Power REIT: Form 10-K for the period ended Dec 31, 2025

General

Power REIT (the “Registrant” or the “Trust”, and together with its consolidated subsidiaries or “Power REIT”, unless the context requires otherwise) is a Maryland-domiciled, internally-managed real estate investment trust (a “REIT”) that owns a portfolio of real estate assets related to transportation, energy infrastructure and Controlled Environment Agriculture (“CEA”) in the United States.

The Trust is structured as a holding company and owns its assets through nineteen direct and indirect wholly-owned, special purpose subsidiaries that have been formed in order to hold real estate assets, obtain financing and generate lease revenue. As of December 31, 2025, the Trust’s assets consisted of approximately 112 miles of railroad infrastructure and related real estate which is owned by its subsidiary, Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railroad (“P&WV”), approximately 447 acres of fee simple land leased to a utility scale solar power generating project with an aggregate generating capacity of approximately 82 Megawatts (“MW”) and approximately 82 acres of land with approximately 357,000 square feet of CEA properties in the form of greenhouses (the “Greenhouse Portfolio”).

Power REIT invested in greenhouses for state-licensed cannabis and food cultivation. Unfortunately, the market for both opportunities has been challenging and the Greenhouse Portfolio has performed poorly with significant vacancy. We are currently focused on monetizing the Greenhouse Portfolio, including focusing on selling and or re-leasing the vacant properties and increasing cash flow from the occupied properties.

As previously disclosed, a subsidiary of the Trust had a loan secured by most of the Greenhouse Portfolio (the “Greenhouse Loan”). The Greenhouse Loan was non-recourse to the Trust and in default and the lender had initiated litigation including foreclosure actions. Effective as of April 11, 2025, Power REIT resolved issues with its lender concerning the Greenhouse Loan by entering into a settlement agreement with the lender and, pursuant to the terms thereof, providing to the lender deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure for Greenhouse Portfolio properties in Michigan and Nebraska. In return, the lender released the remaining collateral secured by the Greenhouse Loan back to subsidiaries of Power REIT and released obligations related to the Greenhouse Loan. Power REIT will continue to seek to realize value from these retained assets by attempting to lease and/or sell the properties. The transaction related to the Greenhouse Loan resulted in the write-off on our balance sheet of the Nebraska and Michigan properties in the amount of approximately $16,904,000, which includes the write off of accrued property tax of approximately $179,000, along with the remaining balance of the Greenhouse Loan in the amount of approximately $17,997,000. The transaction also relieves us of the ongoing costs associated with maintaining the Nebraska and Michigan properties. As a result of settling the Greenhouse Loan obligations through deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure for the Nebraska and Michigan properties, the Trust recognized a non-cash gain of approximately $1,093,000.

We intend to continue to focus on maximizing the value of the remaining Greenhouse Portfolio properties. This will include entering into new leases and selling properties based on market conditions. The real estate market is in a state of transition and experiencing a wave of distressed properties due to factors including economic downturns, shifting property demand in a post-COVID environment, rising interest rates and mortgage defaults. We believe the current environment can create potential opportunities for Power REIT. We are focused on special opportunities in the form of investing in distressed situations including debt and other types of secured interests in real estate, distressed properties and real estate related companies. In addition, the Trust is exploring strategic alternatives that may not include real estate investments in an effort to increase shareholder value. As part of moving Power REIT forward, we are looking to selectively raise capital in the form of debt or equity to provide liquidity. However, the Trust cannot predict, with certainty, the outcome of these actions to generate liquidity.

Corporate Structure

Power REIT was formed as part of a reorganization and reverse triangular merger of P&WV that closed on December 2, 2011. P&WV survived the reorganization as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Registrant. Currently, the Trust is structured as a holding company and owns its assets through nineteen wholly-owned, special purpose subsidiaries that have been formed in order to hold real estate assets, obtain financing and generate lease revenue.

Properties

Below is a chart that summarizes our properties as of December 31, 2025:

1 Solar Farm Land size represents Megawatts and CEA property size represents greenhouse square feet

2 Gross Book Value for our Greenhouse Portfolio represents purchase price (excluding capitalized acquisition costs) plus improvements costs

3Property is vacant

4Tenant is not current on rent/in default

5An impairment/allowance for receivable has been taken against this asset

6Asset held for sale

7Loan is in default

2024 and 2025 Sale Transactions

On January 8, 2024, two wholly owned subsidiaries of Power REIT, PW CO CanRE Sherman 6 LLC and PW CO CanRE MF LLC (“PW MF”), sold two cannabis related greenhouse cultivation properties located in Ordway, Colorado to an affiliate of a tenant of one of the properties. The properties are described in prior filings as Sherman 6 (the tenant of which is affiliated with the tenant/purchaser) and Tamarack 14 which was vacant. The purchaser was an unaffiliated third party and the price was established based on an arm’s length negotiation. The sale price was $1,325,000. As part of the transaction, a subsidiary of the Trust provided seller financing in the amount of $1,250,000 with an initial 10% interest rate that increases over time to 15% until maturity. The seller financing had a three-year maturity with a fixed amortization schedule of $40,000 for the first and second months, $45,000 for the third month and $15,000 per month thereafter until maturity. On May 30, 2025, PW MF agreed to modify the terms of the note whereby payments are based on a 5-year amortization schedule at an 11% per annum interest rate and with monthly payments of $16,052 from May 1, 2025 to April 1, 2030 and a balloon payment for the balance due on May 1, 2030. The note is secured by a first mortgage on the properties and certain corporate and personal guarantees. The gain on sale recognized was approximately $213,000. The Trust has assessed that this is considered a loan modification.

On January 30, 2024, a wholly owned subsidiary of Power REIT, PW Salisbury Solar LLC, sold its interest in a ground lease related to a utility scale solar farm located in Salisbury, Massachusetts. for gross proceeds of $1.2 million. The purchaser was an unaffiliated third party and the price was established based on an arm’s length negotiation. As part of the transaction, the existing municipal financing) and the regional bank loan were paid off. The gain on sale recognized was approximately $181,000 and the net book value of land upon sale was approximately $1,006,000.

On December 26, 2024, a wholly owned subsidiary of Power REIT, PW CO CanRE JKL LLC, sold its interest in a cannabis related greenhouse cultivation property located in Ordway, Colorado. The property was described in prior filings as Sherman 21 and 22 and was vacant because the construction was incomplete. The purchaser was an unaffiliated third party and the price was established based on an arm’s length negotiation. The sale price was $80,000 and the proceeds were used to pay down the loan secured by the Greenhouse Portfolio and other accrued expenses related to the property. The loss on sale recognized was approximately $147,000.

On January 31, 2025, a wholly owned subsidiary of Power REIT, PW CO CanRE JAB LLC, sold one of its interests in a cannabis related greenhouse cultivation property located in Ordway, Colorado. The property was described in prior filings as Tam 18 and was vacant. The purchaser was an unaffiliated third party and the price was established based on an arm’s length negotiation. The sale price was $200,000 and the net proceeds were used to pay down the Greenhouse Loan and pay other accrued expenses related to the property. There was no gain or loss on sale recognized based on previous impairments.

As described above, the Greenhouse Loan was in default and the lender had initiated litigation including foreclosure actions. On April 11, 2025, Power REIT resolved issues with its lender concerning the Greenhouse Loan by providing deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure for Greenhouse Portfolio properties in Michigan and Nebraska. The transaction related to the Greenhouse Loan resulted in the write-off of the Nebraska and Michigan properties, along with the remaining balance of the Greenhouse Loan and other payables.

On June 9, 2025, a wholly owned subsidiary of Power REIT, PW CO CanRE MF LLC, sold a cannabis related greenhouse cultivation property located in Ordway, Colorado. The property was described in prior filings as Tam 13 and was vacant. The purchaser was an unaffiliated third party who had previously acquired two adjacent properties from subsidiaries of the Trust and the price was established based on an arm’s length negotiation. The sale price was $125,000 and the subsidiary of the Trust provided $105,000 of seller financing which amortizes over a 60-month period at an interest rate of 11% per annum. There was an approximately $8,000 loss on sale based on previous impairments taken.

The sale of the above referenced properties is a part of a strategic review as we continue to evaluate alternatives to enhance liquidity and improve our opportunities.

Business Strategy

Our primary objective is to maximize the long-term value for our shareholders. To that end, our business goals are to obtain the best possible rental income at our properties in order to maximize our cash flows, net operating income, funds from operations, funds available for distribution to shareholders and other operating measures and results, and ultimately to maximize the values of our properties.

To achieve this primary goal, we have developed a business strategy focused on increasing the values of our properties, and ultimately of the Trust, which includes:

• Raising capital by monetizing the embedded value in our portfolio to improve our liquidity position and, as appropriate reducing debt levels to strengthen our balance sheet;
• Selling off non-core properties and underperforming assets;
• Seeking to re-lease properties that are vacant or have non-performing tenants;
• Raising the overall level of quality of our portfolio and of individual properties in our portfolio;
• Improving the operating results of our properties; and
• Taking steps to position ourselves for future growth opportunities.

Improving Our Balance Sheet by Reducing Debt and Leverage; Improving Liquidity

Leverage

We continue to seek ways to reduce our debt and debt leverage by improving our operating performance and through a variety of other means available to us. These means might include leasing vacant properties, selling properties, raising capital or through other actions.

Capital Recycling

In the later part of 2022, we commenced property reviews to establish a plan for the portfolio and, where appropriate, have been disposing of and seeking to dispose of properties that we do not believe meet financial and strategic criteria given economic, market and other circumstances. Disposing of these properties can enable us to redeploy or recycle our capital to other uses, such as to repay debt, to reinvest in other real estate assets and development and redevelopment projects, and for other corporate purposes. Along these lines, in 2023 and 2024 we completed sales of assets for total gross proceeds of approximately $9.81 million which included approximately $2.1 million of seller financing provided to the buyers. During 2025, we completed sales of assets for total gross proceeds of approximately $325,000 which included approximately $105,000 of seller financing provided to a buyer. We also have several properties that we are marketing for sale and/or lease which have been classified as “Assets Held for Sale.”

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Our cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash totaled $2,235,306 as of December 31 2025, a decrease of $3,720 from December 31, 2024. During the year ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, cash used in operating activities was $68,316 and $1,393,709, respectively. The decrease in cash used is primarily due to a smaller net loss in 2025, as well as favorable changes in working capital, including a decrease in prepaid expense and a decrease in accrued expenses. This is partially offset by lower non-cash expenses, including depreciation, impairment expense/allowance for receivable and share-based compensation.

Our current loan liabilities totaled approximately $760,000 as of December 31, 2025. We are not current on payment of property taxes for the Greenhouse Portfolio. These taxes are included on our balance sheet as accrued expenses and liabilities held for sale for approximately $1,331,068. If the property taxes remain delinquent, the Greenhouse Portfolio will be subject to tax foreclosure actions starting in the first quarter of 2026.

On January 24, 2025, the Trust entered into a sales agreement (the “Sales Agreement”), with A.G.P./Alliance Global Partners (“AGP”) pursuant to which it may, from time to time, issue and sell its common shares in an “at the market offering,” however, AGP is not obligated to sell any common shares and there are limits on the dollar amount of common shares it can sell pursuant to the Sales Agreement. In addition, the Trust’s ability to raise capital through the sale of securities may be limited by the rules of the SEC and NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American”) that place limits on the number and dollar amount of securities that may be sold. There can be no assurances that the Trust will be able to raise the funds needed, especially in light of the fact that its ability to sell securities registered on its registration statement on Form S-3 will be limited until such time as the market value of the Trust’s voting securities held by non-affiliates is $75 million or more. As of December 31, 2025, 271,832 common shares have been sold pursuant to the Sales Agreement.

As previously disclosed, effective April 11, 2025, we entered into a settlement agreement with the lender under the Greenhouse Loan that resulted in the write-off of the Nebraska and Michigan properties, along with the remaining balance of the Greenhouse Loan. The transaction also relieved the ongoing costs associated with maintaining the Nebraska and Michigan properties.

During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, we generated approximately $239,000 of cash from debt service related to the seller financing provided in 2024 and we sold two properties, one of which included another seller finance agreement for $105,000, which amortized over a 60-month period at an interest rate of 11% per annum. The remaining seller financing agreements have a combined remaining balance of $981,035 as of December 31, 2025.

In 2024, the Trust sold four properties in an effort to help with liquidity. The proceeds from the sale of the Salisbury, MA property was approximately $662,000 of unrestricted cash and the approximately $504,000 of debt was eliminated from liabilities. We sold two Greenhouse Portfolio properties in a transaction that produced approximately $53,000 of restricted cash at closing and, during 2024, generated approximately $345,000 of restricted cash from the debt service related to the seller financing provided which had a remaining balance of $1,005,000 at December 31, 2024. We sold one Greenhouse Portfolio property in a transaction that produced approximately $51,000 of net proceeds used to service the Greenhouse Loan.

Our cash outlays at Power REIT (parent company) consist principally of professional fees, consultant fees, NYSE American listing fees, legal, insurance, shareholder service company fees, auditing costs and general and administrative expenses. Our cash outlays related to our various property-owning subsidiaries consist principally of principal and interest expense on debts, property maintenance, property taxes, insurance, legal as well as other property related expenses that are not covered by tenants. To the extent we need to raise additional capital to meet our obligations, there can be no assurance that financing on favorable terms will be available when needed. Although we entered into the Sales Agreement, the rules of the SEC and NYSE American place limits on the number and dollar amount of securities that may be sold.

Our plan to improve liquidity is to focus maximizing realized value from the Greenhouse Portfolio by selling properties, entering into new leases and improving cash collections from existing tenants as well as raising capital in the form of debt or equity in order to generate liquidity, however, the Trust cannot predict, with certainty, the extent to which such activities will succeed.

Improving Our Portfolio

We are currently seeking to refine our property holdings by selling Greenhouse Portfolio properties and/or re-leasing them in an effort to improve the overall performance of our portfolio going forward. We will continue to seek to realize value from our retained assets subsequent to our settlement with the lender of the Greenhouse Loan, resulting in the write-off of the Nebraska and Michigan properties, along with the remaining balance of the Greenhouse Loan, and are exploring a shift in focus including real estate related situations including properties, loans and companies as well as other opportunities.

Taking Steps to Position the Trust for Future Growth Opportunities

We are taking steps designed to position ourselves to create shareholder value. In connection therewith, we have implemented processes designed to ensure strong internal discipline in the use, harvesting and recycling of our capital, and these processes will be applied in connection with seeking to reposition properties.

We may seek to acquire, in an opportunistic, selective and disciplined manner, properties that have operating metrics that are better than or equal to our existing portfolio averages, and that we believe have strong potential for increased cash flows and appreciation in value. Taking advantage of any acquisition opportunities would likely involve some use of debt or equity capital. We will pursue transactions that we expect can meet the financial and strategic criteria we apply, given economic, market and other circumstances. In addition, we are exploring the potential to use our existing corporate structure for strategic transactions including potentially merging assets or companies with us. The Trust is also exploring strategic alternatives that may or may not include real estate investments in an effort to increase shareholder value.

Overview of Financial Results for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024

Growth and Investment Strategies – Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA)

In 2019, we expanded the focus of our real estate acquisitions to include CEA properties in the United States. CEA is an innovative method of growing plants that involves creating optimized growing environments for a given crop indoors. Power REIT is focused on CEA that utilizes greenhouses which use dramatically less energy than indoor growing, 95% less water than outdoor growing, and allows operators to control and reduce agricultural runoff of fertilizers or pesticides. We believe greenhouse cultivation represents a sustainable solution from both a business and environmental perspective. Most of our Greenhouse Portfolio properties are operated for the cultivation of cannabis by state-licensed operators. Unfortunately, the market for cannabis compressed dramatically during 2023 and 2024. This has had a dramatic negative effect on our CEA portfolio with most properties vacant or occupied by tenants that are in default. During 2022 we acquired a greenhouse focused on the cultivation of tomatoes. Unfortunately, the tenant was unable to meet its financial obligations and has since vacated the property.

Regulated Cannabis Industry - Market Opportunity

Cannabis Overview

We believe that a convergence of changing public attitudes and increased legalization momentum in various states toward regulated cannabis, and medical-use cannabis in particular, has generated interest investment in regulated cannabis related opportunities. The cannabis industry is still emerging and has suffered significant business fluctuations over the past couple of years.

In the United States, the development and growth of the regulated cannabis industry has generally been driven by state law and regulation. Accordingly, market conditions vary on a state-by-state basis. State laws that legalize and regulate medical-use cannabis allow patients to consume cannabis for medicinal reasons with a designated healthcare provider’s recommendation, subject to various requirements and limitations. States have authorized numerous medical conditions as qualifying conditions for treatment with medical-use cannabis, which vary significantly from state to state and may include, among others, treatment for cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDs, wasting syndrome, pain, nausea, seizures, muscle spasms, multiple sclerosis, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), migraines, arthritis, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, lupus, residual limb pain, spinal cord injuries, inflammatory bowel disease and terminal illness. As of December 31, 2025, 40 states, the District of Columbia, and three of five U.S. territories have passed laws allowing their citizens to use medical cannabis.

Cannabis Industry Trends

The cannabis industry continues to evolve and mature and over the past few years has experienced significant business challenges

Shifting Public Attitudes and State Law

The changing public attitudes surrounding cannabis has been a catalyst for the growth of the United State regulated cannabis industry. According to a 2021 poll conducted by Pew Research Center, 91% of U.S. adults say that marijuana should be legal, while only 9% say that it should not. Additionally, regardless of political affiliation, the majority of participants indicate they are in favor of legalization.

As legalization is currently on a state-by-state basis, expansion of the cannabis industry is impacted by the regulatory processes of each state. States may restrict the number of cannabis licenses (cultivation, distribution, rental processing) permitted; impose significant taxes on cannabis products; and even limit the medical conditions that are eligible for cannabis treatment. As such, it is difficult to predict economic potential and trajectory of new markets. Accordingly, it is important to evaluate each State regulatory structure as part of evaluating investment opportunities.

Cannabis Industry Access to Capital

Currently, the illegal status of cannabis under federal law limits the ability of industry participants to fully access the U.S. banking system, public capital markets and other traditional sources of financing. The banking industry’s reluctance to finance cannabis operations may provide opportunities to deploy capital at attractive risk adjusted terms through the ownership of the real estate.

Investment Opportunity

Within the broader cannabis related investment opportunity, our investment thesis was that the ownership of real estate should have the potential to provide an attractive risk adjusted investment area of focus. Our investment thesis focused on CEA cultivation assets in the form of greenhouses that should provide a competitive advantage within the industry. Currently, most of the cannabis cultivation, nationally, occurs in industrial, warehouse-style facilities. This cultivation method is resource and energy intensive compared to greenhouse cultivation which should use dramatically less energy when compared to industrial facilities. As the cannabis industry continues to expand and prices compress, we believe that industrial, warehouse-style cultivation of cannabis may not be economically competitive. We believe that ultimately, greenhouse cultivation facilities should have the potential to become high-quality, low-cost producers of cannabis in their respective states.

During 2024 and 2025, the cannabis industry faced significant headwinds that had a dramatic impact on cultivation focused companies such as our tenants. The wholesale prices in most markets compressed dramatically and in many cases were below the cost of cultivation and many cultivation companies have shut down. The significant price compression in the wholesale cannabis market led to significant tenant defaults and vacancies as all of our cannabis related tenants experienced significant financial challenges.

Competition

The current market for properties that meet our investment objectives is limited. We are also in a capital constrained position with a high relative cost of capital. In particular, larger companies may enjoy significant competitive advantages that result from, among other things, a lower cost of capital and enhanced operating efficiencies.

We face significant competition from a diverse mix of market participants, including but not limited to, other companies with similar business models, independent investors, hedge funds and other real estate investors, hard money lenders, cannabis and greenhouse operators themselves, all of whom may compete with us. In particular, we face competition from established companies in this industry, as well as local real estate investors, particularly for smaller retail assets.

Government Regulation

Real Estate Industry Regulation

Generally, the ownership and operation of real properties are subject to various laws, ordinances and regulations, including regulations relating to zoning, land use, water rights, wastewater, storm water runoff and lien sale rights and procedures. These laws, ordinances or regulations, such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Compensation Liability Act and its state analogs, or any changes to any such laws, ordinances or regulations, could result in or increase the potential liability for environmental conditions or circumstances existing, or created by tenants or others, on our properties. Laws related to upkeep, safety and taxation requirements may result in significant unanticipated expenditures, loss of our properties or other impairments to operations, any of which would adversely affect our cash flows from operating activities.

Federal Laws Applicable to the Regulated Cannabis Industry

Cannabis is illegal under U.S. federal law (with the exception of certain hemp containing no more than 0.3% Tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”), the primary psychoactive compound in cannabis, by dry weight). The U.S. federal government regulates drugs through the U.S. Controlled Substances Act (the “CSA”). The CSA currently classifies marijuana (cannabis) as a Schedule I controlled substance, and as such, the manufacture, distribution and dispensing of marijuana is illegal under U.S. federal law. Moreover, on two separate occasions the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the CSA trumps state law. That means that the federal government may enforce U.S. drug laws against companies operating in accordance with state cannabis laws, creating a climate of legal uncertainty regarding the production and sale of cannabis. Unless and until Congress amends the CSA with respect to cannabis (and the President approves such amendment), there is a risk that the federal law enforcement authorities responsible for enforcing the CSA, including the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”), may enforce current federal law.

Under the Obama administration, the DOJ previously issued memoranda, including the so-called “Cole Memorandum” on August 29, 2013, providing internal guidance to federal prosecutors concerning enforcement of federal cannabis prohibitions under the CSA. This guidance essentially characterized as inefficient the use of federal law enforcement resources to prosecute those complying with state laws allowing the use, manufacture and distribution of cannabis where states have enacted laws legalizing cannabis in some form and have also implemented strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems to control the cultivation, processing, distribution, sale and possession of cannabis, conduct in compliance with those laws and regulations was not a priority for the DOJ. Instead, the Cole Memorandum directed U.S. Attorney’s Offices discretion not to investigate or prosecute state law compliant participants in the medical cannabis industry who did not implicate one or more specifically identified federal government priorities, including preventing interstate diversion or distribution of cannabis to minors.

