The landlord bought a decommissioned power plant. That is the whole thesis of the site at 5380-5384 Frontier Avenue in Niagara Falls: a building that already sits on an interconnection, next to hydro, in a corner of New York where the power showed up a century before anyone wanted to train a model on it. The plant ran on hydro and is being rebuilt for liquid-cooled racks.[18] On 4 September 2026 North East Data, LLC leased it to CoreWeave, Inc. for fifteen years, with two five-year extension options, and the lease went into an SEC filing three weeks later.[1]
And even there, on a site whose entire pitch is that the electricity already exists, the lease will not let rent start until somebody proves the electricity is actually at the wall.
The condition that does the work#
The lease does not have a rent commencement date. It has Commencement Date Conditions, six of them, per phase, and the Commencement Date is “the date on which all of the Commencement Date Conditions applicable to such Phase are satisfied.” Five are what you would expect from any build-to-suit: substantial completion of the landlord’s installations, commissioning to Level 4, a certificate of occupancy, delivery of possession, a letter confirming services are ready.[2]
The sixth is condition (e), and it is the one that moves money:
the full Critical Load Power allocated to such Phase in accordance with Item 10 of the Basic Lease Information, is energized and available for continuous use at the applicable Demarcation Point, and all utility interconnection, transmission, capacity, and power-supply contracts and all governmental and utility approvals necessary to deliver and operate such Critical Load Power on a firm, continuous basis have been obtained and are in full force and effect
Read what that asks for. Not power to the building. Not a substation that is nearly finished. The full contracted load, energized, at a named handoff point, available for continuous use, with the paper behind it in force. A landlord who has built the whole data hall, commissioned it, and holds a certificate of occupancy has satisfied five of six conditions and is collecting nothing.
Item 10 sets the Critical Load Power at 35 megawatts, delivered in two phases: 25 MW in the first data hall, 10 MW in the second.[1]
What the condition is worth per month#
The lease redacts the base rent in Item 8(a). It does not redact the definition of Base Design Specifications, which describes them as the specifications “on which the Base Rent of $145.00 per kW per month was calculated."[1]
Assume that rate is the initial rate for Phase 1, which is what the definition reads like but is not what it says. Then 25,000 kW at $145.00 is $3,625,000 a month. The second phase at 10 MW adds $1,450,000. Both phases running is $5,075,000 a month, a little over $60.9 million a year before the escalator, which is also redacted.
So condition (e) is a switch worth roughly $3.6 million a month on the first phase alone. Miss the energization date by a quarter and the landlord has eaten about $10.9 million of billable rent on a building that is finished. That is the number to hold onto, because everything else in this post is about who gets to move that date and by how much.
The obligation to get there is the landlord’s and it is unqualified as to cost: “Landlord will, at Landlord’s sole cost and expense, complete all of the Landlord’s Installations in accordance with the Base Design Specifications and satisfy the Commencement Date Conditions with respect to each Phase."[3]
The word that is missing from Excused Delays#
Target Commencement Dates in this lease are soft. Item 7(a) says all delivery dates “shall be subject to extension for Excused Delay,” and the defined term is short enough to quote in full:
“Excused Delays” shall mean (a) events of Force Majeure, (b) Tenant Delays, and/or (c) any delay resulting from Tenant’s failure to timely satisfy its payment obligations with respect to the Cash Contribution or Utility Credit Support.[4]
Three items. Force majeure, the tenant’s fault, and the tenant’s money. Utility delay as such is not on the list. The words “Utility Delay” do not appear anywhere in the lease.
Now compare a different document filed the same month. SB Energy, Inc. filed a form of data center lease as an exhibit to its S-1 on 4 September 2026, for an Ohio campus, with tenants its prospectus describes as SoftBank and OpenAI affiliates. Item 16 of that form says the Target Commencement Dates “shall be extended to the extent of any delays resulting from any Force Majeure, Tenant Delay, or Utility Delay."[5]
Same three-item structure. One extra word. That word is the entire question of who carries interconnection risk, and in the SB Energy form it sits in the tenant’s column.
