Site selection evidence
A data-center opportunity should state whether it is land, a powered shell or an operating facility. Those are different evidence problems. Begin with the proposed IT requirement and the documented utility, cooling and connectivity dependencies. AI can organize commitments and milestones, but a nearby substation or a stated megawatt figure cannot establish a deliverable operating date.
NextAutomation editorial research method. Public sources establish the framework; the worksheet example is fictional and no property has been verified.
What changes the decision
DOE’s data-center design guidance connects IT equipment, electrical systems, air management and cooling. Preserve those categories when reviewing a capacity claim. Ask what the quoted figure measures and which assumptions it includes. A building service rating should not be relabelled as usable IT load without a documented technical basis and review.
Source 1Land requires a development and connection path. A shell requires evidence of installed and commissioned systems. An operating facility requires records of its actual configuration and obligations. Keep these stages separate in sourcing and underwriting so that a development prospect does not inherit operating-facility assumptions merely because both use the same industry label.
A proposed service date may depend on utility work, permits, equipment, construction and testing. Record the party responsible for each milestone and the conditions attached to its commitment. AI can extract dates from supplied correspondence, but it should not convert an indicative schedule or a conditional letter into a guaranteed completion date.
Keep these separate
| Evidence or situation | What it tells you | What to establish next |
|---|---|---|
| Site near infrastructure | Establishes geographic proximity | Obtain the actual service and development pathway; proximity is not reserved capacity. |
| Powered shell description | Suggests some building and electrical infrastructure | Confirm installed scope, commissioning, remaining work and the capacity definition. |
| Operating facility | Has an existing technical and contractual configuration | Review actual loads, service obligations and expansion limits rather than assuming spare capacity. |
A worked review
| Claim | Retain beside it | Comparison rule |
|---|---|---|
| Fictional powered land | Utility study or commitment, stated capacity, conditions and date. | Requested capacity is not commissioned IT capacity.Source 1 |
| Fictional powered shell | Installed electrical scope, remaining fit-out and commissioning evidence. | Record what the buyer must still deliver before comparing with an operating facility.Source 1 |
| Fictional operating facility | Commissioned capacity, phased customer commitments and billing start dates. | Committed, commissioned and currently billing capacity need separate columns.Source 1 |
| Development cost per MW | Publisher, date, included construction scope and megawatt definition. | A development cost is not a purchase price or appraisal.Source 1 |
| Lease price and electricity | Billed unit, capacity commitment, commencement and whether power is separate or included. | The same headline rate can leave different costs with the landlord.Source 1 |
| Power reconciliation | Utility invoices, customer meter records and power charges for matching months. | Unexplained differences go to engineering and accounting review; no efficiency ratio is presumed.Source 1 |
A practical review sequence
Use the sequence below to turn the initial description into specific document requests. Preserve contradictory records instead of choosing the more favorable version.
Ask the operator to specify the relevant IT load, availability objective, cooling approach and expansion sequence. Keep operator requirements separate from seller claims. This creates a meaningful basis for reviewing a site and prevents the team from comparing differently defined megawatt figures as if they were interchangeable.
Request utility agreements, connection studies or letters and their conditions, dates and counterparties. Label preliminary discussions, applications and binding commitments distinctly. Preserve any expiration or dependency stated in the document. The absence of a condition in a summary is not evidence that the underlying commitment is unconditional.
Collect design descriptions for electrical distribution, cooling, water where relevant and communications routes. Ask qualified reviewers to identify the interfaces and unresolved assumptions. Include shared infrastructure and third-party dependencies. The tool can organize references; it cannot validate redundancy, fiber diversity or commissioning results from marketing language.
Turn each unresolved dependency into a request with a suggested owner: utility, developer, engineer, operator or counsel. Separate evidence of present capability from future expansion. Export the review sheet before moving to financial assumptions so the team can see which dates and capacities remain conditional.
Questions that arise during review
Read its exact scope, conditions and status. A letter may document a discussion or proposed service path without establishing a complete delivery commitment. The facility also needs a documented development, system and operating plan appropriate to the proposed use.
It should not do so without an explicit technical model and reviewed inputs. This kit preserves the capacity definition and requests the missing evidence. It does not calculate redundancy, efficiency, cooling capacity or a conversion from facility power to IT load.
Keep the site identity, development stage, source of each capacity claim and the unresolved delivery dependencies. These fields support a focused investigation. Avoid presenting unverified power availability or a future energization date as an established property characteristic.
First identify the interest being sold and what the megawatt measures. Then separate requested, committed, commissioned and billed capacity. Compare only like scopes, retaining utility and customer contract evidence.
Source 1Record the billed unit, contracted capacity, phased start dates, electricity treatment and shared cooling or service costs exactly as stated in the contract. Do not infer a power pass-through from the advertised rent.
Source 1From the page to your next task
Build an editable capacity-definition and delivery dependency register, retain document references and open decisions, then export your team's working file.
Scope: data-center utility commitments, cooling dependencies and delivery stages
Edition 2026-09-30.1
Evidence and scope
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency · Checked 2026-09-30
March 2022 supervisory handbook; lease review, property income, re-leasing costs and property-type distinctions.
U.S. Department of Energy · Checked 2026-09-30
July 2024 design guidance connecting IT loads, electrical systems, cooling and heat recovery.