On January 4, 2018, then-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a written memorandum rescinding the Cole Memorandum and related internal guidance issued by the DOJ regarding federal law enforcement priorities involving cannabis (the “Sessions Memo”). The Sessions Memo instructed federal prosecutors to enforce the laws enacted by Congress and to follow well-established principles that govern all federal prosecutors when deciding whether to pursue prosecutions related to cannabis activities. As a result, federal prosecutors could, and still can, use their prosecutorial discretion to decide to prosecute actors compliant with their state laws. The Sessions Memo states that “these principles require federal prosecutors deciding which cases to prosecute to weigh all relevant considerations, including federal law enforcement priorities set by the Attorney General, the seriousness of the crime, the deterrent effect of criminal prosecution, and the cumulative impact of particular crimes on the community.” The Sessions Memo went on to state that given the DOJ’s well-established general principles, “previous nationwide guidance specific to marijuana is unnecessary and is rescinded, effective immediately.” Although there have not been any identified prosecutions of state law compliant cannabis entities, there can be no assurance that the federal government will not enforce federal laws relating to cannabis in the future and it remains unclear what impact the Sessions Memo will have on the regulated cannabis industry, if any. Jeff Sessions resigned as U.S. Attorney General on November 7, 2018.

Pamela Bondi was confirmed by the United States Senate as Attorney General of the United States on February 4, 2025. During her tenure as Attorney General in the State of Florida, Bondi routinely opposed the softening of anti-cannabis laws, including opposition to ballot initiatives to broaden access to medical cannabis, but she also generally faithfully enforced state cannabis laws to maintain a well-regulated medical cannabis market. Bondi has not provided a clear policy directive for the United States as it pertains to state-level cannabis-related activities, and there can be no assurances that DOJ or other law enforcement authorities will not seek to vigorously enforce current U.S. federal laws.

In August 2023, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) recommended to the DEA that cannabis be reclassified from a Schedule I controlled substance to a Schedule III controlled substance under the CSA. HHS based this recommendation on a Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) review of cannabis’ classification pursuant to President Biden’s executive order in October 2022. On May 16, 2024, the DEA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which proposed to schedule cannabis as a Schedule III substance under the CSA. A DEA administrative law judge canceled the rulemaking hearing on this issue that was set to begin on January 21, 2025 following a series of challenges by various parties, including parties seeking to remove the DEA from the proposed rulemaking process.

Thereafter, President Trump issued a sweeping executive order on December 18, 2025, “Increasing Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research” (the “Trump Executive Order”), directing federal agencies to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the CSA. Schedule III status acknowledges accepted medical use and a lower potential for abuse, and would ease certain restrictions on research and taxation (e.g., possibly eliminating the prohibition on deductions under Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”)). However, it remains unclear how long the reclassification process will take or whether reclassification will result in cannabis companies no longer being subject to Section 280E of the Code. Key components of the Trump Executive Order include: (i) directing the Attorney General and DEA to complete the process of moving marijuana to Schedule III as quickly as legally permissible; (ii) directives to work with Congress on ensuring access to appropriate full-spectrum CBD products, while restricting high-risk cannabinoid products; and (iii) directing HHS to improve research methods and real-world evidence collection, with the goal of increasing medical marijuana and cannabidiol (CBD) research. Separately, Congress enacted legislation banning hemp products containing even small amounts of THC beginning November 12, 2026, meaning many CBD products will be treated as marijuana under federal law. However, the Trump Executive Order does not federally legalize marijuana, therefore, criminal penalties for cultivation, sale, and possession under non-compliant circumstances remain intact.

One legislative safeguard for the medical cannabis industry, appended to federal appropriations legislation, remains in place. Commonly referred to as the “Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment”, this so-called “rider” provision has been appended to the Consolidated Appropriations Acts since 2015. Under the terms of the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer rider, the federal government is prohibited from using congressionally appropriated funds to enforce federal cannabis laws against regulated medical cannabis actors operating in compliance with state and local law. On December 20, 2024, Congress passed a continuing resolution to extend government funding, extending the application of the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment until March 14, 2025. There is no assurance that Congress will approve inclusion of a similar prohibition on DOJ spending in the appropriations bills for future years. In USA vs. McIntosh, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that this provision prohibits the DOJ from spending funds from relevant appropriations acts to prosecute individuals who engage in conduct permitted by state medical-use cannabis laws and who strictly comply with such laws. However, the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, which only applies in the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii and Idaho, also held that persons who do not strictly comply with all state laws and regulations regarding the distribution, possession and cultivation of medical-use cannabis have engaged in conduct that is unauthorized, and in such instances the DOJ may prosecute those individuals.

Furthermore, our leases do not prohibit cannabis cultivation for adult-use that is permissible under the state and local laws where our facilities are located. Consequently, certain of our tenants cultivate, process and/or dispense adult-use cannabis now (and may in the future) in our facilities that are permitted by such state and local laws, which may in turn subject the tenant, us and our properties to greater and/or different federal legal and other risks than exclusively medical-use cannabis facilities, including not providing protection under the above Congressional spending provision.

Federal prosecutors have significant discretion and no assurance can be given that the federal prosecutor in each judicial district where we purchase a property will not choose to strictly enforce the federal laws governing cannabis production, processing or distribution. Any change in the federal government’s enforcement posture with respect to state-licensed cultivation of cannabis, including the enforcement postures of individual federal prosecutors in judicial districts where we purchase properties, would result in our inability to execute our business plan, and we would likely suffer significant losses with respect to our investment in regulated cannabis facilities in the United States, which would adversely affect the trading price of our securities. Furthermore, following any such change in the federal government’s enforcement position, we could be subject to criminal prosecution, which could lead to imprisonment and/or the imposition of penalties, fines, or forfeiture. See Item 1A, “Risk Factors – Risks Relating to Regulation.”

State Laws Applicable to the Regulated Cannabis Industry

In most states that have legalized cannabis in some form, the growing, processing and/or dispensing of cannabis generally requires that the operator obtain one or more licenses in accordance with applicable state requirements. In addition, many states regulate various aspects of the growing, processing and/or dispensing of cannabis. Local governments in some cases also impose rules and regulations on the manner of operating cannabis businesses. As a result, applicable state and local laws and regulations vary widely, including, but not limited to, regulations governing the medical cannabis program (such as the type of cannabis products permitted under the program, qualifications and registration of health professionals that may recommend treatment with medical cannabis, and the types of medical conditions that qualify for medical cannabis), product testing, the level of enforcement by state and local authorities on non-licensed cannabis operators, state and local taxation of regulated cannabis products, local municipality bans on operations and operator licensing processes and renewals. As a result of these and other factors, if our tenants default under their leases, we may not be able to find new tenants that can successfully engage in the cultivation, processing or dispensing of regulated cannabis on the properties.

There is no guarantee that state laws legalizing and regulating the sale and use of cannabis will not be repealed, amended or overturned, or that local governmental authorities will not limit the applicability of state laws within their respective jurisdictions. Unless and until the United States Congress amends or repeals the CSA with respect to medical and/or adult-use cannabis (and as to the timing or scope of any such potential amendment or repeal there can be no assurance), there is a significant risk that federal authorities may enforce current federal law. If the federal government begins to enforce federal laws relating to cannabis in states where the sale and use of cannabis is currently legal, or if existing applicable state laws are repealed or curtailed, our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects would be materially adversely affected.

Laws Applicable to Financial Services for the Regulated Cannabis Industry

All banks are subject to federal law, whether the bank is a national bank or state-chartered bank. At a minimum, all banks maintain federal deposit insurance which requires adherence to federal law. Violation of federal law could subject a bank to loss of its charter. Financial transactions involving proceeds generated by cannabis-related conduct can form the basis for prosecution under the federal money laundering statutes, unlicensed money transmitter statutes and the Bank Secrecy Act. For example, under the Bank Secrecy Act, banks must report to the federal government any suspected illegal activity, which would include any transaction associated with a cannabis-related business. These reports must be filed even though the business is operating in compliance with applicable state and local laws. Therefore, financial institutions that conduct transactions with money generated by cannabis-related conduct could face criminal liability under the Bank Secrecy Act for, among other things, failing to identify or report financial transactions that involve the proceeds of cannabis-related violations of the CSA.

Despite these laws, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued a memorandum on February 14, 2014 (the “FinCEN Memorandum”) outlining the pathways for financial institutions to provide services to state-sanctioned cannabis businesses consistent with Bank Secrecy Act obligations and in alignment with federal enforcement priorities. The FinCEN Memorandum sets forth extensive requirements for financial institutions to meet if they want to offer bank accounts to cannabis-related businesses and echoed the enforcement priorities of the Cole Memorandum. Under these guidelines, financial institutions must submit a Suspicious Activity Report (“SAR”) in connection with all cannabis-related banking activities by any client of such financial institution, in accordance with federal anti-money laundering laws. These cannabis-related SARs are divided into three categories – cannabis limited, cannabis priority, and cannabis terminated – based on the financial institution’s belief that the business in question follows state law, is operating outside of compliance with state law, or where the banking relationship has been terminated, respectively. Concurrently with the issuance of the FinCEN Memorandum, the DOJ issued supplemental guidance directing federal prosecutors to consider the federal enforcement priorities enumerated in the Cole Memorandum with respect to federal anti-money laundering, unlicensed money transmitter and Bank Secrecy Act offenses based on cannabis-related violations of the CSA. The Cole Memorandum has been rescinded as of January 4, 2018, removing guidance that enforcement of applicable financial crimes against state-compliant actors was not a DOJ priority.

The rescission of the Cole Memorandum has not yet affected the status of the FinCEN Memorandum, nor has the Department of the Treasury given any indication that it intends to rescind the FinCEN Memorandum itself.

In subsequent guidance not directly related to cannabis-related businesses, FinCEN has indicated financial institutions should continue to rely on and follow the FinCEN Memorandum. In December 2019, FinCEN and other federal banking regulators released an interagency statement on Providing Financial Services to Customers Engaged in Hemp-Related Businesses (“FinCEN Hemp Statement”). In June 2020, FinCEN issued further guidance regarding Due Diligence Requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act for Hemp-Related Business Customers (“FinCEN Hemp Guidance”). The FinCEN Hemp Statement and FinCEN Hemp Guidance provided financial institutions with anti-money laundering risk considerations for hemp-related businesses to ultimately enhance the availability of financial services for, and the financial transparency of, hemp-related businesses in compliance with federal law. In the FinCEN Hemp Statement and FinCEN Hemp Guidance, FinCEN directed banks, within the context of cannabis-related businesses, to continue relying on and following the guidance in the FinCEN Memorandum. The FinCEN Hemp Statement and FinCEN Hemp Guidance do not replace or supersede the FinCEN Marijuana-Related Guidance.

Although the FinCEN Memorandum remains intact, it is unclear whether the current administration will continue to follow the guidelines of the FinCEN Memorandum. The DOJ continues to have the right and power to prosecute crimes committed by banks and financial institutions, such as money laundering and violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, that occur in any state including states that have in some form legalized the sale of cannabis. Further, the conduct of the DOJ’s enforcement priorities could change for any number of reasons. A change in the DOJ’s priorities could result in the DOJ’s prosecuting banks and financial institutions for crimes that were not previously prosecuted.

As a result, many banks are hesitant to offer any banking services to cannabis-related businesses, including opening bank accounts. While we currently maintain banking relationships, our inability to maintain those accounts or the lack of access to bank accounts or other banking services in the future, would make it difficult for us to operate our business, increase our operating costs, and pose additional operational, logistical and security challenges. Similarly, if our proposed tenants are unable to access banking services, they will not be able to enter into triple-net leasing arrangements with us, as our leases will require rent payments to be made by check or wire transfer.

In addition, for our tenants that are publicly traded companies, securities clearing firms may refuse to accept deposits of securities of those tenants, which may negatively impact the trading and valuations of such tenants and have a material adverse impact on our tenants’ ability to finance their operations and growth through the capital markets.

The increased uncertainty surrounding financial transactions related to cannabis activities may also result in financial institutions discontinuing services to the cannabis industry. See Item 1A, “Risk Factors – Risks Relating to Regulation.”

Agricultural Regulation

The Greenhouse Portfolio properties that we own are subject to the laws, ordinances and regulations of state, local and federal governments, including laws, ordinances and regulations involving land use and usage, water rights, treatment methods, disturbance, the environment, and eminent domain.

Each governmental jurisdiction has its own distinct laws, ordinances and regulations governing the use of agricultural lands and water. Many such laws, ordinances and regulations seek to regulate water usage and water runoff because water can be in limited supply, as is the case in certain locations where our properties are located. In addition, runoff from rain or from irrigation is governed by laws, ordinances and regulations from state, local and federal governments. Additionally, if any of the water used on or running off from our properties flows to any rivers, streams, ponds, the ocean or other waters, there may be specific laws, ordinances and regulations governing the amount of pollutants, including sediments, nutrients and pesticides, that such water may contain.

We believe that our existing properties have, and other properties that we acquire in the future will have, sources of water, including wells and/or surface water that provide sufficient amounts of water necessary for the current operations at each location. However, should the need arise for additional water from wells and/or surface water sources, we may be required to obtain additional permits or approvals or to make other required notices prior to developing or using such water sources. Permits for drilling water wells or withdrawing surface water may be required by federal, state and local governmental entities pursuant to laws, ordinances, regulations or other requirements, and such permits may be difficult to obtain due to drought, the limited supply of available water within the districts of the states in which our properties are located or other reasons.

In addition to the regulation of water usage and water runoff, state, local and federal governments also seek to regulate the type, quantity and method of use of chemicals and materials for growing crops, including fertilizers, pesticides and nutrient rich materials. Such regulations could include restricting or preventing the use of such chemicals and materials near residential housing or near water sources. Further, some regulations have strictly forbidden or significantly limited the use of certain chemicals and materials. Licenses, permits and approvals must be obtained from governmental authorities requiring such licenses, permits and approvals before chemicals and materials can be used at grow facilities. Reports on the usage of such chemicals and materials must be submitted pursuant to applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations and the terms of the specific licenses, permits and approvals. Failure to comply with laws, ordinances and regulations, to obtain required licenses, permits and approvals or to comply with the terms of such licenses, permits and approvals could result in fines, penalties and/or imprisonment.

Because properties we own may be used for growing medical-use and adult-use cannabis, there may be other additional land use and zoning regulations at the state or local level that affect our properties that may not apply to other types of agricultural uses. For example, certain states in which our properties are located require stringent security systems in place at grow facilities and require stringent procedures for disposal of waste materials.

As an owner of cultivation facilities, we may be liable or responsible for the actions or inactions of our tenants with respect to these laws, regulations and ordinances.

Environmental Regulation

Our properties and the operations thereon are subject to federal, state and local environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, including laws relating to water, air, solid wastes and hazardous substances, that regulate certain activities and operations that may have environmental or health and safety effects, such as the management, generation, release or disposal of regulated materials, substances or wastes, and impose liability for the costs of cleaning up, and damages to natural resources from, past spills, waste disposals on and off-site, or other releases of hazardous materials or regulated substances. Our properties and the operations thereon are also subject to federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations and requirements related to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act, as well as comparable state statutes relating to the health and safety of our employees and others working on our properties. Compliance with these laws and regulations could increase our operational costs. Violation of these laws may subject us to significant fines, penalties or disposal costs, which could negatively impact our results of operations, financial position and cash flows. Under various federal, state and local environmental laws (including those of foreign jurisdictions), a current or previous owner or operator of currently or formerly owned, leased or operated real property may be liable for the cost of removal or remediation of hazardous or toxic substances on, under or in such property. The costs of removal or remediation could be substantial. Such laws often impose liability whether or not the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of such hazardous or toxic substances. Certain environmental laws and common law principles could be used to impose liability for release of and exposure to hazardous substances, including asbestos-containing materials into the air, and third parties may seek recovery from owners or operators of real properties for personal injury or property damage associated with exposure to released hazardous substances. In addition, when excessive moisture accumulates in buildings or on building materials, mold growth may occur, particularly if the moisture problem remains undiscovered or is not addressed over a period of time. Some molds may produce airborne toxins or irritants. Concern about indoor exposure to mold has been increasing, as exposure to mold may cause a variety of adverse health effects and symptoms, including allergic or other reactions. As a result, the presence of significant mold at any of our properties could require us to undertake a costly remediation program to contain or remove the mold from the affected property or development project.

Although we believe that we and our tenants are in material compliance with these requirements, there can be no assurance that we will not incur significant costs, civil and criminal penalties and liabilities, including those relating to claims for damages to persons, property or the environment resulting from operations at our properties. Furthermore, many of our properties have been repurposed for regulated cannabis operations, and historically were utilized for other purposes, including heavy industrial uses, which expose us to additional risks associated with historical releases of substances at the properties.

Management and Trustees - Human Capital

Mr. David H. Lesser serves as a member and Chairman of our Board of Trustees. He also serves as our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer. Mr. Lesser has over 35 years of experience in real estate investment and finance. His expertise informs our process in all aspects of our business including acquisitions, project management, development, and finance. Mr. Lesser’s significant ownership stake in Power REIT provides strong alignment and incentives to focus on creation of shareholder value. Susan Hollander serves our Chief Accounting Officer with responsibility for all strategic accounting, compliance and financial reporting functions. Accordingly, Power REIT currently has two employees, both of whom are officers who are responsible for overseeing our activities. Neither Mr. Lesser, nor Ms. Hollander are full time employees. Employee levels are managed to align with the pace of business and management believes it has sufficient human capital to operate its business.

We believe that our success depends on our ability to retain our key personnel, primarily David Lesser, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer.

The Trust currently has a Board of Trustees consisting of three Independent Trustees in addition to Mr. Lesser. Power REIT does not have a staggered board; accordingly, the current policy is that each Trustee serves for one-year term or until their earlier death, retirement or a successor is duly elected and qualified. In addition, we do not have any other management protection structures such as “poison pills” or “golden parachutes.”

ESG the “Triple Bottom Line”

With a focus on the “Triple Bottom Line” and a commitment to Profit, Planet and People, Power REIT is committed to best-in-class focus on Environment, Social and Governance (“ESG”) factors.

Environmental

Our asset base is environmentally friendly. We currently own a railroad ground lease which is an environmentally friendly form of transportation. We also own a ground lease for a utility scale solar farm. Our CEA greenhouse properties consume dramatically less energy than indoor growing, 95% less water, and do not generate the agricultural runoff associated with traditional fertilizers or pesticides associated with field crops. Power REIT does not currently anticipate any material costs related to its portfolio for compliance with environmental laws.

Social

Several of our CEA facilities will produce cannabis which is considered an alternative medical solution for a variety of ailments including, but not limited to, multiple sclerosis, PTSD, arthritis, and seizures. To date, the FDA has not approved a marketing application for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition.

Governance

We are an internally managed REIT with a Board comprised of three independent Trustees and one insider Trustee. Power REIT management has strong alignment with shareholders through significant insider ownership. We believe that our corporate governance is a strong component of our ESG profile.

As our ESG story and portfolio expand, our investor engagement efforts will continue to build alongside, driving our commitment to the planet, its people, and generating returns for our shareholders.

Revenue Concentration

Historically, the Trust’s revenue has been derived from a relatively limited number of investments, industries and lessees. During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, Power REIT collected approximately 93% of its rental income and lease income from direct financing lease from two properties. The tenants are Norfolk Southern Railway and Regulus Solar LLC which represent 50% and 43% of rental income and lease income from direct financing lease, respectively, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025.

Dividends

During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, the Trust did not declare quarterly dividends of approximately $653,000 ($0.484375 per share per quarter) to holders of Power REIT’s 7.75% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Perpetual Preferred Stock (the “Series A Preferred Stock”). As of December 31, 2025, the total cumulative undeclared dividends are approximately $2,122,000. The Articles Supplementary filed with the State of Delaware in February 2014, which set forth the preferences, rights, voting powers, restrictions and limitations for the Series A Preferred Stock, provides that the holders of Series A Preferred Stock may appoint two additional trustees to the Board of Trustees if the dividends on the Series A Preferred Stock are not paid, whether or not declared, for six or more quarterly periods, irrespective of whether those quarterly periods are consecutive. The Trust has failed to pay dividends for in excess of six quarterly periods; however, no holder of Series A Preferred Stock has requested to hold a special meeting, or to add a proposal at an annual meeting, to elect an additional trustee(s) to the Board of Trustees, which request must be made by the holders of record of at least 10% of the outstanding shares of Series A Preferred Stock.

Distributions declared by us will be authorized by our Board of Trustees in its sole discretion out of funds legally available therefor and will be dependent upon a number of factors, including the capital requirements for our business plans and meeting the distribution requirements necessary to maintain our qualification as a REIT. We cannot assure that our intended distributions will be made or sustained or that our Board of Trustees will not change our distribution policy in the future. Under some circumstances, we may be required to fund distributions from working capital, liquidate assets at prices or times that we regard as unfavorable or borrow to provide funds for distributions, or we may make distributions in the form of a taxable stock dividend.

Tax Status as a REIT

We have elected to be treated for tax purposes as a REIT, which means that we are exempt from U.S. federal income tax if a sufficient portion of our annual income is distributed to our shareholders, and if certain other requirements are met. In order for us to maintain our REIT qualification, at least 90% of our ordinary taxable annual income must be distributed to shareholders. As of December 31, 2024, our last tax return completed to date, we currently have a net operating loss of $41.0 million, which may reduce or eliminate this requirement.

Certain Restrictions on Size of Holdings and Transferability

In order to assist us in complying with the limitations on the concentration of ownership of REIT stock imposed by the Code, among other purposes, our Declaration of Trust provides that no person or entity may own, directly or indirectly, more than 9.9% in economic value of the aggregate of the outstanding common shares of beneficial interest of Power REIT. However, our charter authorizes our Board of Trustees to exempt from time to time the ownership limits applicable to certain named individuals or entities. This provision or other provisions in our Declaration of Trust or By-laws, or provisions that we may adopt in the future, may limit the ability of our shareholders to sell their shares at a premium over then-current market prices by discouraging a third party from seeking to obtain control of us. On April 28, 2014, our Board of Trustees granted an exemption to Hudson Bay Partners, LP, on behalf of itself, and its affiliates, including David H. Lesser, from the 9.9% ownership limit.

