FT : Essar strikes deal to buy 118 UK petrol stations Purchase by owner of Stanl

Essar strikes deal to buy 118 UK petrol stations
Purchase by owner of Stanlow refinery comes as BP and Shell retreat from forecourts globally

Essar Group has agreed to buy one of the UK’s largest independent petrol station owners, expanding its forecourt network as Britain’s oil majors move to divest their retail operations.

The Indian conglomerate said on Monday it would buy SGN Retail, which owns 118 forecourts, in a deal that allows Essar to double the size of its petrol station network.

The purchase comes as Essar pushes to expand its network to 800 forecourts by 2031. The sites would be supplied by its own refinery at Stanlow, the UK’s second largest by output, which Essar believes will allow it to offer more “competitive prices at the pump”, said Arvan Ruia, chief executive of EET Retail, Essar’s fuel retail division.

“SGN Retail is one of the highest-quality forecourt networks in the UK — sites averaging the size of three tennis courts, well ahead of the market,” said Ruia.

Essar declined to comment on the valuation of SGN. Recent deals have valued forecourts at about £3.5mn per site, according to sector executives, suggesting a valuation in the region of £400mn for SGN’s sites.

Globally, oil companies such as BP and Shell have been retreating from petrol stations, under pressure from investors who argue that it makes more sense for them to be operated by retail specialists. ExxonMobil and Chevron, by contrast, franchise out their brands with locked-in supply deals for the fuel.

Despite the rise of electric vehicles, Essar said that it saw a strong rationale for expanding into petrol stations because of a combination of population growth, the rise of multi-car households and the declining number of forecourts in the UK overall.

There are about 8,300 forecourts in the UK, with the Esso brand, owned by Exxon, having the largest presence. The largest independent petrol station operator is Motor Fuel Group with more than 1,200 forecourts.

Essar said its plan to reach 800 petrol stations by 2031 would give it about 9 per cent of the UK market.

The group, which was founded by the Indian billionaire brothers Shashi and Ravi Ruia in 1969, bought the Stanlow refinery from Shell in 2011. Stanlow produces about 270,000 barrels per day.

Essar has said it plans to invest $2.4bn in Stanlow to make it into a “low-carbon energy hub” including carbon capture, hydrogen and sustainable aviation fuel production.

Having its own petrol station network would also allow the company to increase sales of renewable fuels in the future, it said.

The Information : Anthropic Strikes $13.7 Billion Compute Deal With Trump-Linked

Anthropic Strikes $13.7 Billion Compute Deal With Trump-Linked Rum Group

The Takeaway
  • Anthropic signs $13.7 billion, six-year compute deal with Rum Group.
  • Rum Group, with Trump ties, will build a Georgia data center.
  • Anthropic gains option to buy 51 million Rum Group shares for 1 cent.

Anthropic has signed a computing deal worth $13.7 billion over six years with Rum Group, a company with roots in social media and long-standing ties to the Trump administration, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The deal is the latest in a spate of cloud computing agreements Anthropic struck in the past year, with major cloud providers like Google, tech companies such as SpaceX and smaller neoclouds such as Nscale, amid skyrocketing demand for its Claude Code and Cowork products. The agreements total at least 14.8 gigawatts of compute capacity, costing as much as $517 billion over the next decade. The deal with Rum would add to that total.

Rum Group, formerly known as Rumble, had disclosed a major contract worth $13.7 billion in an August securities filing but did not name the customer.

Rum operates the Rumble video-sharing platform that’s popular among conservatives and hosts President Donald Trump’s Truth Social. Its early investors include Peter Thiel and J.D. Vance. In June it added an AI cloud business through the all-stock acquisition of German neocloud Northern Data valued at roughly $767 million. Rumble renamed itself as Rum Group after completing the acquisition.

The Northern Data acquisition gave Rum 22,000 Hopper-generation Nvidia GPUs, most of which are being rented out to customers in Europe and the U.S., as well as a data center site under development in Georgia.

Much relating to the Rum-Anthropic deal is uncertain. Anthropic would lease compute capacity at a Maysville, Georgia, data center, which is still being built. The facility has an elusive resource that’s currently in short supply: access to 120 megawatts of grid power, with potential to expand that to 180 MW. Northern Data had said last year that the site would be operational late this year, but it’s unclear whether that is still the timeline.

