Smart financial tool from oil and gas industry veterans ensures funds are available to seal inactive wells in the future. Image via Shutterstock.

Think back to when your first friend got their driver’s license. Everyone wanted a ride, but when it came time to fill the tank, pay for repairs and maintenance, or – worst case, perform some autobody work to resolve damage incurred in a fender-bender – the driver usually got caught holding the bag.

For the oil and gas industry, the same thing often happens with old wells that have stopped producing at an economic rate. When production is high and prices are favorable, everyone wants a piece of the action. But as soon as a well’s production slows to a crawl or the bottom falls out of the market (again), investing partners scatter like cockroaches into obscurity, leaving the majority owner with the financial and environmental burden to properly seal up the well.

Just over 100 years ago, the Texas Railroad Commission, which serves as the primary governing body for oil and gas wells developed across the state, enacted the first regulation calling for due care when plugging inactive or otherwise deemed useless wells. The policy laid the groundwork for keeping potential contaminants contained to prevent environmental and safety hazards.

Oklahoma followed suit some 15+ years later, subsequently followed by California another dozen years after that. The remaining states have enacted similar laws within just the last 40 years. But that’s not to say that the industry was not properly closing off wellbores after useful life. Nay, it merely highlights the pace at which regulatory actions move across the nation after inception in a single state.

Of particular note, but perhaps not as obvious, is the time lag between Texas’s first policies demanding the costly, albeit necessary, activities to plug and abandon (P&A) a well and the Asset Retirement Obligation (ARO), an accounting treatment introduced in 2001 that ensures companies recognize and retain the financial liability for completing end-of-useful-life requirements.

Unfortunately, ARO is truly just an accounting concept, so if a company becomes insolvent, there is limited chance the investment necessary to properly P&A a well will be available. This does not bode well for the industry, nor the environment, as valuable hydrocarbons are lost from leaking, seeping, and weeping wells across the country.

Let’s not catastrophize the potential environmental damage here, however. Highly conservative estimates made by the EPA in 2022 claim over 2 million potentially orphaned wells produce methane emissions equivalent to approximately 1% of all cars on the road across the United States. No one argues that this is acceptable, but it does put things into perspective, given that approximately 1/3 of global emissions are attributable to light duty and commercial vehicles on the road.

To bolster the industry with confidence the cash investment necessary for P&A activities will be readily available upon asset retirement, one company looked outside of energy for guidance. Embracing a model most typically associated with life insurance, OneNexus Assurance provides contractual certainty to upstream operators that funds will be available to cover the associated end-of-useful-life costs (depending on the benefit amount purchased, of course).

“Our business model provides the oil and gas industry much-needed peace of mind that capital is available when inevitable ARO funding becomes imminent and offers a preferable alternative to trust funds, surety bonds, and sinking funds as a means of prefunding decommissioning liabilities," says Tony Sanchez, founder and CEO of OneNexus, in a recent release.

The OneNexus approach allows the primary operator to collect monthly payments for end-of-useful-life costs long before the well is depleted from other invested partners.

“OneNexus Assurance is a game changer,” continues Sanchez, “It enables responsible parties to pay towards decommissioning funding in today’s dollars at a substantial discount to the ultimate plugging cost, it guarantees that a pre-determined amount decided by the client is secured for the future, and it does away with the need to chase payments later.”

While this solution does not fully resolve the problem of orphaned wells – the aforementioned 2 million (or less) wells no longer producing but not fully sealed off, either – it does at least guarantee that whomever gets caught holding the bag at the end will find some dollars inside.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Buoyed by $1.3B sales backlog, microgrid company ERock files for IPO

eyeing ipo

Another energy company in Houston is going public amid a flurry of energy IPOs.

Houston-based ERock Inc., which specializes in utility-grade onsite microgrid systems for data centers and other customers, has filed paperwork with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to sell its shares on the New York Stock Exchange.

The ERock filing follows the recent $1.9 billion IPO of Houston-based Fervo Energy, a provider of geothermal power that’s now valued at $7.7 billion.

Another Houston energy company, EagleRock Land, just went public in a $320 million IPO that values the company at $3 billion. EagleRock owns or controls about 236,000 acres in the Permian Basin, earning money from royalties, fees, easements, water services and other revenue streams tied to drilling on its land.

