Which data-centre megawatts are real?
And the date that will tell you.
Deliverability Watch is written, source-cited research on whether proposed data-centre capacity in New South Wales and Victoria can actually be delivered. For each project we follow the power pathway, the permission and the decision-maker, and the people and water questions: water, cooling, back-up generation and emissions, and local opposition. Every fact is referenced and graded, and wherever we could reach it, the source is the official record itself. Every call is dated, and it names the event that would change it.
The sample names developers, and each is offered a right of reply first. We'll send it as soon as that's done.
Many announced projects don't reach completion. Market-level odds don't tell you which ones.
- 28%Median probability of a data-centre project progressing from its current status to completion, in modelling prepared for AEMO.
Oxford Economics Australia for AEMO, Jun 2026 - >40%Share of data-centre projects since 2025 that AEMO says have dropped out or regressed in connection status.
AEMO, 2026 ESOO - 36%Share of projects in development in AEMO's 2025 outlook that were cancelled.
AEMO, 2026 ESOO data-centre overview
The modellers describe those probabilities as "market-level weights rather than definitive project-level forecasts". Deliverability Watch gives the project-level view. Sources: Oxford Economics Australia for AEMO (PDF), AEMO 2026 ESOO (PDF), AEMO 2026 ESOO data-centre overview (PDF), all accessed 17 Oct 2026.
For each project: is it still real, what changed, and what will tell you next?
Power pathway
Is there published evidence of a signed connection agreement or allocated capacity? Or does the load still depend on network works that aren't yet funded or dated?
Permission & decision-maker
Where is the application really, behind its status label? Which required approvals and concurrences are still open, and who decides?
People & water
Water and wastewater demand, cooling design, back-up generation and emissions, and local opposition. Each comes with its units and boundaries, and is marked as planned or observed.
Every project page carries
- A verdict box: a call per lens, a confidence level (high, medium or low) and the next date that could change it
- A dated history from lodgement, with every line cited
- Watch next: three to five dated if-then triggers
- What would change our call, in both directions
- A regulation-exposure box mapping new rules to the project
- Dependencies, such as a shared substation or third-party roadworks
- Unknowns, and where our wording could outrun the evidence
- A silence state: no event · checked, no change (date) · stale · collection failure
Three questions a status label won't answer
What has happened behind an unchanged status?
A portal stage can read the same for months while the application is re-lodged, the assessment clock is stopped, or an agency says its earlier concerns haven't been addressed. We read the documents, not just the label.
Is the load inside capacity that's already signed?
Where network capacity is allocated first-to-commit and counts only once a connection agreement is signed, the real question is whether a project already holds capacity or must compete for the next augmentation.
Which hard gates are still open?
Some approvals can't be worked around: a required concurrence from a transport or environment agency, a utility's servicing endorsement, or a change in who the consent authority is. We name each gate and the dated event that would close it.
The Waymark Constraint Index · method v1.0
One published scale, 1 to 5, tied to what the record shows
Paid briefs give each covered project a WCI rating, or state that the rating is withheld or not rated. A rating is our dated opinion of the current severity of constraints on delivery, judged against the public record. It is not a forecast, not a rating of the developer or the site, and not investment advice.
| WCI | Assigned when the public record shows… |
|---|---|
| 1 Minimal | No unresolved adverse position from a required approver, network operator or agency; the remaining steps look routine. |
| 2 Moderate | At least one open issue (for example an information request, a council objection or an unconfirmed connection pathway) that could delay a stage, with a published or ordinary route to resolve it. |
| 3 Material | A required approval, concurrence or connection step is contested or unresolved, and resolving it would probably change timing, size or design. |
| 4 Severe | A required approver, agency or network operator has stated the project in its current form does not meet a requirement, or several material issues compound, with no published pathway yet. |
| 5 Cannot proceed as proposed | Only a recorded withdrawal, refusal, lapse or legal bar, or the proponent's own statement that it will not proceed. |
Colours only support the number and label; they never replace them.
- Every rating prints why not lower and why not higher, each citing records we opened ourselves.
