The next hyperscaler power agreement will be won by parties that can show, before a term sheet is signed, why the deal works for the plant, the grid, and the customers who may ultimately scrutinize it. Finding an available megawatt is only the beginning.
The Comanche Peak transaction illustrates the first half of that argument. Its owner signed a 20-year, 1,200 MW power purchase agreement with AWS in September 2025, then followed it with more than 2,600 MW across three other nuclear plants for Meta. Both deals closed in months. The next question is whether a similar agreement also works for the grid and the customers who will scrutinize it. That answer will shape how quickly the next deal can move.
Hyperscalers want firm, reliable power for rapidly expanding data center load. Plant owners want long-term revenue that can support continued operations, relicensing, maintenance capital, or uprates. Those objectives can align, but the path from a promising asset to a durable agreement depends on more than resource performance or buyer demand.
Merchant generators can often negotiate at industry speed, particularly in markets where wholesale transactions do not require a retail rate case. Other deals still move through existing federal market-based rate processes, so the speed advantage is real but not absolute. Vertically integrated utilities, municipal utilities, and cooperatives face additional questions, such as: Does the load change local reliability needs? How will replacement power or additional reserve capacity be sourced? Who pays for new infrastructure? And can the cost allocation withstand review by a commission, board, city council, or ratepayer advocate?
For utilities, an indefensible agreement can create political backlash or fail regulatory review. For hyperscalers and developers, the same weakness can turn a promising site into a years-long delay. A defensible agreement gives both sides a clearer path to closing and helps protect the schedule after signing.
Three steps to a deal that closes and holds
1. Score the asset and grid exposure
Start with a screen that reflects how the deal will be evaluated across two dimensions. Asset exposure comes first and includes license runway, operating scale, multiunit configuration, current PPA commitments, uprate potential, buildable land, nearby data center development, hyperscaler presence, and zonal load growth. Ownership matters too, because the same plant can present a very different path to contract depending on who must defend the decision. Deliverability exposure comes next, and it is where most utility planners spend their time. That means assessing available headroom on the bulk and nodal systems, the upgrades a new interconnection would require, who funds them, and how the load curve behaves against existing commitments. A plant can score well on the first dimension and still fail on the second.
Enverus Intelligence® Research (EIR) screened operating U.S. nuclear plants for long-dated hyperscaler offtake using these kinds of criteria. Dresden, Comanche Peak, and South Texas Project emerged as Tier 1 candidates, while a broader group of plants offered more mixed or site-specific opportunities. Comanche Peak’s ranking already reflects its AWS deal. Half its capacity is contracted, almost exactly matching what that agreement accounts for. The remaining capacity represents the potential opportunity for a future hyperscaler agreement. The screen separates interesting from actionable. A plant with strong demand nearby may still have limited uncontracted capacity, constrained land, or an ownership structure that adds decision-makers and public process.
For a utility, scoring exposure early clarifies which assets are worth preparing before a buyer calls. For a hyperscaler or developer, it creates a realistic shortlist and surfaces execution risk before deal teams spend months on a non-starter.
The ownership chart matters because it shows why an attractive asset can still have a difficult path to contract. The more parties responsible for the decision, the more assumptions must be reconciled before a deal can move. No utility decision of this scale is made by a single stakeholder or team, and the more owners a plant has, the more boards, commissions, and city councils may need to sign off before an agreement can close.
Two plants in this screen show what that looks like. South Texas Project has three owners, and one of the municipal co-owners is currently asking its board to fund a bigger stake in the plant while studying new reactor technology, taking on more of this exposure, not less. Dominion’s North Anna and Surry carry the same exposure alone, with no partner to share the political weight of a PPA decision, exactly the kind of exhibit an intervenor reaches for in front of a state commission.
2. Bridge internal and external silos
A PPA can move quickly only when the people who will approve, model, regulate, and operate it are working from the same assumptions. No utility decision of this scale is unilateral. Bring corporate strategy, regulatory affairs, resource planning, transmission, finance, and external development teams into the conversation before commercial terms harden. The teams should align on:
- The load ramp and delivery point
- Capacity treatment and reliability implications
- Replacement-power assumptions
- The questions a public reviewer is likely to ask
Misalignment shows up fast once a deal is in motion:
- A term sheet that looks complete to a developer may be an opening question to a utility board.
- A load forecast that supports a hyperscaler’s capacity target may not explain who bears the cost if the project ramps late or never reaches full utilization.
- A reliability study that satisfies engineering may still leave open who funds the upgrade it recommends.
Resolving those gaps early gives both sides a faster path to an agreement that can survive diligence.
A partner can move quickly when its reviewers are aligned before the clock starts. That preparation gives the hyperscaler a clearer path through diligence and gives the utility fewer reasons to reopen the deal.
3. Defend the rate and cost structure
The commercial question is not simply whether a hyperscaler can pay for power. It is whether the agreement clearly assigns the costs and risks created by the new load. A defensible structure should address incremental generation and transmission investment, customer protections, credit and collateral, load-ramp commitments, minimum contract terms, outage and replacement-power treatment, and the consequences if expected load does not materialize.
That discipline is increasingly visible in large-load tariffs. Utilities are using ramp requirements, collateral, and long-term commitments not only to recover costs, but also to distinguish funded projects from speculative queue positions. The same logic can strengthen a nuclear PPA. Clear obligations make the project more credible to regulators and more dependable to the buyer.
The scrutiny around large-load agreements is also increasing. The White House’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge began in March 2026 with seven hyperscalers committing to cover their own power costs. By July, it had grown to 187 organizations across four stakeholder groups, including utilities and cooperatives. The pledge is not a contract or guarantee, but it signals a growing expectation that hyperscalers should account for the power costs and grid impacts associated with their growth.
A cost allocation that can be explained plainly to a commission, board, city council, or ratepayer advocate is a competitive advantage. It reduces unresolved questions that can reopen the transaction and gives the hyperscaler a better chance of receiving power on schedule.
The deal test: what makes an asset defensible
A screening report can identify the plants most attractive for hyperscaler offtake. It cannot, by itself, determine whether a specific agreement is right for the owner or its customers. That second question depends on ownership, existing obligations, market structure, local reliability, and the proposed allocation of costs and benefits.
Can both sides explain the agreement using the same load model, reliability assumptions, and answer to “who pays if the plan changes?” That answer determines whether the deal is ready, regardless of how compelling the asset looks on paper.
Why Enverus
Enverus Intelligence® Research provides the shared data foundation utilities, hyperscalers, and developers need to evaluate these decisions together. Utilities can use the screening framework to understand fleet exposure before an offer arrives. Developers and hyperscalers can use it to identify assets with meaningful capacity, site potential, demand, and a realistic path to contract.
The broader planning challenge is covered in Planning You Can Defend, an Enverus e-book on how utilities can defend, optimize, and grow the grid as load forecasts, interconnection queues, market behavior, and rate pressure become harder to reconcile. Download the e-book to build a planning process that stands up when the next major load arrives.
About Enverus Intelligence® | Research, Inc. (EIR)
Enverus Intelligence® | Research, Inc. (EIR) is a subsidiary of Enverus that publishes energy-sector research focused on the oil, natural gas, power and renewable industries. EIR publishes reports including asset and company valuations, resource assessments, technical evaluations, and macroeconomic forecasts and helps make intelligent connections for energy industry participants, service companies, and capital providers worldwide. See additional disclosures here.