A caveat on that comparison, because it is the kind of thing that is easy to overstate. “Utility Delay” appears exactly once in the 74 pages of the SB Energy form that were filed. It is capitalized, so it is defined somewhere, and the obvious somewhere is the Work Letter at Exhibit K, which was not filed. I do not know what it covers. It could be narrow. But an undefined capitalized extender sitting in the delivery-date line of a form lease is worth asking about before you sign one.
Two leases, weeks apart, same asset class, opposite answer on the one risk everyone in the sector says is the binding constraint. That is not sloppiness on either side. It is a negotiated position, and it is the position that decides who pays for the months nobody can control.
What the landlord actually promised about the utility#
Section 3.2.1 obliges the landlord to use “commercially reasonable efforts” to cause the conditions to occur by the target date, then adds a sentence you do not see in an office lease: “Landlord shall cause the Utility Provider to deliver power and/or electric service to the Building as required under this Lease, and Landlord will diligently enforce its rights under its utility and interconnection contracts with the Utility Provider."[6]
“Shall cause the Utility Provider to deliver” reads as an absolute obligation. The rest of the sentence reads as a duty to go argue with somebody. Those are different promises and a court would have to pick. My guess, and it is a guess, is that the diligent-enforcement half narrows the first, because it is the more specific language and because no landlord can literally cause a utility to do anything. A tenant who wanted the absolute reading should have made it a separate sentence.
The acceptance ladder, and how a tenant loses on it#
Condition (e) is objective, which means somebody has to certify it. The lease gives the landlord the first word and the tenant three chances to disagree.
The landlord delivers a Commencement Date Notice. The tenant gets ten business days to countersign or to object “with reasonable specificity.” If the tenant objects, the landlord fixes the deficiencies and issues a Reissued Commencement Date Notice, and the tenant gets five business days on that one. Then the landlord may deliver a Final Acceptance Notice, which has to warn the tenant of deemed acceptance “in bold capital letters,” and the tenant gets three business days. Miss that and the Commencement Date “will be deemed to have occurred” on the date the landlord wrote down.[6]
Ten days, then five, then three. A tenant with a real objection about whether 25 megawatts are firm at the demarcation point has eighteen business days of attention to spend across three notices, and the last window is three days long. Rent on a deemed Commencement Date is real rent. Disputes go to Section 17.24, which for technical matters runs through an independent consultant on written submissions.[7]
This is the same structural problem as an option to renew that dies on its notice date: the right is fine, the calendar is the risk, and the calendar lives in an asset manager’s inbox.
Force majeure with a foreseeability test#
If utility delay is going to extend the target date in this lease, it has to come in as force majeure. Section 17.6 makes that hard on purpose. The definition has three cumulative conditions, and the second one is the interesting one:
(ii) was not foreseeable as a specific event as of the Effective Date and did not, to the affected Party’s knowledge after reasonably inquiry, exist as of the Effective Date of this Lease[8]
The Effective Date is in September 2026. Interconnection queue congestion, transformer and switchgear lead times, and utility study backlogs are not news in September 2026; they are the reason the site was attractive in the first place. A condition that already exists on the Effective Date, and that the party knew about after reasonable inquiry, is carved out of the definition by its own terms.
That is my reading, not a holding, and no court has construed this lease. The drafting choice is still unmistakable. Somebody wrote a foreseeability and pre-existence test into force majeure in a sector where the delay everyone worries about is both foreseeable and pre-existing. The extension is also metered: time runs “only by the amount of time it is actually delayed,” not for the duration of the event. Compare the Minnesota clause in a relocation dispute where force majeure extended deadlines instead of excusing performance.
The termination right, and its cap#
There is a Late Delivery Termination Date. Section 3.2.2 defines it and is redacted in full. Section 3.2.3 survives:
The Late Delivery Termination Date shall be delayed on a [] basis so far as it relates to Tenant Delays or a Force Majeure event. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any delay caused by a Force Majeure event as provided Sections 3.2.2. and 3.2.3. shall extend the Late Delivery Termination Date by a maximum of [] and Tenant’s right to terminate this Lease after such period shall be as provided for in Section 3.2.2.[9]
The numbers are gone but the structure is legible. Force majeure buys the landlord a capped extension of the tenant’s walk-away date, and past the cap the tenant can leave regardless of whose fault it was.
