GE Vernova ($GEV) Deep Dive
Much more than just gas turbines...
Hi, Investor! 👋🏼
I’m Jimmy, and welcome back to another edition of Jimmy’s Journal.
Few industrial businesses have benefited as directly from the AI-driven electricity boom as GE Vernova ($GEV).
After spending more than a decade trapped in one of the most cyclical and value-destructive industries in the market, the company suddenly finds itself at the center of two structurally constrained supply chains: large-scale power generation and grid electrification.
Demand is clearly strong enough. There’s no debate about that anymore.
What remains uncertain is whether this is the start of a lasting industrial renaissance - or simply another exceptionally strong cycle in the historically brutal gas turbine market.
In this deep dive, we will break down what GE Vernova actually became after the spin-off, why the gas turbine narrative may be both the biggest opportunity and the biggest risk in the story, and whether Electrification is strong enough to support a company that went from one of the market’s most hated industrial assets to one of its most celebrated.
And of course, at the end, we also cover valuation, price target, and our investment thesis.
The article is organized into the following sections:
Industry Overview
Company History
Corporate Governance
Business Model
Products & Value Proposition
Competitive Landscape
Competitive Advantages
The Gas Turbine Cycle
The Electrification Reframing
Wind: When Does the Pain End?
Capital Allocation and M&As
Financials and Long-Term Targets
Optionalities
Valuation
Main Risks
Investment Thesis
Final Thoughts
1. Industry Overview:
To understand GE Vernova, you have to understand the cyclical history of the industry it operates in.
Gas turbines and grid equipment have moved through four distinct waves since 1980, and the current cycle only makes sense against that backdrop.
The 1980s: Cogeneration and Deregulation
The first sustained growth wave came in the United States during the early to mid-1980s, driven by favorable legal and tax treatment of cogeneration under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978.
This was the beginning of US electricity deregulation. Independent power producers entered the market, and gas turbines (smaller, faster to build, and more flexible than coal plants) became the preferred technology for new merchant generation.
Global gas turbine awards averaged roughly 10 to 15 GW per year through the decade.
Early 1990s: Globalization
The market expanded internationally:
Europe saw growth driven by environmental movements pushing utilities away from coal.
Asia, particularly in countries with rapid power demand growth, became a meaningful new market.
Annual global awards moved into the 20 to 30 GW range. GE Power consolidated its position as the dominant OEM in North America, while Siemens and ABB (which would later sell its gas turbine business to Alstom and eventually to GE) competed strongly in Europe.
1998-2001: The Great US Buildout
This is the cycle that defines all subsequent gas turbine investor anxiety: from 1998 through 2001, the United States built more gas-fired generation than at any point in history before or since.
Drivers included surging electricity demand from air conditioning adoption, the proliferation of power-hungry electronics, population growth, and an economic moment where the cost of building a gas-fired combined-cycle plant fell below the cost of running existing coal-fired generation.
Global gas turbine awards peaked at over 100 GW in 2000. GE captured roughly 50% of the global market during this cycle and dominated US awards.
2002-2008: The Collapse and Slow Recovery:
What ended the boom was a combination of mild summers (reduced peak demand and power prices), the early-2000s recession, the Enron scandal (which destroyed the power marketing business model that financed much of the buildout), and a structural overbuild of capacity.
Global awards collapsed from over 100 GW in 2000 to roughly 30 GW per year by 2003.
OEMs wrote down billions in inventory, slashed manufacturing capacity, and entered a decade of contraction. Many EPCs that had specialized in gas-fired power plant construction exited the business entirely.
The 2008 financial crisis interrupted what little recovery had emerged.
2010-2014: The Shale Gas Mini-Cycle
The US shale gas revolution drove natural gas prices to multi-decade lows, making gas-fired generation suddenly economic again against coal.
A second wave of coal-to-gas switching commenced, particularly in the US. Annual global awards moved into the 50 to 70 GW range, with strong activity in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states alongside the US.
This was a meaningful cycle but never approached the magnitude of 1998-2001.
2015-2022: The Lost Years
The combination of muted load growth, the rapid expansion of renewables (wind and solar capturing the marginal generation build), and ongoing coal-to-gas switching saturating left the gas turbine market structurally depressed.
