Planning in an Era of Permanent Uncertainty

First published on: 12/6/2026

This is the final article in our insight series, Power Under Pressure, examining how structural pressure is changing the way power markets operate. Having explored how AI-driven data center growth is reshaping electricity demand, the renewed importance of thermal generation amid rising volatility, and the growing role of battery storage in maintaining grid resilience, we now turn to the challenge of planning in an era of uncertainty shaped by changing policy, geopolitical instability, and shifting industrial priorities. 

As governments increasingly treat energy infrastructure as a matter of national competitiveness and security, traditional planning assumptions are breaking down. Regulatory frameworks, supply chains, and investment incentives are evolving faster than conventional planning cycles can absorb. The result is a market where uncertainty itself has become structural. 

This article answers:  

• Is the energy trilemma still a helpful way to think about energy planning?

• How are industrial policies creating a new layer of complexity for developers?

• Why are legacy energy planning models failing in a world of correlated risks?

• How can energy leaders use data and analytics to achieve a Decisioning Advantage in the new regulatory landscape? 

Uncertainty is the new guiding principle

The energy trilemma has been the mainstay of energy planning for more than 20 years, as developers and governments attempted to balance sustainability, security, and affordability. However, as power sector transformation meets the AI arms race and national interests, energy planners are wrestling with a new dimension: the return of state-directed industrial policymaking at local, national, and, in the case of the EU, supranational levels. This new fourth pillar has helped elevate uncertainty as the defining characteristic of the global market.

To stay competitive in a web of regulatory interactions and international supply chains, executive teams must be able to synthesize policy implications and market intelligence and adjust their strategies in response. Zema Global gives energy leaders the clarity needed to navigate a consistently changing terrain by consolidating market data, forward curves, scenarios, and analytics into one seamless ecosystem — the foundation for confident, strategically sound decisioning.

Energy infrastructure as national security

Energy security is no longer about fuel availability. As the Brookings Institution explains, it is a public good inherently dependent on regional infrastructure and market integration that must be insulated from constrained supply chains. Global Counsel notes that the U.S, China, and India are explicitly linking clean-tech manufacturing and firm power requirements to national competitiveness — primarily driven by the AI arms race.

The U.S.’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) illustrates this approach — and the new era of permanent uncertainty. Signed into law in July 2025, it significantly modified the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), whose provisions had been on the statute book for just three years. A series of Executive Orders issued in the following weeks doubled down on the shift, also reversing EOs from previous administrations.

The impact of the OBBBA has been immediate, as developers and investors planning to take advantage of tax credits for wind and solar projects scramble to meet accelerated deadlines to begin construction (July 4, 2026) and placement-in-service (December 31, 2027). For example:

• In expectation of the Bill, more than $14 billion in low-carbon manufacturing and energy generation projects had already been closed, canceled, or downsized, according to E2 tracking data.

• In Q4 alone, $2.1 billion of solar investments were cancelled, and wind investments were down by around $1 billion from the previous quarter.

• Investors are rerouting capital to utility-scale battery storage to take advantage of retained tax credits for standalone storage facilities.  

• Projects that could feasibly meet the 2027 commercial online date deadline face rising costs, as they compete for a finite pool of equipment, skilled labor, and EPC capacity against data center builders and other sectors.

The policy shifts continue. A new American Energy Dominance Act would end some of the abrupt cut-offs, if enacted. At the state level, governments in California, Colorado, and Vermont, among others, have their own policy to supporting renewable energy deployment.

The global ripple effect is altering the energy mix

The sense of whiplash caused by policy shifts in the U.S. extends beyond its borders.

The new protectionism and the swing back to fossil-nuclear parity have added to the disruption caused by the war in Ukraine, AI-driven demand, and, more recently, the events in the Middle East, triggering more sovereign energy policies in the EU. Independently, Germany has reconsidered the role of coal and gas plants in the name of energy security, as have several of its neighbors.

The picture is more complicated in APAC. Shifts in the U.S. clean energy incentives added extra impetus to the region’s existing renewable buildout, even as it boasted the biggest expansion plans for natural gas and LNG. Energy independence remains front of mind, but the Middle East crisis has now added pressure to that strategy, with South Korea doubling down on firm power, announcing the construction of two new nuclear reactors. Japan is also reducing its previous focus on LNG, increasing coal-fired generation, and restarting nuclear power plants.

At the corporate level, renewable developers are increasingly evaluating project pipelines across jurisdictions with differing long-term policy and subsidy frameworks, including Australia and the EU. Retained tax incentives in the U.S. may create an attractive environment for highly specialized developers of geothermal, nuclear SMRs, and carbon capture, but the overall regulatory uncertainty has already caused some developers to locate their projects in, for example, Canada.

International supply chains are being rerouted

The biggest issue for international developers is that of eligibility. The OBBBA’s imposition of strict restrictions on Foreign Entities of Concern (FEOCs) in the U.S. energy mix is already reshaping supply chains.

The immediate effect was to slow investment into battery manufacturing by companies that rely on Chinese components. In combination with U.S. trade tariffs, FEOC has also resulted in Chinese and local joint-venture manufacturers moving their production lines outside the ASEAN Big Four (Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam) to Indonesia, Laos, and, potentially, North and East Africa.

Facing the possibility of a subsidy competition between the U.S. and China, which would make clean-tech more expensive for all international buyers, the EU has also barred Chinese-made inverters from publicly funded projects. Under the terms of the EU Net-Zero Industry Act (NZIA), 40% of Europe’s clean-tech demand must be met by domestic manufacturing by 2030.

