.webp)
Jacobs has published research highlighting a gap between available capital and the number of investable energy infrastructure projects. The survey found that 71% of energy leaders believe enough capital is available, but only 29% say there is both enough capital and enough investable projects.
The findings are based on a survey of 600 senior energy-sector decision-makers in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Singapore and Australia. Respondents included executives responsible for strategy, procurement, capital programmes and major project delivery.
Across the five markets, respondents identified a set of barriers limiting project delivery even where funding exists. These included permitting and consenting, regulatory and policy uncertainty, grid access, skills shortages, equipment availability and reliance on other infrastructure systems.
More than three-quarters of those surveyed said at least a quarter of major energy infrastructure projects are likely to face delays or cost overruns over the next three years. For 56% of respondents, permitting and consenting, along with regulatory and policy uncertainty, ranked as the biggest obstacles to building infrastructure quickly enough.
The research also underlined how energy projects depend on assets and systems outside a developer's direct control. Some 57% of energy leaders said the readiness of other infrastructure systems was a major or critical constraint on energy infrastructure delivery.
This is particularly relevant for projects that rely on transmission links, transport access, communications networks, water supply and multiple layers of approval. New generation projects can depend on network upgrades, while industrial facilities and large digital sites may require coordinated investment across several infrastructure sectors before they can proceed.
Fiachra Ó Cléirigh, Executive Vice President at Jacobs, said: "The capital is there, but getting the conditions around a project to line up can be harder. Projects can still stall when permitting, grid access, supply chains, skills and supporting infrastructure aren't ready. Identifying barriers and resolving these dependencies earlier can give investors, developers and delivery teams greater certainty and help viable projects move forward faster."
Local pressures
While the broad themes were consistent across the countries surveyed, the balance of risks varied by market.
In the United States, 80% of respondents ranked permitting among the top three delivery barriers. The survey linked that pressure to rising electricity demand from data centres, artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing, all of which increase the need to coordinate generation, network expansion, regulators, energy users and communities.
In the United Kingdom, 59% ranked grid or network readiness among the top three delivery barriers, the highest share among the five countries. Permitting and regulatory uncertainty also remained prominent issues.
Germany recorded some of the strongest concerns over project risk. The survey found that 84% of respondents there expect at least a quarter of major energy infrastructure projects to be at risk, while 68% identified supply chain disruption as a potential operational risk. The findings suggest pressure on skills, supply chains and grid infrastructure is shaping delivery challenges in that market.
Singapore stood out for concern over cross-sector dependencies, with 67% saying other infrastructure systems are a major or critical constraint. The survey noted that the city-state's growing reliance on regional electricity imports adds a cross-border element to infrastructure and regulatory coordination.
In Australia, 49% said capital is available but investable projects remain in short supply. A further 61% described other infrastructure systems as a major or critical constraint on energy delivery, reflecting the dependence of generation projects on transmission and related enabling infrastructure.
Resilience gap
The research also found a disconnect between confidence in the resilience of existing assets and the extent to which resilience is formally embedded in planning. Almost 95% of respondents said they were somewhat or very confident that their critical assets would continue operating during a major disruption tomorrow.
Yet only 36% said resilience is built into planning and decision-making. That gap suggests many energy leaders believe current systems would hold up under stress, even though fewer organisations have integrated resilience into investment and delivery processes.
Patrick Hill, President of Global Operations at Jacobs, said: "There is no single organization, sector or geography with all the answers to the energy security challenge, but there is a lot we can learn from one another. From our own experience, delivery improves when the industry shares what works and addresses dependencies earlier - with governments, regulators, investors and delivery teams working from a collective view of what is needed. That is how energy ambitions become infrastructure that serves economies and communities for decades."