The Texas context
Texas SB 6 establishes a large-load framework that includes financial commitments and interconnection requirements. It does not provide a single universal data-center price. The actual provider territory, approved tariff, supply contract and implementation requirements determine the applicable obligations. Model those documents, not a statewide cents-per-kWh assumption.
Our view
The expensive mismatch is often between when infrastructure must be funded and when tenant revenue becomes dependable. Buying cheaper energy does not repair a minimum payment owed on unused capacity. Nor does a battery erase a facilities contribution. Separate the price of electricity from the obligation to make the campus serviceable.
Separate the four payment exposures
Swipe or scroll to compare all columns.
| Exposure | What must be established | Delayed-phase question |
|---|---|---|
| Energy consumed | Supply price, settlement point and volume shape | Does an unused contracted volume create a settlement liability? |
| Capacity or delivery | Actual demand formula and minimum obligation | Can the reserved capacity be reduced or transferred? |
| Enabling infrastructure | Contribution, ownership and recovery conditions | Who pays for works that the missing tenant would have used? |
| Credit support | Posting amount, release tests and expiry | Can the sponsor fund a prolonged overlap of collateral and debt service? |
The owner’s situation
Consider three planned phases. Tenant A has a signed lease and a staged operating ramp. Tenant B has reserved space but can defer its start. Tenant C is still a marketing assumption. A provider proposal requires early infrastructure expenditure for all three. An energy supplier offers an attractive headline rate based on the ultimate load. The owner must choose a service commitment and supply structure before knowing whether all the demand will arrive. This is a capital-allocation problem as much as an energy-procurement problem.
What we need to establish
Collect the actual delivery tariff, facilities agreement, proposed supply terms, security requirements and tenant payment schedules. Identify the billing meter and demand interval, minimum billing provisions, ratchets if applicable, pass-through charges, termination amounts and capacity-release rules. Reconcile IT demand to total facility imports including cooling and losses. Ask counsel and financing advisers which tenant payments can be relied on by the entity signing the utility agreement. A well-known tenant parent is not credit support unless the relevant obligation is enforceable against it.
The options we would test
What owners should do
Our proposed execution sequence for this assignment:
Rebuild the baseline bill
Model the initial ramp and steady state using the actual billing determinants. Reconcile sample calculations to the provider or supplier before using them in underwriting. Keep infrastructure expenditure and refundable security separate from operating expense.
Stress the revenue and demand together
Test a delayed Tenant B, lower utilization, a failed energy asset and a peak occurring outside the expected window. Track liquidity as well as project value. A cheaper average bill can still require more cash at the worst point in the phase.
Allocate the obligation contractually
Have the commercial and legal teams align tenant reservation payments, load changes, permitted pass-throughs and termination consequences with provider commitments. Do not silently charge Tenant A for an unlet future phase.
Make a gated procurement decision
Release the supported service tranche and retain priced options for later demand where available. Sitebraid coordinates the load basis, development programme and counterparties so procurement closes the right obligation rather than merely selecting a supplier.
How we protect the decision
Do not describe proposed or negotiated terms as an approved tariff. Renewable procurement changes energy sourcing; it does not automatically change the regulated customer class. Model incentives only after eligibility and timing are established. Require a written decision if a rate forecast, tenant guarantee or capacity-release assumption is still unresolved when capital is requested.
What completion looks like
The owner receives a phase-by-phase cost and liquidity model reconciled to actual agreements, a list of obligations supported by tenant credit, and a funded downside for the remaining exposure. A subsequent execution appointment closes the assigned utility and tenant interfaces. Completion is not a target blended rate without the contracts that make it achievable.
What we would track
- Total annual cost and peak liquidity need by phase.
- Minimum obligations unsupported by enforceable tenant payments.
- Collateral overlap and release milestones.
- Cost and timing of reducing or reallocating a delayed phase.
Underwrite the obligation at the meter and the credit behind it, not the cheapest headline energy rate.