The project could cost more than $10 billion to build and outfit with expensive server chips, based on previous The Information reporting that it could cost $60 billion to build and power one gigawatt of AI data center capacity. Rum Group has not publicly said how much the Georgia data center will cost to complete.

Rum said in its August filing that it did not have financing to fund the construction of the data center facility or purchases of GPUs and other equipment needed to satisfy its new contract at the time, and that it expected to fund a substantial portion of the spending through additional debt or equity financing. Rum Group is planning to borrow money to finance the Georgia project, according to the person familiar with the situation.

Rum Group CEO Chris Pavlovski told The Information in June that the company was exploring a variety of options, preferably debt, to finance additional AI server chip purchases. At the time, he said discussions potentially included bringing in outside companies to provide credit support, meaning guarantees or other commitments to make the debt more attractive to investors.

As outlined in last month’s securities filing, Rum’s customer—Anthropic—is getting an option to buy as many as ‌51 ⁠million shares of Rum Group stock for just one cent each, according to the person familiar with the matter. Rum Group stock closed on Friday at $7.17. The company has 400 million shares outstanding, giving it a market capitalization currently of $2.8 billion.

Anthropic’s ability to exercise the options is tied to how much computing capacity it buys from Rum. Half is tied to the Maysville facility. Anthropic can exercise the other half of the options if it buys extra computing power of around 400-500 megawatts at an additional site Rum is developing, the person said.

As of June, Rum Group was looking to buy $270 million worth of Nvidia’s Blackwell 300 chips—the most advanced chips available in large quantities at the time—to fulfill a customer contract with Together AI, The Information previously reported.

Rumble was founded in 2013 as a YouTube alternative for smaller content creators, and gained traction among conservatives after the 2020 U.S. presidential election. In addition to hosting Trump’s Truth Social, Rumble carries official White House livestreams.

In May 2021, Rumble raised $25 million from investors including Peter Thiel and J.D. Vance in a funding round that valued Rumble at $500 million.

FT : Euronext open to ‘big bang’ deal with rival Deutsche Börse Chief executive

Euronext open to ‘big bang’ deal with rival Deutsche Börse
Chief executive Stéphane Boujnah’s comments come as EU officials seek ways to make the bloc’s capital markets more competitive

Euronext is open to a merger with its biggest rival Deutsche Börse or a tie-up between the groups’ stock exchange businesses, in a long-discussed combination that could create a European market of “planetary scale”, its chief executive told the FT. 

Bringing together Europe’s largest operator of stock exchanges with its German rival could boost liquidity and help make the region’s markets more competitive at a time when EU officials are seeking to reform the bloc’s capital markets, including by centralising oversight of key entities.

Stéphane Boujnah did not rule out the possibility of a full-blown merger between the two companies, but he cautioned that it would have to clear significant regulatory hurdles.

“One deal that would make sense is the merging of the exchanges business,” Boujnah said in an interview, adding that there are currently no conversations between the two groups.

Euronext runs venues in eight countries including Paris, Amsterdam and Milan, as well as post-trade, clearing and energy businesses and has a market capitalisation of €16bn. Deutsche Börse runs the Frankfurt stock exchange, as well as Eurex, one of the world’s biggest derivatives venues, alongside post-trade businesses, and is valued at about €50bn. 

“The German equity market is shallow, the Euronext equity market is deep,” said Boujnah. “So there will be plenty of synergies in making equity markets closer so that we could have a single equity market addressing the needs of the GDP of the three largest economies of Europe,” he added, mentioning Germany, France and Italy.

The idea of bringing the two exchange groups together has been talked about for decades. Deutsche Börse withdrew a bid for Euronext in 2006 and an attempted merger was blocked by the European Commission on competition grounds in 2012. In 2023, the heads of both companies discussed creating a joint venture for European listings, in an attempt to compete more fiercely with the US.

“On the big bang deal, the antitrust issues are well known . . . but on paper it is interesting for Europe to consider the creation of a pan-European market infrastructure which has a planetary scale,” Boujnah said.

