Data centres in PEC deserve evidence before a decision

Prince Edward County needs investment, employment and revenue. It also needs to protect the land, infrastructure and quality of life that make people want to live here. Those ambitions can coexist, although deciding how is rarely straightforward.

The final question at the mayoral debate brought that tension into focus: what did the candidates think about data centres in PEC?

Ernie Margetson favoured preparing planning policies before an application arrives. Brad Nieman and Terry Shortt opposed the industry coming to the County. Electricity limitations featured prominently in their answers, with Margetson and Shortt suggesting that PEC was unlikely to attract a facility anyway.

There are reasonable grounds for caution. There are also assumptions worth examining. A community can be willing to study an opportunity thoroughly without having decided to welcome it; preparation, meanwhile, should earn its place among competing municipal priorities.

Three answers, and some unfinished questions

Margetson offered the clearest procedural proposal: “So don’t wait until it happens and then scramble.”

Margetson suggested learning from other municipalities and developing appropriate zoning provisions.

Nieman was more categorical: “I am not in favor of having the data center come in here because I don’t think it is a good fit for Prince Edward County.”

Shortt also opposed a facility, adding: “I don’t think we really need to worry about it because, as Ernie implied already, we don’t have the electricity for it.”

Each answer leaves a useful follow-up. What would Margetson’s preparation cost? Which characteristics make the industry unsuitable in Nieman’s assessment? What evidence supports Shortt’s confidence that an application is unlikely?

Residents deserve enough detail to distinguish an informed position from an assumption, especially when the consequences could extend well beyond one council term.

Electricity needs a more precise explanation

Margetson’s statement that PEC produces no electricity requires correction. Northland Power identifies its operating 10-megawatt Belleville North Solar facility as being located in Prince Edward County, connected to the local grid.

That does not mean a data centre could simply claim those 10 megawatts. Solar output varies, and installed generation capacity is different from the dependable supply and connection capacity a particular facility requires.

There is substantive evidence of local infrastructure pressures. Hydro One’s December 2024 needs assessment forecast that Picton Transformer Station would exceed its existing capacity ratings in 2026. However, it also said replacement transformers with higher ratings were expected to accommodate forecast demand throughout the study period. Its 2025 planning status report continued to identify replacement in 2026. 

These are planned improvements; their completion and the capacity available for a substantial additional load require confirmation. Neither document establishes that PEC could accommodate any proposed facility, or that none could be accommodated.

Hydro One and the Independent Electricity System Operator could help clarify which locations face constraints, what upgrades might be necessary, and who would bear their costs.

The size and design matter

A data centre houses computing equipment supporting services such as cloud storage, financial transactions and artificial intelligence. Facilities differ considerably in scale, cooling systems and operating requirements.

The IESO’s technical paper on large electricity loads distinguishes generally smaller existing Ontario data centres from emerging projects seeking hundreds of megawatts. 

That distinction matters locally. The former Saputo property in Quinte West is the subject of an 8-megawatt proposal. The publicly reported Napanee Data Park proposal involves 250 megawatts; July reporting said no site plan application had yet been submitted. That was its reported status then, rather than confirmation of its status today.

A verdict based solely on the label “data centre” risks overlooking the characteristics that determine a project’s actual impacts.

What Quinte West can teach us

The Quinte West planning staff report documents both scrutiny and supporting information. Staff required an updated noise assessment after nearby homes were omitted from the first study. The revised assessment predicted compliance with provincial criteria at the assessed locations. Staff also recorded a proposed dry-cooling system and an email assigning the facility 8,000 kilowatts of Hydro One capacity. 

That review illustrates why detailed questions matter. Predicted compliance remains dependent on the equipment, layout and operating assumptions assessed, while a proposed cooling design needs to carry through to the approved operation.

The political situation has also changed since the PEC debate. On October 7, Quinte West council voted 8–5 against a proposed temporary municipality-wide pause on data centres. Defeating that pause did not itself approve the Saputo proposal. 

What would the community actually gain?

Reusing an underutilized industrial property could have value. So could construction activity, permanent employment, local purchasing and additional municipal revenue.

But headline investment figures tell us little about the benefit retained locally. September coverage attributed 14–16 permanent jobs and approximately $75,000 annually in local tax revenue to the Saputo proponent’s presentation. These remain proponents’ estimates rather than verified net benefits.

A useful assessment would distinguish temporary construction work from permanent positions, identify realistic opportunities for local workers, and calculate additional municipal revenue alongside any associated costs or concessions.

Few permanent jobs would not automatically make a project undesirable. Their wages, accessibility and durability matter, as do other benefits. Conversely, a substantial private investment would not automatically justify reserving scarce infrastructure capacity for it.

Water, farmland and promises need scrutiny

Water demand depends on cooling technology and local conditions. The Ontario Society of Professional Engineers recommends site-specific assessments, including groundwater conditions and municipal capacity. It also identifies potential opportunities from heat recovery and facilities capable of supporting electricity-system operations.

Residents should be able to see projected water requirements, hot-weather operating arrangements and the consequences of equipment failure. Proposed safeguards should identify who checks performance and what happens if the operation changes.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture raises concerns about competition for land, water and electricity, while acknowledging agriculture’s reliance on digital infrastructure. For PEC, reusing industrial land and converting productive farmland would warrant different assessments.

Waste heat might support another business, including a greenhouse. That possibility becomes more persuasive when there is a funded recipient, a feasible connection and a durable agreement. The benefits should survive scrutiny beyond a presentation slide.

Preparation has costs of its own

Proactive planning sounds sensible. Its urgency nevertheless depends on what PEC is exposed to and what protection existing rules already provide.

Greater Napanee amended its zoning in February to permit data processing centres in its General Industrial zone, subject to site plan control. Preparing for an industry can therefore mean different things: establishing assessment criteria, restricting locations, or making development easier. Residents should understand which approach is proposed. 

PEC Connect’s research did not identify a publicly announced, site-specific PEC proposal. Preliminary inquiries may exist, and municipal staff could clarify whether current zoning would already permit a facility under an existing use category.

A proportionate first step could be a limited staff briefing: known inquiries, existing permissions, utility constraints and an estimate of further work. Council could then establish what would trigger a more extensive review.

That would allow preparation to grow with the evidence, while acknowledging the opportunity cost of staff time needed for housing, infrastructure and other immediate responsibilities.

Rules and public trust

Ontario’s proposed assessment framework considers economic benefits, digital sovereignty and community impacts, alongside a proposed electricity rate class. As checked October 8, the registry continued to identify it as a proposal.

Canada’s responsible development principles state: “Data centres must not shift electricity costs to Canadians.” These principles complement existing regulatory processes; a project still needs clear, enforceable obligations.

Public caution is understandable. An Angus Reid Institute survey released in October found 64% of Canadian adults favoured limiting large data-centre development. That national online-panel result does not establish PEC opinion, but it reinforces the importance of transparent information.

For candidates concerned about municipal finances, there is another fair question: if this industry is unsuitable, which other economic opportunities would they pursue, and how would they assess their benefits and costs? Rejecting one opportunity can be entirely reasonable; explaining the alternatives helps residents evaluate the broader plan.

This is a community discussion, and we welcome evidence that develops it. Candidates, municipal staff, utilities, businesses and residents are invited to share clarifications, technical information and experience through public comments or private messages to PEC Connect. We will update the article as relevant information becomes available.

PEC does not need a predetermined answer to a hypothetical project. It needs a credible way to examine the opportunity, protect public interests and decide how much preparation the situation warrants.