Facility scorecard, format example
Blackwater Ridge Campus
Tier
78 of 100 points. Every pillar clears the 12-point Full-tier floor: Water and Resource Efficiency 13, Additive Energy 14, Siting and Local Environment 18, Fiscal Accountability 15, Verified Community Benefit 18. Full tier requires 80 points in total; this facility is two short.
Where the points were lost
Twenty-two points, and two of them decide the tier. The largest single loss is item F2: the facility has published no independent fiscal impact analysis, so neither the county nor its residents can see the value of the twenty-year abatement set against the public cost of the infrastructure the campus requires. That is five points and it would be the cheapest five points on this scorecard to earn. Heat recovery accounts for four more; the facility exports none, and holds only readiness credit for an inspected tie-in and a feasibility study. Energy accounts for six: hourly matching at 71% sits in the middle band, and only 31% of matched supply is additive. Two points are lost at item L3 because the permit caps generator hours without prohibiting non-emergency dispatch, and two at item C4 because committed contributions come to roughly 1.4% of disclosed capital investment, inside the lower band. Water usage effectiveness of 0.21 L/kWh costs three, which the operator attributes to a hybrid trim mode used on nine days in July 2025, disclosed.
The facility is two points below the Full tier threshold and clears the 12-point floor in every pillar. Publishing the fiscal analysis alone would carry it over.
Pillar One: Water and Resource Efficiency 13 / 20
| Item | Requirement | Points | Evidence and assessor note |
|---|---|---|---|
| W1 | Closed-loop, non-evaporative cooling, verified on site | 5 / 5 | Closed loop confirmed on site visit; makeup water metered at 1.1 m3/day |
| W2 | WUE per ISO/IEC 30134-9, trailing 12 months | 2 / 5 | 0.21 L/kWh; below the 0.10 band, within the 0.30 band |
| W3 | Zero potable water for cooling in normal operation | 2 / 2 | Emergency backup capped at 40,000 gal/yr; 0 used |
| W4 | Source and 90-day demand disclosure; authority consultation; no pretreatment discharge | 2 / 2 | Disclosed 2025-03; acknowledgment on file; discharge reconciled |
| R1 | Measured ERF per ISO/IEC 30134-6 | 0 / 3 | No heat export in the assessment period |
| R2 | Committed heat reuse pathway | 1 / 2 | Feasibility study naming the county technical centre greenhouse and a district loop; no signed offtake |
| R3 | Export-ready design: heat exchanger and tie-in installed | 1 / 1 | Tie-in inspected; pipe stubbed to the property line |
Pillar Two: Additive Energy 14 / 20
| Item | Requirement | Points | Evidence and assessor note |
|---|---|---|---|
| E1 | Hourly matched carbon-free energy, trailing 12 months, same grid region | 7 / 10 | 71% hourly matched; within the 70% band |
| E2 | Share of matched supply from additive generation | 2 / 5 | 31% from a solar project reaching commercial operation 14 months before the facility |
| E3 | Interconnection terms, load ramp, 90-day disclosure, ratepayer analysis, full upgrade cost | 4 / 4 | All four conditions met; ramp published to 2028 |
| E4 | Demand response from load or storage, not on-site combustion | 1 / 1 | Six events served from load shifting, 2025 |
Pillar Three: Siting and Local Environment 18 / 20
| Item | Requirement | Points | Evidence and assessor note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | Not sited in a highest-quintile burden tract for air, groundwater, or hazardous waste | 4 / 4 | State screening tool, assessed 2024-09: tract in the third quintile for air quality, second for groundwater |
| S2 | No siting on a contaminated or priority-list site; land conversion disclosed | 2 / 2 | Phase I and II clean; 118 acres former row crop, disclosed with agricultural classification |
| L1 | Night sound at the nearest residential property line, against ambient and an absolute ceiling | 6 / 6 | Ambient 41 dBA; measured 44 to 47 dBA across the year, inside the stricter of the two tests after the May chiller fan replacement |
| L2 | Ambient survey published; quarterly monitoring by a party not contracted by the operator | 2 / 2 | Survey published 2024-11; township contractor; four quarters published, longest lag 12 days |
| L3 | Tier 4 engines; run hours capped and published; no demand-response or economic dispatch | 2 / 4 | All engines Tier 4; 38 hours published for 2025. The permit caps annual hours but does not prohibit non-emergency dispatch; the operator has committed to seek that condition at renewal |
| L4 | Dark-sky lighting; no measurable trespass; photometric plan published | 1 / 1 | Night inspection found no measurable trespass |
| L5 | Buffers at or above the greater of local requirement or 100 feet; plant screened | 1 / 1 | 140-foot buffer at the Quarry Road boundary; generators and chillers enclosed |
Pillar Four: Fiscal Accountability 15 / 20
| Item | Requirement | Points | Evidence and assessor note |
|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | All abatements, exemptions, PILOT and incentive agreements published; no NDA over any term | 5 / 5 | County abatement and township agreement published 2024-12; no NDA |