- If two levels are equally supported, we withhold or assign the lower one, and say why.
- Whole numbers only. Ratings change only on new evidence, a change in recorded status, a logged correction or a logged method change.
- We withhold rather than force a rating when the deciding question is unresolved, and we name the next trigger.
- We rate only large developers that belong to bigger corporate groups. We never rate individuals.
- Commercial engagement never moves a rating. Only evidence does.
Offers and prices
Prices are published. Scope is agreed in writing. There are no calls.
Founding rate until 31 Mar 2027, first 5 organisations, standard rate from 1 Apr 2027
Sample brief
Free
A free excerpt that shows the method at work.
- Two projects in full, plus a cluster note
- One worked WCI example on a withdrawn application, and one fictional illustration
- The source table approach and editorial standards
Sample brief expected from 9 November 2026
The sample names developers, and each is offered a right of reply first. We'll send it as soon as that's done.
Brief #1 · 8 projects
US$750 founding rate
Standard rate US$950
- Eight NSW and VIC projects with full calls
- For each project, a WCI rating, or a stated withhold or not-rated with the reason
- Dated triggers, plus the fact table as CSV
Single-project memo
US$1,200 founding rate
Standard rate US$1,800
- One project of your choice, in the same format
- Delivered in writing within 5 working days
Watchlist pilot · 12 projects, 3 months
US$3,000 founding rate
Standard rate US$4,500. The founding fee is credited in full to an annual plan.
- Monthly updates and trigger alerts
- One single-project memo included
Annual Watchlist
US$12,000 per year, 10 projects · US$18,000 per year, 25 projects
Founding organisations receive 25% off year 1. The year-2 price is written into the contract.
Prices are in US dollars; invoices show the Australian-dollar equivalent. Payment is by bank transfer; details are on each invoice. We will never change our bank details by email. Check any change with us in writing before you pay. All sales are final after delivery, except for any rights you have under law that can't be excluded. Invoices are payable within 14 days. Paid briefs are licensed for internal use by the buying organisation. See terms.
Editorial standards: facts, opinion and estimates are kept apart
Official records first
Planning portals, agency advice, network-operator and AEMO publications, and government pages. Company announcements are treated as the company's own claims. Press repeating the same source doesn't count as corroboration.
Every fact is graded
V: we opened the official or primary document. S: a secondary source, treated as less certain. E: our own illustrative estimate, with its assumptions. Opinion is labelled as opinion.
No evidence, no upgrade
Silence in the record never improves a call. Every project line says whether it was checked, and when.
Right of reply
Before we publish an excerpt that assesses a developer's project (a verdict, call or rating), we offer that developer a right of reply and summarise its response. Projects that appear only in a factual status line are not part of this step.
Corrections within 7 days
We answer concerns notices within 7 days. Where the evidence supports it, we correct, qualify, update or retract, and log the change in our corrections log. Every new issue links to the call it changes.
Who pays us
Waymark Index has no developer clients and takes no payment from projects it covers. Research is system-assisted and human-checked: every fact is checked against its source and every call is reviewed by a person before release.
Who writes this
I'm Riëtte Crowther. I founded Waymark Index in March 2026 and created the Waymark Constraint Index.
I noticed a gap between announced data-centre capacity and what can actually be built, a gap that's hard to see from press releases alone. I analyse planning, grid and company records so you and your team don't have to. Every brief sets out what those records actually show, with sources, and I review and sign off each one.
Every factual claim is referenced and graded, and opinions are clearly labelled. Each project gets a dated assessment, along with a clear explanation of what would change it.
Waymark Index is a one-person research business based in South Africa. I use software, including AI tools, to collect records and draft. Every fact is checked against its source, and I review every call before release.
Contact: we work in writing
Scope, questions, purchasing, delivery and follow-up all happen by email, so everything is on the record and you can forward it internally. Write to Riëtte Crowther, founder:
riette@waymarkindex.comFor a correction or a concerns notice, use the same address with "Correction" in the subject line. We reply within 7 days.