Fermi Inc. (FRMI) Risk Factors

Verbatim Item 1A Risk Factors from Fermi Inc.'s latest 10-K. Filing date: 2026-03-30. Accession: 0002071778-26-000010.

This page reproduces the company's own Item 1A Risk Factors text from the linked SEC filing. It is filer text, not grepcent analysis, scoring, or investment advice.

Informational only - not investment advice. See Disclaimer.

Extracted from Item 1A Risk Factors to the first Item 1B/1C/2 boundary after HTML sanitization. Confidence: high. Source form: 10-K. Character span: 134413-366629.

Back to FRMI company profile

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Summary of Risk Factors

An investment in our securities involves a high degree of risk. The occurrence of one or more of the events or circumstances described in the section titled “Risk Factors,” alone or in combination with other events or circumstances, may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results. In that event, the trading price of our securities could decline, and you could lose all or part of your investment. Such risks include, but are not limited to:

•We are a development-stage company with no operating history or historical revenue, and we face execution risk across all major components of our business.

•We have not yet constructed our facilities or entered into any binding contract with any tenants, and there is no guarantee that we will be able to do so in the future. Our limited commercial operating history makes it difficult to evaluate our prospects, the risks and challenges we may encounter and our total potential addressable market. Any delays or setbacks we may experience could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, and could harm our reputation.

•We will be dependent on third-party manufacturing and supply chain relationships to develop and lease our facilities. Our reliance on third parties and suppliers involves certain risks that may result in increased costs, delays, and loss of revenue.

•We will require significant additional capital to construct and complete Project Matador, and we may not be able to secure such financing on time with acceptable terms, or at all, which could cause delays in our construction, lead to inadequate liquidity and increase overall costs.

•We will need to hire additional skilled employees as we grow and scale up Project Matador, and there is no assurance we will be successful in recruiting, hiring, and training the personnel we need.

•If members of our board of directors or senior management team are unable to align on strategic direction, capital allocation, operational priorities, or other significant matters, such differences in perspective could result in delays in decision-making, the departure of key personnel, disruption to our operations, or an inability to execute on our business strategy.

•Technological advances or disruptive innovations, specifically advancements in artificial intelligence or the ability of new generations of chips to produce useful output in the form of tokenized results using substantially less energy input, may outpace our development cycle, and we are exposed to technology obsolescence across all major asset classes.

•We may not achieve tenant adoption at the pace or pricing levels required for financial viability.

•We depend on third-party vendors, contractors, and consultants to support our business.

•Wars, threats of war, terrorist attacks, cyberattacks and threats may compromise the security, operability or integrity of our power generation and transmission and distribution infrastructure and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

•Our use of technologies and systems that use AI or large-scale language models (“LLMs”), given the dynamic state of such technologies, may cause inadvertent or unexpected impacts that may introduce new operational, legal, and regulatory risks that could adversely affect our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

•Project Matador is an unprecedented, large-scale, multi-phase development effort that presents significant planning, execution, and coordination risks.

•Our ability to develop and retain site control depends on maintaining our leasehold interest with the Texas Tech University System.

•The scale of infrastructure planned at Project Matador will require extensive permitting, interconnection, and third-party coordination.

•High demand for, constraints on the supply of, and increasing costs for industrial scale gas-fired turbines could lead to significant delays or significant increases in capital costs associated with in our ability to develop the natural gas-fired power generation infrastructure we will need to achieve our power delivery goals on the schedule we are projecting.

•Westinghouse Reactors and SMRs can be costly and time consuming to construct and commercialize. Delays and cost overruns arising from issues with our procurement, licensing and other regulatory approvals, construction and commercialization of nuclear reactors may materially adversely affect our business.

•Our construction, delivery timeline estimates, and costs for our facilities and other equipment may increase due to a number of factors, including the degree of pre-fabrication, standardization, on-site construction, long-lead procurement, contractor performance, facility pre-operational and startup testing, demand for repairs and other site-specific considerations.

•Our business operations rely heavily on securing agreements with suppliers for essential materials, equipment, and components which will be used to construct Project Matador facilities.

•If we cannot obtain required permits, licenses and regulatory clearance or approvals for Project Matador or our operations, or are unable to maintain such permits, licenses or approvals, we may not be able to continue or expand our operations.

•We are subject to complex, evolving, and potentially burdensome regulatory requirements.

•Accidents involving third party owned and operated nuclear power facilities, including but not limited to events similar to the Three Mile Island or Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accidents, or other high profile events involving radioactive materials, could materially and adversely affect the public perception of the safety of nuclear energy, our customers and the markets in which we operate and potentially decrease demand for nuclear energy or facilities, increase regulatory requirements and costs or result in liabilities or claims that could materially and adversely affect our business.

•We are subject to federal environmental review processes, including the NEPA, that may materially delay or restrict project development.

•Commodity prices (particularly for natural gas) could impact the economic viability of our businesses or impair our ability to commence operations if we are not able to adequately pass through the cost of natural gas and other raw materials to our tenants.

•Our near-term revenue may be heavily concentrated among a small number of anchor tenants.

•Failure of any major tenant to perform under its lease could result in material financial losses.

•We intend to elect to be classified as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Our failure to qualify or maintain our qualification as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes would reduce the amount of funds we have available for distribution and limit our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

•Adverse macroeconomic conditions could impair our ability to raise capital or complete development phases.

•Influential political actors, shifting domestic policy priorities, and organized opposition by politically connected stakeholders could materially adversely affect our ability to develop, finance, and operate Project Matador.

•As a result of becoming a public company, we will be obligated to develop and maintain proper and effective internal controls over financial reporting in order to comply with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We may not complete our analysis of our internal controls over financial reporting in a timely manner, or these internal controls may not be determined to be effective, which may adversely affect investor confidence in us and, as a result, the value of our common stock.

•We have identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. If our remediation of the material weakness is not effective, or if we experience additional material weaknesses in the future or otherwise fail to develop and maintain effective internal control over financial reporting, our ability to produce timely and accurate financial statements or comply with applicable laws and regulations could be impaired.

•The JOBS Act will allow us to postpone the date by which we must comply with certain laws and regulations intended to protect investors and to reduce the amount of information we provide in our reports filed with the SEC. We cannot be certain if this reduced disclosure will make our common stock less attractive to investors.

•Risks related to the volatility of our common stock, and provisions in our Charter and Bylaws.

•A significant portion of our total outstanding shares of common stock were restricted from immediate resale but may be sold into the market in the near future. The sale of such shares could cause the market price of our common stock to drop significantly.

Risk Factors

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

We are a development-stage company with no operating history or historical revenue, and we face execution risk across all major components of our business.

Fermi was recently formed and is currently in the early stages of developing Project Matador. We have not generated any revenue to date and do not expect to do so until the first subleases of our powered shells and the delivery of on-demand energy commence, which we expect will not occur until the first half of 2027, subject to execution of definitive lease agreements and the time required for tenants to complete final buildout activities. Given our early stage of development, it is difficult to predict what results we might ultimately achieve. Our ability to actually achieve our expected results and our business model depends on, among other things, our ability to construct, permit, finance, and operate large-scale infrastructure projects in the nuclear, natural gas, solar, and data center verticals—simultaneously. If we fail to timely deliver and make Project Matador operational on budget, on time or at all, our business may prove unsuccessful.

We have not yet constructed our facilities or entered into any binding contracts with any tenants, and there is no guarantee that we will be able to do so in the future. Our limited commercial operating history makes it difficult to evaluate our prospects, the risks and challenges we may encounter and our total potential addressable market. Any delays or setbacks we may experience could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, and could harm our reputation.

Our business plan to construct and operate Project Matador depends on, among other things, our ability to negotiate and enter into binding agreements with potential tenants to lease our facilities. If no potential near-term tenant enters into such binding agreement with us, our planned construction and operation of Project Matador could be significantly delayed. Such delays would result in delays in revenue and could hinder our ability to gain market traction with other potential tenants and/or trigger an early termination right of the landlord under the Lease. Additionally, there are conditions to the commencement of construction of tenant facilities, including obtaining financing for the Phase 1 buildout, and the execution and delivery of a sublease agreement for our first tenant, that must occur before the end of 2026. See “—Risks Related to Project Matador—Our ability to develop and retain site control depends on maintaining our leasehold interest with the Texas Tech University System.”

As a result of our limited commercial operating history and ongoing changes in our new and evolving industry, including evolving demand for the types of products and services we offer and the potential development of technologies that may prove more efficient or effective for our intended use cases, our ability to forecast our future results of operations and plan for and model future growth is limited and subject to a number of uncertainties. Therefore, our internal estimates relating to the size of our total addressable market may not be correct. In addition, our expectations with respect to our total potential addressable market may differ from those of third parties, including investors or securities analysts.

We may experience operational or process failures and other problems during the construction or operation of Project Matador. Any failures or setbacks, particularly in the initial phases of Project Matador, could harm our reputation, our ability to attract tenants, and have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

We are a development stage company with a history of financial losses (e.g., negative cash flows), and we expect to incur significant expenses and continuing financial losses at least until Project Matador becomes commercially viable, which may never occur. We will require substantial additional future funding to support our operations and implementation of our growth plans.

We expect our operating expenses to increase over the next several years and to continue to incur operating losses for the foreseeable future as we expand and develop, and we will need substantial additional capital from external sources over an extended period to fund such development. If we are unable to raise additional capital, we may need to make significant adjustments to our business plan or significantly delay or scale back Project Matador, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash available for distribution. If we are unable to raise additional funding, we may be forced to liquidate our assets and the values we receive for our assets in liquidation or dissolution could be significantly lower than the values reflected in our financial statements.

We do not expect to generate meaningful revenue unless and until we are able to finalize development of and commercialize Project Matador, and we may not be able to do so on our anticipated timetable, if at all. We expect our expenses and capital expenditures to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, including developing and advancing Project Matador. In addition, we expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company.

Historically, our primary source of funding to support our operations has been from capital raises and equipment financings.

Adequate additional funding may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. Our failure to raise capital as and when needed could have a negative impact on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategies. If we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, our shareholders will experience dilution. If we raise additional capital through debt financing, we may be subject to covenants that restrict our operations, including limitations on our ability to incur liens or additional debt, pay dividends, repurchase our securities, make certain investments, and engage in certain merger, consolidation, or asset sale transactions. Any debt financing or additional equity that we raise may contain terms that are not favorable to us or our shareholders. If the needed financing is not available, or if the terms of financing are less desirable than we expect, we may be required to delay, scale back or terminate some or all of projects within Project Matador and we may not be able to raise the necessary capital or obtain financing on favorable terms, if at all.

We will require significant additional capital to construct and complete Project Matador, and we may not be able to secure such financing on time with acceptable terms, or at all, which could cause delays in our construction, lead to inadequate liquidity and increase overall costs.

The capital expenditures we expect to incur as we complete the development of Project Matador will be significant. We currently estimate that the total capital expenditures we will incur to complete the development of Phase 0 and Phase 1 of Project Matador could exceed $3 billion in the aggregate. The required capital expenditures for the remaining phases are difficult to estimate, but we expect to require substantial additional capital well in excess of that required for Phase 0 and Phase 1. In addition, to the extent we take advantage of the optionality to increase the size of the total power deployed at this site, our total required capital would increase proportionately and substantially.

Additional capital may not be available in the amounts required, or on favorable terms. In addition, if any adverse findings are discovered at any stage during the course of our development of Project Matador that would render part of, or all of, the Project Matador Site to be unsuitable or we discover flaws that may decrease the value of the Project Matador Site as collateral for purposes of any financing, then we may not be able to obtain the financing necessary to construct Project Matador on favorable terms, or at all. Furthermore, any adverse changes in power demand that affect the competitiveness of Project Matador or any failure on our part to obtain or comply with necessary permits or approvals may also hinder our ability to obtain necessary additional capital or financing.

Delays in the construction of Project Matador beyond the estimated development period could increase the cost of completion beyond the amounts that we estimate and beyond the then-available proceeds from rent payments from our tenants we expect to receive, which could require us to obtain additional sources of financing to fund our operations until Project Matador is fully completed (which could cause further delays). Moreover, many factors (including factors beyond our control) could result in a disparity between liquidity sources and cash needs, including factors such as construction delays and breaches of agreements.

Our ability to obtain financing that may be needed to provide additional funding will depend, in part, on factors beyond our control and that funding may not be available to us on commercial terms or at all. For example, capital providers or their applicable regulators may elect to cease funding nuclear projects or certain related businesses. Accordingly, we may not be able to obtain financing on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. Even if we are able to obtain financing, we may have to accept terms that are disadvantageous to us or that may have an adverse impact on our business plan and the viability of the relevant project. The failure to obtain any necessary additional funding could cause any or all of our projects to be delayed or not be completed. Any delays in construction could prevent us from commencing operations when we anticipate and could prevent us from realizing anticipated cash flows, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, financing requirements, liquidity, prospects and the price of our common stock.

We are dependent on third-party manufacturing and supply chain relationships to develop and lease our facilities. Our reliance on third parties and suppliers involves certain risks that may result in increased costs, delays, and loss of revenue.

We do not have the resources to build our own facilities, and we extensively rely on third parties for materials for our business. As a result, we are subject to risks associated with these third parties, including:

•insufficient capacity available to meet our demand on time;

•inability of our suppliers to obtain the equipment or replacement parts necessary to fully operate our facilities or expand available manufacturing capacity;

•inadequate manufacturing yields and excessive costs;

•inability of these third parties to obtain an adequate supply of raw materials;

•extended lead times on supplies used in the building and operation of our facilities;

•limited warranties on products supplied to us; and

•potential increases in prices (including the cost of freight and potential or increased tariffs).

Our industry has experienced the effects of manufacturing capacity constraints. The ongoing war in Ukraine and the Middle East, and related international sanctions and restrictions have impacted supply chains for manufacturers. To mitigate this, the U.S. government has taken steps to create tariff exemptions for nuclear energy projects and data center development, which we expect to benefit Project Matador. Notwithstanding these mitigating steps, these supply challenges have impacted, and may continue to impact, our ability to fully satisfy the necessary supplies, resources and products required by our business and Project Matador. In addition, the rapid growth in demand for natural gas-fired combustion turbine generators caused by the development of new data centers has produced a backlog in orders for new combustion turbines from highly regarded global manufacturers, such as Siemens Energy and GE Vernova, which could adversely impact our plans to purchase and procure additional gas-fired combustion turbines for timely delivery to Project Matador.

In some cases, our requirements may represent a small portion of the total production or business of our third-party suppliers. Our external partners may not devote the necessary resources to our business even when requested by us. Each of these events could increase our costs, lower our gross margin, delay the construction and delivery of our projects, and cause us to hold more inventories, or materially impact our ability to deliver our products on time.

We will need to hire additional skilled employees as we grow and scale up Project Matador, and there is no assurance we will be successful in recruiting, hiring, and training the personnel we need.

Our projects require highly specialized talent across a wide range of disciplines, including nuclear engineering, radiation safety, reactor operations, construction management, gas processing and handling, power generation, electrical and mechanical engineering, environmental compliance, project controls, procurement, and commissioning. While we believe our proximity to the Pantex Plant provides us with access to a large pool of skilled nuclear professionals, there is no assurance that we will be successful in recruiting, hiring, training, and retaining the personnel we need. Furthermore, the demand for such talent across the broader nuclear and energy sectors is intensifying as numerous companies and government initiatives compete for the same limited workforce. Additionally, prospective employees may be reluctant to relocate to our area of operations, and we may face competition from larger, more established companies that are able to offer more attractive compensation packages, benefits, or career advancement opportunities. If we are unable to hire the personnel we need in a timely manner, we may experience delays in project development, increased labor and training costs, diminished operational performance, and an inability to achieve our aggressive growth and development milestones, any of which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and long-term strategic objectives.

If members of our board of directors or senior management team are unable to align on strategic direction, capital allocation, operational priorities, or other significant matters, such differences in perspective could result in delays in decision-making, the departure of key personnel, disruption to our operations, or an inability to execute on our business strategy.

The development and execution of Project Matador is a large-scale, capital-intensive undertaking that requires sustained coordination and alignment among our leadership on matters including project sequencing, technology selection, financing strategy, regulatory engagement, and the allocation of limited financial and human resources across competing priorities. As we continue to grow, the complexity of these decisions will increase, and divergent views among board members or senior leaders on the pace of development, risk tolerance, partnership opportunities, or responses to unforeseen challenges could slow or impair critical decision-making at times when timely action is essential. Furthermore, actual or perceived instability within our leadership team could undermine confidence among our employees, contractors, joint venture partners, lenders, off-takers, and other key stakeholders, potentially making it more difficult to attract and retain talent, negotiate favorable commercial terms, or maintain the strategic relationships upon which our business depends. In addition, the departure of one or more members of our senior management team or board of directors as a result of such differences

could deprive us of institutional knowledge, key relationships, and specialized expertise that may be difficult to replace in a timely manner, particularly given the highly specialized nature of our operations and the competitive market for experienced nuclear and energy industry executives. Any of the foregoing could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and our ability to achieve our development objectives on the timelines we have communicated to our stakeholders.

The data center and energy markets are highly competitive and rapidly evolving.

We compete with a variety of hyperscale data center REITs, cloud providers, colocation operators, infrastructure funds, and sovereign-backed power developers. These competitors may have greater access to capital, more established tenant bases, deeper vendor relationships and fewer regulatory hurdles. In addition, our focus on the AI infrastructure segment introduces unique risks due to the high concentration of demand among a small number of potential hyperscaler tenants, such as X.AI Corp. (“xAI”), OpenAI Group PBC (“OpenAI”), Amazon Web Services, Inc., Meta Platforms, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Google LLC, Oracle Corporation, and Anthropic PBC. In addition, the AI infrastructure segment faces rapid shifts in compute density, chip cooling technology, and bandwidth requirements. These technological developments may require significant capital investment and continuous innovation. We may be unable to meet these evolving demands, resulting in lost business or underutilized capacity. Additionally, if we fail to anticipate shifts in chip architectures or cannot source the equipment required by our tenants, our infrastructure may become obsolete or misaligned with market needs and our cash flows may be affected.

AI and Large-scale Language Model “LLM” infrastructure requirements are changing faster than conventional infrastructure can be developed.

The compute requirements for AI training and inference are scaling exponentially, with current models now requiring tens of megawatts per training cycle and high-throughput, ultra-low latency interconnects between GPUs, memory storage, and cooling systems. If our infrastructure design—particularly with respect to power delivery and cooling configurations—does not keep pace with the technical standards demanded by these workloads, our facilities may be underutilized or obsolete before full occupancy. Furthermore, the Project Matador Site’s edge advantage may be eroded over time if competitors offer modular or prefabricated solutions with faster time-to-power and we may lose prospective tenants to faster-moving providers.

The AI and hyperscaler market may not adopt our private infrastructure platform at the speed or scale we anticipate.

The success of our business model depends on continued rapid growth in demand for AI-specific data center capacity and hyperscaler willingness to procure compute co-located with private power generation. While current trends suggest a “race” among leading U.S. technology firms to secure independent energy ecosystems, we cannot guarantee that tenants will sign binding leases at the pace required to fund Project Matador milestones.

Additionally, shifts in global interest rates, capital expenditures by our future tenant base, adoption of alternative AI chips or edge-compute technologies, or improvements in utility grid capacity could reduce the relative attractiveness of our solution. Our model assumes that grid-constrained growth will drive long-term tenant demand for co-located energy and compute—a condition that may not persist under alternative regulatory regimes or as noted in the technological futures. In the event the AI and hyperscaler market fails to adopt our private infrastructure platform at the speed or scale we anticipate, our business prospects, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows would be materially adversely impacted.

Technological advances or disruptive innovations, specifically advancements in AI, may outpace our development cycle, and we are exposed to technology obsolescence across all major asset classes.

The AI and compute infrastructure industries are rapidly evolving. We have been and will continue to be dependent on innovations in technology offerings by our vendors, as well as the adoption of those innovations by tenants. Breakthroughs in chip design, immersion cooling, energy storage, or synthetic power generation could materially reduce the competitive edge of our offerings. Tenants may delay spending while they evaluate any new technologies or may choose providers with more current infrastructure. The rapid pace of innovation in semiconductor design, AI model architecture, power electronics, and battery storage means that capital investments in one generation of infrastructure may be made obsolete before full monetization is realized. If new technologies require materially different site layouts, interconnect systems, or energy delivery formats, portions of our developed capacity may become outdated or require costly retrofits.

