We tell you if your site can be powered, and who is already ahead of you.

Before you commit capital, not twelve months later at the connection enquiry.

Get a sample Connection Feasibility AnalysisFree · No follow up unless you ask

Two fields, one sample. Work email only, please. See our contact form for anything else.

HighModerateLowZero
Bundey 275 kV
Published capacity
850 MW
Queued against it
2,320 MW
From the record
15%of queued projects ever reach committed
small projects get built seven times more often
70%of the queue does not say where it connects
The problem

Connection is checked last and kills projects first

A site can be perfect on land, price and planning and still be impossible to power. The order in which projects check things is the whole problem.

How it usually goes
12 to 18 months
01
Pick the site
Land, price, zoning
02
Commit
Option, design, spend
03
Lodge the enquiry
Fee, months of waiting
04
Find out
Too late to change
How it should go
Days, then decide
01
Find out
Days
02
Pick the site
With the answer
03
Commit
Knowing
04
Lodge the enquiry
Only if it is worth it

Nobody wants to be the person who explains a dead site.

How we work

We do the reading. You make the call.

Give us a location, or just a requirement. You get back something you can put in front of your board.

You give us a site
Coordinates, an address, or just a requirement in megawatts and a state.
We read what the operators publish
The megawatts each connection point can accept, from the network's own reports.
We check who is ahead of you
Who is queued there, and how likely they are to build, from fifteen years of outcomes.
You get the answer, in writing
Worth the formal enquiry, or not, and why. Every figure traceable to its source.

The analysis is produced from a data engine we built. That is why it takes days rather than the weeks a manual study takes.

The record

The grid publishes its picture, then overwrites it

Sixty dated editions of the connection queue, assembled into one comparable dataset. Nobody else kept it, and it cannot be reconstructed by anyone starting today.

2012editions of the connection queue, captured and kept2026
1,558
projects tracked through the queue

Every entry, exit, size revision and delay, since 2018.

8,377
recorded changes between editions

What moved, when, and which projects it happened to.

18 yrs
of marginal loss factors

Including how often each year was revised before it was finalised.

How we grade it

Every number tells you how solid it is

Published
The operator said it. Reproduced unchanged, with the document and date.
Inferred
We worked it out, and you can see the reasoning behind it.
Weak
A locality name matched, nothing more. Never treated as a stated fact.
Unplaced
Nothing supports a link. Shown as its own number, never assigned by guesswork.
Who this is for

Four kinds of people ask us the same question

Renewable and battery developers

Choosing between sites, or about to commit to one, before the land and design spend starts.

Which of these three sites should we take forward?

Data centre and large load proponents

You can find land anywhere. You cannot find power anywhere. The viable locations in any state are a short list.

Where in this state can we actually put 300 MW?

Investors and lenders

Connection risk is the risk that surfaces last and hurts most. An independent read before the capital goes in.

Is this project's connection assumption realistic?

Advisers and engineering firms

We sit upstream of the work you do. A fast screen tells you which sites are worth the full study.

Which of these are worth a proper study?
Get in touch

Tell us about your project

Where you are looking and what you are trying to connect. We will tell you honestly whether we can help.