Fermi Inc. Q1 FY2026 Earnings Call

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for standing by, and welcome to Fermi America's First Quarter 2026 Earnings Call. Please note that today's event is being recorded. I'd now like to turn the call over to Rodrigo Acuna, Director of Investor Relations. Rodrigo, the floor is yours.

Good morning, and thank you for joining Fermi America's First Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call. With me today are our Chairman of the Board, Marius Haas; Co-Presidents of the newly established Office of the CEO, Jacobo Ortiz Blanes and Anna Bofa; and our Interim Chief Financial Officer, Rob Masson. Today's call contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. These statements reflect management's current expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated. For a detailed discussion of the risks, please refer to our most recent annual report on Form 10-K and our recent reports on Form 8-K. Any non-GAAP measures discussed today are intended to provide supplemental perspectives on the company's ongoing operations. I will now turn the call over to Marius.

Thank you, Rodrigo. Good morning, everyone, and thanks for joining us today. We're at a meaningful inflection point in Fermi America's development. With Fermi 2.0, we're moving forward from the entrepreneurial foundation that built this company to the institutional framework required to scale it. Fermi was built on delivering reliable private grid power at scale to the hyperscale compute infrastructure that the AI economy requires. That hasn't changed. Market conditions continue to validate our approach and value proposition. Forecasts for AI-driven power demand have shifted, and the central tendency has moved meaningfully upward over the past year. In the near term, the picture is one in which power availability—not capital and not demand—appears to be the biggest constraint. It's clear that delays are being reported across announced projects globally, and those delays are being driven by core interconnection timelines and equipment availability. What's important for you to know is that our strategy is oriented towards addressing that specific gap, and it's why we believe our project is advantaged. Our mandate today is to execute with the governance, commercial relationships and operational discipline that our investors rightly demand and expect. On today's call, we'll cover several important topics. First, I'll address the leadership changes and the steps we've taken to strengthen governance, commercial execution and financial discipline. Second, Anna will cover commercial progress, including tenant engagement, regulatory and nuclear. Third, Jacobo will provide an operational update on Project Matador, including recent site progress across procurement and construction. And finally, Rob will review first quarter results and liquidity. To begin, I want to take a moment to directly address the recent changes in leadership. Last month, the Board removed Toby Neugebauer from the position of President, Chief Executive Officer and Director. He was terminated for cause. The Board's decision was deliberate. It was unanimous among the directors involved and it was the result of a careful and comprehensive process that included guidance of independent counsel. Importantly, the Board firmly believes the move was in the long-term interest of this company and its shareholders. While Toby played a critical role in building something genuinely ambitious, the Board recognized that over the next 18 months, Fermi needs to operate differently. We need to execute multibillion-dollar contracts with investment-grade counterparties while continuing to evolve as a public company advancing towards commercial operations. This evolution is what Fermi 2.0 is all about, and executing it will require changes at the top. These include three significant actions. First, we have strengthened our governance structure. I have assumed the role of Chairman of the Board, bringing experience from Dell Technologies and the enterprise technology sector. We expanded the Board from five to seven directors, adding Myles Everson, Larry Kellermann and Jeffrey Steve. As our former CFO, Myles knows the company inside and out. Larry currently serves as our Head of Power and has more than 40 years of experience building multibillion-dollar power generation asset portfolios. Jeffrey is a seasoned Chief Executive and Chairman with deep experience scaling industrial enterprises into public company-caliber organizations. We have engaged a respected executive recruiting firm to lead the search for our next CEO. That process is underway, and we have a preliminary slate of highly qualified candidates already in hand. We're focused on identifying the right person: a seasoned leader with experience leading large, complex companies, established relationships with hyperscalers and fluency in project financing to take Fermi to commercial operations and beyond. Additionally, we have hired Rob Masson as our interim Chief Financial Officer. Rob has more than 20 years of public company financial leadership. His track record of driving growth and enterprise value across multiple industries is exactly what this company requires as we scale Project Matador and cultivate institutional relationships. Second, we have formalized our operational presence. We've established a new corporate headquarters in Dallas in addition to our permanent on-site presence in Amarillo. Dallas positions us close to key stakeholders and deep talent while our Amarillo presence keeps our team embedded in Project Matador's build-out. And third, we have actively rebuilt and expanded our commercial relationships. Since the leadership changes in April, our commercial momentum has strengthened. Tenant conversations that had previously stalled have been reinitiated, and new prospective tenants have entered our data room. The market's response to the structural changes we've made has been constructive, and we're increasingly confident that this evolution positions Fermi to accelerate the execution of our first binding tenant agreements. I will provide more color in a moment. At this point, I want to quickly touch on a few topics that are top of mind. I'll start with liquidity. Rob will discuss this in more detail shortly, but here is the main takeaway—we have multiple levers we can pull, and we're managing this company so that capital decisions are driven by strategy and not by pressure. Next, our former CEO's ill-advised call for an immediate sale of the company. The Board has carefully considered that view and rejected it outright. A sale at this moment is not in the best interest of the long-term shareholders, especially with anchor tenant negotiations advancing and our financing structure intact. As any responsible public company should be, we're always open to value-creating opportunities, but we're not going to be stampeded into a short-sighted decision. Lastly, I'd like to talk plainly about what has not changed. The assets and fundamental value of our business have not changed. We have a campus on the path to 17 gigawatts of private power with a 6-gigawatt clean air permit in hand and additional 5-gigawatt applications filed. We have more than 2 gigawatts of long lead-time gas generation, either on-site or under a firm contract. We have great partners, including Texas Tech University, which has reaffirmed its support. Our mission has also not changed. The country is in a generational race for AI compute and that raises bottlenecked high-power lines. As I mentioned earlier, behind-the-meter gigawatt-scale redundant private power that is delivered on the necessary timeline is not a nice-to-have for the hyperscalers and frontier model developers. It is the constraint. Fermi was purpose-built to relieve that constraint. If anything, the macro thesis that served as the basis for our highly successful IPO is sharper today than it was then. And perhaps most importantly, the fantastic team executing on our vision has not changed. The engineers and project managers who pour the foundations, handle supply chain logistics, manage EPC contractors and run permitting remain focused and are moving forward. I will now turn the call over to Anna for a commercial and regulatory update.

