Product1 publisher2 min readPublished
Data center buyers are tying deferred purchase price to power, development, leasing and operating milestones
An opinion column in DataCenterDynamics makes the case for earnouts built on utility service agreements, interconnection approvals and energization dates. Most of those triggers belong to parties outside the deal.
The Product Desk · Product desk
What happened
- Data center deals increasingly price the right to future megawatts, capacity that has been planned, permitted or promised but not yet delivered, instead of buildings, leases and equipment.
- The bridge is the earnout: part of the purchase price is held back at closing and paid later only if specified milestones are achieved.
- Development milestones named in the column include zoning approval, building permits, environmental approvals, completion of shell construction, commissioning and certificates of occupancy.
- Most of this M&A happens between infrastructure funds, developers and operators whose purchase agreements never become public, so the visible record understates how common the structures are.
Compiled by The Product DeskSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- decision Picking the metric family decides who carries power risk. On a deal whose value turns on power delivery, a generic revenue earnout pays the seller only after the buyer's own team has done the leasing.
- exposure Energization or interconnection milestones leave the seller exposed to a utility's schedule for months after the seller hands over the asset and the construction team.
- constraint An EBITDA test cannot price development risk at all, because it settles after the risks it was supposed to cover have already been resolved.
- contradiction Nobody outside the deals has read the agreements the growth case rests on, so a buyer cannot check proposed milestones against what comparable deals actually agreed.
The seller's number tends to start from one sentence: value the site as if the next 100MW will be delivered, leased and absorbed. Buyers can believe the opportunity and still decline to pay for it at closing, because delivery depends on utility work, interconnection, permitting, procurement, construction and customer commitments [7][8].
Deal teams already own a template for deferred consideration, and in most sectors it is built on revenue, EBITDA or customer retention [3]. In data centers the value arrives earlier than any of those. Power gets allocated before it is delivered, and a hyperscaler may reserve capacity before a building is fully commissioned [4]. A site can be worth paying for because of grid access, water availability, fiber connectivity, permitting posture or adjacency to an existing campus, according to the DataCenterDynamics column [21].
Of the five capacity states the column describes, only the last two produce something a revenue or EBITDA test can measure. The other three are planned, permitted and powered capacity, and each resolves before operating revenue exists [20]. A stabilized facility with contracted revenue and an operating history can be underwritten with familiar tools; a development platform holding land, pending entitlements and utility commitments resists that kind of precision [5].
The column sorts milestones into four families: power, development, commercial and operating [19]. Commercial triggers run to signed leases or service agreements, minimum contracted backlog, customer acceptance testing, preleasing thresholds and expansion commitments from investment-grade customers [11]. Not every deal calls for an earnout, and when the parties reach for one, the structure should follow the value being bought [18]. Lease-up earnouts fit leased assets and do nothing for a buyer whose thesis is land banking, campus expansion or securing scarce powered shell capacity [17].
The test I would apply before signing: take each deferred dollar and name the party whose action releases it. Construction management and lease-up sit with the seller. Interconnection approval and the energization date sit with a utility [9]. Limit the earnout to the first kind and the buyer is pricing performance, while the seller wants to be paid for scarcity and upside [6]; expect the scarcity premium to move into the closing payment instead.
What to watch
- Securities filings that spell out megawatt-delivery or energization milestones would put a number on prevalence the column can only assert.
- Earnout disputes over what counts as energized, commissioned or accepted.
- Whether buyers start writing interconnection-queue delay into the earnout clock so a utility's slippage does not decide the seller's payout.