What the verdict is built on.

A screening tool is only worth the data behind it. Here is exactly what we pull live per coordinate, what is regional, how the call is made, and where it's reliable.

How we source every number - and how you verify it

Every decisive figure in a verdict is a clickable evidence object. Open it to see the publisher, the date, an honesty label, a direct link to the original source, and a short "how to verify" note telling you exactly where to find the cited figure there. Live measured signals open the map or calculator at your coordinate so you can reproduce the number yourself; article and filing pages also carry an archived copy in case the page moves. We store facts - never a copy of the source - so each citation stays inside fair-use and public-domain reuse.

Three honesty labels, shown on every line:

Measured - pulled live from the source this run (NREL solar, OSM gas/substation distance).

Modeled - our screening estimate or synthesis of filings; planning-grade, ±40%.

Claimed - stated by a third party; we cite it, we don't independently assert it.

Source-trust tiers, highest to lowest. When sources conflict we show both and take the higher tier; newer always wins over older.

Sources older than their cadence are flagged for re-review; conflicts are surfaced, not hidden. This page is also designed to be machine-readable so AI assistants can cite it accurately.

What's live, per coordinate

When you screen a site, three pulls run against public APIs for that exact point - no canned answers:

What's regional (not yet per-coordinate)

Two inputs are sourced regionally and clearly labeled as estimates in every result. These are the next data layers to make per-coordinate.

Hot-zone LOAD layer (curated)

LBNL covers generation queues - a proxy. For the markets where our users actually build, we add a curated large-LOAD connect timeline: the real wait for new data-center load, hand-built from utility / ISO / PUC disclosures and refreshed as they change. Where a coordinate falls in a covered county, the grid timing uses this load estimate (labeled with the utility) instead of the generation proxy.

Curated, screening-grade, as of 2026. Outside these counties, grid timing falls back to the LBNL/ISO generation-queue proxy.

On-site / behind-the-meter powered data centers

The amber markers on the map are real campuses that run on on-site or behind-the-meter generation - the exact strategy this tool screens for. Every figure below is sourced to a primary or industry record. If one is wrong, tell us and we'll correct it.

Verified 2026 from the cited sources. Markers locate each campus for discovery; exact coordinates may be approximate. Grid-connected campuses are intentionally excluded - e.g. Hut 8 River Bend (Entergy grid), TeraWulf Lake Mariner (reused grid transmission), and AWS-Talen Susquehanna (shifted to front-of-the-meter after FERC's 2024 rejection of its behind-the-meter pact).

The method, in one paragraph

You give a coordinate, a firm-power need, and a timeline. We pull the live signals above, then score ten power pathways - four single-tech baselines, three hybrids, three nuclear PPAs - on the same yardstick: time-to-power, firm capacity, and rough cost. A pathway "meets" if it arrives on time at ≥90% firm capacity. If at least one does, the site is ADVANCE; a near-miss is CAUTION; none is KILL.

What this is good at - and what it isn't

Good at: killing obviously-infeasible parcels fast, ranking candidate sites on a common yardstick, and giving you a defensible first-pass story before you spend on engineering.

Not good at: bankable numbers, exact interconnection study outcomes, site-specific permitting and water rights, or final OEM pricing. Anything past the screen needs a real feasibility study.

Honest corrections

We log every material correction publicly. Accuracy is the product; the track record of being right is the moat.

Screen a site →