That cap is probably the most valuable thing a data center tenant can negotiate, and it is the one most often given away. Uncapped force majeure on an outside date is not a termination right. It is a hope.
No rent is not no cost#
Here is where the clean story breaks. The tenant is not free while it waits.
Base rent is off. But the Power Payment is on, and it is drafted as wide as I have seen. The tenant pays “the full amount of the power bill(s) from the applicable Utility Provider for the Building, with no mark-up,” and the list of what counts includes “exit fees, distribution charges, underutilization charges, minimum demand charges, provider of last resort or default provider charges."[10] Underutilization and minimum demand charges are precisely the charges that bite when a 35 megawatt interconnection is energized and nothing is drawing on it.
Then there is commissioning. “Tenant shall be responsible for all power consumption during the Commissioning of the Premises, including but not limited to testing, equipment installation, and validation activities. Such Commissioning power shall be billed as part of the first Power Payment."[10] The tenant buys the electricity used to prove the plant works before the plant is delivered.
And the Cash Contribution. Thirty million dollars, due within three business days of the Effective Date, and the lease is blunt about what it is: “The Cash Contribution shall be non-refundable and shall not be applied against Base Rent or any other Rent payable hereunder.” What the tenant gets for it is a warrant in Blockfusion USA, Inc., the landlord’s parent.[11]
So on the day of signing the tenant is out $30 million, holds equity-flavored paper instead of a rent credit, and will be paying utility charges on an interconnection it cannot use. The landlord is out the construction cost and cannot bill rent. Both sides are funding the wait. Whether that is a fair split depends on numbers neither party filed.
Who posts the deposit to the utility#
The interconnection itself has a price of admission, and Section 4.1.4 splits it.
The tenant’s own credit support obligation is redacted. The carve-out is not, and the carve-out is the drafting win:
provided, however, that Tenant’s obligations under this Section 4.1.4 shall not include deposits, credit support, construction advances, contribution-in-aid-of-construction payments, or interconnection study deposits of the same type as the foregoing, in each case solely to the extent required in connection with (x) the initial interconnection of the Building to the electric grid and (y) upgrades to transmission or distribution infrastructure required by the applicable Utility Provider or grid operator to deliver power capacity to the Building’s point of interconnection (collectively, “Infrastructure Credit Support”), which Infrastructure Credit Support shall be the sole responsibility of Landlord.[12]
Contribution in aid of construction is the utility’s way of making the customer fund network upgrades. On a large load it is not a rounding error. This clause puts all of it, plus the study deposits and the construction advances, on the landlord, and then says the carve-out applies “to the full Critical Load Power contracted under this Lease” so it does not shrink as phases are added.
What is left on the tenant is ongoing credit support to power counterparties, and the lease makes that sharp in both directions. Increases have to be funded within fifteen business days of notice. Failure to fund, uncured for ten business days after written notice, is an Event of Default. The tenant indemnifies the landlord for “any interruption or curtailment of electric service to the Building resulting from such failure."[12] Against that, the tenant got a consent right: the landlord may not enter into or amend a power contract in a way that increases the tenant’s credit support without the tenant’s consent, not to be unreasonably withheld, and has to share drafts and term sheets first.
Notice the loop this creates. The tenant’s failure to post credit support is an Excused Delay, which moves the Target Commencement Date, which delays the Commencement Date, which delays rent. So a tenant that slow-walks a credit support call is buying the landlord time, not saving itself money.
Fluctuating load, which is a new clause for a new tenant#
AI training loads swing. Thousands of accelerators stepping in and out of synchronized work look, from the utility’s side of the meter, more like an arc furnace than an office building. This lease has a clause for it, and it names the problem in the tenant’s favor.
The landlord “acknowledges that Tenant’s permitted use of the Premises will involve Highly Fluctuating Loads and that such loads are an inherent and expected characteristic of Tenant’s operations,” and takes design responsibility for equipment “reasonably capable of accommodating, managing, and mitigating” them, naming substations, transformers, switchgear, busway, standby generation and UPS.[13] A Highly Fluctuating Load is defined by the utility’s own determination, not by the landlord’s opinion: load that “materially and adversely impairs the utility’s service to another customer supplied from the same distribution system, in each case as formally determined by the utility."[4]
If the utility requires a fix, the landlord notifies with supporting documentation and the parties “work together in good faith to identify and implement a mutually acceptable” solution. The cost allocation for that solution is redacted, which tells you it was negotiated.
