J2 Infrastructure · New Mexico Infrastructure Pitch Competition
A statewide student challenge to design the infrastructure New Mexico needs next — and to back it with a real financial model. Pitch a project. Model the returns. Compete for a share of the prize pool.
The Challenge
Teams of students propose a real infrastructure project sited in New Mexico — energy, water, transportation, digital, or any asset that communities depend on. The deliverable is two parts: a seven-page pitch deck telling the story, and a financial model showing the economics and returns.
The competition runs in two stages. Every submission is screened on the written materials to select the top five finalists, who are then invited to present live to a panel of judges drawn from state government, infrastructure investing, and economic development.
You don't need to have built anything. You need a credible idea, a clear story, and a model you can defend. We give you the templates to start from — including a sample deck and a generalized financial model that works for any infrastructure asset.
What Counts as Infrastructure
Infrastructure is broad on purpose. If it's a physical or digital asset a community relies on, and it can be financed, it qualifies. A few directions teams often take:
Solar, wind, batteries, microgrids, rural electrification, and grid upgrades — power for communities the grid reaches last.
Drinking water, wastewater treatment, irrigation, water reuse, and watershed projects in an arid state where every drop counts.
Roads, bridges, public transit, freight and logistics, and EV charging that connect dispersed communities.
Broadband and fiber lines, cell towers, and the equipment that gets rural homes, schools, and businesses online.
Housing-related infrastructure, warehouses, cold storage for farms, and community or industrial buildings.
Wildfire prevention, flood protection, and projects that help New Mexico communities withstand extreme weather.
Key Dates
Exact dates will be confirmed when registration opens. The structure below is what to plan around.
Teams register and download the templates. Info sessions on campuses across the state.
Open to all NM studentsSubmit your seven-page deck and financial model. This is the only material judges see in the screening round.
Deck + ModelJudges score every submission against the Stage 1 rubric. The five highest-scoring teams advance.
Top 5 selectedFinalists present to the judging panel and take questions. Winners announced and prizes awarded the same day.
Live pitch + Q&AWhat to Submit
Templates & Resources
These are working templates and exact scoring sheets the judges use. Start from the sample deck and model, and check your work against the rubrics before you submit.
A complete seven-page sample deck for a fictional solar-storage microgrid, showing the structure, rigor, and design judges look for.
Download ↓A generalized infrastructure model — pick your project type and the units relabel automatically. Builds revenue, costs, financing, and returns.
Download ↓The exact rubric judges use to screen submissions and pick the top five. Score it against yourself before you submit.
Download ↓The finals rubric — written score carried over plus live delivery, Q&A, and overall judgment. See exactly how finalists are evaluated.
Download ↓All four files download directly from this page — no sign-in required. The sample deck and model are illustrative; replace every figure with your own researched assumptions.
How You're Scored
Submissions are scored 1–5 on each criterion. The written round weights the deck and the model; the live final adds delivery, Q&A, and overall investability. Read the full rubrics below.
The Panel
A senior official representing the state's economic and fiscal priorities.
An infrastructure investor evaluating the project as a real opportunity.
A member of the SIC investment team assessing returns and structure.
An EDNM leader weighing local jobs, dollars, and statewide impact.
The Full Rubrics
Each criterion is scored 1–5. The descriptions below are the anchors judges use for a 1, a 3, and a 5 (2 and 4 fall in between). These match the downloadable scorecards exactly.
| Criterion | 1 — Poor | 3 — Meets bar | 5 — Exceptional |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pitch Deck | |||
| Problem & opportunity | Vague, unquantified, or not specific to New Mexico. | Clear NM-specific problem with some data and a credible reason it matters now. | Sharp, well-sized problem with strong evidence and a compelling, timely catalyst. |
| Solution & infrastructure fit | Unclear, or not genuinely an infrastructure project. | Sound infrastructure asset that plausibly solves the problem. | Credible solution clearly matched to the need and the NM context. |
| Market, pipeline & defensibility | Hand-wavy market; no barriers shown. | Reasonable sizing with at least one credible barrier to entry. | Rigorous market, identified pipeline, and a durable advantage. |
| Impact to New Mexico | Impact claimed with no metrics or link to state priorities. | Concrete local benefits (jobs, dollars, resilience) tied to NM goals. | Quantified, sourced impact aligned to state priorities and scalable. |
| Clarity & professionalism | Disorganized or sloppy; over the 7-page limit. | Logical 7-page flow, readable visuals, few errors. | Investment-grade narrative and design; every page earns its place. |
| Financial Model | |||
| Assumptions & sourcing | Key inputs unsupported or undocumented. | Most assumptions reasonable and partly sourced. | All key assumptions defensible, cited, and clearly laid out. |
| Model works & ties out | Errors or logic that doesn't add up. | Runs cleanly; revenue, costs, and cash flow are coherent. | Error-free and well-built; deck and model numbers match. |
| Returns & financeability | No real returns analysis, or implausible. | Credible returns (e.g. IRR, payback) and a basic financing plan. | Full returns picture with a realistic, financeable capital stack. |
| Risk & sensitivity | Risks ignored; single estimate only. | Key risks named with at least one what-if. | Honest risks with mitigants and a sensitivity that stress-tests the plan. |
Scoring: write 1–5 per criterion and add the column (out of 45). Highest average across judges advances. Download the scorecard above to score along.
