Data Centers: Power Pricing, PUE, and the 2024-2026 Hyperscale Re-Pricing

Key Takeaways

The 2024-2026 AI Demand Re-Pricing

A data center is a power lease with a building wrapped around it. The cap rate follows the credit of the tenant and the stability of the power; the lease structure follows the way the kilowatt is delivered; the capex stack follows the electrical and cooling spec, not the square footage. The institutional reader who underwrites the asset class as if it were specialty industrial will lose every deal in 2026 to the underwriter who underwrites it as the digital-infrastructure asset it actually is - sitting at the intersection of commercial real estate and wholesale power, and repricing faster than any other institutional asset class in the cycle.

The 2024-2026 inflection is structural, not cyclical. US data-center capacity sat at roughly 12 GW in 2020. On Apers estimates, the operational base had reached approximately 25 GW by the end of 2025.Goldman Sachs Researchforecasts global data-center power demand to increase 50% by 2027 and by as much as 165% by 2030 versus 2023.Dell'Orotracks global data-center capex to $1.7 trillion through 2030.JLL's 2026 Global Data Center Outlookexpects nearly 100 GW of new data-center capacity globally between 2026 and 2030, with up to $3 trillion of total investment including tenant fit-out. On the leasing side,CBRE's H2 2025 data-center reportput the US national average lease rate at $194.95 per kW per month, up 6.5% year over year.

The institutional consequence is that data centers are no longer a specialty industrial sub-segment. They are the dominant institutional infrastructure asset class. Blackstonecompleted its take-private of QTS(approximately $10B including debt) on August 31, 2021. KKR and Global Infrastructure Partners took CyrusOne private. Brookfield and Ontario Teachers' acquired Compass Datacenters in 2023 and in 2026planned an $830M ABS backed by six hyperscale facilities(198.2 MW, $3.6B appraised value, per a Moody's presale); KKR invested in a portion of Compass' operational portfolio in December. SoftBankcompleted its acquisition of DigitalBridgeon September 30, 2026 for approximately $3.1B. Stonepeaklaunched the Montera Infrastructure platformin April 2025 with a $1.5B equity commitment, its fourth North American data-center investment after CoreSite and Cologix. Blackstone's BXDC REIT filingtargets 5.75-7.0% property yieldson newly built, stabilized data centers leased to investment-grade hyperscalers, with 2-3% annual rent escalators. This is not a sector being entered; it is a sector being consolidated.

What follows is the institutional underwriter's read of the asset class in 2026: the capex stack at the 2026 benchmark, the ISO-by-ISO power-cost stack, the behind-the-meter and nuclear-PPA architecture that explains site selection, the PUE benchmark table translated into operating-cost math, the hyperscale vs colocation vs retail framework with cap rates for each segment, the institutional ownership map, the interconnection queue as the binding constraint, and a 50 MW Atlanta hyperscale build-to-suit (BTS) worked end to end with the cap-rate, debt-structure, and PPA-renegotiation sensitivities the institutional analyst needs to land on a recommended price. The article does not chase volume keywords; it serves the cohort the rest of the open web is not serving - the REPE associate, the institutional-platform analyst, the debt broker, and the infrastructure-fund principal who has been assigned a data-center deal and needs the asset class read at full institutional depth.

The Capex Stack: $11-20M/MW in 2026

Underwriting starts with the basis. The 2026 institutional benchmark for a hyperscale shell-and- core build - standard cloud-compute load, 1.20 PUE design, air-cooled or hybrid air-evaporative cooling - runs $11-14M per IT MW in the Apers working band.JLL's 2026 outlookputs the global average shell-and-core cost at $11.3M per MW, up 6% from 2025, and notes that tenant fit-out can cost as much as $25M per MW for AI infrastructure. AI-optimized facilities - liquid cooling (single-phase or two-phase immersion, rear-door heat exchangers, or direct-to-chip), higher-voltage distribution to handle very high rack densities, and densified mechanical and electrical plant - run $15-20M/MW in the same working band. The capex spread between a standard shell-and-core and a GPU-dense AI training campus is the difference between a $700M and a $1.0B project (before land) on a 50 MW IT load.

The decomposition by line is the institutional analyst's first table. Electrical systems are typically 40-45% of the budget - medium-voltage switchgear, paralleling switchgear, UPS modules and batteries, standby generators with N+1 or 2N redundancy, transformers, and the distribution to the white space. Cooling and mechanical run 15-25% - CRACs, CRAH, chillers, air-handling units, evaporative cooling towers, plus rising liquid-cooling spend. Structural shell is 10-15% - the building itself, including raised floor, cable tray, and security shell. Site work, land development, and utility-feeder construction take 8-12%. Fit-out (white space build, cable management, fire suppression, BMS) accounts for the balance, with redundancy upgrades to Tier IV (concurrent maintainability plus fault tolerance) adding roughly 30-40% to the electrical and mechanical line items versus Tier III (an Apers estimate).

