The ranking depends on what you decide matters
The Multi-Impact Composite equally weights six normalised pillars. That equality is a choice, not a fact. Re-weight toward energy, water scarcity, community or climate and the ordering moves — sometimes by hundreds of places.
The composite is a dataset-relative ranking, not an absolute measure of environmental harm. A facility at rank 1 is the most exposed on these six normalised indicators within this dataset — nothing more. Never present a composite score without naming its weighting scheme.
Top facilities under "Equal (default)"
Rank movement is measured against the comparison scheme on the right.
Least stable rankings
Maximum places moved across all six weighting schemes. High values mean the facility's position is an artefact of the weighting choice.
What each weighting asserts
All six dimensions matter identically. Simple, defensible, and almost certainly wrong for any specific decision.
Prioritises grid load — the frame of a system operator or energy regulator.
Prioritises demand in stressed basins — the frame of a state water authority.
Prioritises population exposure and proximity — the frame of a local planning objection.
Prioritises carbon and climate exposure — the frame of a national decarbonisation target.
The workbook's own considered weighting, documented in the methodology sheet.
Findings that hold across all six weightings are robust to the value judgement. Findings that appear under one weighting and vanish under another are statements about the weighting, not about the facility — and should be reported that way.