The Energy
Readiness Equation
What’s the formula for energy readiness, and what’s holding infrastructure delivery back?
A global survey of 600 senior energy decision makers across five geographies explores the factors that determine energy readiness, where the equation is falling out of balance and what industry can do to put the right conditions in place to deliver the infrastructure required to keep pace with growing demand.
Download report- Respondents
- 0
- Geographies
- 0
- Industry contributors
- 0
Overview
Capital is available. Delivery systems aren’t keeping up.
Energy security has traditionally been measured by access to sufficient energy supply and the ability to keep power flowing. Those fundamentals still matter.
But the challenge facing energy leaders today is broader: can we build, connect and operate the infrastructure needed to meet growing demand quickly enough, without compromising reliability, affordability or emissions goals?
Demand is rising in new places and for new reasons. Electrification continues across transport and industry. Data centers and AI are adding significant new loads, often in geographies where electricity demand has been relatively flat for years. Renewable generation continues to grow, increasing the need for transmission, storage and flexible capacity.
At the same time, geopolitical disruption, extreme weather, supply-chain pressure and aging assets are testing existing infrastructure. Meeting these pressures requires significant investment, and the ability to turn that investment into projects on the ground.
The research points to a consistent pattern across the five geographies surveyed: capital is widely seen as available, but permitting, regulatory uncertainty, infrastructure dependencies and pressure on delivery capacity are slowing project delivery.
In many geographies, the capital, technology and engineering capability are there. The job now is to bring those pieces together with discipline and collaboration.
Fiachra Ó Cléirigh
Executive Vice President & General Manager, Energy & Power
Key findings
Investment readiness
0%
believe sufficient capital is available in their geography
Delivery certainty
0%
consistently deliver on time and on budget
System complexity
0%
are constrained by the readiness of other systems
Systemic barriers
0%
of first-ranked systemic barriers are permitting or policy
Resilience gap
0%
describe resilience as proactive and embedded
Where energy security is won and lost
-
71% of respondents say capital is available in their geography, either with or without enough investable projects. But only 29% say there’s both sufficient capital and sufficient investable projects, while 43% say there’s sufficient capital but a shortage of investable projects.
Current investment environment for energy infrastructure
-
Sufficient capital and enough investable projects
-
Sufficient capital but shortage of investable projects
-
Insufficient capital but sufficient investable projects
-
Insufficient capital and investable projects
Based on your organization’s perspective, which statement best reflects the investment environment for energy infrastructure in your market?
-
-
Only 30% of respondents say they’re consistently delivering on time and on budget, while 48% meet targets only with significant effort or trade-offs. 49% expect a quarter to half of their major projects to be at risk of delay or cost overrun over the next three years.
Current delivery reality
-
Consistently delivering on time and on budget
-
Meet targets only with significant effort or trade-offs
-
Delays and overruns are common
-
Delivery is increasingly unpredictable
Which statement best reflects your organization’s current delivery reality?
Projects at risk of delay or cost overrun
-
None
-
Less than 25%
-
25–49%
-
50–74%
-
75% or more
-
Not sure
Over the next three years, what proportion of your organization’s major energy infrastructure projects are at risk of delay or cost overrun?
-
-
57% describe delivery as constrained by the readiness of other systems outside their direct control — grid readiness, permitting systems, transport networks, water availability, stakeholder alignment — at a critical or major level, and only 2% say those dependencies aren’t a constraint.
Readiness of other systems
-
Critical or major constraint
-
Moderate constraint
-
Minor constraint
-
Not a constraint
In your organization’s experience, to what extent is energy infrastructure delivery constrained by the readiness of other systems (e.g. water, transport, telecoms)?
-
-
When asked for the single biggest systemic barrier to delivering infrastructure at pace, respondents most often rank permitting/consenting (29%) and policy/regulatory uncertainty (27%) first. Combined, those two governance frictions account for almost 56% of all first-ranked systemic barriers. The same pattern appears at the point where projects should become bankable: policy/regulatory uncertainty plus permitting/land constraints account for 56% of all first-ranked investment-readiness blockers.
Barriers to delivering at pace
-
Permitting or consenting
-
Policy or regulatory uncertainty
-
Supply chain capacity
-
Grid or network readiness
-
Workforce constraints
-
Community opposition
-
Fragmented accountability
-
Lack of standardization
-
Cross-border coordination
In your organization’s experience, what is the single biggest systemic barrier to delivering energy infrastructure at pace?
