Describe the campus you intend to build.
A first hall and a completed campus place different demands on the same land and infrastructure. Define the initial load, the intended ultimate load, the sequence of expansion and the dates that matter to the business. Include cooling plant, electrical equipment, access, setbacks and construction staging in the footprint you investigate.
Atlas’s large profile starts at 25 MW of utility demand. With the illustrative 1.25 PUE it produces 20 MW of IT demand. It asks for 100 Gbps across two physical routes and uses a 10 ha land-search assumption. These are editable project inputs, not a market-wide definition of hyperscale, a design standard or a statement that ten hectares can accommodate the completed scheme.
Keep a load schedule for each phase. A favourable response for an initial installation does not establish service for the ultimate campus. In the brief, distinguish the utility demand you are requesting from IT equipment ratings and from annual average consumption.
Resolve the allocation path before relying on a programme.
For covered BC Hydro AI and data-centre requests of at least 10 MW, the Province’s framework introduces competitive allocation. Applicability also depends on the project’s existing interconnection status. Confirm the current rules and any relevant agreements directly with BC Hydro. Read the Province’s allocation framework.
At the source check on , BC Hydro’s dedicated Emerging Industries page said the 2026 intake was closed and the evaluation timeline had been extended. A published historical milestone should not become a promised service date in a development plan. Check the current Call for Demand status.
BC Hydro’s published answers also state that success in the call allows a project to proceed through interconnection; it does not guarantee electrical capacity. Keep allocation, connection studies, a service agreement and energization as separate milestones. Read BC Hydro’s answer about capacity guarantees.
If a transmission connection is appropriate, ask which studies and property rights are needed for the identified connection option. BC Hydro’s process describes studies to investigate system impacts and necessary works. A short map distance to a line does not establish the cost, constructability or delivery programme of that option. Read the transmission connection process.
Dated BC example / Campbell River
NTE Discovery Park: the pin and the parcel tell different parts of the story.
At 50.064975, −125.284124, the October 26, 2026 screen found a mapped transmission line approximately 0.104 km from the selected point. The point resolved to parcel 000-849-731, covering approximately 85.373 ha. Available MW and a connection date remained unconfirmed.
The selected pin did not intersect the ALR layer. Whole-site screening of the mapped parcel found approximately 55.694 ha of ALR overlap, or 65.24% of the parcel. Those findings answer different spatial questions. A point screen cannot describe every part of a large property.
The remaining area after the two tested overlap layers is not approved or buildable land. It does not account for every setback, environmental constraint, access requirement, title condition or site-specific approval. Use the original public location reference to orient the enquiry, then agree the actual development boundary with the parties responsible for the site.
ALR status and any proposed non-farm use require their own review alongside local planning requirements. Read the ALC’s explanation of ALR and local rules.
Evidence date and scope
This example uses a retained automated screen assembled . Its overall source status was partial. The parcel record carries a source date of 2026-06-12; other records have their own acquisition dates. A recent query date does not make every underlying record current.
The analysis uses the unique mapped parcel under the selected point. That parcel may cover only part of a marketed property. No site visit, legal boundary survey, human verification or owner confirmation is represented.
Snapshot reference: b35958235b1af4e44cc4041b24bb9687adb6ccc6337790673d1c8a0b3f95426a
Publisher records: ParcelMap BC · BC transmission lines · Agricultural Land Reserve polygons.
Make cooling and connectivity part of the first brief.
Test the cooling assumption against the service enquiry.
The large preset uses a hybrid cooling sensitivity of 0.2–0.8 litres per IT kWh. Under its 20 MW IT demand and 85% load-factor assumptions, that calculates to 29,784–119,136 m³/year of evaporative makeup. It is an Atlas scenario, not measured performance, a design specification or an allocation of water.
Ask the designer for peak-day demand, seasonal dependence, treatment and discharge requirements. Ask the intended supplier what can be served, under which conditions. If direct abstraction is proposed, verify the applicable provincial authorization. The Province explains that a water licence specifies a source, purpose, permitted quantity and associated works, and may restrict when water can be used. Read the provincial water-licence guidance.
Define independent routes in physical terms.
The 100 Gbps and two-route defaults are requests, not evidence of service. Ask the carriers to identify property entrances, shared infrastructure and delivery dependencies, then assess the responses against the operating requirement. A route that appears separate at the fence may share infrastructure upstream. Public broadband coverage is a starting reference; ISED says service at an individual location must be confirmed with the provider. Read the broadband-map coverage warning.
Give the next team a brief they can investigate.
Retain the footprint used in the screen, the phased load schedule and the dated evidence. Set out the conditions that would make the site worth advancing: an acceptable power path, a workable land-use route, a cooling solution and carrier responses that support the operating plan.
The automated report gives those discussions a common starting point. A commissioned human review can then compare the public screen with authorized private and paid data sources, where available, including licensed property or utility data and authorized utility or carrier responses where permitted. Concept work should test the agreed questions and identify the investigations needed before design or preconstruction commitments.
From a location to a project brief
Scope the work before committing to the site.
Driftwood’s engagement can bring the site records and phased project brief into one review, identify the questions requiring specialist confirmation, and use the design hours to explore an agreed concept.
$7,500 CAD covers a human-reviewed site report and 25 hours of design consultation and concept development. Those 25 hours are additional to report preparation. The separate paid review brings public evidence together with authorized private and paid data sources, where available: licensed property or utility data and authorized utility or carrier responses. Driftwood checks each record’s source, date, site and project scope, reconciles it with the public screen and documents confirmed items, conditions and unresolved questions for concepts and next steps.
The free automated screen uses public data. Before work begins, Driftwood confirms scope, record availability, permissions, any third-party fees, deliverables, timing, taxes and terms. Utility studies, service commitments, approvals and construction documents require separate work.
This is general planning guidance and a dated automated example, not a reviewed opinion on a particular development. The example site is not represented as a customer project or currently available property. Available power, industrial water service and enterprise connectivity remain unconfirmed. Opening Atlas runs the current workflow; updated results may differ.