Table 1. The 2026 hyperscale capex stack (Apers working band; line items are illustrative estimates sized to the stated totals, and the land range is an Apers estimate). For reference, JLL's 2026 outlook puts the global average shell-and-core cost at $11.3M/MW, up 6% versus 2025. AI-optimized GPU campuses run roughly 35-60% above shell-and-core on the electrical and cooling lines. Tier IV adds roughly 30-40% to electrical and mechanical. Land is reported separately and varies more by market than by MW.

Land is reported separately because it scales with site selection and utility access, not with IT load. The 50 MW Atlanta BTS in our worked example uses a $30M land basis on approximately 50 acres adjacent to a Georgia Power transmission substation, and assumes a confirmed 60 MW utility delivery. Northern Virginia hyperscale land is materially more expensive on a per-acre basis but is gated by grid availability rather than by land cost. The institutional discipline is to underwrite the deal on $/MW basis (all-in development cost divided by IT MW) and report land separately as a discrete risk concentration tied to entitlement, environmental, and utility-availability execution.

Power as the Deal: the ISO-by-ISO Stack

A data center is the largest concentrated electrical load any institutional CRE underwriter will ever model. A 50 MW IT load at 1.20 PUE consumes 60 MW continuously - the equivalent of 50,000 American homes - with a load factor approaching 100%. At wholesale power rates of $50-90/MWh, the annual energy spend is $25-50M. Under triple-net hyperscale leases the tenant pays that bill directly to the utility or under the PPA architecture; under turnkey or wholesale colo structures the landlord buys the energy and resells it at a markup. Either way, the wholesale power-cost stack determines site selection, not submarket office or industrial economics. JLL's 2026 outlook states the institutional discipline in one line: "Speed to power is the primary criteria driving site selection."

The six ISOs / RTOs that matter to the institutional underwriter, with the wholesale baseline, capacity-payment overlay, interconnection-queue posture, and the resulting 2026 site-selection implication for each.

Table 2. The ISO-by-ISO wholesale power stack and the 2026 site-selection implication. PJM is the premium / supply-constrained market; ERCOT is volume; MISO/SPP are cost; NYISO/CAISO are edge. The Southeast vertically integrated markets (Georgia Power, Duke, TVA) have become the institutional spillover for hyperscale BTS as Northern Virginia tightens. ERCOT scenario data from the EIA's March 2026 Today in Energy analysis; the ERCOT large-load forecast and SB 6 terms from Utility Dive; the Dominion queue from Virginia Business. All other wholesale baselines, capacity overlays and queue times in this table are Apers illustrative estimates.

Three market-level details deserve specific institutional attention. First, the Northern Virginia pricing premium. CBRE reports that Northern Virginia absorbed 1,102 MW in 2025, more than double the 451.7 MW of 2024, while US vacancy fell to a historic low of 1.4% and the national average lease rate rose 6.5% to $194.95 per kW per month. Cushman & WakefieldfoundNorthern Virginia hyperscale lease rates 30.1% higher in 2022 than a year earlier. The premium is not a temporary pricing anomaly; it is the value of grid-connected MW in the one corridor with the deepest fiber backbone and the largest hyperscaler footprint, and it is pricing through the supply constraint.

Second, the ERCOT institutional pivot. EIA's March 2026 analysis modeled a high-demand scenario in which 2026 and 2027 load growth in regions with significant data-center development runs 50% higher than baseline; in that scenario the 2027 ERCOT price comes out $37/MWh (79%) above EIA's February 2026 forecast, with a relatively minor effect in 2026. ERCOT itself forecasts 138 GW of large load by 2030, up from 87 GW in 2025. Texas Senate Bill 6 (signed June 2025) pairs mandatory curtailment with required shutoff equipment for large loads of 75 MW or more connecting from 2026, so those loads can be disconnected in firm load-shed events. It also adds a $100,000 minimum initial interconnection fee, new cost-sharing rules and co-location protocols. The disconnection risk bears directly on lease and credit underwriting for ERCOT-sited deals, and the fee and cost-sharing terms change the pro-forma for deals underwritten before mid-2025. Institutional underwriters reading any Texas deal need SB 6 in the model.

Third, the Southeast spillover. Atlanta, Charlotte, Nashville, and the Carolinas have absorbed the institutional hyperscale demand that cannot get a Northern Virginia interconnection in 18 months. Georgia Power's substation pipeline, the Tennessee Valley Authority's industrial-load programs, and Duke Energy's expansion in the Carolinas are the channels through which this demand is being served. The capex math is similar and the wholesale baseline in Table 2 is lower than PJM's. In the Apers working band, Atlanta and the Carolinas price inside the same 5.5-6.5% range as Ashburn, toward the middle of it rather than the tight end, and the gap should compress as Northern Virginia stops adding deliverable MW. The worked example in this article sits in this market.

Behind-the-Meter, Front-of-Meter, and Nuclear PPAs

The wholesale rate is only half of the power story. The other half is the contractual architecture that delivers it. Three structures dominate institutional underwriting in 2026, and the nuclear-PPA case studies of 2024-2026 define the cycle.

