PermitPortal reference memo · AHJ intelligence
How jurisdiction feasibility scores are built
A transparent guide to the evidence, weights, confidence signals, and hard-stop conditions behind every AHJ score.
Executive summary
Higher always means more favorable for development.
Each AHJ receives one composite score built from six category scores. Categories are weighted averages of their underlying research flows. Missing evidence is excluded or completeness-adjusted; it is never silently treated as favorable. Catastrophic conditions can cap the result after the weighted score is calculated.
How scoring works
The calculation is deterministic. Research agents produce evidence and flow scores; the arithmetic below produces the displayed result.
Adjust each flow for completeness
A flow with partial evidence is pulled toward its neutral baseline so thin research cannot dominate the model. A flow with no usable score is excluded.
adjusted = neutral + completeness × (raw − neutral)Roll flows into category scores
Each category is a weighted average of the available adjusted flow scores. Weights are renormalized when a flow has no data.
category = Σ(adjusted flow × flow weight) ÷ Σ(available weights)Blend categories, then apply caps
The six available category scores produce the composite. Any verified red flag is applied afterward, and the tightest triggered cap wins.
final = min(weighted composite, triggered red-flag caps)Default category blend
25% Regulatory + 23% Grid Readiness + 15% Community + 13% Water + 13% Environment + 13% Incentives
The six categories
Regulatory
25% of composite
Can you legally build here, and how fast?
How easy the jurisdiction is to entitle in — approval route, code trajectory, entitlement speed, and development standards.
Grid Readiness
23% of composite
Can you get power, and at what cost?
Whether you can get power and at what cost — interconnection queue, energization timeline, and large-load tariff terms.
Community
15% of composite
Will stakeholders fight you?
Political and social risk — voting record, organized opposition, local pipeline saturation, and social sentiment.
Water
13% of composite
Will the bodies that approve water use let you draw it?
Whether the bodies that approve water use will let you draw it. An enacted water moratorium caps the overall score.
Environment
13% of composite
Are there physical or environmental constraints?
Environmental constraint and hazard exposure — species, wetlands, contamination, floodplains, and natural-hazard risk.
Incentives
13% of composite
How heavy is the tax and cost burden?
Financial load and upside — structural tax burden plus discretionary incentives.
Score interpretation
Red-flag caps
A weighted average can hide a binary blocker. Caps prevent strength in unrelated categories from averaging away a condition that can stop the project.
Example: an enacted data-center moratorium caps the jurisdiction even when incentives, power, and entitlement velocity are otherwise favorable.
Confidence is separate from feasibility
Confidence communicates how much trust to place in the score, not whether the jurisdiction is favorable. It reflects evidence completeness and the quality of the completed research run. It never multiplies or inflates the feasibility score.
High
Broad, current evidence supports the scored pattern.
Medium
Useful directional evidence exists, with material gaps to review.
Low
Treat the score as preliminary until missing evidence is resolved.
What the score does not replace
Current conditions, not certainty
Political environments, ordinances, utility queues, and public sentiment can change quickly. Re-check before major commitments.
Public evidence, not perfect information
Some jurisdictions publish far more than others. Low confidence can reflect thin records rather than an unfavorable jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction context, not site-level diligence
Parcel geometry, infrastructure, adjacency, project design, and timing can materially change the result for an individual site.