Skip to content
Same·PointEnergy + AI

The case

The application that gets picked.

Buy the interconnect. Permit the cooling. Host the IT.

The interconnect approval queue decides who wins compute capacity — not GPUs. Undifferentiated 50 MW interconnect filings wait. You are not buying solar. You are buying an existing grid connection and filing a load the operator can say yes to. Texas (Pecos) is the worked example. Every grid has the same two hurdles: getting power out, and getting approval to draw power in after dark.

CFO
Economics

About $175.5M, then $369.6M, then $405.2M a year.

CTO
Cooling & generation

50.7 MWth. A 250 MWh cold storage tank.

Counsel
Permitting

Inside the existing fence. Phase 3 is full off-grid.

Firm offtake, flex hours, and what the overlay costs.

The purchase

Buy the interconnect. Phase 1 is 58 MW. The site then grows.

Phase 1 is 58 MW of firm compute. The hottest hour rejects 50.7 MW of heat. The same acreage then hosts 153 MW on the grid, and 175 MW off the grid.

Acquire
100 MWdc, commercial operation 2021 or earlier. The generation connection is already built.
Overlay
Cassette rows, a buried pipe, a 250 MWh cold storage tank, and an air-cooled chiller. No dry coolers. No towers.
Host
Phase 1 is 58 MW. Phase 2 is 153 MW, still on the grid. Phase 3 is 175 MW, full off-grid.
Earn
Planning value: about $175.5M, then $369.6M, then $405.2M a year. Later steps are after operating cost.
Time
A new interconnect is years. This plant already exports. Phase 3 does not import.

CFO

  • Phase 1 uses $3 million per MW-year. Phase 1 is 58 MW, about $175.5 million. Phase 2 and Phase 3 are not $3 million times every megawatt.
  • Phase 2 is about $369.6 million a year, about 1.87 years versus Phase 1. Phase 3 is about $405.2 million, 2.22 years.
  • Phase 2 is 153 MW, still on the grid. Phase 3 is 175 MW, full off-grid. Phase 3 is not an 18 MW add-on.
  • Shared reject is about 35 acres, then 76, then 94. Jacket water sets the later acres.
  • The farm bid is a separate energy-asset purchase. The overlay is the cooling invoice. GPUs stay on the customer’s books.

CTO

  • 17 June at 15:00: cassette rows 10.5 MWth, buried pipe 3.1, tank 35, chiller 2.1. That is 50.7. The chiller nameplate is 8.45 MWe at COP 6, on surplus PV.
  • The cold store is a 250 MWh cold storage tank. The buried pipe is not that store.
  • No dry coolers. No cooling towers. Shared reject is 35 acres, then 76, then 94.
  • Phase 2 heat engine is about 5.8 MW. Phase 3 heat engine is about 13.2 MW. Firm IT is 153 MW, then 175 MW.

MWdc is the farm you buy and pipe. MW AC is what the interconnect carries. MW IT is the compute you contract.

First commercial plant

Scale from a 10 MW Phase 1 plant.

The slider is only the Phase 1 trial. 153 MW and 175 MW are the full site. They do not grow with the slider. Phase 3 is full off-grid. The dollar line is the $3 million Phase 1 rate, not the Phase 2 or Phase 3 net.

Phase 1 trial
10 MW
Phase 2 adds, above Phase 1
95.22 MW
Phase 2 · still on the grid
153 MW
Phase 3 · full off-grid
175 MW
Repowered PV
89.8 MWdc
Shared reject on the full site
35 → 76 → 94 ac

Illustrative enabled-compute value, at $3M per incremental MW-year: $30.0M / year

Qualify this size

Permitting and economics per additional MW of AI

Capex, water, noise, air, and time are the same decision. Cooling-first reuses a permitted interconnect and keeps a smaller chiller, not a chiller for the whole duty. Time is to additional IT, not to a greenfield campus.

Path$M / MWFuel exposureGen. waterCooling waterTimeEmissions / noise
Same·Point cooling-first$0.72–0.78MLowNone addedLow6–12 moLow
Reciprocating gas engines$1.5–2.2MMediumMedium–highMechanical cooling12–24 moMedium
Same·Point full platform$3.2MLowNone addedLowStagedLow
Aeroderivative simple-cycle GT$3.2–4.6MHighHighMechanical cooling24–36 mo+High
Fuel cells$7–8MHighLowHall cooling extra90 d–18 moCO₂ 680–830 lb/MWh

Reciprocating engines are typically more efficient than simple-cycle aeroderivative turbines. Combined-cycle GTs are not in this table. Fuel-cell generation-side water is low in normal operation. Same·Point rows are per MW of firm IT. Engine, turbine, and fuel-cell rows are per MW of generation. Fuel cells are about $7–8M per MW installed (2026). That price does not include IT cooling.