Behind-the-meter (BTM). A co-located load at the generation source, electrically connected before the utility meter, bypassing the transmission grid. The original Talen Energy / Amazon Web Services architecture at the Susquehanna nuclear plant in Pennsylvania was a BTM arrangement: AWS contracted 960 MW of nuclear baseload, ramping in 120 MW increments, for a co-located data center without flowing through PJM's transmission system (the ISA covered 300 MW of co-located load, and an amendment would have raised it to 480 MW). The economic appeal to the hyperscaler is straightforward: avoid the multi-year PJM queue, lock in clean baseload from a 24/7 generator with high capacity factor, eliminate transmission losses, and isolate the load from PJM capacity-market pricing volatility.

The institutional issue with BTM is the cost-allocation precedent. On November 1, 2024, FERCrejected, 2-1the amended Talen-Amazon Interconnection Service Agreement (ISA) because PJM had not shown that the non-standard provisions were needed due to specific reliability concerns, novel legal issues or other unique factors. AEP and Exelon had argued that the BTM structure could push up to $140 million a year of transmission costs onto PJM ratepayers. FERC reiterated its opposition in April 2025, and Susquehanna appealed to the Fifth Circuit. The Talen-Amazon deal was restructured inJune 2025as a front-of-meter retail arrangement (grid-connected; Talen says it eliminates the need for FERC approval), with the reconfiguration scheduled, as of that announcement, for the spring 2026 refueling outage. The terms are17 years, up to 1,920 MW, $18Bin total contract value, and the architecture is now standard retail rather than BTM.

Front-of-meter (FOM) retail PPA. The new default. The Microsoft / Constellation Energy deal at the Three Mile Island Unit 1 (renamed the Crane Clean Energy Center) is the archetype: a 20-year PPA for the unit's 835 MW of nuclear baseload. Constellation's CEO said on the company's March 31, 2026 earnings call, asreported by ANS on April 3, "we continue to expect to start this unit in 2027," although a PJM analysis reported the same week suggests grid connection may not come until 2031. The appeal of the structure is 20-year baseload certainty against PJM wholesale volatility.

Standard utility retail and on-site generation. The bulk of US data-center load still runs on standard utility retail - Dominion Energy's data-center service rate in Virginia, Georgia Power's industrial tariff, the ERCOT retail electricity provider (REP) market in Texas. On-site generation - primarily natural-gas turbines or reciprocating engines, with standby diesel for emergency - is increasingly used as bridge power while utility interconnection waits and, per JLL's 2026 outlook, is becoming a permanent fixture in supply- constrained corridors. JLL expects data-center operators to increase behind-the-meter power arrangements, and sees natural gas playing a major role in alleviating grid constraints in the US.

PUE and the OpEx Pass-Through Math

Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) is total facility energy divided by IT load energy. PUE 1.0 is the theoretical limit - every watt drawn from the grid goes to compute. Real facilities consume additional energy for cooling, lighting, security, distribution losses, and the energy required to operate the UPS systems themselves. TheUptime Institute 2025 Global Data Center Surveyreports a weighted-average PUE of 1.54 for 2025, the sixth consecutive year the figure has virtually stood still - meaning the average facility draws 54 watts of non-IT energy per 100 watts of IT load.

Table 3. PUE benchmark by facility class. Uptime Institute publishes the industry weighted average; the other bands are Apers working estimates. The hyperscale-versus-industry gap is the institutional opportunity - and the underlying engineering question that determines who eats the marginal power cost.

Translate PUE to the institutional OpEx math. A 50 MW IT-load facility operating at 1.20 PUE consumes 60 MW total. The same IT load at 1.54 PUE consumes 77 MW - 17 MW of incremental non-IT draw, every hour, every day, every year. At a blended wholesale rate of $70/MWh and 8,760 hours, the PUE gap costs $10.4M per year. Across a 15-year hyperscale lease the cumulative spread is $156M nominal. Under a hyperscale triple-net lease, the tenant pays the energy bill directly to the utility or under the PPA architecture - the landlord is indifferent to PUE on a pure cash-flow basis (the building's NOI does not vary with the cooling efficiency, only the tenant's operating cost does). Under a turnkey colocation structure, the landlord buys the energy and resells the white-space capacity at a per-kW-per-month rate - the PUE gap is the landlord's margin loss. Under a wholesale colo / power-included hybrid, the spread is split per the PPA pass- through and metering arrangement.

The institutional implication is that PUE is not an engineering trivia metric for the underwriter. It is a determinant of who bears the power-cost risk and how the lease rate is structured. The shift to liquid cooling follows from rack densities: as GPU racks climb well past what air can remove, the PUE penalty for staying on air becomes severe. The cooling-spec capex decision (an illustrative case: spend $3-5M/MW extra to put in liquid cooling and design to 1.10 PUE versus stay air-cooled at 1.30 PUE) is a capex-versus-pass-through decision that institutional underwriters now model line by line for AI-optimized GPU builds.

