Applied Digital Polaris Forge 2: A financed construction project still needs customer acceptance
FJI source-qualified: four-document gate met, including project-specific government evidence. Qualification evidence and decisions →
Project status: 300 MW building program reported under construction; 200 MW contracted/financed scope; operation unverified. Capacity scope: 300 MW construction program; 200 MW contracted/financed critical IT scope. How we verify evidence.
Compare this project → · Track its catalysts →
← Back to project index- Location
- Harwood, North Dakota — locality pin
- Readiness
- Under construction
- Status
- 300 MW building program reported under construction; 200 MW contracted/financed scope; operation unverified
- Confirmed companies
- Applied Digital (APLD); ABB (SIX: ABBN), documented power-equipment supplier; unnamed investment-grade hyperscaler
- Next milestone
- Agassiz utility energization and phase-specific customer acceptance; issuer targets initial RFS in H2 2026 and full capacity in early 2027
- Reviewed
- October 6, 2026
Expanded analysis · Original disclosures linked below · CAD and USD preserved as labeled · Company statements attributed; interpretations labeled.
The one-minute investment takeaway
Our analysis: A financed construction project still needs customer acceptance. A signed tenant and closed financing reduce two development uncertainties, while leaving execution and acceptance risk. This is stronger evidence than land marketing or a nonbinding reservation, but it does not prove operations. The campus should be evaluated independently from Polaris Forge 1: success at Ellendale supports experience, not automatic completion in Harwood. Long leases can improve cash visibility once accepted; construction spending and interest begin earlier. The public identity of the tenant is not established and should not be guessed from industry rumors.
Readiness basis: Classification of evidence in the reviewed profile; strongest documented phase, not full-campus completion. 300 MW building program reported under construction; 200 MW contracted/financed scope; operation unverified Readiness source →
Delivery commitments and dated checkpoints
Utility evidence updated October 17, 2026. Earlier disclosures and whole-profile review dates are retained.
North Dakota’s Public Service Commission granted corridor certificate 248 and route permit 259 for the Agassiz transmission project on April 29, 2026, subject to the order’s conditions and other necessary permits. The 1.74-mile, 345 kV line and associated substation serve the Polaris Forge 2 load through Minnkota and Cass County Electric Cooperative. The order records an estimated $110 million utility-project cost and a December 2026 construction/commercial-operation target. Neither establishes campus spending or energization. April 29 order, pp. 3 and 7–10
Minnkota’s September 2026 construction report, filed October 1, lists conductor stringing at 98% and substation testing/commissioning at 10%. These are separate utility workstreams, not a weighted completion score or delivered data-center capacity. Applied Digital’s October 7 filing describes two buildings totaling 300 MW under construction, targeting initial readiness in H2 calendar 2026 and full capacity in early 2027. Actual customer acceptance and operating IT load remain unavailable. September utility report, filed October 1 · October 7 issuer filing
Cass County Electric’s undated project page gives expected peak usage of 280 MW. Keep that utility-use estimate separate from the 300 MW construction program and 200 MW contracted subset: phase and measurement boundaries have not been reconciled. These figures must not be added together or treated as current operating IT load. Utility load estimate
Next evidence: Read the next filed Agassiz progress report and a dated utility energization/acceptance instrument, followed by a phase-specific issuer or customer service-readiness statement. Reconcile the 280 MW utility-use estimate, 300 MW construction program and 200 MW contracted subset before quantitative comparison.
Earlier evidence and scope
The March 19 hearing notice recorded a $75 million utility-project estimate; the April 29 order records $110 million. Neither is campus spending or an independently established overrun. The April 15 preliminary-grading variance was not final siting approval.
March 19 notice · Original April 15 hearing reporting · ABB’s November 13, 2025 supplier disclosure
What the sources establish
- Construction and demand. The January 2026 results disclose construction and a roughly 15-year lease for 200 MW with an unnamed US investment-grade hyperscaler. Initial delivery was targeted for 2026. Primary source →
- Financing closure. The July results confirm a USD 2.15 billion notes issuance to fund 200 MW at Polaris Forge 2. Primary source →
Who receives the money?
