Offer review · GigaWatt Inc. (formerly GoSolar) · MNDA deck Jan 2026, path-to-power update Jun 2026 · review v1.0 · 10 Jul 2026
Sun Mesa-Cholla · GigaWatt.land
GigaWatt Inc. (no obligated sponsor)
Energized data center land plus staged onsite power, Northern Arizona · 1,500 MW studied at one POI (Q609 + LP-00108), 15 GW campus ambition
GigaWatt offers energized data center land at USD 383k/ha (155k/acre) and onsite interconnection at USD 195/kW, both at or below market, against a solar, BESS, gas and geothermal buildout studied for 1,500 MW at a real retired-coal transmission hub. The priced terms are fair. The power sitting under them is queue-stage and pre-FID, no power price is stated, and the structure asks MicroLink's committed load to be the trigger that finances an unbuilt first-of-a-kind campus. It has no industrial host and no waste-heat offtake, so it cannot carry MicroLink's model.
38/100
weighted score · red-flagged
$155k
per acre · energized land · at/below mkt
no price
power / PPA rate not stated
2027+
first onsite power · 200 MW claimed
01 · Offer summary
The land price is fair. The power under it is not yet real.
Counterparty
GigaWatt Inc. (formerly GoSolar), Chesterfield, Missouri. Signing entity for a land, lease, or offtake agreement not specified in the deck.
Sponsor / parent
None named. Third parties appear as vendors or counterparties (AMERESCO as EPC and microgrid operator, Tallgrass for gas, APS for grid, ENERVENUE / EnergyDome / Tesla / Bloom / Siemens / GE as equipment). Not guaranteed: nothing obligates any of them to MicroLink.
Offer scope
Energized data center land plus staged onsite power at Sun Mesa-Cholla, Northern Arizona. Land 6,070 ha (15,000 acres), expandable to 12,140 ha (30,000 acres); zoned General A and C-2 across 810 ha (2,000 acres). Power studied at one POI (Q609 generation + LP-00108 load) for 1,500 MW: Phase 1 about 500 MW solar with 500 MW / 6,000 MWh BESS and first about 200 MW load; Phase 2 adds 500 MW solar with 500 MW / 18,000 MWh BESS as LDES; Phase 3 adds gas and geothermal to 1,500 MW / 18,000 MWh. Grid via APS 2x345 kV, later 500 kV to about 3 GW. Gas via Tallgrass. Geothermal several hundred MW from dormant Vulcan shafts.
Headline price
Land purchase from USD 383k/ha (155k/acre); lease from USD 38.3k/ha/yr (15.5k/acre/yr); onsite grid and microgrid interconnection USD 195k/MW (195/kW). No power price, PPA rate, or tolling fee stated.
Term
No lease or offtake term stated. Buildout runs 2025 to 2030 and beyond in incremental 500 MW increments.
Total contract value
Not determinable. No power price and no committed quantum to MicroLink. Illustrative only: interconnection for 1,500 MW at 195k/MW is about USD 293M; land and power are the larger, unpriced pieces.
Decision deadline
None stated. De facto: inverted. Their buildout waits on a credible anchor client. APS accelerates upgrades on a credible client request; Tallgrass reserves gas against a client commitment or PPA for 1.0 GW (precedent agreement targeted 2028 to 2029).
What they actually want
MicroLink's committed load and offtake credit to be the trigger that finances GigaWatt's generation, interconnection, and gas reservation, before GigaWatt has firm, deliverable power.
BATNA
MicroLink's host-site model (Mansfield 300 MW class, Stickney, Newtown Creek, District Heat Pod program) is on the critical path and thesis-aligned; declining costs nothing there. For a remote Arizona campus specifically, MicroLink has no committed site; the metro-Phoenix grid alternative is APS at about USD 0.058 to 0.078/kWh with 8 to 14 month waits, though the Cholla corridor is more constrained. Field requires Nick's decision on whether MicroLink runs an Arizona tenant vertical at all.
Status
Marketing and path-to-power materials, not a term sheet. Reads as an invitation to anchor.
02 · Deal anatomy
Real transmission asset. Unpriced power, and the wrong shape for our model.