The EU is currently changing its approach to antitrust, hinting at a greater willingness to allow European companies to strike deals to be able to compete with global rivals. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has also called for a single European stock exchange. 

Boujnah said any tie-up would have to make economic sense for shareholders rather than be directed by politicians.

“Any merger discussion that starts top down by some cooking of politicians is doomed to end up like the SCAF,” he cautioned, referring to the French acronym for the abandoned Franco-German jet project.

But the company was open to talks, he said, “the purpose of which is to build something that gets scale. And that creates value for my shareholders.”

Deutsche Börse said: “There are no conversations between us and Euronext on a possible merger,” adding that the company “anchors its businesses across all European financial centres. For more than two decades we have been building the blueprint for a strong European capital market ecosystem.”

Germany and France are negotiating reform of the EU’s markets supervision that would seek to move oversight of the largest financial entities to the Paris-based European Securities and Markets Authority.

Berlin is seeking a carve-out for Deutsche Börse. A merger with another stock exchange could mean that Esma would get supervision of the enlarged entity, under a compromise agreed with Italy, Spain, Poland and the Netherlands, as well as France.

This compromise is under negotiation and would need the support of at least nine other EU countries.

The Information : Inside the AI Industry’s Behind-the-Scenes Push to Police Itse

Inside the AI Industry’s Behind-the-Scenes Push to Police Itself

The Takeaway
  • Leading AI labs have been meeting to discuss an industry standards body.
  • Top AI CEOs back industry-led self-regulation for AI development.
  • Trump administration’s draft executive order for AI self-regulator stalled.

Anthropic, OpenAI and Google have been holding discussions about working together to create a standards body for the AI industry, people familiar with the matter said, even before Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called on Saturday for AI companies to coordinate on testing and auditing the technology.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, for his part, told staff at a companywide town hall meeting earlier this week that he supported a testing and auditing organization for the AI industry but believed that major AI labs would have to create a standards body on their own without the support of the U.S. government, a person familiar with the comments said.

That kind of industry self-regulation was part of a broader proposal Amodei published on Saturday to slow AI development and establish independent oversight amid mounting risks posed by increasingly powerful AI. Amodei said companies could move ahead with voluntary safety standards while the government hammers out AI regulation, with the government potentially enabling or mediating industry discussions.

Amodei’s post on X quickly garnered endorsements from several other tech leaders including Altman, who wrote that slowing cutting-edge AI development had been a topic of discussion at his company in recent weeks. Demis Hassabis, who recently stepped down as CEO of Google DeepMind, said the proposal was overall a step in the right direction, though some details “need working through.” SpaceX CEO Elon Musk also endorsed Amodei’s plan.

The idea of a self-regulatory organization for AI has been part of the public conversation for several months. In July, Hassabis published an essay laying out a proposal for a self-regulatory body modeled after the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, which oversees U.S. broker-dealers and securities professionals.

But the extent to which companies had already started working together on setting industry standards has not been previously reported. Since July, a working group of representatives below the CEO level from Google, Anthropic and OpenAI have been regularly meeting about the proposal for a standards body, according to people familiar with the matter.

An executive order draft circulated in the White House that would have created such an organization, but the effort stalled in the late summer after failing to garner enough support within the Trump administration, The Information previously reported. Former White House AI czar David Sacks has been a vocal critic of creating a FINRA-like body for AI, arguing against involvement from the government. Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg also expressed his concerns about plans for a national AI regulator in an August phone call with President Donald Trump, Politico reported.

In the town hall this week, Altman said that while he had been optimistic the government would support a standards body, there was not yet enough industry consensus, and some companies opposed the idea, the person familiar with the comments said. He added that the best path forward would be to try to do something with the other labs. Altman told employees at the same town hall that OpenAI could also slow its pace of development, Bloomberg reported.

The working group meetings between Anthropic, OpenAI and Google about the industry-led standards body, which the people said are ongoing, signal appetite for action among the three labs beyond their executives’ high-profile public comments and proposals. The group met as recently as the past week, said one of the people.

It’s unclear where Meta stands on the issue. On Saturday, Alexandr Wang, the company’s chief AI officer, wrote on X that “alignment is fundamental to delivering personal superintelligence for everyone,” referring to the idea of AI systems’ behavior adhering to the intent of the directions provided to them, though he did not specify support or opposition to Amodei’s proposal.