Indicative cost of energy that reaches the halls — $ / MWh

Cooling-first cuts overhead at the meter, so more of each purchased or generated MWh reaches IT. That is not a generation LCOE. Generator rows below are conventional generation LCOE.

Path$ / MWhBasis
Same·Point cooling-first$40–60Delivered to AI compute — overhead reduction
Reciprocating gas engines$55–85Generation LCOE
Same·Point full platform$35–55Delivered to IT — duration and ORC hours
Aeroderivative simple-cycle GT$70–110Generation LCOE
Fuel cells$100–140Generation LCOE, natural gas

Illustrative Pecos, Texas planning days (17 Jun, 22 Jun, 6 Dec 2024; NSRDB GOES v4, 5-min, LST UTC−6). 50 MW firm IT on 100 MWdc. The availability spec is 99.9%. These three days show zero unmet firm load. They are not the full-year result. Phase 2 stays on the grid and reaches 153 MW. Phase 3 is full off-grid at 175 MW of firm IT. The published bars do not yet include engine exhaust. Not a contract.

Worked example · 100 MWdc existing PV · Pecos, Texas

Phase 0 is 50 MW, Phase 1 is 58 MW, then 153 MW, then 175 MW on one site.

Phase 1 is the cooling plant. It is 58 MW of firm compute. The hottest hour rejects 50.7 MW of heat. Phase 2 stays on the grid, adds engines and recovered heat, and reaches 153 MW. Phase 3 is 175 MW off the grid.

Phase 1 — cooling
50 MW AI

58 MW of firm compute. The hottest hour rejects 50.7 MW of heat. The chiller runs on surplus PV.

Phase 2 — grid + engines
153 MW AI

Grid plus engines. 153 MW. About 1.87 years versus Phase 1.

Phase 3 — off the grid
175 MW AI

Full off-grid. 175 MW. On the same acreage. 2.22 years versus Phase 1.

Starting plant is 100 MWdc on the same land. Phase 1 reject is about 35 acres. Phase 2 shares about 76. Phase 3 shares about 94 and is full off-grid. Jacket water sets the later acres. No mirror acreage is drawn.

$175.5M / year — Phase 1

58 MW of firm compute × $3 million per MW-year. A planning year, not a live meter.

$369.6M / year

Phase 2 is 153 MW. About $369.6 million a year. About 1.87 years versus Phase 1.

175 MW — full off-grid

Phase 3 is full off-grid at 175 MW. About $405.2 million a year. 2.22 years versus Phase 1.

Phase 3 is full off-grid at 175 MW. About $405.2 million a year after operating cost. 2.22 years versus Phase 1. On the same site.

The three published days are 17 June, 22 June, and 6 December. The hall is 50 MW on each of them.

Compared with

The metric is firm IT.

Phase 1 is 58 MW of firm compute. On 17 June at 15:00 the chiller supplies 2.1 MW of the 50.7 MW of heat. It runs on surplus PV.

  • A new interconnect or a new plant

    A site with no interconnect and no heat rejection this year hosts nothing. That is a 5–7 year timeline. This farm already exports. Overnight import is a separate filing for the 50 MW hall.

  • Chiller on surplus PV, not the whole load

    Same 50 MW hall. On 17 June at 15:00 the chiller supplies 2.1 MWth of the 50.7. Nameplate is 8.45 MWe at COP 6 and runs on surplus PV.

  • Grid, then full off-grid

    Phase 2 stays on the grid and reaches 153 MW. Phase 3 is full off-grid at 175 MW of firm IT.

  • More batteries as the cooling plant

    A pack can run compressors. It cannot dump server heat. Every MWh spent on chillers is a MWh that never reaches GPUs.

Why the overlay beats a new plant

  • Reuses the interconnect and land you already have
  • About 35 acres of radiator rows, plus a smaller chiller, reject 50.7 MWth for the 50 MW hall
  • The chiller nameplate is 8.45 MWe at COP 6. On the hottest hour it supplies 2.1 MWth of the 50.7.
Request the briefing pack