2.1 · Scope and technical
The transmission position is the genuine asset: a retired-coal hub with existing 4x345 kV and regional 500 kV corridors, an operating switchyard, a Q609 generation queue position, and 6 GW in the local interconnection queue (1.5 GW of load studied at the POI, 4.5 GW pending). The Same-POI concept (co-locating Q609 generation, LP-00108 load, and LDES at one node using ERIS for onsite consumption) is a legitimate way to sidestep the network-upgrade delay that kills greenfield sites. What is missing for MicroLink is the thing our model is built on: there is no industrial host and no heat sink. The architecture defaults to a dry cooler path with no waste-heat offtake, so the ERE benefit that sits alongside PUE in our thesis has nowhere to go. This is a hyperscale-tenant site, not a host-partner site.
2.2 · Price mechanics
ComponentBasisNumberCharacter
Land purchase
Per acre, "energized" data center land
From USD 383k/ha (155k/acre)
At or below market if energized; a 75x premium over raw dirt if not
Land lease
Per acre per year
From USD 38.3k/ha/yr (15.5k/acre/yr)
10% of the purchase price implied; no term, no escalator, no benchmark
Interconnection
Onsite grid and microgrid, per MW
USD 195k/MW (195/kW)
At or below market; scope of what it covers undefined
Power
Solar, BESS, gas, geothermal, staged
No price stated
Commodity and price risk sits with us by omission
Context (our cost)
Data center build, not their price
USD 10 to 12M/MW shell, 15 to 20M+ AI
The build on top of the land is ours regardless
2.3 · Risk allocation
Risks we carry
Power deliverability, the offer prices land as energized while the power is queue-stage and pre-FID
Power price, no PPA rate stated, so commodity and price risk is ours by omission
Schedule, dates rest on APS verbal statements, a Tallgrass letter, and unbuilt generation
Trigger exposure, our commitment de-risks their financing with nothing reciprocal secured
Strategic, capital locked into an off-thesis site with no waste-heat offtake
Risks they carry
Permitting, solar, BESS, Title V, ALTA, geothermal (their timeline, credible in part)
Interconnection build, via AMERESCO, nominally 18 months
Transmission asset, the existing hub is real and theirs to offer
2.4 · Commitment profile
ItemAmountTimingCharacter
Anchor commitment
Committed load and offtake for an unbuilt 1,500 MW campus
Before GigaWatt FID
Not cash, but debt-equivalent offtake credit landing mid-raise
Land purchase or lease
Per acre, quantum undefined for MicroLink
On execution
Priced as energized; premium only justified if power is deliverable
Interconnection
195k/MW on committed MW
On build
At market; the smaller line
Debt-equivalence
Long-dated offtake for 1.5 GW
From commitment
Imputed debt under S&P methodology, visible to the USD 40M round
2.5 · Exit and downside
No term, no exit, no remedy structure is offered because this is not yet a term sheet. The downside is concentrated in one place: if MicroLink anchors and the power does not arrive on schedule or at the implied price, MicroLink holds energized-priced land with unbuilt power, having already supplied the credibility that triggered the counterparty's financing. Because there is no industrial host, there is also no fallback revenue from waste heat to soften a stranded position. A risk the offer does not mention sits with us by default, and here almost every risk that matters is unmentioned.
38 out of 100, and the number is secondary: three term-based red flags block a proceed.
Red flag status: BLOCKED. Three term-based red flags decide the gate: the energized-land premium against non-firm power, a first-of-a-kind counterparty asking to be triggered by our credit, and no waste-heat host. Under the red flag rule this offer cannot pass to a proceed without those terms cleared or explicitly accepted in writing at founder level.
CriterionWeightScoreWeightedJustification
Price vs market
20
3
12
Land 155k/acre and interconnection 195/kW both at or below market, two sources each; conditional on the power being deliverable
Risk allocation
20
2
8
Deliverability, price, schedule, and trigger risk all sit with us; power price undefined means commodity risk ours by omission
Counterparty credibility
15
1
3
First-of-a-kind signing entity at 15 GW ambition, sponsor named but not obligated, offer asks us to be the credit support
Schedule confidence
10
1
2
Dates rest on unsecured queue positions, APS verbal statements, a Tallgrass meeting letter, and geothermal from dormant shafts
Flexibility
10
3
6
Genuinely phased buildout in 500 MW increments and a lease option exist, but no ramp tied to our load and no priced exit
Pre-FID exposure
10
2
4
No cash backstop is requested, but our anchor offtake is the pre-FID credit that de-risks them, unsecured and reciprocated by nothing
Strategic fit
10
1
2
No industrial host, no waste-heat offtake, dry cooler fallback; conflicts with the host-partner thesis · red flag
Contract completeness
5
1
1
No power price, no term, no TCV, no signing entity, lease unbenchmarked, "energized" unverified
Total
100
38 / 100
Red-flagged: proceed blocked
04 · Benchmark evidence · deep research run 10 Jul 2026 · stale after Oct 2026
The two priced terms clear the two-source rule. Everything else is undefined, not benchmarkable.
