1. Executive Summary

Industry overview (macro + sector-specific)

Energy and Power M&A is being reshaped by a rare mix of urgency and selectivity. Demand is no longer a vague long-term forecast. It is showing up now, driven by data centers, AI workloads, electrification, and reshoring of industrial capacity. At the same time, buyers are more disciplined than they were a few years ago. Capital is available, but it is not patient with weak cash flow stories or fuzzy execution plans.

On the power side, reliability has become a strategic asset. Dispatchable generation, grid-enabling infrastructure, and regulated utility platforms are back in favor because they can support load growth without betting the farm on long-dated development timelines. Natural gas assets, transmission, and hybrid portfolios that combine contracted renewables with firm capacity are drawing the most consistent interest.

In upstream oil and gas, consolidation is less about growth for growth’s sake and more about inventory depth, operating scale, and capital efficiency. Buyers are focused on assets that extend drilling runway, lower unit costs, and fit cleanly into existing operating footprints. The tone has shifted from “can we grow faster?” to “can we grow without breaking the cash flow story?”

Across the broader Energy & Power landscape, the common thread is quality. Quality of earnings. Quality of contracts. Quality of regulatory visibility. Deals are happening, but they are being earned.

‍

Recent M&A momentum (deal count, value)

Recent activity shows a clear pattern: fewer deals, larger checks.

Globally across Energy, Utilities, and Resources, total deal value rose sharply in 2025 even as transaction counts edged lower. The jump was driven by a resurgence of megadeals, signaling that boards and sponsors are once again willing to pursue transformational transactions when strategic logic is strong and financing is workable.

In the US Power and Utilities sector specifically, announced deal value surged over the past year, powered by several large-scale transactions tied to generation capacity, infrastructure platforms, and regulated utilities. Strategic buyers accounted for the majority of that value, underscoring that this cycle is being led by operating logic rather than pure financial engineering.

Upstream M&A remained active but more measured. Large-cap and scaled independents continued to consolidate high-quality shale positions, though overall deal values moderated from peak levels as commodity price volatility and cost inflation tempered appetite for aggressive expansion.

‍

High-level multiples and key trends

Valuation multiples tell a story of divergence rather than uniform expansion.

Regulated utilities and contracted power assets have maintained relatively resilient EV/EBITDA ranges, supported by predictable cash flows and capital recovery mechanisms. Merchant generation multiples have become more sensitive to forward power prices, capacity market design, and asset availability assumptions, leading to wider dispersion between “good” and “great” assets.

Renewable energy multiples have reset from their prior-cycle highs, reflecting higher discount rates and development risk, but contracted operating portfolios continue to trade at premiums relative to greenfield-heavy platforms. In upstream oil and gas, multiples remain tightly linked to commodity expectations and reinvestment discipline, with buyers paying up only when inventory quality and free cash flow durability are clear.

Across subsectors, acquirers are placing more weight on downside protection than upside optionality. That shift is visible in both headline multiples and deal structures.

‍

Major players and consolidators

The most active acquirers share a few common traits: scale, balance sheet flexibility, and a clear view of where demand is headed.

In power and utilities, large strategics and infrastructure-backed platforms are leading consolidation, particularly around dispatchable generation, grid assets, and regulated utilities with visible capex pipelines. These buyers are positioning themselves as long-term solutions to load growth rather than short-term traders of assets.

In upstream energy, consolidation is being driven by companies with deep operational expertise and a mandate to improve returns through scale and efficiency, not leverage. Private equity remains involved, often through platform investments and minority stakes, but strategic buyers are setting the tone in headline transactions.

‍

Summary of Key Metrics

‍

2. Industry M&A Market Overview

Deal activity trends (Y/Y and Q/Q)

The easiest way to describe Energy and Power M&A right now is “fewer swings, heavier bats.” Value is up, but the average deal is doing more work.

Global picture (Energy, Utilities & Resources)

• 2025 global deal values rose 27% while deal volumes fell 2%. That’s not a contradiction, it’s a tell: buyers are prioritizing big, strategic moves and skipping the marginal stuff. (PwC)
  
  
• Megadeals came back in a real way: 20 transactions over $5B in 2025 vs six in 2024. (PwC)
  
  
• The Americas were the center of gravity for value (PwC notes 62% of value and 14 of the 20 megadeals). That matters because it usually translates to more competitive processes, more auction-like behavior, and tighter timelines for anything “hot.” (PwC)
  
  

US power and utilities

• PwC pegs US power and utilities announced deal value at $141.9B across 35 transactions for the 12 months ending November 2025. That’s a step-change year over year. (PwC)
  
  
• Utility Dive summarizes PwC’s take bluntly: the dollar value of energy industry M&A jumped roughly fivefold from 2024, driven by several large utility and IPP mergers. (Utility Dive)
  
  

US upstream oil and gas

• Enverus (reported via SPE/JPT) puts 2025 US upstream M&A at about $65B versus $105B in 2024. Same market, different cadence: still active, but not the 2024 consolidation stampede. (JPT)
  
  
• Rystad notes global upstream M&A value was down in 1H 2025 versus 1H 2024, driven largely by a sharp drop in US shale oil transaction value. (Rystad Energy)
  
  