Hyperscale vs Colocation vs Retail

The institutional taxonomy of data-center assets is three segments, distinguished by size, tenant universe, lease structure, term, rate, and cap rate. The segment framework is the article's most referenced table because the rest of the asset class collapses out of it - debt-market access, securitization viability, cap-rate stack, exit-buyer pool, and operational complexity all sort by segment.

Table 4. The three-segment institutional framework. Hyperscale dominates new institutional deal flow on size, tenant credit, and cap-rate compression. Wholesale colo is the long-duration institutional book (Equinix, Digital Realty, CoreSite). Powered shell trades wider because the tenant takes the fit-out risk. Retail trades wider still on tenant churn and operational intensity. Rates and cap rates are the Apers working bands for 2026 (CBRE's 2025 national average lease rate was $194.95/kW/month). Blackstone's BXDC REIT filing targets 5.75-7.0% initial yields on future hyperscale acquisitions.

Hyperscale (>50 MW, BTS or powered shell). A single tenant, typically Big Five (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Meta, Oracle) plus the IG enterprise contingent (Apple, Tesla, Nvidia direct deployment, increasingly sovereign and federal). Lease structure is triple-net or absolute net, 15-year initial term with two 5-year extensions at FMV or fixed strike, escalators fixed (2-3% annual) or CPI-linked with floor and cap. Rate structure is per-kW-per-month wholesale, $150-220/kW/month in the Apers 2026 working band, with NoVa premium pricing the upper end and Tier II Sun Belt markets the lower end. Deal sizes run $550M or more per facility at 50+ MW (50 MW at $11M/MW is $550M; at $14M/MW it is $700M). The cap rate working band is 5.5-6.5% on stabilized hyperscale; BXDC's filing targets 5.75-7.0% initial yields on future acquisitions. The asset-backed securities market accepts hyperscale BTS as collateral, as the planned Brookfield-Compass $830M ABS (six hyperscale facilities, Moody's presale) shows.

Wholesale colocation (1-50 MW, turnkey or wholesale). Multi-tenant. The Equinix / Digital Realty / CoreSite / Cologix institutional book. Lease structure is turnkey (landlord delivers white space ready for tenant racks; tenant pays per-kW-per-month wholesale rate) or wholesale (tenant takes a private suite or cage at landlord rate). Term 5-10 years with options. Credit mix is enterprise, SaaS, financial services, federal - broader than hyperscale but durable. Rates $150-300/kW/month at the wholesale tier. Cap rate working band 6.0-7.0% stabilized. Interconnection density - the cross-connect ecosystem inside the facility - is the operational moat; Equinix's IBX network commands a margin premium on cross-connect revenue that translates to cap-rate compression on the trophy assets.

Powered shell. The asset is the electrical and mechanical capacity plus the structural shell, delivered for a hyperscaler or wholesale colo operator to fit out the white space. Landlord delivers the kW of utility capacity, the structural building, and the basic distribution; tenant builds out the IT racks, CRAH, UPS top-up, and white-space fit. Lease term often longer (10-20 years) to amortize the shell capex against a longer hold; rate structure quoted on a per- kW-shell basis at a steep discount to the corresponding turnkey rate (Table 4: $60-110 versus $150-300). Cap rate 7.0-8.0% because the landlord has not delivered the full fit and the tenant bears more capex risk.

Retail / cabinet (<1 MW, cabinet-by-cabinet). The legacy CenturyLink / Lumen portfolio, the small-MSA single-facility operators, the network-operator hosting facilities. Lease structure cabinet-by-cabinet at $1,500-2,500/cabinet/month, term 1-3 years often with month-to- month structure and meaningful tenant churn. Cap rate 7-8% reflecting operational intensity, churn, and broader tenant credit dispersion. Not the institutional core for new deal flow but a real portfolio book at the trade-press tier and an opportunistic acquisition target for the platforms that can roll it up.

The 2026 Institutional Ownership Map

Name the names. The 2026 institutional landscape sorts into three pools: public REITs, PE / infrastructure- fund-owned platforms, and the GP / sponsor universe that surrounds the platforms.

Public REITs.Digital Realty (DLR) - a large publicly traded data-center REIT, with 2026 core FFO guidance excluding net promote (raised at Q2 2026 earnings, July 2026) of $8.15-8.20 per share. Per theDLR 10-K filingsthe portfolio runs across hyperscale, wholesale colo, and interconnection-dense IBX-equivalent assets.Equinix (EQIX) - the interconnection-density leader, 282 data centers across 77 metros, 2026 AFFO guidance (raised at Q2 2026 earnings, July 2026) $4.24-4.30B (+13-14% YoY), theEQIX 10-Kwalks the interconnection-density model.Iron Mountain (IRM) - the hybrid records-management plus data-center REIT, smaller exposure but worth the cross-reference as a third institutional public option.

