LS Power Closes a $6 Billion Fund and Points $1.7 Billion at Gas Plants in PJM and Texas

LS Power, a New York developer, investor and operator of power infrastructure, issued a release on October 6, 2026 saying it had closed LS Power Equity Partners VI with total commitments of approximately $6 billion. The company says the fund launched in January 2026 with an initial target of $4 billion and was fully allocated against its hard cap by July. That computes to one and a half times the target. The release says Fund VI will invest in renewables, conventional generation, energy storage, distributed energy resources and other energy infrastructure. It says the prior fund, Fund V, raised $2.7 billion in 2024 and is fully deployed, and that LS Power’s partnerships have raised approximately $19.8 billion of equity since inception. The investors are described by category only: pension funds, insurers, sovereign wealth funds, asset managers, foundations, endowments, family offices and private wealth. None is named.

The part with a location is the first deployment. The release says approximately $1.7 billion of the fund is committed to LS Power’s pending acquisitions of what it calls a 5-gigawatt platform of gas-fired plants from Constellation Energy in the Mid-Atlantic and Texas. Constellation’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, filed August 6, gives the terms. In March 2026 Constellation agreed to sell LS Power five generation assets in PJM, about 4.4 gigawatts of predominantly gas-fired capacity in Delaware and Pennsylvania, for $5.0 billion before closing adjustments. In August it agreed to sell the Brazos Valley Energy Center, a 606 megawatt gas-fired plant in ERCOT, for $860 million before closing adjustments. The 10-Q says these sales satisfy regulatory commitments tied to Constellation’s acquisition of Calpine, which closed January 7, 2026. The two prices add to $5.86 billion, so the $1.7 billion from Fund VI computes to about 29 percent of the total. Neither company says where the rest comes from.

The filed prices let a real estate team do arithmetic it usually cannot. LS Power’s August 6 release puts the PJM portfolio at 4,353 megawatts. At $5.0 billion that computes to about $1,150 per kilowatt. Brazos Valley at $860 million for 606 megawatts computes to about $1,420 per kilowatt. Together, $5.86 billion for 4,959 megawatts is about $1,180 per kilowatt. These are prices for operating plants with existing grid connections, before closing adjustments, and they are PSV arithmetic from the two companies’ numbers, not figures either company published. In the August release, LS Power’s chief executive Paul Segal says new generation can take years to develop and that buying proven assets is one of the fastest ways to meet demand. That is a company statement. The real estate point is narrower: when a land seller or a utility tells you a site is close to existing generation, that plant has an owner, and in Delaware, Pennsylvania and the Houston area the owner of six such plants is about to change.

A caution on framing. Trade coverage described this fund as a bet on data center power demand. The Fund VI release does not use the words data center or AI at all. The connection comes from LS Power’s own August 6 release on Brazos Valley, which says the plant helps meet power demand “driven by AI, data centers and electrification.” Neither release discloses a contract with a data center, a co-location arrangement or a named large customer at any of the six plants. Constellation’s Form 8-K of July 14 reports that its PJM plants cleared the 2028 to 2029 capacity auction at a price of $325, which PJM quotes per megawatt-day, and states that volumes for assets held for sale are excluded. So the public record does not show what the plants being sold will earn. PSV has no information on LS Power’s plans for them.

The work is one sheet that sits beside a site file. The inputs are a list of candidate or owned sites with their utility and grid region; the federal Energy Information Administration’s public plant inventory, which lists each generator’s location, fuel, capacity and owner; the releases and filings that report pending plant sales, like the ones cited here; and whatever the broker, land seller or utility has said in writing about nearby power. The output is one row per site: the generating plants within a distance the team sets, each plant’s capacity and fuel, the current owner, whether a sale is pending and what approvals it still needs, the expected closing date, whether any public record shows a supply or co-location arrangement at that plant, and a link to the source for every cell.

The reviewer is the head of development or whoever leads power procurement. Counsel reads anything that looks like a term sheet or a supply contract. The approval gate is plain: no site is described to an investment committee, a lender or a tenant as having power nearby until a named person has signed off on its row. An assistant can do the volume work, which is pulling the plant list, matching plant names across releases and filings that spell them differently (Brazos Valley was formerly the Jack A. Fusco Energy Center), and flagging rows where the owner on file predates a reported sale. It should not treat a plant’s nameplate capacity as power available to a new customer, should not infer a deal from proximity, and should not turn a per-kilowatt purchase price into a forecast of what power will cost. PSV ran no model and tested no product for this brief.