Quarter-to-quarter nuance (what it usually looks like in this sector)
Energy and Power rarely moves in a straight line by quarter because megadeals are lumpy. One or two platform transactions can make a quarter look “record” even if day-to-day mid-market activity is unchanged. That’s why most sector desks track:

• Trailing 12 months value and count (to smooth megadeal noise)
  
  
• Sponsor vs strategic mix (to infer who’s setting the price)
  
  
• Sub-sector split (regulated utilities vs IPP vs renewables vs upstream)
  
  

‍

Notable megadeals (illustrative highlights)

Constellation’s Calpine acquisition is a clean example of the “firm power + scale” theme:

• Constellation announced an enterprise value of $29.1B including net debt (with an “effective” EV discussion around $26.6B after certain adjustments). (Constellation, S&P Global)
  
  
• Market reaction and coverage framed it as a major repositioning around dispatchable generation and load growth. (S&P Global)
  
  

Zooming out, PwC’s 2025 megadeal count (20 deals >$5B) is the headline. The underlying message: buyers will write big checks when the asset sits at the intersection of reliability, scale, and capital access. (PwC)

‍

Private equity vs strategic acquirer share

This is one of the most important tells for analysts because it changes how you model the bid.

US power and utilities (latest read)

• PwC reports strategic investors accounted for 63% of total deal value over the 12 months ending Nov 2025, and corporate-level transactions made up 91% of all deals. Translation: strategics are driving the biggest prices, and a lot of the activity is platform-level rather than single-asset. (PwC)
  
  

Global structure shift

• PwC also flags more consortium and co-investment behavior in 2025, especially where capex is heavy and risk sharing matters (think grid, pipelines, large power portfolios, LNG-adjacent infrastructure). (PwC)
  
  

Upstream sponsor involvement
Sponsors remain relevant in upstream, but 2025’s US upstream value decline versus 2024 (Enverus numbers) suggests fewer mega sponsor exits and fewer blockbuster consolidation plays, at least relative to the prior year. (JPT)

‍

Capital availability (what’s funding deals)

Capital is there, but it’s picky. The main change versus the easy-money era is the mix of structures and the bar for certainty.

What’s supporting activity

• Large strategics with balance-sheet capacity (and a strategic mandate around reliability/load growth)
  
  
• Infrastructure funds seeking long-duration, cash-yielding assets (often via platform buys or minority stakes)
  
  
• Consortium and co-investment approaches to spread risk and write bigger equity checks (PwC)
  
  

Where you still see friction

• Greenfield-heavy development portfolios with permitting, interconnection, or offtake uncertainty
  
  
• Assets with unclear sustaining capex needs (generation outages and lifecycle capex can blow up a model quietly)

‍

M&A Volume/Value by Year

Map of Global Deal Hotspots

3. Valuation Multiples and Comps

‍

Median EV/Revenue and EV/EBITDA by sub-sector

For a clean, consistent read across subsectors, I’m using Aswath Damodaran’s published US industry snapshot datasets (annual snapshots in January). This keeps the definitions consistent across EV/EBITDA and EV/Sales and avoids the “one-off comp set” problem where every bank mysteriously picks a slightly different peer list. Source data: Damodaran industry averages (US companies). (https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/pc/archives/data.html)

Two quick reminders that matter in Energy and Power:

• EV/EBITDA is usually the better anchor for utilities and power, but it still needs context on sustaining capex, outage performance, and contract coverage.
• EV/Sales can look “high” in regulated utilities and some power names because revenue is not the constraint. Allowed returns, capex recovery, and risk profile are the constraint. That’s why you’ll often see investors talk rate base growth and allowed ROE in the same breath as valuation.

‍

Historical multiple ranges (3–5 year view)

Looking back across the last several annual valuation snapshots, Energy and Power multiples tell a story of separation rather than a single cycle moving in lockstep. Different sub-sectors reacted very differently to inflation, interest rates, commodity prices, and policy shifts, and that dispersion is still visible today.

Using consistent US industry snapshot data over the 2022–2026 period, a few patterns stand out.

Utilities and regulated power assets have shown the narrowest valuation bands. EV/EBITDA multiples for general utilities and power generation stayed relatively tight, typically moving within a roughly 2x range over the period. Even as rates rose and capital costs increased, these assets held their footing because cash flows are either regulated or supported by long-term contracts. In practice, this stability is why buyers still lean heavily on EV/EBITDA for these businesses and spend more time debating allowed returns, capex recovery, and regulatory lag than headline multiples.

Merchant power assets have also been more stable than many expected, but for a different reason. Their valuation ranges were anchored by expectations around capacity scarcity, forward power prices, and contract coverage. When dispatchable capacity became strategically important again, multiples found support even in a higher-rate environment. The range widened modestly, but not nearly as much as in more cyclical energy segments.

Renewable energy shows a clearer reset. Over the past three to five years, EV/EBITDA multiples compressed from prior-cycle highs and then stabilized at a lower, wider range. The key driver here was not a loss of long-term demand, but a repricing of risk: higher discount rates, development uncertainty, interconnection delays, and variability in offtake pricing all mattered more. Operating, contracted portfolios tended to sit toward the top end of the range, while development-heavy platforms traded at meaningful discounts or struggled to transact at all.

