Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Economy

The Age of Electrons Has Arrived, but Maybe Not for the Right Reasons

A new report finds that utilities are spending more than fossil fuel companies to keep up with data center electricity demand.

Money.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The transition to clean energy is largely a shift from molecules to electrons — gasoline in the tank is out, electricity stored in a battery cell is in. It follows, then, that as the transition progresses, the balance of power in the energy industry will shift from oil and gas production to electricity generation.

We may look back on 2024 as the year the scales tipped. Among the top 260 publicly listed energy companies, utilities’ capital expenditures around the globe were slightly higher this year than oil and gas spending, according to a recent analysis from Boston Consulting Group, and the authors expect the trend to grow through the end of the decade. But it wasn’t a sudden spike in EV adoption or home electrification or some other climate solution that put utility spending in the lead. It was the rise in data centers.

“When we went through all the data, all the 260 companies, it was the data centers that were having the biggest impact, most definitely,” Rebecca Fitz, a partner and director at Boston Consulting Group and lead author of the report, told me. “I’ve been in this sector for a long time, and to have such a rapid change in demand outlook, coupled with quick changes to capex, is a big story.”

Boston Consulting Group Center For Energy Impact

The finding was the surprise headline of an annual report that Fitz’ group has completed for the past three years called “Follow the Capital,” an analysis of what’s driving changes in capital supply and demand in the energy sector using data culled from publicly available sources. Data for prior years comes from regulatory and investor fillings. Future years are modeled using public announcements, plans filed with regulators, and a few conservative assumptions, Fitz told me.

Surging demand for electricity from data centers was perhaps the biggest energy story of 2024, and the trend seemed to accelerate as the year went on. In just the past few months, almost every major tech company has signed an agreement to buy power from a nuclear plant, either reviving formerly shuttered reactors or helping to build new ones. GE Vernova, which manufactures energy generation equipment, reported last week that it had secured contracts for 9 gigawatts’ worth of new gas turbines since its previous quarterly report in October, “tied to both load growth in the U.S and … serving the hyperscaler demand associated with AI.” As the “Follow the Capital” authors were wrapping up this year’s edition in November, they found that U.S. utilities had added $50 billion in planned capex during the third quarter alone, mostly due to data center demand growth.

Data center demand isn’t the only factor playing into the above chart. Though utility spending is definitely up, oil and gas companies are also reining in capex growth in favor of shareholder returns, Fitz told me. But oil and gas also sees the winds changing and is making moves to get into the power business. Two weeks ago, during a panel hosted by the Atlantic Council, Chevron CEO Mike Wirth said the company was “looking at possible solutions to build large-scale power generation” that would serve data centers directly, rather than feed into the grid, so that regular electricity ratepayers would not shoulder the costs. “There’s sensitivity to increasing electricity rates for the average person just for the benefit of a few of these tech companies,” he said.

Beating Chevron to the punch, last week ExxonMobil announced that it was “moving fast” on this exact type of project, designing a natural gas plant that would “use carbon capture to remove more than 90% of the associated CO2 emissions” and directly power data centers without connecting to the grid.

“I have no doubt that most of the oil and gas sector is looking at opportunities in this area,” said Fitz.

Though the report covers global companies and spending, the data center demand signal is hyperlocal. Among the 30 largest North American utilities, 65% of demand growth is concentrated within just six of them, the report says. Though the report does not name the companies, Fitz told me that Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, and Ohio were seeing the most aggressive plans.

Artificial intelligence boosters often argue that this demand pull is a boon for the energy transition. By ushering in the age of electrons, the logic goes, tech companies with deep pockets can drive the first deployments of new clean energy technologies like advanced nuclear and geothermal power plants. These early deployments would then help lower costs and give rise to cheaper, cleaner electricity for the rest of us average energy consumers and our future electric cars, stoves, and water heaters.

But that’s not the only potential outcome. “Follow the Capital” found that when the six utilities most affected by demand growth recently revised their integrated resource plans, they increased the amount of natural gas generation they planned to add from 26% of total new generation to 31%. As GE Vernova reported, orders for gas generators are skyrocketing. “I can’t think of a time that the gas business has had more fun than they’re having right now,” the company’s CEO Scott Strazik said during a recent investor update.

As my colleague Matthew Zeitlin reported, the industry is turning to natural gas plants because they can run 24/7 and they are not as dependent on transmission lines as renewables are, so they can be built faster and more cheaply. Renewables paired with energy storage are only competitive with gas if there’s infrastructure to support it, sources told him.

The age of electrons may be nigh, but whether it helps to stop climate change is a separate question altogether.

Green

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
A destroyed house and a blueprint.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Recovering from the Los Angeles wildfires will be expensive. Really expensive. Insurance analysts and banks have already produced a wide range of estimates of both what insurance companies will pay out and overall economic loss. AccuWeatherhas put out an eye-catching preliminary figure of $52 billion to $57 billion for economic losses, with the service’s chief meteorologist saying that the fires have the potential to “become the worst wildfire in modern California history based on the number of structures burned and economic loss.” On Thursday, J.P. Morgan doubled its previous estimate for insured losses to $20 billion, with an economic loss figure of $50 billion — about the gross domestic product of the country of Jordan.

The startlingly high loss figures from a fire that has only lasted a few days and is (relatively) limited in scope show just how distinctly devastating an urban fire can be. Enormous wildfires thatcover millions of acres like the 2023 Canadian wildfires can spew ash and particulate matter all over the globe and burn for months, darkening skies and clogging airways in other countries. And smaller — and far deadlier fires — than those still do not produce the same financial roll.

Keep reading...Show less
Green
Climate

Why the L.A. Fires Are Exceptionally Hard to Fight

Suburban streets, exploding pipes, and those Santa Ana winds, for starters.

Firefighters on Sunset Boulevard.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

A fire needs three things to burn: heat, fuel, and oxygen. The first is important: At some point this week, for a reason we have yet to discover and may never will, a piece of flammable material in Los Angeles County got hot enough to ignite. The last is essential: The resulting fires, which have now burned nearly 29,000 acres, are fanned by exceptionally powerful and dry Santa Ana winds.

But in the critical days ahead, it is that central ingredient that will preoccupy fire managers, emergency responders, and the public, who are watching their homes — wood-framed containers full of memories, primary documents, material wealth, sentimental heirlooms — transformed into raw fuel. “Grass is one fuel model; timber is another fuel model; brushes are another — there are dozens of fuel models,” Bobbie Scopa, a veteran firefighter and author of the memoir Both Sides of the Fire Line, told me. “But when a fire goes from the wildland into the urban interface, you’re now burning houses.”

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Climate

What Started the Fires in Los Angeles?

Plus 3 more outstanding questions about this ongoing emergency.

Los Angeles.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

As Los Angeles continued to battle multiple big blazes ripping through some of the most beloved (and expensive) areas of the city on Thursday, a question lingered in the background: What caused the fires in the first place?

Though fires are less common in California during this time of the year, they aren’t unheard of. In early December 2017, power lines sparked the Thomas Fire near Ventura, California, which burned through to mid-January. At the time it was the largest fire in the state since at least the 1930s. Now it’s the ninth-largest. Although that fire was in a more rural area, it ignited for many of the same reasons we’re seeing fires this week.

Keep reading...Show less
Green