Jurisdiction Watch gathers a broad, structured body of evidence about each of 50 states’ jurisdictions and 200 countries, and compiles it into a small set of comparable, trademarked scores. The goal is simple: turn scattered, unstructured signals about development posture into something you can read at a glance — and trust to the degree the evidence allows.
Every jurisdiction — U.S. and international — is mapped against a wide, continuously updated evidence base — assembled from public records, primary-source verification, and structured inference, then normalized so places of very different size and type can be compared fairly.
Statutes, ordinances, zoning and land-use frameworks, moratoria, and the direction of recent policy.
Approval patterns, timelines, discretionary review, and the track record of how projects actually move.
Generation and transmission capacity, interconnection posture, utility relationships, and grid headroom.
Surface and groundwater capacity, drought and scarcity risk, cooling-water demand, and the regulatory posture toward water-intensive development.
Public sentiment, organized support and opposition, hearings, and the local record of contested projects.
Tax structures, abatements, development programs, workforce, and the broader economic context.
Existing and announced development, concentration of activity, and where new projects are emerging.
A continuously monitored source network — regulatory dockets, permitting records, grid operators, water authorities, and local coverage — feeding every jurisdiction's evidence base as conditions change.
Every input is dated and sourced, and each attribute carries an evidence label (verified, sourced, inferred or estimated) — so the record behind a score is as legible as the score itself.
The composite read on how a jurisdiction leans toward large-scale development. It draws on every dimension of the evidence base — regulatory climate, permitting behavior, power and grid readiness, community response, and incentives — and resolves them into a single, comparable posture score.
The nine-tier composite on a 100-point Faraday Scale: Power, Community, Water, Network, Environmental, Regulatory, Incentives, Labor and Real estate / site, each read from sourced attributes and weighted into one comparable suitability score. A separate completeness grade shows how much of the evidence base is populated, so you can tell 'strong' from 'strong, but thinly evidenced.'
The measure of facility and pipeline density — where development activity is already concentrated versus where it is only beginning to emerge. It puts posture in context: a favorable jurisdiction with no activity reads very differently from a favorable one that is already building. Published at state and county grain.
The measure of where a jurisdiction is headed. Built from the windows we actually hold — utility capital investment 2020–2025, grid build activity in 2026, and the 2026 posture series — JTS publishes the direction of each trajectory attribute with its evidence label. Horizons extend only as data lands.
Regulatory is evidenced by air-quality designation and permitting activity; a county absent from EPA's nonattainment list reads as attainment. Most counties carry no EPA nonattainment or maintenance designation. Attainment here is by absence of an EPA designation; EPA's county list is complete, so absence reads as attainment. The county brief says so on its Regulatory block.
JPS, JPAS, JDS and JTS are trademarks of Jurisdiction Watch. The underlying weightings and models are proprietary; each published score carries its completeness grade and grain so nothing is presented as more certain than the evidence supports.
Quantitative analysis for 50 states and 200 countries — live today.
Coverage is published at state and county grain across the United States, with country-level posture for 190+ countries. The dataset is alive, not archival; sub-national international scoring is rolling out market by market.