Upstream oil and gas and oilfield services exhibit the widest swings. EV/EBITDA ranges expanded and contracted sharply as commodity prices moved and capital discipline became a defining investment theme. In years where free cash flow visibility was strong and reinvestment was restrained, multiples pushed higher. When pricing softened or cost inflation crept in, compression followed quickly. These sectors remind you why single-point-in-time comps can be misleading without a clear commodity deck and scenario framing.

Coal-related energy assets show the most extreme ranges of all. Over the last several years, multiples moved from very low levels to surprisingly high snapshots during periods of tight supply and strong realized pricing. This volatility makes coal precedents especially tricky. Historical ranges are useful for context, but they must be paired with conservative cash flow assumptions and short-dated terminal value logic.

The practical takeaway for analysts is simple but important: historical ranges matter more than spot multiples. In Energy and Power, valuation is rarely about where a company trades today. It’s about where it sits within its own historical band, what moved it there, and whether those drivers are durable. When you frame comps and precedents through that lens, your valuation work becomes far more defensible in front of an investment committee or board.

‍

Comparison to S&P 500 and related industries

If you want to benchmark Energy and Power versus the broader market without mixing methodologies, the cleanest approach is to pull Damodaran’s “Total Market” or sector aggregates from the same snapshot family and compare:

• Relative EV/EBITDA levels
  
  
• How multiples respond to rate changes (WACC sensitivity)
  
  
• Dispersion (which tends to widen when macro uncertainty rises)
  
  

The important analyst takeaway is not “Energy trades at X vs the market.” It’s that different parts of Energy and Power behave like different asset classes:

• Regulated utilities often trade like long-duration infrastructure with policy and rate-case risk
  
  
• Merchant power trades like a hybrid of industrial cyclicals and commodities, with contracting as the stabilizer
  
  
• Upstream and oilfield services trade like commodity beta with varying degrees of capital discipline

‍

Historical Valuation Multiples

Peer Multiples & Financials

‍

4. Top Strategic Acquirers and Investors

If you want a quick read on who is “setting the price” in Energy and Power right now, follow the big checks. Over the last 12–24 months, the most influential buyers have been:

1. Strategics with a real operating reason to buy (scale, reliability, inventory depth)
   
   
2. Infrastructure capital that can hold long-duration assets and fund capex
   
   
3. Sponsors building platforms, but usually with more structure and more selectivity than the 2021-era playbook
   
   

PwC’s latest US power and utilities outlook frames the market as strategic consolidation driven by scale, reliability, and infrastructure demand, with strategic investors accounting for the majority of value in that sector. (PwC)

‍

Top acquirers and investors (representative list, last 12–24 months)

Power generation, utilities, and infrastructure leaning (strategic + infra buyers)

• Constellation Energy: agreed to acquire Calpine, positioning around clean plus dispatchable supply to meet rising demand. (Constellation, POWER Magazine)
  
  
• NRG Energy: cited by PwC as a major consolidator through its LS Power platform transaction, tied to capacity and infrastructure themes. (PwC)
  
  
• Blackstone Infrastructure: agreed to acquire TXNM Energy in an $11.5B deal, highlighting infrastructure capital’s appetite for regulated utility cash flows and capex programs. (Investopedia, electricenergyonline.com)
  
  
• BlackRock’s Global Infrastructure Partners: reported by the Financial Times to be nearing a takeover of AES, a deal thesis linked to data center-driven power demand and infrastructure positioning. (Financial Times)
  
  

Upstream oil and gas (inventory depth + scale buyers)

• Exxon Mobil: closed its acquisition of Pioneer Natural Resources in 2024, one of the defining US shale consolidation precedents of the cycle. (MergerSight Group)
  
  
• Chevron: finalized its $55B acquisition of Hess after a Guyana-related dispute was resolved, a landmark deal tied to long-life advantaged resources. (Houston Chronicle)
  
  
• Occidental: acquired CrownRock, expanding Permian scale and inventory, a classic “quality barrels at scale” rationale. (Investopedia)
  
  
• EOG Resources: announced the acquisition of Encino Acquisition Partners, strengthening its position in the Utica with a scale and inventory logic. (Bain)
  
  
• Broader theme: Bain characterizes 2024 as a record year for energy deal value and a wave of oil and gas consolidation, which helps explain why large-cap upstream has been willing to do transformational deals. (Bain)
  
  

Why they are acquiring (investment theses you can actually model)

A. Power and utilities: reliability plus load growth
This is the “you cannot electrify and digitize without power” thesis. Buyers are paying for assets that can deliver megawatts with fewer surprises, especially near load pockets that are growing fast (data centers and industrial). PwC explicitly frames US power and utilities deal momentum around consolidation for scale and reliability and infrastructure demand. (PwC)

What it usually means in underwriting:

• More value placed on firm capacity and availability
  
  
• Greater scrutiny on lifecycle capex and outage performance
  
  
• More emphasis on contracting strategy and customer solutions (C&I, retail, structured power)
  
  

B. Upstream: inventory depth, durability, and capital discipline
The modern upstream buyer playbook is less “grow volumes” and more “secure long-run inventory that keeps free cash flow durable under a conservative deck.” Wood Mackenzie’s upstream M&A commentary highlights how oil price volatility and shifting price expectations shaped activity and sentiment in 2025, which is exactly why buyers lean harder into resilience. (Wood Mackenzie)

