Terranode × SSI-ENN · BESS · RES · data centre · OECD + EU · live in Italy

From buildable land to an investment-ready asset — one auditable pipeline.

Terranode finds and validates where a storage, renewable or data-centre asset — BESS, RES or a load — can actually be built and connected. SSI-ENN then overlays what the validated asset is worth — to the investor, the grid, the community and the owner — and packages it for LPs and regulators.

Because the same asset on a different substation is a different investment — different grid relief, approval logic and return profile. The platform carries a site from the national grid and cadastre to a defensible valuation and a compliance pack, without a single number losing its source. Built for every OECD and EU market; live and validated in Italy today.

See how the two layers compose → ▶ Watch the 80s walkthrough Why no one else has both
38
OECD countries in scope
420k
Substations indexed
30+
Data sources per country
10k
Simulations per substation
BESS · RES · DC
Storage, renewables & data centres
Italy
Live & validated today
The platform, in one picture

Feasibility is the foundation; valuation is the overlay.

Terranode establishes that an asset is real, buildable and connectable. SSI-ENN sits on top and establishes what that real asset means — financially, to the grid, and to the community — then proves it to LPs and regulators. The two meet at a single, typed handoff.

OVERLAY · SSI-ENN — VALUATION & COMPLIANCE "What is the validated asset worth, and can we prove it?" INVESTOR LENS DCF · IRR · NPV Scenario & profile valuation envelope GRID LENS V_DSO · V_TSO Stakeholder value to the network COMMUNITY LENS Welfare pillars · SSI Reliability, externalities, resilience COMPLIANCE CAPSTONE CSRD · Taxonomy AIFMD II · GIPS · SFDR LP- & regulator-ready TYPED HANDOFF · qualified site → site descriptor FOUNDATION · TERRANODE — FEASIBILITY & ORIGINATION "Where can a storage, generation or data-centre asset actually be built and connected?" A Substation assessment B Land Scout C Infrastructure analysis and buffer application D Environmental Analysis E Deliverables › › › ›
Foundation — Terranode. A strictly sequential A→E pipeline for BESS + RES. Output: a de-risked, buildable, connectable site with 40+ inherited, source-traced attributes.
Overlay — SSI-ENN. Takes the qualified site and produces investor, grid, community and owner valuation plus an LP- and regulator-grade compliance pack — on the same provenance chain.
See it run

Watch the platform carry a site from map to mandate — in 80 seconds.

The whole arc, in motion: the failure economics, the node thesis, Terranode's A→E screen, and SSI-ENN's four lenses converging on one decision memo. Captioned; figures illustrative.

`;
The risk that lasts

Same asset, different node — different grid relief, approval logic and return profile.

Prices swing and can be hedged; the kit is replaceable. The one thing you can't move or un-congest is the substation — and it sets value and risk for the asset's entire 25–30-year life. It is the un-hedgeable residual that underwriting most often under-weights, because it never shows up on a price screen. The node decides two things at once:

Dimension 1 · Pricing power

What a unit is worth here

The node sets the revenue environment — zonal price, scarcity and congestion rents, the value of grid relief, ancillary demand, and DER saturation (cannibalisation). The same asset on a scarcer node simply earns more. Pricing power comes from position in the grid, not from the kit.

Dimension 2 · Flow & volume risk

How much you can move — and how reliably

The node sets whether you can evacuate your power: hosting capacity, congestion, reverse-flow limits, voltage headroom. It is two-sided — headroom de-risks volume; a saturated node spills it as curtailment. Lost volume is lost revenue, and it is structural to the node, not the asset.

SSI scores every node on six axes that decompose exactly these two dimensions — Continuity · Voltage · Infrastructure (flow & reliability) and Economic · Saturation · Transition (pricing power). The substation is the only project variable that is both a primary driver of value and durable across the asset's life — so it is the metric Terranode screens first, before a euro of development capital is committed.

Layer 1 · Feasibility · Terranode

Terranode turns an entire market into a classified, motivated shortlist.

Five modules, run in sequence, for storage and renewable sites alike. Each hands a standardised, typed dataset to the next, so every parcel in the final output can be traced back to the exact step — and the exact source — that produced it. The engine is market-agnostic; the regulatory layer is swapped per jurisdiction (Italy first, then the rest of the OECD and EU).

MODULE A

Substation assessment

Filters AT/MT substations on 8 engineering dimensions (D1–D8): voltage, quality, hosting capacity, headroom, physical space, strategic positioning, data reliability, queue pressure.