PE / infrastructure-fund-owned platforms. QTS Realty (Blackstone, approximately $10B including debt, closed August 2021 at $78 per share, a 21% premium to its June 4, 2021 closing price, per the June 7, 2021 announcement); Switch (DigitalBridge and IFM); Compass Datacenters (Brookfield Infrastructure and Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, acquired 2023, planned $830M ABS securitization (Moody's presale), KKR investment in a portion of the operational portfolio); CyrusOne (KKR and Global Infrastructure Partners); Cologix (Stonepeak); CoreSite (Stonepeak); Montera Infrastructure (Stonepeak, $1.5B equity commitment, April 2025, BTS 100+ MW facilities). Blackstone's BXDC REIT filing targets 5.75-7.0% initial property yields on future acquisitions of newly built, stabilized data centers, a reference point for private-market pricing rather than a closed-deal cap rate.

Infrastructure funds.DigitalBridgewas acquired by SoftBank (completed September 30, 2026, for approximately $3.1B); DBP III closed at$11.7Bincluding co-investment commitments. Blackstone Infrastructure Partners, Brookfield Infrastructure, KKR Global Infrastructure, Stonepeak - each with a data-center sleeve. The institutional thesis is consensus and the capital is staked; the institutional underwriter's job is now to underwrite specific deals against the cap-rate stack the platforms have set, not to defend the asset class as an allocation.

NAREITreports data-center REIT total returns of -14% for 2025, a public-versus-private divergence walked in the closing section of this article.

The Interconnection Queue Is the Binding Constraint

Land selection is now grid selection. The institutional underwriter who treats site selection as a real-estate exercise - submarket vacancy, comp lease rates, demographics - will lose every deal in 2026 to the underwriter who treats it as a grid-availability exercise.

The defining data point is Northern Virginia. In a February 2026 filing with the Virginia State Corporation Commission, Dominion Energyreported about 70 GWof large-load delivery-point requests in its service territory: about 25 GW projected to connect by the end of 2031 and about 45 GW with no connection dates set. These are requests for service, not contracted demand. TheDominion facility interconnection requirements documentsets the technical requirements for connecting a large facility; institutional underwriters should read it for its equipment and timing implications.

The ERCOT load forecast is the same story in a different ISO. ERCOT forecasts 138 GW of large load by 2030, up from 87 GW in 2025. EIA's high-demand scenario puts the 2027 ERCOT wholesale price $37/MWh (79%) above its February 2026 forecast. On Apers' read, the MISO and SPP footprints have lighter load growth and shorter queues but smaller fiber backbones, which constrains hyperscale tenant interest.

The geographic implication: the 2026 institutional site-selection map is migrating out of Northern Virginia even as Virginia's existing inventory leads the world. Atlanta, Charlotte, Nashville, Phoenix, Reno, Columbus, San Antonio, and Indianapolis are absorbing institutional hyperscale deal flow. The 50 MW Atlanta worked example in this article sits in the Southeast spillover. It assumes Georgia Power confirms 60 MW of delivery to a transmission substation, a 24-month construction timeline, and no PJM queue dependency.

Worked Example: 50 MW Atlanta Hyperscale BTS

The deal. A 50 MW IT-load hyperscale build-to-suit in the Atlanta MSA, anchor tenant a Big Five hyperscaler (BBB+ / A-rated parent corporation, system-level guarantee), BTS structure with the landlord developing the facility to tenant-spec, 15-year initial lease term with two 5-year extension options at FMV, triple-net structure with tenant pass-through of utilities and property taxes. The site is approximately 50 acres adjacent to a Georgia Power transmission substation; the example assumes a confirmed 60 MW utility delivery, a 24-month construction timeline, and a projected 1.20 PUE design using free-cooling and evaporative-cooling hybrid. The lease rate is $150/kW/month wholesale, an illustrative assumption at the low end of the $150-220 working band (CBRE's 2025 national average was $194.95/kW/month, so $150 is conservative).

Capex. $14M/MW basis, the top of the $11-14M shell-and-core band (Atlanta sits at the higher end of the shell-and-core range because of tier III spec, the 1.20 PUE design, and 60 MW utility-feeder cost), on a 50 MW IT load = $700M of development cost (structural shell, electrical and mechanical, fit-out, soft costs, contingency). Land is reported separately at $30M, so total project cost is $730M. That is before financing: capitalized construction interest and fees would add roughly $46M (an illustrative estimate: $475M loan, 50% average balance, 6.5% all-in rate, 3 years), for an all-in basis near $776M.

