Site Selection Intelligence
Comprehensive evaluation of datacenter readiness for AI workloads. Assess fiber connectivity, power infrastructure, interconnection timelines, and deployment risks.
Transparency: the regional score grid below is an illustrative sample. The concrete paid diligence step is the Texas Time-to-Power Pack.
Primary Commercial Handoff
Start with the ranked Texas shortlist and export-ready diligence output. Use Speed-to-Power Watchlist as the recurring layer for ongoing signal change monitoring and alerts.
Launch-market route
Use the broad readiness hub as a feeder. The real trust and conversion path should move through the priority Texas, Georgia-Atlanta, and Carolinas scorecards instead of leaving users in generic market browsing.
Priority market
Texas is the strongest launch anchor for speed-to-power screening, with the clearest near-term route into Time-to-Power-Pack-first commercial intent.
Use county and metro scorecards to separate attractive ERCOT narratives from real interconnection, curtailment, and water constraints.
Priority counties
Priority metros
Start with the Texas Time-to-Power Pack, then move into watchlist monitoring.
Priority market
Georgia-Atlanta is a real launch anchor alongside Texas because Atlanta demand gravity is commercially meaningful and the county / metro trust layer is now strong enough to support Time-to-Power-Pack-first intent.
Do not collapse Georgia-Atlanta into one clean story. Fulton, Coweta, Cherokee, and the Atlanta metro still need to be compared directly before assuming the region is equally ready or equally fast.
Priority metros
Treat Georgia-Atlanta as a launch-ready anchor, but earn the Time-to-Power Pack through county and metro comparison before moving into transaction-support diligence.
Priority market
The Carolinas are a real public market, but they work best as an honest beta route where county and metro comparison builds trust before the Time-to-Power Pack carries commercial weight.
Do not present the Carolinas as a fully uniform launch anchor. Metro and object quality can still vary, so public copy should keep confidence limits and beta honesty visible.
Use Carolinas county and metro pages to build trust first, then move into the Time-to-Power Pack or watchlist only after the route is convincing enough for deeper diligence.
Controlled coverage
Ohio-PJM is strategically important because PJM / power / queue relevance makes it commercially meaningful, but the public story should stay explicit about where authority is mixed and where confidence is still earned page by page.
Do not present Ohio-PJM as more authoritative than the current evidence warrants. Keep mixed-authority power caveats visible and avoid implying that public relevance equals uniform execution certainty.
Scoring Methodology
Immediate availability with premium pricing
6-12 month deployment timeline
12+ months or significant infrastructure required
Market Analysis
Evaluation Framework
Explore More
Interconnection queue wait time analysis
Buy Texas Time-to-Power PackReal-time grid congestion and curtailment risk by zone
Open Speed-to-Power WatchlistSite-level investment attractiveness scoring
Open Speed-to-Power WatchlistEvaluate fiber and network connectivity for sites
Open Speed-to-Power WatchlistDeep Dives
TTPS for PJM queue AE2-101: stage/age/voltage priors, utility history, and substation upgrade signals. 12/18/24 month probabilities.
TTPS for PJM queue AE2-102: stage/age/voltage priors, utility history, and substation upgrade signals. 12/18/24 month probabilities.
TTPS for PJM queue AE2-103: stage/age/voltage priors, utility history, and substation upgrade signals. 12/18/24 month probabilities.
Composite score for Ashburn VA: fiber proximity, substation capacity, interconnection queues, and curtailment stress.
Composite score for Atlanta GA: fiber proximity, substation capacity, interconnection queues, and curtailment stress.
Composite score for Austin TX: fiber proximity, substation capacity, interconnection queues, and curtailment stress.
Deep Dives
ERCOT 410 GW queue, Batch Zero, SB6, and power-first 5-filter framework.
Read moreRegulated IRP model, Southern Co territory, PSC-approved 9,885 MW.
Read moreDuke Energy 6 GW demand, 20+ moratoriums, drought risk analysis.
Read moreAEP 85% ratchet tariff, $329/MW-day capacity, Duke Energy Cincinnati.
Read moreCompare all-in costs: capacity market vs energy-only model.
Read moreBatch Zero, CLR, BYOG, SLF — navigate the 410 GW queue.
Read moreCIR program (3 GW cap), IRP process, 14.3 GW withdrawn.
Read more85% minimum bill for 12 years. Duke Energy Cincinnati escape.
Read more20+ jurisdictions, Chatham lawsuit, Charlotte deadlock, HB 1063.
Read more130+ GW backlog, 8+ year avg timeline, zone-by-zone analysis.
Read moreOn-site generation (Gas, SMR, Solar) to bypass queue delays.
Read more300+ bills filed in 2026. States rolling back DC tax credits.
Read moreWhy Readiness Matters
A 'ready' site isn't just about available land. Interconnection queue times now range from 6 months to 5+ years depending on the ISO, and infrastructure upgrade costs can add $10-50M to project budgets. Readiness scoring quantifies these hidden variables.
Our methodology combines Time-to-Power Scores (TTPS), fiber lit building density, utility responsiveness metrics, and historical curtailment data. Each factor is weighted by your deployment phase: greenfield development vs. existing facility expansion.
Markets with high readiness scores offer faster path-to-production but often command premium pricing. Lower-scored markets may provide 30-50% cost savings for workloads that can tolerate 12-18 month timelines.
Site readiness scoring considers four key factors: power availability (capacity & timeline), fiber connectivity (distance to backbone), environmental risks (water & heat), and local tax incentives. A 'Top Tier' site scores 85+ and offers <18 month energization.
Assessment Questions
Readiness scores combine TTPS (interconnection timing), available power capacity, fiber lit building counts, local permitting timelines, and incentive availability. Each factor is weighted by deployment phase: site selection, development, or expansion.
A score of 85+ typically means <18 month energization, proven utility cooperation, and minimal transmission upgrades. Scores of 70-84 indicate 18-36 month timelines with moderate infrastructure requirements. Below 70 suggests significant development work or extended queue delays.
Real-time indices (TTPS, CSS) update daily based on ISO/RTO data feeds. Market-level readiness scores refresh monthly incorporating utility tariff changes, queue position movements, and new infrastructure coming online.
Training favors low power cost and high vacancy markets (Columbus, Kansas City, Austin) where latency matters less. Inference demands low-latency edge presence near users—driving demand in Atlanta, Chicago, and secondary metros near population centers.
Move from static sample scores to live speed-to-power monitoring with watchlists, alerts, and export-ready workflows.
Evaluating water stress goes hand-in-hand with power and edge network readiness. Datacenters require massive cooling capacity, making municipal water morality and drought risk critical factors in site selection.
Track power, water, and edge changes that can reshuffle shortlist timing.
Edge readiness is critical for latency-sensitive AI inference workloads. Our Edge Risk Index evaluates fiber density, network latency, and colocation availability across 20+ major markets to help you optimize distributed inference deployments.
View latency metrics, fiber density, and edge colocation availability across all tracked markets.
Power availability is the primary constraint for AI datacenter deployment. Our Power Risk Index evaluates interconnection queues, curtailment exposure, and behind-the-meter strategies across 20+ major markets to help you de-risk power procurement.
View interconnection timelines, PPA structures, and curtailment risk across all tracked markets.