| Criterion | 1 — Poor | 3 — Meets bar | 5 — Exceptional |
|---|---|---|---|
| Written Submission | |||
| Written score carried over | Weak written submission overall. | Solid written submission overall. | Outstanding written submission. (Tip: team's Stage 1 total ÷ 9, rounded to 1–5.) |
| Live Presentation | |||
| Delivery & storytelling | Reads slides; unclear or runs long. | Clear, on-time delivery the room can follow. | Compelling, confident, and lands the thesis. |
| Command of the financials | Can't explain their own numbers. | Explains the key drivers and returns accurately. | Fluent; walks any number back to its assumption on the spot. |
| Q&A & handling pushback | Defensive or folds under one hard question. | Answers most questions credibly; honest about gaps. | Thinks on feet; defends or concedes with good judgment. |
| Team cohesion & credibility | One person carries it; team seems unprepared. | Team shares the load and seems able to execute. | Every member adds value; clearly the right team to build this. |
| Overall Judgment | |||
| Would you fund it? | No — thesis or economics don't hold. | Fundable with conditions; a reasonable bet. | Yes — would back it today; compelling risk-adjusted return. |
| NM impact & fit (live case) | Live case for NM impact is weak. | Credible live case for local impact and state fit. | Powerfully connects the project to NM's future. |
Scoring: write 1–5 per criterion and add the column (out of 40). The written score carries in as one line. Download the scorecard above to score along.
The Prize Pool
Prizes are awarded to the top three finalists at the live final. Final amounts will be confirmed at registration.
Questions
No. The financial model template is built so you describe your project in plain physical terms — how much capacity, how heavily it's used, what it charges — and the returns calculate from there. The sample deck and model show you exactly what a strong submission looks like.
It must be a credible, plausible project sited in New Mexico, but it does not need to exist yet. Judges are evaluating the quality of the idea, the story, and the financial reasoning — not whether you've broken ground.
Yes. The templates are a starting point and a quality bar, not a requirement. The only hard rule is the seven-page limit on the deck. Your model must show assumptions, a revenue build, costs, a capital stack, and returns.
Every submission is scored against the Stage 1 rubric on nine criteria covering the deck and the model. The five teams with the highest average scores across judges advance to the live final.
Finalists present their project to the judging panel in Albuquerque and answer questions. Judges score the live round — which carries over the written score and adds delivery, command of the numbers, and overall investability. Winners are announced the same day.
Light mentorship is fine, but the work must be the team's own. To keep things fair, judges affiliated with competing universities recuse themselves from scoring teams from their own institution.
Ready to Build?
Download the templates, build your project, then submit through our official entry form. If you have questions about eligibility, format, or the financial model, reach out — we're happy to help.
New Mexico is a state of vast distances and dispersed communities — and that geography is exactly why infrastructure matters so much here. Power lines run for miles to reach a few hundred homes. Water is scarce and precious. Broadband still hasn't reached every rural school.
That's the opportunity. The communities the grid, the network, and the road system reach last are where well-designed infrastructure creates the most value — in resilience, in jobs, and in dollars that stay local.
This competition asks students to take that challenge seriously: to look at a real New Mexico need and design something that could actually get built and financed.
The state has real momentum — clean-energy targets, federal infrastructure funding, and an economic-development push to build homegrown capacity. Your project should connect to that future. The best submissions don't just describe an asset; they show how it strengthens New Mexico.
Grounding Your Project
The strongest entries are specific. They name a community, a county, or a corridor. They cite a real gap — outage hours, unserved households, miles of unpaved road, gallons of water lost. And they tie the project's impact back to state priorities: the clean-energy transition, rural equity, and economic development.
You don't need proprietary data. Public sources — census figures, utility filings, state energy and transportation plans — are enough to ground a credible case.
Start with the templates and build something New Mexico could actually use.
Download the Templates