Anthropic’s own employees drew fresh attention to concerns about the potential risks of increasingly powerful AI with posts that went viral on X in recent days. An Anthropic researcher said he was quitting the company because neither it nor OpenAI was “acting responsibly,” while a current Anthropic employee said the company genuinely believes AI could pose an existential threat to humanity.

On Saturday, Amodei proposed that each leading AI company should give outside evaluators such as Model Evaluation and Threat Research the same access to their technology that employees receive, and he said that Anthropic was committing to the step. He also called on the government to enable AI companies to coordinate on safety without running afoul of antitrust laws, saying the government should issue a “narrow waiver” for certain conversations.

Sacks said on X that AI companies should go ahead with the safety efforts and didn’t need an antitrust exemption to coordinate. But he questioned whether slowing development was “purely altruistic,” noting that product liability risks already provided a financial incentive to prevent AI from causing harm.

Some in the AI industry were more critical of Amodei’s plan. Cohere CEO Aidan Gomez raised concerns in a post on X about the largest AI companies coordinating on rules that could constrain smaller rivals, writing, “Great ideas here from the cartel.”

FT : Donald Trump rejects calls from tech bosses for an AI slowdown President de

Donald Trump rejects calls from tech bosses for an AI slowdown
President denounces demands for regulation as existential fears over technology move to the centre of US politics

Donald Trump has rejected calls for an AI slowdown after tech bosses and Democrats urged tighter regulation of the industry over rising fears that the technology poses an existential threat.

The heads of some of the leading US AI groups — Dario Amodei of Anthropic, Sam Altman of OpenAI and SpaceX’s Elon Musk — this weekend called for a more cautious pace of development following dramatic safety warnings over rapidly advancing model capabilities.

But the president said on Sunday that while some “guardrails” were possible, it was imperative for the US to retain its international leadership in the area.

“Look, we’re leading China in AI . . . and, frankly, I want to keep it that way, because whoever wins AI, wins,” Trump told reporters during a trip to his Doonbeg golf course in Ireland. 

“We can put guardrails, we can do this and that, but I think you have a lot of negative forces that are bringing it up that shouldn’t be bringing it up and they’re bringing up things that won’t happen,” he added.

Safety concerns surrounding the rapid pace of AI advances were thrown into the spotlight over the past week after Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon resigned with a warning that “the people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.”

Anthropic chief Amodei responded in an essay on Saturday that the industry “must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models” and called for the monitoring of frontier companies by third-party evaluators, the establishment of industry safety standards and global co-ordination of rules. 

Altman and Musk voiced support for the proposals. 

But the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers pushed back, arguing that the companies can take steps to slow their advance without the need for drastic measures that would hand a competitive edge to China. 

The president’s former AI tsar David Sacks said on Saturday night that the companies should “stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission”.

“Go ahead and pace the frontier. You are the ones setting it,” Sacks wrote on X.

“The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it. Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that will look like blackmail of the public and the political system.”

Mike Johnson, Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, urged people not to “panic” as he echoed Trump’s concerns about China and called for a meeting between tech bosses and lawmakers at the White House. 

“We cannot put a moratorium on this, because China will overlap us, and that’s the challenge. It’s national security, balanced with the immediate security of making sure the models are safe,” Johnson told CNN’s State of the Union. 

Democrats lashed out at the Republican response and demanded rapid steps towards industry regulation. Arizona senator Ruben Gallego accused both Johnson and Trump of “not meeting the moment” on the threat posed by AI.

“We can’t just use this idea that if we do this we’re somehow going to lose to China, because AI does not care, once it becomes fully dangerous, whether we’re Chinese or American,” he said.

Hakeem Jeffries, House minority leader and Johnson’s Democratic counterpart, told ABC This Week that Republicans had “abandoned their responsibility” and called for Congress to “take decisive action now”.

Coxon, the former Anthropic researcher, on Sunday welcomed Amodei’s proposal as a “substantial step” towards slowing the unchecked advancement of frontier AI but said there was a need for “more engagement with China”.

“The concept of building a superintelligence . . . it’s been likened to summoning an alien species,” he told ABC. “So I think thinking about it in terms of an alien mind that we don’t fully understand is — is pretty terrifying.”