This risk will be heightened in our nuclear and gas assets, where multi-decade operating lives must be matched with evolving tenant power profiles. New technologies, including highly efficient new generations of chips, next-generation

cooling, zero-carbon dispatchable power, or quantum compute platforms, could make some or all of our infrastructure obsolete or noncompetitive.

Emerging AI technologies, such as demonstrated by Hangzhou DeepSeek Artificial Intelligence Basic Technology Research Co., Ltd. (DeepSeek), may allow for complex AI operations to be executed with significantly less computing power than is currently required. If AI developers are able to achieve the same or better performance outcomes with more energy-efficient, cost-effective, or less resource-intensive technologies, they may adjust their need for large-scale, high-capacity power solutions. This shift could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition. We continuously monitor industry trends and will invest in innovation to mitigate these risks. However, we may not be able to anticipate or respond effectively to such changes, which could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

We may not achieve tenant adoption at the pace or pricing levels required for financial viability.

Although we are actively negotiating with prospective tenants, we have entered into a single letter of intent as of the date of this report and have largely only received expressions of interest from what we believe are AI ecosystem leaders and there is no guarantee these entities will execute leases with us or maintain full occupancy under our pricing assumptions. Additionally, tenants often have significant bargaining power and may demand capital support, infrastructure rebates, or operational guarantees that may increase our costs or reduce our profitability. A failure to achieve tenant adoption at an adequate pace and at assumed pricing levels may have a material adverse impact on our business prospects, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

We anticipate that any leases we enter into with tenants will contain certain milestones and conditions precedent that, if we are unable to meet, could result in significant liquidated damages or termination of the lease agreements, which would subject us to significant losses and have a material adverse effect on our business prospects, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

If we fail to meet certain milestones with dates to be specified in any of our tenant leases, including delivery of schematic design documents, delivery of design development documents and construction documents, early access completion, definitive agreements with SPS, and substantial completion and final completion of the construction of powered shells by certain specified deadlines, these tenants will be entitled to substantial liquidated damages that would have a material adverse effect on our financial position and liquidity. In addition, if we fail to meet the milestones we set out under these lease agreements, even by a matter of weeks, the tenants may terminate their lease agreements and we would be obligated to repay amounts equal to or in excess of any and all accrued rent credits and other amounts advanced to us in the form of any prepayments or reimbursements, which amounts would be significant. Any such termination and required repayments would likely lead to our insolvency. A termination of a lease with a tenant would cause us to lose all of the revenue associated with that lease, which could represent substantially all of our revenue and cause us to have to find alternative sources of revenue to meet any financing obligations and to prevent a default under such financings. If a lease with a tenant is terminated, we may also incur significant losses to make the leased premises ready for another tenant and experience difficulty or a significant delay in re-leasing the premises.

Our ability to complete the project milestones is subject to substantial risks, many of which are out of our control. See “—Risks Related to Our Business and Industry”, “—Risks Related to Project Matador” and “—Risks Related to Our Regulatory Environment and Energy Generation.” Similar projects have frequently experienced time delays and cost overruns in construction and development as a result of the occurrence of various of these risks, and we may experience similar events, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business prospects, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

We may not enter into a definitive lease with the First Tenant or any other tenant.

Although we have entered into the non-binding First Tenant LOI, there is no guarantee that a definitive lease with the First Tenant will be executed, or, if it is executed, that it will be on the same terms as set forth in the First Tenant LOI or on other favorable terms. Furthermore, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to negotiate a definitive lease with any other tenant. If we are unable to enter into lease agreements with one or more tenants, we will not be able to generate revenue, and our ability to survive as a going concern will be severely impacted.

We depend on third-party vendors, contractors, and consultants to support our business.

From licensing and permitting to design, procurement, construction, and operations, we depend on a complex ecosystem of third-party providers to execute our development roadmap. These parties include, among others, nuclear and gas-fired

power generation engineering firms, construction managers, legal advisors, fiber network providers, and control system integrators. If any such party experiences delays, disputes, or insolvency, or we lose our license or use rights to critical third-party technology, it could materially adversely impact the timing of delivery, cost, or quality of our infrastructure solution and our ability to attract tenants.

Terrorist attacks, cyberattacks and threats may compromise the integrity of our hybrid grid systems and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Our energy and compute infrastructure will rely on highly integrated operational technology, industrial control systems, and AI infrastructure automation platforms, many of which will be internet-connected or exposed to remote access for diagnostics, supervisory control, data acquisition, and maintenance. These systems are increasingly targeted by nation-state and criminal actors, and even advanced cybersecurity protocols cannot fully eliminate risk. In addition, we will rely on third-party cloud infrastructure providers and Software-as-a-Service platforms to operate and manage core elements of our data, diagnostics, and control environments. Any compromise or service disruption affecting these external providers could impair our visibility into asset performance or interrupt critical operations.

A successful attack on our nuclear, gas, solar, battery, or tenant-facing compute infrastructure could result in physical damage, loss of service, ransom demands, data exposure, or regulatory fines. Moreover, nuclear assets are subject to elevated NRC physical security requirements and cybersecurity standards, which imposes specific requirements on digital system integrity. For our nuclear and gas assets, a cyber breach could also raise safety, environmental, or emergency preparedness concerns, potentially triggering regulatory shutdowns, incident investigations, or long-term reputational harm beyond the direct operational impacts. Energy and AI-related infrastructure have been identified as strategic targets for future attacks, and, as such, may face greater risk of disruption or exploitation than other asset classes. In addition, such an incident at any nuclear power facility, globally, may lead to heightened regulatory standards and scrutiny across the entire industry, leading to increased regulatory compliance burdens, loss of revenue, and incidental costs related to the alteration of infrastructure, assets, or systems.

In the ordinary course of business, we will collect, store, and transmit confidential information (including but not limited to intellectual property, proprietary business information and personal information). It is critical that we do so in a secure manner to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of such confidential information. While we will regularly review any obligations we may have under applicable data privacy or data protection laws, any actual or perceived failure to comply with new or existing laws, regulations and other requirements could cause substantial harm to our business or result in investigations, claims, proceedings, or other liabilities that could hurt our reputation and brand, incur significant expenses, and divert management’s attention. We expect to also outsource elements of our operations to third parties, and as a result we will manage a number of third-party contractors who have access to our confidential information. Regarding our nuclear assets, we will be subject to the NRC’s regulations in this area, and for all of our electric generation and related electric infrastructure, we will be subject to regulation by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), the Southwest Power Pool (the “SPP”), the Public Utility Commission of Texas (the “PUCT”), the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (“NERC”), and the Midwest Reliability Organization (“MRO”), the violation of which could carry regulatory enforcement action.

While we expect to implement a comprehensive set of security measures, our operational technology, industrial control systems, and AI infrastructure automation platforms and those of our contractors and consultants may be vulnerable to breakdown or other damage or interruption from service interruptions, system malfunction, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures, as well as security breaches from inadvertent or intentional actions by our employees, contractors, consultants, business partners, and/or other third parties, or from cyber attacks by malicious third parties (including the deployment of harmful malware, ransomware, denial-of-service attacks, social engineering and other means to affect service reliability and threaten the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information), which may compromise our system infrastructure or lead to data leakage. In particular, ransomware attacks could result in prolonged operational outages across our compute and energy infrastructure, delay site commissioning, or trigger fail-safe shutdowns of critical systems. More sophisticated attack vectors, such as spear phishing, credential stuffing, and deepfake-based social engineering, may further undermine our ability to detect and prevent compromise. These disruptions could materially affect our ability to fulfill tenant obligations and meet development milestones. We are not able to anticipate, detect, or prevent all cyberattacks, particularly as attackers adapt methods to evade detection and exploit zero-day vulnerabilities. Additionally, some cyber incidents, including surveillance, data exfiltration, or deepfake impersonation, may go undetected for extended periods.

As part of our planned reviews of potential risks, we will analyze emerging cyber security threats to us and our contractors, consultants, business partners and other third parties as well as our plans and strategies to address them. Our board of

directors, which will have oversight responsibility for cyber security risks, is expected to be briefed by management on such analyses. Oversight responsibilities will include review of threat assessments, incident response plans, vendor cybersecurity practices, and the coordination of efforts across operations, legal, privacy, and IT teams.

As a public company, we are also subject to the cybersecurity disclosure and incident reporting requirements adopted by the SEC, which may increase the cost and complexity of our compliance efforts and expose us to additional scrutiny in the event of a cyber incident.

Additionally, the board of directors is responsible for overseeing the adequacy of management’s conduct of threat environment and vulnerability assessments, management of cyber incidents, pursuit of projects to strengthen internal cyber security and the cyber security of our suppliers and other service providers, work with the Company’s privacy and legal teams, coordination with the Company’s operations teams to evaluate the cyber security implications of our products and offerings, and coordination of efforts to monitor, detect, and prevent future cyber threats. In addition, the board of directors, or a duly authorized committee thereof, will annually review our risk profile with respect to cybersecurity matters. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and reputational damage and the further development and commercialization of our products could be delayed. We may also be required to expend significant additional capital or operating costs to investigate and remediate vulnerabilities, strengthen controls, or comply with evolving cybersecurity regulations.

Furthermore, significant disruptions of our internal information technology systems or security breaches could result in the loss, misappropriation, and/or unauthorized access, use, or disclosure of, or the prevention of access to, confidential information (including, but not limited to, intellectual property, proprietary business information, export-controlled information, and personal information), which could result in financial, legal, business, and reputational harm to us. For example, any such event that leads to unauthorized access, use, or disclosure of personal information, including personal information related to our employees, could harm our reputation directly, compel us to comply with federal and/or state breach notification laws and foreign law equivalents, subject us to mandatory corrective action, and otherwise subject us to liability under laws and regulations that protect the privacy and security of personal information, which could result in significant legal and financial exposure and reputational damages that could potentially have an adverse effect on our business.

We will be required to continuously upgrade cybersecurity controls, test defenses, and maintain redundancy and isolation protocols. Any failure could materially impair our operations or tenant relationships. We expect to maintain cybersecurity insurance, but such coverage may not be adequate to cover all losses. Certain consequential or reputational damages may not be insurable, and we may be required to self-fund recovery efforts, litigation costs, and regulatory penalties. As cyberattacks increase globally in frequency and severity, the cost of such insurance may increase and availability of such insurance may also decline. Any failure to prevent, detect, or respond to cybersecurity incidents could materially impair our operations, delay our infrastructure roadmap, damage our relationships with tenants or regulators, and result in significant legal or financial exposure.

Our use of technologies and systems that use AI or LLMs, given the dynamic state of such technologies, may cause inadvertent or unexpected impacts that may introduce new operational, legal, and regulatory risks that could adversely affect our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

Like many companies, we are using and looking for more opportunities to use AI technologies, including those that leverage LLMs, in an effort to reduce costs and run our business efficiently. In particular, we are evaluating opportunities to leverage AI operations in our research and development efforts, as well as in operational areas like procurement and contract management. However, some of these technologies are nascent and their reliability and effectiveness is unproven. As a result, the resources and time we expend to develop and/or use such systems may ultimately fail to create efficiencies and may even make us less efficient. Additionally, these systems may generate incorrect outputs that may negatively impact our business or operations in unexpected ways if we fail to identify and screen out such errors, particularly if we are using such technologies in our research and development efforts (for example, if we use such technologies to help us evaluate design parameters).

Additionally, the legal and regulatory framework that applies to the use of AI technologies is rapidly evolving. New and proposed laws in the United States and abroad, including the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act, U.S. federal and state laws, and FTC enforcement actions, may restrict certain uses of AI, increase compliance costs, or subject us to disclosures or civil penalties. Such evolving laws and regulations may prevent or limit us from being able to effectively use such technologies, may impact the costs of using or maintaining such technologies, may cause operational costs if we need

to change processes that we implement to use such technologies or third-party providers that provide such processes, or may subject us to legal or regulatory liabilities. Our failure to adequately manage the risks associated with AI use could adversely affect our operations, expose us to liability, or harm our reputation.

Risks Related to Project Matador

Project Matador is an unprecedented, large-scale, multi-phase development effort that presents significant planning, execution, and coordination risks.

Fermi’s flagship project, Project Matador, is among the largest hybrid infrastructure developments in the United States, that will combine hyperscale powered shells and vertically integrated energy assets on a single 5,236-acre site. We hold 4,523 acres of the Project Matador Site under the Lease following the lease commencement date and will hold the remaining 713 acres of the Project Matador Site following the land exchange contemplated under a land exchange agreement with the Texas Tech University System. Together with additional acreage acquired or under contract adjacent to the leased property, the expanded campus is expected to encompass approximately 7,570 acres. Coordinating the simultaneous construction and operation of nuclear, gas, solar, battery, fiber, cooling, and computing systems creates an extraordinary degree of interdependency. Errors in sequencing, delayed component delivery, construction conflicts, or design misalignment across asset classes could significantly impact deployment timelines, construction costs, tenant onboarding, or overall operability. In addition, Project Matador requires a significant amount of capital for build out and we may not be able to access this financing in the amounts or at the costs currently anticipated. Failure to obtain this capital will significantly and adversely affect our efforts to complete Project Matador.

Our ability to develop and retain site control depends on maintaining our leasehold interest with the Texas Tech University System.

We hold the Project Matador Site under the Lease. In order for us to begin development on the Project Matador Site, the Lease provides that we must first receive a notice to proceed from the Texas Tech University System, which notice is conditioned on, among other things, (i) delivery by us of sufficient evidence to demonstrate that we have secured full and unconditional funding and financing for Phase 1 of Project Matador, including capitalized interest and all capital costs set forth in the development budget, (ii) an executed lease with a Phase 1 tenant, (iii) receipt of insurance policies covering the premises of the Project Matador Site, (iv) delivery of environmental site assessments, (v) letter of credit in the amount of $5.0 million and (vi) receipt of all necessary permits and approvals for the commencement of construction of Phase 1.

The Lease further includes provisions that may trigger reversion or early termination in the event of non-performance, tenant abandonment, or violation of specified land-use covenants. The Lease also requires us to demonstrate tenant adoption or construction commencement within defined milestones, failure of which could jeopardize our right to continue development.

Furthermore, the Lease is governed under Texas state law and may be subject to political or administrative changes in future governance of the university or state policy shifts relating to nuclear energy or AI infrastructure. Our inability to receive the notice to proceed, or any adverse modification or termination of the Lease could have a materially adverse effect on our ability to execute our business model and deliver committed capacity to hyperscaler tenants.

The scale of infrastructure planned at Project Matador will require extensive permitting, interconnection, and third-party coordination.

The scope of infrastructure for Project Matador—spanning substations, cooling corridors, high-pressure gas delivery, nuclear construction, multiple types of other electric generating and storage facilities, and powered shell capacity—necessitates cooperation with dozens of agencies, vendors, and EPC contractors. A delay or dispute with any one of these counterparties or regulators could cascade into project-wide impacts. For example, if transmission infrastructure or water lines are delayed, it could stall multiple phases simultaneously. Coordinating these layers in parallel, with differing regulatory timelines, creates real risk for budget overruns or missed commercial operation dates (“CODs”).

We may face significant construction delays and global supply chain disruptions that could materially impact project timelines and costs.

Project Matador requires timely procurement of gas turbines, transformers, switchgear of a varied nature, power electronics, nuclear reactor components (including processed and refined uranium), heating. ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) systems, and modular powered shell elements—many of which originate from international vendors. Geopolitical conflict, trade restrictions and tariffs, maritime shipping delays, or semiconductor shortages may

delay site readiness, reduce operational capacity, or force reprioritization of development phases. In addition, recent global supply chain disruptions have increasingly affected both the availability and cost of raw materials (including uranium), component manufacturing and deliveries. These disruptions may result in delays in equipment deliveries and cost escalations that could adversely affect our business. Prolonged disruptions in the supply of any of our key materials or components, difficulty finding qualifying new sources of supply, implementing the use of replacement materials or new sources of supply or any volatility in prices could have a material adverse effect on our ability to operate in a cost-efficient, timely manner. Such prolonged disruptions could also cause us to experience cancellations or delays of scheduled launches, tenant cancellations or reductions in our prices and margins, any of which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The ongoing military conflict in Ukraine has escalated tensions between the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (“NATO”) allies, on one hand, and Russia, on the other hand. The United States and other NATO member states, as well as some non-member states, have imposed sanctions against Russia and certain Russian banks, enterprises, and individuals. These actions include sanctions on Russian companies that supply low-enriched uranium (“LEU”) to fuel nuclear reactors, representing a potential and material supply chain risk to companies that develop and operate nuclear reactors in the United States. These sanctions have impacted the commercial availability of LEU and increased the cost of uranium enrichment services and could potentially increase the cost and timing of receipt of LEU, which could have a material adverse effect on our ability to deploy our Westinghouse Reactors at the Project Matador Site.

The scale and complexity of Project Matador’s multi-source energy platform—including nuclear, natural gas, solar, and battery assets—exposes us to construction and logistics risks at each development phase. The availability of critical path equipment such as heat exchangers, reactor modules, turbines, switchgear, and gas infrastructure is subject to global supply chain variability and vendor capacity. Many components required for nuclear construction, including pressure vessels, reactor coolant pumps and steam generating equipment, are manufactured by a limited number of qualified suppliers and may require long-lead orders with multi-year production timelines.

We do not have manufacturing assets and will rely on third-party manufacturers and construction firms to build our facilities. Moreover, we are dependent on future supplier capability to meet production demands attendant to our forecasts. If our supply chain cannot meet the schedule demands of the market, our projected sales revenues could be materially impacted.

Additionally, shortages in skilled labor, construction permitting delays, inclement weather, or force majeure events could delay or halt construction of major systems. Each delay can cause cascading impacts on integration, interconnection, and tenant move-in schedules, reducing our ability to generate revenue or meet Lease milestones.

High demand for, constraints on the supply of, and increasing costs for industrial scale gas-fired turbines could lead to significant delays in our ability to develop the natural gas-fired power generation infrastructure we will need to achieve our power delivery goals on the schedule we are projecting.

Project Matador is permitted for up to approximately 6 GW of natural gas-fired generation capacity. On March 27, 2026, we filed an application with the TCEQ for approximately an incremental 5 GW air permit of natural gas-fired generation capacity. Industrial scale gas-fired turbines are in high demand in the United States and globally for grid power generation, new and expanded LNG facilities and AI hyperscalers, creating significant delays in delivery as well as increasing costs. This increase in demand for gas-fired combustion turbines, after years of little or no demand for new gas-fired combustion turbines, appears to have significantly outstripped available supply, resulting in reports of lead-times for delivery of new gas-fired combustion turbines of up to seven years. In addition, our purchase of certain used gas-fired combustion turbines presents a risk that a prior owner may not have maintained such turbines in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations. As a result, we could experience significant delays and increased costs in obtaining the gas-fired turbines needed to develop the natural gas-fired power generation infrastructure that we need to meet our current design plans, and those delays and costs could increase substantially should we deploy gas-fired power in excess of those amounts initially anticipated, which could adversely affect our ability to attract tenants, our ability to deliver service and power to our tenants on the expected schedule, and our operating results and financial condition.

Westinghouse Reactors and SMRs can be costly and time consuming to construct and commercialize. Delays and cost overruns arising from issues with our procurement, regulatory approvals, construction and commercialization of nuclear reactors may materially adversely affect our business.

The development, construction, and commercialization of Westinghouse Reactors and SMR projects involve significant time and cost. The design, engineering, licensing, and construction of nuclear reactors, including the AP1000 and SMRs, are complex, highly regulated, and subject to lengthy timelines. The Westinghouse Reactor, a large-scale light water

reactor, has historically faced delays and cost overruns in projects due to challenges in supply chain management, regulatory approvals, and construction complexities. SMRs, while designed to be more cost-effective and scalable, are still in early stages of development and deployment globally, with limited operational history and a lack of commercially available, fully licensed designs. This increases the risk of unforeseen technical challenges, delays in regulatory approvals, and higher-than-anticipated costs.

