Energy Demand Is Surging. Why Is Delivering the Infrastructure a Struggle?

U.S. respondents reported weaker delivery performance than the global group, where 30% said their organizations consistently deliver major infrastructure programs on time and budget. Another 49% of U.S. respondents said they meet those targets only with significant effort or trade-offs, while 23% said delays and overruns are common and 8% described delivery as increasingly unpredictable.

Jacobs found capital itself is not necessarily the limiting factor. Globally, 71% of respondents said sufficient capital is available in their markets, although only 29% said both capital and enough investment-ready projects are available. More than three-quarters expect at least one-quarter of their major projects to face delay or cost overruns over the next three years.

Project permitting emerged as the leading U.S. constraint cited, with 80% of respondents ranking it among their three largest systemic barriers to infrastructure delivery—the highest share among the five countries surveyed. Policy or regulatory uncertainty was cited by 63%, while 51% identified grid or network readiness. About 82% said regulators have the greatest ability to accelerate or delay projects.

Jacobs President of Global Operations Patrick Hill said the U.S. delivery gap reflects several constraints converging as electricity demand accelerates.

“A project can have capital and a strong business case but still face uncertainty around its grid connection, permitting, long-lead equipment or supporting infrastructure,” Hill told ENR. “That helps explain why the U.S. results point to a particularly acute delivery challenge: whether all the conditions required to deliver infrastructure can be aligned at the same time.”

“Time to power has come to dominate planning and engineering for data centers,” Andy Solberg, Jacobs global energy solutions director, said in the report. As AI and advanced manufacturing drive electricity demand higher, he said, the challenge is whether “generation, grid connections, permitting and critical equipment can be ready when businesses need them.”

Delivery Constraints Accumulate

The barriers Jacobs identified track with constraints ENR has documented over the past year. In December 2025, ENR reported that grid access was moving to the front of data-center planning as utilities increasingly required substations and transmission upgrades, while developers incorporated on-site generation and battery storage earlier in projects.

By September, research from MSI Economics, the research unit of MOCA Systems Inc., attempted to distinguish announced power generation capacity from projects positioned to enter construction. Its model required near-term projects to have an advanced or cleared interconnection-queue position, an executed interconnection agreement, reserved transformers, turbines and switchgear, and committed financing.

Of 12 GW to 16 GW of data-center-related capacity projected for 2026 delivery, MSI estimated only about 5 GW was under construction.

Hill said no single constraint determines whether a project advances. Grid access can determine whether a site is viable, while availability of long-lead equipment such as transformers, switchgear and turbines can determine the schedule.

“The projects most likely to advance are those that resolve these dependencies early and can demonstrate a credible route through permitting, power, procurement and construction,” he said.

JLL’s third quarter industrial research found equipment suppliers, construction vendors and power-infrastructure companies establishing facilities near hyperscale projects. Sites with sufficient electrical capacity—or that can add it quickly—are gaining an advantage, JLL Research Manager Elizabeth Holder told ENR this month. “Every broker that I speak to, it’s like: ‘Do you have power? How soon can it be available?’” she said.

Construction and Infrastructure Schedules Diverge

Oracle’s Project Jupiter in Doña Ana County, N.M., shows these questions are not confined to speculative projects that have yet to break ground.

ENR reported Sept. 28 that Oracle had invoked force majeure protections associated with the project, while a planned 2,462-MW Bloom Energy fuel-cell microgrid still lacked its state construction permit and the Green Chile natural gas pipeline intended to supply it faced separate federal and state permitting requirements. Oracle said at the time that Project Jupiter remained on schedule.

Construction continued to advance. Oracle announced Oct. 23 that it had awarded more than $994 million in contracts to 30 New Mexico companies through the end of September for work and services including HVAC, insulation, plumbing, electrical installation, sanitation and construction equipment rentals. The company also reported more than 3.75 million construction labor hours and a peak workforce of 4,393.

But those figures don’t resolve the project’s power infrastructure problems. Oracle’s October announcement continued to condition the project’s investment and economic projections on obtaining state approvals for the microgrid and pipeline.

Jacobs uses similar criteria when assessing whether announced data-center capacity is positioned to advance. Hill said the firm looks at client commitment and financial backing, power and water availability, grid connection and permitting, supply-chain readiness and whether a project has a realistic critical path.

“Ultimately, a construction-ready project is defined less by how much power it requests than by its credible route to securing that power and delivering the infrastructure around it,” Hill said.

Aterio, a data firm that tracks U.S. data center development and construction activity, has found a wide gap between project announcements and actual delivery. CEO Sergio Toro told ENR that roughly 30 GW to 40 GW of new U.S. data-center capacity is announced each month, compared with about 7 GW entering construction and 2 GW to 3 GW entering operation.

“This highlights the significant gap between proposed development and actual delivery,” Toro said. “These are approximate figures and fluctuate month to month.”

Aterio uses satellite imagery to identify site clearing, grading, foundation work and vertical construction before classifying a project as under construction.

“Power availability and interconnection progress are important indicators of project viability and execution likelihood, but a power agreement or construction permit alone does not mean a project has entered construction,” Toro said.

Bernstein, an institutional equity research firm, examined the same gap using Aterio data but with a different methodology. Its September analysis probability-weighted 488 GW of North American projects based primarily on construction progress, tenant quality, developer credibility and state regulatory risk. Bernstein estimated that 170 GW, or 35%, was likely to be built eventually.

Physical construction carried the greatest weight in Bernstein’s model. “A facility with concrete poured is simply more credible than an announced megabuild,” the researchers wrote.

The same analysis tracked 404 GW in the development pipeline and 72.9 GW under construction in August. At the prevailing construction rate, Bernstein estimated it would take about 13 years to clear that pipeline.

A Global Delivery Problem

Jacobs’ international findings suggest infrastructure delivery problems are not uniquely American, although the constraints projects face differ by market.

In the UK, 59% of respondents ranked grid or network readiness among their three largest delivery barriers, the highest share among the five countries surveyed. While 82% of U.S. respondents said regulators have the greatest ability to accelerate or delay projects, 76% of UK respondents pointed to grid operators.

Germany showed a broader set of pressures. Eighty-four percent of respondents there expect at least one-quarter of their major energy infrastructure projects to face delays or cost overruns during the next three years, while 68% identified supply chain disruption as a potential operational risk.

Australia presents another version of the delivery gap: 49% of respondents said sufficient capital is available, but not enough investment-ready projects exist. Another 61% described surrounding infrastructure, including water, transportation and telecommunications, as a major or critical constraint on energy delivery.

Across markets, Jacobs says projects can have strategic importance, financing and a strong underlying business case and still stall because grid connections remain uncertain, permitting is unresolved, equipment is unavailable or surrounding infrastructure is not ready.