jain.com — data centers, connectivity and security, analyzed daily

Tag: North Carolina

  • WhiteFiber Buys 2 North Carolina Sites as $865M Nscale Lease Begins

    WhiteFiber Buys 2 North Carolina Sites as $865M Nscale Lease Begins

    TL;DR · 30-second read

    The Short Version

    WhiteFiber, a company that rents out computing power for artificial intelligence, is spending $60 million on two properties in North Carolina to build more data centers, which are warehouses full of computers. The sites are expected to come with enough electricity for tens of thousands of homes, and that much power is increasingly hard to get.

    It already has customers. A 10-year deal worth about $865 million has started paying, and the company has signed more than $550 million in other contracts since May.

    The catch: it still loses money, $15 million last quarter, and it issued new shares, so each existing share now owns a smaller slice of the company.

    WhiteFiber, Inc. (WYFI), an operator of AI data centers and GPU cloud services, attached an investor presentation to an 8-K filed with the SEC on September 14, 2026. Minichart’s summary of the presentation reported that on August 16 the company signed a definitive agreement to buy two North Carolina industrial properties, designated NC-2 and NC-3, for $60 million in cash. The sites are expected to provide at least 60 MW of initial gross electrical capacity, with potential for roughly 198 MW over time. Confirmation of that capacity is a closing condition, and closing is expected in the fourth quarter of 2026.

    The presentation also reported more than $550 million of new cloud contract value booked since May 2026. Billing has begun at the NC-1 campus under Nscale’s 10-year, 40 MW lease, which is worth about $865 million. WhiteFiber described a pipeline of roughly 1.5 GW, completed an August exchange that retired about 86% of its 2031 convertible notes, and reported a second-quarter net loss of $15.0 million.

    Executive Summary

    WhiteFiber’s September investor update shows a company reorganizing around contracted, long-duration revenue. At its core is the Nscale anchor lease at NC-1. That single contract averages about $86.5 million a year over its term, which is close to the company’s entire $94.5 million of combined revenue for the twelve months ended June 30. Around it sit five disclosed cloud contracts and a sixth undisclosed one, spread across Canada, Iceland, Paris and WhiteFiber’s own U.S. fleet.

    The $60 million North Carolina purchase is the physical follow-through. WhiteFiber is using its backlog as the case for buying powered land before it has binding tenants, and it says non-binding letters of intent backed by investment-grade credit are in hand. The strategy is coherent. The open questions are about execution. Revenue depends on construction, GPU deliveries and customer acceptance. Net losses widened year over year, and the note exchange added about 6.3 million shares.

    From GPU Renter to Landlord

    WhiteFiber has two businesses. One rents GPU computing capacity by the hour or by contract, which is its cloud services business. The other leases data center space and power to other AI companies, which is its data center business. Cloud is still the larger segment, with $79.6 million of trailing-twelve-month revenue against $15.0 million from data centers. The data center line, however, grew 10.7 times from FY2024, and the Nscale lease is set to change the mix sharply once it ramps.

    The economics of that shift are the story. A 10-year lease for 40 MW of IT load gives visibility that hourly GPU rental cannot. IT load is the power available to customers’ servers. Gross capacity, by contrast, also covers cooling and other building overhead. WhiteFiber says Phase 1 of NC-1 is fully contracted and that Duke Energy has completed work to deliver the initial 54 gross MW. Management believes the site could eventually reach 200 gross MW. If it does, NC-1’s current tenant would occupy only part of a campus that already has a utility relationship, which is a meaningful advantage when grid connections are the industry’s main bottleneck.

    The presentation says initial billing began in the third quarter and that full revenue contribution is expected in the same quarter as the facility reaches contractual capacity. That timing is still subject to deployment, commissioning and customer acceptance. Whether the ramp lands on schedule is the near-term test investors will watch in the next quarterly report.

    Buying Power, Not Just Buildings

    At $60 million for a minimum of 60 MW of initial gross capacity, WhiteFiber is paying roughly $1 million per initial megawatt for NC-2 and NC-3. That falls to about $300,000 per megawatt if the full 198 MW materializes. The price covers the properties, not the fit-out. Turning industrial buildings into AI-ready halls with high-density power and liquid or advanced cooling costs far more than the land. The acquisition is best read as an option on scarce, electrified sites rather than as the full cost of new capacity.

