Is America Energy Rich, Power Poor?
"Water, water, everywhere, nor any drop to drink."
— Samuel Taylor Coleridge, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner
Last week's issue generated more thoughtful replies than we expected. What struck me wasn't that some of you disagreed with a point or two. It was what you agreed on. Almost nobody argued that nothing had changed. The debate was over why.
Some pointed to offshoring. Others pointed to automation, regulation, financialization, and the Fed. A few argued the productivity-wage gap itself is measured wrong. All of it deserves a fair hearing, and we'll spend the next few weeks giving it one.
But before we can discuss potential solutions, such as bringing production back, rebuilding supply chains, even rolling back regulation, we have to talk about the one thing all have in common. Each of these ideas depends on enormous amounts of reliable, affordable energy.
Something Doesn't Add Up
Does it feel like we live in the world's largest energy producing nation? I'd guess not. It feels more like a country where electricity keeps getting more expensive, where utilities warn about shortages, and where large employers can't get enough power to expand.
To me, it's strange. Strange because America is the world's largest producer of oil. It's the world's largest producer of natural gas, by a wide margin, and sits on some of the largest coal reserves on earth. In parts of the Permian Basin, natural gas can trade below zero. There's more of it than the pipelines can carry, and producers are paying companies to take it away.
A country drowning in energy shouldn't also feel like it's running out of electricity. In other words: before we ask whether America can make more things again, we should probably ask whether America can power the production.
We Have the Fuel
For two decades, governments and corporations promised a shift away from oil, coal, and gas toward renewables, the "energy transition." However, fossil fuels still supply somewhere in the high 80% range of global primary energy consumption.
No country produces more of it than we do. America produced 13.6 million barrels a day in 2025, nearly 4 million barrels more than Russia, the world’s second-largest producer, and almost 40% more than Saudi Arabia.
Natural gas tells the same story, stretched over a much longer timeline.
This chart shows nearly a century of US production. Note what happens after 2005.
Production stayed roughly flat for fifty years, from the early 1970s through the mid-2000s. Then the shale revolution hit and output nearly doubled in under two decades. It was the fastest, largest sustained increase in the chart's entire 95-year history.
Here the issue: none of that abundance, on its own, keeps the lights on or data centers running. Oil and gas are inputs. Electricity is what end users need, and increasingly, gas is the fuel utilities burn to make it. So the real question isn't whether we have enough oil and gas (we do). It's whether we can turn that abundance into electricity, and get it where it's needed. All while remaining competitive globally. He who has cheap electricity has a steep advantage on the global stage.
The Third Electrical Era
Physicist and energy analyst Mark Mills spoke at this year's Strategic Investment Conference, and his framework for the US electric sector breaks the postwar period into three distinct eras.
The first was the rise of appliances. The decades after World War II when air conditioning, washing machines, and the electrification of the American South drove a long, steady climb in demand. The second, running roughly from the early 1980s through the 2010s, was what he calls the era of efficiency: demand stayed essentially flat, not because people used less electricity, but because LEDs, better HVAC systems, and more efficient motors quietly offset most of the growth that would have otherwise happened. The result was more lumens, more cooling, more everything, for close to the same amount of power.