Our charter also prohibits any person from (1) beneficially or constructively owning shares of our capital stock that would result in our being “closely held” under Section 856(h) of the Code at any time during the taxable year, (2) transferring shares of our capital stock if such transfer would result in our stock being beneficially or constructively owned by fewer than 100 persons and (3) beneficially or constructively owning shares of our capital stock if such ownership would cause us otherwise to fail to qualify as a REIT.

This provision or other provisions in our governing documents or provisions that we may adopt in the future, may limit the ability of our shareholders to sell their shares at a premium over then-current market prices by discouraging a third party from seeking to obtain control of us. See “Risk Factors” and our Description of Capital Stock, included as Exhibit 4.1.

General Corporate Information

Our principal executive offices are located at 301 Winding Road, Old Bethpage, New York 11804, and our telephone number is (212) 750-0371. Our website address is www.pwreit.com (http://www.pwreit.com). Information contained in our website does not form part of this Annual Report and is intended for informational purposes only. The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. The address of that website is www.sec.gov (http://www.sec.gov).

An investment in Power REIT’s securities involves significant risks. Anyone who is making an investment decision regarding Power REIT’s securities should, before making that decision, carefully consider the following risk factors, together with all of the other information included in, or incorporated by reference into, this document. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also have a material adverse effect on our business, operations and future performance. If any of the circumstances contemplated in the following risk factors were to occur, Power REIT’s business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could all be materially adversely affected. In any such case, you could lose all or part of your investment.

Risks Related to our Financial Position and Liquidity

We have incurred a loss for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 and may be unable to generate sufficient revenue to cover expenses or generate net income.

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, we had a net loss attributable to common shareholders of $2.8 million. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, we had a net loss attributable to common shareholders of $25.4 million. There can be no assurance that we will be able to generate sufficient revenue to pay our expenses or generate net income.

As of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $51.9 million.

On a consolidated basis, the Trust’s cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash totaled $2,235,306 as of December 31, 2025, an increase of $3,720 from December 31, 2024

We may need to raise additional capital or sell additional properties to fund our operations in order to continue as a going concern.

As of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $51.9 million and a net loss attributable to common shareholders of $2.8 million. As of December 31, 2025, the Trust had approximately $2.2 million of cash and approximately $452,000 of accounts payable and approximately $1.36 million of liabilities for assets held for sale.

The Trust determined that there was substantial doubt as to its ability to continue as a going concern for a period of twelve months from the date of the filing with the SEC of this Annual Report on Form 10-K as a result of net losses incurred, and property expenses related to its greenhouse portfolio.

It is the Trust’s plan to focus on selling properties, entering into new leases, improving cash collections from existing tenants and the raising capital in the form of debt or equity is effectively implemented, the Trust’s plan could potentially provide enough liquidity to fund its operations. However, the Trust cannot predict, with certainty, the outcome of its actions to generate liquidity, including its ability to sell properties, and the failure to do so could negatively impact its future operations.

On January 24, 2025, the Trust entered into a sales agreement (the “Sales Agreement”), with AGP pursuant to which it may, from time to time, issue and sell its common shares in an “at the market offering,” however, AGP is not obligated to sell any common shares and there are limits on the dollar amount of common shares it can sell pursuant to the Sales Agreement. In addition, the Trust’s ability to raise capital through the sale of securities may be limited by the rules of the SEC and NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American”) that place limits on the number and dollar amount of securities that may be sold. There can be no assurances that the Trust will be able to raise the funds needed through the Sales Agreement, especially in light of the fact that its ability to sell securities registered on its registration statement on Form S-3 will be limited until such time as the market value of the Trust’s voting securities held by non-affiliates is $75 million or more. As of December 31, 2025, 271,832 common shares have been sold pursuant to the Sales Agreement for gross proceeds of $287,604.

If our acquisitions or our overall business performance fail to meet expectations, we could be restricted from paying dividends to shareholders and default on our loans, which are secured by collateral in our properties and assets.

We may not be able to achieve operating results that will allow us to pay dividends at a specific level or to increase the amount of these dividends from time to time. Also, restrictions and provisions in any credit facilities we enter into or any debt securities we issue may limit our ability to pay dividends. We cannot assure you that you will receive dividends at a particular time, or at a particular level, or at all.

PW Regulus Solar, LLC (“PWRS”), one of our subsidiaries, entered into the 2015 PWRS Loan Agreement (as defined below) that is non-recourse to Power REIT and secured by all of PWRS’ interest in the land and intangibles. As of December 31, 2025, the balance of the 2015 PWRS Loan was approximately $5,998,000 (net of unamortized debt costs of approximately $190,000).

Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railroad (“PWV”), one of our subsidiaries, entered into a Loan Agreement in the amount of $15,500,000 that is non-recourse to Power REIT and secured by our equity interest in our subsidiary PWV which is pledged as collateral. The balance of the loan as of December 31, 2025 is $13,974,000 (net of approximately $258,000 of capitalized debt costs).

We have substantial debt and preferred shares outstanding with substantial liquidation preference, which could adversely affect our overall financial health and our operating flexibility.

We have substantial debt and preferred shares outstanding with substantial liquidation preference. These obligations limit our financial flexibility. If we are unable to satisfy these obligations, we might default on our debt and our financial condition and results of operations would be adversely affected.

In an effort to conserve liquidity and create financial flexibility, the Trust has not declared dividends on its preferred shares since the fourth quarter of 2022. As a result, unpaid dividends increase the liquidation preference for our preferred shares. As of December 31, 2025, the amount of unpaid dividends on the outstanding preferred shares is approximately $2,122,000.

Our obligations arising from our indebtedness and property taxes arrearages could have negative consequences to our shareholders. Our failure to meet our obligations under our debt, could result in us losing assets due to foreclosure or sale on unfavorable terms such as happened with respect to the settlement of the Greenhouse Loan. Also, our indebtedness and debt service might limit our ability to refinance existing debt or to do so at a reasonable cost, might make us more vulnerable to adverse economic and market conditions, might limit our ability to take advantage of opportunities, and might discourage business partners from working with us.

Furthermore, since a significant percentage of our assets are used to secure our debt, this reduces the amount of collateral available for future secured debt or credit support and reduces our flexibility in how we handle these secured assets. This level of debt and related security could also limit our ability to borrow additional amounts for working capital, capital expenditures, debt service requirements, execution of our business strategy or other purposes and could limit our ability to use operating cash flow in other areas of our business because we must dedicate a substantial portion of these funds to service debt.

In addition to our current debt, we might incur additional debt in the future in order to finance improvements or development of properties, acquisitions or for other general corporate purposes, which could exacerbate the risks described above. These consequences could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we are unable to comply with the covenants in our loan agreements, we might be adversely affected.

We currently have secured debt against properties in our portfolio, and we may incur additional debt. The percentage of leverage we employ will vary depending on our available capital, our ability to obtain and access financing arrangements with lenders, debt restrictions contained in financing arrangements. We may significantly increase the amount of leverage we utilize at any time which could materially and adversely affect us, including the risk that:

• our cash flow from operations may be insufficient to make required payments of principal and interest on the debt or we may fail to comply with all of the other covenants contained in the debt agreements, which is likely to result in (i) acceleration of such debt that we may be unable to repay from internal funds or to refinance on favorable terms, or at all, and/or (ii) the loss of some or all of our assets to foreclosure or sale;
• we may be unable to borrow additional funds as needed or on favorable terms, or at all;
• to the extent we borrow debt that bears interest at variable rates, increases in interest rates could materially increase our interest expense resulting in less cash available for operations;
• our debt may increase our vulnerability to adverse economic and industry conditions with no assurance that investment yields will increase with higher financing costs;
• we may be required to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flow from operations to payments on our debt, thereby reducing funds available for operations, future business opportunities, shareholder distributions, including distributions currently contemplated or necessary to satisfy the requirements for REIT qualification or other purposes; and
• we may be unable to refinance debt that matures prior to the investment it was used to finance on favorable terms, or at all. There can be no assurance that a leveraging strategy will be successful.

If any one of these events were to occur, our business (including our financial performance and condition) and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders would likely be materially and adversely affected.

Secured indebtedness exposes us to the possibility of foreclosure, which could result in the loss of our investment in certain of our subsidiaries or in a property or group of properties or other assets subject to indebtedness.

We have granted lenders security interests in certain of our assets and may do so in the future. Incurring secured indebtedness, including mortgage indebtedness, increases our risk of asset and property losses because defaults on indebtedness secured by our assets, may result in foreclosure actions initiated by lenders and ultimately our loss of the property or other assets securing any loans for which we are in default. Any foreclosure on a mortgaged property or group of properties could have a material adverse effect on the overall value of our portfolio of properties and more generally on our business.

We are in arrears on property taxes for certain of the Greenhouse Portfolio properties, which exposes us to the possibility of foreclosure.

We currently are in arrears on property taxes for certain Greenhouse Portfolio properties. Unpaid property taxes represent a senior lien on the real estate asset which can ultimately result in the loss of the property through tax foreclosure.

Risks Related to our Operations

Changes in general economic conditions, geopolitical conditions, domestic and foreign trade policies, monetary policies and other factors beyond our control may adversely impact our business and operating results.

Our operations and performance depend on global, regional and U.S. economic and geopolitical conditions. General worldwide economic conditions have experienced significant instability in recent years including the recent global economic uncertainty and financial market conditions.

The uncertain financial markets, disruptions in supply chains, mobility restraints, and changing priorities as well as volatile asset values could impact our business in the future.

Further increasing inflation has raised operating costs for many businesses and, in the future, could impact foreign exchange rates or employee wages. Inflation rates, particularly in the United States, have increased recently to levels not seen in years, and increased inflation may result in increases in our operating costs (including our labor costs), reduced liquidity and limits on our ability to access credit or otherwise raise capital. In addition, the Federal Reserve has raised, and may again raise, interest rates in response to concerns about inflation, which coupled with reduced government spending and volatility in financial markets may have the effect of further increasing economic uncertainty and heightening these risks.

Actual events involving reduced or limited liquidity, defaults, non-performance or other adverse developments that affect financial institutions or other companies in the financial services industry or the financial services industry generally, or concerns or rumors about any events of these kinds, have in the past and may in the future lead to market-wide liquidity problems.

We are actively monitoring the effects these disruptions and increasing inflation could have on our operations.

These conditions make it extremely difficult for us to accurately forecast and plan future business activities.

In addition, the outbreak of a pandemic could disrupt our operations and could have material and adverse effects on our tenants and their operations, and in turn on our performance, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows due to, among other factors:

• a complete or partial closure of, or other operational issues at, one or more of our properties resulting from government or tenant actions;
• the temporary inability of consumers and patients to purchase our tenant’s cannabis products due to a number of factors, including but limited to illness, dispensary closures or limitations on operations (including but not limited to shortened operating hours, social distancing requirements and mandated “curbside only” pickup), quarantine, financial hardship, and “stay at home” orders, could severely impact our tenants’ businesses, financial condition and liquidity and may cause one or more of our tenants to be unable to meet their obligations to us in full, or at all, or to otherwise seek modifications of such obligations;
• difficulty accessing equity and debt capital on attractive terms, or at all, and a severe disruption and instability in the global financial markets
• Difficulty obtaining capital necessary to fund business operations and our tenants’ ability to fund their business operations and meet their obligations to us;

22

• because of the federal regulatory uncertainty relating to the regulated cannabis industry, our tenants may not be eligible for financial relief
• delays in construction at our properties may adversely impact our tenants’ ability to commence operations and generate revenues from projects, including
• construction moratoriums by local, state or federal government authorities;
• delays by applicable governmental authorities in providing the necessary authorizations to continue construction or commence operations;
• reductions in construction team sizes to effectuate social distancing and other requirements;
• infection by one or more members of a construction team necessitating a partial or full shutdown of construction; and
• manufacturing and supply chain disruptions for materials sourced from other geographies which may be experiencing shutdowns and shipping delays.
• a general decline in business activity in the regulated cannabis industry would adversely affect our ability to grow our portfolio of regulated
• the potential negative impact on the health of our personnel, particularly if a significant number of them are impacted, would result in a deterioration in our ability

Our greenhouse properties are related to a nascent industry resulting in payment and other lease defaults and a significant portion of the Greenhouse Portfolio is vacant which can result in a deterioration of value.

In July 2019, we announced our new investment focus of CEA and our first greenhouse property acquisition. As the Greenhouse Portfolio has expanded, we continue to be subject to many of the business risks and uncertainties associated with any new business enterprise. Furthermore, our tenants and properties are concentrated in the regulated cannabis industry, an industry in its early stages of development with significant uncertainties, and we cannot predict how tenant demand and competition for these properties will change over time. Unfortunately, the market for cannabis compressed dramatically during 2023 and 2024. This has had a dramatic negative effect on our Greenhouse Portfolio, with most properties vacant or occupied by tenants that are in default, which can result in a deterioration of value. We cannot assure you that we will be able to operate our business successfully or profitably or find additional suitable investments. There can be no assurance that we will be able to continue to generate sufficient revenue from operations to pay our operating expenses and make distributions to stockholders. The results of our operations and the execution on our business plan depend on the availability of additional opportunities for investment, the performance of our existing properties and tenants, the evolution of tenant demand for regulated cannabis facilities, competition, the evolution of alternative capital sources for potential tenants, the availability of adequate equity and debt financing, the federal and state regulatory environment relating to the regulated cannabis industry, and conditions in the financial markets and economic conditions.

Our tenants have limited operating histories and may be more susceptible to payment and other lease defaults, which could continue to materially and adversely affect our business

Single tenants currently occupy our properties, and we expect that our properties will continue to be operated by single tenants. Therefore, the success of our investments will be dependent on the financial stability of these tenants. We rely on our management team to perform due diligence investigations of our potential tenants, related guarantors and their properties, operations and prospects, of which there is often very little public operating and financial information. We may not learn all of the material information we need to know regarding these businesses through our investigations, and these businesses are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to regulatory risks and the rapidly evolving market dynamics of each state’s regulated cannabis market. As a result, it is possible that we could enter into leases with tenants that ultimately are unable to pay rent to us, as is the case with most of our CEA properties, which could adversely impact our business.

In addition, in general, our tenants are more vulnerable to adverse conditions resulting from federal and state regulations affecting their businesses or industries or other changes in the marketplace for their products and have limited access to traditional forms of financing. The success of our tenants will heavily depend on the growth and development of the state markets in which the tenants operate, many of which have a very limited history or are still in the stages of establishing the regulatory framework.

Any lease payment defaults by a tenant has and could adversely affect our cash flows and cause us to reduce the amount of distributions to stockholders. In the event of a default by a tenant, we may also experience delays in enforcing our rights as landlord and may incur substantial costs in protecting our investment and re-leasing our property as cannabis operators are generally subject to extensive state licensing requirements.

Our greenhouse tenants may be unable to renew or maintain their licenses and authorizations for their cannabis operations, which may result in such tenants not being able to operate their businesses and defaulting on their lease payments.

We rely on our tenants to renew or otherwise maintain the required state and local cannabis licenses and other authorizations on a continuous basis. If one or more of our tenants are unable to remain compliant, such tenants may default on their lease payments and may also subject us, as the owner of such properties, to potential penalties, fines or other liabilities.

Our business activities, and the business activities of our cannabis tenants, while believed to be compliant with applicable U.S. state and local laws, are currently illegal under U.S. federal law.

While certain states in the U.S. have legalized “medical cannabis,” “adult-use cannabis” or both, medical and adult-use cannabis remains illegal under federal law. The CSA currently classifies “marijuana” as a Schedule I drug. Under U.S. federal law, a drug or other substance is placed on Schedule I if:

• “[t]he drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse”;
• “[t]he drug or other substance has no accepted medical use in the United States”; and
• “[t]here is a lack of safety for the use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.”

However, the recently issued Trump Executive Order directs federal agencies to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the CSA. Schedule III status acknowledges accepted medical use and a lower potential for abuse, and would ease certain restrictions on research and taxation. Key components of the Trump Executive Order include: (i) directing the Attorney General and DEA to complete the process of moving marijuana to Schedule III as quickly as legally permissible; (ii) directives to work with Congress on ensuring access to appropriate full-spectrum CBD products, while restricting high-risk cannabinoid products; and (iii) directing HHS to improve research methods and real-world evidence collection, with the goal of increasing medical marijuana and cannabidiol (CBD) research. It remains unclear how long the reclassification process will take or whether reclassification will result in cannabis companies no longer being subject to Section 280E of the Code. The reclassification of marijuana as a Schedule III controlled substance under the CSA, once complete, will not federally legalize marijuana.

As such, cannabis-related business activities, including, without limitation, the cultivation, manufacture, importation, possession, use or distribution of cannabis, remains illegal under U.S. federal law. Although we believe our cannabis-related activities are compliant with the laws and regulations of the states in which the properties are located, strict compliance with state and local rules and regulations with respect to cannabis neither absolves us of liability under U.S. federal law, nor provides a defense to any proceeding that may be brought against us under U.S. federal law. Furthermore, we cannot give any assurance that our cannabis tenants, and any future cannabis tenants, are currently operating, and will continue to operate, in strict compliance with state and local rules and regulations in which they operate. Any proceeding that may be brought against us could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Violations of any U.S. federal laws and regulations could result in significant fines, penalties, administrative sanctions, convictions or settlements, arising from either civil or criminal proceedings brought by either the U.S. federal government or private citizens, including, but not limited to, property seizures, disgorgement of profits, cessation of business activities or divestiture. Such fines, penalties, administrative sanctions, convictions or settlements could have a material adverse effect on us, including, but not limited to:

• our reputation and our ability to conduct business and/or maintain our current business relationships;
• the listing of our securities on the NYSE American, LLC (the “NYSE American”); and
• the market price of our common shares.

24

Certain of Power REIT’s properties have been negatively impacted by state and local government regulations and approvals that relate to cannabis cultivation. Power REIT does not believe that its business is likely in the future to be negatively impacted by existing or probable federal government regulation or the need for any federal governmental approval.

Our business strategy includes growth plans. Our financial condition and results of operations could be negatively affected if we fail to grow or fail to manage our growth or investments effectively.

Power REIT is pursuing a growth strategy focused on non-traditional asset classes that qualify as real estate for REIT purposes. Our prospects must be considered in light of the risks, expenses and difficulties frequently encountered by companies in significant growth stages of development. We cannot assure you that we will be able to expand our market presence in our existing markets or successfully enter new markets or that any such expansion will not adversely affect our results of operations. Failure to manage potential transactions to successful conclusions, or failure more generally to manage our growth effectively, could have a material adverse effect on our business, future prospects, financial condition or results of operations and could adversely affect our ability to successfully implement our business strategy or pay dividends in the future.

Even if we are able to execute our business strategy, that strategy may not be successful.

Even if we are able to expand our business as we intend, our investments may not be successful due to a variety of factors, including but not limited to asset under-performance, higher than forecast expenses, failure or delinquency on the part of our lessees, changes in market conditions or other factors, any of which may result in lower returns than expected and may adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and ability to pay dividends.

We operate in a highly competitive market for investment opportunities and we may be unable to identify and complete acquisitions of real property assets.

We compete with public and private funds, commercial and investment banks, commercial financing companies and public and private REITs to make the types of investments that we plan to make. Many of our competitors are substantially larger and have considerably greater financial, technical and marketing resources than us. For example, some competitors may have a lower cost of funds and access to funding sources that are currently not available to us. In addition, some of our competitors may have higher risk tolerances or different risk assessments, allowing them to pay higher consideration, consider a wider variety of investments and establish more effective relationships than us. Furthermore, many of our competitors are not subject to the restrictions that our REIT status imposes on us. These competitive conditions could adversely affect our ability to make investments in the infrastructure sector and could adversely affect our distributions to stockholders. Moreover, our ability to close transactions will be subject to our ability to access financing within stipulated contractual time frames, and there is no assurance that we will have access to such financing on terms that are favorable to us, if at all.

We acquired some of our properties, and expect to acquire other properties, “as-is” or otherwise with limited recourse to the prior owner, which significantly increases the risk of an investment.

We acquired some of our properties, and expect to acquire other real estate properties, “as is” or otherwise with limited recourse to the prior owner and with only limited representations and warranties from such prior owner regarding matters affecting the condition, use and ownership of the property. There may also be environmental or other conditions associated with properties we acquire of which we are unaware despite our diligence efforts or that we have identified during diligence If environmental contamination exists on properties we acquire or develops after acquisition, we could become subject to liability for the contamination. If defects in the property (including any building on the property) or other matters adversely affecting the property are discovered or otherwise subject us to unknown claims or liabilities, we may not be able to pursue a claim for any or all damages against the property seller. Such a situation could materially harm our business.

Because we may distribute a significant portion of our income to our stockholders or lenders, we will continue to need additional capital to make new investments. If additional funds are unavailable or not available on favorable terms, our ability to make new investments will be impaired.

Because we may distribute a significant portion of our income to our shareholders or lenders, our business may from time to time require substantial amounts of new capital to pursue our growth plans. In addition, in order to continue making acquisitions, we would require additional capital. We may acquire additional capital from the issuance of securities senior to our common shares, including additional borrowings or other indebtedness, preferred shares (such as our Series A Preferred Stock) or the issuance of other securities. We may also acquire additional capital through the issuance of additional common shares which will result in dilution to current shareholders. However, we may not be able to raise additional capital in the future, on favorable terms or at all. Unfavorable business, market or general economic conditions could increase our funding costs, limit our access to capital markets or result in a decision by lenders not to extend credit to us.

To the extent we issue debt securities, other instruments of indebtedness or additional preferred stock, or borrow additional money from banks or other financial institutions, we will be additionally exposed to risks associated with leverage, including increased risk of loss. If we issue additional preferred securities that rank senior to our common shares in our capital structure, the holders of such preferred securities may have separate voting rights and other rights, preferences or privileges, economic and otherwise, more favorable than those of our common shares, and the issuance of such preferred securities could have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a transaction or a change of control that might involve a premium price for common shareholders.

Any inability to access additional financing on terms that are favorable to us may adversely affect our ability to grow and our business generally.

The investment portfolio is, and in the future may continue to be, concentrated in its exposure to a relatively few numbers of investments, industries and lessees.

Historically, the Trust’s revenue has been derived from a relatively limited number of investments, industries and lessees. During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, Power REIT collected approximately 93% of its rental income and lease income from direct financing lease from two properties. The tenants are Norfolk Southern Railway and Regulus Solar LLC which represent 50% and 43% of rental income and lease income from direct financing lease, respectively, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025.