Construction debt. A 65% loan-to-cost construction facility at $475M ($474.5M, 65% of $730M), priced at SOFR plus 225 basis points, 36-month draw period (24-month construction plus 12-month tail for completion and stabilization), interest-only with capitalized interest, converting at certificate of occupancy to a 10-year fixed CMBS perm at 5.30% / 30-year amortization, sized at 60% of the $1.33B stabilized value = $800M. Annual debt service is $53.3M (loan constant 6.664%), so debt service coverage on Year-1 NOI is 1.50×. Sponsor equity $256M ($255.5M, 35% of $730M) plus the developer fee and carried interest. The $800M perm exceeds total project cost: it repays the $475M construction loan, returns the $256M of equity, and leaves about $70M before capitalized interest and fees. The construction-to-perm structure walked in theconstruction loans, draw schedules, and interest reserves articleis the operating reference for sizing the interest reserve and the S-curve draw schedule on this deal.

Lease economics, Year 1 stabilized.

• Gross rent: 50,000 kW × $150 / month × 12 = $90.0M

• Tenant pays all utilities and property taxes (NNN pass-through), so no landlord opex line for energy or taxes

• Landlord ground-lease payment (if applicable) and asset-management fee: $5.0M

• Reserves for life-safety, capex, and structural maintenance: $5.0M

• NOI = $90.0M − $5.0M − $5.0M = $80.0M

Exit value at stabilization. $80.0M NOI capitalized at the 2026 Atlanta hyperscale cap rate of 6.0% (sitting between the NoVa hyperscale tightness of 5.5-6.0% and the rising-rate scenario at 6.5%, both in the Apers working band) implies an exit value of $1.33B. The basis is $730M (yield on cost 80 / 730 = 11.0%); the unlevered development value-creation is roughly $603M, or roughly 83% on cost. After the roughly $46M of financing cost the all-in basis is $776M, yield on cost is 10.3% and value creation is roughly $557M (72% on cost). Over a 15-year hold with 2.5% annual escalators and a sale at the end of year 17 (operating year 15) at a 6.0% cap rate on the following year's NOI of $115.9M ($80M × 1.025¹⁵, a terminal value of about $1.93B, not the $1.33B stabilization value), the unlevered IRR is about 14.7% on the $730M basis (cost of $365M at the end of each of the two build years, then 15 years of NOI from the end of year 3, before financing costs); with flat rent and a sale at 6.0% on $80M it is about 12.2%. A levered IRR is not shown: because the $800M perm exceeds total project cost, the take-out returns the equity at stabilization and any levered figure is driven by the cash-out rather than by operations. A levered IRR far above the unlevered figure signals that the leverage or the rent input is too aggressive.

Table 5. The 50 MW Atlanta hyperscale BTS worked example. Inputs disclosed; the reader can reproduce every dollar figure from the inputs shown, and the IRR from the cash-flow timing stated in the IRR row. The cap-rate, PPA-reset, renewal, and PUE-drift sensitivities are walked in the next section.

Sensitivity: PPA Reset, Renewal, PUE Drift, Cap Rate

The institutional IC discussion turns on four sensitivities. Each is modeled explicitly because each has a material effect on the return and on the exit-value distribution. To isolate the cap-rate and renewal effects, every exit value below capitalizes Year-1 NOI of $80M; a sale in year 15 would capitalize the following year's escalated NOI of about $116M ($80M × 1.025¹⁵), or roughly $1.93B at a 6.0% cap rate.

1. PPA renegotiation at year 8 - the mid-lease power-cost reset. Hyperscale BTS leases at the Atlanta benchmark assume a stable power-cost regime under the tenant's PPA or utility-tariff arrangement. If the underlying PPA is a 10-year fixed-price contract that resets at year 8 (an illustrative structure), the post-reset wholesale rate may step up materially. This article's illustrative assumption is a 30-60% step-up in the reset year for ERCOT-sited deals and 15-25% for PJM and the Southeast; neither range is a forecast. The lease is NNN so the tenant absorbs the step-up; the underwriting question is whether the tenant's BBB+ credit continues to support the higher all-in cost or whether the credit deteriorates against capacity- constrained power and the lease becomes a renegotiation conversation. The nuclear-PPA architecture described above - Microsoft-TMI, Talen-Amazon, Vistra long-dated contracts - is the institutional answer: lock in 17-20 year power-cost stability and remove the reset risk entirely. Deals where the tenant has signed a long-dated nuclear or natural-gas PPA price tighter than deals where the tenant is exposed to PJM or ERCOT wholesale variability.

2. Tenant renewal at year 15 - the BBB+ counterparty probability. The 15- year primary lease has two 5-year FMV extension options. The illustrative assumption here is a 75-85% extension probability (an Apers assumption): the counterparty has the credit, the operating fit, and the relocation cost is substantial. Build the sensitivity at three nodes: (a) tenant renews at FMV with NOI continuing at 2.5% annual escalators through the option period (the base case, valued here at the $1.33B exit); (b) tenant declines to renew and the asset re-tenants at a 12-month downtime plus a 10-15% market-rate haircut on the new tenant lease (the asset becomes a 12-15 year residual lease on a stabilized basis, exit cap widens 25-50 bps to 6.25-6.50%; NOI falls to $68-72M, so exit value is $68M / 6.50% = $1.05B to $72M / 6.25% = $1.15B); (c) the deep distress case where the asset cannot re-tenant on hyperscale terms and is repositioned to wholesale colo at $200-250/kW/month and 50% IT load utilization (an illustrative downside of $0.7-0.9B, exit cap 7-8%). The illustrative IC weights are 75% (a), 15% (b), and 10% (c); with (b) at its $1.10B midpoint and (c) at $0.8B, the blended exit is roughly 0.75 × $1.33B + 0.15 × $1.10B + 0.10 × $0.80B = $1.24B.