Barriers to investment readiness
-
Policy or regulatory uncertainty
-
Permitting or land constraints
-
Supply chain uncertainty
-
Grid or network access
-
Demand or offtake uncertainty
-
Internal delivery capability
In your organization’s experience, what most often prevents projects from becoming investment-ready?
Where the power sits
-
Regulators
-
National government
-
Local authorities
-
Communities
-
Investors
-
Grid or system operators
In your experience, which stakeholder group has the greatest power to delay or accelerate projects in your market?
-
-
95% are very or somewhat confident critical assets would keep operating during a major disruption tomorrow, but only 36% describe resilience as proactive and embedded, while 55% say it’s still improving but inconsistent. That creates a striking 59 percentage-point difference between confidence and embedded maturity, exposing a critical preparedness gap. Geopolitical and supply-chain disruption are the risks most likely to impact operations over three years, each at 63%.
Confidence critical assets keep operating during a disruption
-
Very or somewhat confident
-
Not confident or unsure
How confident are you that your organization’s critical assets would continue operating during a major disruption tomorrow?
Approach to resilience
-
Proactive and embedded
-
Improving but inconsistent
-
Limited or reactive
How would you describe your organization’s approach to resilience today?
Three-year disruption risk
-
Geopolitical disruption
-
Supply chain disruption
-
Price volatility
-
Workforce shortages
-
Cybersecurity threats
-
Extreme weather
-
Asset failure
Which risk is most likely to disrupt your organization’s operations in the next three years?
-
Regional analysis
Five geographies, five pressures
The same pressures appear across all five geographies, but they show up differently. Energy mixes, infrastructure legacies, regulatory structures and sources of demand shape each market’s immediate priorities, while delivery readiness remains the common thread.
America’s next infrastructure test is delivering power at the pace of growth.
After years of relatively flat electricity consumption, the United States has entered a new period of load growth. AI and data centers are major drivers, alongside advanced manufacturing, electrification and broader economic expansion. The opportunity is substantial, but only if businesses can access reliable, affordable power where and when they need it.
That challenge looks very different across the country. In some areas, power exists but transmission capacity isn’t sufficient to move it from surplus to demand. Elsewhere, the constraint is generation, equipment or the ability to plan and approve network upgrades quickly enough. 80% of U.S. respondents rank permitting and consenting among their three biggest systemic delivery barriers, higher than any other geography, with policy or regulatory uncertainty at 63% and grid or network readiness at 51%. 82% say regulators have the greatest ability to accelerate or delay projects.
Speed therefore can’t be considered in isolation. “Time to power,” and increasingly “time to revenue,” are shaping project decisions as developers race to secure transformers, switchgear, turbines and other critical equipment. Meeting demand quickly matters, but so does who pays for it and whether the infrastructure being built today is right for the long term.
Key themes
Equipment availability now defines the critical path as much as permitting or grid access, forcing earlier procurement decisions and design changes around what can be secured.
Some regions face shortages of generation or connection capacity; others have surplus power that can’t easily reach growing demand.
Gigawatt-scale AI data centers are developing on-premises generation to accelerate time to power and meet growing data center power demand, with grid power added as it becomes available.
Concerns about power and water demand, costs and local impacts of data-center growth have prompted moratoriums and tighter restrictions in parts of the country.
Rapid expansion is stretching transmission-planning teams and specialist engineering capacity as utilities manage the retirement of experienced personnel.
As reserve margins tighten, the failure of an individual asset carries greater consequences, making spare-parts strategies and recovery planning as important as day-to-day efficiency.
-
0%
Consider permitting or consenting a top 3 systemic barrier
-
0%
Say regulators have the greatest influence on project outcomes
-
0%
Consistently deliver on time and on budget
What the experts say
“Time to power, or really time to token, has come to dominate planning and engineering for data centers.”
Go deeper
The U.K. is building a more strategic energy system. Now it must turn planning into pace.
The U.K. is reshaping how energy infrastructure is planned and connected. The National Energy System Operator (NESO) is moving away from first-come, first-served toward prioritizing projects that are both ready and strategically needed, while the Strategic Spatial Energy Plan is intended to map the quantity, location and timing of future generation and storage through 2050.
59% of U.K. respondents rank grid or network readiness among their three biggest barriers to delivering at pace, the highest of the five geographies. Permitting and consenting and policy or regulatory uncertainty are each cited by 64%, and 57% say delivery is constrained at a major or critical level by other infrastructure systems. 69% say sufficient capital is available, but only 31% believe the geography also has enough investable projects.
The lesson from connections reform is that transparency matters: clear methodologies, consultation and being realistic about what reform will deliver. Long-term plans also need to remain adaptable, but waiting for perfect certainty isn’t an option when infrastructure can take 10 or 15 years to develop.