Annual global awards dropped to 35-45 GW, and pricing competition intensified.
GE Power posted operating losses in 2018 and 2019, while Siemens Energy split off from Siemens AG in 2020 with a struggling gas turbine business inside.
Manufacturers pivoted research dollars toward hydrogen compatibility, faster start/stop flexibility, and digital controls.
The industry slowly consolidated.
2022 Onward: A New (AI) Hope?
US data center load growth, manufacturing reshoring, and aging coal retirements have driven the steepest order growth since 2000.
Annual global awards in 2024 reached approximately 58 GW, up from 35 GW in 2020.
Equipment pricing has moved up two to three times from cycle lows. Slot reservation lead times stretch into 2030.
The 1998-2001 analogy is the one every gas turbine investor reaches for, but the demand drivers (AI, electrification, industrialization) are structurally broader than the 1990s buildout, and the supply response is meaningfully more disciplined.
Is demand really that strong?
Yes, it is.
The scale of individual projects is unlike anything seen since the late 1990s buildout.
In February 2026, SB Energy unveiled the Portsmouth Powered Land Project - a $33B, 9.2 GW natural gas-fired facility that alone could require between 24 and 30 heavy-duty gas turbines in its initial phase.
To put that in perspective: a single project could absorb the equivalent of an entire weak-year US gas turbine market. And the industry is nowhere near prepared for this level of demand.
According to Wood Mackenzie, global gas turbine orders reached 110 GW by the end of 2025, against manufacturing capacity of just 60-70 GW globally.
The result is a structural supply gap of roughly 50-80 GW, with order books effectively sold out through 2027 and lead times stretching toward six years in some cases.
Wood Mackenzie estimates gas turbine pricing could reach +$600/kW by the end of 2027 - nearly 3x 2019 levels and among the highest pricing environments in industry history.
It is also important to highlight that gas turbines typically represent 20-30% of total combined-cycle plant costs, making OEM pricing one of the single most important drivers of project economics.
Now combine that with the fact that the marginal buyer has changed dramatically.
Hyperscalers and data center developers are increasingly replacing traditional utilities as the most aggressive buyers of turbine slots.
Unlike utilities, these buyers operate with extraordinarily high costs of delay - an idle data center can represent a multi-billion-dollar problem. They are far less sensitive to equipment pricing and possess balance sheets capable of securing multi-year turbine commitments without regulatory approval hurdles.
The result is a market where procurement access increasingly matters more than price itself.
How is supply responding?
All three major OEMs have announced capacity expansion programs, but the pace of expansion is structurally constrained in ways that should persist.
GE Vernova has invested over $160M to increase production from approximately 50 large-frame turbines annually to 70-80 units by late 2026, nearly a 40-60% expansion over the cycle floor.
Siemens Energy has transitioned key European facilities to 24/7 operations and announced a $1B investment program specifically targeting US manufacturing capacity.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries has communicated plans to roughly double its manufacturing capacity through 2028.
Collectively, the three OEMs are investing at a pace not seen since the 1990s buildout.
The bottleneck, however, sits below the level of factory investment: single-crystal turbine blades.
Single-crystal blades, which are required for the highest-temperature stages of modern H-class and F-class turbines, can only be produced by a handful of specialized foundries globally.
The process involves casting turbine blades as single metallic crystals (to eliminate grain boundaries that would otherwise fail under extreme thermal and mechanical stress) using highly controlled solidification equipment.
Each blade takes days to cast, weeks to inspect, and months to qualify in a new application.
There is no shortcut to expanding this capability. New casting capacity takes 3-5 years to qualify from ground-up investment, meaning any order booked today for hot-section parts will not arrive from a new supplier until the early 2030s at the earliest.
Add to that specialized labor shortages in precision manufacturing, trade-related cost pressures on specialty alloys and forgings, and the simple reality that many of the engineers and machinists who supported the 1990s buildout have already retired.
In short: unless we see a brutal destruction in demand, turbine pricing is unlikely to collapse over the next two to three years because the supply response itself is physically constrained.
What about the grid super-cycle?
