Are we using the wrong model to build the energy grid?

Transmission projects are under pressure. The volume, urgency and complexity of new infrastructure needed to support the clean energy transition has exposed a critical vulnerability: our delivery models aren’t keeping up. And with global transmission and distribution investment expected to surge from US$260 billion today to US$820 billion by 2030, the need to modernise delivery approaches is not just urgent - it’s unavoidable.

Traditional approaches - Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC), Design & Construct (D&C), and Design-then-Construct (D-then-C) - were developed for a different era. They were built around stability and predictability. But today’s grid projects operate in dynamic environments shaped by evolving technologies, shifting regulations, supply chain volatility and time-critical energy demands.

And the mismatch is becoming a liability.

Too often, stakeholders are focused on their own contractual deliverables rather than collective outcomes. Rigid scopes, sequential planning and a fragmented approach to risk reduce flexibility, slow delivery and inhibit innovation.

Misaligned incentives:
Designers, contractors and asset owners are often bound by separate contracts with different objectives. This fosters a siloed mindset where parties optimise for their own deliverables and not the success of the project. Opportunities for efficiency, innovation or rapid resolution are often lost to contractual defensiveness.

Low adaptability:
In fast-changing regulatory and supply environments, traditional models struggle to absorb change without cost blowouts or timeline extensions. Any variation to scope, materials or sequencing typically results in claims, delays or disputes, precisely when agility is most needed. This lack of adaptability is especially problematic in jurisdictions where approval timelines stretch 7 to 10 years, often longer than construction itself.

Sequential delivery:
In D-then-C or EPC models, the design phase is often finalised before builders get involved. This separation of thinking can lead to constructability issues, overlooked risks and inefficient sequencing. Contractors miss the opportunity to influence designs that could reduce cost or speed up delivery.

Inefficient risk allocation:
Risk is often pushed downstream to contractors who build in large contingencies or, worse, aren’t equipped to manage that risk. This results in inflated prices, adversarial relationships and cost overruns. In many cases, clients end up absorbing those risks anyway when projects go off track.

Some industry players still defend the predictability of traditional models, especially for utility-led projects with standardised technical requirements. But for many modern grid projects, predictability alone isn’t enough.

Alternative approaches like Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and Alliancing are better suited to today’s complex energy environment. These models promote trust, transparency and shared responsibility which are essential ingredients when outcomes are uncertain and success requires flexibility.

• Early involvement of all parties:
  IPD brings asset owners, designers, contractors and suppliers to the table at the outset. This ensures early input into project scope, feasibility, timelines, permitting risks and supply constraints.
• Multi-party contracts with unified goals:
  Instead of separate silos, all key parties sign a joint agreement. The contract is structured around collective success, not individual transactions - reducing conflict and aligning focus on what’s best for the project.
• Shared risk and reward:
  Profitability is tied to shared outcomes. If the project is delivered under budget or ahead of schedule, all parties benefit. If it misses key targets, all share the cost. This incentivises collaboration and joint problem-solving.
• Real-time decision-making:
  Teams operate as one unit with access to shared information and rapid feedback loops. Emerging issues can be resolved on the fly without cascading delays.
• Room for innovation:
  IPD encourages experimentation and agility - whether it’s trying new materials, adopting digital tools or accelerating sustainable construction methods.

• Relationship-first delivery model:
  Built on good faith and a “no-blame, no-disputes” culture, Alliancing fosters collaboration even when challenges arise. Disputes are handled internally, not through litigation
• Transparent financials and shared outcomes:
  All costs and margins are visible across the alliance. Profit and risk are shared proportionally. This builds trust and removes adversarial behaviour.
• Joint governance and planning:
  All parties contribute to key decisions, from procurement and logistics to stakeholder engagement. This enables better coordination, fewer surprises and stronger alignment.
• Incentivised performance:
  Pain/gain share mechanisms link compensation to success and measured not just by budget or schedule, but by social, environmental and stakeholder goals.

• Canada: A large-scale biofuel facility delivered via IPD - valued at $490 million and set to process up to 200,000 tonnes of organic waste annually - is achieving cost certainty and projected annual emissions reductions of 15,000 tonnes. This success stems from early team alignment and transparent governance.
• Western Australia: A battery storage project reached construction within three months of Final Investment Decision, supported by an integrated delivery team using shared systems, joint governance and collaborative protocols.

• Tailor the model to the project:
  Each infrastructure project has unique drivers including urgency, stakeholder complexity, technical innovation or regulatory risk. One model doesn’t fit all. Delivery strategy should be a core part of early-stage planning and board-level oversight.
• Engage early and openly:
  Bringing in key partners early - especially constructors and regulators - creates more reliable costings, improves buildability and reduces downstream risk. It also builds social licence through transparent stakeholder planning.
• Stop defaulting to tradition:
  Legacy models are familiar, but that doesn’t make them fit-for-purpose. Leaders must challenge old assumptions and align delivery models with the demands of today’s energy transition.

The electricity grid can’t be modernised with yesterday’s playbook. As complexity increases, delivery models must evolve too. IPD and Alliancing offer a clear alternative - one that aligns incentives, reduces conflict and accelerates outcomes. The path to a clean, reliable energy future doesn’t just depend on what we build. It depends on how we choose to build it.