| F2 | Independent fiscal impact analysis published before first approval, over the full abatement term | 0 / 5 | No fiscal impact analysis has been published. The county's own estimate of forgone revenue over the 20-year abatement is not public. This is the facility's single largest scoring loss |
| F3 | Community fund contributions secured by letter of credit, escrow, or parent guarantee, two years minimum | 5 / 5 | Letter of credit for $560,000, approximately two years of committed payments, issued by a federally insured bank |
| F4 | First responder training at no cost; incident cost recovery above a stated threshold | 3 / 3 | 18 members trained on electrical and battery systems; recovery above $25,000 per incident agreed with the fire company |
| F5 | Construction and operational traffic study published; road improvements funded | 2 / 2 | Study published 2024-08; Quarry Road improvements funded and complete |
Pillar Five: Verified Community Benefit 18 / 20
| Item | Requirement | Points | Evidence and assessor note |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | Resident-majority council, Council-contracted facilitator, stipends and paid coordinator | 3 / 3 | Five of seven seats held by residents; stipends paid from the fund |
| C2 | Participatory needs assessment | 2 / 2 | Published 2025-03; 14 sessions, 212 participants |
| C3 | Matched contribution under a signed fund agreement, with equipment refresh as a triggering event | 4 / 4 | Operator share and buyer match received on schedule, six quarters; refresh clause executed 2026-02 |
| C4 | Committed contributions as a share of total capital investment | 2 / 4 | Committed contributions over the 20-year term are approximately 1.4% of disclosed capital investment of $1.9 billion; within the 1.0% band, below the 2.0% band |
| C5 | Quarterly public reporting against every commitment; agreement published | 3 / 3 | Six of six reports within 30 days; agreement public |
| C6 | Local hiring and contracting results, plus a credentialed training pathway | 2 / 2 | 44% of operating roles held by county residents; 22 apprentices enrolled at the county technical centre |
| C7 | Digital access assessed and fundable | 1 / 1 | Broadband gap identified; middle-mile fibre funded; route assessed |
| C8 | Electronic waste: lifecycle plan with the reuse and recycling chain published | 1 / 1 | Plan published 2025-06; destination facilities named for the 2028 refresh |
Program designer and disclosure
The facility's community benefit program was designed by Baseload Commons, a recognized program designer owned by the Council's convener. In accordance with the Governance and Independence Policy, the convener took no part in assessor assignment, the assessment, or the Certification Committee's decision, and had no access to the draft report before the decision. Assessors confirmed no prior involvement with the facility or the designer's work. The program is facilitated by a facilitator contracted by the Council, not by the operator or the designer.
Community fund
| Quarter | Operator contribution | Buyer match | Grants paid | Balance | Foundation statement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 2025 | $120,000 | $0 | $0 | $111,600 | Statement |
| Q2 2025 | $120,000 | $60,000 | $120,000 | $159,000 | Statement |
| Q3 2025 | $160,000 | $80,000 | $450,000 | ($67,800)* | Statement |
| Q4 2025 | $160,000 | $95,000 | $300,000 | ($75,650)* | Statement |
* Negative balances reflect grants committed ahead of receipts under a bridge arrangement with the foundation, disclosed in the fund statement and repaid from Q1 2026 inflows. The assessor notes this as a governance point to watch, not a finding. Cumulative to June 30, 2026: $1,333,000 received, $965,000 granted, $93,310 retained for facilitation, assessment and custody.
Community validation
Nine members of the advisory council were interviewed without the operator present. All confirmed that priorities were set by the council from the needs assessment, that the operator holds no vote on grants, and that minutes are posted. Two raised the late posting of the March 2026 minutes; one raised construction traffic on Quarry Road, referred to the township's complaint process. The fiscal agent confirmed receipt and disbursement of every payment listed above. Complaints received through the Council's public channel during the assessment period: one, concerning nighttime noise in May 2025, investigated and closed after the operator replaced a chiller fan; readings returned to 44 to 47 dBA.
Conditions and status
- Decommissioning and continuity: the operator's decommissioning and site restoration plan is due December 2026 under the community benefit agreement and under Section 9 of the standard. If it is not filed by the next re-audit, the facility is capped at Entry tier.
- Material misstatement: none found. All submitted claims reconciled to utility, water authority, interconnection, and foundation records.
- Status: Certified, Provisional tier. Not suspended.
Record
This scorecard, every quarterly fund statement, and the assessment summary remain published after any re-tiering, suspension, sale, or decommissioning, and are never removed at the operator's request. Assessment conducted by a Lead Technical Assessor (licensed PE), an Energy Analyst, and the Council's Community Assessor, with second review; roles are published, names are available on request to the Certification Committee.