There is no question that AI data centres are facing a growing legitimacy problem.
New proposals for the construction of these enormous energy-consuming facilities are now met with immediate community concern and even outright opposition. A major reason for so much of this skepticism is the data centre industry’s dismal record of transparency in the communities where they operate.
The industry is notorious for demanding local governments sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) to prevent local officials from revealing key details about the proposals to construct these facilities.
Essential information, such as estimated energy or water consumption, tax incentives and subsidies—even the very identity of the company building the facility—are withheld from residents in the name of protecting proprietary business information. Even important information that is made public by the industry—such as job creation estimates—are often inflated or revised over the course of development.
Add in the industry’s penchant for paying off local officials, and it is little wonder why communities evince so little trust in the promises made by AI data centre developers and their boosters.
Recognizing the damage this secrecy has done to public trust, Microsoft has even pledged to end its use of nondisclosure agreements with local governments.
Given this reality, it is all the more baffling how little transparency and democratic accountability there has been in regards to the newly proposed “largest AI data centre in the country” here in Saskatchewan.
Questions have only multiplied since the proposal for the construction of the 300 MW facility in the rural municipality of Sherwood was revealed in February. This sense of confusion over the project has been compounded by the unusual actions of the RM of Sherwood’s municipal government, which has only fed public suspicion.
People took notice when a majority of the RM of Sherwood’s council resigned in March. No reason has been given to the public for the mass resignations, so we are left to wonder, what—if any—link this may have to the proposed data centre. With the RM’s council bereft of members, it was unable to achieve a quorum to conduct regular business.
This led to the provincial government stepping in to appoint four new members—none of whom reside in the RM of Sherwood. Major decisions on the AI data centre proposal set for April 20th will now be decided by a council the majority, of which are unelected.
Moreover, lack of public information regarding the agenda of the April 20th meeting, as well as the process to accept delegations, has meant that many concerned residents who had hoped to speak against the proposal will not be heard.
City of Regina Councillor Shanon Zachidniak had hoped to speak at the April 20th meeting, only to learn she had missed the seven-day deadline (The City of Regina’s deadline for delegations is 48hrs). Zachidniak wants to encourage Sherwood’s council to table the AI data centre proposal until the RM holds elections in November.
The lack of public information, coupled with the lack of democratic legitimacy, makes the whole process look rushed, in Zachidniak’s opinion.
“If this project truly is so beneficial to the community,” Zachidniak said, “there’s nothing to lose by taking the time to slow things down to make sure an appropriate process is followed, including providing opportunities for open and transparent public engagement.”
Any decisions made by this current council will be shrouded in questions of legitimacy, especially as many in the public feel they have been purposely left in the dark throughout this process.
As Erik Bonds and Viktor Newby write, “local democracy means more than elections. It also requires properly informing the public, nurturing meaningful discussions, and giving community members an opportunity to influence decisions that will directly impact them.”
Whether intentional or not, the process for deliberating on this important issue looks compromised and any decision that results from this process will look so as well.
How this decision is perceived will not only affect this project, but future projects as well. Business and government have the choice of building public trust or public opposition. So far, this process is only building the latter.