We are exposed to risks inherent in this sort of investment concentration. Financial difficulty or poor business performance on the part of any single lessee or a default on any single lease will expose us to a greater risk of loss than would be the case if we were more diversified and holding numerous investments, and the underperformance or non-performance of any of its assets may severely adversely affect our financial condition and results from operations. Our lessees could seek the protection of bankruptcy, insolvency or similar laws, which could result in the rejection and termination of our lease agreements and could cause a reduction in our cash flows. Furthermore, our portfolio concentration in the CEA and cannabis sectors, has performed poorly and may continue to lag the broader market as a whole and also subjects us to more risks than if we were diversified across many sectors.

Our property portfolio has a high concentration of properties located in certain states.

Certain of our properties are located in areas that may experience catastrophic weather and other natural events from time to time, including hurricanes or other severe weather, flooding fires, snow or ice storms, windstorms or earthquakes. These adverse weather and natural events could cause substantial damages or losses to our properties which could exceed our insurance coverage. In the event of a loss in excess of insured limits, we could lose our capital invested in the affected property, as well as anticipated future revenue from that property. We could also continue to be obligated to repay any mortgage indebtedness or other obligations related to the property. Any such loss could materially and adversely affect our business and our financial condition and results of operations.

To the extent that significant changes in the climate occur, we may experience extreme weather and changes in precipitation and temperature and rising sea levels, all of which may result in physical damage to or a decrease in demand for properties located in these areas or affected by these conditions. Should the impact of climate change be material in nature, including destruction of our properties, or occur for lengthy periods of time, our financial condition or results of operations may be adversely affected. In addition, changes in federal and state legislation and regulation on climate change could result in us incurring increased capital expenditures to improve the energy efficiency of our existing properties or to protect them from the consequence of climate change.

Our operating results may be negatively affected by potential development and construction delays and cost overruns.

Several of our CEA properties were development projects that include risks associated with construction delays, costs and construction quality. In connection with our development activities, we are subject to uncertainties associated with zoning and other required approvals, environmental concerns of governmental entities or community groups and our builder or partner’s ability to build in conformity with plans, specifications, budgeted costs, and timetables. Performance also may be affected or delayed by conditions beyond our control. We may incur additional risks when we make periodic progress payments or other advances to builders before they complete construction. If a builder or development partner fails to perform, we may resort to legal action to rescind the purchase or the construction contract or to compel performance, but there can be no assurance any legal action would be successful. These and other factors can result in increased costs of a project or loss of our investment. In addition, we will be subject to normal lease-up risks relating to newly constructed projects. We also must rely on rental income and expense projections and estimates of the fair market value of property upon completion of construction when agreeing upon a price at the time we acquire the property. If our projections are inaccurate, we may pay too much for a property, and our return on our investment could suffer.

A failure to maintain properties can lead to deterioration of value.

A number of our CEA properties have suffered significant tenant defaults and tenants may not be properly adhering to their responsibilities related to maintaining the properties. Other CEA properties are vacant and may not have been properly maintained prior to the tenants vacating. There is the potential for deterioration of property value due to maintenance issues and incidences of theft of property materials which we have experienced.

We may not be able to timely sell our cannabis-related properties at attractive values, or at all, and the transition could adversely affect our results and financial condition.

Power REIT invested in greenhouses for state-licensed cannabis and food cultivation. Unfortunately, the market for both opportunities has been challenging and the Greenhouse Portfolio has performed poorly. Many of our Greenhouse Portfolio properties are unoccupied and certain tenants have experienced operating pressures, delinquencies, or restructurings. We may need to provide rent deferrals or concessions, pursue enforcement, or re-tenant properties, each with uncertain outcomes and costs. High vacancy levels and tenant distress in the cannabis sector may persist or worsen. Extended vacancy can trigger impairment and reduce net operating income and cash flows.

We are currently focused on monetizing the Greenhouse Portfolio, including focusing on selling and or re-leasing the vacant properties and increasing cash flow from the occupied properties. Market demand for assets historically used for cannabis cultivation is limited, financing for prospective buyers may be constrained, and regulatory uncertainty can depress valuations. Properties historically used for cannabis cultivation may face zoning constraints or environmental issues. Certain municipalities restrict future uses or impose remediation/retrofit requirements (e.g., odor mitigation, electrical upgrades, water/waste systems). We may incur capital expenditures or price reductions to address buyer diligence findings. Marketing processes may be prolonged, bidders may withdraw, and we may incur additional carrying costs (taxes, insurance, security, maintenance) and brokerage/transaction expenses. If sales occur below our carrying values, we could recognize losses or additional impairments. Delays or shortfalls in proceeds could adversely impact liquidity, debt service, and our ability to reinvest.

Power REIT will continue to seek to realize value from the retained assets and is exploring a shift in focus and is evaluating opportunistic real estate situations including properties, loans and companies and other opportunities.

A perceived difficulty of operating special purpose properties may affect profitably and property values.

Based on the state of the cannabis CEA industry, our current and prior tenants within our CEA portfolio have had difficulty generating profits. The value of these special purpose properties may continue to decline due to vacancies and the perceived difficulty of operating profitably.

The valuation and accounting treatment of certain long-lived assets, such as real estate, or of intangible assets, such as goodwill, could result in future asset impairments, which would be recorded as operating losses.

Real estate investments and related intangible assets are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances, such as a decrease in net operating income, the loss of a tenant or an agreement of sale at a price below book value, indicate that the carrying amount of the property might not be recoverable. An operating property to be held and used is considered impaired under applicable accounting authority only if management’s estimate of the aggregate future cash flows to be generated by the property, undiscounted and without interest charges, is less than the carrying value of the property. In addition, this estimate may consider a probability weighted cash flow estimation approach when alternative courses of action to recover the carrying amount of a long-lived asset are under consideration or when a range of possible values is estimated. This estimate takes into consideration factors such as expected future net operating income, trends and prospects, and upcoming lease maturities, as well as the effects of demand, competition and other factors. If we find that the carrying value of real estate investments and related intangible assets has been impaired, we will recognize impairment with respect to such assets. Applicable accounting principles require that goodwill and certain intangible assets be tested for impairment annually or earlier upon the occurrence of certain events or substantive changes in circumstances. If we find that the carrying value of goodwill or certain intangible assets exceeds estimated fair value, we will reduce the carrying value of the real estate investment or goodwill or intangible asset to the estimated fair value, and we will recognize impairment with respect to such investments or goodwill or intangible assets.

Impairment of long-lived assets is required to be recorded as a non-cash operating expense. During the fourth quarter of 2022, the third quarter of 2023, all four quarters of 2024 and the last three quarters of 2025, the Trust concluded that an impairment of value of certain assets within its CEA portfolio was appropriate based on market conditions. These impairments also take into account assets held for sale and the write off of the lease of any associated lease intangible. In 2025, we recorded approximately $562,000 in non-cash impairment charges, In 2024, we recorded approximately $20 million in non-cash impairment charges. In 2023, we recorded approximately $8.2 million in non-cash impairment charges. In 2022, we recorded approximately $16.7 million in non-cash impairment charges. Any decline in the estimated fair values of our assets could result in additional impairment charges in the future. It is possible that such impairments, if required, could be material. There can be no assurance that the impaired carrying values will equate to the ultimately realizable value of such assets.

The illiquidity of real estate investments might delay or prevent us from selling properties that we determine no longer meet the strategic and financial criteria we apply and could significantly affect our ability to respond in a timely manner to adverse changes in the performance of our properties and harm our financial condition.

Substantially all of our assets consist of investments in real properties, and we review our portfolio regularly. Because real estate investments are relatively illiquid, our ability to quickly sell one or more properties in our portfolio in response to our evaluation or to changing economic and financial conditions is limited. The real estate market is affected by many factors that are beyond our control, such as general economic conditions, the availability of financing, interest rates, the supply and demand for space, and since our assets are special purpose, the underlying market for the use of such assets can further affect its liquidity. We cannot predict whether we will be able to sell any property for the price or on the terms we set, or whether any price or other terms offered by a prospective purchaser would be acceptable to us. The number of prospective buyers interested in purchasing CEA properties is limited. We also cannot predict the length of time needed to find a willing purchaser and to close the sale of a property. In addition, prospective buyers might experience increased costs of debt financing or other difficulties in obtaining debt financing, which might make it more difficult for us to sell properties or might adversely affect the price we receive for properties that we do sell.

Many factors, including changes in interest rates and the negative perceptions of the cannabis sector generally, can have an adverse effect on the value of our assets, our access to debt financing and the trading price of our securities.

As is the case with other publicly traded companies, a number of factors might adversely affect the price of our securities, many of which are beyond our control. These factors include:

• Increases in market interest rates, which could cause certain prospective purchasers to invest elsewhere. The value of our investments in certain assets may decline if long-term interest rates increase. Interest rates have risen significantly of late relative to their recent historically low levels which will continue to have a negative impact on the perceived or actual values of our assets and dividends, and consequently the prices of our securities may decline. Higher market interest rates would not, however, result in more funds being available for us to distribute to shareholders and, to the contrary, would likely increase our borrowing costs and potentially decrease funds available for distribution to our shareholders, if any. Thus, higher market interest rates could cause the market price of our shares to decrease;
• A decline in the anticipated benefits of an investment in our securities as compared to an investment in securities of companies in other industries (including benefits associated with the tax treatment of any dividends and distributions);
• Perception, by market professionals and participants, of REITs generally and REITs in the cannabis sector, in particular. Our portfolio of properties includes significant exposure to cannabis related properties;
• Perception by market participants of our potential for growth;
• Relatively low trading volumes in our securities;
• Our results of operations and financial condition; and
• Investor confidence in the stock market, the real estate sector generally, and the cannabis sector generally.

Furthermore, to the extent the Trust has borrowed funds, a rise in interest rates may result in re-financing risk when those borrowings become due, and the Trust may be required to pay higher interest rates or issue additional equity to refinance its borrowings, which could adversely affect the Trust’s financial condition and results of operations.

Individual taxpayers might perceive REIT securities as less desirable relative to the securities of other corporations because of the lower tax rate on certain dividends from such corporations to the extent we pay dividends in the future, which might have an adverse effect on the market value of our securities.

Currently, the maximum federal income tax rate on dividends, excluding tax on net investment income, from most publicly traded corporations is 20%. Dividends from REITs, however, do not qualify for this favorable tax treatment, and the maximum federal income tax rate on dividends from REITs is 29.6% (which excludes tax on new investment income). It is possible also that tax legislation enacted in subsequent years might increase this rate differential. We have suspended payments of dividends to our common and we have deferred payments on our preferred shares. To the extent we pay dividends in the future, the differing treatment of dividends received from REITs and other corporations might cause individual investors to view an investment in REITs as less attractive relative to other corporations, which might negatively affect the value of our shares.

The issuance of securities with claims that are senior to those of our common shares, including our Series A Preferred Stock, may limit or prevent us from paying dividends on our common shares. There is no limitation on our ability to issue securities senior to the Trust’s common shares or incur indebtedness.

Our common shares are equity interests that rank junior to our indebtedness and other non-equity claims with respect to assets available to satisfy claims against us, and junior to our preferred securities that by their terms rank senior to our common shares in our capital structure, including our Series A Preferred Stock. As of December 31, 2025, we had outstanding debt in the principal amount of $20 million. As of December 31, 2025, we have issued approximately $8.5 million of our Series A Preferred Stock not including dividends which are cumulative and have not been declared. This debt and these preferred securities rank senior to the Trust’s common shares in our capital structure. It is possible that we may incur more debt, and issue additional preferred securities as we pursue our business strategy.

In the case of indebtedness, specified amounts of principal and interest are customarily payable on specified due dates. In the case of preferred securities, such as our Series A Preferred Stock, holders are provided with a senior claim to distributions, according to the specific terms of the securities. In contrast, however, in the case of common shares, dividends are payable only when, as and if declared by the Trust’s board of trustees and depend on, among other things, the Trust’s results of operations, financial condition, debt service requirements, obligations to pay distributions to holders of preferred securities, such as the Series A Preferred Stock, other cash needs and any other factors that the board of trustees may deem relevant or that they are required to consider as a matter of law. Incurring additional debt or issuing additional preferred securities, may limit or eliminate the amounts available to the Trust to pay dividends on our Series A Preferred Stock and common shares.

We are dependent upon Mr. David H. Lesser for our success.

We are dependent on the diligence, expertise and business relationships of our management team, particularly Mr. David H. Lesser our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Susan Hollander our Chief Accounting Officer, to implement our strategy of acquiring and benefitting from the ownership of infrastructure-related real property assets. If Mr. Lesser or Ms. Hollander were unable to function on behalf of the Trust, the Trust’s business and prospects would be adversely affected. Moreover, Mr. Lesser has other business interests to which he dedicates a portion of his time that are unrelated to Power REIT. Although Mr. Lesser is one of our major shareholders, on occasion, those other interests of his may conflict with his interests in Power REIT, and such conflicts may be unfavorable to us.

From time to time, our management team may own interests in our lessees or other counterparties, and may thereby have interests that conflict or appear to conflict with the Trust’s interests.

On occasion, our management may have financial interests that conflict, or appear to conflict with the Trust’s interests. Although our Declaration of Trust permits this type of business relationship and a majority of our disinterested trustees must approve, and in those instances did approve, Power REIT’s involvement in such transactions, in any such circumstance, there may be conflicts of interest between Power REIT on one hand, and such affiliate on the other hand, and such conflicts may be unfavorable to us.

Our lessees and many future lessees will likely be structured as special purpose vehicles (“SPVs”), and therefore their ability to pay us is expected to be dependent solely on the revenues of a specific project, without additional credit support.

Most of our lessees will likely be structured as SPVs whose only source of cash flow will be from the operations of a single property. If the property fails to perform as projected, the SPV lessee might not have sufficient cash flow to make lease or interest payments to us. While we would expect the lenders or other parties connected to such SPVs to step in and continue to make payments to us, there can be no assurance that such parties would do so, rather than, for example, liquidating the facility. Further, if the property materially underperforms or if energy supply contracts or other contracts are cancelled, there may be little value in such SPV lessees, and our investments in real estate may become impaired.

Some losses related to our real property assets may not be covered by insurance or indemnified by our lessees, and so could adversely affect us.

Our leases generally require our lessees to carry insurance on our properties against risks customarily insured against by other companies engaged in similar businesses in the same geographic region, and to indemnify us against certain losses. However, there are some types of losses, including catastrophic acts of nature, acts of war or riots, for which we or our lessees cannot obtain insurance at an acceptable cost. Also, certain of our vacant properties are not covered by insurance. If there is an uninsured loss or a loss in excess of insurance limits, we could lose the revenues generated by the affected property and the capital we have invested in the property, assuming our lessee fails to pay us the casualty value in excess of such insurance limit, if any, or to indemnify us for such loss. Nevertheless, in such a circumstance we might still remain obligated to repay any secured indebtedness or other obligations related to the property. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations.

Discovery of previously undetected environmentally hazardous conditions may adversely affect our operating results.

We are subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations that (a) regulate certain activities and operations that may have environmental or health and safety effects, such as the management, generation, release or disposal of regulated materials, substances or wastes, (b) impose liability for the costs of cleaning up, and damages to natural resources from, past spills, waste disposals on and off-site, or other releases of hazardous materials or regulated substances, and (c) regulate workplace safety. Compliance with these laws and regulations could increase our operational costs. Violation of these laws may subject us to significant fines, penalties or disposal costs, which could negatively impact our results of operations, financial position and cash flows. Under various federal, state and local environmental laws (including those of foreign jurisdictions), a current or previous owner or operator of currently or formerly owned, leased or operated real property may be liable for the cost of removal or remediation of hazardous or toxic substances on, under or in such property. The costs of removal or remediation could be substantial. Such laws often impose liability whether or not the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of such hazardous or toxic substances. Certain environmental laws and common law principles could be used to impose liability for release of and exposure to hazardous substances, including asbestos-containing materials into the air, and third parties may seek recovery from owners or operators of real properties for personal injury or property damage associated with exposure to released hazardous substances. In addition, when excessive moisture accumulates in buildings or on building materials, mold growth may occur, particularly if the moisture problem remains undiscovered or is not addressed over a period of time. Some molds may produce airborne toxins or irritants. Concern about indoor exposure to mold has been increasing, as exposure to mold may cause a variety of adverse health effects and symptoms, including allergic or other reactions. As a result, the presence of significant mold at any of our properties could require us to undertake a costly remediation program to contain or remove the mold from the affected property or development project.

Accordingly, we may incur significant costs to defend against claims of liability, to comply with environmental regulatory requirements, to remediate any contaminated property, or to pay personal injury claims.

Moreover, environmental laws also may impose liens on property or other restrictions on the manner in which property may be used or businesses may be operated, and these restrictions may require substantial expenditures or prevent us or our lessees from operating such properties. Compliance with new or more stringent laws or regulations or stricter interpretation of existing laws may require us to incur material expenditures. Future laws, ordinances or regulations or the discovery of currently unknown conditions or non-compliances may impose material liability under environmental laws.

Legislative, regulatory, accounting or tax rules, and any changes to them or actions brought to enforce them, could adversely affect us.

We and our lessees are subject to a wide range of legislative, regulatory, accounting and tax rules. The costs and efforts of compliance with these laws, or of defending against actions brought to enforce them, could adversely affect us, either directly if we are subject to such laws or actions, or indirectly if our lessees are subject to them.

In addition, if there are changes to the laws, regulations or administrative decisions and actions that affect us, we may have to incur significant expenses in order to comply, or we may have to restrict or change our operations. For example, changes to the accounting treatment of leases by both lessors and lessees under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”) could change the presentation of information in our financial statements and as a result affect the perception of our business and our growth plans. Changes to Internal Revenue Service interpretations of “real assets” or changes to the REIT portion of the Code could affect our plans, operations, financial condition and share price.

We have invested, and expect to continue to invest, in real property assets which are subject to laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment and human health and safety. These laws and regulations generally govern wastewater discharges, noise levels, air emissions, the operation and removal of underground and above-ground storage tanks, the use, storage, treatment, transportation and disposal of solid and hazardous materials and the remediation of contamination associated with disposals. Environmental laws and regulations may impose joint and several liabilities on tenants, owners or operators for the costs to investigate and remediate contaminated properties, regardless of fault or whether the acts causing the contamination were legal. This liability could be substantial. In addition, the presence of hazardous substances, or the failure to properly remediate these substances, could adversely affect our ability to sell, rent or pledge an affected property as collateral for future borrowings. We intend to take commercially reasonable steps when we can to protect ourselves from the risks of environmental law liability; however, we will not obtain independent third-party environmental assessments for every property we acquire. In addition, any such assessments that we do obtain may not reveal all environmental liabilities, or whether a prior owner of a property created a material environmental condition not known to us. In addition, there are various local, state and federal fire, health, safety and similar regulations with which we or our lessees may be required to comply, and that may subject us or them to liability in the form of fines or damages. In all events, our lessees’ operations, the existing condition of land when we buy it, operations in the vicinity of our properties or activities of unrelated third parties could all affect our properties in ways that lead to costs being imposed on us.

Any material expenditures, fines, damages or forced changes to our business or strategy resulting from any of the above could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Our quarterly results may fluctuate.

We could experience fluctuations in our quarterly operating results due to a number of factors, including variations in the returns on our current and future investments, the interest rates payable on our debt, the level of our expenses, the levels and timing of the recognition of our realized and unrealized gains and losses including potential impairments of assets and sales at valuations which are below the carrying value on our books, the degree to which we encounter competition in our markets and other business, market and general economic conditions. Consequently, our results of operations for any current or historical period should not be relied upon as being indicative of performance in any future period.

We may not be able to sell our real property assets when we desire. In particular, in order to maintain our status as a REIT, we may be forced to borrow funds or sell assets during unfavorable market conditions.

Investments in real property are relatively illiquid compared to other investments. Accordingly, we may not be able to sell real property assets when we desire or at prices acceptable to us. This could substantially reduce the funds available for satisfying our obligations, including any debt or preferred share obligations, and for distributions to our common shareholders.

As a REIT, we must distribute at least 90% of our annual REIT taxable income, subject to certain adjustments, such as net operating losses, to our shareholders. To the extent that we satisfy the REIT distribution requirement but distribute less than 100% of our taxable income, we will be subject to 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 to our shareholders in a calendar year is less than a minimum amount specified under federal tax laws. In addition to applicable federal taxation, we may be subject to state taxation.

From time to time, we may have taxable income greater than our cash flow available for distribution to our shareholders (for example, due to substantial non-deductible cash outlays, such as capital expenditures or principal payments on debt). If we did not have other funds available in these situations, we could be required to borrow funds, sell investments at disadvantageous prices or find alternative sources of funds in order to make distributions sufficient to enable us to pay out enough of our taxable income to satisfy the REIT distribution requirement and avoid income and excise taxes in a particular year. Any of these outcomes could increase our operating costs and diminish our available cash flows or ability to grow.

If an investment that was initially believed to be a real property asset is later deemed not to have been a real property asset at the time of investment, we could lose our status as a REIT or be precluded from investing according to our current business plan.

Power REIT must meet income and asset tests to qualify as a REIT. If an investment that was originally believed to be a real asset is later deemed not to have been a real asset at the time of investment, our status as a REIT could be jeopardized or we could be precluded from investing according to our current business plan, either of which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Further, we may not seek a private letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service with respect to some or all of our infrastructure investments. The lack of such private letter rulings may increase the risk that an investment believed to be a real asset could later be deemed not to be a real asset. In the event that an investment is deemed to not be a real asset, we may be required to dispose of such investment, which could have a material adverse effect on us, because even if we were successful in finding a buyer, we might have difficulty finding a buyer on favorable terms or in a sufficient time frame.

Our failure to remain qualified as a REIT would subject us to U.S. federal income tax and applicable state and local taxes, which would reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders and have significant adverse consequences on the market price of our common shares.