According to Barron’s, more than a dozen energy and energy-related companies in the U.S. have gone public since the beginning of 2025, with the bulk of the IPOs happening this year.

ERock’s SEC filing doesn’t identify the per-share pricing range for the IPO or the number of Class A shares to be offered. ERock is a portfolio company of Energy Impact Partners, a New York City-based venture capital and private equity firm that invests in energy companies.

The company previously did business as Enchanted Rock. ERock Inc., formed in January, will function as a holding company that controls predecessor company ER Holdings Ltd.

In 2025, ERock generated revenue of $183.1 million, up 42.5 percent from the previous year, according to the IPO filing. It recorded a net loss of $59 million last year.

As of March 31, ERock boasted a sales backlog of nearly $1.3 billion, up 779 percent on a year-over-year basis. The company attributes most of that increase to greater demand from data centers.

The company primarily serves the power needs of data centers, utilities, industrial facilities, and commercial buildings. Its biggest markets are Texas and California.

“Several U.S. markets, such as Texas and California, face especially acute reliability risks,” ERock says in the SEC filing. “Texas already shows rapid load-growth pressures tied to data centers and industrial expansion, while California faces grid congestion, long interconnection queues, and above-average vulnerability to extreme heat- and weather-driven outages.”

Since its founding in 2018, ERock has installed microgrid systems at more than 400 sites with a capacity of about 1,000 megawatts. Customers include ComEd, Foxconn, H-E-B, Microsoft and Walmart.

By the end of this year, the company plans to expand its production of microgrid systems to a capacity of about 1.2 gigawatts with the opening of its Hyperion facility in Houston.

John Carrington leads ERock as CEO. He joined ER Holdings last year as chairman and CEO. Carrington previously was CEO of Houston-based Stem, a public company that offers AI-enabled clean energy software and services. Earlier, he spent 16 years at General Electric.

Houston investment firm closes $105M energy venture fund

seeing green

Houston-based investment firm Veriten has announced the initial close of its second flagship energy venture fund with more than $105 million in capital commitments.

Fund II will build on Veriten’s initial fund and aim to support “scalable technology solutions for energy, power and industrial applications,” according to a company news release.

"Our differentiated network, research-driven process, and first principles approach to investing are having an impact across multiple verticals including traditional energy, electrification, and industrial technology. Fund II builds on that platform,” John Sommers, partner, investments at Veriten, added in the release. “In this environment, the differentiator isn't capital – it's all about connectivity, deep sector expertise, and an economically-driven approach. As new technologies and approaches develop at breakneck speed, the need for more reliable, affordable energy and power continues to grow dramatically. The current backdrop accentuates the need for Veriten's solution."

Veriten is supported by over 50 strategic partnerships in the energy, power, industrial and technology sectors, including major players like Halliburton and Phillips 66.

"Veriten continues to build a differentiated platform at the intersection of energy, technology and industry expertise," Jeff Miller, chairman and CEO of Halliburton, said in the release. "We were early believers in the team and their ability to identify practical solutions to real challenges across the energy value chain. As all industries increasingly adopt digital tools, automation and AI-enabled technologies to improve performance and execution, we are proud to partner with Veriten again to help accelerate high-impact solutions across the broader energy landscape."

Veriten closed its debut fund, NexTen LP, of $85 million in committed capital in October 2023. It was launched in January 2022 by Maynard Holt, co-founder and former CEO of the energy investment bank Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co.

It has invested in Houston-based AI-powered electricity analytics provider Amperon and led a $12 million Seed 2 funding round for Houston-based Helix Technologies to scale manufacturing of its energy-efficient commercial HVAC add-on earlier this year. In the past year it has contributed to funding rounds for San Francisco-based Armada and Calgary-based Veerum.

Veriten also named Nick Morriss as its new managing director earlier this month. Morriss most recently served as vice president of business development at next-generation nuclear technology company Natura Resources and spent nearly 20 years at NOV Inc.

Houston energy expert asks: Who pays when AI outruns the power grid?

Guets Column

For most of the past 20 years, U.S. electricity policy relied on predictable trends in demand. Electricity use, in most regions, increased gradually, forecasts were stable, and utilities adjusted the system in small steps. Power plants, transmission lines, and substations were generally added to reflect shifts in load, rather than growth, and costs were recovered through modest adjustments to customer bills.