3. PUE drift from 1.20 to 1.30. Hyperscale facilities designed to 1.20 PUE typically drift toward 1.25-1.30 PUE over a 15-year hold as compressor efficiency declines, cooling plant fouls, and IT load patterns evolve toward higher rack density (which is harder to cool at the same PUE). The capex to hold the 1.20 design through the primary lease term - periodic chiller replacements, evaporative-cooling overhauls, possible liquid-cooling retrofit if the tenant pushes rack density past 50 kW - runs $25-40M cumulatively over 15 years on a 50 MW facility (an illustrative assumption), or roughly 3.4-5.5% of the $730M total project cost. Under a triple-net lease the question is whether this capex is reimbursable (assumed reimbursable under leases with PUE-target covenants) or landlord-borne. An illustrative assumption is 60-70% reimbursement, with the balance reserved against the equity return. The unlevered IRR sensitivity is roughly −15 to −25 bps if the entire cost is landlord-borne and spread evenly over the hold; minimal if fully reimbursable.

4. Cap-rate movement at exit. Three scenarios. (a) Northern Virginia pull. As NoVa tightens further (CBRE reports 1.4% national vacancy at year-end 2025, national capacity +36% and primary-market absorption +38% year over year), the cap-rate compression migrates to spillover markets - Atlanta hyperscale could trade through 5.5% by year 15 if the Southeast becomes a recognized institutional sub-market for hyperscale trophy assets. Exit value at 5.5% on $80M NOI = $1.45B. (b) Base case. Atlanta hyperscale holds the 6.0% benchmark. Exit value = $1.33B. (c) Rising-rate / risk-off scenario. Atlanta hyperscale widens to 6.5% on a generalized cap-rate move. Exit value = $1.23B. The 100 basis points spread on cap rate translates to roughly $220M of exit value on the stabilization basis, and about $320M on a year-15 exit ($116M of NOI at 5.5% versus 6.5%) - the institutional sensitivity that matters most to the equity return on a 15-year hold.

Thecap rate calculator and formula articlewalks the mechanical sensitivity; the institutional reading here is that the four risks above are correlated - a deteriorating power-cost regime correlates with cap-rate widening, weakens tenant renewal probability, and increases PUE drift through higher cooling-load demand. The institutional underwriter models them jointly, not as four independent univariate sensitivities.

AI Demand and the Public-Market Dislocation

2025 ended with a paradox. Data-center REITs delivered a -14% total return in 2025 per NAREIT, even as private-market capital kept flowing into the asset class. The sector's public-market weakness was not matched by the operating demand data below, which kept pointing to growth.

Private-market capital underwrote through the noise. Blackstone filed for the BXDC REIT IPO with a 5.75-7.0% target property yield on future hyperscale acquisitions. Brookfield-Compass planned a securitization of $830M of ABS against six hyperscale facilities, the first hyperscale ABS Moody's rated AAA or AA. Stonepeak launched Montera with a $1.5B equity commitment. SoftBank completed its acquisition of DigitalBridge. KKR invested in a portion of Compass' operational portfolio. Apers' read of this bifurcation is that the public-market dislocation was a multiple correction in a sector whose operational and structural tailwinds are intact, not a structural break in the asset class. The operating fundamentals - CBRE's 1.4% national vacancy and $194.95/kW/month average lease rate, Goldman's forecast of up to +165% global power demand by 2030, Dell'Oro's $1.7T capex forecast through 2030, JLL's nearly 100 GW of new capacity through 2030 - point to continued demand growth.

For the institutional CRE allocator the implication is that data centers are the asset class where the operational tailwind is most decoupled from public-market sentiment and where the structural demand curve is least cyclical. Every other major real-estate asset class is competing for capital allocation against a sector where the demand growth is measured in 100-220% over five years and the binding constraint is grid availability, not consumer or business demand. The institutional discipline is to underwrite the specific deal against the cap-rate stack the platforms have set, on the power-cost architecture the tenant has contracted, with the PUE target the engineering can deliver, and the cap-rate sensitivity the exit-buyer pool will price.

Six Mistakes Practitioners Make

• 1. Underwriting site selection as a real-estate exercise. The institutional site-selection criterion in 2026 is grid headroom and interconnection-queue position, not submarket lease comps or demographics. Northern Virginia is the most expensive corridor in the US because it has the deepest grid and fiber backbone - not the cheapest land. Atlanta, Charlotte, and the Carolinas are absorbing institutional flow not because they have the best submarket office or industrial economics but because Georgia Power, Duke, and TVA can deliver large MW on faster timelines than Dominion. Land cost is roughly 4% of the project ($30M of $730M); the utility-feeder and grid-availability access is the deal.

