KILO.LAND
Use case · Energy & grid feasibility

Site the project before the interconnection study tells you no.

Two parcels with the same transmission distance can have completely different timelines once SHPD and the LUC are in scope. KILO returns a parcel-level read on grid access, modeled solar yield, hosting-capacity posture, and the cultural and regulatory cascade — fast enough to run a dozen candidate parcels in an afternoon.

Request access→See the demo
The problem

Grid access is only half the question. The other half is what's under the land.

Hawaiʻi has the most aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard in the country — 100% renewable electricity by 2045 under HRS §269-92 — and roughly 5.8 kWh/m²/day of solar irradiance, about 17% above the national average. The economics for utility-scale solar are among the strongest in the country.

The siting friction is also among the highest. Grid-only platforms tell you transmission and substation proximity but say nothing about whether the land itself is permittable. Regulatory tools treat energy infrastructure as out of scope. Pick the wrong parcel and the project economics collapse before the PPA is signed.

What the screen returns

Two axes at once: can it connect, and can it be permitted.

KILO surfaces grid-infrastructure access, modeled solar yield, and hosting-capacity posture alongside the cultural-resource, Ka Paʻakai, water, shoreline, and zoning layers — every conclusion traced to its source. A candidate-parcel comparison is honest about both axes, not grid-only-then-permit-surprise.

The feasibility signals — grid access, solar resource, developable terrain, and IRA §48E incentive context — roll up into a single Renewable Siting read: one band per axis with a plain-language headline naming the binding constraint. It's a siting- feasibility screen, not a composite score or a production estimate; the cultural / §6E cascade stays a separate read.

Energy access + permittability — combined per parcelPublic sources · proximity bands + statutory cites
Transmission proximityDistance to nearest ≥35 kV line via HIFLD (federal CISA/DHS dataset) with voltage class and operator — where the interconnect cost lives.GRID
Substation proximityDistance to nearest ≥69 kV transmission substation — where capacity upgrades would have to land for utility-scale interconnection.GRID
Solar yieldNREL PVWatts v8 annual kWh-per-kW modeled against the NSRDB typical meteorological year — what the finance model multiplies project size against.SOLAR
Hosting capacity + queue postureDeep-links to the right HECO Locational Value Map and Integrated Interconnection Queue for the parcel's island — where utility-scale developers learn whether the circuit has room.GRID
Developable terrainLidar-derived low-slope buildable share of the parcel — usable acreage per MW before grading, and where the earthwork lands.TERRAIN
§48E energy-community incentiveWhether the parcel sits in an IRA §48E energy community (coal-closure or fossil-fuel-employment area) carrying the 10% investment-tax-credit adder, read alongside state renewable-energy incentive zones. Area eligibility only; confirm with a tax advisor.INCENTIVE
Cultural & Ka Paʻakai exposureWhether SHPD §6E-42 review will require an Archaeological Inventory Survey, and whether agency-triggered Ka Paʻakai O Ka ʻAina three-prong analysis is in scope. Utility-scale solar typically triggers both.CULTURE
Water + shoreline + zoningCoastal setback, SLR exposure, BWS / CWRM / SDWA UIC posture, conservation-district status, LUO base-zoning — the layers that decide which parcels are actually buildable.REG
One read, both axes — so site selection isn't grid-only-then- permit-surprise, or permittability-only-then-grid-surprise.
How it works

Three steps, before the LOI is signed.

01
Run candidate parcels at site selection
Enter TMKs or click points; KILO returns risk band, energy access, and the cited reasoning trace fast enough to run a dozen candidate parcels in an afternoon.
02
Compare the cascade, not just the grid
Two parcels with the same transmission distance can have completely different permittability and timeline exposure. KILO surfaces both axes so the comparison is honest.
03
Move on the right parcel, with a defensible record
Every conclusion is traced to its source — defensible in an investment committee, an IPP RFP response, or a regulator briefing.
See a sample report→Request access
Other use cases
Acquisition & LOI ScreeningPipeline ScreeningLoan & Title UnderwritingPortfolio ReviewPermitting & Section 106 Pre-ConsultationCesspool & Wastewater ScreeningFlood & FEMA FIRM Readiness
Request access

Tell us about the deal you'd use it on.

Access is invite-only during beta. Tell us about an RFP target, a candidate parcel set, or a class of acquisitions — the more concrete, the faster we triage.