Right around 2020, the line turns. That's the beginning of Mills' third era. It's a bit of a strange move to check someone's slide against a different dataset, but the EIA's own numbers, over just the last three decades, land on the same inflection point, and the shift looks even sharper up close.
For fifteen years, from 2005 to 2020, demand grew at an average of just 0.1% a year, the back half of what Mills calls the efficiency era. Since 2020, that growth rate has jumped to 1.7% a year. Mills attributes it to data centers directly, and to the broader economic growth data centers and AI are inducing across the rest of the economy.
Mills' framework helps explain why this shift is landing so hard, so fast. Large single-site industrial loads of this scale, the kind of demand a steel mill, an LNG terminal, or now a hyperscale data center adds to the grid all at once, have historically been rare. Today that’s changing. Mills made the point that a data center isn't software. In the physics of energy, it's really a building full of heaters, powered by electricity, because everything a computer does eventually turns into heat.
Critics might reasonably say: fine, just build more equipment. The amount of new generating equipment added to US grids is back to its highest level since 2002. But because so much of that new equipment is solar and wind, intermittent, not always-on, the actual energy production capacity being added is, by Mills' account, the lowest of the century.
The point I'm trying to make is we've entered a new electrical era, on the back of a demand curve nobody planned for. Demand is surging, and electric generation capacity (supply) is not keeping up.
If energy becomes harder to deliver, the path to US based manufacturing, reshoring, and household budgets all get more expensive together, not separately.
Abundance Isn't Enough
Part of why the gap is closing so slowly: a 500-mile natural gas pipeline can be built in 12 to 18 months. A 500-mile transmission line takes 24 to 48 months. If you need power fast, gas wins by default, not because it's better, but because it's faster to deliver.
Every data center in this next chart needs electricity, not raw fuel. Electricity has to travel over wires that take years to build, not pipelines that take months. Here’s what the bottleneck looks like:
US data center operating capacity is projected to roughly quadruple by 2030. From about 24 gigawatts today to about 110. That's what's left after accounting for the projects they suspect won't make it. In Wood Mackenzie's own words: "Even accounting for expected project attrition, grid-connected data center capacity is expected to nearly quadruple in the next four years." Meaning, even after subtracting every project that stalls out or never gets built, the demand that survives is still enormous, four times what exists today.
600 gigawatts is the entire wishlist of proposed data center projects across the country, every project anyone has floated, most of which haven't secured power yet. Many of which, they say, will never get built at all. Of that 600 gigawatts, only about 183 gigawatts has actually secured a power supply agreement. The other 417 gigawatts is demand that exists on paper, with no way yet to reach the building.
The reason isn't a shortage of gas, coal, or oil somewhere in the country, it's that there's no way to get those inputs converted into usable electricity.
Utility's ratepayers are already covering the difference. Dominion Energy in Virginia, home to one of the largest data center clusters in the country, saw regulators approve its first base-rate increase in 34 years last November, with additional fuel-cost increases taking effect this July. The stated driver in both cases: data center growth outpacing the delivery system's capacity to keep up.
Not everyone agrees on how much blame data centers deserve. A report commissioned by the Data Center Coalition, the industry's own trade group, points to inflation, grid modernization costs, and gas price volatility as bigger factors nationally than load growth alone. However, even that report concedes data centers account for roughly half of the recent capacity price increases in PJM, the regional grid operator covering Virginia and twelve other states. Half is still a lot. It's just not the whole story.
Where This Leaves Us
The honest answer to "can America power this" is yes, just not yet. And not without someone absorbing the gap while the grid catches up. Right now, that's us, the ratepayers.
Fixing the grid will take years, capital, and permitting fights and delays. In the meantime, who pays for the increase in demand? That question is going to be asked in town halls and state legislatures across the country more and more often.
We have the fuel to grow our electrical generation capacity. We have the technology to do it emission free. Nuclear technology has never been better. Battery technology is advancing to the point where we’ll be able to smooth out some of the intermittent nature of solar and wind. And our ability to convert natural gas to electricity has never been more clean or efficient.
Get electricity right and it stops being the constraint on offshoring, automation, regulation, essentially, the economy. That's what real resilience looks like. In the meantime, rising electricity costs will add to the societal stress we discussed last week.
Next week, we'll pick up one of the causes you raised and take it further.
Let me know what you think — reply to this note or drop a comment
Thanks for reading.

Ed D’Agostino
Partner & COO
Ed D’Agostino
Publisher & COO
If you prefer to listen to Global Macro Update, you can do so here:

Recent Articles
Is College Worth it?
August 7, 2026
Why Is College So Expensive?
July 31, 2026
Is Housing Still the American Dream?
July 24, 2026
Is America Energy Rich, Power Poor?
July 17, 2026
America Turns 250. Yet The Data Isn't Celebrating
July 10, 2026
This Is What a Restructuring Feels Like
May 1, 2026


Get Ahead of Big Market Trends—with Global Macro Update
Today’s most successful investors share one thing in common: They spot major trends early and move quickly to take advantage of them.
Twice a week, Ed D’Agostino—our publisher and COO—shares macro insights and analysis, along with exclusive interviews with leading economic, geopolitical, and investment experts to help you get ahead of major trends and market shifts.
By opting in you are also consenting to receive Mauldin Economics' marketing emails.
You can opt-out from these at any time. Privacy Policy







