001 / CASE FILE / PROJECT CAMELLIA
What We Know—and Still Don’t Know—About Project Camellia
A source-traceable Georgia investigation separating verified facts, announced claims, estimates, and unanswered infrastructure questions.
THE BOTTOM LINE
Large potential benefits. Unusually large resource demands. Important protections that still need measurable terms.
Project Camellia is a proposed AI infrastructure campus with a public record strong enough to understand its announced scale—but not yet strong enough to verify several of its most important outcomes. This report explains what is established, what is projected, and what remains unknown without arguing for automatic approval or automatic rejection.
VERSION + VERIFICATION TRAIL
A report designed to show its work—and its changes.
Version 1.0 incorporates verified developments through September 4, 2026. Before public promotion begins, the projected September 6 DRI milestone will receive one final verification check. Earlier versions remain available below so material changes are visible rather than silently overwritten.
Added the adopted 2026 millage action, phased county and school revenue projections, community-input process, and pending zoning-process litigation.
Open current PDF ↗Added the August 29 county presentation and clarified PILOT, water, noise, backup-power, traffic, job, and approval claims.
Open archived PDF ↗Added direct DRI and PSC identifiers, three Georgia comparables, audience framing, a fiscal-year reconciliation template, and five estimated resolution checkpoints.
Open archived PDF ↗Initial complete prepublication draft based on the public record available through August 26.
Open archived PDF ↗FIVE STRONGEST CONCLUSIONS
What the evidence supports today.
Each conclusion is deliberately bounded. A filed estimate proves that a figure was submitted—not that the predicted result has occurred.
The filed scale is established
Filed state records describe four buildings totaling 4.4 million square feet and a 3,210 MW peak connected-load estimate.
Review is not final approval
The DRI process is advancing, but “Certified Complete” does not mean every construction, utility, or environmental approval has been issued. A newly reported zoning-process lawsuit remains an unresolved allegation, not a court finding.
Closed-loop cooling is promising—not water-free
The design may materially reduce ongoing withdrawals, but the final agreement, initial fill, peak demand, drought rules, meters, and audits are not yet public.
Ratepayer protections require project-specific terms
General large-load rules include long-term contracts, financial security, and flexible-demand provisions intended to limit risk to other customers. Project-specific operating terms remain only partly visible.
The fiscal case is clearer—but still needs reconciliation
The adopted six-mill local reduction and phased county and school revenue projections are now documented. One-time proceeds, recurring payments, abatements, public costs, and community benefits still need one year-by-year model.
WHAT STILL NEEDS PROOF
Five systems under continuing review.
An unanswered question is not evidence of wrongdoing. It is a research item that should be resolved with records, measurable terms, and accountable decisions.
Project status
Which elements are proposed, approved, contracted, under construction, or operating?
Electricity
What capacity is requested, how will service be delivered, and which costs or risks remain unresolved?
Water + cooling
What cooling design and water source are described, and which figures are measured rather than estimated?
Land + permitting
Which zoning, stormwater, wetlands, traffic, safety, and construction approvals apply?
Public value
How do announced investment, employment, incentives, taxes, and local obligations compare with the evidence?
OUR STANDARD
Conditional confidence, backed by public evidence.
The project should be judged by whether it converts extraordinary scale into durable public value while measurably limiting resource use and environmental harm. Claims should earn trust through contracts, permits, operating data, independent verification, and consequences when commitments are missed.
Review the methodology and sources ↗CORRECTIONS + EVIDENCE
Challenge the record constructively.
Source submissions, documented corrections, and substantive responses are welcome. Material changes will be dated and described. Do not send confidential or legally protected material without arranging a secure channel first.