The costs associated with developing and deploying these technologies are substantial, including expenses related to site preparation, specialized materials, and compliance with stringent nuclear safety and environmental regulations. Further, the limited number of nuclear power plants constructed in the United States over the last 20 years has reduced the number of skilled laborers, such as welders, necessary to construct new nuclear power plants. Any delays or cost overruns, or failure or delay in securing the services of qualified laborers, could strain our financial resources, require additional capital, or result in project delays or cancellations.

Our management team includes a limited number of highly experienced senior staff in the nuclear energy sector, which may present challenges in fully addressing the complex technical, regulatory, and operational requirements associated with Westinghouse Reactor and SMR projects.

Furthermore, the limited availability of commercially viable SMRs poses additional risks. The technology is still emerging, with few operational SMRs globally, and the supply chain for specialized components is underdeveloped. This could result in delays in securing necessary materials, higher costs, or reliance on unproven suppliers. If we are unable to successfully develop, license, and deploy Westinghouse Reactor or SMR projects on time and within budget, or if we fail to mitigate the inherent risks of nuclear power, our business prospects, financial condition, and ability to achieve our strategic objectives could be materially adversely affected.

We may be subject to credit risks.

Credit risk includes the risk that our customers will not pay their bills, which may lead to a reduction in liquidity and an increase in bad debt expense. Credit risk is comprised of numerous factors including the price of products and services provided, the overall economy and local economies in the geographic areas we serve, including local unemployment rates.

Credit risk also includes the risk that various counterparties that owe us money or product will breach their obligations. Should the counterparties to these arrangements fail to perform, we may be forced to enter into alternative arrangements. In that event, our financial results could be adversely affected and we could incur losses.

One alternative available to address counterparty credit risk is to transact on liquid commodity exchanges. The credit risk is then socialized through the exchange central clearinghouse function. While exchanges do remove counterparty credit risk, all participants are subject to margin requirements, which create an additional need for liquidity to post margin as exchange positions change value daily. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) requires broad clearing of financial swap transactions through a central counterparty, which could lead to additional margin requirements that would impact our liquidity. However, we have taken advantage of an exception to mandatory clearing afforded to commercial end-users who are not classified as a major swap participant, thereby allowing such commercial end-users to enter into uncleared bilateral swaps to hedge their exposure to commercial risk. We intend to authorize SPS and its subsidiaries to take advantage of this end-user exception.

We may at times have direct credit exposure in our short-term wholesale and commodity trading activity to various financial institutions trading for their own accounts or issuing collateral support on behalf of other counterparties. We may also have some indirect credit exposure due to participation in organized markets, such as SPP, PJM and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (“MISO”), in which any credit losses are socialized to all market participants.

We do have additional indirect credit exposures to various domestic and foreign financial institutions in the form of letters of credit provided as security by power suppliers under various long-term physical purchased power contracts. If any of the credit ratings of the letter of credit issuers were to drop below the designated investment grade rating stipulated in the underlying long-term purchased power contracts, the supplier would need to replace that security with an acceptable substitute. If the security were not replaced, the party could be in technical default under the contract, which would enable us to exercise our contractual rights.

We may face physical site risks, including severe weather events, environmental conditions, or other disasters which could result in an interruption of our operations, a delay in the completion of Project Matador, higher construction costs and the deferral of the dates on which we could receive revenue, all of which could adversely affect us.

While Amarillo, Texas, offers many logistical advantages, including proximity to one of the largest known natural gas fields in the United States and cool ambient temperatures, it is also subject to certain regional hazards. These risks include occasional high-wind events, water access variability, and regional dust or environmental permitting restrictions. Severe weather, including winter storms, can be destructive, causing construction delays, outages and property damage that require incurring additional expenses. A major weather or geological event affecting our future infrastructure, especially nuclear or gas, could impair the safety or reliability of Project Matador.

Furthermore, our operations could be adversely affected, and our physical facilities could be at risk of damage, should global climate conditions produce, among other conditions, unusual variations in temperature and weather patterns, resulting in more intense, frequent and severe weather events or abnormal levels of precipitation. Although the current designs of Project Matador include certain measures to protect against weather conditions, they may not be effective to protect against any of these events.

In addition, site access or operation could be affected by new environmental protections or public opposition.

Any failure of our physical infrastructure, or acts of theft or vandalism to our physical infrastructure, could lead to significant costs and disruptions that could reduce our revenue and harm our business reputation and financial results.

Our business depends on providing tenants with highly reliable solutions. We must safehouse our tenants’ infrastructure and equipment located in our facilities. Our facilities could be subject to break-ins, sabotage and intentional acts of vandalism causing potential disruptions. Some of our systems may not be fully redundant, and our disaster recovery planning cannot account for all eventualities. Any problems at our facilities and/or cloud infrastructure could result in lengthy interruptions in our service and our business operations. There can be no assurance that any security or other operational measures that we or our third-party service providers or vendors have implemented will be effective against any of the foregoing threats or issues.

The offerings we will provide in each of our facilities are subject to failure resulting from numerous factors, including:

•human error;

•equipment failure;

•physical, electronic and cybersecurity breaches;

•fire, earthquake, hurricane, flood, tornado and other natural disasters;

•extreme temperatures;

•water damage;

•fiber cuts;

•power loss;

•terrorist acts;

•theft, sabotage and vandalism; and

•failure of business partners.

Problems at one or more of our facilities, whether or not within our control, could result in service interruptions or significant equipment damage. Because our facilities may be critical to many of our tenants’ businesses, service interruptions or significant equipment damage in our facilities could also result in lost profits or other indirect or consequential damages to our tenants. We cannot guarantee that a court would enforce any contractual limitations on our liability in the event that one of our tenants brings a lawsuit against us as a result of a problem at one of our facilities.

In addition, any loss of service, equipment damage or inability to meet our service level commitment obligations could reduce the confidence of our tenants and could consequently impair our ability to obtain and retain tenants, which would adversely affect both our ability to generate revenues and our operating results.

Furthermore, we are dependent upon energy providers, Internet service providers, telecommunications carriers and other operators in the Texas Panhandle region and elsewhere, some of which have experienced significant system failures and electrical outages in the past. Our tenants may in the future experience difficulties due to system failures unrelated to our systems and offerings. If, for any reason, these providers fail to provide the required services, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely impacted.

Our construction and delivery timeline estimates for our facilities and other equipment may increase due to a number of factors, including the degree of pre-fabrication, standardization, on-site construction, long-lead procurement, contractor performance, facility pre-operational and startup testing, demand for repairs and other site-specific considerations.

The success of our business will depend in large part on our ability to successfully construct our facilities and provide potential tenants the required services as part of the lease, including delivering electricity to tenants as an incident of tenancy. Our business will require on-time and on-budget services at guaranteed performance levels, which would tend to establish greater confidence in our subsequent tenants. There is no guarantee that all necessary components will be commercially available and substantial development of new supply chains might be necessary. Additionally, we cannot guarantee the level of quality of these third-party supplies or import and export requirements or limitations that might be stipulated by the NRC or U.S. DOE for the procurement of these components. Some of our equipment may require repair or replacement, which could further delay development in each of our planned phases. Only a limited number of large contracting and engineering firms have the skills or experience to design and construct nuclear reactors. The lack of recent nuclear reactor construction projects in the United States means that there are few organizations with substantial institutional and personal knowledge of such projects. In addition, certain craft labor, particularly welding, on a nuclear reactor construction project requires a very high degree of skills and experience on the part of the laborers, meaning few qualified candidates may be available. The resurgent interest in nuclear energy projects, along with strong demand for such labor on other energy or infrastructure projects of similar complexity, means that securing and retaining the properly qualified workforce may be difficult, time consuming, and/or require competitive bidding, representing significant cost and schedule risks to the project.

There is no guarantee that the planned construction, delivery, and performance of our facilities or the equipment we need to generate electricity will be successful, timely, or on budget or that our third-party suppliers and contractors will deliver timely or on budget. In addition, there is no guarantee that if we shift our power sources or design plans as a reaction to unforeseen developments or in order to take advantage of optionality to increase the total amount of gas-fired generation, that those alternatives would meet our original timeline or budget goals. There is no guarantee that our facility pre-operational and startup testing, including tests mandated as license conditions by the NRC, will be successfully completed on-time. Furthermore, we may experience delays, operational or process failures, repair down-times and other problems during our first commercial deployment or any planned deployment thereafter. In addition, the construction of our facilities may not be completed at the cost and on the timeline we expect. We will depend on third-party contractors to perform many of the essential activities needed to deploy our facilities. We do not control the performance of these contractors and our contracts with them may not provide adequate remedies if they fail to perform. We do not currently employ any risk sharing structures to mitigate the risks associated with the construction, delivery and performance of our facilities. Any delays or setbacks we may experience for our first commercial delivery or in establishing our facilities, as well as any failure to obtain final investment decisions for future orders could have a material adverse effect on our business prospects, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows and could harm our reputation.

Our business operations rely heavily on securing agreements with suppliers for essential materials, equipment, and components which will be used to construct Project Matador facilities.

The execution, termination, expiration, or failure to renew agreements with our suppliers, whether due to unforeseen circumstances, including, but not limited to, supplier insolvency and regulatory changes, pose significant risks to our supply chain. In the event that such agreements are not successfully maintained or replaced, we may encounter difficulties sourcing required materials and components for Project Matador, leading to deployment delays, increased costs, or an inability to meet tenant demand. Any interruption or inability to maintain relationships with current and future suppliers, or failure to secure materials from alternative suppliers could adversely impact our business operations, financial performance, and reputation.

The proximity of the Project Matador Site to the Pantex Plant introduces potential federal scrutiny.

The Pantex Plant, a high-security DOE facility for nuclear assembly and disassembly, is located adjacent to the Project Matador Site. While its proximity offers normalization of nuclear activity, logistical resources, and industrial-grade infrastructure benefits, it may also increase regulatory oversight, national security protocols, and limitations on public disclosures or construction phasing. In addition, there is a risk of an accidental explosion or other catastrophic incident. Such an incident at the Pantex Plant or on the Project Matador Site could materially and adversely affect Project Matador, including causing significant construction delays, significant disruption of operations and damage to infrastructure and equipment. Any change in DOE policy or unexpected coordination requirements could introduce delays, costs, or restrictions on aspects of the Project Matador Site plan.

We are dependent on early infrastructure milestones to unlock downstream development phases.

Project Matador’s success is based on a modular rollout in which early infrastructure—such as substations, mobile generation, roads, and pads—enables future tenant installations and long-term energy deployment. If these early milestones are delayed or come online with performance limitations, it could prevent or postpone delivery of subleased campus space and utility services. Any such delay could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition and could trigger contractual liabilities detrimental to our business.

Construction risk is amplified by the multi-vertical, high-voltage, high-capacity nature of the Project Matador Site.

Project Matador is designed to host power generation, transmission, compute workloads, and chip manufacturing equipment all within the same perimeter. Coordinating simultaneous construction of these systems—while managing safety, redundancy, and operational commissioning—requires unusually sophisticated staging and project controls. Delays, EPC disputes, workforce shortages, or material delivery disruptions (including for gas turbines, heat exchangers, or Westinghouse Reactor components) could have wide-reaching effects, including an inability to complete construction of Project Matador in a timely manner or at all and the loss of potential revenues, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

Further, any actual or perceived safety or reliability issues may result in significant reputational harm to our business, in addition to litigation liability and other costs that may arise. Such issues could result in delaying or cancelling future phases of Project Matador, increased regulation, or other systemic consequences. Our inability to meet our safety standards or adverse publicity affecting our reputation as a result of accidents or mechanical failures could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

We may not maintain eligibility for the full amount of tax abatements granted to us by Carson County.

We have received a 10-year property tax abatement with Carson County, Texas, in connection with the construction of Phase 1 of Project Matador. Abatement eligibility is subject to ongoing compliance with construction timelines, workforce commitments, and property valuation methodologies.

Risks Related to Our Regulatory Environment and Energy Generation

Nuclear energy development is subject to extensive regulation and uncertainty, which could materially delay or impair our business.

Our business depends heavily on the successful execution of a multi-phase energy development plan that includes the construction and operation of four full-scale nuclear reactors, numerous gas-fired generation assets, solar PV arrays, and BESS. Each component introduces regulatory, financial, operational, and technological risks.

As a core component of Project Matador’s power platform, we plan to develop four Westinghouse Reactors, each with 1,100 MW of capacity, with one unit commencing construction every two years beginning in 2027. This timeline introduces significant long-term capital exposure, regulatory coordination, construction risk, and supply chain vulnerability. While construction of new nuclear power plants in other countries has progressed more efficiently than in the past, construction of nuclear power plants in the U.S. has slowed dramatically in the last twenty years.

Construction of the Southern Company’s recent Vogtle nuclear power plant, built in Georgia, took approximately fifteen years. President Trump’s recent Executive Order, dated May 23, 2025, which requires (i) the NRC to shorten its approval time for new nuclear reactor license applications to no more than 18 months and (ii) the DOE to use its licensing authority under the Atomic Energy Act (“AEA”) to authorize at least three new nuclear power plants with the goal that each power

plant reach “criticality” by July 4, 2026, seeks to speed U.S. nuclear construction permitting, but there can be no guarantee that this executive order will be effective in doing so or that a future Presidential administration will not reverse this executive order. Indeed, certain recent nuclear power plant projects have taken more than ten years from commencement to completion and the timeline in our model to make the Westinghouse Reactors operational is aggressive. Delays or disruptions in any phase could impair our overall development timeline, reduce forecasted revenue, and increase financing costs.

Each reactor will, among other things, require:

•full compliance with NRC licensing, testing, and inspection frameworks;

•multi-year site preparation and nuclear-grade infrastructure installation; and

•ongoing adherence to evolving federal safety standards.

Failure to secure timely approvals, maintain regulatory compliance, or meet critical milestones may delay or prevent the commencement of construction and the operation of our nuclear units.

We are employing a structural approach—separating the NRC-regulated “nuclear island” from the rest of the nuclear power plant located downstream of the nuclear island, which the NRC refers to as the “balance of the plant” (“BOP”). The “nuclear island” contains the reactor core in which the nuclear fuel undergoes a chain reaction and gives off heat, which heat is captured and converted into steam in the nuclear island. As a result, the nuclear island is of primary concern to the NRC, because any release of harmful nuclear radiation will come from the nuclear fuel in the reactor core that is contained in the nuclear island.

The non-radioactive steam is delivered from the nuclear island to BOP. The BOP contains a steam turbine that uses steam from the nuclear island to turn a generator which in turn produces electric energy. The remainder of the BOP contains switches, relays, transformers, capacitors, and other electrical equipment designed to safely deliver such electric energy either to the transmission grid or to the powered shell tenants.

All elements of nuclear infrastructure, including the nuclear island and the BOP will remain subject to the oversight of the NRC and potentially other federal and state agencies. The NRC’s review of our COL application will involve environmental impact assessments, pre-application safety evaluations, analysis of our proposed construction of each Westinghouse Reactor, as well as our proposed operation of each Westinghouse Reactor, which involves site-specific safety analysis reports, testing, inspection, and operating conditions. The NRC’s review process involves an analysis of the proposed site for the nuclear reactor, which is why some applicants seek an early site permit from the NRC prior to submitting the COL application.

Our license application under Part 52 of the NRC’s regulations (10 CFR Part 52) (“Part 52”) will need to achieve specified milestones prior to final approval. The Part 52 license is a combined construction and operating license, with parallel licensing tracks related to safety and the environment converging on a mandatory hearing and an ultimate decision at the end of the process.

The NRC performs a safety review of each reactor application to assess whether it provides reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety. This involves the review of preliminary and Final Safety Analysis Reports. The NRC can request additional information during this review, or the parties can agree on a regulatory audit. Prolongation of this process poses a significant cost and schedule risk to Project Matador.

The NRC concurrently performs an environmental review which incorporates compliance with the NEPA. NEPA reviews typically require preparation of an EIS, which is the most detailed level of review provided for under NEPA, though the NRC has recently attempted to perform less intensive Environmental Assessments (“EA”). It is noteworthy that the DOE has recently proposed a modification of its NEPA review regulations that includes several enumerated “categorical exceptions,” which are intended to safely reduce the time required to produce EA and EIS reviews for components of new nuclear power plants that will be subject to such “categorical exceptions,” thereby not requiring an environmental analysis of such components. However, there is no guarantee that we will be able to qualify for any of these exceptions. Whether performing an EIS or an EA, the environmental review process may be time consuming, and changes or delays to the process present significant cost and schedule risks for Project Matador.

The COL application incorporates by reference the Westinghouse Reactor design as approved at Vogtle. Though the combined license will include the right to operate the reactor, it will be contingent on construction of the reactors

conforming exactly to the design, with accuracy measured by a series of Inspections, Test, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (“ITAAC”) derived from both the design certification and certain site specific characteristics, and evaluated by the NRC as part of a quality assurance regime, which involves thousands of hours of inspection during construction. Modifying ITAAC, which may be required due to shifts in the sequence of construction, requires submitting a modification request to the NRC. ITAAC must be successfully “closed” before operation can begin and, no later than 270 days prior to the date of initial fuel loading for the reactor, the NRC will publish a notice of intended operation in the Federal Register which allows any person whose interests may be affected by plant operation the opportunity to request a hearing within 60 days of the publication of the Federal Register notice on whether the facility as constructed complies, or on completion will comply, with the acceptance criteria in the combined license. The possibility of delay, rework, analysis, and other mitigation resulting from ITAAC nonconformances, along with the potential for ITAAC hearings, pose significant cost and schedule risks to reactor completion.

In addition to potential ITAAC hearings and opportunities for public engagement throughout the licensing process, there is a mandatory license hearing required by the AEA at which the NRC and the license applicant present detailed evidence. This process takes a significant amount of time, and the possibility of delay represents a significant cost and schedule risk to Project Matador. While the public cannot directly participate in the mandatory hearing, the public can challenge the NRC’s review of the reactor application through the contested hearing process. Should contested hearings occur, they also present a significant cost and schedule risk to Project Matador.

On May 23, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14300 “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission” which directed, among other actions, the NRC to “undertake a review and wholesale revision of its regulations and guidance documents, and issue notice(s) of proposed rulemaking effecting this revision within 9 months of the date of this order.” EO 14300 also imposed a deadline of “no more than 18 months for final decision on an application to construct and operate a new reactor of any type, commencing with the first required step in the regulatory process.” It is unclear how these directions will revise Part 52, or what effect they will have on a reactor in the midst of the Part 52 application process. Should the directed revisions require new or revised information to be submitted, that submission may delay the project, representing a significant cost and schedule risk. Should the new rules issued be legally challenged, it may delay open applications, also representing a significant cost and schedule risk to Project Matador.

The regulatory review and approval process under Part 52 for Fermi to obtain a license authorizing the construction and the operation of each Westinghouse Reactor can take several years, and any delays, objections, or changes in NRC policy or staff interpretations could materially postpone the start of our nuclear generation at the Project Matador Site. If our application is denied or subject to material conditions, it could significantly impact our ability to deliver nuclear generated electric energy as an incident of tenancy under a lease with our powered shell tenants.

Our development plan requires ongoing engagement with the NRC, the DOE, and other agencies. For example, if one or more of the Westinghouse Reactors is interconnected to the transmission grid, then (i) that nuclear power plant would become part of the bulk power system and would have to comply with NERC and MRO reliability requirements, and (ii) that nuclear power plant would be subject to the grid interconnection process with the SPP (which administers the transmission grid in Carson County, TX), and the resulting interconnection agreement may need to be filed with FERC.

Currently, FERC is in the process of determining the policies it will apply to interconnections of nuclear power plants and other generators to the transmission grid when and if a large high load-factor load, such as a large private power campus, is co-located with such generating facilities. As such, we may have to satisfy one or more conditions in order to receive approval from FERC of the interconnection agreement of each such Westinghouse Reactor to the extent it is interconnected with the SPP-administered transmission grid.

Changes in regulatory guidance, inspection regimes, or political oversight of nuclear infrastructure could affect the scope, timing, or cost of reactor design, development, construction, interconnection to the grid (if applicable), and operation.

