Key Numbers
The Platform Pillars
Pillar 01
Best Use (HBU) Land Intelligence
Evaluates whether a parcel's highest and best use aligns with the proposed infrastructure type, factoring in agricultural comparable values, land use history, and surrounding development patterns. Surfaces misaligned sites before engineering capital is committed.
Pillar 02
Grid Capacity Interconnection
Surfaces available grid headroom from HIFLD databases and interconnection queue position data, filtering sites where grid constraints would kill the project independent of community factors. Prevents capital from entering a saturated queue for a site with no viable path to interconnection.
Pillar 03 · Core Engine
NIMBY Friction Core Engine
The core scoring engine. Translates 100+ observable signals across seven variable categories into a single Community Risk Score and opposition probability, with a Tier 1–4 IC recommendation generated in under 200ms.
Pillar 04
Neighboring Value Land Economics
Analyzes surrounding land value trends and comparable transactions to assess whether a site sits in a corridor with upward or downward development pressure. A signal for both community opposition risk and long-term project IRR.
See It In Action
Every screen below is pulled directly from the live platform.
Development Risk Report
Score a neighborhood.
Select a neighborhood and get a full risk breakdown: historical approval rate, opposition risk score, and the odds of clean approval, conditional approval, or rejection before a dollar of diligence is spent.
Risk Mitigation
What to do about the risk.
Every approval gate comes with two priced paths forward: amend the project for a faster, cheaper probability boost, or wait it out and absorb the carrying cost. Both options are quantified in probability points and dollars.
NIMBY Score Engine
01
Community Sentiment & Political Climate
NLP scoring of town hall minutes, local news, and elected official statements. Surfaces organised opposition fingerprints that standard zoning data cannot capture.
Strongest predictor per Stokes et al. (2023, PNAS)
02
Historical Permitting Outcomes
County approval and denial history for comparable asset classes. Path dependence in permitting is well-documented: a jurisdiction that has denied similar projects carries a strong Bayesian prior against approval.
Susskind et al. (2022, Energy Policy)
03
Regulatory & Zoning Environment
CUP requirements, active moratoriums, and CEQA/NEPA trigger assessment. Conditional Use Permit mandates activate latent opposition by creating public hearing requirements.
Wolsink (2000, Renewable Energy)
04
Community Equity & Engagement
Benefit-sharing structures, PILOT agreements, community advisory boards, and developer engagement quality. Projects with early, substantive engagement face measurably lower opposition rates.
Löw-Beer et al. (2025, Nature Communications)
05
Physical & Site Characteristics
GIS proximity modelling for visibility from residential zones, proximity to sensitive receptors, setback compliance, and topography. Two parcels with identical zoning can face very different opposition levels depending on what the site looks like from the road.
Roddis et al. (2018, Applied Energy)
06
Cumulative Burden
Regional infrastructure saturation. Communities that have absorbed repeated siting of industrial or energy projects resist new proposals at higher rates, regardless of the individual project's merits.
US EPA Cumulative Impacts Framework (2022)
07
Demographic & Socioeconomic Composition
Race, income, homeownership, and education provide secondary predictive signal in US datasets. Applied alongside primary sentiment and historical variables rather than as a standalone predictor.
Stokes et al. (2023, PNAS)
Tier Recommendations
Opposition <15% · Value at Risk <5%
Low community friction. Suitable for engineering diligence. No material opposition risk identified.
Opposition 15–35% · Value at Risk 5–15%
Elevated friction. A community engagement strategy is recommended before advancing to interconnection deposit.
Opposition 35–60% · Value at Risk 15–30%
High friction. IC review required. Consider alternative sites in the same geography before committing capital.
Opposition >60% · Value at Risk >30%
High opposition risk. Estimated exposure warrants site abandonment unless material mitigants exist.
Opposition probability is a probabilistic opinion analogous to a credit rating, not a legal opinion or permitting guarantee.
See full methodology disclaimer.
Research Foundation
Every variable category is grounded in peer-reviewed academic literature.
What makes this model defensible is the weighting logic and the labeled outcome dataset behind it, both built in-house.
Stokes et al. (2023, PNAS)
Community sentiment and political climate are the primary predictors of opposition in North American renewable energy siting datasets.
Susskind et al. (2022, Energy Policy)
Procedural history and prior permitting outcomes are stronger opposition predictors than ideology or demographic composition.
Löw-Beer et al. (2025, Nature Communications)
Explicit benefit-sharing and early community engagement significantly reduce organised opposition rates across multiple datasets.
Per-site API pricing available · Pilot cohort open Q2 2026