After the power is on, the remedy is a credit#
Once the Commencement Date lands, the tenant’s protection changes shape. The landlord provides electricity to the demarcation points per the Service Level Agreement, maintains battery capacity and runs the back-up generators during an interruption, and the tenant gets Service Level Credits against rent when a service level is missed.[14]
And then the sentence that matters: “a failure by Landlord to meet a Service Level shall not, in and of itself, constitute a Landlord Default under this Lease. Tenant’s sole and exclusive remedies for a failure by Landlord to meet a Service Level shall be as expressly set forth in the Service Level Agreement."[14]
Before delivery, unavailable power means no rent and eventually a termination right. After delivery, unavailable power means a credit. The tenant’s leverage is highest in the window before it moves in, which is the reverse of most commercial leases and worth knowing when you decide where to spend negotiating capital.
The other model, and its uncapped tail#
The SB Energy form answers the same question a third way. Rent “shall be abated until the Delivery Date for such Phase,” so the economic result matches the CoreWeave lease. What differs is everything around it.
Delay has a priced remedy and a ceiling: “Tenant’s sole and exclusive remedies for any delay in delivery of any Phase of the Premises or any IT Capacity shall be (i) the late delivery Base Rent credits set forth in Section 2.1 in Exhibit K and (ii) the Self-Help Right set forth in Section 2.3 in Exhibit K."[5] Delivery itself is backed by a completion guaranty from the developer’s parent, guaranteeing satisfaction of the ready-for-service conditions. There is a whole exhibit, Exhibit W, for “Partial Phase Acceptance; Conditional Ready for Service,” which is a landlord asking in advance for permission to deliver a data hall that is not quite done.
SB Energy’s own prospectus describes what those provisions add up to across its portfolio, and the disclosure is unusually plain:
Our data center leases provide for delay liquidated damages, or in some cases rent abatement, for delays beyond the contractual guaranteed delivery date, in some cases subject to caps. It is not possible to ascertain our aggregate maximum exposure under delay damages, as some liquidated damages provisions are uncapped.[15]
Uncapped, in a filing, alongside roughly $3.7 billion of construction in progress as of 30 June 2026 and $999.0 million of senior secured notes issued in May 2026 accruing interest while nothing is delivered. The same section describes buy-out options exercisable if ready-for-service conditions are not met within specified periods after the target dates, “in all cases, greater than a year,” letting the tenant purchase the affected facility at a contractually specified price. Miss the date badly enough and the tenant takes the building.
One line in the same prospectus is worth reading twice: “Energization of certain Texas projects remains subject to completion of the ERCOT and PUCT audit and verification process."[15] Even after the lease is signed and the utility has committed, energization can sit behind a regulator’s verification queue.
The federal rule that would fix this does not exist yet#
You might expect that by now there would be a standard federal process for connecting a 100 megawatt computer to the grid, the way there is for connecting a generator. There is not, and the record of the attempt is public.
On 23 October 2025 the Secretary of Energy proposed an advance notice of proposed rulemaking directing FERC toward reforms “to ensure the timely and orderly interconnection of large loads to the transmission system,” including loads sharing a point of interconnection with generation. That became FERC Docket No. RM26-4-000, “Interconnection of Large Loads to the Interstate Transmission System.” Comments closed on 21 November 2025, reply comments on 5 December 2025. In the Unified Agenda published on 14 August 2026, the entry for the next action reads “Next Action Undetermined,” dated 11/00/26.[16]
The Commission has moved faster on the co-location side. Its 18 June 2026 open meeting carried RM26-4-000 as item E-1 and, as item E-2, the PJM co-location proceedings at Dockets EL25-49-000 and EL25-49-002, AD24-11-001 (“Large Loads Co-Located at Generating Facilities”), the consolidated Constellation Energy Generation, LLC v. PJM complaint at EL25-20-001, and PJM’s own filing at ER26-1479-000.[17]
I read the agenda listing those dockets, not the orders that came out of the meeting, so treat this as the state of the docket rather than the state of the law. Either way there is no finished federal rule telling a developer how long interconnection takes, or what happens when it takes longer. Until there is, the schedule risk gets allocated by contract, one lease at a time, in the three or four clauses above.
