Diligence for energy and data-centre infrastructure.

The first sector fixture on Diligence OS — calibrated to the power agreements, interconnection filings, and operator records an infrastructure commitment turns on, not the operating model a buyout memo lives in.

Request an introduction →See every fixture →

Live on the engine. Source-backed outputs. Versioned review.

The sector

Energy and data-centre infrastructure has become the allocation story of the last two years. As of early 2025 the United States had 23 GW of data-centre capacity live and another 48 GW under construction or committed, and electricity demand rose 2 percent year on year for the first time in over a decade. Roughly three-quarters of family offices say they are bullish on infrastructure; about 79 percent still hold none of it. The capital is arriving faster than the diligence framework built to read it.

The diligence gap

No ILPA module covers energy or data centres, so an allocator underwriting the sector is working without a standard. The documents that decide the return — the power purchase agreement, the interconnection restudy, the power-usage benchmarks, the operator's commissioned-capacity record — are not in any generic DDQ template, and the finding that moves the number is usually a grid-operator letter that contradicts the marketing book. The fixture reads those documents against each other and against sector thresholds.

What the fixture produces

A power and grid analysis covering PPA structure, coverage ratio, offtaker credit, and the interconnection queue status and timeline.
An operational analysis covering power-usage effectiveness against institutional benchmarks (1.2–1.4 expected; above 1.6 flagged).
An operator assessment that separates announced capacity from commissioned capacity — the figure most often overstated in infrastructure diligence.
A Releasability Score across five named dimensions, with the document gaps that hold a memorandum below the committee floor.

What the fixture includes

Document set

Power purchase agreement
Interconnection agreement and most recent restudy
Site control documentation
Permit status summary
EPC or construction contract
Financial model
Power-usage and operational efficiency benchmarks
Operator and developer track record
Offtake concentration schedule
Debt term sheet

Risk flags

PPA coverage ratio below 60 percent of projected capacity
Interconnection timeline beyond 36 months from rent commencement
Single-offtaker concentration above 40 percent
Power-usage effectiveness above 1.6
Unresolved Phase II environmental recommendation
Operator track record asserted rather than verified
No independent engineer engaged by the investor
Water-stress exposure undisclosed
DSCR covenant below 1.25x against a thin PPA coverage ratio
Outstanding permits on the critical path

Releasability dimensions

Document completeness25%
Revenue contract quality30%
Execution risk evidence20%
Operator track record15%
Financial model adequacy10%

Sample output

A twelve-section investment memorandum — executive summary through recommendation — with a Releasability Score across the five named dimensions, a risk-flag register, and a record of findings that span more than one document.

Without this fixture

Underwriting a data-centre vehicle with a generic workflow misses the one structural question that decides the return: whether contracted revenue covers projected returns under the construction timeline the interconnection queue actually permits.

Who uses this

CIOs and senior advisors at single-family offices building a first infrastructure mandate without an internal specialist.
Investment teams at infrastructure fund-of-funds reviewing commitments to data-centre development vehicles.
Pension investment staff entering infrastructure who need a defensible, repeatable process.

Every fixture clears the same floor the eight workflows did — measured against an authored data room before release, against the standard set out in what we measure.

Request an introduction →