Can this site get power? Answered in hours.

Screening a site for power means pulling together interconnection capacity, the queue, historical pricing, nearby generation and transmission, and time-to-power. Developers, landowners and brokers pay consultants weeks and thousands for that read. Most dead sites don't get killed until late, after money has already gone into them.

The data behind it all is dense and easy to argue with. The instinct is to boil it down to one overall score, but a single blended number just moves the argument somewhere else. The design problem was making a lot of technical grid data trustworthy to non-experts without hiding the parts that matter.

On the app side I designed the map workspace: a My Maps gallery where teams keep location datasets like grid capacity or candidate sites, plus everything around it (roles, invitations, settings, account). Deliberately light and quiet, so the maps and the data do the talking.

For the launch site the team made a call I still stand by: no blended score. Each report covers nine power criteria, and every one stands on its own with a verdict (pass, tier one, tier two or fail), the headline number and a sourced read behind it. Then I built the site myself: a self-contained page with live maps that anyone can run with a work email and share on its own link.