. Greenlight's filed model applies these values at one residence about 860 metres northwest of the power-plant boundary. The applicable daytime and nighttime limits are 55 dBA and 45 dBA. These are modelled power-plant results, not measurements from an operating facility or an assessment of the full Meta campus. [13] Proponent projection

Data-centre noise: Not separately quantified. ADCW has not identified a public project-specific sound estimate for Meta's data halls, dry-cooling equipment, or backup generators. [13][4][7] ADCW context

Noise evidence challenged on appeal: Several studies alleged missing. The appellants say the public permit package did not include an AUC Rule 012-compliant Noise Impact Assessment, a Noise Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, or a Noise Attenuation Study. They say the submitted Noise and Vibration Strategy did not meet Rule 012. These are unresolved appellant claims. [2] Public record

Project size reported by builder: 2.9 million sq. ft.. Clark Builders lists this project size. It does not establish the approved building area or the final campus footprint. [19][4] Proponent statement

Master-permit area: Approx. 1,760 acres. The appellants' September 15, 2026 filing describes the master permit as covering 11 quarter sections. This is a party's description in an unresolved appeal, not a Tribunal finding. [2] Public record

Wetlands identified in appeal: 351 wetlands; approx. 85 ha. The appellants' filing says the application package identifies 351 wetlands covering about 210 acres and schedules all of them for removal. The Tribunal has not ruled on the allegation or the permit's compliance. [2] Public record

Treaty and Métis geography: Treaty 6 territory. Sturgeon County identifies the area as Treaty 6 territory, the traditional homelands of Alexander and Michel First Nations, and part of Métis Nation of Alberta Districts 8 and 11. This is geographic context and does not by itself establish project-specific consultation, effects or positions. [16] Public record

Municipal permit: DP-26-0028. Issued June 16, 2026; effective July 7, 2026. The permit is now the subject of a preliminary appeal proceeding. [4][2] Public record

Greenlight site-grading permit: DP-26-0216. Sturgeon County approved site grading for Phase 1 of the 932 MW power plant at 56126 Range Road 222. The permit was issued September 18, 2026, with an October 9, 2026 effective date unless appealed. That date has passed; this record does not verify whether an appeal affected its effective status. It is separate from Meta's data-centre permit. [3] Public record

Foundation-piling permit: DP-26-0293 issued. Issued October 20, 2026 for foundation pilings only for Building DCB01 and Mechanical Yard MY01 at 56027 Range Road 223 (SE-3-56-22-W4M), within the master-permit area. The County states November 10, 2026 as both the effective date and appeal deadline. This is not full building authorization or evidence that piling has begun. [1][4] Public record

Piling-permit appeals: Deadline November 10, 2026; eligibility restricted. The County directs appeals to the Land and Property Rights Tribunal. Its notice says permitted-use permits can be appealed by the applicant, or an affected person where the Land Use Bylaw was relaxed, varied, or misinterpreted. This is separate from the existing master-permit appeal. [1] Public record

Preliminary appeal stage: 116 appeal files. The September 15, 2026 submission describes a coalition of approximately 120 people. The preliminary hearing was scheduled for October 13, 2026 to address standing and whether the appeals may proceed, not the final merits of the permit challenge. That date has passed; its outcome is not verified in this record. [2] Public record

Affected-person dispute: County's proposed 3 km radius challenged. The appellants oppose a blanket distance cutoff and seek evidence-based standing tied to possible noise, light, emissions, traffic, emergency-route, drainage, and hydrological effects. The Tribunal directed production of maps showing 3 km, 5 km, and 10 km radii; it has not adopted the appellants' requested 10 km scope. [2] Public record

Permitted use and bylaw compliance: Separate questions before the Tribunal. For the preliminary argument, the appellants accept that a major data-processing facility is a permitted use in the Heavy Industrial district. They argue that this does not resolve compliance with the Land Use Bylaw, Municipal Development Plan, and Alberta's Industrial Heartland Area Structure Plan. No ruling has been made. [2] Public record

Application-package audit: Missing, partial, or deferred studies alleged. The appellants say their review of the 4,386-page package found gaps involving noise, groundwater, landscaping, parking, topography, off-site drainage, emergency response, geotechnical work, biophysical effects, air emissions, cumulative effects, health, and reclamation. Some listed reports were discretionary, and the Tribunal has not determined whether the County's review complied with the governing plans and bylaw. [2] Public record

Land-use approval: Permitted use in Heavy Industrial zoning. The 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 → establishes the framework for a major data-processing facility across the listed parcels. [4] Public record

Public notice and appeal: Notice posted June 16; deadline July 7, 2026. Because this was a permitted-use approval, public appeal rights were narrower than for a discretionary use or variance. [4] Public record

Project open house: Not required by the County. Sturgeon County states that data centres are permitted in the applicable industrial zone and a public open house is not required for approval. [5] Public record

County development principles: Seven guiding principles published. Sturgeon County's principles call for dedicated power, minimized water use, no municipal incentives, developer-funded infrastructure, heavy-industrial locations, reduced community impacts, and annual public reporting. They mix County decisions, developer obligations, and broader expectations; the page does not identify every principle as a condition of this project's permit. [5] Public record

Annual public reporting: Expected by Sturgeon County. The County says operators are expected to report water use, noise levels, and nitrogen oxide emissions each year. This is a published expectation, not confirmation that the reports exist or that it is an enforceable condition of this project's permit. [5] Public record

Greenlight Water Act approval: DAUT0024959. AEPA's November 26, 2025 approval covers permanent wetland disturbance and construction of a stormwater management system for the power plant. It is not approval of Greenlight's municipal water use or Meta's data-centre water demand. [11][12] Public record

Investment: More than CA$13 billion. Company-announced project investment. [6] Proponent statement

Associated power-plant cost: Approx. CA$4.0 billion capital cost. Greenlight reports an approximately CA$4.6 billion total project cost after including CA$0.6 billion in interest during construction and other financing costs. [14] Proponent statement

Federal funding: None publicly identified. ADCW found no project-specific federal grant, loan or contribution in the reviewed sources. Meta says it is fully funding the new generation and grid infrastructure. [6][5] ADCW context

Employment: ~3,000 peak construction; 300+ operational. Company projections, not observed job counts. [6][7] Proponent projection

Target operation: 2028–2029. Capital Power expects the initial 250 MW load in the second half of 2028; Sturgeon County lists the data centre as operational in 2029. [9][5] ADCW context

General contractor: Frost Collective. A joint venture of Clark Builders and PCL Construction. [7][8] Proponent statement

Greenlight ownership: Pembina 47.5%; MSIP 47.5%; Kineticor 5%. Pembina leads construction management. Aecon and Técnicas Reunidas hold the fixed-price engineering, procurement, and construction agreements. [14] Proponent statement