▸ Index Methodology · v1.0 · April 2026

What the Index measures.
How. And why it matters.

Four analytical dimensions. Each evaluated against the same institutional proof standard used to stress-test infrastructure theses: state the claim, show the evidence, acknowledge the failure condition, define the threshold that still clears.

▸ What the Index Is — and Is Not

An analytical product, not a ranking system built to sell access.

CEH Infrastructure Index is built on a specific analytical premise: that AI data center infrastructure can be evaluated more like a power asset than a real estate story — and that the primary variables (power access speed, energy rate, site readiness, and capital stack structure) are measurable, comparable, and investable when approached with the right framework.

The Index does not predict demand. It does not forecast hyperscaler leasing activity or GPU pricing cycles. It evaluates the physical and financial characteristics of infrastructure — the substations, the power contracts, the site entitlements, and the capital structures — that determine whether an asset can deliver AI compute at cost-competitive economics on a timeline that matters.

Scores are directional and analytical. They are not ratings, they are not certifications, and they do not constitute investment advice. They are structured views — built to answer the questions institutional counterparties actually need answered before committing capital.

The Index Measures
  • ✓ Power access speed and certainty
  • ✓ Site deployability and readiness
  • ✓ CEH-denominated compute economics
  • ✓ Capital stack structure and incentive coverage
  • ✓ Time-to-revenue trajectory per site
The Index Does Not Measure
  • – AI demand forecasts or GPU market cycles
  • – Hyperscaler leasing activity or tenant probability
  • – Macro interest rate or credit market conditions
  • – Proprietary developer financials not in scope
CEH Standard Integration
CEH Economics scores are derived from the CEH Standard benchmark framework. Sites eligible for CEH certification can submit benchmark data for inclusion. Non-certified sites are scored on modeled estimates, clearly labeled as such.
▸ The Institutional Proof Standard

Every dimension answers four questions.

Each Index dimension is structured around the same four-move analytical framework used to evaluate infrastructure theses under institutional scrutiny. The four moves: state what is measured, show why it drives returns, acknowledge where the analysis fails, and define the threshold where the investment logic still holds.