Our analysis of disclosed roles. Revenue routes are business-model interpretations, not estimates of booked project revenue.
| Company / exposure | Economic role | What investors need to establish |
|---|---|---|
| Applied Digital (APLD) | Operator / owner: property rent or computing service contribution according to the business model | Accepted phases, retained margin, financing and maintenance obligations. |
| Named customers or resource providers | Payments for contracted services or resource delivery where the source identifies a relationship | Confirm scope and contracts; broad ecosystem demand does not establish a supplier order. |
| Other contractors and equipment suppliers | Potential construction and refresh receipts | Do not assign undisclosed vendors, earnings or contract values. |
How financially meaningful is it?
Our analysis: A signed tenant and closed financing reduce two development uncertainties, while leaving execution and acceptance risk. This is stronger evidence than land marketing or a nonbinding reservation, but it does not prove operations. The campus should be evaluated independently from Polaris Forge 1: success at Ellendale supports experience, not automatic completion in Harwood. Long leases can improve cash visibility once accepted; construction spending and interest begin earlier. The public identity of the tenant is not established and should not be guessed from industry rumors.
Development return = stabilized property contribution divided by all project and allocated shared capital; model interest during construction separately.
Hypothetical illustration: A USD 2 billion assumed delivery budget with 10% overruns requires USD 200 million extra capital. These figures are not this campus budget or an overrun estimate.
Milestones that would change the assessment
| Milestone | Evidence to watch |
|---|---|
| Evidence of delivery | A dated phase acceptance record showing usable equipment, power and cooling; separate previous targets from observed completion. |
| Recurring economics | Agassiz utility energization and phase-specific customer acceptance; issuer targets initial RFS in H2 2026 and full capacity in early 2027 |
| Capital and operating reconciliation | Separate property construction, computing hardware, reimbursed costs and financing; distinguish operating cash receipts from revenue recognition. |
What could break the investment case?
Our analysis: Completion guarantees can require additional owner funding if costs exceed available proceeds. A long lease does not eliminate delivery obligations, financing covenants or concentration.
What would change our view?
Our analysis: Phase-specific customer acceptance, sustained useful workloads and cash generation after recurring costs would strengthen our assessment. Missed acceptance, deteriorating margins or additional capital required without equivalent contract protection would weaken it. A larger design envelope alone would not change the operating assessment.
What remains unknown
Current phase utilization, site-specific cash flow, customer acceptance detail, actual tariff, measured PUE, maintenance obligations and incremental capital returns are not fully disclosed in the reviewed sources. Coordinates represent the named locality or campus vicinity, not a surveyed building. A target date is not a verified completion. Readiness means the documented state above; no blanket “shovel ready” designation is inferred from a marketing page.
Project research for information, not a buy recommendation. Financial illustrations use assumptions, not disclosed site results or management guidance.
Cass County Electric ownership · Minnkota ownership · ABB official shareholder and listing information
Company investor information & quarterly statements
Applied Digital
Developer and issuer; subsidiary financing role retained; tenant undisclosed in accepted issuer evidence.
Official investor & shareholder information · Quarterly financial statements: Q1 FY2027 ended August 31, 2026
ABB Ltd
Documented low/medium-voltage power architecture, UPS and switchgear supplier; no order value, site revenue or delivery acceptance inferred.
Official investor & shareholder information · Quarterly financial statements: Q2 / H1 ended June 30, 2026
Minnkota Power Cooperative: Not-for-profit member-owned generation/transmission cooperative. Utility transmission/substation applicant/operator and wholesale power provider. Non-listed cooperative; public-company quarterly statements and share ticker not applicable. This is not a claim that no annual or lender reports exist.
Cass County Electric Cooperative: Not-for-profit member-owned distribution cooperative. Retail/distribution utility serving Harwood development. Non-listed cooperative; public-company quarterly statements and share ticker not applicable. No site-specific utility revenue inferred.
Corporate disclosures provide company-wide context. They do not establish this project’s revenue, spending, profit, ownership share or operating capacity. Disclosure verification records →