What it usually means in underwriting:

• Inventory quality matters more than headline production
  
  
• Model sensitivity to commodity decks is not optional, it is the model
  
  
• Synergies are real, but only if the asset sits inside the buyer’s operating footprint
  
  

C. Infrastructure capital: long-duration cash flows plus capex funding edge
Infrastructure investors are attracted to regulated utilities, contracted generation, and critical networks because they can fund multi-year capex with a lower return hurdle than many corporates or sponsors. The TXNM Energy take-private is a clean example of this behavior. (Investopedia, electricenergyonline.com)

What it usually means in underwriting:

• Longer hold assumptions
  
  
• Lower terminal multiple dependence (cash yield matters)
  
  
• More structured equity and governance terms
  
  

PE platforms and roll-up strategies

Private equity is still present, but the style has shifted. Instead of broad “roll up anything with EBITDA,” the better sponsor strategies in energy and power today look like:

• Build a platform around a repeatable edge (O&M, development origination, grid services, distributed energy, specialized services)
  
  
• Bolt-on acquisitions that improve density, utilization, or customer cross-sell
  
  
• Co-investments and minority stakes to scale without over-levering
  
  

KPMG’s ENRC M&A reporting points to policy shifts and changing market conditions as key context for how sponsors and strategics approach deals, which is why structures and risk-sharing have become more common. (KPMG)

‍

Logo Grid: Active Acquirers

Deals by Acquirer, Value, and Rationale

‍

5. Transaction Case Studies

Below are four representative deals that show what’s getting bought, what’s getting paid, and what buyers think they’re unlocking. I’m sticking to what the companies and primary deal sources actually disclosed, and I’ll flag where the market will speculate but the filings don’t give a hard number.

‍

Deal 1: Constellation Energy acquiring Calpine (power generation scale play)

One-page snapshot

• Announcement: January 2025 (per Constellation materials)
  
  
• Buyer / Seller: Constellation Energy / Calpine shareholders
  
  
• Headline economics: enterprise value $29.1B including $12.7B net debt; “effective enterprise value” cited as $26.6B after adjustments in the deck (Constellation)
  
  
• Multiple paid: 7.9x 2026 EV/EBITDA (Constellation presentation) (Constellation)
  
  
• Strategic rationale (what they’re really buying)
  
  
  
  • Dispatchable scale in core markets tied to load growth (ERCOT and PJM are explicitly highlighted in the deck’s demand-growth framing) (Constellation)
    
    
  • More flexibility to serve large customer load with tailored supply solutions (implied in the “positioning for the future” framing)
    
    
• Synergies / value creation (what’s actually disclosed)
  
  
  
  • Increases free cash flow before growth by at least $2B annually (company guidance) (Constellation)
    
    
  • Immediately accretive to 2026 earnings, stated as more than 20% EPS accretion in 2026 (company guidance) (Constellation)
    
    
• Practical analyst note
  
  
  
  • This is a rare case where the buyer is comfortable putting a clean multiple on the slide. When management tells you the 2026 EV/EBITDA on day one, they’re basically saying: “we’re underwriting cash flow durability and market structure, not a heroic synergy stack.”
    
    

Quick table

• Deal value (EV): $29.1B (effective EV $26.6B)
  
  
• Multiple: 7.9x 2026 EV/EBITDA
  
  
• Reported synergy proxy: +$2B+ annual free cash flow before growth
  
  

‍

Deal 2: NRG Energy acquiring LS Power’s power portfolio + CPower (the “power market supercycle” bet)

One-page snapshot

• Announcement: May 2025 (Business Wire release)
  
  
• Buyer / Seller: NRG / LS Power
  
  
• Deal size: approximately $12.0B enterprise value (Business Wire)
  
  
• Assets: 18 natural gas-fired facilities totaling ~13 GW plus CPower (C&I virtual power plant platform with ~6 GW capacity across deregulated markets) (Business Wire)
  
  
• Multiple paid: 7.5x 2026 EV/EBITDA (also described as ~50% of estimated new-build replacement cost) (Business Wire)
  
  
• Strategic rationale (in plain English)
  
  
  
  • Doubles generation capacity and deepens footprint in Northeast and Texas where NRG’s load sits (Business Wire)
    
    
  • Adds a C&I flexibility platform (CPower) that fits the “customer solutions” story, especially for large loads like data centers (Business Wire)
    
    
• Synergies (what’s disclosed)
  
  
  
  • The release focuses more on strategic optionality, credit profile, and capital allocation than a quantified synergy number (so treat synergy as qualitative unless you pull the investor deck addendum)
    
    
• Practical analyst note
  
  
  
  • This is a good example of how buyers are justifying pricing in today’s market: not “we’ll cut costs,” but “we’re buying optionality in tight markets and a customer-facing platform.”
    