If the NRC declines to issue a combined construction and operation license for any of our planned reactors, if our bifurcation model for the nuclear island and the BOP is not approved, or if FERC, SPP, NERC, MRO or the interconnecting utility imposes unexpected conditions on construction, operation, or interconnection of any of our planned reactors, our strategy could be materially impaired. In addition, evolving federal standards on advanced reactors, emissions, and environmental impact reporting could require redesign or re-licensing of systems already under development.

We may not obtain timely or successful regulatory approvals for nuclear development, which would materially impair our business model.

Our nuclear generation strategy depends on our ability to obtain one or more COLs from the NRC under Part 52 or the NRC Regulations, including Appendix D to Part 52 – Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design, for multiple Westinghouse Reactors to be developed at the Project Matador Site. Nuclear power plants are subject to extensive federal regulation and must meet highly specific siting, safety, environmental, and technical criteria under Part 52, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants, of the NRC’s regulations (10 CFR Part 52). Although we have submitted a COL application based on the Westinghouse Reactor design, the NRC’s review process is extensive and can span multiple years. Delays or denial of license issuance, imposition of additional safety reviews or design modifications, or adverse public or political opposition could prevent or delay construction start or commercial operation dates.

Further, while our project benefits from a non-contested, pre-evaluated site under the control of the Texas Tech University System, the issuance of a COL is contingent on regulatory findings that satisfy the NRC’s standards for construction and operation, as well as environmental, seismic, and emergency planning criteria, as set forth in a final safety analysis report that addresses the “site” requirements of Section 52.79(a)(1) of the NRC regulations. Any change in regulatory posture, litigation, or adverse environmental assessments could substantially impair our ability to bring nuclear units online. The duration of a combined license, if issued, is 40 years from the date the NRC makes its finding that acceptance criteria have been met. We cannot guarantee that any license will be issued, or that issued licenses will remain valid over the life of our project.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (“NWPA”) (42 U.S.C. §10101 et seq.) directed the selection and creation of a national deep geological repository for the long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel. Efforts to identify, license, and construct this site have failed, resulting in nearly all spent nuclear fuel being stored on-site at licensee facilities. A fee which the DOE was previously assessing on reactor operators has been suspended pending resolution of the storage issue. The storage of such spent fuel on-site, with the prospect that no geological repository will be available for many years, creates several potential risks to Project Matador. Recently, in Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, 605 U.S. ___ (2025), the Supreme Court of the United States rejected a challenge to the NRC’s ability to license temporary offsite storage of spent nuclear fuel. Such temporary storage onsite would represent an additional cost to us. Several startups and organizations are exploring the economic potential of fuel recycling, which is a common practice in France, but we can provide no assurance that we could incorporate such fuel recycling.

We may not be able to obtain sufficient water resources for our operations, which could materially impair our operations or impact our ability to expand our operations.

Our operations require significant quantities of water for cooling, steam generation and other processes. The availability of adequate water supplies is essential to the operations and expansion of Project Matador. Prolonged droughts, changes in precipitation patterns, increased competition for water resources or the implementation of a more stringent regulatory regime regarding water rights and water usage (or changes to such regulatory regime) could limit our ability to obtain sufficient water for Project Matador. If we are unable to secure the necessary water resources, we could be forced to limit our operations. Additionally, increased cost of obtaining and treating water or compliance with other environmental regulations related to water could adversely affect our financial conditions and results of operations.

Connecting Project Matador with Tier 1 data center markets will require amplification and may introduce other risks associated with long-distance fiber connections.

We will be required to utilize amplification for existing fiber pairs to at least 400 Gpbs for our data throughput from endpoint to endpoint. Reliance on long-haul fiber optic connections may introduce technical challenges, including signal degradation requiring amplifiers, increased latency, and higher maintenance costs. These factors may result in reduced performance for latency-sensitive applications, higher operational expenses for amplifier infrastructure and repairs, and increased risk of downtime due to fiber cuts or equipment failures in remote locations. Environmental vulnerabilities, regulatory complexities across jurisdictions, and physical security risks associated with long fiber routes and remote amplifier sites could further disrupt operations. These challenges may limit our ability to compete effectively with other operations closer to Tier 1 markets, potentially adversely affecting our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Our costs to comply with federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations—both existing and new—may be material.

Our business is subject to extensive, evolving, and increasingly stringent federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations. Such federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations govern our activities, including those laws and regulations with respect to air emissions, waste disposal, protection of environmentally sensitive areas or endangered, threatened or otherwise protected species, protection of archaeological or cultural resources, water use and discharges, and with respect to the treatment, storage, recycling, disposal, and transportation of hazardous and solid waste and low-level radioactive waste. These laws and regulations impose numerous requirements, including requiring permits to conduct hazardous and non-hazardous activities, incurring costs to limit or prevent pollution or releases of regulated materials to the environment, and imposing substantial civil, administrative and criminal penalties and liabilities for noncompliance. Noncompliance may also result in injunctive relief and potential third party claims or citizen suits to enforce such laws and regulations. These laws and regulations may impose joint and several liability upon us to address pollution or contamination on the Project Matador Site where we operate, regardless of whether we caused the pollution or contamination. We may incur substantial costs to obtain and maintain compliance with environmental laws and regulations.

Changes in laws and regulations can occur and these changes can be difficult to predict. New laws or regulations, or more stringent enforcement of existing laws or regulations, could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we cannot obtain required permits, licenses and regulatory clearance or approvals for Project Matador or our operations, or are unable to maintain such permits, licenses or approvals, we may not be able to continue or expand our operations.

Under environmental laws and regulations we must obtain and maintain permits or licenses to conduct our activities and then conduct those activities in compliance with such permits and licenses as well as with environmental laws and regulations. Issuance of permits for the Project Matador activities is subject to the discretion of government authorities, and Project Matador may be unable to obtain or maintain such permits. Permits required for future development may not be obtainable on reasonable terms or on a timely basis. We may not be able to obtain or maintain any of the permits required for the continued development of Project Matador (or any other properties that we may subsequently acquire).

Failure to obtain and maintain the required permits or licenses or failure to comply with environmental laws and regulations would have a material adverse effect on our operations and financial condition. If any of our facilities are unable to maintain permits or licenses or obtain any additional permits or licenses which may be required to conduct its operations, we may not be able to continue those operations at these facilities, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

Decommissioning costs and unresolved spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal policy issues, as well as current U.S. policy related to storage and disposal of used fuel from our power plant, and/or negative customer perception of risks relating to these policies could have a significant negative impact on our business prospects, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

During the licensing process, a nuclear power plant operator must indicate how it will decommission its power plant and must have a “standard agreement” with the DOE related to the storage of the fuel waste created during the plant’s operating life. The requirements for developing the first of its kind facility for fuel disposal may create both timing and cost challenges.

Specifically, the NWPA requires the DOE to provide for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel (“SNF”) and associated high-level nuclear waste (“HLW”). In 1987, Congress amended the NWPA to identify Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, as the only site that the DOE could consider for a permanent repository. The DOE has since failed to pursue the licensing of Yucca Mountain. While operators are currently able to successfully sue the DOE for costs incurred as a result of its continued failure to provide for permanent disposal, there is a potential in the future that operators may have to bear the costs of developing and maintaining these spent fuel storage facilities.

As such, the establishment of a national repository for the storage and/or permanent disposal of SNF, such as the one previously considered at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the timing of such a facility’s opening and the ability of such a facility to accept waste from our nuclear facilities, and any related regulatory action, could impact the costs associated with our powerhouses’ storage and/or disposal of SNF/HLW. These issues could be material to our operations if potential customers view waste disposal issues or the onsite storage of SNF as problematic, detrimental or a negative factor in considering purchasing power produced by our reactors or leasing space in our facilities.

We are subject to laws and regulations governing the use, transportation, and disposal of toxic, hazardous and/or radioactive materials. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could result in substantial fines and/or enforcement actions.

Our operations will be subject to a variety of federal, state, local environmental, health and safety laws and regulations governing, among other things, air emissions, wastewater discharges, management and disposal of hazardous, non-hazardous, radioactive materials and waste and remediation of releases of hazardous materials. A release of such toxic, hazardous and/or radioactive materials could pose a health risk to humans or animals.

The severity of an accidental release often depends on the volume of the release and the speed of corrective action taken by emergency response personnel, as well as other factors beyond our control, such as weather and wind conditions. Actions taken in response to an actual or suspected release of these materials, including a precautionary evacuation, could result in significant costs for which we could be legally responsible. In addition to health risks, a release of these materials may cause reputational damage to the project, and could result in the loss of or damage to property and may adversely affect property values.

Additionally, we are responsible for the decommissioning of facilities where we conduct, or previously conducted, commercial, NRC-licensed, operations. Activities of our contractors, suppliers or other counterparties similarly may involve toxic, hazardous, and radioactive materials and we are or may be liable contractually, including pursuant to the Lease, or under applicable law, to contribute to the remediation of damage or other costs arising from such activities, including the decontamination and decommissioning of third-party facilities.

We may be liable if we fail to comply with federal, state, and local environmental, health and safety laws and regulations with respect to hazardous or radioactive materials. Failing to comply with such laws and regulations, including failing to obtain any necessary permits, could result in substantial fines or enforcement actions. These actions might require us to stop or curtail operations or conduct or fund remedial or corrective measures, make additional investments into safety-related improvements or perform other actions. The enactment of more stringent laws, regulations or permit requirements or other unanticipated events may arise in the future and adversely impact our ability to operate, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations. We could incur substantial costs as a result of a violation of, or liabilities under, environmental laws.

Nuclear project execution depends on specialized vendors, whose failure or delay could materially impact our business.

Our nuclear facilities will rely heavily on Westinghouse and its partners for design compliance, engineering support, component manufacturing, and field commissioning. While we are in active discussions with Westinghouse regarding the procurement of Westinghouse Reactors, we do not have a binding agreement with Westinghouse for such procurement and can provide no assurance regarding the timing or terms of such agreement. The Westinghouse Reactor design, while licensed, is a highly sophisticated and integrated system that depends on successful vendor coordination. Failure by any key subcontractor or vendor to meet quality, schedule, or cost obligations could delay commercial operation dates.

We face significant risk associated with interconnecting and operating private energy infrastructure at scale.

Our business model relies on the successful deployment of independent utility-scale interconnection systems, including substations, microgrid routing, and redundancy pathways to support 99.999% reliability for AI workloads. Interconnection delays or disputes with transmission operators, including SPS, SPP or local balancing authorities, could materially delay construction or the energization of key assets.

Moreover, the non-standard nature of our private power systems—where hyperscaler tenants draw power directly from co-located, on-site nuclear, natural gas, battery and solar generation assets also owned by us as the landlord—may lead to unforeseen compliance issues or technical incompatibilities with tenants’ computer workloads or future battery storage integration. For example, Texas law generally entitles only an “electric utility” to generate, transmit, distribute, furnish or otherwise provide power to end-users within the electric utility’s service territory as certificated by the PUCT; however, Texas law also recognizes an exception to this general rule when a landlord provides power to its tenants as an incident of tenancy, if the power is not resold to or used by others. We entered into an agreement with SPS recognizing that private power supply to hyperscaler tenants will occur as an incident of tenancy pursuant to our lease agreements with those tenants. If we are unable to maintain our agreement with SPS, or if a party or a regulatory authority were to challenge any such agreement we enter into with SPS, our ability to provide power to our tenants could be limited or prohibited. Regardless of any agreement of SPS, our provision of power to tenants could be challenged under applicable law. If successful, those challenges could require us to sell power to other entities or require our tenants to procure power from other sources, potentially on less favorable terms, which could increase our costs or decrease our revenues.

As noted above, any interconnection agreement entered into between us and SPS or SPP will be subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of FERC, and FERC is currently in the process of developing policies applicable to interconnection arrangements that involve large loads, such as powered shells, which are co-located and connected directly to large electricity generators. To the extent that FERC adopts and implements interconnection policies that are in any way adverse to our proposed design and configuration of the Project Matador facilities, such policies could require modifications to our project configuration, which could involve cost increases and delays in regulatory approvals. Interconnection infrastructure requires long-lead equipment such as step-up transformers and gas-insulated switchgear, and delays in procurement or installation could delay power availability and revenue realization.

We will be subject to execution risks with respect to our natural gas, solar and BESS power sources.

While our planned natural gas and renewable portfolio will diversify power generation, it introduces risks related to:

•fuel pricing volatility and natural gas pipeline transportation issues;

•equipment procurement and construction timing for combined cycle combustion turbine gensets and solar PV arrays; and

•battery safety, longevity, and regulatory fire protection standards.

Our decision to deploy a larger number of modular, smaller-frame gas turbines on an accelerated schedule introduces execution risks related to equipment availability, procurement timelines, and construction labor. While this approach enhances system reliability and reduces reserve capacity requirements, it also increases the complexity of coordination across multiple vendors, EPC contractors, and commissioning phases. Delays in turbine delivery, civil works, or fuel routing may materially adversely impact the readiness of initial MW blocks or delay the commissioning of downstream combined cycle assets. In addition, the increase in baseline fuel consumption from these slightly less efficient units may expose the project to higher sensitivity around long-term gas supply contracting and volume stability.

Furthermore, we are reliant on third-party OEMs and EPC contractors for project delivery, and disruptions or quality control issues could affect our energy availability and cost structure. Failure to manage the multi-phase development of our energy platform in full compliance with all applicable regulatory standards could materially impair our operational timelines, tenant revenue, and long-term value. We continue to engage proactively with relevant agencies, advisors, and policymakers to mitigate these risks.

We are subject to complex, evolving, and potentially burdensome regulatory requirements.

Our business is subject to regulation by various federal, state and local governmental agencies. In the United States, such regulation includes the radioactive material exposure and nuclear facilities regulatory activities of the NRC, the DOE, NERC, MRO, FERC, the SPP, the PUCT, the anti-trust regulatory activities of the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice, the import/export regulatory activities of the Department of Commerce, the Department of State and the Department of Treasury, the regulatory activities of the Department of Labor (including the Occupational Safety and Health Administration), the regulations of the FDA, the environmental regulatory activities of the Environmental Protection Agency and the TCEQ, the regulatory activities of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and tax and other regulations by a variety of regulatory authorities in each of the areas in which we conduct business. These include licensing of nuclear power plants, environmental reviews, safety assessments, emissions and discharge standards for environmental contaminants (including discharges to air and water, as well as waste disposal), and water use permitting. Regulatory approvals may impose restrictions, conditions, or delays that impact project economics or construction sequencing.

The NRC may modify, suspend, or revoke licenses, shut down a nuclear facility and impose civil penalties for failure to comply with the Atomic Energy Act, the NRC’s regulations thereunder, or the terms of the licenses for construction and operation of nuclear facilities.

Interested parties may also intervene and file protests against Fermi and Project Matador, which could result in prolonged proceedings. A change in the Atomic Energy Act, other applicable statutes, or the applicable regulations or licenses, or the NRC’s interpretation thereof, may require a substantial increase in capital expenditures or may result in increased operating or decommissioning costs and could materially affect the results of operations, liquidity, or financial condition of Fermi or certain of the utility operating companies. A change in the classification of a plant owned by one of these companies under the NRC’s reactor oversight process, which is the NRC’s program to collect information about plant performance, assess the information for its safety significance, and provide for appropriate licensee and NRC response, also could cause the

owner of the plant to incur material additional costs as a result of the increased oversight activity and potential response costs associated with the change in classification.

Changes in laws or regulations, or shifts in political or public sentiment against nuclear, AI, or energy development, could materially increase compliance burdens or limit our ability to operate.

Accidents involving nuclear power facilities, including but not limited to events similar to the Three Mile Island or Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accidents, or other high profile events involving radioactive materials, could materially and adversely affect the public perception of the safety of nuclear energy, our customers and the markets in which we operate and potentially decrease demand for nuclear energy or facilities, increase regulatory requirements and costs or result in liabilities or claims that could materially and adversely affect our business.

Historical nuclear accidents and/or future incidents resulting in the uncontrolled release of radioactive material and fears of a new nuclear accident could hinder our efforts to develop new nuclear facilities. Nuclear power faces strong opposition from certain individuals and organizations both in the United States and abroad. With respect to public perceptions, the accident that occurred at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011 increased public opposition to nuclear power in some countries, resulting in a slowdown in, or, in some cases, a complete halt to new construction of nuclear power plants, an early shut down of existing power plants and a dampening of the favorable regulatory climate needed to introduce new nuclear technologies. As a result of the Fukushima accident, some countries that were considering launching new domestic nuclear power programs delayed or cancelled the preparatory activities they were planning to undertake as part of such programs. In the past, adverse public reaction, increased regulatory scrutiny and related litigation contributed to extended licensing and construction periods for new nuclear power plants, sometimes delaying construction schedules by decades, or even shutting down operations at already-constructed nuclear power facilities.

Additionally, such an accident could lead to a pause in regulatory approval by the NRC, a change in regulatory compliance requirements increasing the cost and/or delaying the schedule associated with procuring necessary licenses, the creation of new licenses or regulatory requirements, additional governmental oversight concerns and compliance costs, a change in binding international treaties or agreements altering the rules governing the operation of nuclear power facilities or a change in the liability exposure of the project, a change in rules applying to private ownership of nuclear power facilities, or a ban on nuclear power. Such an accident need not occur at Project Matador or within the United States to result in these public and governmental reactions and requirements.

Successful execution of our business model is dependent upon public and political support for nuclear power in the United States and other countries. The risks associated with uses of radioactive materials by our customers in future deployments of our designs, and the public perception of those risks, can affect our business. Opposition by third parties can delay or prevent the licensing and construction of new nuclear power facilities and in some cases can limit the operation of nuclear reactors. Adverse public reaction to developments in the use of nuclear power could directly affect our customers and indirectly affect our business. If a high-visibility or high-consequence nuclear incident, including the loss or mishandling of nuclear materials, or other event, such as a terrorist attack involving a nuclear facility, occurs, public opposition to nuclear power may increase dramatically, regulatory requirements and costs could become more onerous or prohibitive, and customer demand could suffer, which could materially and adversely affect our business prospects, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

We are subject to federal environmental review processes, including NEPA, that may materially delay or restrict project development.

Portions of our development may trigger federal environmental reviews under NEPA, depending on the use of federal funding, involvement of federal lands or water systems, or participation in programs such as the DOE Office of Energy Dominance Financing. These processes require environmental assessments or environmental impact statements, which can introduce significant uncertainty and delay. In some cases, NEPA reviews can take multiple years to complete and are subject to litigation by environmental advocacy groups or local stakeholders. The DOE published the interim final rule on July 3, 2025, at 90 FR 29676, which amends much of 10 CFR 1021, the regulations for DOE’s procedures for implementing NEPA. It also proposes an exemption from certain NEPA requirements for emergency situations. Notably, President Trump declared a national energy emergency on January 20, 2025, and there is an ongoing national emergency concerning cyber-enabled activities. These declarations could provide opportunities for us to seek exemptions to certain resource consuming permitting requirements associated with our planned operations. Alternatively, a change to these policies could result in additional costs and delays in licensing.

Adverse findings or delays in NEPA review could prevent site preparation, construction, or interconnection activities any of which would materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. We may also face

indirect delays if third-party infrastructure (e.g., gas pipelines or transmission upgrades) triggers NEPA reviews beyond our control.

Additionally, recent action taken by the current presidential administration has resulted in changes to NEPA regulations. Although guidance released by the administration advises the implementation of NEPA in a way that expedites permitting and prioritizes energy production, the impact of these recent actions may result in delays as these changes are understood and then executed by applicable federal agencies.

Influential political actors, shifting domestic policy priorities, and organized opposition by politically connected stakeholders could materially adversely affect our ability to develop, finance, and operate Project Matador.

Our business plan depends on sustained alignment among a broad range of governmental bodies, elected officials, appointed regulators, and other influential political stakeholders at the federal, state, and local levels. Shifts in the domestic political landscape—whether driven by changes in administration, legislative turnover, evolving policy priorities, or the actions of individual political actors with outsized influence—could create an operating environment that is materially less favorable to Project Matador and to our business generally.