Growth in AI data centers has disrupted this model. A single facility can add as much electricity demand as a small town. That demand comes all at once, runs continuously, and has little tolerance for outages. If electricity service drops even briefly, computation stops, and services shut down. Ironically, data centers need reliable service, a point that their emergence is driving concern around for the rest of the grid.

What the numbers say

The International Energy Agency projects global electricity consumption from data centers to double by 2030, reaching roughly 945 TWh, nearly 3 percent of global electricity demand, with consumption growing about 15 percent per year this decade. McKinsey projects that U.S. data center demand alone could grow 20–25 percent per year, with global capacity demand more than tripling by 2030.

After years of roughly 0.5 percent annual demand growth, many forecasts now place total U.S. electricity demand growth closer to 2–3 percent per year through the mid-2030s, with much higher growth in specific regions. In Texas, some forecasters are saying electricity demand could double over the next five years, a staggering 10 percent per year growth rate. What sounds incremental on paper translates into a major challenge on the ground. Meeting this pace of growth is estimated to require $250–$300 billion per year in grid investment, about double what the system has been absorbing.

Where the system starts to strain

The strain appears first in the interconnection queue. It shows up as long waits, backlogs, and delays for connecting new loads and new generation.

Before new generators or large load customers can be connected, a study is required to assess their impact on the grid, whether it can physically handle the added load, and whether upgrades are required. With AI-driven data centers, utilities face far more connection requests than they can realistically support. In ERCOT, large-load interconnection requests exceed 200 gigawatts, most tied to data centers. That amount exceeds historical norms, and it is several times larger than what can be practically studied or built in the near term.

To be clear, public utility commissions are required to study these requests because they must manage system capabilities to ensure minimal disruption. This means engineers spend time evaluating projects that may never be built, while other more commercially viable projects may wait longer for approvals. This extends timelines and makes infrastructure planning less reliable.

Why policymakers are rethinking the rules

Utilities and their regulators must decide how much generation, transmission, and substation capacity to build years before it comes online. Those decisions are based on expected demand at the time projects are approved. When it comes to data centers, by the time infrastructure is completed, they may end up deploying newer, more efficient chips that use less power than originally assumed. This can result in grid infrastructure built for a higher load than what actually materializes, leaving excess capacity that still must be paid for through system-wide rates.

That’s the central dilemma. If utilities build too little capacity, the system operates with less reserve margin. During periods of grid stress, operators have fewer options, increasing the likelihood of curtailments or outages. However, if utilities build too much, customers may be asked to pay for infrastructure that is not fully used.

In response, policymakers are adjusting the rules. In some regions, regulators are moving toward bring-your-own-power approaches that require large data centers to supply or fund part of the capacity needed to serve them or reduce demand during system stress. At the federal level, permitting reforms tied to datacenter infrastructure increasingly treat electricity as a strategic economic input.

As Ken Medlock, senior director at the Baker Institute Center for Energy Studies (CES), explains:

“Many of the planned data centers are now also adding behind-the-meter options to their development plans because they do not anticipate being able to manage their needs solely from the grid, and they certainly cannot do so with only intermittent power sources.”

Behind-the-meter (BTM) refers to power that a consumer controls on its side of the utility meter, such as on-site gas generation or a dedicated power plant. These resources allow data centers to keep operating during grid-related service. Most facilities remain connected to the grid, but the backup BTM generation serves as insurance for operating their core business.

This shifts responsibility. Utilities traditionally manage reliability across all customers by maintaining an operating reserve margin, or spare capacity. Increasingly, large-load customers manage part of their own electricity reliability needs, which changes how infrastructure is planned and how risk is distributed.

Bottom line

AI-driven load growth is arriving faster and in more concentrated places than the power system was built to accommodate. Utilities and regulators are being forced to make decisions sooner than planned about where to build, how fast to build, and which customers get priority when capacity is limited. The effects extend beyond data centers, showing up in system costs, reliability margins, competition for grid access, and pressure on communities and industries that depend on affordable and dependable power. The issue is not whether electricity can be generated, but how the costs and risks of rapid demand growth are distributed as the system tries to keep up. How regulators balance these decisions will determine who pays as AI demand outruns the power grid.

-----------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally appeared on LinkedIn.