    Two structural protections stand out. First, the power capacity has to be confirmed as a condition of closing, so WhiteFiber should not end up owning sites without the electricity it is paying for. Second, the sites are about 55 miles from NC-1, which could let the company reuse staff, contractors and regional know-how. The target of initial ready-for-service capacity in the third quarter of 2027 is aggressive for conversions of this kind, and it depends on the deal closing on time in late 2026.

    Demand support is real but not yet binding. WhiteFiber cites non-binding letters of intent backed by investment-grade credit from prospective customers. That is a stronger signal than a speculative build. It is still short of a signed lease like Nscale’s at NC-1.

    How Solid Is $550 Million of Cloud Backlog?

    The five disclosed contracts total about $538 million, and the unpresented July win of roughly $16 million brings the figure above $550 million. The contracts differ considerably. Terms run from two years (Hyperbolic / Modal Labs, about $17 million) to five years (the Paris deployment, over $160 million, and a Canada inference contract, about $88 million). Prime Intellect’s roughly $165 million three-year deal is the largest single item. Averaged evenly across their terms, the five contracts would add up to around $150 million a year at full run rate. That figure is simple arithmetic, not company guidance.

    Most of this backlog requires new hardware: NVIDIA B300 systems in Canada and VR200 systems for WhiteFiber’s first Vera Rubin deployment in the U.S. The capital cost of those GPUs is the central economic question. The Paris contract is the most de-risked on the page, with an investment-grade customer, customer prepayments and project-level financing. The Hyperbolic / Modal Labs deal is the least capital-intensive because it uses H200s already in the fleet and needs no new GPU spending.

    Contract length matters because GPU generations turn over quickly. A three-year contract on current-generation hardware can recover a large share of the equipment cost within the term. What the systems earn afterward is harder to predict. The revenue-sharing upside on the Canada inference contract adds potential gains, and it also means that part of that contract’s value depends on the customer’s success.

    The Balance Sheet Behind the Build

    The August note exchange raised about $298.5 million in net proceeds from new $310 million 2032 convertible notes. WhiteFiber spent roughly $118.5 million in cash to retire about 86% of its 2031 notes, leaving around $180 million net. It also issued about 6.3 million shares, roughly 16% of the 38.85 million basic shares outstanding afterward. The conversion price on about 91% of the principal involved is set at a 25% premium to a $27.07 reference price. Separately, WhiteFiber holds a zero-strike call on 5.91 million shares, bought in January 2026 for about $120 million. Arrangements of that kind are generally used to offset dilution.

    The operating picture shows growth ahead of profit. Second-quarter revenue rose about 54% to $28.8 million, and adjusted EBITDA increased to $5.5 million from $3.3 million. Over the same period the net loss widened to $15.0 million from $8.8 million, which included a $5.0 million impairment of capitalized software. That pattern is common for infrastructure companies spending ahead of contracted revenue. It does mean the company’s expansion depends on continued access to capital markets and project financing.

    Background

    WhiteFiber is a New York-headquartered AI infrastructure company that went public in 2025 after being carved out of Bit Digital. It runs two lines of business: GPU cloud services, which rent high-end NVIDIA computing capacity to AI developers, and data center services, which lease powered space to other AI operators. Its footprint spans Canada, Iceland, the United States and a Paris region deployment, with its flagship owned campus, NC-1, in North Carolina.

    WhiteFiber belongs to a group of so-called neoclouds, specialist GPU providers that have grown alongside demand for AI training and inference. Across the sector, the limiting factor has shifted from chips to electricity, because utility grid connections can take years to secure. Companies that control powered sites are therefore increasingly able to sign long-term contracts. WhiteFiber’s 10-K for 2025 was filed on March 26, 2026, and its 10-Q for the second quarter on August 12, 2026.

    Sources

    Source: WhiteFiber Signs $60 Million Deal for Two North Carolina Data Center Sites (Minichart), a summary of WhiteFiber’s September 2026 investor presentation. Related coverage: WhiteFiber unveils $865M Nscale anchor deal, >$550M cloud wins and 1.5GW pipeline (TradingView) and WhiteFiber Updates Investors on AI Data Center Strategy (TipRanks).

    Primary sources: WhiteFiber, Inc. Form 8-K Current Report, filed September 14, 2026; Exhibit 99.1: Investor Presentation of WhiteFiber, Inc. as of September 2026.

