The disclosure and our analysis
Evidence dates
Closing status as of September 22, 2026. Background from the August 10 announcement and the second-quarter SEC report.
Fermi says its subsidiary Fermi Campus 1 LLC and TensorWave TEX1, LLC amended their data center lease to move closing from September 30 to October 31, 2026. The company says other lease terms remain unchanged. It is still negotiating a guaranty with an investment-grade counterparty and completing closing conditions. This is an extension of an existing signed agreement, not a new lease or a completed closing. [1]
What is being delivered
The original announcement locates Project Matador in Carson County, Texas. TensorWave TEX1 is a subsidiary of TensorWave Inc. The project involves a facility supported by 222 MW of total facility power after final phase delivery. That power basis is not critical IT load, and the figure does not establish open inventory for other customers. [2]
Fermi's SEC report describes delivery beginning in late 2027 and continuing into the first quarter of 2028. Those delivery expectations are separate from the October 2026 closing deadline. Moving the closing date does not by itself establish that delivery dates have changed. [3]
Economics and conditions
Fermi reports approximately $6.5 billion in expected revenue over the initial fifteen-year term. The September announcement says closing depends on work letters, guaranties, operating schedules, a service-level agreement, board approvals and sufficient project financing. It does not identify the investment-grade guarantor under negotiation or confirm that those conditions are satisfied. [1]
The SEC report says the initial term begins with the final delivered phase. It distinguishes base rent from fixed power charges, electricity costs and certain taxes. It also describes renewal and expansion options, delay credits and termination rights. The revenue figure excludes renewal terms and expansion. Treating it as a simple all-in rental quote would lose those distinctions. [3]
Colocation Scout buyer analysis
The key lesson is to track signature, closing, delivery and acceptance separately. Each answers a different procurement question. Signature establishes contractual commitments, while unresolved effectiveness conditions can still prevent the lease from commencing. Neither signature nor closing establishes commissioned IT capacity.
For a buyer evaluating a similar development, request a written list of outstanding conditions and the party responsible for each. Match the workload start date to the specific hall's acceptance criteria and contractual delivery remedies. A campus-level completion estimate is insufficient for a phased deployment.
Credit support deserves its own review. Ask which entity guarantees rent, what obligations it covers, and when it becomes enforceable. A parent guaranty and a separate investment-grade rent guaranty should not be assumed to provide identical protection.
Material unknowns
The reviewed September update does not establish completed project financing, finalized guaranty terms, a revised delivery schedule or current leasable capacity. It also does not explain enough of the pricing schedule to derive a comparable rate per kW of IT load. These remain diligence questions, rather than grounds to infer either cancellation or successful completion.