Vantage CA3: delivered capacity still needs an earnings bridge

FJI qualification held or pending: the full four-document gate, including project-specific government evidence, has not yet been accepted. Qualification evidence and decisions →

Project status: Opened to customers October 2024; current utilization undisclosed. Capacity scope: More than 64 MW critical IT capacity; opened October 2024, draw unknown. How we verify evidence.

Compare this project → · Track milestones → · How to read the evidence labels

Expanded analysis · Original disclosures linked below · CAD and USD preserved as labeled · Company statements attributed; interpretations labeled.

The one-minute investment takeaway

Our analysis: CA3 has stronger delivery evidence than a proposed campus. Its investment question has shifted from whether a building can open to how much of its capacity earns rent, at what incremental cost, and with which customer density requirements. Opening is a useful milestone, not a utilization disclosure.

Readiness basis: Classification of evidence in the reviewed profile; strongest documented phase, not full-campus completion. Opened to customers October 2024; current utilization undisclosed Readiness source →

What the sources establish

• Contractor disclosure Delivered facility. DPR describes a four-story, 486,000-square-foot single-building campus on nearly eight acres and says it opened to customers in October 2024. Primary source →
• Contractor disclosure Capacity and utility. DPR reports more than 64 MW of critical IT capacity and identifies Silicon Valley Power as the electricity provider. Capacity is not a measurement of customer electricity consumption. Primary source →
• Contractor disclosure Engineering scope. The contractor describes an onsite substation, multiple utility feeds, N+1 electrical redundancy and closed-loop cooling with N+2 mechanical redundancy. These specifications do not disclose GPU deployment or rack-level liquid cooling readiness. Primary source →

Who receives the money?

Our analysis of disclosed roles. Revenue routes are business-model interpretations, not estimates of booked project revenue.

How financially meaningful is it? Analyst interpretation

Our analysis: delivered infrastructure reduces one category of risk but can leave leasing, concentration and retrofit risk. Model contracted capacity separately from billable capacity and actual electrical draw. A take-or-pay reservation may earn rent before full customer load, whereas unfinished tenant work can postpone billing. Those possibilities require lease evidence. A dense urban building also needs scrutiny of vertical circulation, structural loads and cooling distribution when customers change hardware generations.

Milestones that would change the assessment

What could break the investment case?

Our analysis: A high-capacity building can remain economically underfilled. Tenant-specific upgrades may erode an attractive headline rental rate, and a few large customers can concentrate renewal exposure. Renewable electricity claims do not by themselves establish physical hourly supply, tariff stability or low cooling costs.

What would change our view?

Our analysis: Sustained billable occupancy and tenant acceptance without major incremental capital would strengthen the assessment. Expensive retrofits, concessions, customer concentration or long gaps between reservation and billing would weaken it. Contractor delivery evidence should not be stretched into owner profitability.

What remains unknown Not established in this review

Current customer utilization, contracted and billable MW, pricing, site capital cost, lease structure, measured PUE, actual electricity draw and workload-specific cooling approvals remain undisclosed in the cited project account.

Project research for information, not a buy recommendation. Financial illustrations use assumptions, not disclosed site results or management guidance.