At the federal level, our success depends in part on continued bipartisan support for nuclear energy development, AI infrastructure investment, and the associated regulatory frameworks that enable large-scale projects like Project Matador. Key executive branch officials, members of Congress, and senior appointees at agencies including the NRC, DOE, FERC, and the EPA each exercise significant discretion over policies that directly affect our permitting timelines, financing eligibility, and operational approvals. A change in presidential administration, a shift in the composition or leadership of relevant congressional committees, or the appointment of agency heads who are skeptical of nuclear energy, large-scale AI campus development, or private energy infrastructure could result in regulatory delays, more burdensome compliance requirements, curtailment or elimination of federal incentive programs, or outright policy reversals. Changes in trade policy—including the imposition of tariffs, import restrictions, or export controls on critical equipment, construction materials, or energy technology components—could increase our development costs, disrupt our supply chain, or delay the delivery of key infrastructure assets, any of which could materially and adversely affect our development timeline and budget. Any of these actions could also result in policy reversals that undermine the economic assumptions underlying our business model.

At the state level, our operations in Texas and our leasehold interest with the Texas Tech University System expose us to the policy preferences of the Texas Governor, state legislators, the members of the Texas Tech University System Board of Regents, the Public Utility Commission of Texas, the TCEQ, and other state and regional bodies. Elected officials or political appointees who oppose nuclear development, object to the scale of Project Matador, question the use of public university land for private commercial infrastructure, or seek to redirect state energy policy could introduce legislation, initiate regulatory proceedings, or exert informal political pressure that delays or restricts our ability to develop the Project Matador Site. Changes in the composition of the Texas Tech University System Board of Regents—whose members are appointed by the Governor—could result in a reevaluation of our Lease or the imposition of additional conditions on our continued use of the site.

At the local level, officials in Carson County and the surrounding communities hold authority over property tax abatements, land use approvals, local permitting, and community engagement processes that are important to our development timeline and cost structure. Opposition from county commissioners, local elected officials, or politically influential community leaders could jeopardize our existing 10-year property tax abatement, delay local permitting approvals, or generate organized resistance to the project that affects our ability to recruit workers, secure local services, or maintain constructive relationships with the surrounding community.

In addition, individuals and organizations with significant political influence—including current and former elected officials, political donors, media figures, leaders of advocacy organizations, and other prominent public voices—may seek to use their platforms and relationships to oppose, delay, or undermine Project Matador for reasons that may include policy disagreements over nuclear energy or AI development, concerns about environmental impacts, competition for political attention or resources, ideological opposition to large-scale private infrastructure projects, or personal or commercial interests that conflict with our success. Such actors may exert influence through legislative lobbying, media campaigns, regulatory interventions, litigation, or informal pressure on governmental decision-makers. The impact of such opposition may be difficult to predict and could be disproportionate to the number of individuals involved, particularly where those individuals hold positions of public trust or command significant media attention.

Furthermore, the current political environment surrounding AI infrastructure, powered shell development, and energy policy is characterized by rapidly evolving and sometimes conflicting viewpoints across the political spectrum. While the

current federal administration has signaled support for accelerated energy development and nuclear permitting reform, there can be no assurance that these policy positions will persist through future election cycles or that competing political priorities—such as concerns about water usage, land use, environmental justice, or the perceived societal risks of artificial intelligence—will not gain sufficient political momentum to materially alter the regulatory and policy landscape in ways that are adverse to our interests.

Any of the foregoing political risks, individually or in combination, could result in material delays to our development timeline, increased costs associated with permitting and compliance, loss of or reduction in tax incentives or federal subsidies, adverse modifications to our Lease with the Texas Tech University System, diminished access to capital markets, reputational harm that discourages prospective tenants, or other outcomes that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Our operations and infrastructure may be materially adversely affected by geopolitical risks, including cyberattacks and physical disruptions by nation-state actors and other hostile parties.

We are developing what is expected to be the largest artificial intelligence data center complex in the United States upon full build-out. The scale, strategic significance, and critical nature of this infrastructure make it a high-value target for nation-state actors, state-sponsored groups, terrorist organizations, and other hostile parties seeking to disrupt U.S. technological leadership, national security capabilities, or critical infrastructure. The concentration of computational capacity at our facilities may elevate the risk profile of our operations beyond that of comparable facilities.

Nation-state actors and state-affiliated groups have demonstrated increasingly sophisticated capabilities to conduct cyberattacks against critical infrastructure, including advanced persistent threats, zero-day exploits, ransomware campaigns, supply chain compromises, and other cyber-intrusion techniques. Our facilities, networks, and information systems may be targeted by such actors seeking to disrupt, degrade, destroy, or exfiltrate data from our operations. A successful cyberattack could result in prolonged service outages, corruption or loss of proprietary data or customer workloads, compromise of artificial intelligence models or training data, unauthorized access to sensitive or classified information, or manipulation of computational outputs. Such incidents could be difficult to detect, and remediation could be prolonged and costly.

In addition to cyber threats, our physical infrastructure faces risks of sabotage, attack, or other intentional disruption. The geographic concentration of our facilities means that a single physical attack, whether through explosive devices, drone strikes, or disruption of supporting utilities such as power transmission, water supply, or telecommunications interconnections, could cause significant damage to a material portion of our operational capacity. Geopolitical tensions, armed conflicts, trade disputes, or deteriorating diplomatic relations involving the United States could increase the likelihood of such threats materializing. The evolving nature of asymmetric warfare means that threat vectors may emerge that we have not anticipated or for which we have not adequately prepared.

Our dependence on complex, global supply chains for critical components, including power generation and cooling systems and specialized construction materials, exposes us to additional geopolitical risk. Export controls, trade sanctions, retaliatory trade actions, or supply chain disruptions arising from international conflict could delay construction timelines, increase costs, limit our ability to maintain or expand operations, or force reliance on alternative components that may be less performant or less secure. Certain components may be sourced from or transit through jurisdictions where geopolitical instability is elevated.

We invest significantly in physical security, cybersecurity, and business continuity measures, and we work with federal, state, and local government agencies on threat assessment and facility protection. However, no security measures can eliminate all risks, and a sufficiently resourced and determined adversary, particularly a nation-state actor, may be capable of overcoming our defenses. Our security measures may also become targets themselves, with adversaries seeking to identify and exploit gaps in our protective systems.

The occurrence of any such attack or disruption could result in significant damage to or destruction of our facilities, loss of life, prolonged operational outages, loss or compromise of data, substantial remediation and recovery costs, increased insurance premiums or loss of coverage, reputational harm, loss of customer confidence, regulatory investigations or enforcement actions, and potential liability to customers, partners, or other third parties. Any of these outcomes could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Furthermore, even the credible threat of such attacks, absent their actual occurrence, could increase our operating costs, divert management attention, and impair our ability to attract customers, employees, or investment capital.

Regulatory changes or political shifts could materially adversely affect nuclear licensing and financial feasibility.

Nuclear policy in the United States is evolving, including through the passage of the ADVANCE Act in 2024 and through the efforts of the Trump administration. While recent years have seen bipartisan support for advanced reactor deployment and DOE funding programs (e.g., the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program), the regulatory and political environment may change. Shifts in federal administration, state-level opposition, or judicial challenges to nuclear permitting frameworks could create uncertainty or add cost burdens. Similarly, changes in tax credit policy (e.g., removal or modification of 45J eligibility) or low-carbon energy investment programs could materially reduce the financial attractiveness of nuclear energy for the Project Matador Site.

Commodity prices (particularly for natural gas) could impact the economic viability of our businesses or impair our ability to commence operations if we are not able to adequately pass through the cost of natural gas and other raw materials to our tenants.

Natural gas represents the primary fuel necessary to power the initial phases of Project Matador. Although we expect to enter into contracts with our future tenants that will provide for contractual pass-through provisions relating to the cost of natural gas, there are no assurances that the costs of natural gas process will be effectively passed through to tenants or that we will be able to offset fully, or on a timely basis, the effects of higher natural gas costs. Commodity prices are inherently volatile and are subject to fluctuations in response to changes in supply and demand, market uncertainty and a variety of additional factors that are beyond our control. Our business depends heavily on the successful execution of a multi-phase energy development plan that includes the construction and operation of numerous gas-fired generation assets that will require an increase in baseline fuel consumption, which may expose the project to higher sensitivity around long-term gas supply contracting and volume stability. While we expect to secure strategic relationships with gas providers, we remain exposed to fluctuations in natural gas prices, especially as we scale from temporary TM-2500 turbines to combined cycle gas turbine (“CCGT”) platforms. If we are not able to effectively pass through the cost of natural gas or other raw materials to our tenants, fluctuations in commodity prices have the potential to negatively impact our ability to achieve our earnings or cash flow targets, which could have a consequential material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, actual power prices and fuel costs will differ from those assumed in financial projections used to value our trading and marketing transactions, and those differences may be material. As a result, our financial results may be diminished in the future as those transactions are marked to market.

Furthermore, worldwide political, economic, and military events have contributed to oil and natural gas price volatility and are likely to continue to do so in the future. The broader consequences of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and unrest in the Middle East, which may include further sanctions, embargoes, supply chain disruptions, regional instability and geopolitical shifts, may have adverse effects on global macroeconomic conditions, increase volatility in the price and demand for oil and natural gas, increase exposure to cyberattacks, cause disruptions in global supply chains, increase foreign currency fluctuations, cause constraints or disruption in the capital markets and limit sources of liquidity. We cannot predict the extent of the conflict’s effect on our business and results of operations as well as on the global economy and energy markets.

Our natural gas supply will be subject to market volatility and pipeline transportation risk.

While we expect to secure strategic relationships with natural gas providers and natural gas pipelines, such as Transwestern and ONEOK, we will be exposed to fluctuations in natural gas prices, especially as we scale from temporary TM-2500 turbines to CCGT platforms. See “—Commodity prices (particularly for natural gas) could impact the economic viability of our businesses, in particular the development of Project Matador and the Company’s ability to commence operations.” Price spikes, regional delivery bottlenecks, pipeline outages, weather-related interruptions to wellhead production and related impacts on available pipeline deliveries, or contractual disputes could increase our levelized cost of energy (“LCOE”) and reduce margin on take-or-pay tenant contracts. While the Project Matador Site is located adjacent to one of the largest known natural gas fields in the United States, delivery will depend on functional and contractual pipeline interconnects. In addition, the use of alternative forms of transportation such as trucks or rail transportation of LNG involve risks as well. For example, recent and well-publicized accidents involving trains delivering energy commodities could result in increased levels of regulation and transportation costs. Our gas providers are dependent on third party pipeline infrastructure to deliver their natural gas production to us. In addition to causing production curtailments, capacity constraints can also increase the price we pay for natural gas.

Solar and battery deployment is subject to permitting, environmental, and production risks.

The solar PV and battery energy storage components of Project Matador are expected to be developed in 2027–2029 to displace peak gas usage and enhance lower greenhouse gas emissions and decarbonization profiles for tenant loads. However, deployment will be contingent on equipment availability and environmental clearances. The acquisition, installation and operation of our solar PV arrays and BESS at a particular site are generally subject to supply constraints, import tariffs, and other forms of oversight and regulation in accordance with national, state and local laws and ordinances relating to building codes, safety, environmental protection and related matters, and typically requires obtaining and keeping in good standing various local and other governmental approvals and permits. In addition, solar development may be subject to scrutiny from water conservation authorities, endangered species regulators, or neighboring land stakeholders. In addition, fluctuating prices and adverse tariff policies for solar PV panels, inverters, or lithium-based BESS could create material procurement delays or cost overruns. For storage facilities, in particular there are ongoing anti-dumping disputes and potential import tariffs with respect to certain storage equipment sourced from China.

As discussed above with respect to nuclear and natural gas electricity generation facilities, if any of Project Matador’s systems are interconnected to the SPS transmission grid, that could result in conditions being imposed by FERC, NERC, MRO or SPP on our configuration and operation of proposed solar PV arrays and/or BESS components, thereby potentially requiring costly modifications and delays in obtaining regulatory approvals.

In some cases, these approvals and permits require periodic renewal. It is difficult and costly to track the requirements of every individual authority having jurisdiction over solar and storage components, to design our solar and storage components to comply with these varying standards, and for our customers to obtain all applicable approvals and permits. We cannot predict whether or when all permits required for a given customer’s project will be granted or whether the conditions associated with the permits will be achievable. In addition, we cannot predict whether the permitting process will be lengthened due to complexities and appeals. Delay in the review and permitting process for a project can impair or delay our operations or increase the cost so substantially that the project is no longer attractive to our customers. Furthermore, unforeseen delays in the review and permitting process could delay the timing of the installation of our solar and storage components and could therefore adversely affect the timing of the recognition of revenue related to hardware acceptance by our customer, which could adversely affect our operating results in a particular period.

Our energy generation strategy requires multi-year planning and access to specialized equipment.

Nuclear reactors, gas turbines, HRSGs, transformers, and utility-scale battery systems all require long lead-times and complex shipping, staging, and installation logistics. Certain assets, like GE 6Bs or Siemens SGT-800 turbines, may only be available on the secondary market or through refurbishment programs. Any failure to source or deploy these assets in a timely manner could affect our development schedule and financial forecast.

In addition, we may fail to meet requirements for energy-related federal incentives. We expect to rely on potential eligibility for numerous federal energy programs and tax incentives, including the:

•45J Nuclear Production Tax Credit;

•45Q Carbon Capture Tax Credit;

•45V Clean Hydrogen Tax Credit; and

•48C Advanced Manufacturing Credit.

Each of these programs has eligibility thresholds, domestic content rules, prevailing wage mandates, and reporting burdens. If we are unable to structure our SPEs or operations to meet these requirements, we may forfeit millions of dollars in expected benefits or financing backstops. In addition, changes to these credits currently under review by President Trump, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, or under subsequent review in the future, due to tax reforms or political policy redirection initiatives, could materially adversely reduce the return profile of our energy assets.

We may be subject to opposition from environmental groups, litigation, or reputational campaigns, which could delay permitting or reduce site flexibility.

The TCEQ has approved and issued Fermi’s approximately 6 GW Clean Air Permit for natural gas generation. Opposition from environmental groups, including permit challenges or reputational campaigns, could delay the issuance of any additional permits that may be required for us to develop Project Matador and/or could reduce site flexibility.

New nuclear projects as well as some other types of energy projects (and their associated infrastructure) in the United States frequently face opposition from non-governmental organizations, environmental advocacy coalitions, and some local stakeholders. These groups may challenge NRC proceedings, file administrative appeals, or initiate litigation under NEPA, the Clean Water Act, or the Endangered Species Act as well as challenge government activities to grant required environmental permits. Even unsuccessful litigation can delay project timelines, increase legal costs, and discourage investors or tenants.

Furthermore, reputational campaigns in media or political venues—particularly those focused on water usage, emissions from backup gas infrastructure, or perceived AI overreach—may generate public controversy that slows permitting or discourages tenant commitments.

In addition, future phases of the project will still interact with environmental and public stakeholder processes—especially regarding nuclear permitting, air quality emissions, and water usage. Any local opposition or environmental group litigation could restrict our ability to expand or require costly mitigation efforts.

The Project Matador Site’s location near the former Pantex Plant presents certain restrictions on the development of operations.

The Pantex Plant, located to the north of the Project Matador Site, is subject to federal and state investigation and remediation efforts to address contaminant releases into groundwater. Such contaminants include volatile organic compounds, metals, and contaminants associated with explosive manufacturing. The remediation plan implements various post-closure care and institutional controls such as restrictions on drilling to depths greater than 180 feet, restrictions on the use of groundwater, and allowing access to various federal and state agencies for purposes of cleanup. The Pantex Plant is listed on the national priorities list as a superfund site.

The area, located on the northern boundary of the Project Matador Site, is subject to a groundwater deed certification. While regulatory closure remains outstanding, the groundwater monitoring wells located in the area must remain undisturbed and the integrity of other applicable components of the remedial action (e.g., injection wells, conveyance lines, in situ remediation vaults, etc.) must be maintained.

Our development strategy and construction efforts must account for the impacts of the Pantex Plant upon groundwater and the associated remedial measures implemented and may restrict our ability to build and/or expand. Additionally, until regulatory closure is achieved, our development plans and resultant operations may be impacted by various federal and state agencies undertaking their respective remedial obligations.

Risks Related to Tenant Concentration and Leasing

Our near-term revenue may be heavily concentrated among a small number of anchor tenants.

Our development strategy will initially be dependent on securing long-term, take-or-pay lease agreements with a limited number of AI hyperscale tenants. While we have engaged in discussions with potential lessees, we have not executed binding lease agreements as of the date hereof. If these parties delay or decline to execute long-term leases, or if terms become unfavorable, it could materially impact our ability to generate revenue and meet financial obligations associated with site development and energy infrastructure.

Failure of any major tenant to perform under its lease could result in material financial losses.

Once executed, our leases are expected to include long-term, take-or-pay structures, under which tenants are obligated to pay base rent and service fees regardless of usage. However, if a tenant defaults, restructures, or declares bankruptcy, we may be unable to enforce full lease payment obligations, particularly if our rights as lessor are contested or if operational performance requirements are not met. Given the scale of infrastructure allocated per tenant (up to 3.5 million square feet each), any lease disruption could significantly impair site-level cash flow and cause valuation write-downs on real estate or energy assets.

Our leases may include operational covenants that create performance liability.

Certain tenant agreements may require us to maintain continuous availability of power, cooling, and security infrastructure at service levels that match hyperscale standards (e.g., 99.999% uptime, tiered failover, dedicated thermal recovery). Failure to meet these conditions—due to delays in nuclear licensing, gas turbine failures, water shortages, or other force

majeure events—could trigger contractual penalties, rent abatements, or early termination rights. These provisions could materially increase our liability exposure even if subleases are nominally long-term and fixed-rate.

Our ability to scale leasing revenue depends on the timely delivery of powered shells and infrastructure-ready pads.

We are pursuing a “power-first” development model in which energy infrastructure is commissioned before tenants occupy or commit to their full buildout. However, sublease execution and ramp-up efforts depend on our ability to deliver modular, pre-permitted, powered shell infrastructure by scheduled CODs. If our pads, substations, or core and shell designs are delayed due to permitting, supply chain, or contractor disputes, we may face rent delays, occupancy penalties, renegotiation of tenant lease rates or lease terminations. Moreover, any such delays or disputes may materially adversely impact our ability to attract future tenants on favorable terms, or at all.

Tenant consolidation or vertical integration could reduce long-term leasing demand.

We face risks related to industry consolidation and tenant vertical integration, including the potential termination of our Lease. Major hyperscalers are increasingly seeking to build and own their own infrastructure, including energy generation assets and fully integrated data campuses. If these companies successfully verticalize their power generation and real estate strategies, demand for third-party infrastructure platforms such as ours may decline. In addition, consolidation within the AI sector could result in tenant concentration risk or create new infrastructure monopolies that exclude new entrants like us.

This trend may limit our ability to renew leases at market rates or expand existing tenant footprints as intended.

We may be required to offer lease concessions or capital subsidies to secure long-term tenants.

As competition for AI-aligned tenants increases, we may need to provide infrastructure rebates, tenant improvement allowances, or direct capital support for high-density power configurations, cooling corridors, or private substations. These concessions may reduce net effective rent and extend payback periods, particularly in earlier phases of the development where site-wide utilities and redundancy are still being constructed.

Subtenant improvements impact our leaseback model and base rent escalations.

Our Lease includes an AV-based rent escalation clause that is based on the appraised value of “Data Center Facilities,” which is defined to be each data center building that houses networked computer services or machines. If tenants delay improvements, minimize capital deployments, or build in stages, our ability to meet payment obligations may lag. Any of these actions could result in the termination of such tenants’ leases with us and the loss of rental revenue attributable to the terminated leases. Conversely, if capital improvements exceed projections, our payments to the Texas Tech University System may escalate faster than tenant revenue is recognized, creating temporary timing mismatches in cash flow.