NY Post : A new book reveals just how buddy-buddy billionaire Leon Black was wit

A new book reveals just how buddy-buddy billionaire Leon Black was with creep Jeffrey Epstein

To the Greeks, Apollo was a god of many things, not least among them prophecy. What better name, then, for a Wall Street firm free to invest in nearly anything based on what it sees ahead?

Apollo Global Management became immensely successful thanks in large part to its brilliant and driven founder, Leon Black. But somewhere along the line, foresight failed him and, blind to what should have been obvious even to lesser mortals, he became the protagonist of a modern Greek tragedy.

In “Money to Burn” (Portfolio Books) the writer and former investment banker William D. Cohan tackles this epic tale.

To explain the rise and fall of Leon, the author first tells the story of how the firm Drexel Burnham Lambert rose to preeminence, and then how its ingenious alumni and innovations colonized the financial system after its bankruptcy in 1990. Drexel’s collapse came after it pleaded guilty to securities violations; the firm’s renowned junk-bond king, Michael Milken, later did likewise.

The firm has had winners and losers over the years but overall has performed exceedingly well. Today it is a financial colossus that, among other things, annuitizes retirement savings to fund its lending. Leon and his chief associates, Marc Rowan and Josh Harris, whom he generously made partners, became billionaires.

If “Money to Burn” is a success story, it is also a story about the hazards of new fortunes, which include massive public failure and the fear of betrayal even by lovers and close associates. Leon’s father, Eli, was a tycoon in his own right, but a disastrous merger (essentially, the acquisition of the Chiquita banana business) may have been the impetus, in 1975, for the overworked CEO of United Brands to leap from the 44th floor of what was then the Pan Am Building.

Leon was determined to redeem this catastrophe through success of such magnitude that his father’s failure would pale in comparison. Like his father, Leon too made disastrous acquisitions, but Leon’s worst were human, and the nastiest by far was a brilliant but creepy financial guru by the name of Jeffrey Epstein.

Jeffrey Epstein in a navy blue pullover with a red logo and an American flag patch, light blue jeans, and a black watch, standing in a hallway.

Leon was introduced to that notorious cultivator of men and abuser of women in 1996, and Epstein would come to serve on the board of Leon’s family foundation. Epstein did not have a great deal of formal schooling but seems to have been an able all-around fixer with a particular talent for the arcane tax issues that afflict the wealthy. Leon Black, as someone making hundreds of millions a year, had such problems, and evidently Epstein was able to help in ways that even well-known experts couldn’t. Epstein also advised on Black’s seemingly disorganized family office.

For these services, Epstein charged a lot, and “Money to Burn” quotes emails in which he portrays himself as a loyal but martyred friend from whom Leon withholds millions in well-deserved fees. “To help out,” Epstein wrote, “[I’m] keenly aware of your current cash position, so I will consider an in-kind payment — real estate (Miami), art, financing of my new plane (allows you to spread over years).”

Leon contended he didn’t really know how much he paid Epstein over the years. They worked largely on a handshake and even large sums were just rounding errors to a man of his wealth. But the Dechert law firm, hired to investigate, reported that the total was $158 million, a figure so high that some people wondered if the money was for something less innocuous than tax advice.

Epstein was a convicted sex offender, of course, who died in custody in 2019 awaiting trial on further such charges. His death was ruled a suicide. And Leon was, the author says, “the scion of ten generations of Orthodox rabbis.” Dechert found no evidence that Leon or Apollo was involved with Epstein’s criminal activities. But Cohan describes himself as “incredulous” that Leon “would have such a loosey-goosey fee arrangement with Epstein,” especially since Leon was “reputedly one of the world’s toughest negotiators.”

On Jan. 25, 2021, the day Dechert’s report came out, Leon announced a succession plan in which he would remain chairman while giving the CEO role to Rowan later in the year. But on March 17, Apollo’s tsar was publicly accused by former Russian model Guzel Ganieva of harassment, coercion and abuse. In a later lawsuit, the book says, she accused him of rape.