A second, less discussed cycle is running alongside the gas turbine cycle: a multi-decade rebuild of transmission and distribution infrastructure across the developed world.
BloombergNEF estimates the European HVDC market alone growing from 47 GW of cumulative installed capacity in 2024 to 116 GW in 2030 and 275 GW by 2040, a compound growth of 47% through 2030.
Transformer lead times have grown from 18 months pre-2021 to 4-5 years today.
The grid investment cycle has a different demand driver (aging infrastructure plus renewable integration rather than AI load growth) and a different duration profile.
Enjoyed the article? Don’t forget to leave a like and share it with other investors. It helps the newsletter reach more readers and supports the growth of Jimmy’s Journal.
2. Company History:
GE Vernova traces its lineage to the original General Electric, founded in 1892.
For more than a century, GE was synonymous with electrification: it built the first central station power plants, manufactured the gas and steam turbines that powered the 20th century, and supplied transformers and switchgear that built the grids of North America and large parts of the world.
Who has never heard of Jack Welch, the company’s legendary CEO? It was during this period that he rose to prominence…
By the time GE began its multi-decade restructuring, the energy businesses that would eventually become Vernova had the largest gas turbine installed base in the world: more than 7,000 units operating in 120 countries, generating roughly 25% of global electricity.
The path from that heritage to the current company runs through three acquisitions and one painful integration:
In 1999, GE acquired Stewart & Stevenson's gas turbine packager business.
In 2011, GE acquired Converteam, which became the core of what is now Power Conversion & Storage.
In 2015 acquisition of Alstom's Power and Grid businesses for $13.8 billion, the largest deal in GE history.
That single transaction gave GE the HVDC technology, much of the high-voltage transformer business, and the European grid equipment manufacturing footprint that today drives the Electrification segment.
It also brought GE into the loss-making offshore wind business that has weighed on Vernova's reported results since spin.
Through the late 2010s and into the 2020s, GE Power suffered from a depressed gas turbine cycle and management mistakes related to long-term service agreement accounting.
The renewables business hemorrhaged cash, while Grid Solutions was unprofitable.
By 2018, GE Power was widely considered the worst-performing major industrial business in the United States, and the parent company's market value had fallen by hundreds of billions of dollars from its peak.
Larry Culp, who became CEO of GE in 2018, made the decision to break GE into three independent companies:
GE Aerospace would keep the GE name and the crown jewel jet engine business.
GE HealthCare was spun off in January 2023.
The energy businesses (Power, Renewable Energy, and Digital) would be combined into GE Vernova and spun off in April 2024.
Looking back, everything seems obvious…
But put yourself in the shoes of a General Electric investor at that moment. When the breakup was announced in November 2021, the consensus view on Vernova was deeply pessimistic.
Investors saw a collection of cyclical businesses, a loss-making wind segment, an underearning grid equipment business, and a gas turbine cycle that had been dead for a decade.
The shares began trading on April 2, 2024, at $115. Within two years, they traded at $1,182. Few spin-offs in modern industrial history have re-rated this dramatically in this short a window.
3. Corporate Governance:
Board of Directors:
GE Vernova is chaired by Stephen Angel, who served as CEO of Linde plc from 2018 to 2022 and, before that, as chairman, president, and CEO of Praxair from 2007 to 2018. Prior to Praxair, he spent 22 years at GE in various leadership roles.
The board consists of nine directors with a mix of industrial, infrastructure, finance, and operational expertise. Notable members include:
Matthew Harris, co-founder of Global Infrastructure Partners;
Martina Hund-Mejean, former CFO of Mastercard and chair of the Audit Committee;
Paula Rosput Reynolds, who chairs the Safety & Sustainability Committee; and
Jesus Malave, CFO of Boeing (and former Lockheed Martin CFO).
CEO Scott Strazik also serves as a director.
Governance is relatively straightforward and shareholder-friendly. The board operates under a staggered three-class structure with three-year terms, all committee members are independent, and the company has no dual-class share structure, founder voting control, or material related-party arrangements.
Management:
CEO Scott Strazik joined GE in 2000, initially working within GE Aviation before moving into the Power division. He became president and CEO of GE Power Services in 2017, CEO of Gas Power in 2018, and leader of all GE Power businesses in 2021.
