Connect with us

Mergers & Acquisitions

US energy groups spend record sums on power plants to feed data centres

Published

on


US energy companies are pouring record sums into building power plants and transmission lines to meet electricity demand from data centres, raising concerns that the costs may be passed on to consumers.

According to Jefferies investment bank, utility capital expenditure is expected to hit $212.1bn in 2025, a 22.3 per cent rise year-on-year and a 129 per cent increase compared with a decade ago. Investment is forecast to reach a record high in 2027 of $228.1bn.

“Companies are investing in generation and transmission to reindustrialise the economy,” said Julien Dumoulin-Smith, power utilities and clean energy analyst at Jefferies.

“Over the last couple of decades, we’ve seen a relative paucity of new investment . . . we’re now seeing a very meaningful shift, and should see a sharp uptick as data centre deployment accelerates.”

Column chart of Total utility capex spend, actual and forecast ($bn) showing Utilities are investing record sums to meet data centre demand

While the growth of data centres could fuel an economic boom, companies, regulators and governments across the country are waking up to the huge capital sums required to build the infrastructure that supports artificial intelligence — while balancing pressure to prevent consumers’ bills from rising.

If data centres pass costs on to households and small businesses, they could face opposition to their expansion plans — while utility companies may have to be more selective with their investments.

“The longest-term risk to the sector that I’m concerned about is affordability. Since the pandemic, we’ve been tracking around 10 per cent year-over-year increases [in consumer energy bills],” said Barclays’ US power and utilities analyst Nicholas Campanella. “There is going to be a point where stakeholders like politicians, consumer advocates and regulators want to step in and deal with that.”

US electricity demand is expected to grow 25 per cent by 2030 and 78 per cent by 2050 from 2023 levels, according to a report by ICF, a consulting group. Residential prices are projected to increase by between 15 per cent and 40 per cent, according to a sample of four utility service areas.

A workaround to providing power for data centres, while sparing taxpayers, is for “hyperscale” developers such as Amazon, Microsoft and Meta to help fund utilities’ investments by paying directly or through special tariffs.

“Whether we have to build them a substation or build an extension for a transmission line, we would charge our data centres directly for that,” said Xcel Energy chief executive Bob Frenzel.

Line chart of 12-month percentage change showing Electricity costs have soared since the pandemic

Gustavo Garavaglia, chief financial officer of AES Utilities, said: “Our guiding principle is that customers cannot be harmed by the creation of new data centres. We have clauses in our agreements that protect us, like minimum terms, and they are committed to a certain amount [of energy] every month.”

In March, Dominion Energy — which serves Virginia, home to the highest concentration of data centres in the US — proposed the creation of a rate structure for energy users that demands loads of 25 megawatts or more and a minimum 14-year contract provision for new high-load customers.

Determining how much to build and who pays for investments can be difficult. Since hyperscalers pitch to multiple utilities at a time, demand forecasts are likely to be inflated.

“If they reach out to four or five utilities, they all have to assume they’re going to get the project and then put it into their plan, said Todd Snitchler, president of the Electric Power Supply Association. “But if the objective is to marry supply and demand in a way that doesn’t result in customers being overcharged, we need to have a better handle on this.”

Some data centres are planned to be built next to existing sources of generation, which minimises the amount of required transmission upgrades.

But a problem is that this can lead to the need for new infrastructure elsewhere on the grid, which is harder to account for.

“It’s not always straightforward to tell who is responsible for what,” said Astrid Atkinson, chief executive of Camus, a grid software provider.

“I think in theory, most folks would agree that if you trigger an upgrade, you should probably pay for it. But if you’ve triggered an upgrade that’s happening one or two states away, it’s a more complicated conversation to have.”

However, some industry experts say that low prices in recent years have been responsible for power generation assets being in danger of closure.

“We’ve had the luxury of extraordinarily affordable energy for a long time — a couple of years ago, we were at risk of closing valuable nuclear assets because prices were honestly too low to support their operations,” said Dan Eggers, chief financial officer of Constellation Energy.

“These new customers use electricity all hours of the year. If we can do things to increase the utilisation of the power grid, that’s a benefit, right?”

Investment in electricity assets is not limited to utilities, with private developers investing large sums in generation and transmission.

Invenergy’s 800-mile, $11bn Grain Belt Express transmission line will run through Kansas, Missouri, Illinois and Indiana.

These developers say that since they fund projects by charging utilities, raising debt, equity and government loans, the risk is borne by themselves. However, this can also make capital expenditure harder to justify.

“We have to put together the economic package of how that line is going to be paid for because we don’t have a captive customer base,” said Shashank Sane, who leads Invenergy’s transmission business.



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Mergers & Acquisitions

FTAV’s further reading

Published

on



AI and jobs; Oklahoma and towers; India and retailers; AI and cybercrime; Norway and elections



Source link

Continue Reading

Mergers & Acquisitions

Trump Intel deal designed to block sale of chipmaking unit, CFO says

Published

on


Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

The Trump administration’s investment in Intel was structured to deter the chipmaker from selling its manufacturing unit, its chief financial officer said on Thursday, locking it into a lossmaking business it has faced pressure to offload.