  • $19.2B North Carolina Withdrawal Shows County Zoning Is a Gate on AI Capacity

    $19.2B North Carolina Withdrawal Shows County Zoning Is a Gate on AI Capacity

    TL;DR · 30-second read

    The Short Version

    A company called Energy Storage Solutions has dropped its plan for a $19.2 billion building full of computers for artificial intelligence in a rural North Carolina county.

    At first it would have used about 300 megawatts of electricity, roughly what a couple of hundred thousand homes use, and possibly three times that later.

    Local officials had already refused it a permit. Now they are considering a two-year ban on any new projects like it. The takeaway: a county vote can stop part of the artificial intelligence boom before a single computer is installed.

    A proposed $19.2 billion AI data center in Edgecombe County, North Carolina, has been withdrawn by its developer, Energy Storage Solutions, Data Center Dynamics reported on July 15, 2026. County Manager Eric Evans told the board of commissioners at its July 6 meeting that the company had pulled the project earlier in the month. The multi-phase campus was planned for the Kingsboro development area near Tarboro, about 70 miles east of Raleigh.

    The county denied the project a special-use permit late last year, when it was described as an eight-phase, 300MW campus on 52 acres. Other accounts put the eventual build-out at 300 acres and 900MW. At the same July 6 meeting, commissioners discussed a 24-month moratorium on new data center developments. A public hearing is scheduled for August.

    Executive Summary

    The Edgecombe withdrawal takes one of North Carolina’s largest announced AI data center proposals off the table, at least for now. The obstacle on the public record was not chips, turbines or transformers. It was a county special-use permit, the discretionary approval a local board can grant or refuse. Commissioners refused it, the developer appealed, and the project has now been withdrawn while that appeal was reported to be ongoing.

    The episode matters beyond one county because two policy layers are tightening at once. Locally, Edgecombe is weighing a two-year pause on all new data center projects. At the state level, the House has passed the Ratepayer Protection Act, which would make data center developers pay upfront for the grid expansion, transmission upgrades and new generation their facilities require. Together they change both whether a campus can be built and who pays to power it.

    For developers, utilities and the cloud and AI companies that lease capacity, the practical point is that a site’s local approval status now belongs in capacity forecasts alongside land and megawatts.

    The Gate on This 300MW Campus Was a County Vote

    Most public discussion of AI infrastructure constraints centres on chips, power supply and electrical equipment. In Edgecombe County, the documented obstacle came earlier than any of those. Late last year, the board of commissioners denied a special-use permit for an eight-phase, 300MW data center campus on 52 acres. A special-use permit is discretionary. Even where land is zoned for industrial use, a county board can attach conditions or say no. Energy Storage Solutions appealed and said it would proceed. By early July, the county manager was telling commissioners the project had been withdrawn.

    The moratorium under discussion would turn one project’s rejection into a countywide freeze. For 24 months, no developer could bring a new data center through the county’s approval process. Campuses like this one are planned in phases across several years, so a two-year stop at the approval stage delays the first phase, and every phase behind it, by at least that long. That delay holds whether or not power, financing and tenants are ready.

    Several groups absorb that risk. Developers and landowners assemble parcels on the expectation of approval. Utilities plan transmission and generation around announced loads. Tenants, usually cloud and AI companies, need capacity delivered on a specific date. For all of them, entitlement status, meaning whether a site actually holds the local approvals needed to build, is as material as the megawatt figure in the announcement. A single county vote removed a planned 300MW from the pipeline here, and possibly 900MW.

    A $19.2 Billion Figure Without a Fixed Size

    The $19.2 billion headline is the project’s most quoted number and its least anchored one. The permit application the county reviewed described 300MW on 52 acres. Other reports described a 300-acre campus reaching 900MW. Divided across 900MW, the figure works out to about $21 million per megawatt. Divided across 300MW, it is about $64 million per megawatt. A threefold gap makes it impossible to benchmark the proposal against other campuses or to tell whether the figure includes the servers and AI chips inside the buildings, which often cost more than the buildings themselves.

    Headline figures for multi-phase campuses tend to describe a full build-out rather than a first phase. That makes them useful as a measure of ambition and weak as a measure of what is financed or contracted. For readers tracking AI capacity announcements, the useful distinction is between the capacity a regulator has actually reviewed, here 300MW, and the capacity that appears in the eventual vision, here up to 900MW.