Robust methodology
Module A screens the national set of high-voltage (Alta Tensione, AT) and medium-voltage (Media Tensione, MT) primary substations against eight engineering dimensions, D1–D8: D1 voltage adequacy, D2 connection quality, D3 hosting capacity (topological, HC_topology), D4 electrical headroom/margin, D5 available physical space (Spazio Utile Esterno, SUE), D6 strategic positioning, D7 data reliability and D8 queue pressure. Inputs are cross-referenced across OpenInfraMap (grid topology), Terna (TSO infrastructure and connection data) and ARERA QuEEN (regulated continuity/quality indicators). Each substation is rated per dimension, then the overall verdict uses worst-rating aggregation — a node is only as strong as its weakest dimension — so a single disqualifying constraint cannot be averaged away. The substation is screened first because it is the one project variable that is both a primary value driver and durable across the asset's life.Sources · OpenInfraMap · Terna · ARERA QuEEN — per-dimension rating retained
output · validated substations
MODULE B

Land Scout

Spatial cadastral query, parcel sizing, adjacency aggregation, land-use filter, MASE suitable areas, slope filter (TINITALY DEM).

Robust methodology
Module B runs a spatial cadastral query over the catchment of each validated substation, applying dimensional filters (minimum parcel size and buildable footprint), morphological filters (slope derived from the TINITALY digital elevation model, DEM) and land-use filters. Adjacent eligible parcels are aggregated on a graph (adjacency logic) so contiguous holdings can be combined into a single buildable site. Candidate areas are cross-referenced against the MASE (Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Sicurezza Energetica) Aree Idonee — the national suitable-area registers. Every particella (cadastral parcel) carries full traceability: its source layer, the filters it passed and its provenance tag are retained for downstream modules.Sources · National cadastre · MASE Aree Idonee · TINITALY DEM — per-parcel provenance
output · candidate parcels
MODULE C

Infrastructure

Regulatory buffers: roads, rail, power lines, hydrography; sensitive-receptor filter; Sentinel-2; net usable area.

Robust methodology
Module C applies the regulatory infrastructural buffers mandated around roads, railways, power lines and hydrography (watercourses and water bodies), plus a sensitive-receptor filter that enforces setbacks around dwellings and other protected receptors. Built-up land is removed with a building/edificato filter, and the result is cross-validated against Sentinel-2 land-cover imagery to confirm actual ground conditions versus cadastral classification. Subtracting every infrastructural buffer and excluded zone from the gross parcel yields the net usable area (Spazio Utile Esterno, SUE) — the genuinely buildable surface carried forward.Sources · Regulatory buffer layers · Sentinel-2 land cover — net-area calculation traced
output · net buildable area
MODULE D

Environmental

Overlap-aware screening on 19 regulatory layers, BESS reversibility (R_BESS), cumulative-impact assessment.

Robust methodology
Module D performs overlap-aware screening across 19 regulatory layers grouped into six families (naturalistic/Natura 2000, landscape, hydrogeological, cultural-heritage, hazard and planning constraints). Overlap-aware logic resolves co-located constraints against one another rather than double-counting them, yielding a single coherent suitability verdict per parcel. A BESS-reversibility modifier (R_BESS) relaxes selected criteria where the storage asset is demonstrably reversible/removable, in line with MASE BESS-specific guidance, since a removable installation carries lower residual impact than a permanent one. A final cumulative-impact assessment (step D8) evaluates the combined effect of overlapping constraints. The output is a structured, per-layer record of which constraints apply and how each was resolved.Sources · 19 national regulatory layers (6 families) · MASE BESS criteria — per-layer record
output · environmental suitability
MODULE E

Deliverables

Parcel datasheets, ITX assessment, connection cost, DXF layout, interactive dashboard.

Robust methodology
Module E compiles the parcel-level outputs into decision-ready deliverables: per-particella datasheets carrying the full inherited attribute set, an ITX assessment (distance from connection / cable routing along public roads) with a preliminary connection-cost estimate, a DXF layout of the proposed plant footprint, and an interactive regional dashboard. Every figure is provenance-tagged — Official, Derived or Estimated — so each value traces back to the exact module, step and source that produced it. On-demand reports can be generated per site, giving investment and permitting teams a fully auditable basis for the go/no-go decision.Provenance · every figure tagged Official / Derived / Estimated — reproducible runs
output · decision-ready site
⊞

Centralised national data

The country's filtered connection points, its cadastral parcels, and its national regulatory layers — unified into one queryable model, per market.

Modules A · B · C
⚠

Risk flagged upfront

Constraints, buffers and environmental overlaps surface at screening time — not in due diligence three months later.

Module D
⇄

Grid connectivity, costed

Cable routing on public roads with a preliminary connection-cost estimate per site, ready for the investment committee.

Module E

Every number declares its provenance

Terranode never blurs measured fact with estimate. Each value carries one of three honest labels:

● Official ● Derived ● Estimated

Where a feed is a documented proxy pending an authoritative connection, the tool says so — visibly. Reproducible runs, immutable logs.