What condition (e) should say in your form#
On the landlord side, the CoreWeave conditions are a good model to negotiate away from: complete, objective, expensive. On the tenant side they are near the ceiling of what you can ask for. Either way, five things decide the outcome.
Name the measurement point. “Energized and available for continuous use at the applicable Demarcation Point” is testable. “Power available to the Building” is not.
Require the contracts as well as the electrons. Condition (e) asks for the interconnection, transmission, capacity and power-supply agreements and the approvals to be in force. A landlord running on an interim or interruptible arrangement fails that test, correctly.
Decide whether utility delay extends the target date, in one place, in words. Either put “Utility Delay” in the excused-delay definition and define it tightly, or leave it out and say so.
Cap the force majeure extension of the outside date. A tenant termination right that force majeure can push indefinitely is not a right.
Say who funds the interconnection. Contribution in aid of construction, study deposits and network upgrade advances belong in a named carve-out with a party’s name attached, the way Infrastructure Credit Support does here. Leaving it to the general credit support clause means arguing about it during the delay, which is the worst possible moment.
And price the money that moves before delivery. A $30 million non-refundable payment converted into a warrant is a financing decision wearing a lease clause. So is a tenant’s exposure to minimum demand charges on capacity it cannot use yet. Same instincts as when a work letter overruns and somebody has to eat the difference, or when a tenant improvement allowance is disbursed against a completion condition.
Does your portfolio know which deliveries depend on a utility?#
Two questions, and most teams cannot answer either from a spreadsheet.
Which of your leases condition rent commencement on a power, capacity, or utility milestone rather than on substantial completion alone? Those leases have a different revenue start date than your model assumes, and the difference is not small.
Then the join. Of those, which ones list utility delay as an excused delay, and which ones cap the force majeure extension of the tenant’s outside date? Cross those two answers and you know which deliveries are exposed and by how much, before the utility tells you the substation slipped a quarter.
That is the work Acrebase is built for. It is an AI contract negotiation platform for commercial real estate teams: it drafts, redlines and proofreads leases and other CRE documents, extracts the clauses out of an existing portfolio so the two questions above become queries instead of a quarter of reading, and keeps a team’s approved clause library and negotiation playbook consistent from one deal to the next. Decide once that your form caps the force majeure extension of the outside date and names a party for interconnection credit support, and that language and its fallbacks sit in the playbook for the next associate papering a data hall. Prior negotiations feed it too, so the position you took last time on energization at the demarcation point is where you start rather than where you begin arguing. Learn more at acrebase.com, or get in touch about pricing.
If you are a landlord, a commencement condition tied to energized critical load converts every week of utility slippage into unbilled rent on a finished building, and on 25 megawatts at the rate this lease used for its design specifications that is about $3.6 million a month. If you accept that condition, buy back the schedule elsewhere: get utility delay named as an excused delay, get the force majeure extension of the tenant’s outside date uncapped or capped generously, and get the acceptance process tight enough that a silent tenant is a delivered tenant. If you will not accept it, say so at term sheet, because it is far cheaper to lose that point in June than to argue it while the interconnection sits in a queue.
If you are a tenant, your leverage is all in the window before delivery and it collapses the day the Commencement Date Notice is countersigned. Before that date, unavailable power means no rent and eventually a walk-away. After it, unavailable power means a service level credit and an express statement that missing a service level is not a default. So spend your negotiation there: make energization at a named demarcation point a condition, cap the force majeure extension of your termination date, put interconnection and network upgrade funding on the landlord by name, and then calendar the ten, five and three business day acceptance windows somewhere a human will actually see them. And price the waiting. The rent may be off, but the minimum demand charges are not.
