Marybeth Collins

Electricity demand in the United States is rising after more than a decade of relative flatness. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects national power consumption to continue increasing through at least 2027, driven by data center expansion, industrial electrification, and population growth in high-demand regions. Several grid operators have revised load forecasts upward, citing large new commercial and industrial connections.

At the same time, grid expansion is not moving at the same pace.

Capacity Friction Is Emerging

According to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s most recent interconnection queue analysis, well over 2,000 gigawatts of proposed generation and storage capacity are awaiting connection to the U.S. grid — more than the total installed generating capacity currently operating nationwide. While not all queued projects will be built, the backlog illustrates the scale of system congestion.

Transmission expansion and substation reinforcement operate on multi-year timelines. In high-growth metropolitan areas, distribution-level constraints are increasingly localized at specific transformer stations.

For corporations, the effect is not widespread denial of service. It is sequencing.

A new facility may receive site approval but face staged energization.
A data center may secure land but wait on substation upgrades.
An electrification plan may require phased conversion rather than immediate transition.

Each instance appears manageable.

Collectively, they alter timelines.

When Growth Depends on Power

Energy availability is becoming a gating variable in site selection and expansion strategy.

Data centers provide a visible example. Large-scale campuses can require hundreds of megawatts of capacity, and utilities in several U.S. regions have signaled that interconnection timelines are stretching as demand accelerates. Industrial manufacturers pursuing electrification face similar friction when converting thermal processes or adding load-intensive production lines.

Electrification commitments often underpin corporate emissions reduction strategies. When energization timelines shift, emissions trajectories shift with them.

Revenue ramp-ups, sustainability-linked debt milestones, and capital deployment schedules are increasingly tied to grid readiness.

The Capital Allocation Impact

Timeline distortion affects capital efficiency.

When a project’s operational start date is pushed back 12 to 24 months, capital remains deployed without generating expected returns. In a higher interest rate environment, the cost of carrying delayed projects is materially greater than during the ultra-low-rate period that shaped many early-decade infrastructure and decarbonization commitments.

Sustainability-linked bonds and loans add another layer. Performance targets tied to emissions reductions or electrification milestones may depend on infrastructure readiness. If grid constraints delay those milestones, financing structures may require recalibration.

The decision is no longer simply whether to build.

It is when — and where — building remains executable.

Infrastructure Timelines vs. Corporate Timelines

Transmission projects frequently require multi-year permitting, siting, and construction cycles. Distribution upgrades in dense urban areas may involve complex coordination and capital allocation decisions across regulated frameworks.

Corporate planning cycles operate quarterly.

This mismatch introduces structural tension.

Boards approve expansion strategies based on forward-looking demand. Operating teams then discover that energization depends on infrastructure outside their direct control.

Some companies are responding by:

Conducting grid capacity due diligence alongside tax and labor analysis
Accelerating on-site generation and storage investments
Phasing electrification to align with utility reinforcement schedules
Reprioritizing regions with stronger capacity signals

These adjustments reflect a quiet but material shift: energy availability is being modeled as a timeline variable, not just a cost input.

The Investor Dimension

Public companies face additional scrutiny.

Energy transition narratives often assume alignment between strategy and infrastructure. When infrastructure lags, executives must explain timeline adjustments tied to utility sequencing rather than internal performance.

Investors increasingly distinguish between ambition and execution realism. Companies that incorporate infrastructure variability into guidance early may preserve credibility. Those that assume acceleration and revise later may face sharper questions.

Energy availability is becoming part of earnings calls and capital markets language.

The Strategic Question 

Electricity is not disappearing.

But in key regions, capacity is tightening at the same time electrification is accelerating.

The executive question is not whether power will exist. It is whether corporate timelines assume immediacy where variability exists.

When energy availability shifts from background assumption to structural constraint, growth sequencing becomes strategic.

Companies that integrate grid readiness into capital planning will preserve flexibility.

Those that model energy solely as a price input may discover that their timelines are not slipping by accident.

They are being rewritten by availability.