STOCK & MILSTER · SAMPLE · SM-DEMO-01
Site Selection Infrastructure Briefing — Sample
Illustrative example — not a client engagement or live market data
01Decision question
Which of three candidate sites should a manufacturer advance for a new facility requiring roughly 120 MW within four years?
02Executive findings
- 1Site A offers the strongest long-term cost position, but its timeline depends on a substation upgrade with no committed in-service date in the utility's published plans.
- 2Site B has the clearest near-term energization pathway, but limited headroom beyond the first phase.
- 3Site C sits in a territory with a pending rate case whose outcome could materially change forward energy cost.
- 4No site is clearly superior on all criteria; the decision turns on how leadership weighs schedule certainty against long-term cost.
03Evidence and source dates
| Source type | Used for | Date treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Utility integrated resource plan (public filing) | Planned generation and load assumptions by territory | Filing date recorded per source |
| Transmission operator regional plan | Planned upgrades near each site and stated in-service windows | Plan vintage recorded per source |
| State utility commission docket | Pending rate case and rider proposals | Docket status as of review date |
| Interconnection / large-load queue records | Competing requests near each substation | Queue snapshot date recorded |
04Infrastructure dependencies
Site A
- — Substation expansion (uncommitted)
- — Transmission line reconductoring
- — Utility large-load study
Site B
- — Existing feeder capacity (phase 1)
- — Future transformer addition (phase 2)
Site C
- — Rate case outcome
- — Regional transmission project timing
05Assumptions
- — Load requirement of roughly 120 MW with a two-phase ramp.
- — Published utility and transmission plans are treated as indicative, not commitments.
- — No private utility correspondence was available for this sample.
06Uncertainty
- — Upgrade timing at Site A could move by several years in either direction.
- — Rate case outcomes at Site C are unknown until a commission order.
- — Competing large-load requests could absorb Site B's headroom.
07Scenario comparison (qualitative)
| Scenario | Site A | Site B | Site C | Read |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schedule priority | Weak | Strong | Moderate | Favors Site B if the first phase must energize on time. |
| Long-term cost priority | Strong | Moderate | Uncertain | Favors Site A if the schedule can absorb upgrade risk. |
| Adverse regulatory outcome | Moderate | Moderate | Weak | Site C's position deteriorates if the rate case is filed-as-proposed. |
08Open diligence questions
- — Will the utility provide a written capacity and timing indication for Site A?
- — Can Site B's phase-two capacity be reserved, and on what terms?
- — What is the expected decision date in Site C's rate case?
- — Are there competing large-load requests not yet visible in public queue data?
09Decision implications
- — If schedule certainty is paramount, advance Site B and research phase-two options in parallel.
- — If long-term cost dominates, advance Site A only after obtaining a utility timing indication.
- — Defer Site C until the rate case outcome is clearer.
Sample deliverable. Sites, findings and scenarios are fictional and demonstrate structure and method. Not investment, legal, or engineering advice.