We elected to be taxed as a REIT under Sections 856 through 860 of the Code commencing with our taxable year ended December 31, 2019. We believe that we have been organized and operated in such a manner as to remain qualified for taxation as a REIT under the Code for such taxable year and all subsequent taxable years to date and intend to continue to operate in such a manner in the future. We have not requested and do not intend to request a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service (the “Service”) that we remain qualified as a REIT, and the statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are not binding on the Service or any court. Qualification as a REIT for federal income tax purposes is governed by highly technical and complex provisions of the Code, for which there are only limited judicial or administrative interpretations. Our qualification as a REIT also depends on various facts and circumstances that are not entirely within our control. In addition, legislation, new regulations, administrative interpretations and court decisions might all change the tax laws with respect to the requirements for qualification as a REIT or the federal income tax consequences of qualification as a REIT. Accordingly, we cannot provide assurance that we will remain qualified as a REIT.

To remain qualified as a REIT, we must meet, on an ongoing basis, various tests regarding the nature and diversification of our assets and our income, the ownership of our outstanding stock, and the amount of our distributions to stockholders. Our ability to satisfy these asset tests depends upon the characterization and fair market values of our assets, some of which are not susceptible to a precise determination, and for which we will not obtain independent appraisals. Our compliance with the REIT income and quarterly asset requirements also depends upon our ability to manage successfully the composition of our income and assets on an ongoing basis. Moreover, new legislation, court decisions or administrative guidance, in each case possibly with retroactive effect, may make it more difficult or impossible for us to remain qualified as a REIT. Thus, while we intend to operate in a manner to remain qualified as a REIT, in view of the highly complex nature of the rules governing REITs, the ongoing importance of factual determinations, and the possibility of future changes in our circumstances, we cannot provide assurance that we will so qualify for any particular year. These considerations also might restrict the types of income we can realize, or assets that we can acquire in the future.

If we fail to remain qualified as a REIT in any taxable year, and we do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we would be required to pay U.S. federal income tax on our taxable income at regular corporate rates (and possibly increased state and local taxes). We will not be able to deduct distributions to our stockholders in any year in which we fail to qualify, nor will we be required to make distributions to our stockholders. In such a case, we might need to borrow money, sell assets, or reduce or even cease making distributions in order to pay our taxes. Our payment of income tax would reduce significantly the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders. If we fail to remain qualified as a REIT, all distributions to stockholders, to the extent of current and accumulated earnings and profits, will be taxable to the stockholders as dividend income (which may be subject to tax at preferential rates) and corporate distributions may be eligible for the dividends received deduction if they satisfy the relevant provisions of the Code. Furthermore, if we fail to remain qualified as a REIT, we no longer would be required to distribute substantially all of our net taxable income to our stockholders. In addition, unless we were eligible for certain statutory relief provisions, we could not re-elect to qualify as a REIT until the fifth calendar year following the year in which we failed to qualify and thus our cash available for distribution to our shareholders would be reduced in each of those years, unless we were entitled to relief under relevant statutory provisions. We might not be entitled to the statutory relief described in this paragraph in all circumstances. Failure to qualify as a REIT could result in additional expenses or additional adverse consequences, which may include the forced liquidation of some or all of our investments.

Although we currently intend to operate in a manner designed to allow us to continue to qualify as a REIT, future economic, market, legal, tax or other considerations might cause us to lose our REIT status, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations, and could adversely affect our ability to successfully implement our business strategy and pay dividends.

If we are deemed to be subject to Section 280E of the Code because of the business activities of our tenants, the resulting disallowance of tax deductions could cause us to incur U.S. federal income tax and jeopardize our REIT status.

Section 280E of the Code provides that, with respect to any taxpayer, no deduction or credit is allowed for expenses incurred during a taxable year “in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of Schedule I and II of the Controlled Substance Act) which is prohibited by federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.” Because cannabis is a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA, Section 280E of the Code by its terms applies to the purchase and sale of medical-use and adult-use cannabis products. Although we will not be engaged in the purchase, sale, growth, cultivation, harvesting, or processing of medical-use and adult-use cannabis products, we lease properties to tenants who will engage in such activities, and therefore our tenants likely will be subject to Section 280E of the Code. If the Service were to take the position that, through our rental agreements with our state-licensed cannabis tenants, we are primarily or vicariously liable under federal law for “trafficking” a Schedule 1 substance (cannabis) under Section 280E of the Code or for any other violations of the CSA, the Service may seek to apply the provisions of Section 280E of the Code to our company and disallow certain tax deductions, including for employee salaries, depreciation or interest expense. If such tax deductions are disallowed, it might impact our ability to meet the distribution requirements applicable to REITs under the Code, which could cause us to incur U.S. federal income tax and fail to remain qualified as a REIT. Because we are not engaged in the purchase or sale of a controlled substance, we do not believe that we will be subject to the disallowance provisions of Section 280E of the Code, and neither we nor our tax advisors are aware of any tax court cases or guidance from the Service in which a taxpayer not engaged in the purchase or sale of a controlled substance was disallowed deductions under Section 280E of the Code. However, there is no assurance that the Service will not take such a position either currently or in the future.

Legislative, regulatory or administrative changes could adversely affect us or our stockholders.

At any time, the U.S. federal income tax laws or Treasury Regulations governing REITs or the administrative interpretations of those laws or regulations may be changed, possibly with retroactive effect, and may adversely affect us and our stockholders. We cannot predict if or when 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 or whether any such law, regulation or interpretation may take effect retroactively.

In addition, several proposals have been made that would make substantial changes to the federal income tax laws generally. We cannot predict whether any of these proposed changes will become law. We cannot predict the long-term effect of any recent or future tax law changes on REITs and their stockholders. Prospective investors are urged to consult with their tax advisors regarding the effect of potential changes to the federal tax laws on an investment in our stock.

If we were deemed to be an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, applicable restrictions could make it impractical for us to continue our business as contemplated and could have a material adverse effect on the price of our securities.

A company such as ours would be considered an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), if, among other things, it owned investment securities (including minority ownership interests in subsidiaries or other entities) that have an aggregate value exceeding 40% of the value of its total assets on an unconsolidated basis, or it failed to qualify under the exemption from investment company status available to companies primarily engaged in the business of purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate.

We do not believe that we are, or are likely to become, an investment company under the 1940 Act. Nevertheless, if we were deemed to be an investment company, restrictions imposed by the 1940 Act, including limitations on our capital structure, could make it impractical for us to continue our business as contemplated and could have a material adverse effect on our operations and the price of our common shares.

Net leases may not result in fair market lease rates over time.

We expect a portion of our future income to come from net leases, whereby the lessee is responsible for all the costs, insurance and taxes of a property, including maintenance. Net leases typically have longer lease terms and, thus, there is an increased risk that if market rental rates increase in future years, the rates under our net leases will be less than fair market rental rates during those years. As a result, our income and distributions could be lower than they would otherwise be if we did not enter into net leases. When appropriate, we will seek to include a clause in each lease that provides increases in rent over the term of the lease, but there can be no assurance that we will be successful in securing such a clause. Some of our investments may include “percentage of gross revenue” lease payments, which may result in positive or negative outcomes depending on the performance of the acquired asset.

If a sale-leaseback transaction is recharacterized in a lessee’s bankruptcy proceeding, our financial condition could be adversely affected.

In certain cases, we intend to enter into sale-leaseback transactions, whereby we would purchase a property and then simultaneously lease the same property back to the seller. In the event of the bankruptcy of a lessee company, a transaction structured as a sale-leaseback may be recharacterized as either a financing or a joint venture, either of which outcomes could adversely affect our business. If the sale-leaseback were recharacterized as a financing, we might not be considered the owner of the property, and as a result would have the status of a creditor in relation to the lessee company. In that event, we would no longer have the right to sell or encumber our ownership interest in the property. Instead, we would have a claim against the lessee company for the amounts owed under the lease, with the claim arguably secured by the property, and the lessee company/debtor might have the ability to restructure the terms, interest rate and amortization schedule of its outstanding balance. If new terms were confirmed by the bankruptcy court, we could be bound by them, and prevented from foreclosing on the property. If the sale-leaseback were recharacterized as a joint venture, we and the lessee company could be treated as co-venturers with regard to the property. As a result, we could be held liable, under some circumstances, for debts incurred by the lessee company relating to the property. Either of these outcomes could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Provisions of the Maryland General Corporation Law and our Declaration of Trust and Bylaws could deter takeover attempts and have an adverse impact on the price of our common shares.

The Maryland General Corporation Law and our Declaration of Trust and Bylaws contain provisions that may have the effect of discouraging, delaying or making difficult a change in control of Power REIT. The business combination provisions of Maryland law (if our Board of Trustees decides to make them applicable to us), the control share acquisition provisions of Maryland law (if the applicable provisions in our Bylaws are rescinded), the limitations on removal of Trustees, the restrictions on the acquisition of our common shares, the power to issue additional shares and the advance notice provisions of our Bylaws could have the effect of delaying, deterring or preventing a transaction or a change in control that might involve a premium price for holders of the common shares or might otherwise be in their best interests.

In order to assist us in complying with limitations on the concentration of ownership of REIT stock imposed by the Code, among other purposes, our charter provides that no natural person or entity may, directly or indirectly, beneficially or constructively own more than 9.9% (in value or number of shares, whichever is more restrictive) of the aggregate amount of our outstanding shares of beneficial interest. In addition, our Board of Trustees may, without stockholder action, authorize the issuance of shares of stock in one or more classes or series, including preferred stock. Our Board of Trustees may, without stockholder action, amend our charter to increase the number of shares of stock of any class or series that we have authority to issue. The existence of these provisions, among others, may have a negative impact on the price of our common shares and may discourage third party bids for ownership of our Trust. These provisions may prevent any premiums being offered to holders of common shares.

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of system failures.

Our computer systems are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters (including hurricanes), terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. If such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our business. 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 personal, confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and our business could be adversely affected.

We are increasingly dependent on information technology, and our systems and infrastructure face certain risks, including cybersecurity and data leakage risks.

Significant disruptions to our information technology systems or breaches of information security could adversely affect our business. The size and complexity of our information technology systems, and those of our third-party vendors with whom we contract, make such systems potentially vulnerable to service interruptions and security breaches from inadvertent or intentional actions by our employees, partners or vendors, from attacks by malicious third parties, or from intentional or accidental physical damage to our systems infrastructure maintained by us or by third parties. A breach of our security measures or the accidental loss, inadvertent disclosure, unapproved dissemination, misappropriation or misuse of proprietary information, or other confidential information, whether as a result of theft, hacking, fraud, trickery or other forms of deception, or for any other reason, could adversely affect our business or financial condition. Further, any such interruption, security breach, loss or disclosure of confidential information, could result in financial, legal, business, and reputational harm to us and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flow.

We have identified material weaknesses in our internal controls, and we cannot provide assurances that these material weaknesses will be effectively remediated or that additional weaknesses will not occur in the future.

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over our financial reporting, as defined in Rule 13a- 15(f) under the Exchange Act. During the quarter ended September 30, 2024, we identified a material weakness in our controls relating to accounting for complex transactions. Specifically, shares of our Series A Preferred Stock were historically classified as mezzanine equity instead of being classified as equity which resulted in re-stating our financial statements for the quarter ended June 30, 2024. The weakness has not yet been remediated.

While we have hired outside consultants to aid in our accounting for complex transactions and have taken remedial action to address the material weakness in our internal controls, we cannot provide any assurance that such remedial measures, or any other remedial measures we take, will be effective. In addition, a material weakness will not be considered remediated until the applicable controls operate for a sufficient period of time and management has concluded, through testing, that these controls are designed and operate effectively. Management plans to fully remediate the identified material weakness in internal controls, however, there can be no assurance that the deficiencies will be remediated in the near future or that the internal control over financial reporting, as modified, will enable us to identify or avoid material weaknesses in our internal controls in the future. In addition, due to our small number of employees, there can be no assurance that another weakness will not occur.

As a result of our failure to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, security holders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting, which would harm our business and the trading price of our common shares.

Effective internal control over financial reporting is necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, is designed to prevent fraud. Our failure to maintain an effective system of internal controls, and any failure by us to implement required new or improved internal controls or difficulties encountered in their implementation, could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing by us, as and when required, conducted in connection with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or Section 404, or any subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm, as and when required, may reveal deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. As a growing company, implementing and maintaining effective controls may require more resources, and we may encounter internal control integration difficulties. Our failure to maintain effective internal controls over financial reporting, may result in us not being able to accurately report our financial results, detect or prevent fraud, or file our periodic reports in a timely manner, which may, among other adverse consequences, cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information and lead to a decline in the trading price of our common shares.

Risks Related to our Investment Strategy

Each property in our portfolio could be considered a special purpose use asset which may impact market value and the ability to lease to generate income.

Our properties span across the special purposes of solar power production, railroad, and CEA facilities in the form of greenhouses. As special purpose assets they cannot be easily pivoted to alternative uses and tend to support industry-specific tenants (i.e. greenhouse with a cultivator). This specialization can work against the marketability of the asset and in the case that the tenant or the under-lying industry experiences default or downturn, the value of the asset could fall accordingly. We can provide no assurance that the industries utilizing our assets will succeed and if a tenant fails there is no visibility as to when we would find a replacement tenant or if there are any potential solutions in the broader market.

Our real estate investments include greenhouse properties suitable for the cultivation of cannabis, and a decrease in demand for such facilities has and could continue to materially and adversely affect our business. These properties may be difficult to sell or re-lease upon tenant defaults or lease terminations, either of which could adversely affect our business.

Our portfolio of properties is concentrated in greenhouse properties suitable for the cultivation of cannabis used therefore, we are subject to risks inherent in investments heavily in a single industry. A decrease in the demand for cannabis cultivation, processing and dispensary facilities would have a greater adverse effect on our rental revenues than if we owned a more diversified real estate portfolio. Demand for cannabis cultivation and processing facilities has been and could be adversely affected by changes in state or local laws or any change in the federal government’s current enforcement posture with respect to state-licensed cannabis operations, among others. To the extent that any of these conditions occur, they are likely to affect demand and market rents for cannabis cultivation and processing and dispensary facilities, which could materially and adversely affect our business.

In addition, if we are forced to sell or re-lease a property, we may have difficulty finding qualified purchasers who are willing to buy the property or tenants who are willing to lease the property on terms that we expect, or at all. As our tenants and properties are concentrated in the regulated cannabis industry, a shift in property preferences by regulated cannabis operators, including but not limited to changing preferences regarding location and types of improvements, could have a significant negative impact on the desirability of our properties to prospective tenants when we need to re-lease them, in addition to other challenges, such as obtaining the necessary state and local authorizations for a new tenant to commence operations at the property. These and other limitations may affect our ability to sell or re-lease properties, which may materially and adversely affect our business.

Our focus on non-traditional real estate asset classes including CEA, alternative energy and transportation infrastructure sectors will subject us to more risks than if we were broadly diversified to include other asset classes.

Because we specifically focus on non-traditional real estate assets, investments in our securities may present more risks than if we were broadly diversified over numerous sectors of the economy. For example, a downturn in the U.S. CEA, alternative energy or transportation infrastructure sectors would have a larger impact on us than on a trust that does not concentrate in one sector of the economy. Factors that may adversely affect our investments include, but are not limited to, changes in supply and demand for infrastructure consumption, prices of national and global commodities, government regulation, world and regional events and general economic conditions.

Renewable energy resources are complex, and our investments in them rely on long-term projections of resource and equipment availability and capital and operating costs; if our or our lessees’ projections are incorrect, we may suffer losses.

Although the projection of renewable energy resource availability has been analyzed for decades across different geographies, technologies and topologies, long-term projections of renewable resource availability at a particular site, the availability of generating equipment and the operating costs of harvesting such renewable energy are subject to various uncertainties and in many cases must rely on estimates at best. If any such projections are materially incorrect, our lessees could suffer financial losses, which could adversely affect our investments. In addition, investments based on a percentage of gross revenue could under-perform our investment projections, leading to adverse effects on our financial condition and results of operations.

Infrastructure assets may be subject to the risk of fluctuations in commodity prices and in the supply of and demand for infrastructure consumption.

The operations and financial performance of companies in the infrastructure sector may be directly or indirectly affected by commodity prices and fluctuations in infrastructure supply and demand. Commodity prices and infrastructure demand fluctuate for several reasons, including changes in market and economic conditions, the impact of weather on demand or supply, levels of domestic production and imported commodities, energy conservation, domestic and foreign governmental regulation and taxation and the availability of local, intrastate and interstate transportation systems. Fluctuations in commodity prices may increase costs for consumers of energy-related infrastructure assets and therefore reduce demand for such infrastructure. Further, extreme price fluctuation upwards or downwards could lead to the development of alternatives to existing energy-related infrastructure and could impair the value of our investments.

Volatility in commodity prices or in the supply of and demand for infrastructure assets may make it more difficult for companies in the infrastructure sector to raise capital to the extent the market perceives that their performance may be tied directly or indirectly to commodity prices. Historically, commodity prices have been cyclical and have exhibited significant volatility. Should infrastructure companies experience variations in supply and demand, the resulting decline in operating or financial performance could adversely affect the value or quality of our assets.

Infrastructure investments are subject to obsolescence risks.

Infrastructure assets are subject to obsolescence risks that could occur as a result of changing supply and demand, new types of construction, changing demographics, changing weather patterns and new technologies. In any such event, there might be few alternative uses for our investments, and our investments might drop in value.

Renewable energy investments may be adversely affected by variations in weather patterns.

Renewable energy investments may be adversely affected by variations in weather patterns, including shifting wind or solar resources and including variations brought about by climate changes, which would cause earnings volatility for our lessees or borrowers and which could affect their ability to make lease or other contractual payments to us. Lease payments that are structured as a percentage of gross revenue typically fluctuate from period to period. Although we believe these fluctuations tend to average out over time, to the extent that our projections are incorrect because weather patterns change significantly, our financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Investments in renewable energy may be dependent on equipment or manufacturers that have limited operating histories or financial or other challenges.

Although most wind, solar and other renewable energy projects use technologies that are well understood by the market, many technologies are undergoing rapid changes and improvements and many have not been tested in operating environments for the expected durations of our investments. Some manufacturers are new or relatively new and may not have the financial ability to support their extended warranties. As a result, if the future performance of equipment that is a basis for a lessee’s revenues is lower than projected, such a lessee may have difficulty making its lease payments to us and our business could suffer.

Our portfolio of marketable securities, is subject to market, interest and credit risk that may reduce its value.

We have investments in a portfolio of marketable securities. As of December 31, 2025, the Trust owned common shares, preferred and warrants of a publicly traded REIT. The fair market value of our publicly traded REIT securities was $86,537, based on the December 31, 2025 closing prices. Changes in the value of our portfolio of marketable securities could adversely affect our earnings. In particular, the value of our investments may decline due to increases in interest rates, downgrades of the securities included in our portfolio, instability in the global financial markets that reduces the liquidity of securities included in our portfolio, declines in the value of assets underlying the securities included in our portfolio and other factors. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical instability and rising inflation have and may continue to adversely affect the financial markets. Each of these events may cause us to record charges to reduce the carrying value of our investment portfolio or sell investments for less than our acquisition cost.

Risks Related to our Securities

There is a 9.9% limit on the amount of our equity securities that any one person or entity may own.

In order to assist us in complying with limitations on the concentration of ownership of REIT stock imposed by the Code, among other purposes, our charter provides that no natural person or entity may, directly or indirectly, beneficially or constructively own more than 9.9% (in value or number of shares, whichever is more restrictive) of the aggregate amount of our outstanding shares of beneficial interest. If a person were found to own more than this amount, whether as a result of intentionally purchasing our securities, developments outside such person’s control or otherwise – for example, as a result of changes in the Trust’s capital structure, the inheritance of securities, or otherwise – then, among other things, the transfers leading to the violation of the 9.9% limit would be void and the Board of Trustees would be authorized to take such actions as it deems advisable and/or as authorized by the Declaration of Trust to ensure the beneficial ownership limit is not exceeded. This ownership limit could discourage investors from investing in the Trust.

We cannot assure you that our common shares and our Series A Preferred Stock will remain listed on the NYSE American.

The Trust’s common shares and/or its Series A Preferred Stock could be subject to delisting by, the NYSE American, based on a number of factors, including a failure by us to continue to qualify as a REIT, a failure to meet the NYSE American ongoing listing requirements, including those relating to the number of shareholders, the price of the Trust’s securities, the amount of equity, and the amount and composition of the Trust’s assets, changes in NYSE American ongoing listing requirements and other factors.

To our knowledge, the NYSE American has not approved for listing any U.S.-based REITs engaged in the ownership of cannabis-related properties, other than Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., a cannabis-focused real estate investment trust listed in late 2016 just prior to the nomination of former Attorney General Sessions. Although we currently believe we meet the maintenance listing standards of the NYSE American, we cannot assure you that we will continue to meet those standards, or that the NYSE American will not seek to delist our common shares or Series A Preferred Stock as a result of our entry into lease agreements with licensed U.S. cannabis cultivators or other potential violations of listing requirements.

Additionally, NYSE American has proposed amendments to its continued listing standards that would, if approved and implemented, modify or tighten existing requirements relating to minimum trading price and minimum stockholders’ equity. The proposed rule change to Section 1003(f)(v) of the NYSE American Company Guide (the “Company Guide”) would provide for the immediate suspension of trading and commencement of delisting proceedings by the exchange if a listed security’s closing price per share is less than $0.25 on any single trading day, without providing advance notice to the issuer or an opportunity to cure. NYSE American has also proposed a new continued-listing standard that would require listed issuers to maintain a minimum market capitalization of at least $5 million, measured over a 30-consecutive-trading-day period. This requirement does not currently exist in the Company Guide and would be added to Section 1003 if approved by the SEC. Under the proposed rule, NYSE American would have explicit authority to commence delisting proceedings if a listed company’s market capitalization falls below the $5 million threshold for the specified period. There can be no assurance that we would be able to satisfy such requirements on a sustained basis, particularly given market volatility, fluctuations in our stock price, operating losses, or factors beyond our control.

If our common shares or Series A Preferred Stock are delisted from the NYSE American, then our common shares and our Series A Preferred Stock will trade, if at all, only on the over-the-counter market, such as the OTCQB or OTCQX trading platforms, and then only if one or more registered broker-dealer market makers comply with quotation requirements. Any potential delisting of our common shares from the NYSE American could, among other things, depress our share price, substantially limit liquidity of our common shares and materially adversely affect our ability to raise capital on terms acceptable to us, or at all.

