CAMPUS CHALLENGE / DECISION BRIEF
The campus can meet its energy-efficiency target and still lose money because its payment obligations do not follow tenant occupancy.
ILLUSTRATIVE FAILURE SCENARIO
Assume a hypothetical service agreement bills a minimum 60 MW of demand at an illustrative $10 per kW-month while the occupied campus draws only 30 MW. That demand component is $600,000 per month, not $300,000. The $300,000 difference excludes energy, other charges and taxes. A lower energy price does not remove it. If the tenant pays only for actual consumption while the owner signs the minimum commitment, the owner carries the mismatch for as long as the ramp is delayed.
Hypothetical development case. Assumptions are not project results, quoted prices or predicted failure rates.
TEXAS / LAW, REGULATION & LOCAL REQUIREMENTS
Reviewed September 10, 2026
Development issues to resolve, not a legal opinion. Applicability depends on the parcel, provider, project configuration and current instruments. Texas counsel, the responsible authority and qualified technical specialists should confirm the route before commitments are made.
Use these questions to direct the review, not to determine legal eligibility. Open the applicable constraint below for the source, consequence and next action.
Texas basis. The statute directs standards addressing financial commitments, site control and capacity reallocation. It also preserves additional large-load service requirements of municipal utilities and cooperatives. Texas Utilities Code §37.0561
Campus consequence. A statewide policy summary cannot establish the deposit, cancellation exposure or release conditions for a specific campus. Tenant ramp and assignment provisions may leave the owner with obligations after its forecast changes.
Resolve before commitment. Obtain the currently effective PUCT rules, provider terms and project agreements. Model their actual obligations; do not substitute a proposed dollar-per-MW amount or another utility's tariff.
Texas basis. Under §41.051, the cooperative board decides whether and when to provide customer choice. Sections 41.052 and 41.053 distinguish the resulting service arrangements. Texas Utilities Code §§41.051–41.053
Campus consequence. A lease assumption that the tenant can shop for a new retail supplier may not match the service territory. A generation or storage case built around competitive-market savings may also need to be recalculated.
Resolve before commitment. Verify the actual provider's choice status, tariff and customer model before promising procurement flexibility. Have counsel reconcile tenant rights and cost recovery to that supported structure.
01 / CAMPUS EXPOSURE
COMBINED FAILURE TEST
Extend the opening delay while increasing the provider's required security under the assumed contract. Show the largest cash draw before rent, not just the final-year energy saving. The owner needs a funded response even if both obligations are individually affordable in the base case.
02 / RESPONSE CHOICES
These are decision conditions, not universal thresholds. Confirm the evidence with the responsible providers, specialists and affected tenants before the owner authorizes a commitment.
Advance whenThe provider accepts staged obligations and tenant commitments actually cover the agreed ramp.
Stop or revise whenThe lease recovers usage only while the owner remains liable for an unconditional reserved-capacity payment.
Negotiate phased reservations, release conditions and tenant-backed payments where available. Compare the price of flexibility with the downside it removes rather than selecting the lowest headline rate.
Advance whenCommitted liquidity survives the delayed-occupancy case and a concurrent collateral call.
Stop or revise whenFunding depends on the tenant beginning rent on the very date being stressed.
If firm capacity requires an early commitment, treat the vacancy-period obligation as funded development exposure. Size liquidity and security rather than hiding it inside an optimistic utilization forecast.
Advance whenSavings arise from bill components that actually change, after reserves, tenant consent and lifecycle costs.
Stop or revise whenThe model sells the same battery reserve twice or assumes demand charges disappear when imported energy falls.
Evaluate generation, storage or interruptible operations against actual bill components and tenant consent. Remove unqualified revenue and double-counted reserve before approving the investment.
Sitebraid would align the utility and supply obligations with tenant ramp, lease recovery, financing and operating constraints. We would build low-load and delayed-opening cases, expose the unassigned cost and negotiate an executable allocation with the owner and its advisors. We do not promise a tariff reduction. The outcome is a service commitment whose cash and performance risks the campus can support.
03 / DECISION GATE
NEXT ACTION
Request the bill model for half occupancy, not another average electricity-price comparison. That is where the obligation hidden by the leasing forecast becomes visible.
Reviewed September 10, 2026. The scenarios and decision tests are Sitebraid analysis. Source materials establish context, not approval of a particular project. Applicable law, provider terms and technical requirements require project-specific confirmation.
The legislation addresses large-load obligations and grid integration. Determine the applicable implementing rules, provider terms and project classification before calculating a binding financial obligation.
Cooperative customer choice and service arrangements have a distinct statutory framework. Counsel and the actual provider must establish which structure is lawful for the campus.