A motivated three-way verdict per site

Not a black-box score — a classification with the reasons attached:

Suitable Warning Excluded

Each verdict lists the binding criteria, the buffers applied, and the layers that moved it — auditable backward to the source.

The seam

A qualified site becomes a single typed input to the valuation engine.

There is no copy-paste, no re-keying, no second model. Terranode emits the site descriptor that SSI-ENN consumes directly — zone, capacity, asset type, connection and cost all flow across one interface.

Terranode output A buildable, connectable site

Net usable area · bidding zone · connection type · preliminary connection cost · environmental verdict — 40+ traced attributes.

→
SSI-ENN input One site descriptor, dropped in

The qualified site lands as a typed descriptor. Adding it to a portfolio is a drop-in — no new model, no class-specific code.

# Terranode-qualified site → SSI-ENN onboarding unit
site: cassano_017
  asset: BESS  zone: SUD  capacity_mw: 99
  connection: TSO@36kV
  conn_cost_m: 7.1  # from Module E
Layer 2 · Valuation & compliance overlay · SSI-ENN

SSI-ENN values the same asset through four lenses — then proves it.

One financial engine, four audiences — BESS, RES or a data centre. The investor sees return; the grid sees stakeholder value; the community sees welfare; the owner sees the revenue stack and what to build first. All four resolve from the same cash-flow model and the same source-traced inputs, and converge in a single decision memo. Figures below are illustrative of the output shape.

Lens 1 · Investor

What the asset returns

Risk-stratified DCF → project & equity IRR, NPV and a scenario envelope per asset profile.

An equity-IRR bridge from un-levered to levered return
Illustrative · central scenario · per cent
7.2 +3.1 +1.7 −0.6 11.4 Un-levered Leverage Tax shield Fees Equity IRR
Source: SSI-ENN · risk-stratified DCF (illustrative)
PROJECT + EQUITY IRRNPV · TEV · LCOS
Lens 2 · Grid

What it gives the network

Stakeholder value to the DSO and TSO — congestion relief, deferral, reliability and voltage support.

Grid-value components, ranked by 30-year contribution
Illustrative · €M NPV
Congestion deferral Reliability / SAIDI Voltage support Loss reduction Ancillary headroom 010€M
Source: SSI-ENN · V_DSO / V_TSO decomposition (illustrative)
V_DSO · V_TSOper-site, not averaged
Lens 3 · Community

What it gives the territory

Welfare across five pillars and the SSI v4 stress index — measured before and after deployment.

The SSI v4 stress hexagon contracts after deployment
Illustrative · steel = before, cayenne = after · CVIEST axes
C V I E S T before 0.248 after  0.168
Source: SSI-ENN · SSI v4.0.2, five welfare pillars (illustrative)
C·V·I·E·S·Twelfare in € + tier shift
Lens 4 · Owner

The revenue stack — and what to build first

How value splits across contracted, merchant and option revenue, plus deployment priority across the pipeline.

The 30-year revenue stack, by contract type
Illustrative · share of 30-yr revenue
Contracted — floor + capacity · ~57% Merchant · ~37% Option / emerging · ~6%
Source: SSI-ENN · revenue-stack decomposition (illustrative)
REVENUE STACK+ deployment priority
Decision memo — BESS · 9.9 MW / 39.6 MWh PRIORITY 5/5 · RECOMMENDED Illustrative · not a specific portfolio
Total stakeholder value~€32MV_DSO + V_Community + real-options value
30-yr revenue~€25Mcontracted · merchant · option
NPV · equity IRR · payback~€14M · ~12% · ~7 yrrisk-adjusted, central scenario
CAPEX~€7.0M9.9 MW / 39.6 MWh · ~€707/kW
Key risksMSD/CRS rule evolution · NIS2mitigated by congestion role + islanding
ProvenanceOfficial · Derived · Estimatedevery line traced to source
One memo per site — priority, total value, revenue, NPV/IRR/payback and key risks: the four lenses, converged. Figures illustrative of output shape; the underlying cost model has been reconciled against a real 99 MW STMG (Brindisi 1, Italy).

And a compliance pack that LPs and regulators accept as-is.

The same valuation outputs roll up into the disclosure frameworks an institutional allocator expects — derived from the figures, never re-attested by hand.

CSRD / ESRSSustainability disclosure
EU TaxonomyAlignment & DNSH
AIFMD IIDirective 2024/927
GIPS 2020Composite performance
SFDRPAI disclosure
The economics of getting the site wrong

Most projects that enter a grid queue never get built — and the ones that fail are blindsided late.

