Opposition Risk Scoring

How we score data center and energy projects for opposition risk. 11 factors, 100-point scale, 135 tracked projects across 30+ states.

Overview

We track data center and energy infrastructure opposition fights across the United States. Each site-specific project is scored on an 11-factor, 100-point scale based on characteristics that correlate with project failure. The model is hypothesis-based, factor weights have not been empirically calibrated, but the signal is consistent across the resolved outcomes in the database.

Current database: 135 total entries — 84 site-specific projects + 51 legislative/regulatory actions. Updated daily via automated AI classification pipeline.

The Signal

Blocked/withdrawn projects average 46 on our 100-point scale.

Survived projects average 39.

Projects scoring 51+ (HIGH tier) have zero clean survivals in our dataset.

The 7-point gap between blocked and survived projects has held as the database expanded from 27 to 135 records. This is a pattern, not a validated prediction model.

Risk Tiers

CRITICAL

Score: 70–100

Extreme opposition risk. Multiple high-intensity factors. No project in this tier has survived in our dataset.

HIGH

Score: 51–69

Significant opposition risk. Zero clean survivals at this tier. Every HIGH project is blocked, withdrawn, or in active litigation.

MEDIUM

Score: 26–50

Contested territory. Both blocked and survived outcomes occur here. Counter-strategies (CBAs, community benefits) matter most at this tier.

LOW

Score: 0–25

Minimal opposition risk. Project cleared hurdles or faces only isolated concerns.

11 Scoring Factors

Factor	Max	What It Measures
Opposition Organization	16	Formal groups, legal representation, coordinated tactics. Highest discrimination factor, largest gap between blocked and survived.
Benefit Credibility	15	Whether developer's claimed benefits (jobs, tax revenue, community investment) are believable based on track record.
Political Alignment	13	Whether local political leadership supports or opposes the project.
Developer Trust	12	Developer's reputation, transparency, and local track record. Known developers (Microsoft, Google) score lower than shell entities.
Zoning Exposure	10	Whether the project requires rezoning (especially agricultural → industrial) vs. by-right development.
Opposition Breadth	8	Individual complaints vs. community-wide coalitions vs. regional/statewide movements.
Scale Context	8	Project size relative to host community. 1.2 GW in a town of 6,000 scores differently than 10 MW in a metro area.
Water Vulnerability	6	Local water stress, groundwater concerns, documented usage projections.
Environmental Justice	5	Whether the project is sited in or near an EJ community per EPA EJScreen.
Cumulative Burden	5	Whether the community already hosts similar industrial facilities.
Process Legitimacy	2	Whether the approval process was transparent and legally sound.

Plus: PIBBY economic context discount (-2 to -8 points) when industrial legacy or economic distress signals are present. Economic desperation can sometimes override opposition factors.

Key Findings (March 2026)

Opposition organization is the #1 predictor of project failure, projects facing organized coalitions with websites, lawyers, and media strategy fail at dramatically higher rates.
Indiana has 9 counties with moratoriums or bans enacted since November 2025, the largest coordinated state-level wave documented.
A Tennessee utility (BrightRidge, 85,000 customers) imposed the first utility-level moratorium on serving new data centers. This is a novel mechanism with no zoning workaround.
Florida SB 484 (passed 31-6, March 2026) is the first ratepayer protection law for data center electricity costs in the Southeast.
Yale Law School's EJ Clinic represented the Lowell, MA opposition, law schools are entering the fight.
Developer secrecy (NDAs, hidden end users) consistently increases community distrust and opposition intensity.

Inter-Rater Reliability

An independent blind coding test (AI-AI) showed:

77% exact agreement on opposition intensity (100% within-1)
70% exact agreement on opposition breadth (100% within-1)
23% exact agreement on argument vocabulary, addressed by implementing a controlled vocabulary of 20 standard argument labels

Human inter-rater reliability testing is the next validation step.

Data Sources

Court filings: CourtListener, PACER, state court dockets, Ohio Supreme Court filings
Regulatory actions: FERC eLibrary, state PUC filings, county planning commission minutes
Local government: County commission agendas, zoning board votes, moratorium ordinances
News sources: AP, Reuters, Utility Dive, Data Center Dynamics, RTO Insider, Axios, local newspapers
Opposition groups: StopSail.com, Protect Henry County, Citizens for Fauquier County, Honest Future for Lowell, NAACP, Earthjustice, SELC
Research: Data Center Watch ($98B blocked report), DeSmog investigations, academic literature

Limitations

N=78 site-specific projects, too small for statistical validation
17 outcomes still unresolved, backtest incomplete
Factor weights are hypotheses, not empirically calibrated
Intensity/breadth coding is researcher-assigned, potential confirmation bias
Geographic bias toward publicized fights, unreported opposition is unknown
This is a research framework, not a prediction engine. Scores should inform, not replace, professional due diligence.

Citation

Nittler, S. (2026). Data Center Opposition Risk Analysis: Methodology. The Daily Mine Opposition Intelligence Program. Version 1.3.

The Daily Mine

Daily intelligence on data center opposition, power grid constraints, and energy infrastructure politics. 7 AM ET, every morning.