Footnotes
[1] Lease between North East Data, LLC, as Landlord, and CoreWeave, Inc., as Tenant, dated 4 September 2026, filed as Exhibit 10.51 to the Form S-4/A of Blockfusion Digital Infrastructure, Inc. and Blockfusion USA, Inc., filed 23 September 2026. Source for every quotation, defined term and figure about this lease in the text above, including: the Land at 5380-5384 Frontier Avenue, Niagara Falls, New York 14304; Item 7(a) (Commencement Date) and Item 7(c) (fifteen year Initial Term per Phase, co-terminus across Phases); Item 7(e) (two sixty-month Extension Options); Item 8(a) (Base Rent per kW per month, redacted) and Item 8(e) (Cash Contributions); Item 10 (Critical Load Power of 35 MW, Phase 1 Floor 1 DH1 at 25MW and Phase 2 Floor 1 DH2 at 10MW); Item 11 (50 MW guaranteed take-or-pay Firm Expansion Capacity, up to 215 MW Additional Expansion Capacity, and a right of first offer above 300 MW aggregate IT load); and Section 1.5, defining Base Design Specifications as the design specifications “on which the Base Rent of $145.00 per kW per month was calculated.” Confidential terms are omitted throughout and marked [***] in the filing. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2097508/000118518526004213/bldcex10-51.htm
[2] Same lease, Section 1.17 (definition of Commencement Date Conditions), subsections (a) through (f). Condition (b) requires Level 4 of the Commissioning Criteria in Schedule F-2 to Exhibit F; Section 1.19 requires Level 5 within a redacted period afterwards and applies ASHRAE Guideline 0-2019 and ASHRAE/IES Standard 202-2024. Condition (c) excludes New York Brownfield Cleanup Program approvals except where they prevent the Permitted Use, which is a clue about the site’s industrial history.
[3] Same lease, Section 2.2 (Condition of Premises).
[4] Same lease, Section 1.44 (Excused Delays), Section 1.51 (Highly Fluctuating Load), Section 1.52 (Highly Fluctuating Load Solutions), Section 1.99 (Target Commencement Date, “which dates shall be extended to the extent of any delays resulting from Excused Delays”), and Section 1.101 (Tenant Delay, four enumerated categories including failure to respond within stated timeframes and mutually executed change orders).
[5] Form of Lease Agreement filed as Exhibit 10.30 to the Form S-1 of SB Energy, Inc., filed 4 September 2026. Basic Lease Information Item 16 (Target Commencement Dates, extended for “any Force Majeure, Tenant Delay, or Utility Delay”), Item 17 (Commencement Date, the later of the Phase 1 Delivery Date or the Phase 1 Target Commencement Date), Item 18 (twenty year Term), Item 20 (Delivery Date, when the RFS Conditions in the Work Letter are satisfied); Section 3(a) (Delay Remedies as sole and exclusive remedies), Section 3(b) (commercially reasonable efforts and the Completion Guaranty at Exhibit P), Section 4(a) (rent “abated until the Delivery Date for such Phase”); and the exhibit list, including Exhibit K (Work Letter) and Exhibit W (Partial Phase Acceptance; Conditional Ready for Service). The form is for an Ohio campus, referencing the Ohio Condominium Act at Ohio Rev. Code ch. 5311 and Ohio Rev. Code § 5739.01(WW). The term “Utility Delay” appears once in the filed form, in Item 16, and is not defined in the filed text; the Work Letter at Exhibit K, where it is most likely defined, was not filed. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2133037/000162828026060761/sbenergy-ex1030xformofport.htm
[6] North East Data / CoreWeave lease, Section 3.2.1 (Delivery of Premises), including the Initial Acceptance Period of ten Business Days, the Second Acceptance Period of five Business Days following a Reissued Commencement Date Notice, the Final Acceptance Notice with deemed acceptance language “appearing in bold capital letters,” and the Third Acceptance Period of three Business Days.
[7] Same lease, Sections 17.24 and 17.24.1 (Construction and Commencement Disputes). The expedited process for Technical Matters runs on an Expedited Dispute Notice, requires agreement on an Independent Consultant within five Business Days, proceeds on single written statements, and limits any hearing to one day.
[8] Same lease, Section 17.6 (Force Majeure). The enumerated list of force majeure events is redacted. The clause excludes payment of Rent and other obligations curable by the payment of money, requires commercially reasonable mitigation, and extends performance “only by the amount of time it is actually delayed.”
