The owner’s situation
A campus has an operating first tenant, a second tenant negotiating an accelerated opening and an uncommitted third phase. The master plan shows sufficient ultimate power, but the second tenant’s ramp moves ahead of a shared upgrade. Meanwhile, the first tenant has rights to grow. The conflict is not visible in any one building budget. The assignment is to find the feasible allocation and infrastructure sequence before a new commitment makes the mismatch harder to unwind.
The Texas context
ERCOT’s Large Load Integration materials include project-information and load-commissioning requirements. They provide a power-planning context, not a commercial allocation of capacity between campus tenants. Our proposed owner-side method connects the relevant provider-supported capacity envelope to tenant and phase commitments.
Our view
Do not market a campus-wide capacity number without a phase-level account of what is available, what is committed and what depends on future works. A spare-capacity figure can conceal an unfunded upgrade, a reservation that cannot be reclaimed or capacity needed to satisfy an existing operating requirement. The owner needs one record that reconciles the physical and commercial positions.
What we need to establish
We would review the owner’s tenant requirements with its commercial team and counsel, including opening dates, growth rights and conditions attached to reservations. The electrical team would establish the supported total-facility demand by phase, the relevant operating envelope and the limits of the current and planned system. We would connect that to provider records, equipment commitments and the shared-infrastructure budget. IT MW, total facility demand and nameplate equipment capacity must not be mixed in the same allocation calculation.
The options we would test
What owners should do
Our proposed execution sequence for this assignment:
Create a campus capacity-and-commitments record
For each phase, identify the tenant requirement, physical boundary, relevant units, earliest supported service position, commercial reservation and the infrastructure on which it depends. Give every entry an evidence source and update owner. Mark uncommitted future capacity as an option, not an achieved supply.
Test the collision before signing or spending
Run the proposed tenant change through the combined record with the operator, technical and commercial teams. Test delayed infrastructure, a faster tenant ramp and exercise of existing growth rights. Treat these as defined scenarios, not invented probabilities or assurances that demand will conveniently occur at different times.
Make the shared-asset decision explicit
Compare what must be built now with what can be deferred. Identify the party funding capacity reserved for future phases and the implications if those phases do not proceed. Have counsel and commercial advisers establish the relevant allocation and recovery arrangements; Sitebraid does not substitute an informal spreadsheet for tenant rights.
Carry the chosen route into delivery
Align the accepted commitments with design releases, provider submissions and infrastructure packages. Record decisions about the timing and capacity each tenant receives. Update the campus basis after each acceptance so future negotiations begin with the current position rather than an obsolete development presentation.
How we protect the decision
A change in tenant date or load should trigger a campus review before a binding promise or major release. The owner decides which commercial tradeoff to accept and how much uncommitted expansion to fund. We would expose the dependencies and advance the approved route. We would not treat redundancy, emergency equipment or theoretical utilization diversity as freely saleable capacity without the responsible engineers and operators establishing the basis.
What completion looks like
For a strategy appointment, the result is a reconciled, owner-approved capacity and commitments plan with the required changes and funding decisions identified. For a subsequent execution scope, the result includes closure of the specified provider, approval or shared-infrastructure dependencies. Neither outcome is simply a larger headline number. The meaningful test is whether the agreed tenant and phase commitments can be supported by the evidence at that stage.
What we would track
- Committed demand by phase and date against supported service and system capacity.
- Tenant reservations dependent on infrastructure not yet funded or delivered.
- Shared-asset cost exposure assigned to an owner-approved funding decision.
- Changes reviewed across the campus before new commitments are executed.
Spare capacity is not a campus strategy until its timing, rights and infrastructure are reconciled.