Thanks, Marius. I'll cover three areas today: commercial progress, regulatory advancements and the continued de-risking of our nuclear program. I'll start on the commercial side. The most important message is that the market has not walked away from this asset. If anything, recent engagement has reinforced the strength of Project Matador and the urgency of the customer need we are addressing. The underlying customer need has not changed; if anything, it has intensified across hyperscalers, neo cloud providers and enterprise compute operators. The same constraint keeps coming up: access to large-scale, reliable power on a timeline that matches AI demand. That is the commercial opening for us at Fermi. Fermi 2.0 is about making the company easier to work with, creating a more streamlined commercial interface for customers and partners who want to move quickly and confidently. That means faster decision-making, tighter commercial coordination and a more direct path from diligence to binding agreements. Over the past two weeks, we've hosted multiple prospective tenants and strategic partners at our site. The feedback has been highly constructive. Customers and partners continue to view Project Matador as one of the most advanced and customer-ready large-scale power campuses they have evaluated. That matters because customers are not looking for conceptual capacity. They're looking for credible near-term power, real infrastructure, secured equipment, permitting progress, land control and a team that can execute. The conversations we're having are increasingly specific. Customers are working with us on capacity planning, delivery sequencing, power availability, reliability, operating structure and the commercial frameworks required to move from interest to execution. Importantly, these conversations are continuing under the Office of the CEO structure. Customers are not waiting for a permanent CEO appointment to engage. Their need is immediate and they are working with us now to match capacity requirements and potential delivery paths. We are also evaluating strategic partnerships with established and respected data center operators and infrastructure partners. We view those partnerships as potential accelerators—a way to expand our execution capacity, increase customer confidence and serve a broader set of tenants while maintaining commercial discipline. So the commercial message is straightforward. Demand remains strong. The asset is being validated directly by the market and Fermi 2.0 is giving the structure to convert that demand into binding agreements with the right counterparties at the right economics and on timelines we believe we can execute. We will announce binding agreements when they are signed and when disclosure is appropriate. We are encouraged by the progress, and we believe the changes we've made have strengthened and accelerated our ability to transact. On the regulatory front, the most significant milestone of the quarter happened in February with the receipt of our clean air permit for 6 gigawatts. This represents the second-largest permit of its kind in the U.S. This is not just a regulatory milestone; it is a commercial milestone. The approval is a key enabler of our commercial program. It provides prospective tenants with the regulatory certainty they need to commit capital to long-term agreements at this scale. In late March, we filed for an incremental 5 gigawatts of gas permit, giving us additional flexibility as we build towards the broader campus vision. We have also filed for foreign trade zone subzone designation for our imported generation assets. Once that's received, it will deliver meaningful tariff relief and duty deferrals, which has a quantifiable benefit to our balance sheet. Finally, on nuclear, this work is about strengthening the long-term commercial value of Project Matador. We have a front-end engineering and design agreement with Hyundai Engineering and Construction that covers site layout and civil cost estimating. Doosan Enerbility has also commenced preparation of forging dies for our reactor pressure vessels. It's worth noting that we're the first private company to be admitted to the NRC's accelerated National Environmental Policy Act pilot program. This work, in combination with the DOE financing track, significantly de-risks the long-dated portions of the campus buildout and underscores the national strategic priority assigned to this project. I will now turn the call over to Jacobo for an operational update.