• 2. Modeling PUE as a flat operating assumption. PUE drifts over a 15-year hold as compressors age, cooling plant fouls, and rack density rises. Underwriting at the commissioning PUE (1.20) without modeling the drift to 1.25-1.30 over the hold understates energy cost by roughly 4-8% in years 10-15 (1.25 / 1.20 = +4.2%; 1.30 / 1.20 = +8.3%). The right discipline is to model the design-PUE in years 1-3, a slow drift in years 4-10, and accelerated drift in years 11-15 absent capex intervention - and to budget the maintenance capex against the lease's pass-through provisions.

• 3. Assuming the lease is the entire credit story. The lease guarantee from Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Meta, or Oracle is investment-grade and the lease document is institutional standard. But the underlying economic stability is in the PPA or utility tariff the tenant has signed against the facility - that is what determines whether the tenant's operating cost stays stable at year 8 and year 12. A 17-20 year nuclear PPA underneath the lease is materially more valuable to the credit story than a rolling 3-5 year wholesale exposure. Read the PPA architecture; price it.

• 4. Mis-sizing capex for AI-optimized builds. Standard shell-and-core at $11- 14M/MW does not buy you a GPU-dense AI training campus. The AI-optimized build at $15-20M/MW includes liquid cooling, higher-voltage distribution, denser mechanical and electrical plant. If the tenant pushes rack density past 50 kW and the lease economics require liquid cooling, budgeting at the shell-and-core basis understates the capex by $50-450M on a 50 MW facility across the stated bands (about $250M at the band midpoints). Confirm the rack-density target and the cooling architecture before underwriting the basis.

• 5. Ignoring Texas SB 6 and the curtailment risk. Texas Senate Bill 6 (June 2025) requires large loads of 75 MW or more connecting from 2026 to install shutoff equipment and accept disconnection in firm load-shed events, adds a $100,000 minimum initial interconnection fee, and sets new cost-sharing and co-location rules. An ERCOT deal underwritten before mid-2025 needs to be re-run with the curtailment risk treated as a lease and credit input and with the new fees and cost-sharing in the model.

• 6. Treating the public-market dislocation as a signal about the asset class.Data-center REITs returned -14% in 2025 while Stonepeak launched Montera ($1.5B equity, April 2025) and, in 2026, Compass planned an $830M ABS and Blackstone filed for the BXDC REIT. Apers' read is that the public-market move was a multiple correction in a tech-correlated sector, not a structural break in CRE fundamentals. The institutional discipline is to underwrite specific deals against the private-market cap-rate stack, not against the public-market REIT total return.

From Hyperscale BTS to Apers

Data-center underwriting sits at the intersection of CRE and power - the institutional discipline lives in the model. The 50 MW Atlanta worked example walks every line an institutional analyst builds: the capex stack by basis component, the lease rate by kW-month, the NNN pass- through, the NOI bridge, the cap-rate exit, the construction debt and CMBS take-out, the four sensitivities the IC discussion turns on. Apers is the platform institutional CRE teams use to build and run those models - not as a one-off Excel build for each deal, but as a workflow that ingests the inputs the analyst gathers and produces the analysis the IC asks for in minutes rather than days.

Related Articles

• Industrial underwriting: clear heights, dock doors, and the 2026 supply check - the cluster anchor. Data centers diverge from the rest of industrial on every dimension; the clear-heights and dock-doors playbook is the spec-driven sibling to the power-and-PUE playbook here.

• Logistics and distribution - the e-commerce sensitivity overlay - the demand-side companion. Both data centers and e-commerce logistics are sectors where 2024- 2026 demand has structurally re-priced the asset class; both reward institutional underwriters who model the demand curve rather than backward-looking comps.

• Cold storage - specialized modeling and tenant credit - the sibling power-intensive specialty industrial article. Both cold storage and data centers are power-intensity-dominated specialty industrial, both bifurcate the underwriting on tenant credit, both require operational diligence the generalist underwriter does not bring.

• Medical office buildings - single-tenant credit vs multi-tenant WALT - the credit-tenant lease underwriting analog. Single-tenant hyperscale BTS and single-tenant credit MOB share the institutional framework: the lease document is the asset, the credit guarantor sets the cap rate, and the institutional buyer pool prices the deviations from institutional standard.

• Cap rate calculator and formula - the mechanical reference for the exit-value calculation in the worked example. The 6.0% cap applied to $80M NOI to land at $1.33B is the formula; the institutional discipline is the cap-rate band selection across hyperscale, colocation, and powered shell.

• Construction loans: draw schedules and interest reserves - the construction-to-perm debt structure underlying the worked example. The 65% LTC construction facility at SOFR+225 with a 36-month draw, capitalized interest, and CMBS conversion is the institutional pattern walked in that article.

FAQ