Risks Related to REIT Qualification

We intend to be classified as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes commencing with our short taxable year ended December 31, 2025. Our failure to qualify or maintain our qualification as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes would reduce the amount of funds we have available for distribution and limit our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

We elected to be classified as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes effective as of our date of formation, January 10, 2025, via late classification relief sought under Revenue Procedure 2009-41. We adopted a fiscal year end of July 31, 2025, for our initial taxable, non-REIT year, and, in order to make a REIT election for the taxable period of August 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025, we changed our taxable year to a calendar year end for U.S. federal income tax purposes effective as of August 1, 2025. We believe that we are organized and operate in a manner to qualify for taxation as a REIT for such short taxable year ended December 31, 2025 and subsequent taxable years. However, we cannot assure you that we will qualify or remain qualified as a REIT. Our qualification and taxation as a REIT will depend upon our ability to meet on a continuing basis, through actual annual operating results, certain qualification tests set forth in the U.S. federal income tax laws. Accordingly, no assurance can be given that our actual results of operations for any particular taxable year will satisfy such requirements.

If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, we will face serious tax consequences that will substantially reduce the funds available for distributions to our shareholders because:

•we would not be allowed a deduction for dividends paid to shareholders in computing our taxable income and would be subject to U.S. federal income tax at the regular U.S. federal corporate tax rate;

•we could be subject to increased state and local taxes; and

•unless we are entitled to relief under certain U.S. federal income tax laws, we could not re-elect REIT status until the fifth calendar year after the year in which we failed to qualify as a REIT.

In addition, if we fail to qualify as a REIT, we will no longer be required to make distributions. As a result of all these factors, our failure to qualify as a REIT could impair our ability to expand our business and raise capital, and it would adversely affect the value of our common stock.

Restrictions on ownership of our capital stock may adversely affect our stock price and/our business and we could fail to qualify as a REIT as a result of such restrictions.

We would be “closely held” within the meaning of Section 856(h) of the Code if the rule prohibiting capital stock of the REIT from being “closely held” applied to a REIT’s first taxable year. Effective as of June 30, 2026, our Certificate of Formation, as amended (the “Charter”), will prohibit any person or entity from beneficially owning or constructively owning shares of our capital stock to the extent that such beneficial ownership or constructive ownership would result in us being “closely held” within the meaning of Section 856(h) of the Code (without regard to whether the ownership interest is held during the last half of a taxable year). In order for us to ensure we will not be deemed “closely held,” commencing in June 2026, we will have the right to redeem any or all shares of capital stock of certain individuals named in our Charter from time to time during the month of June 2026, at a redemption price equal to the fair market value of such capital stock (as determined by an independent valuation firm selected by our board of directors and approved by the holders of such capital stock), plus any declared and unpaid dividends or other distributions to, but excluding, the date fixed for redemption. We may not have funds available to effectuate any such redemptions, and we may have to sell assets or borrow money in adverse market conditions to obtain sufficient funds for the redemptions. Alternatively, shareholders subject to this provision may choose to dispose of all or a portion of their capital stock in market transactions. In the event we are not in compliance with the “closely held” requirement at June 30, 2026, our Charter will cause all or a portion of the capital stock of such shareholder to be transferred to a charitable trust pursuant to the terms of our Charter. Such events could adversely affect the price of our common stock and our ability to operate our business. If we are unable to comply with the requirement that we not be “closely held” within the meaning of Section 856(h) of the Code by July 1, 2026, we could fail to qualify as a REIT.

Qualification as a REIT involves a highly technical and evolving set of requirements.

To qualify as a REIT, at least 75% of our assets must be real estate-related and at least 75% of our income must derive from rents, mortgage interest, or other qualifying passive income sources. At least 95% of our gross income must be from these sources plus other forms of passive income such as interest and dividends. We will not be able to acquire securities (other than securities in a TRS or which are treated as a real estate asset) of any single issuer that would represent either more than 5% of the total value of our assets, 10% of the voting securities of such issuer, or more than 10% of the total value of the issuer’s outstanding securities. No more than 25% of the value of our total assets may consist of securities in one or more TRSs. In addition, we must distribute at least 90% of our taxable income (determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding any net capital gain) to shareholders annually. We will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount, if any, by which certain distributions paid with respect to any calendar year are less than the sum of (i) 85% of our ordinary income for that year, (ii) 95% of our capital gain net income for that year and (iii) 100% of our undistributed ordinary income and capital gain net income from prior years. Given our evolving mix of revenue, we may not meet these thresholds in all periods. Even a small misstep in structuring or reporting could cause us to fail one or more REIT qualification tests or incur significant excise taxes.

Certain energy infrastructure assets may be non-qualifying assets, and certain of energy infrastructure activities may generate non-qualifying income for REIT purposes.

Our strategy involves developing power generation assets—including nuclear, natural gas, solar, and storage. It is possible that certain of these assets could be non-qualifying assets and/or generate non-qualifying income for REIT purposes. Such assets could also generate net income subject to the tax on prohibited transactions, or that are otherwise incompatible with REIT status. A REIT will incur a 100% tax on the net income (including foreign currency gain) from a prohibited

transaction. Generally, a prohibited transaction includes a sale or disposition of property, other than foreclosure property, held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. The 100% tax will not apply to gains from the sale of property that is held through a TRS, although such income will be taxed to the TRS at regular U.S. federal corporate income tax rates. If these operations are not properly structured through TRSs, we may generate excessive non-qualifying income or pay excessive amounts of prohibited transaction tax. While we plan to structure the ownership of our assets and the conduct of our activities in a REIT-compliant manner, there is no assurance that we will be successful in doing so.

Legislative or other actions affecting REITs could have a negative effect on us, including our ability to qualify as a REIT or the U.S. federal income tax consequences of such qualification.

At any time, the U.S. federal income tax laws governing REITs or the administrative interpretations of those laws may be amended, possibly with retroactive effect. We cannot predict when or if any new U.S. federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation, or any amendment to any existing U.S. federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation, will be adopted, promulgated or become effective. We and our shareholders could be adversely affected by any such change in the U.S. federal income tax laws, regulations or administrative interpretations.

There are limits on our ownership of TRSs and our transactions with a TRS may cause us to be subject to a 100% penalty tax on certain income or deductions if those transactions are not conducted on arm's-length terms.

Overall, no more than 25% of the value of a REIT's assets may consist of stock or securities of one or more TRS. A TRS will be subject to applicable U.S. federal, state and local corporate income tax on its taxable income, and its after tax net income will be available for distribution to us but is not required to be distributed to us. In addition, the Code limits deductibility of interest paid or accrued by a TRS to its parent REIT to assure that the TRS is subject to an appropriate level of corporate taxation and, in certain circumstances, other limitations on deductibility may apply. The Code also imposes a 100% excise tax on certain transactions between a TRS and its parent REIT that are not conducted on an arm's-length basis. We will monitor the value of our respective investments in any TRSs for the purpose of ensuring compliance with TRS ownership limitations and will structure our transactions with such TRSs on terms that we believe are arm’s length to avoid incurring the 100% excise tax described above. There can be no assurance, however, that will be able to comply with the 25% limitation or to avoid application of the 100% excise tax.

Failure to make required distributions would subject us to U.S. federal corporate income tax.

We intend to operate in a manner so as to qualify and maintain our qualification as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes. In order to qualify and maintain our qualification as a REIT, we generally are required to distribute at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and excluding any net capital gain, each year to our shareholders. To the extent that we satisfy this distribution requirement but distribute less than 100% of our REIT taxable income, we will be subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax on our undistributed taxable income. In addition, we will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax if the actual amount that we pay out to our stockholders in a calendar year is less than a minimum amount specified under the Code. Any of these taxes would decrease cash available for distributions to our shareholders which, in turn, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, our ability to make distributions to our shareholders and the trading price of our common stock. To the extent that we do not generate positive REIT taxable income, we will not be required to make such distributions.

Complying with REIT requirements may cause us to forego otherwise attractive opportunities or liquidate otherwise attractive investments.

To qualify and maintain our qualification as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we must continually satisfy tests concerning, among other things, the sources of our income, the nature and diversification of our assets, the amounts we distribute to our shareholders and the ownership of our stock. In order to meet these test, we may be required to forego investments we might otherwise make. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our performance.

In particular, we must ensure that at the end of each calendar quarter, at least 75% of the value of our assets consists of cash, cash items, government securities and qualified real estate assets. The remainder of our investment in securities (other than government securities, securities of TRSs and qualified real estate assets) generally cannot include more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer or more than 10% of the total value of the outstanding securities of any one issuer. In addition, in general, no more than 5% of the value of our assets (other than government securities, securities of TRSs and qualified real estate assets) can consist of the securities of any one issuer, no more than 25% of the value of our total assets can be represented by the securities of one or more TRSs and no more than 25% of our assets can be represented by debt of “publicly offered REITs” (i.e., REITs that are required to file annual and periodic reports with the

SEC under the Exchange Act), unless secured by real property or interests in real property. If we fail to comply with these requirements at the end of any calendar quarter, we must correct the failure within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter or qualify for certain statutory relief provisions to avoid losing our REIT qualification and suffering adverse tax consequences. As a result, we may be required to liquidate otherwise attractive investments. These actions could have the effect of reducing our income and amounts available for distribution to our stockholders.

Complying with REIT requirements may limit our ability to hedge our liabilities effectively and may cause us to incur tax liabilities.

The REIT provisions of the Code may limit our ability to hedge our liabilities. Any income from a hedging transaction we enter into to manage risk of interest rate changes, price changes or currency fluctuations with respect to borrowings made or to be made to acquire or carry real estate assets, if properly identified under applicable Treasury Regulations, does not constitute “gross income” for purposes of the 75% or 95% gross income tests applicable to REITs. In addition, certain income from hedging transactions entered into to hedge existing hedging positions after any portion of the hedged indebtedness or property is extinguished or disposed of will not be included in income for purposes of the 75% and 95% gross income tests. To the extent that we enter into other types of hedging transactions, the income from those transactions will likely be treated as non-qualifying income for purposes of both of the gross income tests. As a result of these rules, we may need to limit our use of advantageous hedging techniques or implement those hedges through a TRS. This could increase the cost of our hedging activities because such TRS would be subject to tax on gains or forgoing the hedge could expose us to greater risks associated with changes in interest rates than we would otherwise want to bear. In addition, losses in a TRS generally will not provide any tax benefit, except for being carried forward against future taxable income of such TRS.

The prohibited transactions tax may limit our ability to dispose of assets.

A REIT’s net income from prohibited transactions is subject to a 100% tax. In general, prohibited transactions are sales or other dispositions of property, other than foreclosure property, held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. We may be subject to the prohibited transaction tax equal to 100% of net gain upon such a disposition. Although a safe harbor to the characterization of the sale of real property by a REIT as a prohibited transaction is available, we cannot assure you that we can comply with the safe harbor or that we will avoid owning property that may be characterized as held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. Consequently, we may choose not to engage in certain sales of our assets or may conduct such sales through a TRS, which would be subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax.

Dividends on our common stock do not qualify for the reduced tax rates available for some dividends.

The maximum tax rate applicable to “qualified dividend income” payable to U.S. shareholders that are individuals, trusts and estates is 20%. Dividends payable by REITs, including the dividends on our common stock, however, generally are not eligible for these reduced rates. U.S. shareholders that are individuals, trusts and estates generally may deduct up to 20% of the ordinary dividends (e.g., dividends not designated as capital gain dividends or qualified dividend income) received from a REIT. Although this deduction reduces the effective tax rate applicable to certain dividends paid by REITs (generally to 29.6% assuming the shareholder is subject to the 37% maximum rate), such tax rate is still higher than the tax rate applicable to corporate dividends that constitute qualified dividend income. Accordingly, investors who are individuals, trusts and estates may perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in the stocks of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which could adversely affect the value of the shares of REITs, including our common stock.

The board of directors’ revocation of the Company’s REIT status without shareholder approval may decrease the Company’s shareholders’ total return.

Our Charter provides that the Company’s board of directors may revoke or otherwise terminate the Company’s REIT election, without the approval of the Company’s shareholders if the Company’s board of directors determines that it is no longer in the Company’s best interest to continue to qualify as a REIT. If the Company ceases to be a REIT, it would become subject to U.S. federal income tax on its taxable income and would no longer be required to distribute most of its taxable income to the Company’s shareholders, which may have adverse consequences on our total return to the Company’s shareholders.

In order to preserve our REIT status, our Charter limits the number of shares a person may own, which may discourage a takeover that could result in a premium price for our common stock or otherwise benefit our shareholders.

Our Charter authorizes our board of directors to take such actions as are necessary and desirable to preserve our qualification as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Unless exempted by our board of directors, no person may actually or constructively own more than 2.5% in value or number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of the outstanding shares of our common stock, which may inhibit large investors from desiring to purchase our stock. This restriction may have the effect of delaying, deferring, or preventing a change in control, including an extraordinary transaction (such as a merger, tender offer, or sale of all or substantially all of our assets) that might provide a premium price for our common stock or otherwise be in the best interest of our shareholders.

Our relative lack of experience in operating under the constraints imposed on us as a REIT may hinder the achievement of our investment objectives and/or may cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT.

The Code imposes numerous constraints on the operations of REITs that do not apply to other investment vehicles. Our qualification as a REIT depends upon our ability to meet requirements regarding our organization and ownership, distributions of our income, the nature and diversification of our income and assets and other tests imposed by the Code. Any failure to comply could cause us to fail to satisfy the requirements associated with maintaining our REIT status. We have relatively limited experience operating under these constraints, which may hinder our ability to take advantage of attractive investment opportunities and to achieve our investment objectives and/or may cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT. As a result, we cannot assure you that we will be able to operate our business under these constraints. If we fail to qualify as a REIT for any taxable year, we will be subject to U.S. federal income tax on our taxable income at corporate rates. In addition, we would generally be disqualified from treatment as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year of losing our REIT status. Losing our REIT status would reduce our net earnings available for investment or distribution to shareholders because of the additional tax liability. In addition, distributions to shareholders would no longer qualify for the dividends paid deduction, and we would no longer be required to make distributions. If this occurs, we might be required to borrow funds or liquidate some investments in order to pay the applicable tax.

Risks Related to Our Governance and Operating Model

We rely on a highly concentrated leadership team and may face succession or key personnel risks.

Our Company is led by a senior management team with extensive experience in energy infrastructure, nuclear regulation, and AI-aligned data development. Our team includes individuals with deep institutional knowledge of our operating model, site entitlement history, and financing structure. However, our operations and the growth of our business are still dependent on a relatively small group of key personnel. If one or more of our executive officers or senior advisors—including our CEO, CFO, Head of Power or Chief Nuclear Construction Officer—were to become unavailable to us, we may not be able to replace their expertise in a timely manner or at all. The loss of their services, and the inability to recruit or retain key personnel, could delay business decisions, impact external relationships, disrupt execution of critical milestones and have a material adverse effect on our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, the success of our operations will depend, in part, on our ability to identify, attract, develop and retain experienced personnel. There is competition within our industry for experienced technical personnel and certain other professionals, which could increase the costs associated with identifying, attracting and retaining such personnel. If we cannot identify, attract, develop or retain key personnel, including technical and professional personnel, our ability to compete in our industry and implement our business plans could be materially harmed.

Some members of our management team have limited experience in operating a public company.

Some members of our management team, including our executive officers, have limited experience in the management of a publicly traded company. Their limited experience in dealing with the increasingly complex laws pertaining to public companies could be a significant disadvantage in that it is likely that an increasing amount of their time may be devoted to these activities, which will result in less time being devoted to our business’s management and growth. We may need to add additional personnel with the appropriate level of knowledge, experience, and training in the accounting policies, practices or internal controls over financial reporting to maintain what is required of public companies in the United States. The development and implementation of the standards and controls necessary for us to maintain the level of accounting standards required of a public company in the United States may require greater costs than expected. We could be required to expand our employee base and hire additional employees and advisors to support our operations as a public company, which will increase our operating costs in future periods.

Our operating model includes multiple legal entities with interlocking governance structures, which may create oversight or coordination challenges.

We plan to operate through a network of parent and subsidiary entities, including energy-focused SPEs, infrastructure development arms, and, potentially, TRSs. Each of these entities may have separate boards, operating agreements, or regulatory reporting obligations. Coordinating decision-making across these units requires formal delegation and clear internal controls. Any failure to maintain governance alignment or resolve inter-entity conflicts could increase our regulatory, legal, or reputational risk.

Our contractual arrangements with the Texas Tech University System may create alignment or interpretation risks over time.

We operate under the Lease with the Texas Tech University System, a public academic institution. While this arrangement provides entitlement benefits, it may also introduce governance complexity over the 99-year term of the Lease. Changes in Texas Tech University’s leadership, Board of Regents, or policy objectives could lead to reinterpretations of the Lease, including the variable rent formula or naming rights. Additionally, because the Lease relies on AV-based calculations tied to tenant improvements, disputes over valuation methodologies or permitted uses could arise.

We may enter into related-party transactions that could pose conflicts of interest or governance scrutiny.

Certain of our founders, executives, and strategic advisors may in the future be investors, vendors, or partners in Company-related development entities or energy SPEs. However, such dual roles may pose perceived or actual conflicts of interest—particularly in matters of pricing, revenue sharing, or site access. If these conflicts are not properly managed or disclosed, they could damage investor confidence or subject us to regulatory investigation or litigation.

Certain of our executive officers face litigation and are involved in legal proceedings that could cause negative publicity or perception about us and could divert management’s attention.

Our President and Chief Executive Officer, Toby Neugebauer, is involved in a number of entrepreneurial endeavors and investments. From time to time, Mr. Neugebauer may be involved in legal proceedings that have in the past, and may in the future, garner negative publicity. These legal proceedings may at times require his attention.

On January 4, 2023, creditors of Animo Services, LLC (“Animo”), an affiliate of GloriFi (defined below), involuntarily placed Animo in Chapter 7 of Title 11 of the United States Code (“Chapter 7”). On February 7, 2025, the Chapter 7 Trustee in Animo’s bankruptcy proceedings filed a series of adversary proceedings against Mr. Neugebauer, and his related entities, alleging a series of fraudulent transfers and breaches of fiduciary duties (such proceedings, collectively with the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings, the “Animo Proceedings”).

On February 8, 2023, With Purpose, Inc. (d/b/a GloriFi) (“GloriFi”) filed for bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas under Chapter 7. On February 7, 2025, the Chapter 7 Trustee in GloriFi’s bankruptcy proceedings filed a series of adversary proceedings against Mr. Neugebauer, and his related entities, alleging a series of fraudulent transfers and breaches of fiduciary duties (such proceedings, collectively with the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings, the “GloriFi Bankruptcy Proceedings”).

Similarly, on March 3, 2023, a group of GloriFi investors also filed a lawsuit in the 191st Judicial District of the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, against Mr. Neugebauer, and related entities, alleging (i) fraudulent inducement, (ii) negligent misrepresentation, (iii) breach of fiduciary duty, (iv) unjust enrichment, and (v) exemplary damages (such proceedings, the “GloriFi State Court Proceedings”).

On May 16, 2024, and on May 17, 2024, Mr. Neugebauer, and related entities, also filed lawsuits in the District of Georgia and District of Delaware, respectively, against certain GloriFi investors alleging, among other things, investor violations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) as it relates to GloriFi (such proceedings, the “RICO Proceedings,” and together with the Animo Proceedings, the GloriFi Bankruptcy Proceedings, and the GloriFi State Court Proceedings, the “Animo/GloriFi Proceedings”). The RICO Proceedings have been temporarily stayed in connection with the GloriFi Bankruptcy Proceedings but may be resumed.

Although Mr. Neugebauer continues to vigorously contest the allegations against him, assert his rights, and pursue causes of action, the Animo/GloriFi Proceedings may attract negative press coverage and other forms of attention to the Company, and at times could divert Mr. Neugebauer’s attention from the day-to-day operations of the Company.

We cannot predict the outcome of the Animo/GloriFi Proceedings or the impact they may have on the Company or its financial condition. The publicity surrounding the Animo/GloriFi Proceedings, or any investigation, inquiry or any enforcement action as a result thereof, even if ultimately resolved favorably for Mr. Neugebauer, could cause additional public scrutiny of our Company. As a result, such proceedings, investigations and inquiries could have an adverse effect on our perceived reputation and our ability to raise new capital.

Risks Related to Market Conditions and Macroeconomic Factors

Adverse macroeconomic conditions could impair our ability to raise capital or complete development phases.