Thank you, Anna, and good morning, everyone. Construction of Project Matador continued to advance during the quarter. Our team is focused on consistent, strategic execution. We have continued to build our team and strengthen our systems and processes. We have now installed more than 11 miles of perimeter fencing, nearly 5 miles of high-pressure gas pipeline, 7 miles of water distribution lines providing 2.5 million gallons a day, and we have built a 2 million-gallon water storage tank and secured additional water rights for the site. We have also brought 86 megawatts of power from XL to the site. Looking at our power generation assets: frame turbines are currently undergoing refurbishment in Houston, and we expect them to be completed by the middle of next month. The foundations for these turbines have already been poured. Our Siemens SGT-800 generator sets have arrived in Houston and cleared customs. The foundations for these gensets have been prepped at the site and are almost ready to be brought on board. Lastly, the class turbines representing 1.1 gigawatts of combined cycle capacity are scheduled for delivery in the third quarter of this year. With an additional six Siemens SGT-800 turbines, which are secured and scheduled for delivery in 2028, our total natural gas generation equipment is roughly 2.2 gigawatts. With this significant milestone and the conclusion of Phase 0, we will pause additional site development as was always planned until a tenant is signed. Future capital deployment will remain disciplined and aligned with commercial progress. Through our $1.4 billion investment in balance sheet assets, we have established a speed-to-power advantage that we believe is unmatched and highly compelling for customers facing rapidly growing compute demand. Bottom line, we're in a great position to mobilize immediately upon lease execution. Our supply chain is secured, our EPC contractor relationships are intact and stronger than ever, and we're highly confident in the availability of labor in the region. Finally, Fermi 2.0 is focused on stabilizing and scaling what will become a generational opportunity through disciplined execution, operational clarity, transparent leadership and long-term shareholder value. I will now turn the call over to Rob for the financial review.

