Executive takeaway: AI isn’t bottlenecked by chips — it’s bottlenecked by megawatts. The race to secure grid capacity is now the defining factor in global datacenter development. Traditional due diligence timelines (months of utility queries, queue analysis, and tariff modeling) cannot keep pace. Build compresses this into 24 hours, enabling investors and operators to seize scarce energy windows before competitors.
What’s happening: The energy arms race
AI workloads are scaling exponentially, and energy is the gating factor. Consider the following:
Hyperscale appetite: A single new AI campus regularly requires 200–400 MW — equal to powering a small city.
Scarcity is structural: In the U.S., interconnection queues now exceed 2,000 GW, with average wait times of 5+ years.
Europe under stress: Ireland has introduced moratoriums on new datacenters tied to grid stability, while Germany and the Nordics face rising permitting hurdles.
Geopolitical competition: Sovereign wealth funds, hyperscalers, and private equity are racing to lock in scarce substations years in advance.
In short, the world has enough land but not enough power. Parcels without a viable grid pathway are effectively worthless.
Why this matters for datacenter investors
Energy diligence is now the first filter.
Land is abundant; power is scarce. A 100-acre parcel near a metro means nothing if there’s no viable interconnection plan.
Timing is everything. Missing a utility interconnection study window by weeks can mean multi‑year delays.
Policy is volatile. The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, EU Fit-for-55, and national climate policies all tilt the economics of grid access.
Investors who move slow lose. In North America and Europe, grid windows are measured in days, not quarters.
This is why speed + accuracy in energy due diligence is becoming a leading driver of deal conversion.
How Build delivers advantage
Traditional service firms often need 6–8 weeks to analyze power feasibility — constrained by analyst capacity, sub-consultant bandwidth, and opaque utility processes. Build compresses this to ~24 hours.
How we do it:
- Automated interconnection queue analysis
Agents scrape, parse, and model queue positions daily across ISOs and utilities.
Highlight available capacity, risks of curtailment, and upgrade dependencies.
- Substation capacity modeling
GIS overlays show existing and planned substations against client MW envelopes.
Automated tariff and upgrade cost forecasts.
- Expert validation
- Our planners translate ambiguous data (e.g., conditional upgrades, phased feeders) into actionable decisions.
- Deliverables within 24 hours
- A decision-ready power packet: go/no-go, risk flags, and next steps.
Outcome: ~24-hour turnaround vs. 6–8 weeks. Clients can evaluate 40× more sites and consistently move ahead of competitors.
Risks & blind spots (and how to mitigate them)
Energy diligence is complex, and risks are real. Here’s how we mitigate:
Opaque queue data: Utilities under-report upgrades or mask feeder details. → Agents flag low-confidence items; our team scripts targeted utility calls.
Tariff volatility: Rates can swing with policy changes. → Build models exposure scenarios into every packet.
Geopolitical shocks: German nuclear exit, Texas grid volatility, UK planning reforms — policies shift quickly. → Build refreshes packets regularly to keep the pipeline live.
Overbuild risk: Competing projects can cannibalize available capacity. → Our queue monitoring tracks saturation risk in real time.
Decision framework: When to use agentic energy diligence
Evaluating 10+ candidate sites simultaneously across metros.
Markets with grid stress (e.g., Virginia, Ireland, Frankfurt).
Time pressure (weeks, not quarters, to make investment decisions).
Portfolio governance: Ongoing refresh of site viability as tariffs and queues shift.
Rule of thumb: If you’re looking at more than 5 sites or have less than 6 weeks, Build’s agentic service is the superior economic choice.
Key numbers
~24 hours → Build’s turnaround for a power DD packet.
40× more sites → Throughput uplift vs. traditional providers.
90% faster → Cycle times compressed from months into hours.
Example: North America vs. Europe grid dynamics
North America:
PJM queue backlogs are now 5+ years.
ERCOT interconnection studies slowed by transmission congestion.
Quebec offering hydropower but with political allocation limits.
Europe:
Ireland moratoriums block most new Dublin projects.
Germany tying datacenter approvals to waste heat reuse commitments.
Nordics remain attractive for renewable energy but face longer permitting timelines.
Implication: Every market has a constraint — whether it’s queue time, permitting, or political risk. Build’s approach provides clarity fast.
Why Build’s model outperforms “platforms”
Platforms = tools. They host data, but clients must interpret and act.
Build = service. We own the workflow end-to-end — agents process raw data, experts interpret, and clients receive decision-ready outputs.
Result: Faster, higher-quality, risk-adjusted go/no-go calls.
Implementation playbook
Send inputs: Target MW envelope, metros/corridors, latency needs, and red-lines (e.g., water constraints).
Define scope: Number of candidate parcels (10–500+).
Choose cadence: Daily batches in week one, rolling refresh thereafter.
Parallel steps: Utility call scripts and tariff models prepared in advance.
Governance: Weekly roll-ups tracking time-to-shortlist and cost per qualified site.
FAQ
Which markets are most constrained for datacenter power?
Virginia, Dublin, and Frankfurt are at the top of the constraint list, with multi‑year queues and political bottlenecks.
How do interconnection queues work and why do they matter?
Interconnection queues are where utilities log capacity requests. Your place in the queue defines when — or if — power will be available. Wait times in NA/EU can exceed 5 years.
What’s the ROI of fast power diligence vs. traditional timelines?
By cutting diligence from months to 24 hours, investors can secure scarce MW capacity before competitors, directly improving deal conversion and lowering cost per viable site.
How do tariffs impact long-term site economics?
Tariffs define OpEx for decades. Build’s modeling includes tariff exposure scenarios, highlighting risks in high‑volatility markets.
How do Build’s power agents integrate with fiber and water diligence?
Power is only one filter. Build runs parallel diligence on fiber routes, water availability, and permitting, then integrates into a single go/no-go packet.
Why does speed matter if grid capacity is multi-year anyway?
Because interconnection positions are relative. Missing a study window by days can delay your project by years. Early visibility is decisive.
Do you call utilities, or just give data?
We own the workflow. Ambiguities flagged by agents are escalated to experts who call utilities with targeted questions.
How does Build fit alongside AECOM / Jacobs / Turner & Townsend?
We complement them. Use Build for rapid triage and shortlisting; use traditional firms for deep dives and owner’s-rep scopes.
Is this global?
We focus on North America and Europe today, with expansion planned. Power agents can adapt rapidly to new geographies.
What’s the minimum engagement?
We often start with a 10–20 site sprint. Clients usually expand to 100+ once they see velocity.
The leadership case: future-proofing compute infrastructure
In the AI era, megawatts are the new gold. The investors and operators who can evaluate and secure power fastest will win. Build’s forward-deployed model — experts paired with agentic automation — ensures you stay ahead of the curve today, so you can lead the market tomorrow.