Rising AI electricity demand and persistent landfill methane emissions constitute coupled constraints on U.S. digital infrastructure and decarbonization. While China has achieved a rapid 'de-landfilling' transition through centralized coordination, the U.S. remains structurally 'locked in' to landfilling due to fragmented governance and carbon accounting incentives. This paper proposes a modular legacy landfill remediation framework to address these dual challenges within U.S. institutional constraints. By treating legacy sites as stock resources, the proposed system integrates excavation, screening, and behind-the-meter combined heat and power (CHP) to transform environmental liabilities into resilience assets. A system analysis of a representative AI corridor demonstrates that such modules can mitigate site-level methane by 60-70% and recover urban land, while supplying approximately 20 MW of firm, islandable power. Although contributing only approximately 5% of a hyperscale data center's bulk load, it provides critical microgrid resilience and black-start capability. We conclude that remediation-oriented waste-to-energy should be valued not as a substitute for bulk renewables, but as a strategic control volume for buffering critical loads against grid volatility while resolving long-term environmental liabilities.

AI data centers (AIDCs) are often described as electricity-hungry assets. This study treats AI DCs as gigawatt-scale capital builds and focuses on how a small set of REE-bound subcomponents enter the campus cost stack yet exert outsized leverage on delivery timelines. Generic criticality rankings and sector-level demand narratives rarely locate this dependence inside the campus cost stack, where procurement decisions and lead times are actually managed. An auditable bridge is developed from build economics to element-level exposure. A per-GW AI-campus CAPEX baseline is decomposed into a transparent taxonomy of buckets and subcomponents, then mapped to REE-bound components using documented physical mechanisms. Bounded cost-intensity parameters and a 0–2 schedule-at-risk score are used to discipline uncertainty and separate cost exposure from schedule vulnerability. These inputs are consolidated into a traceable Rare-earth Exposure (REX) metric and extended with forward-looking scenarios that jointly evolve CAPEX mix and intensity parameters under plausible architecture shifts and substitution pathways. In the baseline (mid) case, total mapped exposure is ≈ US$158.0M/GW, concentrated in IT equipment (≈ US$149.2M/GW; 94.4%) with a smaller cooling contribution (≈ US$8.8M/GW; 5.6%). Servers and accelerators account for ≈ US$138.8M/GW (87.8%), dominated by Nd (≈ US$83.3M/GW) and Pr (≈ US$34.7M/GW), with heavy-REE add-ons (Dy ≈ US$16.7M/GW; Tb ≈ US$4.2M/GW). Normalized, Nd exposure is 17.49 bp of total CAPEX. Cost share and delivery risk need not align: schedule-weighted exposure can be driven by long-lead, qualification-sensitive components. Scenario results show that design evolution reallocates exposure across elements and channels, revealing both mitigating and amplifying pathways that static assessments miss.

AI data-center (DC) growth is increasingly constrained by limited deliverable electricity, interconnection capacity, and cooling demand. This study develops a boundary-consistent screening framework for waste-to-energy (WtE)-coupled AI DC cooling, treating cooling as an energy service that can be supplied through grade matching rather than solely through electricity-driven mechanical chilling. The framework translates plant-side exportable heat into corridor-level planning objects by explicitly accounting for thermal attenuation, absorption-based conversion, and parasitic electricity associated with delivery and auxiliaries. Three results structure the analysis. First, a reference-case energy-service ledger shows how a representative regulated WtE plant with municipal solid-waste throughput of 1500 t/day and lower heating value of 10 MJ/kg yields ~78.1 MWth of exportable driving heat and, at a 20 km corridor, ~53.0 MWcool of delivered cooling and ~8.0 MWe of net avoided cooling electricity after parasitic debiting. Second, the coupled system is governed by operating regimes, not a single efficiency score. Under the baseline package, full thermal coverage is maintained up to ~20.9 km, the stricter quality-adjusted criterion remains positive to ~22.9 km, and the electricity–relief criterion remains positive to ~44.7 km. Third, deployment-scale translation for a 1 GW IT campus ($u=0.70$, $L=5 \mathrm{k}$m) implies a net grid relief of ~116.9–264.4 MW across scenario packages, while the required WtE footprint ranges from roughly three to 148 equivalent representative plants, or about 0.6–40 full-load-equivalent plants at a 25% displacement target. The contribution is a siting-ready planning framework that identifies when WtE-coupled cooling remains corridor-feasible, when it becomes hybrid and marginal, and when infrastructure scale rather than thermodynamic benefit becomes the binding constraint. It is intended as a screening tool for planning and comparison, not as a project-specific hydraulic or plant-cycle design.

AI infrastructure is entering a constraint-dominated regime in which power access, cooling, water conditions, reliability, and financing jointly shape cost, sustainability, and operational risk. Yet the metrics used to evaluate these systems remain fragmented across facility engineering, compute/workload performance, and economic or risk analysis, with definitions that often sit at different layers and under different boundaries. This fragmentation weakens cross-layer reasoning and makes decision-traceable trade-off analysis difficult. This paper proposes a structured, decision-oriented measurement architecture for AI infrastructure metrics. The framework combines a 6 × 3 taxonomy, which organizes metrics across six layers and three semantic domains, with a procedural workflow built around a problem card, variable registry, minimality gate record, activated-cell map, boundary log, metric ledger, and a results sheet with case-pack manifest. Within this protocol, the Metric Propagation Graph is used as a case-specific dependency representation for tracing decision-facing metrics back to minimal boundary-consistent inputs. It is introduced as a traceability layer within the framework rather than as a stand-alone graph-theoretic method. The paper is illustrated through one fully worked case and one scoped portability illustration. The first is a fully worked large-load planning case for the Northern Virginia data-center corridor within PJM’s Dominion zone, showing that a boundary-consistent integrated metric can reverse the ranking obtained under a simpler screening view. The second is a scoped portability illustration for hourly matching under dual Scope 2 boundaries. Its purpose is not to provide a second full empirical validation, but to show how the same dossier logic, boundary discipline, and traceable metric construction transfer to a distinct decision setting.

Multi-campus AI data centers procure identical hardware and service SKUs across geographically heterogeneous locations, yet finance and operations require a single system-level benchmark (“world price”) per SKU for budgeting, chargeback, and capacity planning. Naive deployment-weighted aggregation preserves total cost but can induce Simpson-type aggregation bias, where heterogeneous location mixes reverse global SKU rankings and weaken managerial decision signals. This study formalizes the problem of location-robust, cost-preserving aggregation and develops two mathematically structured operators for production cost pipelines. The first operator applies a two-way fixed-effects decomposition to separate global SKU effects from campus-specific premia, followed by normalization to guarantee exact cost preservation. This yields an interpretable benchmark that performs well when campus coverage is sufficiently broad and location effects remain approximately additive. The second operator solves a constrained convex common-weight optimization, producing a unified set of non-negative campus weights that preserves total cost while providing the strongest protection against dominance reversals in the ordered setting. Simulation experiments and a semi-real calibrated AI datacenter OPEX illustration show that both operators substantially improve ranking stability relative to naive blending, while the convex operator serves as the more conservative safeguard under adverse heterogeneity. The resulting detect–correct–validate workflow provides a scalable decision-support framework for robust cost aggregation in distributed AI infrastructure and illustrates how symmetry-preserving aggregation operators can stabilize benchmarking in large heterogeneous systems.