Thank you, Jacobo. For the quarter, we reported a net loss of $189 million. About 70% of that was noncash. It was driven primarily by share-based compensation associated with our broad employee equity program. We also incurred a $25 million loss on the retirement of the Macquarie term loan. Cash used in operating activities totaled approximately $7 million for the quarter. It benefited from $29 million of accounts payable and accrued liabilities growth, partially offset by $7 million of cash used on prepaid expenses and other assets. This resulted in $22 million of net working capital benefit. Without this benefit, we used approximately $29 million of cash. We are committed to managing corporate overhead as we invest in bringing Project Matador to life. We invested $441 million in property, plant and equipment during the quarter. That brings our cumulative investment in Project Matador to more than $1.4 billion. The primary allocation was to natural gas power generation, including turbine procurement across our Siemens and GE fleets. The remainder was deployed to site infrastructure, substation equipment, electrical interconnection and early nuclear predevelopment. With regards to liquidity, we ended our quarter with $243 million in total cash. Notably, this quarter, we fully repaid the Macquarie term loan. By doing so, we replaced approximately $150 million of high-cost debt with more favorable equipment financing. We have $785 million of new equipment financing facilities, anchored by $500 million from MUFG, one of the world's leading infrastructure lenders. This debt is structured as nonrecourse to the parent company, secured by the underlying generation equipment. In late March, we also secured more than $156 million of financing with Yorkville, which will support general corporate expenditures. This agreement provides additional flexibility at the parent level while our equipment-level facilities fund our long lead-time power generation assets. To date, we have not drawn on this facility. In total, we've now secured nearly $1 billion in financing commitments as we scale up Project Matador. Importantly, moving forward, we will be disciplined with our deployment of capital by more closely matching cash outlays with capital inflows that arise from tenant agreements and the transition to project-level finance. Taken together, we believe our sources of capital and disciplined deployment provide funding for our near-term development activities. Looking beyond our existing sources, we expect to fund the next phase of Project Matador through a combination of tenant prepayments, additional nonrecourse equipment financing, project-level nonrecourse debt and taking advantage of government programs, including DOE financing. I will now turn the call back to Marius for closing remarks.

Fermi 2.0 is defined by the convergence of two things: the tangible asset base we have already constructed and the institutional capability we are now deploying to realize its full value. We have converted investor capital into more than $1.4 billion of infrastructure at a site that few, if any, competitors can replicate on a comparable timeline. Over the past several weeks, we've seen an exceptional level of receptivity to our strategy and plans from every corner of our ecosystem. Our prospective tenants, existing suppliers and partners, government officials and most importantly, our employees have been deeply engaged, which strengthens our conviction in the path we're on. Our Fermi 2.0 strategy and execution plans are now in full motion. At the management level, our focus is clear and disciplined: attracting premier tenants who recognize the unique value of our platform; building the best private power grid on the planet in close collaboration with our suppliers and partners; ensuring sufficient capital to support liquidity needs; accelerating strategic partnerships in both power and data centers; and investing in our people and talent pipeline, including key leadership additions. At the Board level, our mandate is to ensure that the company scales into a truly enterprise-class organization by doing the following: establishing clear strategic and operating priorities designed to enable consistent, flawless execution; conducting a thorough, disciplined process to hire a world-class CEO who can lead this next phase of growth; and proactively addressing outside interference so that leadership can remain focused on running and growing the business. Above all, we are aligned around a single overarching objective: maximizing long-term shareholder returns. We look forward to updating you on our continued progress as we execute on the Fermi 2.0 vision. Operator, we're now ready to take questions.

Your first question is coming from Nick Amicucci from Evercore ISI.

Just wanted to clarify. So in the release, you kind of laid out a 90-day plan that has kind of the five points of emphasis. So if we could just kind of define for investors what we should expect to see by the end of that 90-day period? And specifically, could you clarify whether the 90-day objective is a binding lease offtake or a nonbinding or both? And then is that tenant agreement kind of the gating item for the other four?

Nick, thank you for your question. I really appreciate it. I want to make sure that the team is fully comprehensive of the fact that we're 100% focused on executing on our plan that we have just laid out for you. As to the next 90 days, it is our expectation that you should measure us on delivering on these five key points: a secured and binding tenant agreement; that we maintain capital discipline to support liquidity; that we hire our next CEO; that we deliver power at our project site; and that we explore strategic partnerships for accelerating data center and power deployment on our site. Those are the five commitments and deliverables that we're focused on for the next 90 days without distractions. That's how you should measure us.

Great. Very clear. Then if I could just touch on the cash component. So operating cash use was kind of limited in part by working capital benefit from accounts payables and accrued liabilities. So we now have—you have $243 million of cash and restricted cash, $421 million of debt, $441 million of CapEx that was incurred during the first quarter, and now this—now the $150 million of equipment commitment. So how should we think about kind of the normalized cash burn in 2Q and 3Q prior to a binding agreement? And should we expect any type of meaningful reversal of the 1Q payables or accrued liabilities?

