Case Study
How a Power Flow Study saved a powered land investor from a multimillion-dollar mistake
A powered land investment platform focused on the intersection of power infrastructure and real estate
Project type:
Data center site development
Background:
For a site located in Ohio, Paces performed a Power Flow Study with N-1-1 Contingency Analysis and provided development consultation.
The challenge
The firm identified a site in Ohio with strong fundamentals for powered land development. Early conversations with the local utility were encouraging, but the team lacked independent validation of the grid capacity they were being told was available. They faced the following challenges:
- Needed to verify the utility’s findings indicating 400 MW available with minimal upgrades: A Customer Load Study (CLS) completed by the utility supported that figure, and the team was preparing to move forward.
- Significant capital at stake: The next step was a Detailed Load Study (DLS) with costs approaching $1 million and a timeline of 12+ months.
- No independent power analysis: The firm had evaluated other platforms but found that they relied on outdated information and could not offer meaningful insights beyond what was publicly available.
The Solution
An investor involved in the project had heard about Paces' power flow capabilities and made an independent feasibility study a condition of closing. That requirement brought Paces into the picture. In less than two weeks*, Paces produced a Power Flow Study with N-1-1 Contingency Analysis that:
- Revealed the real capacity was ~150 MW, not 400: The Power Flow Study modeled how the proposed load withdrawal would affect the broader transmission system and found the site could support less than half of what the utility had communicated.
- Flagged standard grid requirements the utility never mentioned: For example, above a certain megawatt threshold, the transmission system requires a redundant line. The utility had not raised this despite months of conversations about a 400 MW load.
- Validated findings directly with the utility: The Paces team engaged senior-level contacts at the utility, who confirmed they agreed with the Power Flow Study's conclusions.
*Since this Power Flow Study was run, Paces has improved deliverable time to as little as 5 days.
"The study revealed a number of critical points. The first was that it wasn't 400 megawatts available. It's 150. Which materially changes the thesis around the site."
The project is now paused indefinitely. And while that might sound like a negative outcome, the firm sees it very differently. By leveraging the Paces Power Flow Study, they were able to:
Avoid close to $750,000 in unnecessary costs
The team was preparing to commit to the DLS when the Paces study came back. Without that independent analysis, they would have spent months and significant capital only to arrive at the same conclusion.
Prevent a fundamentally flawed investment
At 150 MW with multimillion-dollar upgrade requirements beyond that, the project economics no longer worked. The firm would not have pursued the site at that capacity. The N-1-1 contingency analysis gave the team confidence that this was not a borderline call but a clear picture of the grid's limitations under realistic stress conditions.
Change how the firm evaluates every future site
The team now plans to bring Paces in at the earliest stages of site evaluation rather than waiting until deep into diligence.
"I could have spent a much more reasonable amount of money to figure that out versus spending close to $750,000 and others to find out the same information 12 months from now. I'm personally disappointed this site didn't work out, but I'm much happier that I found out now."
A deeper look:
What the utility didn't say
The firm came to the Ohio opportunity through a relationship with a natural gas pipeline operator in the area. The operator owned the interstate pipeline running through the property and had received signals from the local utility suggesting significant load capacity was available on nearby transmission lines. The combination of gas infrastructure and what appeared to be ample grid capacity made the site compelling for powered land development.
Early conversations with the utility reinforced that optimism. Representatives indicated that up to 400 MW could be available with minimal upgrades, essentially just the work required to connect power to a new substation on the property. A Customer Load Study was completed, and the results supported that figure. The team began preparing a Detailed Load Study package, the next step in the interconnection process, which can cost upwards of $750,000 and can take up to 12 months.
It was at this stage that an investor connected the firm with Paces. The investor had heard that Paces offered a deeper level of power analysis than other platforms or onsultants could provide, and made that analysis a requirement before closing on the deal.
Before engaging Paces, the firm had evaluated several other options. Other platforms seemed to rely on outdated information. When asked what would differentiate their analysis from publicly available data, those providers could not give a convincing answer. In speaking with Paces, the firm found confidence in the proprietary data used and real grid engineering expertise.
The Paces team moved quickly to deliver a comprehensive a Power Flow Study. Their Power Flow Study modeled the actual impact of withdrawing load at the proposed point of interconnection, factoring in current grid conditions and planned infrastructure changes. Critically, the study included N-1-1 contingency analysis, which tests how the transmission system performs when a second element fails while a first is already out of service. With critical analyses that mirror NERC reliability standards, the firm and the investor could be confident that the results of the study would hold up under real-world grid conditions and in utility discussions. The results told a very different story from the one the utility had been telling.
The available capacity was roughly 150 MW, not 400. Getting beyond 150 MW would require multimillion-dollar transmission upgrades. And there were baseline requirements, like redundant transmission lines above certain load thresholds, that the utility had never flagged despite months of conversations about a 400 MW project.
After completing the study, Paces engaged directly with senior contacts at the utility. The conversations confirmed what the Power Flow Study had shown: the grid could not support the load the firm had been planning for. The utility agreed with Paces' analysis.
What stood out to the firm was not just the findings but the way Paces worked. The team ran multiple scenarios, including an N-1-1 Contingency Analysis, worked through different assumptions, and operated in problem-solving mode alongside the firm rather than simply delivering a report and stepping away. The technical depth was impressive, too. The firm's lead shared that he was impressed by the team's depth of knowledge, saying, “[There are] really bright people with different skill sets and experience across different parts of the value chain.”
With the project’s thesis invalidated, the firm paused the Ohio site indefinitely. But the experience was far from a loss. It validated the value of independent power analysis before committing capital, and it gave the firm a trusted partner for future site evaluation. The team now plans to engage Paces at the front end of any new opportunity, using their power flow capabilities to vet sites before significant dollars are on the line.
"I think you'd be foolish not to get a Power Flow Study before relying on utility numbers. It's only more information that helps you validate your thesis and your diligence. Why would you not want that information?"