TermTheir numberMarket range and sourcesSrcVerdict
Land purchase
155k/acre, energized
Secondary Sun Belt incl AZ 75k to 700k/acre; rezoned farmland 150k to 300k/acre (LandApp, datacenters.com). Raw Navajo County median about 2k/acre (Land.com). Premium is entirely the "energized" claim
3
At market*
Interconnection
195k/MW (195/kW)
LBNL / Thunder Said avg 138/kW, solar 167/kW, 100 to 300 rule; recent large-project 244/kW at 750+ MW, ERIS about 353/kW (Berkeley via Keentel). Favorable if it truly excludes network upgrades
2
At/below
Land lease
15.5k/acre/yr
No independent data center ground-lease benchmark located. Equals 10% of the 155k purchase, a rich implied land yield to the lessor
0
Undefined
Power price / PPA
Not stated
No number to benchmark. Reference: APS metro Phoenix grid about 0.058 to 0.078/kWh (irecruit / Data Center Frontier). The Cholla corridor differs
0
Undefined
"Energized" status
Land sold as energized
Power is queue-stage (Q609) and pre-FID; APS upgrades and Tallgrass gas both conditional on a credible anchor. The premium is priced ahead of the deliverability
n/a
Off-market
Grid transition value
Not addressed
Any plant with a later grid interconnection has a second revenue life; norm is a locked percentage of merchant, capacity, and ancillary revenue. None offered
1
Undefined
Data center build (context)
Our cost, not theirs
Shell and core 10 to 12M/MW, AI-optimized 15 to 20M+/MW (JLL, Turner & Townsend, GigaCapacity). Sits on top of the land regardless of counterparty
3
Context
Gas availability
Tallgrass 2.7 bcf/d ≈ 12 GW
Meeting letter dated Apr 2026; precedent agreement targeted 2028 to 2029; 0.25 bcf/d ≈ 1 GW per client commitment required first. Real optionality, not a secured supply
1
Conditional
Source caveat: land and interconnection ranges are triangulated from brokerage market reports, LBNL interconnection data, and analyst construction indices, not disclosed comparable contracts. The energized premium turns on GigaWatt's own deliverability, which no third party can benchmark. Ranges dated 10 Jul 2026.
05 · Red flags and undefined terms
Three flags, six questions. The questions go back before any commitment.
5.1 · Red flags
TermWhy it is dangerousWhat clears it
Energized-land premium vs non-firm power
Land is priced as energized (155k/acre, about 75x raw dirt) while the power is queue-stage and pre-FID; the premium is paid ahead of deliverability and conditional on our own commitment
Firm, contracted power milestones tied to land payment; land priced to raw plus improvements until power reaches COD; or a price step-up only on delivered MW
Counterparty as trigger credit
First-of-a-kind entity (formerly GoSolar) at 15 GW ambition with no obligated sponsor asks MicroLink's committed load to be the credibility that finances their generation, interconnection, and gas
GigaWatt reaches FID on deliverable power without our commitment as the trigger; or an obligated sponsor stands behind delivery; or our commitment is conditional and secured against delivered milestones
No host, no waste-heat offtake
Remote desert campus with no industrial host and no heat sink; architecture falls to dry coolers with no reuse, so the ERE benefit that defines our model is absent and capital is off-thesis
A deliberate decision to run an Arizona hyperscale-tenant vertical distinct from the host-partner model; otherwise this term does not clear, it disqualifies
5.2 · Undefined terms · send as questions
Referenced termWhat is missingQuestion to send back
Power price
No rate
What is the delivered power price or PPA rate per MWh by source and phase, and how does it index over the term?
"Energized" definition
Deliverability unproven
What firm, contracted power exists at the parcel today, and what MW is deliverable on what date without a MicroLink commitment as the trigger?
Interconnection scope
Inclusions unclear
Does 195k/MW cover only the onsite connection, or does it include any share of network upgrades, switchyard, and transformers?
Lease terms
No term or escalator
What is the lease term, escalator, and renewal, and what does 15.5k/acre/yr buy in firm power versus land alone?