That's a good question. So yes, let me talk about liquidity. As you said, we had $243 million of cash and restricted cash at the end of the quarter. It's important to note that we have strong equipment financing in place that covers most of our remaining expenditures on turbines and electrical power equipment, anchored by MUFG and other equipment lenders, structured on a nonrecourse basis. We also have the Yorkville facility available, which provides additional flexibility at the parent level for general corporate expenditures, and to date we have not drawn on that facility. Going forward, we will take a disciplined approach to capital deployment—matching payments and capex to tenant agreements and project-level financing as those transactions materialize. You should expect our cash burn to be more tightly managed as we align outflows with those inflows. We also expect some normalization of payables and accrued liabilities over time, but the pace will depend on supplier timing and the structure of any executed tenant agreements.

Your next question is coming from Nick Lawson from Ocean Mall.

It's Max Taylor here from Ocean Mall just stepping in for Nick. It'd be great if we could get a bit more color on the 5 gigawatt air permit that you filed in March. Any color on timing and expectations would be helpful.

Thanks, Max. The regulatory process has been constructive so far. We fully expect the incremental 5-gigawatt permit application filed in late March to proceed through the review process and be completed successfully. Based on our experience with the first 6-gigawatt permit and the feedback we received, we remain confident in our approach and timeline, and we expect that second permit to be granted in due course.

Your next question is coming from Vikram Malhotra from Mizuho.

Maybe first, you put out—in the 90-day plan—securing a tenant agreement. I just wonder why you put a shot clock in terms of specific 90 days? Is there something about conversations or tenant types or where you're progressing that gives you that confidence to be that specific given the history of the last year? So maybe give us a bit more flavor on what gives you confidence to highlight you can secure a tenant agreement over the next 90 days. Second, on this tenant potential signing, can you give us some high-level color on what it would cost to build out the first lease and whether you are in talks with Texas Tech as well? Also, is there a stipulation that you need to sign a lease by a certain date with Texas Tech?

Yes, happy to take that. So I think what gives us the confidence is that we've been able to identify what was holding customers back from engaging with us. That was really the fact that they wanted to feel that they could trust us and build a long-term relationship. As you know, these agreements are 15 to 20 years, and so the counterparty is looking for assurance that who they're partnering with is somebody that is going to be able to support them over the long haul. For us, that was why we made the changes we made—to ensure that we were a relationship company and that we could support these customers over the long haul. Part of our confidence is also around the state of our site, which is much more advanced now. It's clearer how our process works on both sides so that they can engage with us confidently. Regarding cost and deal structures, we are seeing multiple structures that deliver the same economic value opportunity. We're pursuing potential partnerships with data center and power partners as well as continuing to engage directly with hyperscalers. We can't disclose specific deal economics for confidentiality reasons, but we feel confident that the deals we have at hand provide the economic opportunity we have always sought to achieve. On the Texas Tech question, let me reassure you that we have a very strong relationship with Texas Tech. We have met with their leadership and special committees overseeing the relationship with Fermi. I personally met with the chancellor twice in the last three weeks. We are both extremely motivated to ensure the long-term success of Fermi as it's a highly visible project for both of us.

I'd just add one final statement: over the last three weeks, our pipeline has increased exponentially, much more so than we ever expected.

Okay. That's good to hear. So the second question—on what we previously modeled in terms of potential revenue and the CapEx to build out this first lease—whether it's small or large, we had thought the first gig would probably be around $4 billion to $5 billion to build. Can you give any high-level color on the cost to build this out and confirm any capex expectations?

What we're looking at is an evolution in structures. There are multiple structures that we can pursue that deliver the same economic outcomes. We're pursuing partnerships which can serve as accelerators and can bring additional capital to the project. While we can't disclose specific numbers, we do feel very confident that the opportunities on the table provide the economic profile we've historically targeted. The exact cost to build a given capacity will depend on the structure of the transaction and the extent to which partners or tenants bring capital or equipment. We are evaluating all of those options in parallel.