Low trading volumes in the Trust’s listed securities may adversely affect holders’ ability to resell their securities at prices that are attractive, or at all.

Power REIT’s common shares are traded on the NYSE American under the ticker “PW”. The average daily trading volume of Power REIT’s common shares is less than that of the listed securities of many other companies, including larger companies. During the 12 months ended December 31, 2025, the average daily trading volume for the Trust’s common shares was approximately 225,761 shares. Power REIT’s Series A Preferred Stock is traded on the NYSE American under the ticker “PW PRA”. The Series A Preferred Stock has been listed since March 18, 2014. Because the Series A Preferred Stock has no maturity date, investors seeking liquidity may be limited to selling their shares of Series A Preferred Stock in the secondary market. In part due to the relatively small trading volume of the Trust’s listed securities, any material sales of such securities by any person may place significant downward pressure on the market price of the Trust’s listed securities. In general, as a result of low trading volumes, it may be difficult for holders of the Trust’s listed securities to sell their securities at prices they find attractive, or at all.

Our stock price has fluctuated in the past, has recently been volatile and may be volatile in the future, and as a result, investors in our common shares could incur substantial losses.

Our stock price has fluctuated in the past, has recently been volatile and may be volatile in the future. On November 20, 2025, the reported low sale price of our common shares was $.60 and on August 14, 2025, the reported high sales price was $1.70. We may incur rapid and substantial decreases in our stock price in the foreseeable future that are unrelated to our operating performance or prospects. In addition, sales of substantial amounts of our common shares, or the perception that such sales might occur, could adversely affect prevailing market prices of our common shares and our stock price may decline substantially in a short period of time. As a result of this volatility, investors may experience losses on their investment in our common shares. The market price for our common shares may be influenced by many factors, including the following:

• sale of our common shares by our stockholders, executives, and directors;
• volatility and limitations in trading volumes of our securities;
• our ability to obtain financings to implement our business plans;
• our ability to attract new customers;
• The impact of pandemics;
• changes in our capital structure or dividend policy, future issuances of securities and sales of large blocks of securities by our stockholders;
• our cash position;
• announcements and events surrounding financing efforts, including debt and equity securities;
• reputational issues;
• our inability to successfully manage our business or achieve profitability;
• changes in general economic, political and market conditions in any of the regions in which we conduct our business;
• changes in industry conditions or perceptions;
• analyst research reports, recommendation and changes in recommendations, price targets, and withdrawals of coverage;
• departures and additions of key personnel;
• disputes and litigation related to intellectual properties, proprietary rights, and contractual obligations;
• changes in applicable laws, rules, regulations, or accounting practices and other dynamics;
• market conditions or trends in our industry; and
• other events or factors, many of which may be out of our control.

These broad market and industry factors may seriously harm the market price of our common shares, regardless of our operating performance. Since the stock price of our common shares has fluctuated in the past, has been recently volatile and may be volatile in the future, investors in our common shares could incur substantial losses. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market, securities class-action litigation has often been instituted against companies. Such litigation, if instituted against us, could result in substantial costs and diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. There can be no guarantee that our stock price will remain at current prices or that future sales of our common shares will not be at prices lower than those sold to investors.

Additionally, recently, securities of certain companies have experienced significant and extreme volatility in stock price due short sellers of common shares, known as a “short squeeze.” These short squeezes have caused extreme volatility in those companies and in the market and have led to the price per share of those companies to trade at a significantly inflated rate that is disconnected from the underlying value of such companies. Many investors who have purchased shares in those companies at an inflated rate face the risk of losing a significant portion of their original investment as the price per share has declined steadily as interest in those stocks have abated. While we have no reason to believe our shares would be the target of a short squeeze, there can be no assurance that we won’t be in the future, and you may lose a significant portion or all of your investment if you purchase our shares at a rate that is significantly disconnected from our underlying value.

Our ability to issue preferred stock in the future could adversely affect the rights of existing holders of our equity securities.

Our charter permits our Board of Trustees to increase the number of authorized shares of our capital stock without the approval of holders of our common shares or Series A Preferred Stock. In addition, our charter permits our Board of Trustees to reclassify any or all of our unissued authorized shares as shares of preferred stock in one or more new series on terms determinable by our Board of Trustees, without the approval of holders of our common shares or Series A Preferred Stock. Future reclassifications or issuances by us of preferred stock, whether Series A Preferred Stock or some new series of preferred stock, could effectively diminish our ability to pay dividends or other distributions to existing equity security holders, including distributions upon our liquidation, dissolution or winding up.

The issuance of additional equity securities may dilute existing equity holders.

The issuance of additional equity securities may result in the dilution of existing equity securities holders. Although the Trust expects to deploy additional equity capital principally for the purpose of seeking to make accretive transactions, and in such cases seeks to not dilute the economic value of equity securities held by existing holders, such additional issuances may dilute existing equity securities holders’ percentage ownership of the Trust, and the percentage of voting power they hold, depending on the terms of the newly issued equity securities.

Our Series A Preferred Stock has not been rated and is junior to our existing and future debt, and the interests of holders of Series A Preferred Stock could be diluted by the issuance of additional parity-preferred securities and by other transactions.

Our Series A Preferred Stock has not been rated by any nationally recognized statistical rating organization, which may negatively affect its market value and a holder’s ability to sell it. It is possible that one or more rating agencies might independently determine to issue such a rating and that such a rating, if issued, could adversely affect the market price of our Series A Preferred Stock. In addition, we may elect in the future to obtain a rating of our Series A Preferred Stock, which could adversely affect its market price. Ratings reflect only the views of the rating agency or agencies issuing the ratings, and they could be revised downward or withdrawn entirely at the discretion of the issuing rating agency if in its judgment circumstances so warrant. Any such downward revision or withdrawal of a rating could have an adverse effect on the market price of our Series A Preferred Stock.

The payment of amounts due on the Series A Preferred Stock will be junior in payment preference to all of our existing and future debt and any securities we may issue in the future that have rights or preferences senior to those of the Series A Preferred Stock. We may issue additional shares of Series A Preferred Stock or additional shares of preferred stock in the future which are on a parity with (or, upon the affirmative vote or consent of the holders of two-thirds of the outstanding shares of Series A Preferred Stock, senior to) the Series A Preferred Stock with respect to the payment of dividends and the distribution of assets upon liquidation, dissolution or winding up. Additional issuance of preferred securities or other transactions could reduce the pro-rata assets available for distribution upon liquidation and you may not receive your full liquidation preference if there are not sufficient assets. In addition, issuance of additional preferred securities or other transactions could dilute your voting rights with respect to certain matters that require votes or the consent of holders of our Series A Preferred Stock.

Holders of Series A Preferred Stock have limited voting rights.

The voting rights of a holder of Series A Preferred Stock are limited. Our common shares are the only class of our securities carrying full voting rights. Voting rights for holders of Series A Preferred Stock exist only with respect to amendments to our charter (whether by merger, consolidation or otherwise) that materially and adversely affect the terms of the Series A Preferred Stock, the authorization or issuance of classes or series of equity securities that are senior to the Series A Preferred Stock and, if we fail to pay dividends on the Series A Preferred Stock for six or more quarterly periods (whether or not consecutive), the election of additional trustees. To date, we have failed to pay the dividends owed to the holders of shares of Series A Preferred Stock and, therefore, the holders of shares of Series A Preferred Stock are entitled to elect two trustees to our Board of Trustees, which to date they have not done as required. Holders would not, however, have any voting rights if we amend, alter or repeal the provisions of our charter or the terms of the Series A Preferred Stock in connection with a merger, consolidation, transfer or conveyance of all or substantially all of our assets or otherwise, so long as the Series A Preferred Stock remains outstanding and its terms remain materially unchanged or holders receive stock of the successor entity with substantially identical rights, taking into account that, upon the occurrence of an event described in this sentence, we may not be the surviving entity. Furthermore, if holders receive the greater of the full trading price of the Series A Preferred Stock on the last date prior to the first public announcement of an event described in the preceding sentence, or the $25.00 liquidation preference per share of Series A Preferred Stock plus accrued and unpaid dividends (whether or not declared) to, but not including, the date of such event, pursuant to the occurrence of any of the events described in the preceding sentence, then holders will not have any voting rights with respect to the events described in the preceding sentence.

Dividends on our Series A Preferred Stock can be suspended and not paid on a current basis.

The Trust is not obligated to distribute a dividend on its Series A Preferred Stock on a current basis. During 2025, the Trust did not declare dividends on Power REIT’s Series A Preferred Stock. Dividends not declared accumulate and are added to the liquidation preference.

We may issue additional Series A Preferred Stock at a discount to liquidation value or at a discount to the issuance value of shares of Series A Preferred Stock already issued.

We may offer additional Series A Preferred Stock at prices or yields that represent a discount to liquidation value, or that represent a discount to the price paid for or the yield applicable to shares of Series A Preferred Stock previously issued and sold. Such sales could adversely affect the market price of the Series A Preferred Stock.

The change of control conversion and delisting conversion features of our Series A Preferred Stock may not adequately compensate a holder of such securities upon a Change of Control or Delisting Event (as such terms as defined in regard to our Series A Preferred Stock), and the change of control conversion, delisting conversion and redemption features of our Series A Preferred Stock may make it more difficult for a party to take over our trust or may discourage a party from taking over our trust.

Upon a Change of Control or Delisting Event, holders of our Series A Preferred Stock will have the right (subject to our special optional redemption rights) to convert all or part of their shares of Series A Preferred Stock into common shares (or equivalent value of alternative consideration). If our common share price were less than $5.00 subject to adjustment, holders will receive a maximum of 5 of our common shares per share of Series A Preferred Stock, which may result in a holder receiving value that is less than the liquidation preference of the Series A Preferred Stock. In addition, the foregoing features of our Series A Preferred Stock may have the effect of inhibiting a third party from making an acquisition proposal for our trust or of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of our trust under circumstances that otherwise could provide the holders of our common shares and Series A Preferred Stock with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then current market prices of those securities, or that holders may otherwise believe is in their best interests.

Ownership limitations may restrict change in control or business combination opportunities in which our stockholders might receive a premium for their shares.

To qualify as a REIT under the Code, shares of our stock must be owned by 100 or more persons during at least 335 days of a taxable year of 12 months (other than the first year for which an election to be a REIT has been made) or during a proportionate part of a shorter taxable year. Also, not more than 50% of the value of the outstanding shares of our stock may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals (as defined in the Code to include certain entities) during the last half of a taxable year (other than the first year for which an election to be a REIT has been made). In order for us to remain qualified as a REIT under the Code, the relevant sections of our charter provide that, subject to certain exceptions, no person or entity may own, or be deemed to own, by virtue of the applicable constructive ownership provisions of the Code, more than 9.9% (in value or number of shares, whichever is more restrictive) of the aggregate of our outstanding shares of beneficial interest. These ownership limits and other restrictions could have the effect of discouraging a takeover or other transaction in which holders of our common shares might receive a premium for their shares over the then prevailing market price or which holders might believe to be otherwise in their best interests.

Our Series A Preferred Stock is subject to interest rate risk.

Distributions payable on our Series A Preferred Stock are subject to interest rate risk. Because dividends on our Series A Preferred Stock are fixed, our costs may increase upon maturity or redemption of the securities. This might require us to sell investments at a time when we would otherwise not do so, which could affect adversely our ability to generate cash flow. To the extent that our Series A Preferred Stock may have call or conversion provisions that are in our favor at a given time, such provisions may be detrimental to the returns experienced by the holders of the securities.

Inflation may negatively affect the value of our Series A Preferred Stock and the dividends we pay.

Inflation is the reduction in the purchasing power of money, resulting from an increase in the price of goods and services. Inflation risk is the risk that the inflation-adjusted, or “real”, value of an investment will be worth less in the future. If and when the economy experiences material rates of inflation, the real value of our Series A Preferred Stock and the dividends payable to holders will decline.

Risks Related to Regulation

The U.S. federal government’s approach towards cannabis laws may be subject to change or may not proceed as previously outlined.

In an effort to provide guidance to U.S. federal law enforcement, under former President Barak Obama, the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), released a memorandum on August 29, 2013 entitled “Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement” from former Deputy Attorney General James Cole (the Cole Memorandum). The Cole Memorandum sought to limit the use of the U.S. federal government’s prosecutorial resources by providing United States attorneys (“U.S. Attorneys”) with certain priorities (the “Cole Priorities”) on which to focus their attention in states that have established cannabis programs with regulatory enforcement systems. U.S. Attorneys were required to adhere to the Cole Priorities until the rescission of the Cole Memorandum in January 2018.

Pursuant to his rescission of the Cole Memorandum, former Attorney General Jeffrey B. Sessions also issued a one-page memorandum known as the “Sessions Memorandum.” According to the Sessions Memorandum, the Cole Memorandum was “unnecessary” due to existing general enforcement guidance adopted in the 1980s, as set forth in the U.S. Attorney’s Manual (the “USAM”). The USAM enforcement priorities, like those of the Cole Memorandum, are also based on the U.S. federal government’s limited resources, and include “law enforcement priorities set by the Attorney General,” the “seriousness” of the alleged crimes, the “deterrent effect of criminal prosecution,” and “the cumulative impact of particular crimes on the community.”

Pamela Bondi was confirmed by the United States Senate as Attorney General of the United States on February 4, 2025. During her tenure as Attorney General in the State of Florida, Bondi routinely opposed the softening of anti-cannabis laws, including opposition to ballot initiatives to broaden access to medical cannabis, but she also generally faithfully enforced state cannabis laws to maintain a well-regulated medical cannabis market. Bondi has not provided a clear policy directive for the United States as it pertains to state-level cannabis-related activities, and there can be no assurances that DOJ or other law enforcement authorities will not seek to vigorously enforce current U.S. federal laws. It is generally expected that Bondi will closely follow the Trump Administration’s enforcement priorities.

Recent federal policy developments—including the Trump Executive Order directing federal agencies to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance—introduce significant regulatory uncertainty for our business. Although the Trump Executive Order represents a major shift in the federal approach to cannabis, it does not legalize marijuana under federal law and requires completion of formal DEA administrative rulemaking before any change to marijuana’s legal status takes effect. As a result, our tenants that cultivate or process cannabis may continue to face federal enforcement risks until rescheduling is formally implemented.

Even if rescheduling is finalized, the implications for the cannabis industry—and therefore for our REIT operations—remain uncertain. A Schedule III designation could ease research restrictions and reduce certain tax burdens for operators, but would not resolve longstanding challenges, including potential limitations on banking services, federal oversight of cannabis-related facilities, or continued restrictions on interstate commerce. Moreover, legislative changes enacted in 2025 will classify many hemp-derived products containing trace THC as marijuana beginning November 12, 2026, creating additional compliance burdens across the cannabinoid supply chain. These shifting regulatory definitions may affect tenant operations, demand for our Greenhouse Portfolio properties, and the creditworthiness of existing or prospective tenants.

Changes in federal cannabis policy may also alter competitive dynamics within the industry. The emphasis of the Trump Executive Order on expanded research and medical access could accelerate the entry of well-capitalized pharmaceutical or agricultural companies into the cannabis market, potentially displacing smaller operators that are more likely to lease specialized greenhouse properties such as those owned by us. Public market volatility following the Trump Executive Order underscores the potential for rapid shifts in valuation, capital availability, and tenant stability. Any delays, modifications, or reversals in the federal rescheduling process—or related CBD and hemp reforms—could materially adversely affect tenant operations, occupancy rates, rental income, asset values, and our overall business and financial condition.

The U.S. federal government’s approach towards cannabis and cannabis-related activities remains uncertain. If the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment is not renewed in the future, and/or until the U.S. federal government amends the laws and its enforcement policies with respect to cannabis, allowing for use thereof, there is a risk that the DOJ and other U.S. federal agencies may utilize U.S. federal funds to enforce the CSA in states with a medical and adult-use cannabis program, which could have a material adverse effect on our current and future cannabis tenants.

Furthermore, while we have acquired additional cannabis facilities with the intent to lease those facilities for the cultivation and processing of medical-use cannabis facilities, our lease agreements do not prohibit our cannabis tenant from cultivating and processing cannabis for adult use, provided that such tenant complies with all applicable state and local rules and regulations. Certain of our tenants may opt to cultivate adult-use cannabis in our medical-use cannabis facilities, which may in turn subject our cannabis tenant, us and our properties to federal enforcement actions.

Laws, regulations and the policies with respect to the enforcement of such laws and regulations affecting the cannabis industry in the United States are constantly changing, and we cannot predict the impact that future regulations may have on us.

Medical and adult-use cannabis laws and regulations in the United States are complex, broad in scope, and subject to evolving interpretations. As a result, compliance with such laws and regulations could require us to incur substantial costs or alter certain aspects of our business. Violations of these laws, or allegations of such violations, could disrupt certain aspects of our business plan and may have a material adverse effect on certain aspects of our planned operations. Further, regulations may be enacted in the future that will be directly applicable to certain aspects of our tenants’ cannabis-related activities. We cannot predict the nature of any future laws, regulations, interpretations or applications, especially in the United States, nor can we determine what effect additional governmental regulations or administrative policies and procedures, when and if promulgated, could have on our business.

The FDA may seek to regulate cannabis under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938 or under the Public Health Service Act. Additionally, the FDA may issue rules, regulations, or guidance including certified good manufacturing practices, related to the growth, cultivation, harvesting and processing of medical cannabis. If regulated by the FDA as a drug, clinical trials may be needed to verify efficacy and safety. It is also possible that the FDA would require that facilities where cannabis is grown register with the FDA and comply with certain federally prescribed regulations. In the event that some or all of these regulations or enforcement actions are imposed, we do not know what the impact this would have on the cannabis industry, including what costs, requirements and possible prohibitions may be enforced. If we or our tenants are unable to comply with the regulations or registration as prescribed by the FDA, we and or our tenants may be unable to continue to operate their and our business in its current form or at all.

Currently, there are 47 states plus the District of Columbia and certain U.S. territories that have laws and/or regulations that recognize, in one form or another, consumer use of cannabis in connection with medical treatment. Of those, 11 states plus the District of Columbia and certain U.S. territories have laws and/or regulations that permit the adult-use of cannabis. Despite the recent Trump Executive Order directing the reclassification of marijuana as a Schedule III controlled substance under the CSA, it currently remains classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA and U.S. federal laws and regulations prohibit a range of activities regarding cannabis. Unless and until Congress amends the CSA with respect to cannabis (the timing and scope of which is not assured and hard to predict), there is a risk that governmental authorities in the United States may enforce current U.S. federal law, and we may, through our business activities, be deemed to be operating in direct violation of U.S. federal law. Accordingly, active enforcement of the current U.S. federal regulatory position on cannabis could have a material adverse effect on us. The risk of strict enforcement of the CSA in light of Congressional activity, judicial holdings, and stated policy remains uncertain, and any regulations prohibiting the use of cannabis, or prohibiting cannabis-related activities, could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, relevant state or local rules and regulations may be amended or repealed, or new rules and regulations may be enacted in the future to eliminate prohibiting the cultivation, processing and dispensing of cannabis. If our cannabis tenants, or any future cannabis tenants, are forced to cease operations, we would be required to replace such tenant with one that is not engaged in the cannabis industry, who may pay significantly lower rents. Any changes in state or local laws that reduce or eliminate the ability to cultivate and produce cannabis would likely result in a high vacancy rate for the kinds of properties that we own and/or seek to acquire, which would depress our lease rates and property values. In addition, we would realize an economic loss on any and all improvements made to properties that were to be used in connection with cannabis cultivation and processing.

We may be subject to anti-money laundering laws and regulations in the United States.

Financial transactions involving proceeds generated by cannabis-related activities can form the basis for prosecution under the U.S. money laundering, financial recordkeeping and proceeds of crime, including the U.S. Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 1970 (the “Bank Secrecy Act”), as amended by Title III of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), a bureau within the U.S. Department of the Treasury primarily charged with administering and enforcing the Bank Secrecy Act, previously issued a memorandum providing instructions to banks seeking to provide services to cannabis-related businesses (the “FinCEN Memorandum”). The FinCEN Memorandum states that in some circumstances, it is permissible for banks to provide services to cannabis-related businesses without risking prosecution for violation of U.S. federal money laundering laws, and explicitly refers to the Cole Priorities. As discussed above, the Cole Memorandum was rescinded in January 2018 and the decision to prosecute was left to the discretion of each U.S. Attorney in each district. The DOJ continues to have the right and power to prosecute crimes committed by banks and financial institutions, such as money laundering and violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, that occur in any state including states that have in some form legalized the sale of cannabis. Further, the conduct of the DOJ’s enforcement priorities could change for any number of reasons. A change in the DOJ’s priorities could result in the DOJ’s prosecuting banks and financial institutions for crimes that were not previously prosecuted.

If any of our investments, or any proceeds thereof, any dividends or distributions therefrom, or any profits or revenues accruing from such investments in the United States were found to be in violation of anti-money laundering laws or otherwise, such transactions may be viewed as proceeds of crime, including under one or more of the statutes discussed above. Any property, real or personal, and its proceeds, involved in or traceable to such a crime is subject to seizure by and forfeiture to governmental authorities. Any such seizure, forfeiture or other action by law enforcement regarding our assets could restrict or otherwise jeopardize our ability to declare or pay dividends or effect other distributions, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

While we do not presently have challenges with our banking relationships, should we have an inability to maintain our current bank accounts, or the inability of our cannabis tenants to maintain their current banking relationships, it would be difficult for us to operate our business, may increase our operating costs, could pose additional operational, logistical and security challenges and could result in our inability to implement our business plan.

Litigation, complaints, enforcement actions and governmental inquiries could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our tenants’ participation in the cannabis industry may lead to litigation, formal or informal complaints, enforcement actions and governmental inquiries. Litigation, complaints, enforcement actions and governmental inquiries could consume considerable amounts of our financial and other resources, which could have a material adverse effect on our sales, revenue, profitability, and growth prospects.