Move 01
What It Measures
The specific physical, financial, or operational inputs that comprise the score — stated precisely, not loosely.
Move 02
Why It Matters
The direct connection between this dimension and investor return — the mechanism, not just the assertion.
Move 03
Where It Breaks
The conditions under which this score fails to predict outcomes — acknowledged explicitly, not footnoted.
Move 04
Threshold That Clears
The minimum score or condition at which institutional investment logic still holds — even under the failure cases identified in Move 03.
01
Power Infrastructure · Primary Dimension
Power Readiness Index (PRI)
The Power Readiness Index is the single highest-weight dimension in the overall score, reflecting the reality that power access speed is the primary gating constraint on AI infrastructure returns in the current development cycle. A site's PRI determines its fundamental viability — not as a location preference, but as an executable timeline.
0 – 10
Score Range
What It Measures
Grid interconnection status and queue position, behind-the-meter generation capacity and fuel source, substation proximity and ownership (controlled vs. adjacent vs. distant), executed vs. pending interconnection agreements, energization timeline from current state, transmission upgrade requirements and cost exposure, and primary + contingency power redundancy paths.
Why It Matters
Time-to-power is the primary vintage driver for AI infrastructure returns. A site with a 6-month energization path returns capital 24–36 months earlier than a comparable site in a standard grid-connect queue. At 60–70% leverage, that timing gap is worth multiple turns of IRR — and it cannot be solved with capital once the queue position is fixed.
Where It Breaks
FERC interconnection policy changes, utility-side capital expenditure freezes, and unanticipated transmission upgrade requirements can all extend timelines regardless of queue position. Regulatory risk is non-linear — a single FERC ruling can move entire market timelines. The PRI score reflects current-state information, not a contractual guarantee of timeline.
Threshold That Clears
PRI ≥ 7.0 / 10.0 — indicating a demonstrated ≤12-month energization path with at least one BTM contingency route. At this threshold, the core return thesis holds even under one-turn regulatory delay. Sites scoring 9.0+ have executed interconnection agreements and controlled BTM alternatives — the highest-confidence power position available.
PRI Sub-Component Weights
Interconnection Status
35%
BTM Generation
30%
Energization Timeline
20%
02
Site Infrastructure · Second Dimension
Site Readiness Score (SRS)
The Site Readiness Score measures the gap between power availability and deployable capacity — the second most common failure mode in AI infrastructure underwriting. A site with power certainty but entitlement uncertainty has the same return problem as a site without power; it just fails on a different 18-month constraint.
0 – 10
Score Range
What It Measures
Land control status (owned, contracted, LOI, uncontrolled), zoning classification and entitlement status, building permit readiness, fiber and carrier access (lit, dark, or to-be-installed), water and cooling source availability, construction-ready site infrastructure (grading, utilities, access roads), and title clarity for institutional financing.
Why It Matters
Power access without site readiness is a promise, not a position. A site scoring 9.0 on PRI but 4.0 on SRS will not deliver revenue faster than a site with both scores above 7.0. The SRS accounts for the "last mile" of infrastructure deployment — the permits, the fiber, the site prep — that capital cannot shortcut once it has been deployed.
Where It Breaks
Local jurisdiction permitting variability is the primary failure mode. In some markets, entitled, shovel-ready sites can still face 12–18 month permit timelines due to staff capacity or policy changes. Environmental review triggers — particularly in Western markets — can create non-linear delays not reflected in the initial SRS score.
Threshold That Clears
SRS ≥ 6.5 / 10.0 — indicating controlled land, approved or approvable zoning, and fiber access committed. At this level, the construction-to-revenue timeline compresses to 12–18 months when combined with PRI ≥ 7.0, supporting the core return model across a range of permit scenarios. Sites below 6.5 require timeline-extended underwriting.
SRS Sub-Component Weights
Land & Entitlements
40%
Fiber & Connectivity
25%
Site Infrastructure
35%
03
CEH Benchmark · Third Dimension
CEH Economics Score
The CEH Economics Score is the analytical differentiator of CEH Infrastructure Index from comparable data products. It translates site and power attributes into investable unit economics using the CEH Standard benchmark framework — expressing infrastructure advantage in terms that capital allocators can model, not just assert. The output is CEH Cost as a multiple of grid-average benchmark.
0.3–1.2×
CEH Cost vs. Grid Avg.
What It Measures
Modeled energy rate at stabilization ($/kWh by source), projected PUE at designed density, hardware pathway and utilization rate, CEH™ rate per compute unit-hour (kWh/unit), and CEH Cost (CEH™ × $/kWh) expressed as a multiple of the U.S. commercial grid-average benchmark. Certified CEH data where available; modeled estimates otherwise, clearly labeled.
Why It Matters
CEH Economics makes infrastructure advantage quantifiable and persistent. A site operating at 0.35× grid-average CEH Cost has a structural advantage that compounds across every compute hour delivered — independent of hardware generation. At scale, this advantage is measured in tens of millions of dollars annually versus grid-rate competitors. It is not asserted; it is calculated from physical inputs.
Where It Breaks
Hardware cost resets can shift the economics model significantly. Energy rate renegotiation risk (particularly for PPA-dependent sites) can alter the CEH Cost trajectory. The model is built on current hardware-generation assumptions; a step-change in compute efficiency (e.g., next-gen accelerators with dramatically different TDP profiles) may require score recalculation within 12–18 months of publication.
Threshold That Clears
CEH Cost ≤ 0.60× grid-average benchmark — indicating structural economic advantage that persists across a hardware generation cycle and across a range of macro rate environments. Sites below 0.50× represent the top cohort; sites above 0.80× require specific demand-side justification to clear institutional underwriting. Score is recalculated annually and upon material site changes.
CEH Economics Calculation Inputs
Input Type Source Weight
Energy Rate ($/kWh) Quantitative PPA terms, BTM generation modeled cost, utility tariff Primary
PUE (Facility Overhead) Quantitative Design spec or measured; range 1.05–1.35 for new builds Primary
Hardware TDP Profile Benchmark CEH Standard Index v1.0; MLPerf v5.1 sourced Primary
Utilization Rate Quantitative Modeled at 75% stabilized; operator data where available Modifier
Grid-Average Benchmark Benchmark EIA U.S. commercial average; updated semi-annually Reference
04
Capital Structure · Fourth Dimension
Capital Stack Intelligence
Capital Stack Intelligence translates physical site advantage into institutional-grade investment structures — quantifying the promote, preferred return, and incentive coverage at both the asset level and the platform level. This dimension is most relevant to LP/equity counterparties evaluating whether the CEH-advantaged economics translate into cleared return hurdles under real capital structures.
Indexed
Incentive + Structure
What It Measures
Federal and state tax incentive availability and coverage (ITC, PTC, bonus depreciation, state ED credits), equity structure and promote logic, preferred return tier and coverage ratio, leverage availability and pricing relative to asset quality, and programmatic scalability — the ability to replicate the structure across a multi-site pipeline without degrading economics per asset.
Why It Matters
Capital stack structure determines whether physical advantage converts to LP returns. A site with exceptional PRI and CEH Economics can still fail to clear a preferred return if the capital structure is sub-optimal. The difference between 30% and 15% incentive coverage can be the difference between a cleared 8% preferred return and a missed one — at current development cost levels.
Where It Breaks
Incentive policy expiration or recapture risk (IRA provisions are subject to congressional revision), rising construction debt costs compressing equity returns, and market timing risk around asset monetization or lease-up. The capital stack score is highly sensitive to macro rate environment — a 200bps move in construction financing costs can reduce equity returns by 300–400bps at typical leverage levels.
Threshold That Clears
≥ 30% tax incentive coverage against total development cost is the minimum threshold for institutional consideration. At 30%+ coverage, the preferred return is supportable across a range of macro rate environments when combined with PRI ≥ 7.0, SRS ≥ 6.5, and CEH Cost ≤ 0.60×. Sites with ≥ 40% incentive coverage represent the highest-confidence capital stack position available in the current cycle.
▸ Composite Index Score

