Sabey SDC Quincy: Reconcile delivered power with the separate expansion story
FJI source-qualified: four-document gate met, including project-specific government evidence. Qualification evidence and decisions →
Project status: Existing multi-tenant campus; advertised delivered aggregate power and expansion scopes require reconciliation. Capacity scope: Operator page describes 50–60 MW aggregate delivered power; not critical IT. How we verify evidence.
Compare this project → · Track its catalysts → · Evidence guide →
← Back to project index- Location
- Quincy, Washington — 2200 M Street NE vicinity
- Readiness
- Existing facility / readiness unverified
- Status
- Existing multi-tenant campus; advertised delivered aggregate power and expansion scopes require reconciliation
- Confirmed companies
- Sabey Data Centers; Megaport (MP1); Microsoft Azure connectivity
- Next milestone
- Delivered, contracted and billable capacity by phase; energy price scope and connectivity receipts
- 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: Reconcile delivered power with the separate expansion story. Sabey adds a different operator in Quincy without duplicating Vantage’s WA1 campus. The site has an existing multi-tenant property and network offering, while public materials have different reporting scopes. Aggregate delivered power and announced expansion capacity should be shown separately until a consistent phase table is available. A low advertised energy price is not a binding customer tariff and may omit demand charges. Network integration can support recurring service demand without establishing a hyperscaler tenant. The landlord’s margin depends on billing, retained costs and deployment capital.
Readiness basis: Classification of evidence in the reviewed profile; strongest documented phase, not full-campus completion. Existing multi-tenant campus; advertised delivered aggregate power and expansion scopes require reconciliation Readiness source →
What the sources establish
- Existing campus. Sabey describes a 530,000-square-foot, five-building campus with 50–60 MW aggregate delivered power and an onsite substation. Primary source →
- Separate expansion. A June 2023 announcement describes more than 85 MW of expansion; it must not be automatically added as confirmed current delivery. Primary source →
- Named connectivity. The location page identifies an Azure on-ramp and Megaport software-defined connectivity. Connectivity is not evidence that Microsoft leases the entire campus. 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Sabey Data Centers | Recurring property and retained service contribution | Accepted and billable capacity, rents, retained service costs and maintenance |
| Named resource or service participants | Utility service, network provision or managed-fund ownership only where documented | Contracts, billing scope and cost recovery; do not treat customer payments as automatic profit. |
| Other equipment and construction vendors | Potential capital-purchase receipts; no undisclosed vendor assigned | Actual orders and scope before attributing earnings or AI exposure. |
How financially meaningful is it?
Our analysis: Sabey adds a different operator in Quincy without duplicating Vantage’s WA1 campus. The site has an existing multi-tenant property and network offering, while public materials have different reporting scopes. Aggregate delivered power and announced expansion capacity should be shown separately until a consistent phase table is available. A low advertised energy price is not a binding customer tariff and may omit demand charges. Network integration can support recurring service demand without establishing a hyperscaler tenant. The landlord’s margin depends on billing, retained costs and deployment capital.
Model retained property contribution and network services separately from reimbursed electricity and unbuilt expansion options.
Hypothetical illustration: At an assumed 15 MW IT load and PUE 1.2, a USD 10/MWh price change alters annual facility electricity cost by USD 1.5768 million. These are assumptions, not Sabey measured costs.
Milestones that would change the assessment
| Milestone | Evidence to watch |
|---|---|
| Readiness and scope | Delivered, contracted and billable capacity by phase; energy price scope and connectivity receipts |
| Customer economics | Named commitments and accepted equipment scope; reconcile recurring receipts, electricity recoveries, incentives and maintenance. |
| Capital and resources | Document the incremental power, cooling and network investment needed at the intended density; identify which party pays. |
| Evidence of useful output | For owner-users, useful computing per dollar; for landlords, billable load and service margin; neither is inferred from a building count. |
What could break the investment case?
Our analysis: Capacity discrepancies, marketing tariff assumptions, new fit-out costs and tenant concentration can weaken the thesis. Connectivity partners have different exposure from property owners and cannot be assigned campus rent.
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. Building area is not IT MW, and utility or generation capacity is not automatically campus computing capacity.
Project research for information, not a buy recommendation. Financial illustrations use assumptions, not disclosed site results or management guidance.
Company investor information & quarterly statements
Corporate-disclosure certification held: MP1: held-quarterly-statements-unavailable; Research packet retains a corporate disclosure hold.; Private participant disclosure/ownership exception remains unresolved.
Megaport
Cloud connectivity counterpart only; not campus ownership or compute tenant confirmation
Disclosure verification held: Official investor and quarterly document coverage remains incomplete.
Microsoft
Cloud connectivity counterpart only; not campus ownership or compute tenant confirmation
Official investor & shareholder information · Quarterly financial statements: FY2026 Q4, quarter ended June 30, 2026
Sabey: held-public-quarterly-disclosure-not-established
Corporate disclosures provide company-wide context. They do not establish this project’s revenue, spending, profit, ownership share or operating capacity. Disclosure verification records →