The US government last week agreed to take a 10 per cent stake in Intel by converting $8.9bn of federal grants under the 2022 Chips Act into equity, the latest unorthodox intervention by President Donald Trump in corporate America.

The agreement also contains a five-year warrant that allows the government to take an additional 5 per cent of Intel at $20 a share if it ceases to own 51 per cent of its foundry business — which aims to make chips for third-party clients.

“I don’t think there’s a high likelihood that we would take our stake below the 50 per cent, so ultimately I would expect [the warrant] to expire,” CFO David Zinsner told a Deutsche Bank conference on Thursday.

“I think from the government’s perspective, they were aligned with that: they didn’t want to see us take the business and spin it off or sell it to somebody.”

Intel has faced pressure to carve off its foundry business as it haemorrhages cash. It lost $13bn last year as it struggled to compete with rival TSMC and attract outside customers.

Zinsner’s comments highlight how the deal with the Trump administration ties the company’s hands.

Analysts including Citi, as well as former Intel board members, have called for a sale — and Intel has seen takeover interest from the likes of Qualcomm.

Intel’s board ousted chief executive Pat Gelsinger, the architect of its ambitious foundry strategy, in December, which intensified expectations that it could ultimately abandon the business.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Thursday the deal was being finalised. “The Intel deal is still being ironed out by the Department of Commerce. The T’s are still being crossed, the I’s are still being dotted.”

Intel received $5.7bn of the government investment on Wednesday, Zinsner said. The remaining $3.2bn of the investment is still dependent on Intel hitting milestones agreed under a Department of Defense scheme and has not yet been paid.

He said the warrants could be viewed as “a little bit of friction to keep us from moving in a direction that I think ultimately the government would prefer we not move to”.

He said the direct government stake could also incentivise potential customers to view Intel on a “different level”.

So far, the likes of Nvidia, Apple and Qualcomm have not placed orders with Intel, which has struggled to convince them it has reliable manufacturing processes that could lure them away from TSMC.

As Intel’s new chief executive Lip-Bu Tan seeks to shore up the company’s finances, the government deal also “eliminated the need to access capital markets”, Zinsner explained.

Given the uncertainty over whether Intel would hit the construction milestones required to receive the Chips Act manufacturing grants, converting the government funds to equity “effectively guaranteed that we’d get the cash”.

“This was a great quarter for us in terms of cash raise,” Zinsner added. Intel had also recently sold $1bn of its shares in Mobileye, and was “within a couple of weeks” of closing a deal to sell 51 per cent of its stake in its specialist chips unit Altera to private equity firm Silver Lake, he noted.

SoftBank also made a $2bn investment in Intel last week. Zinsner pushed back against the idea that it had been co-ordinated with the government, as SoftBank chief executive Masayoshi Son pursues an ever-closer relationship with Trump.

“It was coincidence that it fell all in the same week,” Zinsner said.



Source link

Continue Reading

Mergers & Acquisitions

Nuclear fusion developer raises almost $900mn in new funding

Published

on


Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

One of the most advanced nuclear fusion developers has raised about $900mn from backers including Nvidia and Morgan Stanley, as it races to complete a demonstration plant in the US and commercialise the nascent energy technology.   

Commonwealth Fusion Systems plans to use the money to complete its Sparc fusion demonstration machine and begin work on developing a power plant in Virginia. The group secured a deal in June to supply 200 megawatts of electricity to technology giant Google.

The Google deal was one of only a handful of such commercial agreements in the sector and placed CFS at the forefront of fusion companies trying to perfect the technology and develop a commercially viable machine.

CFS has raised almost $3bn since it was spun out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2018, drawing investors amid heightened interest in nuclear to meet surging energy demand from artificial intelligence.

“Investors recognise that CFS is making fusion power a reality. They see that we are executing and delivering on our objectives,” said Bob Mumgaard, chief executive and co-founder of CFS. 

New investors in CFS’s latest funding round, which raised $863mn, include NVentures, Nvidia’s venture capital arm, Morgan Stanley’s Counterpoint Global and a consortium of 12 Japanese companies led by Mitsui & Co.

Nuclear fusion seeks to produce clean energy by combining atoms in a manner that releases a significant amount of energy. In contrast, fission — the process used in conventional nuclear power — splits heavy atoms such as uranium into smaller atoms, releasing heat.

CFS is also planning to build the world’s first large-scale fusion power plant in Virginia, which is home to the largest concentration of data centres in the world.

BloombergNEF estimates that US data centre power demand will more than double to 78GW by 2035, from about 35GW last year, and nuclear energy start-ups already have raised more than $3bn in 2025, a 400 per cent increase on 2024 levels.

But experts have warned that addressing the technological challenges to the development of fusion would be expensive, putting into question the viability of the technology.

No group has yet been able to produce more energy from a fusion reaction than the system itself consumes despite decades of experimentation.

“Fusion is radically difficult compared to fission,” said Mark Nelson, managing director of the consultancy Radiant Energy Group, pointing to the incredibly high temperatures and pressures required to combine atoms.

“The hard part is not making fusion reactors. Every step forward towards what may be a dead end economically, looks like something that justifies another billion or a Nobel Prize.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending