Energy Forge One
Chevron's dedicated power-generation subsidiary, created to build and operate co-located gas plants for large compute customers.
Last refreshed: 28 June 2026 · Appears in 1 active topic
Can Energy Forge One establish Chevron as the lead oil-major contractor for hyperscaler captive power?
Timeline for Energy Forge One
Executed PPA as Chevron's power-generation vehicle for Project Kilby
Data Centres: Boom and Backlash: Chevron builds Microsoft a gas plantWhat is Energy Forge One and what does it do?
Why did Chevron create a separate unit to supply data-centre power?
Is Energy Forge One a subsidiary or a joint venture?
Background
Energy Forge One is Chevron's dedicated power-generation unit, created to build and operate co-located gas plants for hyperscale data-centre customers. On 22 June it signed a 20-year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Microsoft to build Project Kilby, a 2.67 GW gas plant in West Texas that will feed a Microsoft data centre directly behind the meter, bypassing the public grid. The deal, at roughly $7bn in capital expenditure, is the largest single dedicated-generation deal struck for a data centre in 2026.
Chevron established Energy Forge One as its commercial vehicle to enter the data-centre power-services market, packaging its hydrocarbon-procurement relationships, Permian Basin pipeline access, and gas-turbine procurement reach into a contracted offering for compute operators. The Kilby plant uses GE Vernova turbines drawn from a backlog already booked into 2029, with first power delivery targeted for 2028 subject to a final investment decision (FID) expected by end-2026.
Chevron's move into contracted data-centre power services mirrors Baker Hughes's pivot into geothermal and signals a broader question for integrated oil majors: BP, Shell, and ExxonMobil now face a direct build-or-miss-market decision on dedicated hyperscaler generation. Energy Forge One's Permian Basin location gives Project Kilby direct pipeline access to Chevron's own gas production, reducing fuel-supply risk relative to a standalone power developer and making the $7bn bet more defensible on project-finance grounds.