[9] Same lease, Sections 3.2.2 (redacted in full) and 3.2.3.
[10] Same lease, Section 4.1.2 (Power Payment), including the Generator Fuel Payment and the commissioning power provision. The payment period after invoice is redacted.
[11] Same lease, Section 4.1.6 (Cash Contribution; Warrant). The Warrant is issued by Blockfusion USA, Inc., the Landlord’s parent, on the terms of the warrant agreement at Exhibit T. Section 4.1.3 separately provides for a non-recurring charge, the amount and refund schedule of which are redacted.
[12] Same lease, Section 4.1.4 (Utility Credit Support), subsections (a), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h). Subsections (b) (Direct Posting) and (c) (Landlord-Posted Credit Support) are redacted in full, as is the opening of subsection (a) stating the tenant’s affirmative obligation.
[13] Same lease, Section 4.1.7 (Highly Fluctuating Loads), subsections (a) and (b). The cost allocation for a utility-required Highly Fluctuating Load Solution is redacted.
[14] Same lease, Sections 8.1.2.1, 8.1.2.2 (Back Up Power Systems and battery capacity per Exhibit G), 8.1.3 (Service Level Agreement and Service Level Credits) and 8.1.4 (telemetry and continuous dashboard access, limited to infrastructure upstream of and including the Demarcation Points). Exhibit G sets the specifications and the credits.
[15] SB Energy, Inc., Form S-1/A filed 21 September 2026, under “Financial Impact of Delays” and in the risk factors. Source for the uncapped delay damages disclosure, the approximately $3.7 billion of construction in progress as of 30 June 2026, the $999.0 million senior secured notes issued in May 2026, the buy-out options exercisable where ready-for-service conditions are not satisfied within specified periods after target dates (“in all cases, greater than a year”), the tenant termination triggers, and the note that “Energization of certain Texas projects remains subject to completion of the ERCOT and PUCT audit and verification process.” https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2133037/000162828026062846/sbenergy-sx1a2.htm
[16] Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, published 14 August 2026, 91 FR 53150, entry 472, “Interconnection of Large Loads to the Interstate Transmission System,” RIN 1902-AG47, Docket No. RM26-4-000. The abstract records the Secretary of Energy’s advance notice of proposed rulemaking of 23 October 2025 and the timetable: Notice Inviting Comments 27 October 2025, Notice Extending Comment Deadline 7 November 2025, Comment Period End 21 November 2025, Reply Comment Period End 5 December 2025, and “Next Action Undetermined” dated 11/00/26. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/08/14/2026-16616/regulatory-agenda
[17] Sunshine Act Meeting Notice, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, published 16 June 2026, 91 FR 36126, listing the agenda for the Commission’s open meeting of 18 June 2026: item E-1, RM26-4-000, “Interconnection of Large Loads to the Interstate Transmission System”; item E-2, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Dockets EL25-49-002 and EL25-49-000, with AD24-11-001 (“Large Loads Co-Located at Generating Facilities”), EL25-20-001 (Constellation Energy Generation, LLC v. PJM, consolidated) and ER26-1479-000. The notice warns that listed items “may be deleted without further notice”; I have not read the orders issued at or after that meeting. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/06/16/2026-12079/sunshine-act-meeting-notice
[18] Blockfusion, “Blockfusion Signs 15-Year Anchor Lease With CoreWeave at Niagara Falls AI Campus,” 16 September 2026. Source for the site being a converted decommissioned power plant running predominantly on hydroelectric power in NYISO Zone A, for the conversion of a non-binding letter of intent dated 30 June 2026 into definitive agreements, and for the pending business combination with Blue Acquisition Corp. (Nasdaq: BACC) to form Blockfusion Digital Infrastructure, Inc. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2026/09/16/3363071/0/en/blockfusion-signs-15-year-anchor-lease-with-coreweave-at-niagara-falls-ai-campus.html
Acrebase is AI-powered contract intelligence for commercial real estate. It drafts, redlines and proofreads leases and other CRE documents, extracts clauses and flags risk across a portfolio, and keeps a team’s approved clause library and negotiation playbook consistent from one deal to the next, with fallback positions drawn from how earlier negotiations actually went. Learn more at acrebase.com, or get in touch about pricing.