In November 2021, he was appointed CEO of the future GE Vernova business ahead of the spin-off, officially becoming CEO of the standalone company in April 2024. He played an important role in the commercial launch of the HA gas turbine platform and is widely regarded inside the industry for operational discipline and execution during the difficult Alstom integration years.
CFO Ken Parks joined GE Vernova in October 2023 after serving as CFO of Owens Corning from 2020 to 2023. Before that, he held senior finance positions at Mylan, Wesco International, UTC Fire & Security, and United Technologies, bringing nearly four decades of industrial and public company finance experience.
Compensation Structure:
The 2026 proxy outlines an incentive structure primarily tied to Adjusted EBITDA (40%), Free Cash Flow (40%), and Organic Revenue Growth (20%), with an additional modifier linked to safety and sustainability outcomes.
Long-term equity compensation is tied to cumulative FCF and Adjusted EBITDA performance, alongside a relative TSR modifier. Overall, the structure appears aligned with long-term shareholder value creation rather than growth at any cost.
Enjoying the content? Subscribe to Jimmy’s Journal Pro and unlock deeper insights, institutional-grade analysis, and practical frameworks you can actually apply.
4. Business Model:
GEV reports in three segments: Power, Electrification, and Wind.
Power:
Power generated $19.8B of revenue in 2025, or roughly 52% of the company total.
The segment contains four sub-businesses:
Gas Power, which includes heavy-duty gas turbines, aeroderivative gas turbines, and associated steam plants;
Nuclear Power, which includes legacy boiling-water reactors and the BWRX-300 small modular reactor developed jointly with Hitachi;
Hydro Power; and
Steam Power, a largely coal-related business currently operating in run-off mode.
Gas Power is by far the largest, generating approximately $15.5B of segment revenue in 2025. Full-year 2026 guidance is 17%-19% segment EBITDA margin on organic revenue growth of 16% to 18%.
Electrification:
Electrification generated $9.5B of revenue in 2025, 25% of the company total.
The segment also contains four sub-businesses:
Power Transmission, including the recently fully acquired Prolec GE transformer business alongside legacy switchgear and capacitor lines;
Grid Systems Integration, which includes HVDC systems, AC substations, and the rapidly growing data center power solutions business;
Power Conversion & Storage, including synchronous condensers, battery storage power electronics, motors, and generators for marine and industrial applications;
Grid Automation & Software, centered around the GridOS platform and grid monitoring products.
Power Transmission and Grid Systems Integration together account for approximately 2/3 of segment revenue and substantially more than 2/3 of growth.
Full-year 2026 guidance is 18% to 20% segment EBITDA margin on revenue of $14.0 to $14.5B (including approximately $3B from Prolec).
Wind:
Wind generated $8.6B of revenue in 2025, 23% of the company total.
The segment contains Onshore Wind (turbines for land-based wind farms), Offshore Wind (turbines for sea-based installations, with the recently scaled Haliade-X platform), and LM Wind Power (the blade manufacturing business).
Onshore is profitable on a contribution basis but generates thin segment EBITDA margins.
Offshore has been deeply unprofitable for years and is the source of recurring contract loss recognition.
Full-year 2026 guidance is for revenue down low-double digits and a segment EBITDA loss of approximately $400M.
Already a Pro subscriber? Feel free to skip this section and jump straight to the full report below.
This article is exclusively available to Pro subscribers of Jimmy’s Journal.
Inside the full report, we break down:
Why the market may still be underestimating the duration of the gas turbine cycle
Why Electrification - not turbines - could become the real long-term value driver inside GE Vernova
The economics behind the HA turbine platform, backlog pricing, and long-term service agreements
How grid bottlenecks, transformer shortages, and HVDC demand are reshaping the industry
The competitive dynamics versus Siemens Energy, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and Hitachi Energy
A complete valuation framework, including margin normalization, scenario analysis, and downside risks
This is the type of institutional-quality research usually reserved for professional investors.
↳ Upgrade to Pro using the link below, avoid Apple/Google fees, and unlock the full thesis: