Skip to content

1 paper indexed here

We haven’t gathered this author’s papers yet. Follow them and we’ll fetch their work.

Not the right person? Other researchers publish under this name.

Open access Jul 2026

Designing Data Centers for Demand Response Through a Construction-Phase Readiness Index

AI-driven growth is pushing data-center electricity demand from 415 TWh (2024) toward 945 TWh by 2030. Demand-response research has matured on operational levers but treats the physical envelope as largely exogenous, leaving construction-phase decisions that bound achievable flexibility unmodeled. This article integrates three previously separate bodies of literature (data-center demand response, grid-interactive efficient buildings, and stochastic optimal control under irreversibility) into a single framework that prices construction-phase flexibility as a portfolio of real options, pairing elicitation-derived (FAHP) weights with simulation-derived (Sobol) variance indices. None of the individual techniques is new; the contribution is their synthesis and the finding that architectural and site decisions carry the dominant financial leverage in the model, whereas a literature-grounded synthetic-persona prior (twenty-five LLM-simulated personas) prioritizes mechanical-electrical systems; a divergence we frame as a screening diagnostic between an LLM prior and the model. The Flex-by-Design Readiness Index (FDRI) is a nineteen-dimension taxonomy across architectural, MEP, and site-urban layers, weighted by Fuzzy AHP. The FDRI–ROV model formalizes the decision as stochastic optimal control under irreversibility. Calibrated to PJM, ERCOT, and CAISO (2024–2026) for a 100 MW plant at N = 10,000 paths over thirty years, it yields +$79 M net option value at Full FDRI for PJM (additive upper bound; substitution-corrected ≈ +$41 M, 1.7× CapEx; 2.4× CapEx PJM, 2.1× ERCOT, 2.8× CAISO); on both the additive (2.4–2.8×) and corrected (1.7×) bases the pre-registered H2 threshold of Vtotal/Ctotal ≥ 3× is not met. Sobol decomposition places architectural and site layers at ST ≈ 0.56 each versus MEP at 0.15, exposing waste-heat-export and regulatory-avoided-cost dimensions as under-recognized leverage. Out-of-sample validation against four hyperscale projects yields 11% MAPE, reported as an n = 4, single-period proof of concept.A pro-rata extrapolation across all ~43 GW of incremental U.S. capacity gives a nominal ~$34 billion through 2035, but this applies the single most optimistic scenario uniformly; applying the substitution-corrected per-plant value with competition, policy, and adoption decay multipliers, the defensible 2035 opportunity is ≈$3–$18 billion (central ≈$7 billion), with $34 billion retained only as an undecayed ceiling.

A. Shafaghat, Da Hu, Ali Keyvanfar · 0 citations