    

Quick table

• Deal value (EV): ~$12.0B
  
  
• Multiple: 7.5x 2026 EV/EBITDA
  
  
• Synergies: not quantified in the primary release
  
  

‍

Deal 3: EOG Resources acquiring Encino Acquisition Partners (inventory depth + operating fit)

One-page snapshot

• Announcement: May 30, 2025 (EOG acquisition presentation)
  
  
• Buyer / Seller: EOG / CPP Investments + Encino Energy (per broader deal coverage; EOG deck focuses on asset fit)
  
  
• Purchase price: $5.6B (Investor Room)
  
  
• Asset footprint: 675K net acres and 1.0+ Bn boe of undeveloped net resource; pro forma Utica totals 1.1MM net acres and 2.0+ Bn boe undeveloped net resource (Investor Room)
  
  
• Strategic rationale
  
  
  
  • Builds a contiguous, scalable Utica position (density matters because it lowers unit costs and simplifies development sequencing)
    
    
  • Returns-focused framing: “immediately accretive” plus “meaningful synergies” language appears in the deck, but without a single synergy dollar figure on the pages shown (Investor Room)
    
    
• Multiple paid
  
  
  
  • Not presented as an EV/EBITDA multiple in the deck excerpt available here (so don’t force one)
    
    
• Practical analyst note
  
  
  
  • Upstream deals often avoid a clean EV/EBITDA headline because EBITDA depends heavily on commodity decks and hedging. Here, EOG leans into acreage scale, resource depth, and balance sheet capacity instead.
    
    

Quick table

• Purchase price: $5.6B
  
  
• Reported accretion: deck cites accretion metrics (example: ‘25 EBITDA accretion percentage shown) (Investor Room)
  
  
• Synergies: qualitative, not quantified
  
  

‍

Deal 4: Occidental acquiring CrownRock (Permian scale, immediate cash flow accretion)

One-page snapshot

• Announcement: December 11, 2023 (Occidental press release)
  
  
• Closing: August 1, 2024 (Occidental SEC filing excerpt)
  
  
• Deal value: approximately $12.0B at announcement (incl. debt assumption) (oxy.com)
  
  
• Total consideration at close: approximately $12.4B, including cash, shares, and assumed debt (SEC filing) (SEC)
  
  
• Strategic rationale
  
  
  
  • Expands scale in the Midland Basin and increases development-ready inventory; press release cites ~170 Mboed expected 2024 production and ~1,700 undeveloped locations (oxy.com)
    
    
• Synergies / value creation (what’s disclosed)
  
  
  
  • “Immediate free cash flow accretion,” with a specific callout of $1B in the first year based on $70 WTI (company statement) (oxy.com)
    
    
• Multiple paid
  
  
  
  • Not disclosed in the press release or the SEC excerpt referenced here, so treat multiple as not publicly specified unless you pull the deal presentation / fairness materials
    
    
• Practical analyst note
  
  
  
  • This is the classic Permian consolidation logic: contiguous acreage + infrastructure + high working interest can create real operational uplift, but the valuation debate lives and dies on your price deck and development cadence.
    
    

Quick table

• Deal value: ~$12.0B announced; ~$12.4B total consideration at close
  
  
• Synergy proxy: $1B first-year FCF accretion at $70 WTI (company statement)
  
  
• Multiple: not disclosed in cited sources

‍

One-Page Snapshot per Deal template

‍

6. Valuation Framework and Modeling

How deals are priced: DCF, precedent, comps

In Energy and Power, bankers rarely get away with a single “one-number” valuation approach. The sector is too mixed: some assets behave like infrastructure (regulated utilities), some behave like commodities (upstream), and some sit awkwardly in-between (merchant power, contracted renewables with development optionality).

Most processes end up triangulating across three lenses:

1. Trading comps (what the public market is paying today)
   
   

• Useful for quick reality checks and relative value.
  
  
• Dangerous if you ignore contract mix, merchant exposure, regulatory regime, or sustaining capex (a power fleet with aging units can look “cheap” on EV/EBITDA right before it eats your cash flow with outages and lifecycle capex).
  
  

2. Precedent transactions (what buyers paid in similar deals)
   
   

• Best for answering the board question: “What have other buyers actually paid?”
  
  
• Needs careful normalization for cycle timing (commodity deck), asset quality (heat rate, decline curve), and structure (earn-outs, tax attributes, seller financing, minority stakes).
  
  

3. DCF (what the cash flows are worth under explicit assumptions)
   
   

• DCF becomes the backbone when the asset has long-lived cash flows, meaningful contracted revenue, or a clearly forecastable capex plan (regulated utilities, transmission, contracted generation, many infrastructure-style platforms).
  
  
• Even for merchant-heavy assets, DCF is still used as a scenario engine: you model cases (downside/base/upside) and force the debate into the open.
  