Key themes
NESO is moving Great Britain away from first-come, first-served toward prioritizing projects that are both ready and strategically needed, with offers issued to more than 60% of the projects needed for 2030.
The Strategic Spatial Energy Plan is intended to map the quantity, location and timing of future generation and storage through 2050, creating a more coordinated approach to infrastructure planning across the energy system.
Ofgem’s “minded to” decisions support 16 long-duration energy storage projects, sufficient to meet projected U.K. storage requirements to 2035.
Creative thinking enabled a client to cut a battery project’s connection timeline from seven years to two by interrogating network assumptions and accepting curtailment in limited periods.
Geopolitical uncertainty has sharpened questions about dependence on imported energy and the resilience of critical infrastructure.
Spatial planning creates certainty about where infrastructure is needed, making earlier, meaningful engagement with host communities more important.
-
0%
Highlight grid or network readiness a top 3 barrier
-
0%
Consider policy uncertainty to be blocking investment readiness
-
0%
Say sufficient capital is available
What the experts say
“We need a high degree of certainty across the regulatory environment, the commercial environment and future demand. There’s significant appetite and capability to design and build and operate this infrastructure, if there’s sufficient certainty to commit to it.”
Go deeper
Germany has the capital, technology and ambition. The next step: turning investment into resilient infrastructure at scale.
Germany’s energy transition has entered a new phase. Renewables provided almost 60% of electricity generation in 2025, and the government continues to target 80% renewable electricity by 2030. The task now is to translate renewable deployment into a secure, flexible and resilient energy system, synchronizing generation, networks, storage and critical energy infrastructure rather than deploying individual assets in isolation.
84% of German respondents expect at least a quarter of their major energy infrastructure projects to be at risk of delay or cost overrun over the next three years. 73% rank policy or regulatory uncertainty among the top three barriers to delivering at pace, ahead of permitting and consenting (63%), supply-chain capacity (49%) and grid or network readiness (48%). 68% identify supply-chain disruption as an operational threat, the highest across the five geographies.
Progress is accelerating. In 2025, Germany approved around 1,200 miles (2,000 kilometers) of new power lines, 45% more than in 2024. But accelerating investment also increases pressure on the people, equipment and networks required to deliver it. Germany’s next advantage comes from delivering more intelligently, making limited delivery capacity go further.
Key themes
Grid investment, generation, transport and other capital programs compete simultaneously for engineers, specialist skills and equipment.
Transformer lead times extend beyond three years, while sequential permits and grid reinforcement dependencies combine to delay nationally significant infrastructure by years.
Around 2,000 km of new power lines were approved in 2025 — 45% more than in 2024.
Clients are examining project maturity, developing flexible connection agreements and encouraging batteries to co-locate with existing renewable generation.
Security of supply goes beyond availability and now includes cyber resilience, critical-infrastructure protection and the ability to recover rapidly when disruption occurs.
Long-term assets require confidence that the framework won’t change severely during their operating life, so investment decisions can be made against stable assumptions.
-
0%
Expect at least a quarter or more of projects to be at risk of delay or cost overrun
-
0%
Consider policy or regulatory uncertainty a top 3 barrier
-
0%
Rank supply-chain disruption as top operational risk
What the experts say
“The biggest challenge in Germany at the moment isn’t funding, it’s delivery. That’s what keeps people up at night.”
Go deeper
Australia has the capital and resources. The challenge is connecting the system fast enough.
Australia has many of the fundamentals required for long-term energy security: abundant renewable resources, available investment capital and a national target of 82% renewable electricity by 2030. But building generation is only part of the challenge. Australia’s size means new energy resources are often far from population centers, making transmission, grid connections and the infrastructure around projects critical to whether investment can translate into operating assets.
Nearly half of Australian respondents believe sufficient capital is available but there is a shortage of investable projects, while 80% rank policy or regulatory uncertainty among the three biggest barriers to investment readiness, the highest of the five geographies. 61% describe other infrastructure systems as a major or critical constraint, reflecting the importance of roads, ports and worker accommodation across long distances.
The next step isn’t simply more projects, but a more integrated way of delivering them. Transmission, generation, grid connections, enabling infrastructure, environmental approvals and community outcomes need to be treated as parts of the same program rather than parallel workstreams.
Key themes
REZs improve strategic planning, but the roads, ports and worker accommodation around them aren’t planned with the same coordination.
Additional planning mechanisms can create more approval sequences and blurred accountability rather than easier delivery.
