The free tools will give you a number. California’s own regulator has flagged them for accuracy problems. Finding out for certain whether a site can get 5MW costs $250K-500K and a year of your life.
GridReady Insights gives you a plain-language, sourced read on whether a specific California site can be energized at 1-10MW inside a year, built on regulatory data that’s barely a year old and almost nobody has started using yet.
What this is
GridReady Insights is built to answer one specific question with defensible evidence: “Can this site get 1-10MW of power within a year, and if not, why?” It’s designed to replace a $250K-500K, year-long interconnection study (or a guess from an inaccurate free tool) with a fast, sourced, per-site read, built on newly available regulatory data that almost nobody has started using yet.
It won’t be a map, a general market report, or a study. It’s power-risk due diligence for a specific parcel, delivered fast enough to use before you commit to a site, with citations solid enough to put in an investment committee memo.
Why this is hard right now
Interconnection requests filed and unresolved. No published order, no dependable date. The backlog itself is the schedule.
The cluster process screens out most requested megawatts before study even begins. Filing is not queue position.
A hosting-capacity map shows headroom on a feeder. It does not show the upstream transformer, the substation rebuild, or the crew.
These three datasets exist in public. They are published in different formats, on different cadences, by parties with different incentives, and nobody reconciles them against each other. So the practical answer to “can this parcel get power” is still a phone call and a guess.
What you get
One page per site. You give us an address, parcel, or county and a load target. We return a score, the reasoning behind it, and every source row we used.
Fast / Contested / Multi-year, with the load band it applies to. A study answers a filing. This answers a decision.
Feeder headroom, substation bank capacity, upstream transmission, or queue congestion ahead of you. Stated, not implied.
What else is already ahead of you at that point of interconnection, and how much capacity it has claimed.
AB 50 / SB 410 reporting shows what that utility actually delivered against its own timelines in that territory.
Filing dates, dataset versions, and CPUC docket references. Defensible in an IC memo.
Coverage begins with PG&E and SCE territory. Not live yet. We are building the first territory now.
Tell us what you’re evaluating
We are picking the first territories to cover based on what people are actually screening. Tell us the county or utility territory you’re working in and we will prioritize accordingly, and come back to you with what we find there first.
No newsletter. No drip sequence. A direct reply from the team building this.
We started digging into CPUC filings because we kept watching good sites die late, after the money was already spent, over power. What changed is the data: California only started requiring utilities to report their own energization delays a year ago, and almost nobody has started using it yet. We’re building the first covered territory now, against real sites people are actually evaluating, not against our own guesses.