  

A consistent point across valuation training and practitioner guidance is that DCF outputs swing heavily with discount rate and terminal assumptions, which is why sensitivity tables aren’t “nice to have” in this sector, they’re the whole point. (Corporate Finance Institute, fe.training)

‍

Typical control premiums

Control premiums vary a lot by deal type, competition, and how much “fixing” a buyer believes they can do. Two useful ways to stay grounded:

• Conceptual anchor: the premium should relate to the value of running the asset better than the status quo (the “value of control”), not some arbitrary market rule. Damodaran frames the control premium as the difference between status-quo value and optimal value, which implies it should be larger for poorly managed assets and smaller for well-run ones. (Stern School of Business)
  
  
• Market shorthand: many practical M&A references cite a typical takeover premium range around 20% to 30% for public targets, with wide dispersion in competitive situations. Treat this as a starting point for discussion, not a rule. (Corporate Finance Institute, Wall Street Prep)
  
  

Key model drivers: what matters most in Energy and Power

A. Regulated utilities (rate base and cash recovery)

• Growth driver is rate base and capex plan, not “revenue growth” in the normal sense
  
  
• Timing of rate cases and regulatory lag can change near-term cash flow timing materially
  
  
• Capital structure and allowed ROE matter because the business is designed around capital recovery
  
  

B. Power generation (contracting and availability)

• Contract coverage (percent of MW or gross margin hedged/contracted) usually drives valuation stability
  
  
• Outage rates, heat rate assumptions, fuel procurement, and environmental capex can quietly swing EBITDA
  
  
• For merchant exposure, forward curves and capacity market rules are the big levers
  
  

C. Renewables (operating vs development)

• Operating contracted assets behave like infrastructure cash flows
  
  
• Development pipelines behave more like options (permitting, interconnection, offtake pricing, and construction risk drive probability-weighted value)
  
  
• Discount rate differences between operating assets and pipeline value are often the hidden story
  
  

D. Upstream oil and gas (commodity deck and reinvestment rate)

• Price deck and differentials drive everything
  
  
• Decline curves and sustaining capex determine whether EBITDA is real cash flow or just a mirage
  
  
• Inventory quality (locations, returns, cadence) matters more than headline production
  
  

‍

Example modeling assumptions (non-advisory)

This is a template-style set of assumptions you can use as a starting point for a generic Energy & Power DCF. Numbers below are illustrative ranges only. They are not investment advice and they are not meant to represent any specific company.

‍

Sample DCF Input Summary

Sensitivity Analysis Table

‍

7. Trends and Strategic Themes

This is the part where Energy and Power stops behaving like one industry and starts acting like five at once. The headline is simple: demand is rising again, grids are strained, and capital is more expensive than it was a few years ago. Those three facts are reshaping what buyers want, how they structure deals, and where they’re willing to take risk. (PwC, Grid Strategies, Axios)

‍

A. Sector shifts that are driving M&A behavior

1. The “load growth is back” shock, led by data centers and AI
   For years, demand forecasts were sleepy. Now utilities are revising load forecasts up and the biggest incremental driver showing up again and again is data centers. Grid Strategies’ national load growth report summarizes utility forecasts pointing to large increases by 2030, with data centers identified as the largest driver of demand growth in the near term. (Grid Strategies)
   IEA-linked reporting also emphasizes the same direction of travel: data centers are positioned to drive a very large share of incremental US power demand growth for the rest of the decade. (Axios)
   
   

What this does to deals:

• It raises the strategic value of dispatchable generation and firm capacity, not just “cheap energy.”
  
  
• It makes interconnection position and proximity to load a real competitive moat.
  
  
• It pushes buyers toward portfolios that can serve large customers directly, not only sell into the grid.
  
  

2. Interconnection reform and queue friction are turning into real M&A catalysts
   If you’ve ever tried to build a project right now, you’ve lived this: long queues, shifting upgrade costs, and a lot of uncertainty. FERC’s Order 2023 and Order 2023-A focus on interconnection process reforms (cluster studies, readiness requirements, tighter timelines). (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Foley Hoag)
   On the ground, you can see implementation examples like CAISO’s updates: CAISO indicates its Order 2023 compliance was approved by FERC in May 2025, with additional reforms and filings scheduled into 2026 and beyond. (CAISO)
   
   

What this does to deals:

• “Buy vs build” tilts toward buy when a target already has an interconnection foothold.
  
  
• Development platforms get valued less on hype and more on proven queue maturity.
  
  
• Buyers pay closer attention to transmission deliverability and upgrade risk when underwriting.
  
  

3. Cost of capital changed the buyer mix and the structures
   Higher rates did not kill deals, but they changed what “good” looks like. PwC’s 2026 outlook notes total global Energy, Utilities and Resources deal value rose in 2025 even as volumes fell, and that megadeals (>$5B) were a big part of the story. (PwC)
   When capital is expensive, the market tends to favor (a) larger, balance-sheet-backed strategics and (b) infrastructure investors who can underwrite longer-duration yields.
   
   

What this does to deals:

• More consortium deals and co-investments for big assets
  
  
• More minority stakes and structured equity where risk is hard to price cleanly
  
  
• More focus on assets with predictable cash generation, or a clear path to it
  
  

4. Renewables: operating assets versus development pipelines have split apart
   The market now treats these like different species.
   
   

• Operating, contracted projects still behave like infrastructure cash flows.
  
  
• Development-heavy platforms get discounted harder because interconnection, permitting, offtake pricing, and construction risk are all being repriced at the same time.
  The “power availability is the constraint” message is also showing up directly in data center infrastructure research, which is one reason buyers care so much about firmed supply and delivery certainty. (bloomenergy.com, media.datacenterdynamics.com)
  
  

‍

B. Emerging business models buyers are leaning into

1. Behind-the-meter and “power-as-a-product” for large loads
   When grid timelines are uncertain, large customers get creative. The data center power surveys highlight widening interconnection timelines and growing interest in alternative strategies. (bloomenergy.com, media.datacenterdynamics.com)
   This has pulled more attention toward onsite generation, long-term structured supply, and hybrid solutions that can be deployed faster than traditional grid upgrades.
   
