# Power Readiness Brief

**Example only. Fictional site and assumed inputs. No utility acceptance or power availability is represented.**

Prepared as a sample of ModGrid's proposed paid power-readiness review. Based on the scope and caveats in [the ModGrid research report](modgrid-deep-dive.md), sections 1.3, 2.2 and 6. Product example values match [the Flex-Ready example](../../mockups/flex-ready/README.md).

## The decision

Can a fictional Columbus-area site support its proposed expansion under a credible power plan?

The example has 90 MW of existing approved operating service and requests 120 MW total. The additional 30 MW is in study. Existing service is not evidence that the expansion has an approved energization date.

## Inputs to collect

- Utility correspondence, service agreement and effective tariff.
- Facility load ramp, with IT load and total facility demand separated.
- Site control, tenant commitments and target construction schedule.
- Single-line diagram, metering arrangement and equipment quotations.
- Workload-control rights, battery limits and permitted generation use.

## Paths to compare

| Path | What would make it credible | Unresolved evidence |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Expanded utility service | Utility study, executed capacity commitment and infrastructure schedule | Expansion approval and construction dependencies |
| Constrained service with verified import reduction | An available service arrangement, an accepted response obligation and demonstrated ability to meet it | Utility acceptance, customer authority and measurement method |
| Partner-supplied bridge power | Engineering, fuel supply, air permits, actual equipment allocation and an operating counterparty | Supplier quotations, permits, financing and transition obligations |

## Contract exposure

Model minimum demand charges, the load ramp, credit support, cancellation and exit terms using the actual agreement. AEP Ohio's billing-demand floor is a demand-charge structure, not a claim that a site must buy a fixed share of electricity.

## Example operating evidence

The separate fictional telemetry snapshot shows 78.4 MW of facility load: 60.0 MW firm and 18.4 MW flexible. Battery output is zero in this snapshot. A later curtailment example assumes a 90.0 MW baseline, 71.4 MW metered import and 18.6 MW reduction. These are two different snapshots. An instantaneous reduction is not accepted final compliance or settlement.

Emergency-only backup generation is excluded from ordinary flexibility. Battery reserve and recovery limits remain binding.

## What the review delivers

A dated scenario comparison, a contract-exposure model, a source-backed evidence record, and an open-issues list with an accountable party for each question. Qualified partners must review engineering and disputed legal interpretations.

**Next decision:** Identify which missing evidence changes the site's investment or service commitment. No power date or earnings outcome is guaranteed.

## Primary sources

- [AEP Ohio data-center tariff and application process](https://www.aepohio.com/company/about/rates/data-center-tariff/)
- [PJM large-load information](https://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations/large-load)
- [Texas SB 6 enrolled text](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/SB00006F.htm)

Research cutoff: November 4, 2026. This sample is an illustrative deliverable, not advice for a real project.