A. Morgan
Director · Sentiment & Stakeholder Intelligence
Previously: regulated utility regulatory affairs
A corporate energy team evaluating a multi-state expansion needed an independent read on infrastructure feasibility before the investment committee meeting. We assessed power availability, transmission posture, and utility receptivity across three candidate counties.
Market
MISO Midwest, with candidate sites split across three counties spanning two utility service territories. Each candidate carried a different mix of transmission proximity, substation headroom, and large-load tariff exposure.
Opportunity
A corporate manufacturer was sizing a multi-year capital plan for an expansion approaching 400 MW of incremental load. Internal teams had completed real estate and labor screens; the unresolved question was whether the power and infrastructure posture supported the timeline the investment committee required.
Constraints Identified
Across the three candidates we identified: (1) a binding generator interconnection backlog at the highest-ranked site, (2) a pending rate case in the second-ranked utility territory that would reprice firm service inside the project's payback window, and (3) a transmission upgrade dependency that had not been disclosed in the broker materials.
Strategic Analysis
Built a counterfactual on each site: timeline-to-energization under base, stressed, and aggressive utility cooperation scenarios. Cross-checked utility large-load tariff design, demand response posture, and willingness to enter into long-term firm service agreements. Mapped the political and regulatory exposure inside each rate jurisdiction.
Executive Recommendations
Recommended sequencing the expansion into two phases, anchoring Phase 1 at the second-ranked site where utility posture supported the timeline, and reserving the originally top-ranked site for Phase 2 once the upgrade dependency cleared. Provided the IC memo, utility engagement plan, and a 12-month monitoring framework.
Outcome
The investment committee approved the phased structure. The phasing decision converted a contested timeline into a sequenced one and removed the rate-case exposure from the underwriting. Engagement supported the IC cycle end-to-end across approximately seven weeks.
Client identities and exact figures are anonymized. Available for replacement with attributed client narratives upon written consent.