How the four dimensions combine.

The composite CEH Infrastructure Index score is a weighted aggregate of the four dimensions. Weights reflect the relative impact of each dimension on institutional return outcomes, calibrated against historical infrastructure investment data. Composite score ranges from 0 to 10; the institutional consideration threshold is 6.5+.

Power Readiness Index (PRI)
35%
CEH Economics Score
30%
Site Readiness Score (SRS)
20%
Capital Stack Intelligence
15%
Institutional Consideration Threshold
6.5 / 10.0
Composite score threshold at which institutional investment logic holds across all four dimensions simultaneously. Sites below 6.5 may still be investable but require asset-specific exceptions documentation.
Tier I Threshold
8.0 / 10.0
Tier I designation — "Shovel-Ready" — requires composite score ≥ 8.0 with PRI ≥ 7.5 and SRS ≥ 7.0. These sites represent the highest-conviction power-first infrastructure positions in the current tracked universe.
Transparency Note
Scores for DGEI-affiliated sites are clearly labeled. Third-party sites are scored on available public data supplemented by primary research. Full methodology documentation, including sensitivity tables and score calibration details, is available to verified subscribers under NDA.
View Rankings
See the methodology applied
Review how the four dimensions translate into ranked site intelligence across active U.S. markets.
View Market Intelligence →
Capital Series
Research built on this framework
Read how CEH Economics, time-to-power, and capital stack analysis translate into institutional research publications.
Access Capital Series →
Full Access
Request subscriber access
Full methodology documentation, including sensitivity tables and score calibration, is available to reviewed counterparties.
Request Access →