   
2. Flexibility and demand response as a platform business
   The idea is simple: not every megawatt has to come from a new plant if you can manage load intelligently. Transactions involving platforms that aggregate flexible demand or capacity are getting more strategic attention because they sit right at the intersection of reliability, customers, and market design.
   
   

‍

C. Antitrust and regulatory changes that matter right now

1. Power sector emissions rules are in flux
   On the federal side, the EPA’s power-plant greenhouse gas rules have been a moving target. EPA’s own rule page notes that on June 11, 2025, EPA proposed repealing greenhouse gas emissions standards for the power sector under Clean Air Act Section 111. (US EPA, Federal Register)
   
   

What this does to deals:

• Regulatory uncertainty pushes buyers to demand wider downside protection in their underwriting
  
  
• It can increase the relative value of flexible assets that can pivot (or retire) if rules swing again
  
  
• It increases diligence focus on remaining useful life, retrofit capex, and compliance pathways
  
  

2. State and regional scrutiny is rising in practical ways
   Not all “regulation” is emissions. For example, Texas regulators have started asking questions about the resource footprint of data centers, including water use, as load growth accelerates. (Houston Chronicle)
   That kind of local friction can affect siting, permitting, and the speed at which projects can actually move.
   
   

‍

D. Expert POV: what I’d watch next

These are not predictions, just the pressure points that keep showing up in real deal debates:

• Reliability is becoming the new scarcity premium. Anything that supports firm capacity, fast deployment, or operational resilience is getting more strategic attention.
  
  
• Interconnection position is becoming a valuation driver, not a footnote. “Queue maturity” is starting to function like an asset.
  
  
• The market is rewarding proof over promises. Operating performance, contracting coverage, and capex realism matter more than shiny narratives.
  
  
• Deal structures will stay creative. When uncertainty is high, buyers and sellers are more willing to share risk instead of arguing about a single “right” number.

‍

Timeline of Trend Emergence

‍

8. 2025–26 Market Outlook

The setup going into 2026 is weirdly healthy and annoyingly complicated at the same time.

Healthy, because buyers are still writing big checks. PwC’s latest global energy, utilities and resources snapshot says 2025 deal value rose 27% even though volumes dipped 2%, and that jump was powered by a surge in megadeals (20 deals over $5B, up from six in 2024). (PwC)

Complicated, because the “why” behind deals is shifting fast. Demand is accelerating (especially from data centers and digital infrastructure), but the grid is the choke point, and higher financing costs punish anything that smells like uncertainty. PwC’s 2026 US power and utilities outlook explicitly calls out AI-driven demand growth and the renewed need for dispatchable generation in a complex policy environment. (PwC)

‍

Expected M&A drivers and headwinds

Primary demand-side drivers (what pulls deals forward)

1. Data centers and AI are making speed-to-power valuable
   Multiple independent outlooks point to major growth in data center capacity and power needs over the next several years. JLL projects global data center capacity growth of about 97 GW between 2025 and 2030, effectively doubling over five years, with the Americas a large share of capacity and growth. (JLL)
   What that does to M&A is pretty straightforward: assets that can deliver firm power, in the right place, on a credible timeline get more strategic interest than assets that are “nice on paper.”
   
   
2. Reliability and dispatchability are back in fashion
   This is the not-so-secret theme behind recent power dealmaking. When buyers talk about meeting growing demand, they keep coming back to dispatchable generation and system reliability. PwC frames data centers as reinforcing the need for dispatchable generation in 2026 deal logic. (PWC)
   
   
3. Interconnection and grid access are turning into an asset
   Deloitte’s power and utilities outlook highlights how a massive amount of capacity is stuck in interconnection queues and how slow connection timelines can be relative to the pace of new supply additions. (Deloitte)
   
   

In practice, this pushes buyers toward:

• Operating assets with deliverability already “real”
  
  
• Development platforms with mature queue positions (and clean documentation)
  
  
• Transmission and grid-adjacent infrastructure where it’s possible to create capacity, not just chase it
  
  

Capital and structure drivers (what changes who wins deals)

4. Megadeals and scale buyers have an edge
   When cost of capital is higher, the market tends to reward scale, balance sheet strength, and execution credibility. The 2025 global pattern PwC highlights (more value, fewer deals, megadeals returning) fits that playbook. (PwC)
   BCG’s 2026 M&A outlook also notes momentum in large transactions and rising regulatory complexity, which tends to favor buyers who can take longer timelines and heavier diligence loads. (bcg.com)
   
   
5. Renewables M&A is splitting into two lanes
   Deloitte’s renewables outlook describes 2025 as challenging and flags policy and credit changes that pressure early-stage pipelines, which is consistent with what you hear in market chatter: operating, contracted projects still trade, while early-stage development gets repriced or structured more cautiously. (Deloitte)
   
   

Headwinds (what slows deals down)

1. Policy and regulatory uncertainty
   Even when buyers like the demand story, uncertainty raises hurdle rates, and that tends to show up as more structure (earn-outs, contingent payments, seller rolls) and tighter diligence.
   
