SiteScore™ & PowerMap™
The proprietary intelligence framework behind every Meridian engagement — six weighted domains, 100-point composite scoring, PRIME through WATCH tier classification.

Proximity to existing high-voltage transmission lines (230kV, 345kV, 500kV), direct substation access, and documented interconnection pathway. Tier 1 (direct access, ≥500kV within 2 miles) scores maximum. Tier 3 (no direct access, new line required) scores 0–2.

Analysis of the site's position in the relevant RTO/ISO interconnection queue (PJM, MISO, SERC, WECC). Sites with existing queue positions, completed studies, or legacy interconnection rights score highest. New greenfield queue filings in congested markets score 0–2.

Whether the adjacent nuclear facility is operating (maximum score), in license extension review, in decommissioning transition (partial credit), or fully decommissioned (infrastructure value only). Operating plants provide ongoing power procurement and grid stability benefits that decommissioned plants cannot.

Rated capacity of nearest accessible substation and available headroom for AI-scale load additions (typically 200–600 MW). Sites adjacent to nuclear plant substations with documented excess capacity score maximum. Sites requiring new substation construction score 0.

Quality of the regional utility's relationship with AI infrastructure operators and history of PPA execution for large-load customers. Utilities with documented hyperscaler off-take agreements score maximum. Utilities with no history of AI infrastructure engagement score 0–1.

A top-tier Power Infrastructure site has direct substation access, a clear interconnection pathway, an operating adjacent nuclear facility, and a utility with documented AI off-take history. This profile represents fewer than 12% of evaluated sites.

Distance to the nearest existing hyperscaler or large-scale AI data center campus (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Meta). Sites within 50 miles of an operating campus benefit from established fiber routes, operator familiarity with the market, and precedent off-take structures. Sites >200 miles from any operating campus score 0–3.

Availability and density of long-haul fiber routes within 10 miles. AI data centers require multi-100Gbps fiber connectivity for inference workloads and data replication. Sites on or adjacent to major fiber trunk routes (e.g., I-95, I-90, I-70 corridors) score highest. Sites requiring new fiber construction score 0–2.

Volume of publicly announced or credibly rumored hyperscaler expansion activity within a 100-mile radius. Active expansion markets with multiple announced projects score maximum. Markets with no announced activity and no precedent score 0–1.

Proximity to metro areas with established data center and electrical engineering labor pools. MSA population within 90-minute commute, presence of relevant technical programs (community colleges, universities), and existing data center employer density in the market. Rural isolation without workforce precedent scores 0–1.

Whether a large-scale (100 MW+) co-location or PPA agreement has been executed within the same nuclear plant cluster or corridor. Precedent transactions reduce counterparty risk perception and accelerate deal structuring timelines. This criterion does not add points but can elevate a borderline site from one tier to the next in the final ranking.

Stage and pace of local, state, and federal permitting required for AI-scale infrastructure: special use permits, conditional industrial approvals, NRC/FERC filings where adjacency applies. Sites with active or recently granted approvals and a documented velocity record score highest. Greenfield sites in slow jurisdictions with no precedent score 0–2.

Current zoning classification and entitlement progress for industrial/utility-scale development. Sites with existing industrial or heavy commercial zoning score maximum. Sites in agricultural or residential zoning requiring full rezoning with environmental review score 0–2. Partial entitlements, conditional approvals, and industrial park adjacency score in the 3–5 range.

Assessment of wetlands, floodplain, endangered species habitat, NEPA review requirements, and proximity to protected areas. Clean sites with no identified constraints score maximum. Sites with identified wetland or NEPA exposure score 0–3 depending on severity and mitigability. This is a penalty criterion — identified constraints reduce scores.

Physical readiness: cleared and graded land, existing road access, preliminary utility stub-outs, and geotechnical studies. Sites with completed Phase I environmental assessments, existing road infrastructure, and cleared acreage score 3. Undeveloped woodland or uncleared agricultural land with no preliminary work scores 0–1.

Usable acreage for AI campus buildout. AI data center campuses targeting 500 MW+ draw typically require 500–2,000 acres including setbacks, cooling infrastructure, and expansion land. Parcels with ≥1,000 usable acres score maximum. Smaller parcels (<200 acres) score 0 unless adjacent acquisition is highly feasible.

Under the v2 framework, water access was elevated out of Development & Execution into a standalone Domain 5 (Water & Environment). The structural change reflects what the dataset showed: water is rarely a marginal scoring input — it is binary. Sites without credible water rights and capacity rarely advance regardless of strength elsewhere.