    North Carolina Moves the Grid Bill Toward Developers

    The state-level change could matter more than any single county’s decision. The Ratepayer Protection Act, passed by the North Carolina House and awaiting Senate approval, would require data center developers to cover the upfront costs of grid expansion, transmission upgrades and new power generation for their facilities. The practical effect is to shift those costs away from a utility’s general customer base and onto the project. That raises the capital a developer needs before a site produces revenue, and it makes locations near existing grid capacity relatively more valuable.

    The bill also includes a coal plant moratorium. Public utilities could not retire coal-fired plants until regulators approve new large-scale nuclear facilities. That provision would keep existing generation on the system while new supply is planned. Its cost and environmental trade-offs will be argued on their merits in the Senate.

    Taken together, the local and state layers raise the bar for projects that lack committed customers and deep financing. Developers with signed tenants and capital to fund grid upgrades are better placed under these rules than those seeking approvals first and backers later. Counties and ratepayers gain more leverage over terms. The open question for the industry is how many other North Carolina counties adopt similar tools. The state has seen resident opposition to data center proposals in several places.

    Background

    North Carolina has become a hotspot for data center development, with some local residents opposing new projects in several parts of the state. Edgecombe County, whose seat is Tarboro, about 70 miles east of Raleigh, became one focal point when Energy Storage Solutions proposed a multi-phase AI data center campus in the Kingsboro development area.

    The county board of commissioners denied the project a special-use permit late last year. The developer appealed and said it would proceed, before withdrawing the project in early July 2026. State lawmakers are meanwhile debating the Ratepayer Protection Act, which would make data center developers pay upfront for the grid infrastructure and generation their facilities require.

    Sources

    Source: North Carolina AI data center proposal withdrawn as county officials mull moratorium, Data Center Dynamics’ report on the withdrawal of Energy Storage Solutions’ $19.2 billion Edgecombe County project and the county’s proposed 24-month moratorium.

  • North Carolina Bill Would Make Hyperscalers Pay Their Grid Costs

    North Carolina Bill Would Make Hyperscalers Pay Their Grid Costs

    North Carolina legislators have introduced an AI infrastructure bill that would push hyperscale data centers to shoulder the electricity system costs their load creates, according to a 5 May 2026 report from Data Center Knowledge. The measure places North Carolina among a growing set of states moving “large-load” cost allocation out of utility commission dockets and into statute.

    The available source is headline-level: it establishes that such a bill has been proposed and that hyperscale cost recovery is its target. It does not, in the material we reviewed, supply a bill number, sponsor list, megawatt threshold, contract terms, or a legislative calendar. This analysis therefore treats the policy direction as reported and the mechanics as open questions.

    Executive Summary

    The proposal addresses a problem that has moved quickly from technical to political: when a single data center campus requests hundreds of megawatts, the utility must build transmission lines, substations and generation to serve it. Those assets are paid for over decades through rates charged to every customer. If the campus is delayed, downsized or shut down, the bill does not disappear — it shifts to households and existing businesses. “Cost causation,” the regulatory principle that the party creating a cost should bear it, is the framework North Carolina is reportedly trying to codify.

    This matters because North Carolina is not a marginal market. Its low industrial power prices, data center sales-tax exemption and existing hyperscale footprint have made it a repeat destination for large campuses. A statutory cost-allocation regime in a top-tier state signals that the era of negotiating each large load quietly with a utility, case by case, is narrowing.

    For operators, the practical question is not whether they will pay — large customers already pay substantial demand charges — but how much risk they must pre-commit to and for how long. Minimum-take obligations, multi-year contract terms, collateral and exit fees are the levers that determine whether a state’s rules are a manageable cost of doing business or a reason to site the next campus elsewhere.

    Why Cost Causation Became a Statehouse Fight

    Regulated electric utilities are, in effect, planning institutions. They forecast demand years out, build generation and wires against that forecast, and recover the capital through rates approved by a state commission. The model works when load grows predictably. AI-era data center requests break that assumption in two directions at once: individual projects are enormous relative to a utility’s existing peak, and the interconnection queue is full of speculative requests that may never be built.

    Utilities have responded with “phantom load” screening and large-load tariffs designed to separate serious projects from optionality-shopping. But those instruments are negotiated inside regulatory proceedings that most voters never see. When residential bills rise for any reason — fuel costs, storm recovery, capacity additions — data centers become the visible explanation, whether or not they are the arithmetic one. Legislation is what happens when that political pressure outruns the docket process.

