Our view
The campus is one operating system, but it does not have to be one borrower. Land, shared utilities, generation, buildings and compute have different useful lives, counterparties and risks. Separating their ownership can attract appropriate capital. It also creates interfaces that can stop the whole campus if nobody connects completion dates, access rights and remedies. Our recommendation is to design the funding map alongside the master plan, not after the full-campus budget fails a lender review.
The Texas financing boundary
Texas SB 6 establishes large-load interconnection financial-commitment standards, including forms such as security and construction contributions. The project team must establish applicable implementing requirements and provider terms. A deposit, refundable security, a construction contribution and an operating tariff are different cash obligations. The campus financing model must not treat each as permanent construction cost, or assume each is recoverable.
Texas SB 6: enrolled large-load financial-commitment provisions
A PPA funds an energy relationship, not the whole campus
DOE describes third-party ownership supported by a power purchase agreement. For Sitebraid, the decision is whether a proposed energy contract can match tenant demand, delivery dates and fallback service. A PPA is not a sale of the physical campus, a grant of retail-service authority or a promise of firm power. Identify whether it is physical supply, on-site generation or a financial settlement before giving it credit in the operating plan.
Credit is a contract question
Several recognizable tenant names are not automatically a diversified repayment stream. Establish which legal entity signs, whether payment survives an outage or delayed building, the termination rights, and what support is actually enforceable. A parent name on a presentation is not a parent guarantee. Have counsel and financing advisers test guarantees, letters of credit, assignment restrictions and lender rights. Do not use a campus-average credit label to conceal one anchor supporting most fixed costs.
A proposed asset-to-repayment map
Swipe or scroll to compare all columns.
| Layer | Potential structure to test | Repayment or support to establish |
|---|---|---|
| Land and common works | Sponsor equity and land/development financing | Committed sponsor capital, not assumed future plot sales |
| Water and wastewater | Provider-owned extension or eligible district structure | Authorized contributions, service revenues or eligible taxes |
| Generation and storage | Separate energy owner | Lawful PPA or service contract and credit support |
| Buildings and fit-out | Phase-specific property and equipment funding | Executed lease, completion support and tenant contributions |
| Compute | Tenant or compute-provider funding | Customer contracts, equipment value and refresh obligations |
The owner’s situation
An illustrative three-phase campus has one signed tenant. A second tenant is negotiating, and a third phase has no customer. A shared water and electrical corridor must be installed before the first phase opens. A generation developer proposes separate ownership under a PPA. The building lender will fund its leased phase but does not accept speculative utility expansion. The owner needs an executable first closing without surrendering the future campus or assuming that unleased phases repay today’s debt.
What we need to establish
Build an asset register that identifies the owner, borrower, operator, security interest, life, completion dependency and revenue contract for each asset. Reconcile tenant leases and utility commitments to monthly cash requirements, not just an annual development budget. Establish the minimum infrastructure independently needed for phase one, the incremental cost of future capacity and the cost of deferring it. Ask the appointed engineers which works are genuinely indivisible. Financing advisers then test borrowing capacity and sponsor support against those packages.
The options we would test
What owners should do
Our proposed execution sequence for this assignment:
Split the capital plan by function
Create separate sources-and-uses schedules for land and enabling works, water and wastewater, electrical delivery, generation and storage, buildings and fit-out, and compute. Show where contracts connect the layers. Do not count the same tenant payment as unrestricted security for more than one lender.
Match commitments to the release of capital
Define what must be signed before each package starts: service agreement, lease, funding commitment, access right or notice to proceed. Identify deposits at risk and the earliest cancellation point. Sitebraid aligns those gates with the construction sequence; lenders and counsel determine credit acceptance and documentation.
Stress the missing tenant
Run at least a delayed second phase and a cancelled third phase. For each, recalculate fixed payments, reserves, carrying costs and minimum purchases. Test whether the first tenant inherits a cost it never agreed to pay. If the downside needs more sponsor capital than is committed, resize or change the funding route before release.
Close the operating interfaces
Advance the agreed easements, delivery obligations, design boundaries and acceptance sequence with the appointed teams. Document who can enter, repair, replace or transfer shared assets. Carry the funding decision into procurement and handover so the physical and contractual campus remain aligned.
How we protect the decision
Illustrative arithmetic, not a market quote: a $30 million common package is allocated $12 million to phase one, $10 million to phase two and $8 million to uncommitted expansion. If only $12 million is firmly contributed, the remaining $18 million needs identified capital; letters of intent do not close that gap. Separately, a 12-month delay in $2 million of expected annual infrastructure receipts creates a $2 million cash shortfall before interest and other costs. These examples are not a debt-capacity calculation. The detailed model must include taxes, operating costs, covenants, reserves and contractual remedies.
What completion looks like
The appointment closes with an owner-approved asset and funding map, a phased cash model, documented decisions on speculative exposure and an agreed contract-completion schedule. Where execution is included, the specified funding and provider conditions must be satisfied before the associated release. A larger fundraising target or a lender introduction alone is not the outcome. Sitebraid coordinates development and funding interfaces; capital providers make investment decisions and appointed advisers handle regulated financing work.
What we would track
- Unfunded common works by phase and committed funding source.
- Fixed obligations compared with enforceable tenant receipts.
- Liquidity required if the next tenant is twelve months late.
- Asset interfaces lacking agreed access, remedy or acceptance terms.
Different capital can own different layers. Someone still has to make the campus work.