   
2. Grid bottlenecks and permitting timelines
   When queues and upgrades are unpredictable, buyers either pay up for certainty or walk away. There’s less middle ground than there used to be.
   
   
3. Commodity volatility and macro noise in upstream
   PwC’s 2026 energy deals outlook points to consolidation and discipline, with dealmaking influenced by price stability dynamics and a cautious tone, even as valuations support activity. (PwC)
   Legal and geopolitical commentary for 2026 also emphasizes macro uncertainty and volatility as key context for oil and gas deal flow. (Akin - Akin, an Elite Global Law Firm)
   
   

‍

Buy-side vs sell-side predictions

Buy-side behavior (what buyers are likely to do)

• Pay for constraints, not vibes: interconnection position, deliverability, dispatchable capacity, and infrastructure that shortens the timeline to serve load.
  
  
• Prefer platforms over one-offs: scale matters more when integration costs and regulatory complexity rise. (bcg.com, PwC)
  
  
• Use more creative structures: more minority stakes, joint ventures, and staged acquisitions when development risk is high (common in renewables and grid-adjacent builds). (Deloitte, Deloitte)
  
  

Sell-side behavior (what sellers are likely to do)

• Quality sells, “maybe later” doesn’t: operating/contracted cash flows will remain more liquid than early-stage pipeline assets in a higher-hurdle world. (Deloitte)
  
  
• Expect more buyer pushback on capex realism: lifecycle capex, compliance capex, and interconnection upgrade exposure will get priced harder.
  
  
• Run processes around certainty: sellers will increasingly package assets with contracts, permits, or queue milestones to reduce perceived risk and protect valuation.

‍

Funnel of Deal Types by Strategic Priority

Outlook Grid (Short, Mid, Long Term)

‍

9. Appendices and Citations

Deal Tables

Methodology (what you did, and what you didn’t do)

Data gathering approach

1. Start with primary disclosures for headline terms and rationale:
   
   
   
   • Press releases, investor presentations, 8-Ks (when available)
     
     
2. Use reputable secondary research for market-level context:
   
   
   
   • Major consulting deal outlooks, regulator explainers, and credible industry research
     
     
3. Normalize for comparability:
   
   
   
   • Convert to USD where possible (if needed)
     
     
   • Label whether value is EV vs equity value
     
     
   • Do not “invent” multiples when not disclosed; mark as not disclosed
     
     
4. Build the visuals from your screened dataset:
   
   
   
   • Keep your deal screen as the single source of truth for charts and summary tables
     
     

Limitations (important, and honest)

• Many Energy & Power deals do not disclose clean multiples, synergy values, or consistent EV definitions. When the source doesn’t provide it, the report should not guess.
  
  
• Subsector mix matters. A single “Energy & Power multiple” can be misleading because regulated utilities, merchant power, contracted renewables, and upstream trade on different drivers.
  
  

‍

Reference list (hyperlinked)

Market and deals outlooks (macro + sector)

• PwC, Global M&A trends in energy, utilities and resources: 2026 outlook (includes 2025 value/volume and megadeal stats). (PwC)
  
  
• PwC, Power and utilities: US Deals 2026 outlook (ties reliability-focused generation and AI/data center demand to recent transactions). (PwC)
  
  
• PwC, Energy: US Deals 2026 outlook (energy-tech convergence and gas/LNG deal drivers). (PwC)
  
  

Demand, grid constraints, and regulation (themes shaping M&A)

• Grid Strategies, National Load Growth Report 2025 (utility forecast revisions, data centers, uncertainty range). (Grid Strategies)
  
  
• FERC, Explainer on the Interconnection Final Rule (Order 2023 + note on Order 2023-A). (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission)
  
  
• Axios, Data centers dominate rising U.S. power demand growth (IEA-linked view; recent demand narrative). (Axios)
  
  

Transaction sources (primary deal docs used in case studies)

• Constellation acquisition announcement deck for Calpine (deal economics and multiple).
  
  
• NRG transaction press release (LS Power portfolio + CPower).
  
  
• EOG acquisition presentation for Encino (asset scale and disclosed purchase price).
  
  
• Occidental press release for CrownRock (headline terms and FCF accretion statement). 

‍

Disclaimer: The information on this page is provided by MergersandAcquisitions.net for general informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, legal, tax, or professional advice, nor an offer or recommendation to buy or sell any security, instrument, or investment strategy. All content, including statistics, commentary, forecasts, and analyses, is generic in nature, may not be accurate, complete, or current, and should not be relied upon without consulting your own financial, legal, and tax advisers. Investing in financial services, fintech ventures, or related instruments involves significant risks—including market, liquidity, regulatory, business, and technology risks—and may result in the loss of principal. MergersandAcquisitions.net does not act as your broker, adviser, or fiduciary unless expressly agreed in writing, and assumes no liability for errors, omissions, or losses arising from use of this content. Any forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain and actual outcomes may differ materially. References or links to third-party sites and data are provided for convenience only and do not imply endorsement or responsibility. Access to this information may be restricted or prohibited in certain jurisdictions, and MergersandAcquisitions.net may modify or remove content at any time without notice.

‍