Litigation, complaints, enforcement actions and governmental inquiries could result from cannabis-related activities in violation of federal law, including, but not limited to, the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). RICO is a U.S. federal statute providing criminal penalties in addition to a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. Under RICO, it is unlawful for any person who has received income derived from a pattern of racketeering activity, to use or invest any of that income in the acquisition of any interest, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise that is engaged in interstate commerce. RICO also authorizes private parties whose properties or businesses are harmed by such patterns of racketeering activity to initiate a civil action against the individuals involved. Recently, a number of RICO lawsuits have been brought by neighbors of state-licensed cannabis farms, who allege they are bothered by noise and odor associated with cannabis production, which has also led to decreased property values. By alleging that the smell of cannabis interferes with the enjoyment of their property and drives down their property value, plaintiffs in these cases have effectively elevated common law nuisance claims into federal RICO lawsuits. These lawsuits have named not only the cannabis operator, but also supply chain partners and vendors that do not directly handle or otherwise “touch” cannabis. To our knowledge, none of these cases has been entirely dismissed at the pleadings stage, and we cannot be certain how the courts will rule on cannabis-related RICO lawsuits in the future. If a property owner were to assert such a claim against us, we may be required to devote significant resources and costs to defending ourselves against such a claim, and if a property owner were to be successful on such a claim, our cannabis tenant may be unable to continue to operate its business in its current form at the property, which could materially adversely impact such tenant’s business and the value of our property, our business and, financial condition and results of operations.

Further, although we are not currently subject to any litigation, from time to time in the normal course of our business operations, we, or any of our subsidiaries, may become subject to litigation, complaints, enforcement actions and governmental inquiries that may result in liability material to our financial statements as a whole or may negatively affect our operating results if changes to our business operations are required. The cost to defend such litigation, complaints, actions or inquiries may be significant and may require a diversion of our resources. There also may be adverse publicity associated with such litigation, complaints, actions or inquiries that could negatively affect customer perception of our business, regardless of whether the allegations are valid or whether we are ultimately found liable. Insurance may not be available at all or in sufficient amounts to cover any liabilities with respect to these or other matters. A judgment or other liability in excess of our insurance coverage for any claims could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We maintain a cyber risk management protocol designed to identify, assess, manage, mitigate, and respond to cybersecurity threats. We have undertaken, on an annual basis, to conduct an assessment of our cyber risk management processes and controls to identify, quantify, and categorize material cyber risks. In addition, we have developed a risk mitigation plan to address such risks, and where necessary, remediate potential vulnerabilities identified through the annual assessment process.

We employ a risk management strategy for the assessment, identification and management of material risks stemming from cybersecurity threats. Our methodologies involve a systematic evaluation of potential threats, vulnerabilities, and their potential impacts on our organization’s operations, data, and systems. Our cybersecurity risk management program includes:

• Risk assessments designed to help identify material cybersecurity risks to our critical systems, and our IT environment;
• The use of external service providers to assess, test or otherwise assist with aspects of our security controls;

46

• Cybersecurity awareness training of our employees and senior management including consultation with third parties as deemed necessary;
• A cybersecurity incident response plan that includes procedures for responding to cybersecurity incidents; and
• We design and assess our program using the National Institute Cybersecurity Framework (“NIST CSF”) as a set of guiding principles.

Our management team is responsible for oversight and administration of our cyber risk management protocol, and for informing relevant stakeholders regarding the prevention, detection, mitigation, and remediation of cybersecurity incidents. Our management team does not have prior experience administrating cybersecurity initiatives and processes, but intends to rely on threat intelligence as well as other information obtained from governmental, public or private sources and, if necessary, third-party consultants providing cyber risk services. Our Audit Committee also provides oversight of risks from cybersecurity threats, and specifically reviews and discusses our policies regarding information technology security and protection from cyber risks.

Our third-party service providers are primarily responsible for the security of their own information technology environments and in certain instances we rely significantly on third-party service providers to supply and store our sensitive data in a secure manner. All of these third parties face potential risks relating to cybersecurity similar to ours which could disrupt their businesses and therefore adversely impact us. While we provide guidance and specific requirements in some cases, we do not directly control any of these parties’ information technology security operations, or the amount of investment they place in guarding against cybersecurity threats. Accordingly, we are subject to any flaw or breaches to their information technology systems, or those which they operate for us, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

We face risks from cybersecurity threats that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or reputation. We acknowledge that the risk of cyber incidents is prevalent in the current threat landscape and that a future cyber incident may occur in the normal course of its business. To date, we have not had a cybersecurity incident. We proactively seek to detect and investigate unauthorized attempts and attacks against our IT assets, data, and services, and to prevent their occurrence and recurrence where practicable through changes or updates to internal processes and tools and changes or updates to service delivery; however, potential vulnerabilities to known or unknown threats will remain. Further, there is increasing regulation regarding responses to cybersecurity incidents, including reporting to regulators, investors, and additional stakeholders, which could subject us to additional liability and reputational harm. See Item 1A. “Risk Factors” for more information on cybersecurity risks.

As of December 31, 2025, our portfolio consisted of a total of approximately 112 miles of railroad infrastructure plus branch lines and related real estate, approximately 447 acres of fee simple land leased to a utility scale solar power generating project with an aggregate generating capacity of approximately 82 Megawatts (“MW”), and our Greenhouse Portfolio consisting of approximately 82 acres of land with approximately 357,000 square feet of existing or partially complete greenhouse/processing space.

As of December 31, 2025, the Trust considered Maverick 1 (Ordway, CO), Maverick 14 (Ordway, CO), Tamarack 19 (Ordway, CO), Tamarack 3 (Ordway, CO), Tamarack 27 and 28 (Ordway, CO), Tamarack 4 and 5 (Ordway, CO), Walsenburg (CO), Desert Hot Spring (CA), and Vinita (OK), as Assets Held for Sale. See Note 8 of our Financial Statements for discussion of impairments and of our assets held for sale.

Below is a chart that summarizes our properties owned as of December 31, 2025:

1 Solar Farm Land size represents Megawatts and CEA property size represents greenhouse square feet

2 Gross Book Value for our Greenhouse Portfolio represents purchase price (excluding capitalized acquisition costs) plus improvements costs

3Property is vacant

4Tenant is not current on rent/in default

5An impairment/allowance for receivable has been taken against this asset

6Asset held for sale

7Loan is in default

Railway Property

Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railroad (“P&WV”), a wholly owned subsidiary, is a business trust organized under the laws of Pennsylvania which owns railroad assets that are currently leased to Norfolk Southern Railway (“NSC”) pursuant to a 99-year lease that became effective in 1964 and is subject to an unlimited number of 99-year renewal periods under the same terms and conditions, including annual rent payments, at the option of NSC (the “Railroad Lease”). Norfolk Southern Corporation has an investment grade rating of BBB+ by S&P Global Ratings. P&WV’s assets consist of a railroad line of approximately 112 miles in length plus branch lines, extending through Connellsville, Washington and Allegheny Counties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through Brooke County in the State of West Virginia and through Jefferson and Harrison Counties in the State of Ohio, to Pittsburgh Junction in Harrison County, Ohio. There are also branch lines that total approximately 20 miles in length located in Washington and Allegheny Counties in Pennsylvania and Brooke County in West Virginia. NSC pays P&WV base cash rent of $915,000 per year, payable in quarterly installments. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2025, P&VW recorded rental income of $915,000.

Solar Ground Lease Property

PW Regulus Solar, LLC (“PWRS”) is a California limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trust that owns approximately 447 acres of land leased to a utility scale solar farm with an aggregate generating capacity of approximately 82 Megawatts in Kern County, California near Bakersfield. PWRS’s lease was structured to provide it with initial quarterly rental payments until the solar farm achieved commercial operation which occurred on November 11, 2014. During the primary term of the lease which extends for 20 years from achieving commercial operations, PWRS receives an initial annual rent of approximately $735,000 per annum which grows at 1% per annum. The lease is a “triple net” lease with all expenses to be paid by the tenant. At the end of the primary term of the lease, the tenant has three options to renew the lease for 5-year terms in the first two options, and 4 years and 11 months in the third renewal option. Rent during the renewal option periods is to be calculated as the greater of a minimum stated rental amount or a percentage of the total project-level gross revenue. The acquisition price, not including transaction and closing costs, was approximately $9.2 million. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2025, PWRS recorded rental income of $803,117.

CEA Greenhouse Properties – Cannabis Related

Colorado Portfolio

From July 2019 to June 2021, through a series of wholly owned indirect subsidiaries, the Trust acquired a number of properties located in Ordway, Colorado for the development of greenhouse cannabis cultivation facilities. The total size of the Ordway, Colorado portfolio as of December 31, 2025 is approximately 37 acres and approximately 206,000 square feet of greenhouse and related structures have been constructed for a total investment by the subsidiaries of the Trust of approximately $16.4 million. Each property was acquired based on entering into a triple-net lease with a cultivation operator. A significant portion of the Ordway portfolio is vacant and the Trust is seeking to sell or re-tenant these properties. The Trust has taken an impairment against the Ordway, CO assets.

On May 21, 2021, through a wholly owned indirect subsidiary, the Trust purchased a 35-acre property that includes greenhouses plus processing/auxiliary facilities (“Walsenburg Property”) approved for cannabis cultivation in Huerfano County, Colorado. The Walsenburg Property is currently vacant and considered an asset held for sale as the Trust has initiated an active program to locate a buyer through a third party. No income was recognized for this property in 2025 and 2024. The Trust has taken an impairment against the PW Walsenburg assets.

Unfortunately, the market for cannabis cultivation in Colorado deteriorated dramatically in 2024 and 2025 and all of the tenants have encountered an inability to pay contracted rent and are either paying a reduced amount or have vacated the premises.

California

On February 3, 2021, through a wholly owned indirect subsidiary, the Trust acquired an 0.85-acre property with a 35,505 square foot greenhouse located in Desert Hot Springs, CA (the “Canndescent Property”) and the Trust assumed an existing lease. During the fourth quarter of 2022, the tenant defaulted on the lease and vacated the property. On October 2, 2023 a lease with a replacement tenant was executed which was personally guaranteed by principals of the tenant. The replacement tenant defaulted on the lease and was evicted from the Canndescent Property effective May 29, 2025 and is vacant. As of December 31, 2025, the Canndescent Property is considered held for sale as the Trust initiated an active program to locate a buyer through a third party. The Trust has taken an impairment against this asset.

Oklahoma

On June 11, 2021, through a wholly owned subsidiary, the Trust purchased a 9.35-acre property that includes approximately 40,000 square feet of greenhouse space, 3,000 square feet of office space and 100,000 square feet of fully fenced outdoor growing space including hoop houses (“Vinita Property”) that was approved for medical cannabis cultivation in Craig County, OK. Concurrent with the acquisition, PW Vinita entered into a 20-year “triple-net” lease with VinCann LLC (“VC LLC”) to operate a cannabis cultivation facility but the tenant has defaulted and the property is vacant. No income was recognized for this property in 2025 and 2024. As of December 31, 2025, the Vinita Property is considered held for sale as the Trust initiated an active program to locate a buyer through a third party The Trust has taken an impairment against this asset.

Revenue Concentration

The Trust’s revenue is highly concentrated. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, Power REIT collected approximately 93% of its rental income and lease income from direct financing lease from the tenants of two properties. The tenants are Norfolk Southern Railway and Regulus Solar LLC which represent 50% and 43% of rental income and lease income from direct financing lease respectively. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, Power REIT collected approximately 88% of its rental income and lease income from direct financing lease from the tenants of three properties. The tenants were Norfolk Southern Railway, Regulus Solar LLC and Marengo Cannabis LLC which represented 32%, 28% and 28% of rental income and lease income from direct financing lease respectively. The 2024 concentration percentages include income from the recognition of security deposits related to defaulted leases.

On August 5, 2025, Ten Tree Properties, LLC (“Ten Trees”) initiated a complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of Riverside (Case No. CVPS2505621) against Power REIT for Equitable Indemnity, Unjust Enrichment, Declaratory Relief, Constructive Trust/Equitable Lien and Quantum Meruit. The litigation relates to purported utility charges that it claims Power REIT is responsible for related to a property in California. On November 17, 2025, Ten Trees filed a motion to dismiss the case which was granted.

We are, from time to time, the subject of claims and suits arising out of matters related to our business. In general, litigation claims can be expensive, and time consuming to bring or defend against and could result in settlements or damages that could significantly affect financial results. It is not possible to predict the final resolution of the current litigation to which we are party to, and the impact of certain of these matters on our business, results of operations, and financial condition could be material. Regardless of the outcome, litigation has adversely impacted our business because of defense costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.

The following discussion and analysis is based on, and should be read in conjunction with, the Consolidated Financial Statements and the related notes thereto of the Trust as of and for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024.

We are structured as a holding company and own our assets through nineteen direct and indirect wholly-owned, special purpose subsidiaries that have been formed in order to hold real estate assets, obtain financing and generate lease revenue. As of December 31, 2025 and currently, the Trust’s assets consist of approximately 112 miles of railroad infrastructure and related real estate owned by its subsidiary Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railroad (“P&WV”), approximately 447 acres of fee simple land leased to a utility scale solar power generating projects with an aggregate generating capacity of approximately 82 Megawatts (“MW”) and approximately 82 acres of land with approximately 357,000 square feet of existing or partially completed CEA properties in the form of greenhouses.

Our primary objective is to maximize the long-term value for our shareholders. To that end, our business goals are to obtain the best possible rental income at our properties in order to maximize our cash flows, net operating income, funds from operations, funds available for distribution to shareholders and other operating measures and results, and ultimately to maximize the values of our properties.

To achieve this primary goal, we have developed a business strategy focused on increasing the values of our properties, and ultimately of the Trust, which includes:

• Raising capital by monetizing the embedded value in our portfolio to improve our liquidity position and, as appropriate reducing debt levels to strengthen our balance sheet;
• Selling off non-core properties and underperforming assets;
• Seeking to re-lease properties that are vacant or have non-performing tenants
• Seeking to minimize the carrying costs related to the Greenhouse Portfolio given the speculative nature of valuing these assets;
• Raising the overall level of quality of our portfolio and of individual properties in our portfolio;
• Improving the operating results of our properties; and
• Taking steps to position ourselves for future growth opportunities.

Recent Events

On June 9, 2025, a wholly owned subsidiary of Power REIT, PW CO CanRE MF LLC, sold a cannabis related greenhouse cultivation property located in Ordway, Colorado. The property was described in prior filings as Tam 13 and was vacant. The purchaser was an unaffiliated third party who had previously acquired two adjacent properties from subsidiaries of the Trust and the price was established based on an arm’s length negotiation. The sale price was $125,000 and the subsidiary of the Trust provided $105,000 of seller financing which amortizes over a 60-month period at an interest rate of 11% per annum. There was a nominal loss on sale based on previous impairments.

On February 6, 2025, our wholly owned subsidiary, PW CO CanRE JKL LLC, received a Final Order and Entry of Judgement (the “Judgement”) in favor of PW CO CanRE JKL LLC against the former tenant and guarantors of the lease in the amount of $10,988,749. The ruling eliminated claims by the former tenant against PW CO CanRE JKL LLC. The Trust is evaluating the potential to collect against the defendants in this litigation by enforcement of the Judgement, but will treat any recovery on a cash basis for accounting purposes.

On January 31, 2025, a wholly owned subsidiary of Power REIT, PW CO CanRE JAB LLC, sold one of its interests in a cannabis related greenhouse cultivation property located in Ordway, Colorado. The property was described in prior filings as Tam 18 and was vacant. The purchaser was an unaffiliated third party and the price was established based on an arm’s length negotiation. The sale price was $200,000 and the net proceeds were used to pay down the Greenhouse Loan and paid other accrued expenses related to the property. There was no gain or loss on sale recognized based on previous impairments.

On January 24, 2025, we entered into a sales agreement (the “Sales Agreement”), with AGP pursuant to which we may, from time to time, issue and sell our common shares in an “at the market offering,” however, AGP is not obligated to sell any common shares and there are limits on the dollar amount of common shares we can sell pursuant to the Sales Agreement. In addition, our ability to raise capital through the sale of securities may be limited by the rules of the SEC and NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American”) that place limits on the number and dollar amount of securities that may be sold. There can be no assurances that we will be able to raise the funds needed, especially in light of the fact that our ability to sell securities registered on our registration statement on Form S-3 will be limited until such time as the market value of our voting securities held by non-affiliates is $75 million or more. During the quarter ended December 31, 2025, the Trust sold 271,832 common shares pursuant to the Sales Agreement for gross proceeds of $287,604 and net proceeds of $277,829.

Settlement of Greenhouse Loan

The Greenhouse Loan was secured by most of the Greenhouse Portfolio. The Greenhouse Loan was non-recourse to the Trust and in default and the lender had initiated litigation including foreclosure actions. On April 11, 2025, we resolved issues with the lender of the Greenhouse Loan by providing deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure for Greenhouse Portfolio properties in Michigan and Nebraska. In return, the lender released the remaining collateral that was secured by the Greenhouse Loan back to our subsidiaries and released obligations related to the Greenhouse Loan. We will seek to realize value from the retained assets by leasing and/or selling them, if possible. The transaction related to the Greenhouse Loan resulted in the write-off of the Nebraska and Michigan properties, along with the remaining balance of the Greenhouse Loan. It will also relieve the ongoing costs associated with maintaining the Nebraska and Michigan properties. The balance of the Greenhouse Loan as of December 31, 2025 and 2024 was approximately $0 and $16,720,000 (approximately $13.3 million of principal, $2.1 million of interest and default interest and $1.3 million of loan expenses). During the fiscal years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, we recognized approximately $554,000 and $850,000, respectively, of late charges, forbearance fees, legal fees, foreclosure fees and appraisal fees which is included in interest expense in Consolidated Statements of Operations for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024. As a result of settling the Greenhouse Loan obligations through deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure for the Nebraska and Michigan properties, we recognized a non-cash gain of approximately $1,093,000. This gain arose from the write-off of both of the Nebraska and Michigan properties with a combined book value of approximately $17,083,000 and the associated loan obligations which totaled approximately $17,997,000, including accrued interest, default interest, and loan modification expenses (late charges, forbearance fees, legal fees, foreclosure fees and appraisal fees) and the write off of accrued property tax of approximately $179,000.

On December 26, 2024, a wholly owned subsidiary of Power REIT, PW CO CanRE JKL LLC, sold its interest related to a cannabis related greenhouse cultivation property located in Ordway, Colorado. The property was described in prior filings as Sherman 21 and 22 and was vacant and the construction was incomplete. The purchaser was an unaffiliated third party and the price was established based on an arm’s length negotiation. The sale price was $80,000 and the net proceeds were used to pay down the Greenhouse Loan and other accrued expenses related to the property. The loss on sale recognized was approximately $147,000.

On September 11, 2024, PW CO CanRE Cloud Nine LLC, received a Final Order and Entry of Judgement in favor of PW CO CanRE Cloud Nine LLC in the amount of approximately $10.9 million. The Trust is evaluating the potential to collect against the defendants in this litigation by enforcement of this Judgement, but will treat any recovery on a cash basis for accounting purposes.

On January 30, 2024, a wholly owned subsidiary of Power REIT, PW Salisbury Solar LLC, sold its interest in a ground lease related to utility scale solar farms located in Salisbury, Massachusetts for gross proceeds of $1.2 million. The purchaser is an unaffiliated third party and the price was established based on an arm’s length negotiation. As part of the transaction, the existing municipal financing (“Municipal Debt”) and the regional bank loan (“PWSS Term Loan”) were paid off. The gain on sale recognized was approximately $181,000 and the net book value of land upon sale was approximately $1,006,000.

On January 8, 2024, two wholly owned subsidiaries of Power REIT, PW CO CanRE Sherman 6 LLC and PW CO CanRE MF LLC, sold two cannabis related greenhouse cultivation properties located in Ordway, Colorado to an affiliate of a tenant of one of the properties. The properties are described in prior filings as Sherman 6 (the tenant of which is affiliated with the tenant/purchaser) and Tamarack 14 which was vacant. The purchaser was an unaffiliated third party and the price was established based on an arm’s length negotiation. The sale price was $1,325,000. As part of the transaction, PW MF, a subsidiary of the Trust provided seller financing in the amount of $1,250,000 with an initial 10% interest rate that increases over time to 15% until maturity. The seller financing has a three-year maturity with a fixed amortization schedule of $40,000 for the first and second months, $45,000 for the third month and $15,000 per month thereafter until maturity. On May 30, 2025, PW MF agreed to modify the terms of the note whereby payments are based on a 5-year amortization schedule at an 11% per annum interest rate and with monthly payments of $16,052 from May 1, 2025 to April 1, 2030 and a balloon payment for the balance due on May 1, 2030. The note is secured by a first mortgage on the properties and certain corporate and personal guarantees. The gain on sale recognized was approximately $213,000. The Trust has assessed that this is considered a loan modification.

Improving Our Balance Sheet by Reducing Debt and Leverage; Maintaining Liquidity

Leverage

We continue to seek ways to reduce our debt and debt leverage by improving our operating performance and through a variety of other means available to us. These means might include leasing vacant properties, selling properties, raising capital or through other actions.

Capital Recycling

In the later part of 2022, we commenced property reviews to establish a plan for the portfolio and, where appropriate, have been disposing of and seeking to dispose of properties that we do not believe meet financial and strategic criteria given economic, market and other circumstances. Disposing of these properties can enable us to redeploy or recycle our capital to other uses, such as to repay debt, to reinvest in other real estate assets and development and redevelopment projects, and for other corporate purposes. Along these lines, in 2023 and 2024 we completed sales of assets for total gross proceeds of approximately $9.81 million which included approximately $2.1 million of seller financing provided to the buyers. During 2025, we completed sales of assets for total gross proceeds of approximately $325,000 which included approximately $105,000 of seller financing provided to a buyer. We also have several properties that we are marketing for sale and/or lease which have been classified as “Assets Held for Sale.”

Improving Our Portfolio

We are currently seeking to refine our property holdings by selling Greenhouse Portfolio properties and/or re-leasing them in an effort to improve the overall performance of our portfolio going forward. We will continue to seek to realize value from our retained assets subsequent to our settlement with the lender of the Greenhouse Loan, resulting in the write-off of the Nebraska and Michigan properties, along with the remaining balance of the Greenhouse Loan, and are exploring a shift in focus and are evaluating real estate distressed situations including properties, loans and companies and other opportunities.

Taking Steps to Position the Company for Future Growth Opportunities

We are taking steps designed to position the Trust to create shareholder value. In connection therewith, we have implemented processes designed to ensure strong internal discipline in the use, harvesting and recycling of our capital, and these processes will be applied in connection with seeking to reposition properties.

