If the Campus Is Named Before the Plug Is Approved, Where Does Cash Stick?
Lambda has put its name on a $33.1 billion campus. Alabama Power is the supplier, pending approval. The server line in the county model is not an order.
ANALYSIS · MEMBERS CONTINUE · 5 min free / 14 min full · Data as at 5 Nov 2026
On 4 November 2026 Lambda named itself the end user of the Red Clay campus in Lowndes County. The release puts the investment at an estimated $33.1 billion and says Alabama Power will power the project, pending regulatory approval. The October commissioner packet behind that figure is a 1,000 megawatt base case, built from $10 million of construction per megawatt and $30 million of IT equipment per IT megawatt at 1.3 PUE. On our arithmetic the inputs are $10.000 billion of buildings and $23.077 billion of servers, summing to $33.077 billion. Servers are 69.8% of that sum. Neither document is a purchase order, and neither is a Commission order. Where does cash stick while the campus has a name and the plug does not have a yes?
In short
- The question: if a campus is named before the power contract is approved, who has been paid, and who is waiting on the yes?
- The answer: Scenario B. The 1,000 megawatt case is 6.67 times the 150 megawatt line in Act 2026-610 (ours). A 90-day vote starts when a petition is filed. These documents do not include one. The $23.077 billion server line is a model input.
- The floor is $16 billion, 48.3% of the $33.1 billion headline (ours). Section 37-4-22 leaves the contract without effect until the Commission approves it.
- A petition, then a vote or 90 days with no vote, would move it. A court voiding the tax votes reopens the county paper only.
- Nothing here is a recommendation or a price. Lambda is private.
The numbers that matter
The investment figure is Lambda's 4 November release. The megawatts, the cost inputs, the tax table and the dates are the October packet from Cloverleaf Infrastructure, for Sandstone Cliffs DevCo LLC. The approval rule is the Commission's 6 October 2026 minutes in Docket 33709, Act 2026-610 as enrolled in SB270, and Section 37-4-22.
| What | Figure | Where it is from | What it tells us |
|---|---|---|---|
| Estimated investment | $33.1 billion | Lambda, 4 Nov 2026 | The name on the campus |
| Base case | 1,000 MW, potential 1,500 MW | Packet, October 2026 | The case under the headline |
| Cost inputs | $10 million per MW; $30 million per IT MW at 1.3 PUE | Same packet | Buildings and servers in the model |
| Worked split | $10.000 billion and $23.077 billion | Ours | Sum $33.077 billion. Servers 69.8% |
| Written floor | at least $16 billion, and 125 jobs | Packet | 48.3% of the headline. Jobs are 1.80 times 125 at the base case of about 225 |
| Dates | Q1 2027 start, Q4 2028 first operations, Q4 2029 full, 30 Dec 2030 first building | Packet | Miss the last date and abated taxes are repaid |
| County, 2027–2049 | $2,852 million kept, $1,149 million abated, schools $1,611 million | Packet | 2,852 ÷ 1,149 = 2.482 (ours) |
| Construction years | about $975 million, 2027–2029 | Packet | 34.2% of the 23-year county total (ours) |
| Large-load line | 150 MW | Act 2026-610 | 1,000 ÷ 150 = 6.67 (ours) |
| Vote | 90 days after a petition | Minutes, 6 Oct 2026 | The clock starts at filing |
| Community agreement | $10 million | Lambda release | 0.030% of $33.1 billion (ours) |
One thousand divided by 1.3 is 769.2308 IT megawatts, times $30 million is $23.0769 billion, plus $10.000 billion is $33.077 billion. The cover's $33.1 billion is $23 million higher, 0.07% of the headline. The packet states the inputs. It does not call the split an order.
Why is the plug still open after the name?
The October packet said Sandstone Cliffs would assign the agreements to a nationally known end user. Lambda's release is that naming, and Cloverleaf's chief executive says so in the same post. Alabama Power is the supplier, pending regulatory approval. Lambda says it will pay the power and the grid up front even if plans change. The release prints no grid dollar, no docket and no filing date.
Section 37-4-22 says that unless the Commission approves a contract of this kind, it is of no effect. Act 2026-610, enrolled as SB270 and effective 1 October 2026, refines the test for a large-load data center at 150 megawatts or more that operates solely for data processing: recover incremental cost from that customer, and promote positive benefits for other retail customers. The 6 October minutes call it Act No. 2026-610.
Docket 33709 is the filing path. Comments on an 8 July proposal, which would have deemed a redacted contract approved after 60 days, ran to 19 initials and 10 replies. The 6 October rule is a public petition naming the company, the place and the maximum capacity. The contract and the cost study go to the legal division and the Attorney General. The Commission votes within 90 days or the petition is deemed approved. Alabama Power should file at least 120 days before a contract would lapse for lack of approval.
One thousand megawatts is 6.67 times the 150 megawatt line if the customer meets the act. The packet calls this a data center campus. This page does not decide the "solely for data processing" clause. The release still says approval is pending, and the 90 days run from a petition. The minutes, the release and Alabama Power's October explainer contain no petition for Red Clay, Sandstone Cliffs or Lambda.
The county paper is separate. The model keeps $2,852 million over 2027–2049 and abates $1,149 million. The lines divide to 2.482, against the packet's about $2.48. Schools, $1,611 million, are never abated, and the abatement reaches only what is built or bought.
On 3 November, Protect Lowndes County and the Alabama Rivers Alliance sued to void the tax votes. Their counsel's 4 November release puts local and state breaks at more than $2.7 billion. That is their claim. The packet's county figure is $1,149 million. WSFA the same day reports a second residents' suit still pending. A voided vote reopens the incentive. It does not energise the campus. From 4 November 2026 to the packet's first-building date, 30 December 2030, is 1,517 days, 4.15 years (ours). The release's outer bound, up to five years from a first-quarter 2027 start, reaches the first quarter of 2032. The repayment date is the first building. The five-year bound is the whole campus.
What are the three ways the cash can sit?
- The yes never comes, and the model is not spent. The large seats stay unpaid, and the county forgoes nothing on equipment never bought.
- The name holds and the plug waits. The utility is named, the petition is absent, and the $23.077 billion is an input.
- A petition is approved, or 90 days pass without a vote. Purchases can follow the model. The floor is still 48.3% of the headline, and the first building is still dated 30 December 2030.
Our read, in one line: Scenario B. The name is in. The petition is not.
The free preview ends here.
—— Still to read · ~9 of 14 minutes ——
MEMBERS CONTINUE HERE — who gets paid · the three scenarios · our read · takeaways · FAQ
