FREE PUBLIC RESOURCE · NEUTRAL FRAMEWORK · NO SIGNUP
A neutral framework for testing major data-center claims against evidence.
Data centers can bring investment, infrastructure, jobs, tax revenue, and digital capacity. They can also create substantial demands on electricity, water, land, transmission, generation, roads, and public infrastructure.
This framework is not pro-data-center or anti-data-center.
Its purpose is to make the important claims testable.
A proposal should not be judged only by what it promises. It should be judged by whether the promise is evidenced, measurable, independently verifiable, and accountable if reality changes.
A community should be able to distinguish:
what is promised → what evidence supports it → what assumptions make it true → what gets measured → who verifies it → what happens if reality differs.
This framework is free to use, reproduce, quote, or adapt. No signup. No endorsement required.
1. What Exactly Is Being Promised?
Get the important numbers into plain language.
- Electrical demand in MW
- Peak and average load
- Water demand and water source
- Cooling approach
- Backup or onsite generation
- Construction phases and dates
- Jobs and tax revenue
- Infrastructure improvements
- Noise, emissions, and other community impacts
- Commitments involving curtailment, flexibility, conservation, or sustainability
A statement such as “up to 500 MW” or “minimal water use” is not enough by itself.
What precisely is being promised, over what period, and under what operating conditions?
2. What Evidence Supports Those Numbers?
A claim and evidence are not the same thing.
Ask what supports each material number:
- Engineering studies
- Utility studies
- Load forecasts
- Interconnection analysis
- Water-use calculations
- Cooling-system assumptions
- Environmental analysis
- Transmission or generation plans
- Equipment specifications
- Operating data from comparable facilities
- Contractual commitments
Where important information cannot be disclosed publicly, ask:
Has an independent qualified party reviewed it, and what conclusion can that party state publicly?
The objective is not disclosure of trade secrets. The objective is knowing whether major public-facing claims have an evidentiary basis.
3. What Assumptions Have To Remain True?
Every forecast rests on assumptions.
- Facility utilization
- Workload growth
- Equipment density
- Cooling technology
- Weather and ambient conditions
- Water availability
- Grid conditions
- Generation availability
- Construction timing
- Equipment performance
- Operating procedures
- Future expansion
A project may be technically feasible under one set of assumptions and materially different under another.
Which assumptions have the greatest effect on the project’s power, water, infrastructure, and community impacts?
What happens if those assumptions are wrong?
4. What Will Be Measured After The Facility Begins Operating?
Approval is based largely on forecasts. Operation creates actual evidence.
Before approval, determine which results will later be measured:
- Actual electrical demand
- Peak load
- Load ramps
- Water withdrawal and consumption
- Cooling performance
- Onsite generation
- Emissions
- Noise
- Equipment or infrastructure failures
- Curtailment performance
- Resource use during extreme conditions
Also ask how frequently the information will be measured and which results will be available to utilities, regulators, municipalities, or the public.
How will anyone know whether the project that was actually built still resembles the project that was approved?
5. Who Independently Verifies The Result?
Developer reporting can be useful, but major public commitments should not depend entirely on self-reporting.
- Who verifies the measurements?
- What qualifications do they have?
- Who controls the underlying data?
- Can the verification be reproduced or audited?
- Are the original assumptions preserved so forecast and reality can be compared?
- Who resolves disagreements among the developer, utility, municipality, and public?
Independent verification does not mean assuming the developer is wrong. It means ensuring that important claims remain credible when challenged.
6. What Happens If Reality Is Different?
This may be the most important question.
Suppose actual operation produces:
- Greater power demand
- Greater water use
- Higher infrastructure costs
- Lower promised flexibility
- Greater noise or emissions
- Delayed construction
- Lower community benefits
- Additional transmission or generation requirements
- Unexpected reliability impacts
Then what?
Who pays? Who must respond? What can be changed? What gets disclosed? What mechanism exists to enforce the original commitment or revise it transparently?
A promise without a defined response to material deviation is difficult to evaluate.
The Six Questions In One Minute
1. What is being promised?
Put the important claims and numbers in plain language.
2. What evidence supports it?
Identify the studies, measurements, contracts, and analyses behind the claim.
3. What assumptions make it true?
Identify the conditions the forecast depends upon.
4. What gets measured afterward?
Determine how forecast and actual operation will be compared.
5. Who independently verifies it?
Establish who can confirm the result and audit the evidence.
6. What happens if reality differs?
Define responsibility, correction, disclosure, and cost allocation before the problem occurs.
Why These Questions Matter
The data-center debate is often reduced to competing statements:
“Power is available.”
“The grid cannot support it.”
“Water use is minimal.”
“The project will consume too much water.”
“It will create major economic benefits.”
“The public will carry the infrastructure cost.”
Those disagreements cannot be resolved by louder claims.
They can be improved by asking what evidence would establish which claim is true.
Better questions create better evidence. Better evidence creates better decisions.
Who Can Use This?
Community members · Planning commissions · City councils · County boards · Utility commissions · Consumer advocates · Journalists · Utilities · Developers · Engineers · Environmental organizations · Economic-development groups · Lenders · Insurers · Data-center operators
You do not need Valor’s permission to use the Six Questions in a meeting, hearing, article, public comment, project review, or community discussion.
About The Framework
The Six Questions were developed by Valor Infrastructure Holdings LLC as a public-interest framework for examining evidence surrounding large infrastructure commitments.
Valor also develops commercial infrastructure-analysis and physical-state intelligence concepts. Use of this public framework does not constitute an endorsement of Valor, create a commercial relationship, or require the use of Valor technology or services.
The Six Questions do not replace engineering studies, environmental review, regulatory proceedings, legal advice, utility planning, or qualified professional judgment.
Questions, criticism, and suggested improvements are welcome.
Stephen Bonney
Founder & Engineer
Valor Infrastructure Holdings LLC
stephen@valor-infra.com
valor-infra.com