AsimovGrid
Sign In

Site Scoring Methodology

Transparent, data-driven assessment of brownfield power infrastructure readiness

Scoring Framework Overview
AsimovGrid evaluates sites across four critical infrastructure domains

The Site Expansion Readiness Score (0-100) quantifies how well a brownfield power generation site meets the infrastructure requirements for AI data center deployment and other high-density compute workloads. Each component is weighted equally at 25% of the final score.

Power Availability

Excess capacity, capacity factor gap, and economic curtailment patterns

Water Proximity

Distance to public water systems and capacity assessment

Fiber Connectivity

Carrier diversity, bandwidth capacity, and distance to POP

Land Availability

Developable acreage, zoning compatibility, and remediation status

Score Classifications
How to interpret site readiness scores
80-100

Excellent

"Goldilocks sites" with all four infrastructure components aligned. Immediate deep-dive analysis recommended. Prioritize for LOI and exclusivity negotiations.

65-79

Good

Strong candidates warranting detailed technical and commercial assessment. May require targeted infrastructure investments but fundamentals are sound.

50-64

Moderate

Viable with significant infrastructure development. Suitable for patient capital with longer development timelines.

0-49

Limited

High execution risk due to infrastructure gaps. Consider only if strategic factors provide compelling rationale.

Component Scoring Details

Power Availability Score
25% of final score

Quantifies stranded or economically curtailed power capacity at existing generation facilities based on capacity factor gaps, nameplate capacity, and LMP curtailment patterns.

Key Metrics:

  • Capacity Factor Gap: Difference between theoretical maximum and actual capacity utilization
  • Nameplate Capacity: Total installed generation capacity (MW)
  • Economic Curtailment: Frequency of negative LMP pricing events

Data Sources:

EIA-860 (generator inventory), EIA-923 (monthly generation), ISO/RTO LMP data, GridStatus API

Water Proximity Score
25% of final score

Evaluates physical distance to public water systems and capacity to support industrial cooling requirements (1-5 million gallons per day for typical data centers).

Key Metrics:

  • Distance to PWS: Straight-line distance to nearest EPA-registered community water system
  • Population Served: Proxy for system capacity and infrastructure robustness
  • PWS Identification: Specific system name and ID for direct utility engagement

Data Sources:

EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), geospatial facility-to-PWS matching

Fiber Connectivity Score
25% of final score

Assesses proximity to carrier-grade fiber infrastructure and available bandwidth capacity. AI training clusters require 100+ Gbps connectivity.

Key Metrics:

  • Carrier Diversity: Number of independent fiber carriers within 5 miles
  • Bandwidth Capacity: Available dark fiber or lit service capacity (Gbps)
  • Distance to POP: Physical distance to nearest carrier point of presence

Data Sources:

FCC Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric, carrier infrastructure maps (planned integration)

Land Availability Score
25% of final score

Evaluates developable land adjacent to power infrastructure for data center construction. Hyperscale facilities typically require 25-100+ acres.

Key Metrics:

  • Available Acreage: Contiguous developable land area
  • Zoning Classification: Industrial, commercial, or other land use designation
  • Brownfield Status: EPA designation and remediation tax credit eligibility

Data Sources:

County assessor parcel data, municipal zoning maps, EPA Brownfields Database (planned integration)

Data Quality and Transparency
Scoring confidence and data refresh cadence

Update Frequency:

  • Power Metrics: Monthly (EIA-923) + Daily (ISO/RTO LMP)
  • Water Proximity: Quarterly (EPA SDWIS)
  • Fiber Connectivity: Annually (FCC broadband data)
  • Land Availability: Annually (county assessor records)

Important Disclaimer

AsimovGrid scores provide quantitative assessment based on publicly available data. They do not replace comprehensive due diligence including on-site inspections, interconnection studies, environmental assessments, permitting analysis, and offtake negotiations. Treat scores as initial screening tools to prioritize sites for detailed analysis.

For questions about scoring methodology or to provide feedback, use the collaborative notes feature on individual site pages or contact the admin team.