Project Matador’s success depends on continued access to both equity and project-level debt to fund real estate, energy, and infrastructure development. In the event of economic downturns, financial market volatility, interest rate increases, or reduced investor risk appetite—particularly for real asset or infrastructure investments—we may be unable to secure sufficient capital on acceptable terms or at all. This could result in construction delays, contract renegotiations, or asset impairments, any of which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and cash flows.

Cost overruns and inflationary pressures could materially increase development and operating costs and impact our capital budget and profitability.

Project Matador’s construction is expected to span multiple years and include capital-intensive civil, electrical, and mechanical engineering work. The prices of steel, concrete, turbine components, piping systems, racks, and high-voltage equipment have experienced material inflation in recent years. Similarly, prices for imported materials, equipment and supplies used in our business may also be negatively impacted by tariff policy, which can be inflationary. If inflation or tariffs affect labor rates, raw materials (e.g., steel, concrete), or specialized equipment, our project budgets may increase significantly. Historically, nuclear projects in the U.S. have experienced budget escalations due to engineering rework, licensing scope changes, and schedule slippage. Similarly, labor costs for skilled construction workers, electricians, and qualified engineers continue to rise.

If inflation persists or accelerates, the cost to complete Project Matador may exceed our estimates, reducing return on investment and increasing reliance on additional capital raises. While we have incorporated contingency planning into our baseline financial models, these provisions may not be sufficient to cover real-time market variability. Unexpected inflation or commodity price shocks may necessitate budget revisions or additional capital raising.

Changes in U.S. trade policy, including the imposition of tariffs and the resulting consequences, may have a material adverse impact on our business and results of operations.

The U.S. government announced changes to its trade policies in 2025 and significantly increased tariffs on certain imports under emergency authorities, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). In February 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The current tariff environment remains dynamic and uncertain, including regarding potential refunds of tariffs paid under IEEPA. For now, the U.S. government has turned to Section 122 of the Trade Act as a stopgap to impose 15% global tariffs while it considers its next moves. Such replacement measures and changes to tariffs and other trade restrictions may lead to continuing uncertainty and volatility in U.S. and global financial markets and economic conditions.

We will depend on a limited number of suppliers, including suppliers of our reactors, gas turbines and other long-lead time system components that may be manufactured oversees, to provide us, directly or through other suppliers, with items such as equipment for the construction and development of our reactors, other components and raw materials. Tariffs on such components would increase our costs to the extent those components are imported into the United States. While a certain portion of the increased costs may be absorbed by certain suppliers, some suppliers may struggle to absorb the increased costs, especially over the long term, potentially leading to supply disruptions or cost pass-throughs to us, which may lead to an increase in our expenditures. Any shortage, delay or component price change from these suppliers, including as a result of changes in exchange rates, taxes or tariffs, could result in sales and installation delays, cancellations and loss of market share. If there are substantial tariffs imposed by the United States on countries from which we import certain of our key products, we may not be able to pass the cost through to our tenants.

We cannot predict future trade policy and its impact on our business. The adoption and expansion of trade restrictions, the occurrence of a trade war, or other governmental action related to tariffs or trade agreements or policies has the potential to adversely impact demand for our products, our costs, our tenants, our suppliers, and the United States economy, which in turn could adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations. Our attempts to mitigate potential disruptions to our supply chain and offset procurement and operational cost pressures, such as through alternative sourcing

and/or increases in the selling prices of some of our products, may not be successful. To the extent that cost increases result in significant increases in our expenditures, or if our price increases are not sufficient to offset these increased costs adequately or in a timely manner, and/or if our revenues decrease, our business, financial condition or operating results may be adversely affected.

Interest rate fluctuations may increase our cost of capital and reduce profitability.

Project Matador will utilize a mix of fixed and variable rate financing instruments across its SPEs and real estate platform. Increases in benchmark interest rates, lender spreads, or risk premiums for long-duration infrastructure projects may increase debt service costs, reduce debt availability, or constrain financial flexibility. Rising rates may also reduce the relative attractiveness of our common equity to yield-seeking investors, limiting the success of future follow-on financings.

Shifts in federal, state, or local policy may affect permitting, taxation, or infrastructure incentives.

Our development strategy is currently supported by a policy environment that encourages energy innovation, U.S.-based manufacturing, and advanced infrastructure deployment. However, changes in political leadership or budget priorities at the federal or state level could result in the rollback of tax credits (such as 45Q, 45J, 45V, or 48C), delays in DOE funding programs, or new environmental permitting requirements. At the state level, changes in law or interpretation regarding water rights, transmission access, or land use could materially adversely impact Project Matador’s ability to expand or conduct its core business any of which could materially adversely affect our business.

Sustainability expectations may evolve in ways that affect project costs or tenant commitments.

We are seeking to build the world’s most resilient and energy-diverse AI infrastructure platform. However, sustainability expectations—particularly around carbon neutrality, sustainable water use, and nuclear energy—may continue to evolve. In the future, certain institutional investors or tenants may require additional certifications, climate audits, or supply chain transparency that increase compliance costs. Failure to meet such expectations could limit tenant participation, equity investment, or long-term valuation.

Global supply chain disruptions may delay delivery of critical infrastructure components.

Project Matador requires timely procurement of gas turbines, transformers, power electronics, nuclear reactor components, HVAC systems, and modular powered shell elements—many of which originate from international vendors. Acts of God, geopolitical conflict, war, terrorism, social unrest, global health crises, trade restrictions, maritime shipping delays, or semiconductor shortages may result in global supply chain disruptions that could delay site readiness, reduce operational capacity, or force reprioritization of development phases.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

Since our IPO, our stock price has been volatile, and you may not be able to resell shares of our common stock at or above the price you paid or at all, and you could lose all or part of your investment as a result.

As a new public company, our stock price has been, and may continue to be, volatile. As a result, you may not be able to resell your shares at or above the price you paid for such shares due to a number of factors included herein, including the following:

•results of operations that vary from the expectations of securities analysts and investors;

•results of operations that vary from those of our competitors;

•changes in expectations as to our future financial performance, including financial estimates and investment recommendations by securities analysts and investors;

•changes in economic conditions for companies in our industry;

•changes in market valuations of, or earnings and other announcements by, companies in our industry;

•declines in the market prices of stocks generally, particularly those of power and utilities businesses as well as hyperscalers;

•strategic actions by us or our competitors;

•changes in general economic or market conditions or trends in our industry or the economy as a whole;

•changes in business or regulatory conditions;

•future sales of our common stock or other securities;

•investor perceptions of the investment opportunity associated with our common stock relative to other investment alternatives;

•the public’s response to press releases or other public announcements by us or third parties, including our filings with the SEC;

•announcements relating to litigation or governmental investigations;

•guidance, if any, that we provide to the public, any changes in this guidance, or our failure to meet this guidance;

•the development and sustainability of an active trading market for our stock;

•changes in accounting principles; and

•other events or factors, including those resulting from system failures and disruptions, natural or man-made disasters, extreme weather events, war, acts of terrorism, an outbreak of highly infectious or contagious diseases or responses to these events.

Furthermore, the stock market may experience extreme volatility that, in some cases, may be unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of particular companies. These broad market and industry fluctuations may adversely affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. In addition, price volatility may be greater if the public float and trading volume of our common stock is low.

In the past, following periods of market volatility, shareholders have instituted securities class action litigation. If we were involved in securities litigation, it could have a substantial cost and divert resources and the attention of management from our business regardless of the outcome of such litigation.

As a result of becoming a public company, we are obligated to develop and maintain proper and effective internal controls over financial reporting in order to comply with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We may not complete our analysis of our internal controls over financial reporting in a timely manner, or these internal controls may not be determined to be effective, which may adversely affect investor confidence in us and, as a result, the value of our common stock.

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. Internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP. We are in the very early stages of the costly and challenging process of compiling the system and processing documentation necessary to perform the evaluation needed to comply with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We may not be able to complete our evaluation, testing and any required remediation in the time required. If we are unable to assert that our internal control over financial reporting is effective, we could lose investor confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, which would cause the price of our common stock to decline, and we may be subject to investigation or sanctions by the SEC.

We will be required, pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, to furnish a report by management on, among other things, the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of the end of the fiscal year that coincides with the filing of our second annual report on Form 10-K. This assessment will need to include disclosure of any material weaknesses identified by our management in our internal control over financial reporting. We will also be required to disclose changes made in our internal control and procedures on a quarterly basis. However, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act until the later of the year following our first annual report required to be filed with the SEC, or the date we are no longer an “emerging growth company” as defined in the JOBS Act if we take advantage of the exemptions contained in the JOBS Act. At such time, our independent registered public accounting firm may issue a report that is adverse in the event it is not satisfied with the level at which our controls are documented, designed or operating.

Additionally, the existence of any material weakness or significant deficiency would require management to devote significant time and incur significant expense to remediate any such material weaknesses or significant deficiencies and management may not be able to remediate any such material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in a timely manner. The existence of any material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting could also result in errors in our financial statements that could require us to restate our financial statements, cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations and cause shareholders to lose confidence in our reported financial information, all of which could materially and adversely affect our business and stock price. To comply with the requirements of being a public company, we may need to undertake various costly and time-consuming actions, such as implementing new internal controls and procedures and hiring accounting or internal audit staff, which may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects.

We have identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. If our remediation of the material weakness is not effective, or if we experience additional material weaknesses in the future or otherwise fail to develop and maintain effective internal control over financial reporting, our ability to produce timely and accurate financial statements or comply with applicable laws and regulations could be impaired.

As a public company, we are required to maintain internal control over financial reporting and to evaluate and determine the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Beginning with our second annual report following our IPO, we will be required to provide a management report on internal control over financial reporting. However, while we remain an emerging growth company, we will not be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. Thus, in accordance with the provisions of the JOBS Act, we and our independent registered public accounting firm were not required to, and did not, perform an evaluation of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2025, nor any period subsequent in accordance with the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

However, while preparing the financial statements that are included in this report, we identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

The material weakness pertains to a lack of formalized processes, policies, and procedures, inadequate segregation of duties across functions relevant to financial reporting, and an insufficient number of qualified personnel within our accounting, finance, and operational functions who possess an appropriate level of expertise to provide reasonable assurance that transactions are being appropriately recorded and disclosed. We have concluded that the material weakness exists because we are a newly formed company and have not yet fully developed or implemented our internal control over financial reporting or operational control environment, and therefore do not have the necessary business processes, systems, personnel, and related internal controls necessary to satisfy the accounting and financial reporting requirements of a public company. The material weakness was not identified as a result of a misstatement to our financial statements.

We have taken and will continue to take certain actions to remediate the material weakness, including:

•designing and documenting an internal controls framework, including control activities over financial reporting, modeled on the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO) principles, with periodic internal reviews and testing;

•implementing formal policies and procedures to govern key financial processes and internal controls, including documented accounting policies aligned with U.S. GAAP standards and supported by external advisors;

•hiring additional qualified personnel with appropriate expertise in operational finance activities, accounting, and financial reporting, including the appointment of a Chief Financial Officer and financial reporting expert, and the establishment of an experienced finance team with public company financial reporting and internal controls expertise;

•enhancing segregation of duties across critical accounting and operational functions and implementing robust liquidity planning and cash management controls to support daily operating needs and strategic investments;

•evaluating and implementing appropriate financial and reporting systems to support internal controls requirements including engagement of a third-party accounting advisory firm to assist with timely remediation of control deficiencies; and

•establishing an audit committee composed of independent directors to provide oversight of our financial reporting and internal control environment.

We will not be able to fully remediate the material weakness until these steps have been completed and have been operating effectively for a sufficient period of time. There can be no assurance that our remediation efforts to address this material weakness described above, which may be time-consuming and costly, will be successful, or that our internal control over financial reporting will be effective in accomplishing all of its objectives. Our business could be adversely impacted if we have deficiencies in our disclosure controls and procedures or internal control over financial reporting, including as a result of the identified material weakness discussed above. Furthermore, as we grow, our business, and hence our internal control over financial reporting, will likely become more complex, and we may require significantly more resources to develop and maintain effective controls. Designing and implementing an effective system of internal control over financial reporting is a continuous effort that requires significant resources, including the expenditure of a significant amount of time by senior members of our management team. As a result, management’s attention may be diverted from other business concerns, which could harm our business, operating results, financial condition, and future prospects. Additionally, as stated above, we have not performed an evaluation of our internal control over financial reporting as permitted under the JOBS Act; accordingly, we cannot assure you that we have identified all, or that we will not in the future have additional material weaknesses. Material weaknesses may still exist when we report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as required under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, beginning with our second annual report after the completion of our IPO.

If during the evaluation and testing process we identify additional material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting or determine that existing material weaknesses have not been remediated, our management will be unable to assert that our internal control over financial reporting is effective. Even if our management concludes that our internal control over financial reporting is effective, our independent registered public accounting firm may conclude that there are material weaknesses with respect to our internal control over financial reporting. If we are unable to assert that our internal control over financial reporting is effective, or if our independent registered public accounting firm is unable to express an unqualified opinion as to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, investors may lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, the market price of our common stock could be adversely affected and we could become subject to litigation or investigations by the stock exchange on which our securities are listed, the SEC, or other regulatory authorities, which could require additional financial and management resources.

The JOBS Act allows us to postpone the date by which we must comply with certain laws and regulations intended to protect investors and to reduce the amount of information we provide in our reports filed with the SEC. We cannot be certain if this reduced disclosure will make our common stock less attractive to investors.

The JOBS Act is intended to reduce the regulatory burden on “emerging growth companies.” As defined in the JOBS Act, a public company whose initial public offering of common equity securities occurs after December 8, 2011, and whose annual net sales are less than $1.235 billion will, in general, qualify as an “emerging growth company” until the earliest of:

•the last day of its fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the date of its initial public offering of common equity securities;

•the last day of its fiscal year in which it has annual gross revenue of $1.235 billion or more;

•the date on which it has, during the previous three-year period, issued more than $1.0 billion in nonconvertible debt; and

•the date on which it is deemed to be a “large accelerated filer,” which will occur at such time as we (i) have an aggregate worldwide market value of common equity securities held by non-affiliates of $700.0 million or more as of the last business day of its most recently completed second fiscal quarter, (ii) have been required to file annual and quarterly reports under the Exchange, for a period of at least 12 months, and (iii) have filed at least one annual report pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”).

Under this definition, we are an “emerging growth company” and will remain an “emerging growth company” until as late as the fifth anniversary of the completion of our IPO. For so long as we are an “emerging growth company,” we will, among other things:

•not be required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act;

•not be required to hold a nonbinding advisory shareholder vote on executive compensation pursuant to Section 14A(a) of the Exchange Act;

•not be required to seek shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved pursuant to Section 14A(b) of the Exchange Act;

•be exempt from the requirement of the PCAOB regarding the communication of critical audit matters in the auditor’s report on the financial statements; and

•be subject to reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements.

In addition, Section 107 of the JOBS Act provides that an emerging growth company can use the extended transition period provided in Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act for complying with new or revised accounting standards. This permits an emerging growth company to delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. We have chosen to “opt out” of this transition period and, as a result, we will comply with new or revised accounting standards as required when they are adopted. This decision to opt out of the extended transition period is irrevocable.

We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less attractive as a result of our decision to take advantage of some or all of the reduced disclosure requirements above. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

The requirements of being a public company may strain our resources and distract our management, which could make it difficult to manage our business, particularly after we are no longer an “emerging growth company.”

As a public company, we incur legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not previously incur. We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the listing requirements of Nasdaq, the London Stock Exchange and other applicable securities rules and regulations. Compliance with these rules and regulations will increase our legal and financial compliance costs, make some activities more difficult, time-consuming or costly and increase demand on our systems and resources, particularly after we are no longer an “emerging growth company.” The Exchange Act requires that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we establish and maintain effective internal controls and procedures for financial reporting. Furthermore, the need to establish the corporate infrastructure demanded of a public company may divert our management’s attention from implementing our growth strategy, which could prevent us from improving our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects. We have made, and will continue to make, changes to our internal controls and procedures for financial reporting and accounting systems to meet our reporting obligations as a public company. However, the measures we take may not be sufficient to satisfy our obligations as a public company. In addition, these rules and regulations will increase our legal and financial compliance costs and will make some activities more time-consuming and costly. For example, we expect these rules and regulations to make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to incur substantial costs to maintain the same or similar coverage. These additional obligations could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects.

In addition, changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure are creating uncertainty for public companies, increasing legal and financial compliance costs and making some activities more time-consuming. These laws, regulations and standards are subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices. We intend to invest resources to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards, and this investment may result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of our management’s time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. If our efforts to comply with new laws, regulations and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies due to ambiguities related to their application and practice, regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us and there could be a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects.

The body of case law interpreting the Texas Business Organizations Code is less developed than the body of case law interpreting the Delaware General Corporation Law and the Maryland General Corporation Law, and the Texas Business Court has less precedent to draw from adjudicating corporate and business-related matters.

As a Texas corporation, we are subject to the Texas Business Organizations Code (the “TBOC”). The body of case law interpreting the TBOC is less developed than the body of case law interpreting the Delaware General Corporation Law and the Maryland General Corporation Law and Maryland REIT Law. Many U.S. corporations have historically chosen Delaware as their state of incorporation because of, among other reasons, the extensive experience of the Delaware courts in adjudicating corporate and business-related matters. The Delaware Court of Chancery and Supreme Court are highly respected and experienced business courts with an extensive body of case law. As a result, the Delaware system has long and widely been lauded for its expertise. Furthermore, many U.S. businesses that have been formed with a view to elect to qualify and operate as REITs have chosen Maryland as their state of incorporation or formation because of, among other reasons, historical precedent, the extensive experience of the Maryland courts in adjudicating corporate and business matters involving REITs and the protections afforded to the directors of Maryland corporations or trustees of Maryland real estate investment trusts, including those that elect to qualify and operate as REITs. The newly created Texas Business Court, on the other hand, is in its infancy, began hearing cases in September 2024 and will need time to develop reputationally and build a body of case law that provides comparable levels of guidance to directors and officers as might be available in Delaware or Maryland, which may result in less certainty for our officers and directors as well as our shareholders.

The Texas Business Organization Code has been recently amended to provide additional protections for our officers, directors and affiliates while making it more difficult for shareholders to make proposals at our annual meeting or to bring derivative claims. As a result, our shareholders may be disadvantaged as compared to shareholders of Delaware corporations.

In an effort to attract U.S. corporations to reincorporate in and move their respective headquarters to Texas, the Texas legislature has passed a number of changes to the TBOC. For example, the TBOC was recently amended to (i) permit broad exculpation of officers along with directors for breaches of duty of care pursuant to Senate Bill 2411, which took effect on September 1, 2025, (ii) put certain limitations on shareholder derivative lawsuits, including a 3% ownership requirement to bring such a claim, pursuant to Senate Bill 29 (“SB 29”), which became effective on May 14, 2025, and (iii) streamline approval of mergers and other fundamental transactions, including by eliminating class voting requirements. Senate Bill 1057, which took effect on September 1, 2025, imposes stock ownership requirements for shareholders seeking to submit shareholder proposals at an annual or special meeting. For more information, see the risk factor titled “Texas law and our Charter include provisions which may limit our shareholders’ ability to submit a proposal on a matter to be acted upon at a meeting of shareholders” below. Taken together, these TBOC provisions mean our shareholders may be disadvantaged as compared to shareholders of Delaware corporations.

In addition, on June 20, 2025, the Texas legislature passed Senate Bill 2337 (“SB 2337”), which took effect on September 1, 2025. SB 2337 imposes certain disclosure obligations on proxy advisors if they consider non-financial factors (including a commitment, initiative, policy, target, or subjective or value-based standard based on ESG, DEI, sustainability or social credit metrics or membership or commitment to certain groups) when they provide proxy voting recommendations or in the provision of proxy advisory services. In response to SB 2337, Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the two largest proxy advisors in the United States, recently filed separate lawsuits challenging the new law.

Certain provisions of Texas law and antitakeover provisions in our organizational documents could delay or prevent a change of control.

Certain provisions of Texas law and our Charter and Bylaws may have an antitakeover effect and may delay, defer, or prevent a merger, acquisition, tender offer, takeover attempt, or other change of control transaction that a shareholder might consider in its best interest, including those attempts that might result in a premium over the market price for the shares held by our shareholders.