Australia needs stronger transmission links that can move clean power from where it’s generated to where it’s needed.
Building next to existing infrastructure reduces new build and approval complexity.
Major infrastructure is increasingly built in regional areas, creating a risk that local stakeholders experience disruption while perceiving benefits to flow elsewhere.
Long-term revenue underwriting is intended to reduce investor risk and accelerate new renewable generation and storage.
-
0%
Say policy uncertainty blocking investment readiness
-
0%
Consider other systems a major or critical constraint
-
0%
Believe capital is available but investable projects are limited
What the experts say
“Everyone in the industry agrees that increased collaboration and coordination is required. The challenge is moving to a program model with clear accountability for outcomes — managing the interfaces, dependencies and bottlenecks across the system.”
Go deeper
Singapore has mastered planning at home. Its next energy-security challenge lies beyond its borders.
Few geographies approach infrastructure preparedness with Singapore’s combination of long-term planning, institutional coordination and delivery discipline. Around 95% of its electricity is currently generated using imported natural gas. Solar is its most viable domestic renewable resource but is estimated to meet only 10% of projected electricity demand by 2050, so Singapore is pursuing regional electricity imports and emerging low-carbon technologies.
96% of Singapore respondents are somewhat or very confident their critical assets would keep operating if a major disruption occurred tomorrow. Yet 67% say delivery is constrained at a major or critical level by the readiness of other systems, the highest of the five geographies, and 68% identify geopolitical disruption as an operational threat. The challenge is systems integration: ensuring energy, land, infrastructure, regulation and neighboring markets move together.
Increasingly, the system Singapore needs to coordinate extends beyond its borders. The government aims to import around six gigawatts (GW) of low-carbon electricity by 2035. Diversifying away from imported gas can strengthen resilience, but greater reliance on power imports also creates cross-border regulation, ownership, operating and geopolitical exposures that Singapore can’t manage domestically.
Key themes
The challenge is making sure energy, land, infrastructure, regulation and neighboring markets move together rather than operating as individual assets.
Developers must reach a meaningful level of design and demonstrate commercial viability and energy-security outcomes before projects progress.
Critical electrical infrastructure is moving underground, with substations, cables and utilities integrated beneath developments.
As of August 2026, 13 import projects representing 9.25 GW had received Conditional Approvals, with six Indonesian projects progressing to Conditional Licenses.
Greater reliance on imports creates cross-border regulation, ownership, operating and geopolitical exposures Singapore can’t manage domestically.
Solar is the most viable domestic renewable resource but is estimated to meet only 10% of projected electricity demand by 2050.
-
0%
Feel confident in operational continuity
-
0%
Say other systems are a major or critical constraint
-
0%
Rank geopolitical disruption as top operational threat
What the experts say
“Singapore’s long-term ambition is connected to implementation. The approach is both integrated and intentional, with agencies aligning behind a national direction.”
Go deeper
Where to next?
The Energy Readiness Equation asks a simple question: What needs to come together for energy infrastructure to be ready for what’s next?
Energy readiness depends on several factors working together: capital, clear regulation, grid access, delivery capability, resilient infrastructure and community support. When one part of that equation falls out of balance, projects slow. When the pieces align, investment can move into delivery with greater confidence.
The research finds projects need stronger front-end planning, more predictable permitting and earlier coordination across infrastructure, supply chains and skills. Existing networks and assets need to be used more intelligently, while resilience and community engagement need to be considered from the start to improve overall delivery readiness.
The energy infrastructure decisions being made today will shape how economies grow, industries compete and communities live for decades to come.
This global energy report explores the lessons we can learn from different geographies, projects, clients, system operators and other industry stakeholders and the short-, medium- and long-term actions we can take to turn collective ambition into reliable infrastructure to meet growing demand.
The industry now has a clear opportunity, and a responsibility, to solve the energy readiness equation together and close the energy delivery gap.
There’s no single organization, sector or geography with all the answers to the energy security challenge. We can make progress by sharing what works, addressing dependencies earlier and bringing governments, regulators, investors and delivery teams together around a collective view of what’s needed. That’s how energy ambitions become infrastructure that serves economies and communities for decades.
Patrick Hill
President, Global Operations
Download the full report
Get The Energy Readiness Equation, a global energy industry report featuring findings from 600 senior energy decision makers across five geographies.
The report also contains insights and perspectives from Jacobs’ energy and infrastructure specialists, clients, system operators and other industry stakeholders including Marinus Link, PUB Singapore, Westnetz, Onyx Power, Statkraft, NESO, Corporate Energy Buyers Association (CEBA), RDQ and National Grid.