Days later, Leon resigned from Apollo altogether, even though he remained the largest shareholder in the firm that was his life’s work. Back in 2015 he had worn a wire to a series of meetings with Ganieva during which she demanded $100 million for her silence. The erstwhile lovers settled on $21 million spread over 15 years, and Leon had been paying. After Ganieva signed the nondisclosure agreement, according to the book, they both sighed, she laughed, and then she said: “You know I still love you very much.”

Ganieva and Black sued one another, to no particular avail, but their conflict helped wreck Black’s relationship with Harris, whom he accused of joining her in a conspiracy to “depose him and take over as CEO.” Harris, meanwhile, is quoted denying any conspiracy, saying: “It was just made up.”

The tale of a big shot’s downfall as a result of his own flaws is a classic tragedy. But there’s a second tragedy here: that the author allowed his prodigious excavations to undermine his judgement about what to include, resulting in a somewhat plodding work that is too long by a fifth or more. In a sense the book is a murder mystery, the mystery being: Who killed all the editors at his publishing house? How else, besides foul play, to explain this frustrating marriage of impressive research and shambolic narrative?

Yet for readers who can hack their way through — the main text is some 600 pages — there are considerable rewards. The transcribed exchanges between Black and Ganieva and the emails from Epstein make us witnesses to the greed that flourishes even on the periphery of Wall Street avarice. Such a story, moreover, is never just about money, since the protagonists don’t just quit after the first billion. The relentless work, the curiosity and the iron guts of Apollo’s principals, all of them already rich beyond imagining yet still driven, emerge vividly on these pages.

To his credit, and despite Apollo’s cooperation, Cohan unabashedly delves into the firm’s worst hours — such as its vampirish acquisition of Noranda Aluminum and its efforts to protect its investment in Caesar’s during the casino empire’s bankruptcy. “Apollo created a race to an ethical bottom on Wall Street,” one fund manager tells the author. “Beyond sleazy, and immediately copied by previously ethical firms.”

Cohan doesn’t directly address the larger question of whether firms like Apollo are socially beneficial or parasitic. At their worst, to be sure, they have bled their targets, burdened them with debt, and left employees, lenders and communities to suffer the consequences.

Yet private equity can also strengthen companies by unsentimentally cutting costs and improving management while delivering strong returns for institutional investors (including pension funds). Like vultures, they have their place in the financial ecosystem. Apollo even rescued Hostess, the maker of such beloved treats as Twinkies and Devil Dogs, from bankruptcy, booking big gains in the process. Who says Leon Black and company lacked a social conscience?

>>> MARHELM: SOURCES WITHIN SAUDI ARABIA ARE NOW TELLING US THAT THE DAMAGES TO

MARHELM: SOURCES WITHIN SAUDI ARABIA ARE NOW TELLING US THAT THE DAMAGES TO THE EAST-WEST PIPELINE WILL TAKE MORE THAN A MONTH TO REPAIR DUE TO A LACK OF SPARE PARTS AND DEEPLY IMPACTED SUPPLY CHAINS

- Minor damages to the pipe itself have already been repaired, but catastrophic damage to pumping infrastructure will unfortunately take longer to resolve
- Sources say that some points where repairs occurred were then hit again, depleting spares

The Information : Why Amazon and Microsoft Are Taking Communities’ Side Against

Why Amazon and Microsoft Are Taking Communities’ Side Against Utilities

Amazon, Microsoft, Oracle and other AI data center developers are sweetening financial offers to municipalities and regulators to gain approval for new facilities. They’re also getting smarter about standing up for consumers against utilities that have proposed to make the public pay for some of the cost of handling new electricity loads.

The tech giants still face years of local fights as activists ignore the money offered and ramp up their objections, but the companies are offering more tangible benefits instead of just refining their messages in information wars.

Plus, as Oracle’s earnings showed last week, cloud providers and other buyers of Nvidia servers can afford to make richer offers because the servers’ value keeps rising and cloud providers can now extract significant prepayments from AI developers that want to rent them.

The Frederick Digital Campus in Frederick County, Md., which is set to consume as much as 2 gigawatts of power, is a prime example of how data center developers are granting more concessions to locals.