~4 in 5
projects entering a grid queue are withdrawn before ever reaching operation — only about one in five gets built.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Queued Up (2025); U.S. Dept. of Energy
€15–32k/MWn
development capital sunk to reach ready-to-build — roughly 3–5% of capex — and largely forfeited when a land constraint surfaces late. Excludes grid-connection deposits.
Industry development-cost norm; consistent with DESNZ pre-development share (Electricity Generation Costs 2023)
5×
the connection-cost surprise on top: withdrawn projects faced $373/kW against $73/kW for those that completed (storage ~$437/kW).
Berkeley Lab — Gorman et al. (2025)

The capital dies in Step 2 — full development to permits and authorisations. Terranode front-loads those failure modes — grid headroom, connection cost, buildability, permitting — back to Step 1, so capital commits to the one-in-five sites that survive, not the four-in-five that won't.

Figures per MW nominal (MWn). Development cash-at-risk excludes grid-connection deposits, which sit on top (see the connection-cost surprise). Attrition and connection data are U.S. (the best-documented market); the development-cost share follows UK DESNZ and industry norm — the grid-connection and permitting bottleneck binds across the OECD and EU alike.

The third risk · legal provenance

Even a fully-permitted asset can be unbuilt — when an authorisation doesn't hold.

Across the OECD, granted permits are appealed, annulled, and in the worst cases voided after construction — and the grounds are usually land issues a complete screen would have flagged. This is not an Italian quirk; it is structural.

Relative · how pervasive

~70% of French wind permits are appealed

France fast-tracked a dedicated litigation court to cope, and the Conseil d'État has struck down onshore-wind authorisation rules. Germany has roughly 6× more renewables capacity stuck in permitting than under construction.

Source: Bretagne Développement Innovation; Power Technology
Total loss · after construction

Norway voided its largest wind farms' licences

The Supreme Court (2021) declared the Fosen licences — Storheia + Roan, already built and operating — invalid for breaching Sámi rights. The flagship "authorisation overturned post-build" case.

Source: Supreme Court of Norway (HR-2021-1975-S)
Total loss · permit integrity

A 744 MW cluster frozen on an EIA-corruption probe

In Spain, a 125-turbine cluster faces annulment amid alleged manipulation of environmental approvals; in Italy, the largest anti-mafia confiscation in the sector reached €1.3bn.

Source: Recharge / EnergyWatch; Italy DIA Palermo

Most of these annulments rest on land grounds a complete screen would flag — visual saturation, protected species, indigenous land, agricultural-land protection, EIA integrity. Terranode's auditable, public-data constraint screen reduces exposure to those avoidable grounds and leaves a record that survives a challenge. It cannot insure against political reversal or third-party fraud — and doesn't claim to.

Why no one else has both

Plenty of tools find land. Some models value assets. One platform does the whole chain.

The moat isn't any single module — it's that origination, underwriting and reporting run on one engine, with one provenance chain, for storage and renewables, across the OECD and EU. And it attacks a quantified problem: €15–32k/MWn of development capital is sunk reaching ready-to-build (grid deposits on top), while four in five projects never get built. Terranode commits that capital only to the sites that survive.

01

End-to-end, not a stitched toolchain

From the national substation database to investor IRR, grid value, community welfare and a compliance pack — without exporting to a second model that loses the audit trail.

02

One provenance chain across both layers

Every figure — a slope value in Terranode's Module B, an equity IRR in the SSI-ENN investor lens — traces to its source. Reproducible runs; immutable logs; Official / Derived / Estimated on everything.

03

Multi-jurisdiction by design, market-true at each step

One engine; a regulatory layer swapped per country. Italy is live and validated today (MASE suitable areas, CEI buffers, zonal market, AIFMD II / CSRD as Italy applies them); the same architecture extends to every OECD and EU market.

04

Storage, renewables and data centres — four audiences, one number set

BESS, RES or a data centre; investor, grid, community and owner valuations are not four spreadsheets that disagree — they are four views of the same cash-flow model and the same validated site, converged in one decision memo.

Engineering discipline

Built to be audited, not just admired.

Both layers share one non-negotiable spine. It's why the output survives due diligence.

Reproducible

Same inputs and configuration in, identical output out — every run, every time. No hidden state, no drift between executions.

Auditable

Every analytical decision is traced with explicit provenance to its source. Each run leaves an immutable record, verifiable backward to the step that produced it.

Honest about proxies

The platform declares openly what is measured, what is derived from official sources, and what is estimated via a documented proxy. When data is missing, it says so.

Request access

Bring a site from map to mandate on one auditable pipeline.

For developers of storage and renewable assets across the OECD and EU who want a shortlist they can defend in front of an investment committee — and a valuation they can hand to an LP.

Request a walkthrough → Re-read the stack