Whether the state has enacted pro-nuclear legislation, established nuclear development incentive programs, or created regulatory fast-track pathways for nuclear-adjacent infrastructure. Illinois, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Georgia score highest. States with nuclear moratoria or hostile utility commissions score 0–2.

State public utility commission attitude toward AI infrastructure load growth, large-load co-location agreements, and nuclear power purchase arrangements. Commissions that have approved precedent hyperscaler PPAs or issued favorable large-load rulings score highest. Commissions with rate base protection conflicts score 0–3.

Eligibility for and probability of capturing federal incentives: DOE Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program, IRA Production Tax Credit for nuclear energy, EDA infrastructure grants, and CHIPS Act-adjacent data center provisions. Sites with documented application pathways or precedent awards score maximum.

The site's position relative to FERC transmission rules, particularly Order 1920 (December 2025) cost allocation and transmission planning requirements. Sites in regions where Order 1920 reduces interconnection cost exposure score highest. Sites in non-compliant or late-implementing regions score 0–2.

County and municipal authority posture on AI infrastructure development: active economic development recruitment programs, available tax abatement structures, and precedent industrial incentive agreements. Counties with active AI/data center recruitment programs score maximum. Jurisdictions with no industrial development history score 0.

GridMind's December 2025 dataset update incorporated the FERC Order 1920 compliance status of all sites. Parcels in PJM and MISO territories — which implemented Order 1920 earliest — received FERC compliance score upgrades that materially shifted corridor rankings. This was one of the largest single-cycle score updates in the dataset's history.

Proximity to viable water sources (major river, reservoir, large aquifer) and the documented legal right to withdraw at AI-scale volumes. Sites adjacent to operating nuclear plants typically inherit established intake infrastructure and water rights — a primary source of nuclear adjacency value. Sites requiring new rights acquisition score 0–2.

Multi-year availability profile against AI liquid-cooling demand (typically 50–120 million gallons/year per 500 MW campus). NOAA climate data, EPA watershed status, and USDA drought projections feed the scoring. Sites in extended drought regions or with declining aquifer trends score 0–2.

EPA ECHO and state environmental records review of the parcel and surrounding industrial footprint. Sites with clean histories score highest. Sites with active remediation, Superfund proximity, or persistent NPDES violations score 0–3 depending on severity and mitigability.

FEMA flood zone classification, NOAA storm exposure, FirstStreet risk projections, and seismic risk where applicable. Sites in 100-year floodplain or high climate-risk zones score 0–2. Sites with documented elevation, flood mitigation infrastructure, or low climate-risk footprints score maximum.

USFWS National Wetlands Inventory and protected land mapping. Sites with no adjacent wetland or protected designation score maximum. Sites with significant wetland buffer requirements or critical habitat overlaps score 0–2 depending on buildable acreage impact.

Domain 5 was the larger of the two structural additions in the v2 framework. The decision to score it separately — rather than as a sub-criterion under Development & Execution — reflects what 2025 dataset analysis confirmed: water and environmental risk function as binary gates, not marginal inputs.

Documented community posture toward nuclear and energy infrastructure: local election records, public hearing filings, opposition group activity, and prior project outcomes. Sites in counties with multi-decade nuclear or industrial development history typically score highest. Sites in jurisdictions with organized opposition history score 0–2.

BLS QCEW data on regional technical workforce, plus university and community college program presence in relevant fields (electrical engineering, nuclear technology, data center operations). Sites within commuting distance of established technical labor pools score highest.

Active EDO engagement, county economic plans naming AI infrastructure as a priority, enterprise zone or opportunity zone designations. Sites supported by active recruitment programs from the county or regional EDO score maximum. Sites in jurisdictions without an active EDO score 0–1.

Whether the parcel or immediately surrounding area has hosted nuclear or heavy industrial uses previously. Brownfield or industrially-zoned land adjacent to operating nuclear facilities scores highest. Greenfield sites in residential or agricultural settings without industrial precedent score 0–2.

Domain 6 is the smallest scoring contribution (8 pts) but functions disproportionately as a downside flag. A site that fails Domain 6 — through organized opposition, hostile EDO, or absent workforce — rarely converts even when the other five domains are strong. Counties with active EDO engagement and prior nuclear footprint score the highest concentration of PRIME-tier sites in the dataset.