Two weeks ago, the site’s developer, which private equity giant TPG owns, announced what it says is the largest proposed community benefits agreement between a data center and a host community in the U.S. The $110 million deal includes $30 million for an elementary school, $40 million for recreation facilities, $14.5 million for a workforce training center and $10.5 million for agricultural preservation. That’s on top of $215 million in annual property taxes it would pay once the campus is fully built, a more than 40% boost to the county’s tax base.

Beyond the money, the developer agreed to reduce building square footage almost 20% from the original plan and reduce potable water consumption 80% by spending another $75 million to $100 million to build a water reclamation system.

Frederick County is still reviewing the benefits agreement, and some opponents are vowing this fall to vote out the Democratic county executive, Jessica Fitzwater, who negotiated it. She’s in the line of fire even though she did not take office until after the county approved the Frederick project in 2021 and she vowed not to support further data centers after this one. She is also lobbying state lawmakers to increase taxes on data centers and says she secured a promise from Catellus, the developer of the site, to support this.

The Frederick site, where an aluminum smelter once stood under thick veins of power lines, is well positioned to capture overflow from Northern Virginia’s Data Center Alley. A key attraction is its recently finished 41-mile, high-capacity fiber loop going under the Potomac River and connecting to the heart of Virginia’s Loudoun County. But sentiment soured in 2024 after a series of environmental violations by a prior developer. TPG removed that developer and installed a new one, Catellus Real Estate Development, that says it has conducted “hundreds” of meetings with community members.

Meanwhile, Amazon and Aligned Data Centers, backed by BlackRock and Microsoft, are both waiting to move into the Frederick campus, which is under construction.

“This project has turned a once-dormant, vacant, brownfield site into the workhorse employment engine of this county,” Michael Kuykendall, executive vice president at Catellus, told me. “We’re really proud of this agreement. It shows we’ve listened to the community.”

The proposed deal reflects a rapidly emerging consensus by both tech companies and host governments to eliminate giveaways to developers and to accelerate benefits to towns in the vicinity of the facilities.

On Wednesday, Amazon Web Services went before a county planning commission in Pennsylvania to say it “does not anticipate seeking any economic incentives” that would reduce its fully assessed property taxes on a massive, 36-building data center complex it intends to build in Homer City. It’s still negotiating a community benefits agreement, but that could be significant, too: The Homer City energy and data park will total 4.5 GW, one of the largest projects in the U.S., and Amazon will be its lead tenant.

Effective Altruism?

Some of the savvier moves I’ve seen lately from tech companies involve them taking the side of consumers in power rate battles.

Microsoft, for instance, recently challenged American Transmission Co. and We Energies’ proposal about how they would charge for new power lines and substations for Microsoft’s Wisconsin data center. Microsoft said the plan lacked airtight mechanisms to keep retail customers from getting stuck with the bill if conditions changed and the company didn’t use it.

Microsoft told the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which regulates interstate transmission, that the proposed rates “may not be just and reasonable” for ordinary households. The company said the deal could run afoul of its commitment to President Donald Trump’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge requiring that it pay its fair share.

Tom Content, head of the watchdog group Citizens Utility Board of Wisconsin, said he was glad for the assist. In this case, “the giant customer and the small customer are aligned” in wanting more clarity about how transmission costs are allocated and whether they are accurate.

In another example from the summer, Google and Amazon successfully argued to Virginia regulators that they should self-fund high-voltage transmission upgrades in the state rather than let Dominion Energy slip those expenses into all customer bills with a markup. Former Biden Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm celebrated the move.

The Next Fight

To be sure, offering more money and committing to paying for grid upgrades may not be enough to win over some communities.

One of the next topics tech firms will need to tackle could be forever chemicals. Rising demand for coolants, water treatments and fire suppressants for data centers, as well as coatings for semiconductors, is starting to raise environmentalists’ hackles about the use of hazardous chemicals in such infrastructure, according to Heatmap. It’s a complex subject that opponents of data centers, including Earthjustice, are preparing to use in their fight against the industry.

Even if the industry is already following regulations that apply to these chemicals, in today’s charged climate, they will still face questions for using them.

