Methodology

Define the question tightly, then show the evidence behind it.

This product asks a narrow question: how easily can a country absorb new generation and new demand projects? The methodology is built for decision support, not for live grid operations.

Question

New-project interconnection onlyThe model is intentionally narrower than a full electricity-system assessment

Scoring stance

Direct data firstProxy indicators are allowed when comparable official data is absent

Operator posture

Evidence-backed shortlist supportUse it to focus diligence, not to replace it

Metric frame

Current weights and what each metric represents

Published Headroom35%
How explicitly the country publishes usable access capacity, headroom, or queue-relevant visibility for new projects.
Connection Process35%
How legible, prioritised, and decision-ready the grid-connection process is for serious new generation and demand projects.
Reinforcement Momentum30%
How visibly the operator is building or enabling the network and flexibility needed to absorb additional load and generation.

In scope

What the score does count

Included signals

Published headroom, queue visibility, or other access signals for new projects.
Connection-process clarity, reform activity, and anti-hoarding measures.
Reinforcement or flexibility programmes that unlock additional connections.

Out of scope

What the score is not trying to do

Excluded themes

Full legacy-grid reliability or outage performance scoring.
Retail electricity tariffs or broader energy-market economics.
Live dispatch, congestion, or balancing operations monitoring.

Proxy policy

Why confidence flags exist

Coverage is not uniform by country

Some countries publish direct capacity evidence, some publish process signals, and some require more interpretation. Confidence flags keep the product usable without pretending the underlying disclosure quality is identical everywhere.