    The industry has a serious counterargument that deserves to be stated plainly: large, flat, high-load-factor customers can improve system utilization and spread fixed costs across more kilowatt-hours, which can put downward pressure on everyone’s rates. That is genuinely true when the load materializes and stays. The entire policy question is what happens when it does not — and who is holding the asset.

    Three States, Three Instruments

    Oregon’s POWER Act is the clearest existing template. It directs that very large energy users — data centers and cryptocurrency operations above a defined megawatt threshold — be placed in their own customer class with dedicated long-term contract terms, so that the costs of serving them are recovered from them rather than blended into general rates. The mechanism is structural: create a separate class, then let the commission set terms for that class.

    New Jersey’s approach has centered on a tariff mandate — instructing regulators to establish a distinct rate schedule for high-density load, which leaves more design discretion with the board while fixing the obligation in law. North Carolina’s reported bill sits somewhere in this family, but the reporting available does not specify which instrument it uses. The distinction is not academic. A separate-class statute changes who a customer legally is; a tariff-directive statute changes what a customer pays under rules regulators still write.

    Comparing the three exposes the real design variables: the megawatt trigger, whether existing and already-announced projects are grandfathered, the minimum-take percentage, contract duration, credit and collateral requirements, and the exit fee if a customer walks. Two states can adopt the same headline principle and produce very different investment climates depending on where those dials are set.

    Who Gains, Who Pays, and Who Hedges

    The clearest winners from codified cost allocation are ratepayer advocates and, less obviously, incumbent operators with signed interconnection agreements. Grandfathering provisions — common in this legislation — convert an existing position into a durable cost advantage over a new entrant facing minimum-take obligations and collateral posting. Rules that raise the price of entry protect whoever is already inside.

    The clearest losers are speculative developers holding land and queue positions without a committed tenant. A statutory minimum-take regime prices optionality directly, which is arguably the policy’s point. Utilities occupy an ambiguous position: they gain revenue certainty and reduced stranded-asset exposure, but lose flexibility to structure bespoke deals for anchor customers they want to attract.

    The predictable hedge is to go around the tariff entirely. Behind-the-meter generation, on-site gas, fuel cells and co-located generation reduce a campus’s exposure to regulated rates — and correspondingly reduce its contribution to the shared system it still relies on for backup and reliability. Whether North Carolina’s bill addresses standby service and backup rates for self-supplied campuses is one of the more consequential details not visible in the source reporting.

    The Case For and Against Legislating It

    The argument against writing this into statute is real. Utility commissions have staff, evidentiary records and the ability to adjust terms as load forecasts change; legislatures have none of that and revise slowly. A megawatt threshold that is sensible in 2026 may be poorly calibrated by 2030, and statutory language is harder to fix than a tariff sheet.

    The argument for it is equally real. Commission proceedings can be captured by the sophistication gap between utilities, hyperscalers and thinly-resourced consumer advocates, and they produce outcomes that are legally reversible in the next rate case. Legislation delivers durability, which is precisely what a developer underwriting a fifteen-year asset wants — even a developer who dislikes the specific terms.

    The measured read is that predictability may matter more to capital than stringency. Operators can price a known minimum-take obligation. What they cannot price is a jurisdiction where the rules are relitigated every eighteen months. If North Carolina’s bill produces clear, stable terms, it may prove less damaging to the state’s competitiveness than opponents suggest and less protective of ratepayers than supporters claim.

    Background

    North Carolina has hosted large data center investment since the late 2000s, when major cloud and platform companies built campuses in the state’s western foothills, drawn by inexpensive power, cool-season climate and a state sales-and-use tax exemption for qualifying facilities. That footprint has since expanded toward the Charlotte region and the Research Triangle. Electricity service across most of the state is provided by vertically integrated regulated utilities whose rates and resource plans are approved by the North Carolina Utilities Commission.

    The AI buildout changed the scale of the ask. Individual campus requests now arrive measured in hundreds of megawatts, comparable to serving a mid-sized city, and often on timelines far shorter than the multi-year cycles required to build generation and transmission. Utilities in several states have responded with dedicated large-load tariffs featuring long contract terms and minimum-take provisions. Oregon and New Jersey moved the question into legislation, and North Carolina’s proposed bill would extend that pattern to one of the Southeast’s most active data center markets.

    Source: North Carolina Targets Hyperscale Costs with Proposed AI Infrastructure Bill — Data Center Knowledge, 5 May 2026, reporting that North Carolina legislators have proposed requiring hyperscale data centers to bear the grid costs their load creates.