One of the strategic priorities for the next 90 days is to explore partnerships to accelerate our data center and power deployment capabilities. That presents interesting opportunities for additional capital infusion and enhanced execution capacity.

Your next question is coming from Skye Landon from Rothschild & Co.

I know it might be early days, but can you elaborate on exploring strategic partnerships for power and data centers? Does this mean bringing in a more experienced operator for the power generation sets? Second, is the option of XL providing an increased level of power up to 200 megawatts still on the table? And then on the power plan in the slides, does this include turbines running in simple cycle initially and then moving to combined cycle at some point? How would you look to do that and is that part of the air quality permit conditions?

I'll start with the data center question and then turn it over for the technical items. On pursuing partnerships, particularly on the data center side, this reflects what we've heard from hyperscalers: demand is so high that they are pursuing pads with partners to secure additional capacity. By pursuing data center partnerships, we can meet customers where they are and offer structures that align with their timelines. The space has changed tremendously in the last six months, so we are adapting. On power partnerships, we're exploring ways to bring additional capacity to the site more quickly so we can serve additional customers. That is exactly why we are pursuing those partnership opportunities.

I'll add briefly that those partnership conversations are bound by confidentiality agreements, so we can't provide more detail at this time, but these are well-known names in the industry who are interested in partnering with us to deliver best-in-class service to customers.

The generation equipment position is strong and is unique to Fermi versus much of the market. If I go power block by power block: our frame turbines are being refurbished in Houston and are on schedule; our new Siemens SGT-800 units have arrived and are in port; our class turbines representing 1.1 gigawatts are finished in Germany and will be shipped over the summer to the U.S. From that perspective, we've been deliberate in getting our power ready. We have 2.2 gigawatts of generation equipment under our control and roughly 1.5 gigawatts of that we believe we can execute and bring to site in simple cycle by the end of 2027, provided we have a tenant and project finance. We'll be deliberate in how we execute our plan. Finally, as we've reported, 86 megawatts from XL is already at the site and an incremental 114 megawatts will come in the first part of 2027, so we're ready to serve customers.

Great. And one more on the EPC partners: time lines are somewhat dependent on when you're able to secure a tenant. Are you still looking to use the same partners you originally planned to use? How flexible are these partners in terms of scheduling the work to install the power equipment you need? Any additional color would be helpful.

Thank you for the question. We are in lockstep with our strategic partners. Our frame units are being commissioned with experienced Houston-based teams. We've completed RFPs for other major scopes and will announce partners when appropriate. All our strategic suppliers, including high-voltage equipment partners, are aligned with our execution plan and ready to execute alongside us. The relationships are strong and we are moving forward.

Your next question is coming from John Hodulik from UBS.

Maybe two quick follow-ups. First, on the scale of tenant conversations—are we talking gigawatt-scale contracts as originally discussed, or smaller chunks to begin with? Second, on strategic partnerships with existing data center companies, are you envisioning a deal where you work with an established provider to take down space on a wholesale basis, or to approach tenants together? Any color would be great.

We are looking at multiple deal opportunities with different structures. In some cases, it's smaller chunks—couple hundred megawatts—and in some cases, it's a gigawatt or more. We can choose the path that best serves long-term value. As for data center partners, we see a range of structures: wholesale take-downs, co-development, or partnering to approach tenants. Different partners have different timelines and capabilities, and we are aligning those with tenant needs. We have multiple options on the table, which gives us flexibility.

To add, data center partners often bring signed demand or backlog that they need to supply. Partnering with them not only brings expertise and financing capability but can also bring tenants, which is why these conversations are strategically important to us.

Your next question is coming from Greg Rollins from Radway Capital.

My first question is: could Mr. Neugebauer, with his 40% shareholding, block a capital raise for whatever reason he may deem fit? Second, you've spent quite a bit of time talking about financing and the provision of power. What about the financing and the building of the actual structures that will house the data centers? Which model are you following—Digital Realty type where the provider builds the buildings and ancillary infrastructure, or Equinix-type where they may facilitate financing of tenants' equipment? Lastly, on an accounting matter: you will be providing power that you will have to charge for. I assume this is not just rental income. Have you thought about whether revenue for power delivery could exceed 25% of rental income and any accounting implications of that?

