Fixed scope.
Published prices.

A rapid red-flag pass on any US parcel. Two pages: what we can see from here, and what you should check next. It's the same screening system behind our paid work, run shallow — with an analyst's review before it ships.

You get

• Queue and moratorium context for the jurisdiction
• Zoning status and obvious ordinance conflicts
• Fatal-flaw flags: floodplain, receptor proximity, known opposition
• A recommended next step — even if it's "walk away"

The Buildability Screen, run fast and lean. Same screening system as S1, delivered as an at-a-glance verdict across every layer — power, ordinance, water, permission — without the full analyst narrative. An analyst still reviews and signs it before it ships.

You get

• Per-layer verdict: power, tariff, ordinance, permission, water, fiber
• Queue and moratorium context for the jurisdiction
• Fatal-flaw flags with confidence labels
• A clear call: proceed, walk, or upgrade to the full S1

The flagship. One site, one question: can you actually build here? We screen every layer that kills projects — power reality, tariff exposure, ordinance survival, water, fiber, community and procedural risk — and deliver a verdict you can take to your investment committee.

The deliverable is an auditable GIS model plus a written verdict. Every input has a source. Every conclusion has a confidence label. Where we can't verify remotely, we say so — and specify exactly what a ground visit must confirm.

Scope

• Power: queue position and cluster context, substation proximity and headroom signals, utility posture and timeline reality
• Tariff: applicable large-load tariff, minimum-take, collateral, term exposure
• Ordinance: setbacks, sensitive receptors, noise limits (dBA/dBC), overlay districts, height and generator rules
• Permission: vote history, moratorium trajectory, active opposition, rate politics
• Water & fiber: watershed stress, permitting regime, route diversity
• Procedure: notice, hearing, and process traps in this jurisdiction

Up to 25 candidate parcels in; the survivors out. A two-stage screen: a fatal-flaw pass kills the obvious losers cheaply, then weighted multi-criteria scoring ranks what's left — with the scoring weights exposed and adjustable to your strategy.

At $63K+ per deep-dive from a tier-1 engineering firm, nobody can afford full diligence on forty candidates. This is the filter that decides where diligence dollars — and boots on the ground — are worth spending.

You get

• Fatal-flaw matrix across all parcels, with kill reasons cited
• Ranked shortlist with per-layer scores and exposed weights
• Side-by-side verdict sheets for the top candidates
• A recommended diligence budget: where to spend next, and on what

Land is trading at power prices — and much of the claimed power is paper. We verify what the seller claims: whether the megawatts exist, whether the queue position is real, and whether the utility's commitment language survives contact with the contract.

The market already prices this risk: recent deals put eight figures of purchase price contingent on confirmed load capacity. We're the diligence layer that turns that contingency into an answer — for buyers de-risking, or sellers certifying.

Scope

• Queue forensics: filing history, cluster status, study position
• Entity resolution: duplicate LLC filings unmasked across utilities
• Utility commitment language vs. what's contractually supported
• Substation and delivery-point context; upgrade exposure signals
• Option-agreement red flags: exclusivity, milestones, power assumptions
• Dispute-risk review: promised-power litigation patterns

Community support is now the second-most important siting criterion after speed to power — and most projects that die, die here, quietly, before any vote. We score a jurisdiction the way the hearing will: ordinance parameters mapped against your concept, the board's actual voting record, the moratorium trajectory, and what residents are already saying in public records.

You get

• Ordinance survival map: setbacks, receptors, dBA/dBC limits vs. your footprint
• Vote-history and board-composition analysis
• Moratorium and ordinance-drafting trajectory for the jurisdiction
• Opposition landscape: active groups, stated grievances, escalation patterns
• A permission-risk score with an engagement roadmap — including whether to walk

Before you commit to a substation, know who else wants it. We map every request queued against the same headroom — campus-grouped, de-duplicated, and adjusted for attrition — so nameplate demand becomes credible demand. The question this answers: is the power you're counting on already spoken for?

You get

• Every queued request against the target substation or corridor
• Campus grouping: which requests are one project wearing many names
• Attrition-adjusted credible load vs. nameplate
• Headroom outlook: what's realistically left for you

Seventy-seven large-load tariffs across sixty utilities now differ enough to re-rank sites: 85–90% minimum takes, 10–30 year terms, collateral up to $1.5M per MW. On a 200 MW load, the tariff delta between two candidate utilities can exceed the price of the land. Law firms answer this qualitatively; we model it.

You get

• Comparable lifetime cost model across your candidate utilities
• Minimum-take, ramp, collateral, and exit terms — quantified
• Sensitivity runs: utilization, ramp delays, exit scenarios
• Pending-docket watch: what's about to change under FERC review

Water appears in over 40% of contested projects and is the most legible grievance a community has. Meanwhile, states are writing watershed-stress permitting into statute faster than anyone can assess against it. We screen the hydrology and the law together — because a million gallons means something different in every basin.

You get

• Watershed stress and availability assessment at site granularity
• State and basin permitting regime: what's required, what's coming
• Dry-year consumptive-use scenarios by cooling technology
• The community math: how your water story reads at the hearing

A screen is a snapshot; markets move weekly. Portfolio Watch is standing surveillance on your sites and target markets: queue movements, ordinance drafts, moratorium motions, tariff dockets, hearing calendars, and opposition formation — flagged to you before they're news.

You get

• Weekly delta report across your portfolio
• Immediate alerts on material moves (moratorium filed, docket opened)
• Quarterly re-score of every watched site
• Analyst access: a standing line to ask "what does this mean for us?"

For utilities and economic developers: a data-center-specific site qualification program, GIS-native and transparent. Thirty-six states run readiness programs with no common standard; queues are jammed with phantom load nobody can triage. We build the standard, screen the sites — and the phantom — and give your territory a certified answer to "where can they build here?"

You get

• A published, defensible DC-readiness standard for your territory
• Certified site portfolio with full evidence files
• Load-queue triage: real requests separated from duplicates
• Marketing-ready site profiles your team can hand to prospects

The architect, the MEP engineer, and the GC each have their own incentives. Nobody works exclusively for the owner — except an owner's rep. For 5–50 MW builds, the size class the name-brand reps don't prioritize, we sit on your side of the table from site verdict through commissioning.

Natural continuation of a screen: the firm that told you the site was buildable stays to make sure it gets built the way you were promised.

Scope options

• RFP development and designer/GC selection support
• Design review against your requirements (with subcontracted PE review where stamps are needed)
• Schedule and budget surveillance; draw and milestone review
• Utility, permitting, and community process management
• Commissioning oversight through handover