We may seek to acquire, in an opportunistic, selective and disciplined manner, properties that have operating metrics that are better than or equal to our existing portfolio averages, and that we believe have strong potential for increased cash flows and appreciation in value. Taking advantage of any acquisition opportunities would likely involve some use of debt or equity capital. We will pursue transactions that we expect can meet the financial and strategic criteria we apply, given economic, market and other circumstances. In addition, we are exploring the potential to use our existing corporate structure for strategic transactions including potentially merging assets or companies with us. The Trust is also exploring strategic alternatives that may or may not include real estate investments in an effort to increase shareholder value.

Results of Operations

Results of Operations for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 as compared to December 31, 2024

Revenue

Revenue during the fiscal years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024 was $2,011,783 and $3,049,875, respectively. Revenue during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, consisted of rental income of $927,376, direct financing lease income of $915,000, and other income of $169,407. The decrease in total revenue was primarily driven by a $785,000 reduction in rental income from related parties, a $207,817 decline in other rental income (which in total includes approximately $925,000 recognized from non-refundable security deposits related to defaulted leases as allowed per the terms of the lease and based on the determination that these defaults will be not be cured), and a decrease in other income of $45,275.

During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, the Trust’s revenue was concentrated from certain tenants. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, Power REIT collected approximately 93% of its rental income and lease income from direct financing lease from the tenants of two properties. The tenants are Norfolk Southern Railway and Regulus Solar LLC which represent 50% and 43% of rental income and lease income from direct financing lease, respectively. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, the Trust collected approximately 88% of its rental income and lease income from direct financing lease from the tenants of three properties. The tenants were Norfolk Southern Railway, Regulus Solar LLC and Marengo Cannabis LLC which represented 32%, 28% and 28% of rental income and lease income from direct financing lease respectively. The concentration percentages for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 include the income from the recognition of security deposits related to defaulted leases.

Expenses

Expenses for the year ended December 31, 2025 compared to the same period in 2024 decreased by $22,708,143, primarily due to a decrease in impairment expense/allowance for receivable of $18,795,056, and to a lesser extent, a decrease in interest expense of $1,807,694 due to the settlement of the Greenhouse Loan, a decrease in depreciation expense of $756,342 as several properties are considered held for sale, a decrease in property expenses of $1,029,078, and a decrease in general and administrative expense of $319,973.

Our non-property related expenses, are for general and administrative expenses, which consist principally of insurance, legal and other professional fees, consultant fees, NYSE American listing fees, shareholder service company fees and auditing costs as well as property related expenses that are not covered by tenants.

Other Income

Other income increased by $845,608 primarily due to a gain on extinguishment of debt of $1,092,670, a realized gain on marketable securities of $377,578, offset by an unrealized loss on marketable securities of $19,172, a decrease of forgiveness of accounts payable of $350,704 and a loss on sale of properties of $7,628 compared to a gain in 2024 of $247,136.

Net Loss Attributable to Common Shareholders

Net loss attributable to common shares during the year ended December 31, 2025 was $2,847,910 compared to a net loss of $25,363,569 for the year ended December 31, 2024, an increase of $22,515,659.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Our cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash totaled $2,235,306 as of December 31, 2025, a decrease of $3,720 from December 31, 2024. During the year ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, cash used in operating activities was $68,316 and $1,393,709, respectively. The decrease in cash used is primarily due to a smaller net loss in 2025, as well as favorable changes in working capital, including a decrease in prepaid expense and a decrease in accrued expenses. This is partially offset by lower non-cash expenses, including depreciation, impairment expense/allowance for receivable and share-based compensation.

Our current loan liabilities totaled approximately $760,000 as of December 31, 2025 as compared to $17,400,000 as of December 31, 2024. The decrease was primarily due to the results of the settlement described in the next paragraph.

Effective April 11, 2025, we entered into a settlement agreement with the lender under the Greenhouse Loan that resulted in the write-off of the Nebraska and Michigan properties, along with the remaining balance of the Greenhouse Loan. The transaction also relieves the ongoing costs associated with maintaining the Nebraska and Michigan properties.

We are not current on payment of property taxes for the Greenhouse Portfolio. These taxes are included on the Balance Sheet as accrued expenses and liabilities held for sale for approximately $1,331,000. If the property taxes remain delinquent, the remaining Greenhouse Portfolio will be subject to tax foreclosure actions starting in the first quarter of 2026.

On January 24, 2025, the Trust entered into a sales agreement (the “Sales Agreement”), with A.G.P./Alliance Global Partners (“AGP”) pursuant to which it may, from time to time, issue and sell its common shares in an “at the market offering,” however, AGP is not obligated to sell any common shares and there are limits on the dollar amount of common shares it can sell pursuant to the Sales Agreement. In addition, the Trust’s ability to raise capital through the sale of securities may be limited by the rules of the SEC and NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American”) that place limits on the number and dollar amount of securities that may be sold. There can be no assurances that the Trust will be able to raise the funds needed, especially in light of the fact that its ability to sell securities registered on its registration statement on Form S-3 will be limited until such time as the market value of the Trust’s voting securities held by non-affiliates is $75 million or more. As of December 31, 2025, 271,832 common shares have been sold pursuant to the Sales Agreement.

During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, we generated approximately $239,000 of cash from debt service related to the seller financing provided in 2024 and we sold two properties, one of which included another seller finance agreement for $105,000, which amortized over a 60-month period at an interest rate of 11% per annum. The remaining seller financing agreements have a combined remaining balance of $981,035 as of December 31, 2025.

In 2024, the Trust sold four properties in an effort to help with liquidity. The proceeds from the sale of the Salisbury, MA property was approximately $662,000 of unrestricted cash and the approximately $504,000 of debt was eliminated from liabilities. We sold two Greenhouse Portfolio properties in a transaction that produced approximately $53,000 of restricted cash at closing and, during 2024, generated approximately $345,000 of restricted cash from the debt service related to the seller financing provided which had a remaining balance of $1,005,000 at December 31, 2024. We sold one Greenhouse Portfolio property in a transaction that produced approximately $51,000 of net proceeds used to service the Greenhouse Loan.

Power REIT will continue to seek to realize value from the retained assets and is exploring a shift in focus and is evaluating real estate distressed situations including properties, loans and companies.

Cash Used in Operating Activities

During the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, cash used in operating activities was $68,316 and $1,393,709, respectively. The decrease in cash used of $1,325,393 is primarily due to a smaller net loss for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, as well as favorable changes in working capital, including a decrease in prepaid expense and a decrease in accrued expenses. This is partially offset by lower non-cash expenses, including primarily lower impairment expense/allowance for receivable for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, as compared to 2024 and, to a lesser extent, lower depreciation, and share-based compensation for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 as compared to 2024.

Our cash outlays at Power REIT (parent company) consist principally of professional fees, consultant fees, NYSE American listing fees, legal, insurance, shareholder service company fees, auditing costs and general and administrative expenses. Our cash outlays related to our various property-owning subsidiaries consist principally of principal and interest expense on debts, property maintenance, property taxes, insurance, legal as well as other property related expenses that are not covered by tenants. To the extent we need to raise additional capital to meet our obligations, there can be no assurance that financing on favorable terms will be available when needed. Although we entered into the Sales Agreement the rules of the SEC and NYSE American place limits on the number and dollar amount of securities that may be sold. There can be no assurances that we will be able to raise the funds needed. If we are unable to sell certain assets when anticipated at prices anticipated, we may not have sufficient cash to fund operations and commitments beyond the next twelve months.

Cash Provided By Investing Activities

Cash provided by investing activities during for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024 were $542,861 and $1,759,142, respectively. The decrease of $1,216,281 is mainly due to lower proceeds from property sales and, to a lesser extent, less cash received from mortgage loans for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 as compared to 2024, offset by investment in marketable securities in 2025.

During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, we generated approximately $239,000 of cash from debt service related to the seller financing provided in 2024 and we sold two properties, one of which produced another seller finance agreement for $105,000, which amortizes over a 60- month period at an interest rate of 11% per annum. The seller financing agreements have a combined remaining balance of $981,035 as of December 31, 2025.

Cash Used In Financing Activities

Cash used in financing activities during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 was $470,825, compared to $2,238,731 in the prior year. The decrease of $1,767,906 is primarily due to lower principal payments on long-term debt, partially offset by new debt proceeds and proceeds from the sale of 271,832 common shares pursuant to the Sales Agreement for gross proceeds of $287,604 during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025.

Preferred Stock - Restatement of Financial Statements

During 2014, the Trust expanded its equity financing activities by offering a series of preferred shares to the public. The Series A Preferred Stock ranks, as to dividend rights and rights upon liquidation, dissolution or winding up, senior to the Trust’s common shares. Voting rights for holders of Series A Preferred Stock exist only with respect to amendments to the Trust’s charter that materially and adversely affect the terms of the Series A Preferred Stock, the authorization or issuance of equity securities that are senior to the Series A Preferred Stock and, if the Trust fails to pay dividends on the Series A Preferred Stock for six or more quarterly periods (whether or not consecutive), the election of two additional trustees to our Board of Trustees. The Trust has failed to pay dividends for in excess of six quarterly periods; however, no holder of Series A Preferred Stock has requested to hold a special meeting, or to add a proposal at an annual meeting, to elect an additional trustee(s) to the Board of Trustees, which request must be made by the holders of record of at least 10% of the outstanding shares of Series A Preferred Stock. The Trust had previously closed on the sale of approximately $3,492,000 of its Series A Preferred Stock pursuant to a public offering prospectus supplement dated January 23, 2014.

On January 7, 2021, the Trust filed Articles Supplementary with the State of Maryland to classify an additional 1,500,000 unissued shares of beneficial interest, par value $0.001 per share, 7.75% Series A Preferred Stock, such that the Trust now has authorized an aggregate of 1,675,000 shares of Series A Preferred Stock, all of which constitute a single series of Series A Preferred Stock.

On February 3, 2021, as part of the closing for the Canndescent (Desert Hot Spring, CA) acquisition, the Trust issued 192,308 shares of Power REIT’s Series A Preferred Stock with a fair value of $5,000,008 less $2,205 of costs.

The shares of Series A Preferred Stock have no stated maturity, are not subject to any sinking fund or mandatory redemption and will remain outstanding indefinitely unless we redeem or otherwise repurchase them or they are converted.

As previously disclosed, on September 3, 2024, the Trust received a letter from the NYSE American regarding a lack of compliance with listing requirements (the “Deficiency Letter”). Specifically, since the Trust had incurred losses in two out of the last three years, it is required to have total equity of greater than $2 million, while it reported stockholders’ equity of $322,626 at June 30, 2024. As part of evaluating a plan to comply with the NYSE American listing requirements, the Trust embarked on analysis of the accounting treatment for its Series A Preferred Stock which historically were classified as Mezzanine Equity. Based on its review, the Trust determined that the outstanding shares of Series A Preferred Stock should be treated as Equity. The Trust retained a qualified third-party consultant to assist with its analysis of the accounting treatment for the Series A Preferred Stock. Ultimately, the Trust concluded that it had incorrectly classified the outstanding shares of Series A Preferred Stock on its balance sheet and that they should be treated as equity (not mezzanine equity) and the financial statements should be re-stated accordingly.

While the Trust believes that the restatement may be material from a quantitative perspective, it does not believe that the restatement is material from a qualitative standpoint other than for the second quarter of 2024 as a result of the non-compliance with the NYSE listing requirements. Accordingly, on September 24, 2024, the Trust filed an amended quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2024 (the “10-Q/A”). Management concluded that for the rest of the prior periods, the error was immaterial and corrected within the 10-Q/A.

The only changes to the Financial Statements contained in the original Form 10-Q and the 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2024 were:

• Reclassification of the shares of Series A Preferred Stock on the Consolidated Balance Sheet to Equity
• Elimination of the accrual of undeclared dividends for the shares of Series A Preferred Stock consistent with treatment of the shares of Series A Preferred Stock as equity (previously accrued as an increase to the carrying value of the shares of Series A Preferred Stock on the Balance Sheet)
• An Updated Consolidated Statement of Changes in Shareholders Equity to include the shares of Series A Preferred Stock
• Removal of dividends from the supplemental disclosure contained in the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows

On September 25, 2024, the Trust received a notice from the NYSE American rescinding the Deficiency Letter as the Trust is compliant with equity requirements based on the restated equity level on the financial statements in the 10-Q/A.

Borrowings

Our current loan liabilities totaled approximately $760,000 as of December 31, 2025, as compared to $17,400,000 as of December 31, 2024. Our long terms debt, net of unamortized discount, totaled approximately $19,213,071 as of December 31, 2025, as compared to $19,965,043 as of December 31, 2024.

On December 31, 2012, as part of the Salisbury land acquisition, PW Salisbury Solar, LLC (“PWSS”) assumed existing municipal financing (“Municipal Debt”). The Municipal Debt had approximately 9 years remaining. The Municipal Debt had a simple interest rate of 5.0% that is paid annually, due on February 1 of each year. The balance of the Municipal Debt as of December 31, 2025 and 2024 is $0. On January 30, 2024, the PWSS property was sold and the loan was paid off.

In July 2013, PWSS borrowed $750,000 from a regional bank (the “PWSS Term Loan”). The PWSS Term Loan had a fixed interest rate of 5.0% for a term of 10 years and amortizes based on a 20-year principal amortization schedule. The loan was secured by PWSS’ real estate assets and a parent guarantee from the Trust. The balance of the PWSS Term Loan as of December 31, 2025 and 2024 is $0. On January 30, 2024 the PWSS property was sold and the loan was paid off.

On November 6, 2015, PWRS entered into a loan agreement (the “2015 PWRS Loan Agreement”) with a lender for $10,150,000 (the “2015 PWRS Loan”). The 2015 PWRS Loan is secured by land and intangibles owned by PWRS. PWRS issued a note to the benefit of the lender dated November 6, 2015 with a maturity date of October 14, 2034 and a 4.34% interest rate. The 2015 PWRS Loan is non-recourse to Power REIT. The balance of the PWRS Bonds as of December 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024 was approximately $5,998,000 (net of approximately $190,000 of capitalized debt costs) and approximately $6,492,000 (net of unamortized debt costs of approximately $213,000), respectively.

On November 25, 2019, Power REIT, through a subsidiary, PW PWV Holdings LLC (“PW PWV”), entered into a loan agreement (the “PW PWV Loan Agreement”) with a certain lender for $15,500,000 (the “PW PWV Loan”). The PW PWV Loan is secured by pledge of PW PWV’s equity interest in P&WV, its interest in the Railroad Lease and a security interest in a deposit account (the “Deposit Account”) pursuant to a Deposit Account Control Agreement dated November 25, 2019 into which the P&WV rental proceeds are deposited. Pursuant to the Deposit Account Control Agreement, P&WV has instructed its bank to transfer all monies deposited in the Deposit Account to the escrow agent as a dividend/distribution payment pursuant to the terms of the PW PWV Loan Agreement. The PW PWV Loan is evidenced by a note issued by PW PWV to the benefit of the lender for $15,500,000, with a fixed interest rate of 4.62% and fully amortizes over the life of the financing which matures in 2054 (35 years). The PW PWV Loan is non-recourse to Power REIT. The balance of the loan as of December 31, 2025 was approximately $13,974,000 (net of approximately $258,000 of capitalized debt costs) and December 31, 2024 was approximately $14,198,000 (net of approximately $267,000 of capitalized debt costs), respectively.

As previously disclosed, a subsidiary of the Trust had a loan secured by most of the Greenhouse Portfolio which was non-recourse to the Trust and in default and the lender had initiated litigation including foreclosure actions. On April 11, 2025, Power REIT resolved issues with its lender concerning the Greenhouse Loan by providing deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure for greenhouse properties in Michigan and Nebraska. In return, the lender released the remaining collateral back to subsidiaries of Power REIT and released obligations related to the Greenhouse Loan. Power REIT will seek to realize value from the retained assets by leasing and/or selling. The transaction related to the Greenhouse Loan resulted in the write-off of the Nebraska and Michigan properties, along with the remaining balance of the Greenhouse Loan. It will also relieve the ongoing costs associated with maintaining the Nebraska and Michigan properties. The balance of the Greenhouse Loan as of December 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024 was approximately $0 and $16,720,000 (approximately $13.3 million of principal, $2.1 million of interest and default interest and $1.3 million of loan expenses). During the fiscal years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, we recognized approximately $554,000 and $850,000, respectively, of late charges, forbearance fees, legal fees, foreclosure fees and appraisal fees which is included in interest expense in Consolidated Statements of Operations. As a result of settling the Greenhouse Loan obligations through a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure for the Nebraska and Michigan properties, we recognized a non-cash gain of approximately $1,093,000. This gain arose from the write-off of both the properties with a combined book value of approximately $17,083,000 and the associated loan obligations which totaled approximately $17,997,000, including accrued interest, default interest, and loan modification expenses (late charges, forbearance fees, legal fees, foreclosure fees and appraisal fees) and the write-off of accrued property tax of approximately $179,000.

The amount of principal payments remaining on Power REIT’s consolidated debt as of December 31, 2025 is as follows:

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

Critical accounting policies are those that require the application of management’s most difficult, subjective, or complex judgments, often because of the need to make estimates about the effect of matters that are inherently uncertain and that might change in subsequent periods. In preparing the consolidated financial statements, management has made estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting periods. In preparing the consolidated financial statements, management has utilized available information, including our past history, industry standards and the current economic environment, among other factors, in forming its estimates and judgments, giving due consideration to materiality. Management has also considered events and changes in property, market and economic conditions, estimated future cash flows from property operations and the risk of loss on specific accounts or amounts in determining its estimates and judgments. Actual results may differ from these estimates.

The preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make significant judgments and estimates to develop certain amounts reflected and disclosed. In many cases, there are alternative policies or estimation techniques that could be used. We regularly review the application of our accounting policies and evaluate the appropriateness of the estimates that are required to be made in order to prepare our consolidated financial statements. Typically, estimates may require adjustments from time to time based on, among other things, changing circumstances and new or better information.

For further information, see Note 2 – Significant Accounting Policies to the consolidated financial statements appearing following Item 16 of this document. The significant accounting policies are not deemed to be Critical Accounting estimates or critical accounting policies.

Funds From Operations – Non-GAAP Financial Measures

We assess and measure our overall operating results based upon an industry performance measure referred to as Core Funds From Operations (“Core FFO”) which management believes is a useful indicator of our operating performance. This Annual Report contains supplemental financial measures that are not calculated pursuant to U.S. GAAP, including the measure identified by us as Core FFO. The following is a definition of this measure, an explanation as to why we present it and, at the end of this section, a reconciliation of Core FFO to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure. Core FFO is a non-GAAP financial measure and should not be substituted for net income.

Management believes that Core FFO is a useful supplemental measure of the Trust’s operating performance. Management believes that alternative measures of performance, such as net income computed under GAAP, or Funds From Operations computed in accordance with the definition used by the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (“NAREIT”), include certain financial items that are not indicative of the results provided by the Trust’s asset portfolio and inappropriately affect the comparability of the Trust’s period-over-period performance. These items include non-recurring expenses, such as those incurred in connection with litigation, one-time upfront acquisition expenses that are not capitalized under ASC-805 and certain non-cash expenses, including stock-based compensation expense amortization and certain up front financing costs. FFO does not include gains and losses on sales of operating real estate assets or impairment write downs of depreciable real estate, which are included in the determination of net loss in accordance with GAAP. Accordingly, FFO is not a comprehensive measure of our operating cash flows. Therefore, management uses Core FFO and defines it as net income excluding such items. Management believes that, for the foregoing reasons, these adjustments to net income are appropriate. The Trust believes that Core FFO is a useful supplemental measure for the investing community to employ, including when comparing the Trust to other REITs that disclose similarly adjusted FFO figures, and when analyzing changes in the Trust’s performance over time. Readers are cautioned that other REITs may use different adjustments to their GAAP financial measures than we do, and that as a result, the Trust’s Core FFO may not be comparable to the FFO measures used by other REITs or to other non-GAAP or GAAP financial measures used by REITs or other companies. Core FFO should not be considered as a substitute for net income, or any other measures derived in accordance with GAAP. Core FFO does not represent cash generated from operating activities in accordance with GAAP and should not be considered as an alternative to cash flow from operating activities as a measure of our liquidity, nor is it indicative of funds available for our cash needs, including our ability to make cash distributions.

Assessment of the Effectiveness of Internal Controls over Financial Reporting

Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, we conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Based on its evaluation, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was not effective as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10K.

(a) Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of our financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America. Internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that:

(i) pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of our assets;

(ii) provide reasonable assurance that the transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that our receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with the authorization of management and/or our Board of Directors; and

(iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding the prevention or timely detection of any unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of our assets that could have a material effect on our financial statements.

Due to its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate due to changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

Our management (with the participation of our principal executive officer who is also our principal financial officer) conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2025 using the criteria established in Internal Control — 2013 Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Based on this assessment, our management has concluded that the material weakness previously disclosed regarding accounting for complex transactions still exists and that such controls are not effective. The previously disclosed material weaknesses was concluded based on a classification issue related to the Trust’s Preferred Stock.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K does not include an attestation report by our independent registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting. As we are neither a large accelerated filer nor an accelerated filer, our management’s report was not subject to attestation by our registered public accounting firm pursuant to rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission that permit us to provide only management’s report in this Annual Report.

(b) Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Pursuant to Rule 13a–15(b) under the Exchange Act, the Trust’s management including the Trust’s Board of Directors, with the participation of our principal executive officer who is also our principal financial officer, carried out an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Trust’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined under Rule 13a–15(e) under the Exchange Act) as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report. Based upon that evaluation, the Trust’s management concluded that the Trust’s disclosure controls and procedures were not effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Trust in the reports that the Trust files or submits under the Exchange Act, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported to the Trust’s management, within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms.

Remediation Plan

To address the material weakness described above, we intend to engage an independent third party to enhance our analysis of complex transactions as needed.

Limitations on the Effectiveness of Controls.

Our management does not expect that our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal control over financial reporting will prevent all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within our Trust have been detected. The design and operation of a control system must also reflect that there are resource constraints and management is necessarily required to apply its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible controls.

(c) Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

There were no changes in our internal controls over financial reporting (as defined in the Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) that occurred during the year ended December 31, 2025, that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.