Ed, I'm a long-time reader, thanks for this one.
The number that stuck with me was 12–18 months for 500 miles of pipeline versus 24–48 for 500 miles of wire. That usually gets read as a point for gas, but it's really a point about distance. If the wires are the slow part, maybe the answer isn't better wires or pipelines, it's not needing them. Which makes me wonder about nuclear, and eventually SMRs, sited right at the big loads: data centers, industrial parks.
I know the timeline objection, nuclear is slower to build than transmission, and no US SMR is running commercially yet. But that seems like a reason to start now rather than keep defaulting to gas plus wires. And it takes load off the shared grid instead of adding to it.
Thanks Ed, a very thought provoking article about a cornerstone of our industrial, climate change and AI ambitions. A few years ago I did a simplified analysis of the power requirements in Alberta once EVs achieved 25% penetration. In sum, we will need twice as much power as we currently generate. Add in the electrification of homes, businesses and manufacturing, AI data centres, and replacing fossil fuel electricity generation, and it seems like an insoluble problem in any reasonably predictable time frame.
Great article. Seems like a need for national consensus or will to get moving on these energy/generation issues. Yet with the country so politically polarized and a lot of misinformation out there about these issues, lack of consensus and "not in my backyard" pushback may keep us struggling to catch up for years.
Thanks Ed, some good ideas.
I would hope that your final and full analysis would take into account many of the “externalities” (as the economists like to call them) of factors such as energy subsidies and carbon emissions.
Right now, fossil fuels look incredibly cheap because their market price doesn't capture the full economic cost of their carbon emissions. Essentially, the public grid and ratepayers end up absorbing the "unpriced externality" of pollution, creating a skewed baseline when comparing gas or coal to cleaner alternatives.
Your dear leader ( and many of his followers) may not believe in concepts such as climate change, carbon emissions, CO2 etc because, well, he is old and becoming senile and apparently doesn’t read all that much. Too busy on “Truth” Social etc
But in the end you have to compare apples with apples over the coming decades, not just the existential AI race that is happening now.
Imagine if you trashed the environment and pumped out carbon, only to find that China ended up ahead of the US using cheaper / open sourced models ?
One last thought; while China is currently the biggest polluter on the planet, the US is number 2 AND is the biggest cumulative polluter since the Industrial Revolution. In other words; the rest of us have already been subsidising US energy consumption for generations. Maybe it’s time to think of a better future for all somewhere in this. Or maybe the ROW needs to put a carbon tariff on US exports in order to fund local renewables 🤷
Really like these pieces Ed great work
I am in China today. My uncle works for the biggest oil company here. He stated that China now has the cheapest electricity on earth. The government doesn’t care which inputs to use (coal, oil, gas, nuclear, wond and solar), it just wants the citizens to power their use with cheap electricity. They don’t care where the transmission lines are built either. I’ve seen beautiful landscapes destroyed by power lines, windmills and solar panels. We can do better in America, but we need to stop the “climate change” religion and make electricity cheaper with the resources we currently have in abundance. Simple, really.
the words from ed are fear inducing.
You continue to perpetuate the fallacy that new renewable energy supplies are intermittent.
Solar+ Battery is the cheapest form of additional baseload electricity. Unsubsidized!
Oil production gets tax preferences and coal is being propped up by crappy energy policy decisions here in the US.
Whatever happened to “all of the above” for energy choices? Another casualty in a post truth America.
Let’s continue with energy efficiency instead of gutting energy star programs. Let’s develop truly safe nuclear energy and a proper way to dispose of waste. Let’s bring back the investment tax credits that even the playing field against subsidized fossil fuels. And let’s stop paying to terminate offshore wind farms close to completion. Stupid is as stupid does…
LLM AI is driving a violent distortion in electricity markets. With any luck, it will be temporary, as LLM AI is egregiously inefficient computationally, and wastes as much as 80% of its outputs after compute energy has been spent. It's a technological dead-end. Your graphs show power demand catch-up for it is unlikely anyway. Much more efficient, math-based algorithmic AI awaits on the other side of the LLM spasm debacle. We are already seeing where unbridled data center builds in Texas, using locally-fired, gas turbine generators at data centers is resulting in dramatic rises in local, fine particulate pollution, NOx and ozone levels, in addition to the general burst of carbon outputs. The US became the planet's largest carbon emitter in the past year on the basis of data center buildouts alone.
Solar & wind + batteries should be mandated to dominate added electricity production in this (ultimately needless) surge in demand. When the unsustainability of LLM AI becomes obvious, the reversion to the underlying flat-demand (efficiency-driven) era should leave adequate idled margin to support additional manufacturing.
Not mentioned in your article is climate hysteria in which anything 'carbon' is bad, hence taxpayer subsidies for windmills and solar panels and the closing of power plants that once provided baseload power.
The second big problem is litigation. For centuries, events like windstorms that blew things over were considered "acts of God." Then people in Oregon sued the power transmission company for fire damage and won million$. Rinse and repeat in CA and HI. Utilities are expected to keep the power on to supply homes, hospitals and businesses, yet if a tree they are not allowed to cut down because of environmental regulations is blown into an energized power line and causes a fire, they get sued. If they de-energize the line and people die in hospitals or at home of heatstroke, they get sued.
What sane person would invest in or own a power transmission line in the current lose-lose situation?