The Information : Nvidia’s Growing Dependence On a Few Big Customers

Nvidia’s Growing Dependence On a Few Big Customers

The Takeaway
  • Three customers accounted for 44% of Nvidia’s sales in H1 FY2025.
  • Top cloud firms drive 50%+ of data center revenue, but develop own chips.
  • Nvidia extends payment terms for large customers, 70% of receivables from five.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has very good reason to try to develop new customers by investing in a variety of neocloud and AI firms. For all its success, Nvidia’s sales have become increasingly dependent on a handful of customers—some of which may cut back their purchases over time.

That becomes clear when you look at its own disclosures going back several years, which specify how many customers account for more than 10% of sales. In the first half of this fiscal year, ending in July, three such customers were responsible for 44% of total sales. Last fiscal year, two customers accounted for 36% of total sales. Going back to fiscal 2023, Nvidia had no customers accounting for 10% or more of sales (see the chart below).

Nvidia’s reliance on a handful of big customers has increased as its business has taken off. Since fiscal 2023, its data center business—where it records sales of the AI chips going into data centers—has ballooned to $193.7 billion last year from just $15 billion. That number is on track to double this year.

The issue has weighed on the minds of investors, such as Michael Burry, famed for his role in predicting the 2008 mortgage crisis, who in recent months has cited Nvidia’s increased customer concentration as a major risk.


To be sure, analyzing Nvidia’s customer concentration is complicated. The three biggest customers it cites in its most recent filing likely include either Dell or Hon Hai Technology, also known as Foxconn, both of which sell servers incorporating its chips to a range of other companies. Dell, for instance, recently reported that revenue from selling “AI-optimized servers” doubled in the second quarter to $16.4 billion, helping drive overall revenue growth of 58%.

Hon Hai reported 35% higher first-half revenue, also driven by surging AI equipment sales.

But Nvidia is heavily exposed to some cloud firms. In February, its chief financial officer, Colette Kress, said the five biggest cloud firms “and hyperscalers”—a phrasing that likely includes Meta Platforms and SpaceX—collectively accounted for more than 50% of data center revenues.

It’s unclear how many of those are in the top three, although the trio could include SpaceX, Meta or Microsoft, all of which have been investing heavily in new AI data centers stocked with Nvidia chips. Both Google and Amazon are major buyers of Nvidia chips for the same reason, but they’re also heavy users of AI chips they’ve designed themselves. That means they’re less likely to be among Nvidia’s biggest customers.

Microsoft, Meta and SpaceX are also developing their own chips, which means they could eventually reduce their purchases of Nvidia chips. That trend helps explain why Nvidia has been so focused on seeding new customers by investing in buyers of its chips, such as neoclouds like CoreWeave and Nebius.

Some of its efforts are aimed overseas. On Wednesday, for instance, Nvidia added several Australian companies to a program it calls AI Factory, under which it supplies chips and networking gear to companies building and running data centers. Nvidia promoted a similar build-out in India and Armenia this year, part of its push to seed more sovereign and neocloud customers beyond its biggest U.S. buyers.

Payment Due

Despite Nvidia’s efforts to diversify its business, the risk of overconcentration may be increasing. Nvidia disclosed in July that 70% of its accounts receivable balance—money owed for products due to be delivered—came from five customers. In contrast, three customers accounted for 56% of the accounts receivable balance in January, compared with two customers responsible for 33% of it at the end of fiscal 2025.

Notably, Dell reported recently that its accounts payable—money it owes suppliers—had jumped 48% in the first half of the year to $49.7 billion at the end of July. It likely owes much of that to Nvidia.


At the same time, the increase in Nvidia’s accounts receivable balance appears to represent, at least in part, the company giving customers more time to pay. Its accounts receivable balance jumped 64% in the first half of the year to $63 billion, “due to extended payment terms on large, multiquarter agreements with certain investment-grade customers,” Nvidia disclosed in late August.

Nvidia said it had extended payment terms to 60 days from 45 in the previous quarter. But in a securities filing at the same time, it said it may extend payment terms even longer.

“Payment from customers is generally due shortly after delivery of our products. In certain cases, for investment-grade customer purchases, we have and may in the future provide longer payment terms ranging from 90 days up to one year to assist customers with large data center builds depending on size,” the company said.

Extending payment terms holds a risk for Nvidia by reducing the amount of cash it generates in any one quarter. It also makes the chipmaker more dependent on the health of the customer who is getting extra time to pay.