I'll start with the financing structures and the data center models. We constantly engage with lenders on deal structures to ensure the financing is available. We have strong relationships with a number of project finance lenders in this space who are actively involved in conversations for the different deals we are negotiating. We feel confident we can finance the range of structures we're considering. Regarding data center models, we are flexible: some partners may provide buildings and infrastructure, others may facilitate tenant financing or take other approaches. We're looking for the structure that best aligns with the counterparty, timeline and financing. As for the accounting question, we do intend to consider revenue recognition and accounting policies carefully. We will elect appropriate accounting treatments where applicable and structure commercial terms and revenue recognition so that we meet accounting requirements.

On the shareholder question: there is currently no shareholder meeting set. Last night, we filed an 8-K where the Board has made modifications to the company's bylaws that require a 70% vote of the shares outstanding for certain changes to Board composition. These modifications are intended to protect shareholders and provide stability as we execute our plan.

And to be clear on the accounting matter, we have considered revenue recognition and intend to structure transactions and accounting elections to meet applicable standards and to avoid unintended classification issues. We will continue to work with our auditors and advisors on that treatment.

Your next question is coming from Derrick Whitfield from Texas Capital.

Starting with Slide 9, could you offer color on the amount of aggregate power capacity you see in the market at year-end 2027 relative to gross demand for data center power? If you compare your offering at year-end 2027, how unique would that capacity be in the market versus what's being built?

What we've said before is that we currently control 2.2 gigawatts of gas generation equipment on our balance sheet. Based on having a lease and project finance, we believe we can deliver 1.5 gigawatts of installed power in simple cycle by the end of 2027. That should be read as an achievable milestone, driven by customer timelines and financing. That is the first domino that enables project financing and subsequent implementation of our turbines and broader plant design.

Great. Maybe a second question for Anna: in your prepared remarks you noted a more streamlined commercial interface for customers and partners. Could you elaborate on how the interface has changed and the degree to which it may have been an impediment in past customer discussions?

Absolutely. One key change was recognizing that we needed to transition from the vision and momentum of an entrepreneurial company to a more commercial organization capable of meeting the expectations of large counterparties. Large customers expect a particular way of working: clarity on capacity and availability, transparent processes, clear points of contact and consistent follow-through. We have invested in building the team, processes and structure to make it easier to engage, to be clear about capacity and timelines, and to build long-term relationships. In short, we've professionalized our commercial interface to be more predictable, responsive and aligned with customer procurement and sourcing processes.

Your next question is coming from Paul Golding from Macquarie.

Just a follow-up: are ongoing discussions with lenders informing how you're filtering or thinking about the size of the initial definitive lease? Does lender feedback influence whether you pursue smaller parcels versus gigawatt-scale commitments?

Yes, absolutely. We're fortunate to have multiple structures available and lenders engaged across the spectrum. Whether the deal is one gigawatt or a few hundred megawatts, we feel confident we can secure project financing for financeable, bankable transactions. Of course, the counterparty's creditworthiness matters—a more creditworthy offtaker simplifies the financing. For less creditworthy counterparties, we would look to partner structures or credit enhancement to achieve financeable outcomes. We're actively involving lenders as we evaluate the different transaction structures on the table.

That concludes our Q&A session. I'll now hand the conference back to Marius Haas for closing remarks. Please go ahead.

Thank you, operator. Thanks for participating in our call today. We know there's a lot of noise in the system, but as you've heard this morning, our leadership team is 100% focused on executing on our plan to create long-term shareholder value. As indicated, and I'll repeat it one more time, over the next 90 days, you can expect us to deliver on these five key priorities: securing a binding tenant agreement; maintaining capital discipline to support liquidity; hiring our next CEO; delivering power at our project site; and exploring strategic partnerships for accelerating data center and power deployment. We appreciate your interest and support as we work to build the power platform for the AI era. Thank you again for joining us this morning. We very much appreciate it.

Thank you. Everyone, this concludes today's event. You may disconnect at this time, and have a wonderful day. Thank you for your participation.