Signing entity and guarantee
Entity and backing absent
Which legal entity signs the land, lease, and offtake agreements, and does any obligated party stand behind power delivery?
Grid transition value
No number
Once grid-connected, what locked percentage of merchant, capacity, and ancillary revenue flows to an anchor that funded the buildout?
06 · Negotiation map
Only relevant if MicroLink decides to run an Arizona tenant vertical at all.
Tier 1 · Must moveWe do not anchor as offered
Power before premiumTheirs: energized-priced land against pre-FID power triggered by us. Target: land priced to raw plus improvements until firm power reaches COD, stepping to energized pricing only on delivered MW. Walk-away: no energized premium paid ahead of delivery.
Commitment structureTheirs: our offtake is the financing trigger. Target: conditional, milestone-secured, released only against delivered power. Walk-away: no unconditional anchor that de-risks their FID.
Delivery guaranteeTheirs: no obligated party behind power. Target: an obligated entity or firm milestones with remedies. Walk-away: no delivery obligation, no deal.
Tier 2 · Should moveMeaningful value, winnable
Power priceA stated, indexed PPA rate by source and phase, benchmarked to APS and merchant alternatives.
Interconnection scopeConfirm 195k/MW covers the full onsite connection with no network-upgrade tail.
Lease termsDefined term, capped escalator, and a firm-power condition on the rent.
Grid transition valueA locked percentage of merchant, capacity, and ancillary revenue to the anchor.
Tier 3 · Trade candidatesPriced before offered
Anchor reference rightsTrade public reference and case-study value for firmer delivery terms.
Phased MW commitmentTrade a committed ramp for delivery milestones and price protection.
Bounded exclusivityTrade limited exclusivity on a sub-parcel for a delivery guarantee, scope and time bound.
07 · Gate decision
Decline as a core-model offer. Leave the door open on the transmission asset.
Best argument against this recommendation: Arizona is genuinely interconnection-constrained, and this is a real, hard-to-replicate retired-coal transmission hub, existing 4x345 kV and 500 kV corridors, an operating switchyard, a Q609 queue position, 6 GW in the local queue, with land and interconnection priced at or below market. If the AI power scramble prices scarce energized capacity out of reach, an anchor who moves early locks a differentiated multi-GW site at today's numbers, and transmission is the one asset money cannot quickly rebuild. This is why the recommendation is decline with the door open, not a hard no.
Gate outcome
Proceed to term sheet
Blocked: three term-based red flags outstanding.
Proceed with conditions
Not selected: conditions cannot fix the missing host, which is a thesis fact.
Request revised offer
Only if Nick opens an Arizona tenant vertical; then send the 5.2 questions and Tier 1 positions.
Decline
Selected. Off-thesis for the host-partner model, and structured to make our credit de-risk an unbuilt counterparty. Keep the transmission asset on a watch list.
If yes, send the 5.2 questions plus Tier 1 positions; anchor on power-before-premium
Nick
On decision
Log GigaWatt transmission hub on the site watch list; recheck at their next FID milestone
Nick / Shane
Quarterly
Confirm no MicroLink commitment is referenced to any third party (APS, Tallgrass) as a credible-client trigger
Nick
Now
Confirm sign-off thresholds still X = 5, Y = 10 for the review register
Nick
This review
Sign-off
Founder decision required, not for exposure but for thesis. No dollar threshold is triggered because no priced commitment exists yet. The gate turns on whether MicroLink runs a tenant vertical outside the host-partner model. Thresholds remain [X = 5, Y = 10 suggested] pending confirmation.
08 · Standard graphics · drawn from this review's data
The commitment-versus-delivery gap, the risk map, the bands, the premium.
The Commitment Gap · claimed vs firm power
The staged headline (warm) races to 1,500 MW while firm, contracted power (steel) lags well behind, and MicroLink's commitment is asked for at the far left, before the firm line even begins. This is the exposure the deck is built not to show.
The Heat Map · risk allocation
Five of five high-impact risks are ours, clustered in the watch zone. The risks they carry sit low-impact. That asymmetry is the whole review.
The Scorecard · this offer alone
Price and flexibility are steel: the offer is honestly built there. Everything that decides fit is red.
The Bands · price vs benchmark
Two priced terms land comfortably inside their bands (green). The two that matter most, power price and the energized premise, are unpriced or off the chart.
The Comparison · premium vs deliverability
The single most usable exhibit: 155k/acre is fair for energized land, but the power that word implies is studied, not contracted. That gap is the deal.