Under our Charter, our board of directors can authorize the issuance of preferred stock, which could diminish the rights of holders of our common stock and make a change of control of the Company more difficult even if it might benefit our shareholders. The board of directors is authorized to issue shares of preferred stock in one or more series and to fix the voting powers, preferences and other rights and limitations of the preferred stock. Accordingly, we may issue shares of preferred stock with a preference over our common stock with respect to dividends or distributions on liquidation or dissolution, or that may otherwise adversely affect the voting or other rights of the holders of common stock. Issuances of

preferred stock, depending upon the rights, preferences and designations of the preferred stock, may have the effect of delaying, deterring or preventing a change of control, even if that change of control might benefit our shareholders.

In addition, provisions of our Charter and Bylaws may delay or discourage transactions involving an actual or potential change in our control or change in our management, including transactions in which shareholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares, or transactions that our shareholders might otherwise deem to be in their best interests. For example, our Charter and Bylaws (i) do not provide for cumulative voting rights (therefore allowing the holders of a majority of the shares of common stock entitled to vote in any election of directors to elect all of the directors standing for election, if they should so choose), (ii) require that special meetings of the shareholders may be called at any time only by the affirmative vote of a majority of the board of directors or the chairman of the board of directors, and states that shareholders do not have the power to call a special meeting, (iii) permit our board of directors to alter, amend or repeal our Bylaws or to adopt new bylaws, and (iv) enable our board of directors to increase the number of persons serving as directors and to fill vacancies created as a result of the increase by a majority vote of the directors present at a meeting of directors.

We are subject to the provisions of Section 21.606 of the TBOC, which provides that a Texas corporation that qualifies as an “issuing public corporation” (as defined in the TBOC) may not engage in specified types of business combinations, including mergers, consolidations and asset sales, with a person, or an affiliate or associate of that person, who is an “affiliated shareholder.” Section 21.606 may deter any potential offers or other efforts to obtain control of us that are not approved by our board of directors, potentially depriving our shareholders of opportunities to sell shares of our common stock at a premium to the prevailing market price.

Our Charter designates the Business Court in the First Business Court Division of the State of Texas as the exclusive forum for certain litigation that may be initiated by our shareholders and the federal district courts of the United States as the exclusive forum for litigation arising under the U.S. federal securities laws, including the Securities Act, which could limit our shareholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us.

Pursuant to our Charter, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Business Court in the First Business Court Division of the State of Texas (the “Business Court”) (or, if the Business Court determines that it lacks jurisdiction, the federal district court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division) shall, to the fullest extent permitted by the TBOC, be the sole and exclusive forum for (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of the Company, (ii) any action asserting a claim for or based on a breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any current or former director, officer, other employee, agent or shareholder of the Company to the Company or the Company’s shareholders, including a claim alleging the aiding and abetting of such a breach of fiduciary duty, (iii) any action arising pursuant to any provision of the TBOC or our Charter or the Bylaws or as to which the TBOC confers jurisdiction on the Business Court, (iv) any action to interpret, apply, enforce or determine the validity of our Charter or the Bylaws, (v) any action asserting a claim related to or involving the Company that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine, (vi) any action asserting an “internal entity claim” as that term is defined in Section 2.115 of the TBOC, or (vii) any other action within the jurisdiction, or supplemental jurisdiction of the Business Court. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, the federal district courts of the United States of America shall be the exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under U.S. federal securities laws, including the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of capital stock of our Company shall be deemed to have notice of and consented to the forum provisions in our Charter. However, the enforceability of similar exclusive forum provisions in other companies’ certificates of formation has been challenged in legal proceedings, and it is uncertain whether a court would find these types of provisions in our Charter to be enforceable. For example, under the Securities Act, federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Securities Act, and investors cannot waive compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder. The forum selection provisions in our Charter may have the effect of discouraging lawsuits against us or our directors and officers and may limit our shareholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us.

If the enforceability of our forum selection provision were to be challenged, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such a challenge. While we currently have no basis to expect any such challenge would be successful, if a court were to find our forum selection provision to be inapplicable or unenforceable, we may incur additional costs associated with having to litigate in other jurisdictions, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and result in a diversion of the time and resources of our employees, management and board of directors.

Our Charter includes provisions limiting the personal liability of our directors and officers for breaches of fiduciary duties under Texas law.

Our Charter contains a provision eliminating a director’s and officer’s personal liability for acts or omissions in the director’s or officer’s capacity as a director or officer to the fullest extent permitted under Texas law. In addition, pursuant to the TBOC, a corporation has the power to indemnify its directors and officers against judgments and certain expenses other than judgments that are actually and reasonably incurred in connection with a proceeding, provided that there is a determination that the individual acted in good faith and in a manner reasonably believed to be in the best interests of the corporation and, with respect to any criminal proceeding, had no reasonable cause to believe the individual’s conduct was unlawful. However, no indemnification may be made in respect of any proceeding in which such individual is liable to the corporation or improperly received a personal benefit and is found liable for willful misconduct, breach of the duty of loyalty owed to the corporation, or an act or omission deemed not to be committed in good faith.

The principal effect of the limitation on liability provision is that a shareholder will be unable to prosecute an action for monetary damages against a director unless the shareholder can demonstrate a basis for liability for which indemnification is not available under the TBOC. The inclusion of this provision in our Charter may discourage or deter shareholders or management from bringing a lawsuit against directors or officers for a breach of their fiduciary duties, even though such an action, if successful, might otherwise have benefited us and our shareholders.

Texas law and our Charter include provisions which may limit shareholders’ ability to bring a cause of action against our directors or officers for certain acts or omissions in their capacity as directors or officers of the Company.

The TBOC and our governing documents include certain provisions which may limit our shareholders’ ability to bring certain derivative claims against our officers and directors. For example, the TBOC provides that, if a corporation has a class of stock listed on a national securities exchange or has 500 or more shareholders, no shareholder or group of shareholders may institute or maintain a derivative proceeding in the right of the Company unless such shareholder or group of shareholders, at the time the derivative proceeding is instituted, holds at least 3% of the outstanding shares of the Company. The TBOC also permits corporations to request a court, at the start of a transaction (including related party transactions) or investigation of a derivative claim, to judicially determine the independence and disinterestedness of directors on special committees reviewing transactions or individuals on panels reviewing derivative claims. Future challenges to independence or disinterestedness would require new facts.

In addition, Section 21.419 of the TBOC sets forth certain presumptions concerning compliance by directors and officers with respect to their duties to a corporation, including the duty of care and duty of loyalty as those duties pertain to transactions with interested persons. Specifically, in taking or declining to take any action on any matters of a corporation’s business, Section 21.419 provides that a director or officer is presumed to have acted (i) in good faith, (ii) on an informed basis, (iii) in furtherance of the interests of the corporation and (iv) in obedience to the law and the corporation’s governing documents. These provisions are described as codifying the “business judgment rule.” In order to succeed in a cause of action against a director or officer, the Company or a shareholder must rebut one or more of the foregoing presumptions and prove the director or officer’s act or omission constituted a breach of duty as a director or officer and that such breach involved fraud, intentional misconduct, an ultra vires act or a knowing violation of law.

The TBOC contains provisions restricting our shareholders from inspecting certain corporate books and records unless they have held our shares for six months or own 5% of our standing shares.

Section 21.419 applies to a corporation that has a class or series of voting shares listed on a national securities exchange or includes within its organizational documents an affirmative election to be governed by such section. In our Charter, we have affirmatively elected, in the manner provided under the TBOC, to be governed by Section 21.419 and any successor provision thereto. The inclusion of this provision in our Charter and the fact that our common stock will be listed on a national securities exchange may discourage or deter shareholders or management from bringing derivative lawsuits or making books and records requests, even though such an action, if successful, might otherwise have benefited us and our shareholders.

Texas law and our Charter include provisions which may limit our shareholders’ ability to submit a proposal on a matter to be acted upon at a meeting of shareholders.

Section 21.373 of the TBOC permits a “nationally listed corporation” (as defined in the TBOC and described below) to amend its governing documents to impose stock ownership requirements on shareholders seeking to submit a proposal on a matter (other than director nominations and procedural resolutions ancillary to the conduct of a shareholder meeting) to the shareholders of such corporation for approval at a shareholder meeting. If a corporation elects to be governed by Section

21.373 of the TBOC, a shareholder or group of shareholders may submit a proposal on a matter to the shareholders of such corporation for approval at a meeting of shareholders only if such shareholder or group of shareholders (i) holds an amount of shares entitled to vote at such meeting equal to at least $1.0 million in market value of the Company (determined as of the date of submission of the proposal) or 3% of the total number of shares eligible to vote at such meeting, and (ii) has held such amount for a continuous period of at least six months before the date of the meeting, (iii) holds such amount throughout the meeting and (iv) solicits the holders of shares representing at least 67% of the voting power of shares entitled to vote on the proposal at the shareholder meeting.

We are considered a “nationally listed corporation” and adopted these requirements for having standing to make a shareholder proposal, effective as of our first annual meeting of shareholders following our IPO. Such adoption limits our shareholders’ ability to make proposals as compared to shareholders of a Delaware corporation.

An active, liquid trading market for our common stock may not be sustained, which may limit your ability to sell your shares.

Prior to our IPO, there was no public market for our common stock. Although our common stock is listed for trading on Nasdaq and the London Stock Exchange under the trading symbol “FRMI,” an active trading market for our common stock may not be sustained in the future. A public trading market having the desirable characteristics of depth, liquidity and orderliness depends upon the existence of willing buyers and sellers at any given time, such existence being dependent upon the individual decisions of buyers and sellers over which neither we nor any market maker has control. The failure of an active and liquid trading market to continue would likely have a material adverse effect on the value of our common stock. The market price of our common stock may decline below the price you paid, and you may not be able to sell your shares of our common stock at or above the price you paid, or at all. An inactive market may also impair our ability to raise capital to continue to fund operations by issuing additional shares of our common stock or other equity or equity-linked securities and may impair our ability to make acquisitions by using any such securities as consideration.

A significant portion of our total outstanding shares of common stock are restricted from immediate resale but may be sold into the market in the near future. This could cause the market price of our common stock to drop significantly.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could occur at any time. These sales, or the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares of common stock intend to sell shares, could reduce the market price of our common stock. The shares purchased in our recent initial public offering may be resold in the public market immediately, unless such shares are held by “affiliates,” as that term is defined in Rule 144 under the Securities Act. In connection with our IPO, a substantial portion of our outstanding shares were subject to a 180-day lock-up period provided under lock-up agreements executed in connection with the offering and were restricted from immediate resale under the federal securities laws. All of these shares of common stock will, however, be able to be resold after the expiration of the lock-up period, as well as pursuant to customary exceptions thereto or upon the waiver of the lock-up agreement by the representatives on behalf of the underwriters. We also have registered shares of common stock that we have or may issue under our equity compensation plans. These shares can be freely sold in the public market upon issuance, subject to the lock-up agreements. As restrictions on resale end, the market price of our stock could decline if the holders of currently restricted shares of common stock sell them or are perceived by the market as intending to sell them.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports about our business, if they publish unfavorable research or reports, or adversely change their recommendations regarding our common stock or if our results of operations do not meet their expectations, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

As the trading market for our common stock continues to develop, the trading market will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us or our business. We do not have any control over these analysts. As a newly public company, we may be slow to attract research coverage. In the event we obtain securities or industry analyst coverage, if any of the analysts who cover us provide inaccurate or unfavorable research, issue an adverse opinion regarding our stock price or if our results of operations do not meet their expectations, our stock price could decline. Moreover, if one or more of these analysts cease coverage of us or fail to publish reports on us regularly, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.

We may issue shares of preferred stock in the future, which could make it difficult for another company to acquire us or could otherwise adversely affect holders of our common stock, which could depress the price of our common stock.

Our Charter authorizes us to issue one or more series of preferred stock. Our board of directors has the authority to determine the preferences, limitations and relative rights of the shares of preferred stock and to fix the number of shares constituting any series and the designation of such series, without any further vote or action by our shareholders. Our

preferred stock could be issued with voting, liquidation, dividend and other rights superior to the rights of our common stock. The potential issuance of preferred stock may delay or prevent a change in control of us, discouraging bids for our common stock at a premium to the market price, and materially adversely affect the market price and the voting and other rights of the holders of our common stock.

We are currently, and may continue to be, subject to securities class action litigation.

In the past, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against companies following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities. This type of litigation, if instituted, could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could adversely affect our business, operating results, or financial condition. Additionally, the dramatic increase in the cost of directors’ and officers’ liability insurance may cause us to opt for lower overall policy limits and coverage or to forgo insurance that we may otherwise rely on to cover significant defense costs, settlements, and damages awarded to plaintiffs, or incur substantially higher costs to maintain the same or similar coverage. These factors could make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified executive officers and members of our board of directors.

We are currently a party to a putative securities class action lawsuit. The complaint, filed in January 2026, names the Company, certain of our directors and officers, and certain underwriters of our initial public offering as defendants. We believe the claims—that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions in the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with our initial public offering and in other public statements during the alleged class period—are without merit. For more information about the securities litigation that we currently face, see Part I, Item 3. "Legal Proceedings" in this Annual Report.

Dual listing on the Nasdaq and the London Stock Exchange may lead to an inefficient market in the shares of common stock.

Our common stock is dual listed on Nasdaq and the London Stock Exchange. Dual listing of the shares of common stock results in differences in liquidity, settlement and clearing systems, trading currencies, prices and transaction costs between the exchanges where the shares of common stock are quoted. These and other factors may hinder the transferability of the shares of common stock between the two exchanges.

Consequently, the price of the shares of common stock may fluctuate and may at any time be different on the Nasdaq and the London Stock Exchange. Investors could seek to sell or buy their shares of common stock to take advantage of any price differences between the two markets through a practice referred to as arbitrage. Any arbitrage activity could create unexpected volatility in both the share of common stock prices on either exchange and in the volumes of shares of common stock available for trading on either market. This could adversely affect the trading of the shares of common stock on these exchanges and increase their price volatility and/or adversely affect the price and liquidity of the shares of common stock on these exchanges. In addition, holders of shares of common stock in either jurisdiction will not be immediately able to transfer such shares for trading on the other market without effecting necessary procedures with our transfer agents/registrars. This could result in time delays and additional costs for shareholders. The market price of the shares of common stock on those exchanges may also differ due to exchange rate fluctuations. Additionally, to the extent the Company’s listing on the London Stock Exchange does not proceed, all common stock issued in this offering will be listed solely on Nasdaq.

Fermi Inc. (FRMI) Risk Factors

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Summary of Risk Factors

•We are a development-stage company with no operating history or historical revenue, and we face execution risk across all major components of our business.

Table of Contents

•We will be dependent on third-party manufacturing and supply chain relationships to develop and lease our facilities. Our reliance on third parties and suppliers involves certain risks that may result in increased costs, delays, and loss of revenue.

•We may not achieve tenant adoption at the pace or pricing levels required for financial viability.

•We depend on third-party vendors, contractors, and consultants to support our business.

•Project Matador is an unprecedented, large-scale, multi-phase development effort that presents significant planning, execution, and coordination risks.

•Our ability to develop and retain site control depends on maintaining our leasehold interest with the Texas Tech University System.

Table of Contents

•If we cannot obtain required permits, licenses and regulatory clearance or approvals for Project Matador or our operations, or are unable to maintain such permits, licenses or approvals, we may not be able to continue or expand our operations.

•We are subject to complex, evolving, and potentially burdensome regulatory requirements.

•We are subject to federal environmental review processes, including the NEPA, that may materially delay or restrict project development.

•Commodity prices (particularly for natural gas) could impact the economic viability of our businesses or impair our ability to commence operations if we are not able to adequately pass through the cost of natural gas and other raw materials to our tenants.

•Our near-term revenue may be heavily concentrated among a small number of anchor tenants.

•Failure of any major tenant to perform under its lease could result in material financial losses.

•Adverse macroeconomic conditions could impair our ability to raise capital or complete development phases.

•Influential political actors, shifting domestic policy priorities, and organized opposition by politically connected stakeholders could materially adversely affect our ability to develop, finance, and operate Project Matador.

•Risks related to the volatility of our common stock, and provisions in our Charter and Bylaws.

•A significant portion of our total outstanding shares of common stock were restricted from immediate resale but may be sold into the market in the near future. The sale of such shares could cause the market price of our common stock to drop significantly.

Table of Contents

Risk Factors

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

We are a development-stage company with no operating history or historical revenue, and we face execution risk across all major components of our business.

Table of Contents

We are dependent on third-party manufacturing and supply chain relationships to develop and lease our facilities. Our reliance on third parties and suppliers involves certain risks that may result in increased costs, delays, and loss of revenue.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

The AI and hyperscaler market may not adopt our private infrastructure platform at the speed or scale we anticipate.

Technological advances or disruptive innovations, specifically advancements in AI, may outpace our development cycle, and we are exposed to technology obsolescence across all major asset classes.

Table of Contents

cooling, zero-carbon dispatchable power, or quantum compute platforms, could make some or all of our infrastructure obsolete or noncompetitive.

We may not achieve tenant adoption at the pace or pricing levels required for financial viability.

We may not enter into a definitive lease with the First Tenant or any other tenant.

We depend on third-party vendors, contractors, and consultants to support our business.

Table of Contents

Terrorist attacks, cyberattacks and threats may compromise the integrity of our hybrid grid systems and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Risks Related to Project Matador

Project Matador is an unprecedented, large-scale, multi-phase development effort that presents significant planning, execution, and coordination risks.

Our ability to develop and retain site control depends on maintaining our leasehold interest with the Texas Tech University System.

We may face significant construction delays and global supply chain disruptions that could materially impact project timelines and costs.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

In addition, site access or operation could be affected by new environmental protections or public opposition.

Any failure of our physical infrastructure, or acts of theft or vandalism to our physical infrastructure, could lead to significant costs and disruptions that could reduce our revenue and harm our business reputation and financial results.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Construction risk is amplified by the multi-vertical, high-voltage, high-capacity nature of the Project Matador Site.

We may not maintain eligibility for the full amount of tax abatements granted to us by Carson County.

Risks Related to Our Regulatory Environment and Energy Generation

Nuclear energy development is subject to extensive regulation and uncertainty, which could materially delay or impair our business.

Table of Contents

Failure to secure timely approvals, maintain regulatory compliance, or meet critical milestones may delay or prevent the commencement of construction and the operation of our nuclear units.

Table of Contents

Changes in regulatory guidance, inspection regimes, or political oversight of nuclear infrastructure could affect the scope, timing, or cost of reactor design, development, construction, interconnection to the grid (if applicable), and operation.

Table of Contents

We may not obtain timely or successful regulatory approvals for nuclear development, which would materially impair our business model.

We may not be able to obtain sufficient water resources for our operations, which could materially impair our operations or impact our ability to expand our operations.

Connecting Project Matador with Tier 1 data center markets will require amplification and may introduce other risks associated with long-distance fiber connections.

Table of Contents

Our costs to comply with federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations—both existing and new—may be material.

Changes in laws and regulations can occur and these changes can be difficult to predict. New laws or regulations, or more stringent enforcement of existing laws or regulations, could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we cannot obtain required permits, licenses and regulatory clearance or approvals for Project Matador or our operations, or are unable to maintain such permits, licenses or approvals, we may not be able to continue or expand our operations.

Table of Contents

We are subject to laws and regulations governing the use, transportation, and disposal of toxic, hazardous and/or radioactive materials. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could result in substantial fines and/or enforcement actions.

Nuclear project execution depends on specialized vendors, whose failure or delay could materially impact our business.

We face significant risk associated with interconnecting and operating private energy infrastructure at scale.

Table of Contents

We will be subject to execution risks with respect to our natural gas, solar and BESS power sources.

We are subject to complex, evolving, and potentially burdensome regulatory requirements.

Table of Contents

Changes in laws or regulations, or shifts in political or public sentiment against nuclear, AI, or energy development, could materially increase compliance burdens or limit our ability to operate.

We are subject to federal environmental review processes, including NEPA, that may materially delay or restrict project development.

Table of Contents

Influential political actors, shifting domestic policy priorities, and organized opposition by politically connected stakeholders could materially adversely affect our ability to develop, finance, and operate Project Matador.

Table of Contents