China’s response However, to the FEOC regulations has been to capitalize on its rare-earth processing advantage. Newly imposed export controls on gallium, germanium, and graphite, as well as the technology for mining and smelting rare earths, are primarily a response to U.S. and European trade restrictions. The strategic reaction? Investment is being directed toward Australian and Canadian commodities.

China has also implemented its own Supply Chain Security Regulations and Counter-Extraterritoriality Regulations, which place any business that discriminates against Chinese suppliers on a ‘malicious entity list’. Caught between competing demands and still dependent on Chinese capital, Southeast Asian manufacturers are increasingly building walled-off, parallel production tracks to handle both superpowers simultaneously. One track is U.S.-compliant, meticulously traced, and premium-priced; the other is heavily integrated with lower-cost Chinese components or joint-venture operations at a much lower price point.

The compounding effect of policy uncertainty

This chain reaction of policy shifts and corporate response takes place in an industrial landscape already coming to terms with old assumptions being overturned.

The electricity consumption from data centers, which has been accelerated by AI, is expected to nearly double by 2030. Massive, multi-stage data center projects have accelerated demand growth, while the need for uninterrupted baseload power is introducing structural change and an accompanying expansion of resources. The effort to meet rising demand is triggering a feedback loop of supply chain risk, in which developers compete globally for a narrowing set of technologies.  

Critical components are already becoming more scarce. Countries in APAC are competing for copper, as well as LNG, which increases input costs for electrification and grid-expansion technologies. The cost of a transformer or a mile of transmission cable has spiked, with direct consequences on affordability. Major manufacturers, including GE Vernova, Siemens Energy, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, have also reported multi-year gas turbine backlogs, with S&P Global Commodity Insights noting turbine wait times ranging from one to seven years amid unprecedented demand.

These logistical hurdles worsen both grid congestion and market volatility, as gigawatt‑scale loads reshape the grid and create localized bottlenecks and price swings.  

• The U.S.: Sites are being prioritized based on network upgrade requirements rather than project size. Developers rushing to meet growing demand have created historic surges in interconnection queues — a backlog that is still to be resolved. Hyperscalars are favoring behind-the-meter solutions as speed to power becomes the driving force, reshaping infrastructure in their turn.  

• Europe: Germany and the UK have more than 100 gigawatts of renewables waiting for grid access. In Ireland and the Netherlands, grids are at physical capacity, prompting moratoria and anticipatory investments to cut multiyear connection delays. Grid strain in Frankfurt, London, Amsterdam, Paris, and Dublin has caused AI training to move to the Nordic region, where cold climates and abundant hydro and wind have created a pressure relief valve.

• APAC: In Southeast Asia, power availability, rather than location or cost, has become the primary site-selection criterion, thanks to four-year wait times for grid connection. Governments are adopting Clean Energy Zones by clustering data centers next to massive solar or wind farms to bypass congested national grids. Both India and Singapore are investigating hybrid power architectures to bypass unreliable infrastructure.

All this creates a highly uncertain environment for developers, who must make multi-billion-dollar decisions based on forecasts of what policy might look like several cycles into the future. Given the supply chain risks, any project to combat grid congestion or to back up renewables may make sense on paper but remain non-viable in practice for the next five to seven years.  

Data center load growth also presents a timing risk. Some projects may further intensify grid congestion; others may be delayed or cancelled before demand materializes. Predicted demand that doesn't show up creates a new type of instability.  

Legacy planning models fall short

This volatile environment complicates long-term investment. Energy planners are no longer just managing a power grid. They are responding to and managing cross-border policy coordination, national security, computer chip manufacturing, and economic competitiveness. In this climate, achieving a Decisioning Advantage is an absolute requirement, but is precisely where legacy planning models fall short.

These models have tended to rely on static assumptions. Demand growth could be based on steady GDP metrics. A 20-year timeline to deploy a new technology could be mapped out. Globalized markets could smooth trade in oil, gas, or solar panels.

However, they cannot easily adapt to structural uncertainty. Lacking adaptive mechanisms, legacy planning models cannot reliably predict scenarios such as disruptions to energy supply chains or sudden shifts in trade policy. They are also not designed to respond effectively to sudden, localized demand spikes, prolonged shortages, or the broader market and economic pressures that may follow.

Equally, a standard prediction or monolithic forecast model will not capture the myriad ways the market can develop and splinter. A planning system without the flexibility to model multiple distinct futures puts investments at greater risk of future policy volatility.

In addition, legacy models often treat policy risk and market risk as entirely independent issues rather than viewing them as a system of correlated risks. Consider the rush for materials caused by a regulatory shift away from capital expenditure and towards physical construction. It certainly increases immediate project costs. But it also invalidates assumptions about how the market will evolve that underpinned original financing models.

How to build the new competitive advantage

Traditionally, the highest returns have gone to the first movers: those who entered battery storage markets early, for example, or those who secured wind and solar agreements at rates far above today's.  

That edge is not a product of luck. Instead, it is built on data and analytics infrastructures that allow operators to update valuation models and act on them within hours rather than weeks. Instead of making a series of entirely reactive and disconnected judgment calls, firms can rely on data-driven decision-making. That means understanding which projects remain economically viable under multiple policy scenarios, where supply-chain bottlenecks are most likely to emerge, and how procurement and infrastructure placement decisions should adapt as market conditions evolve.

This advantage becomes even more pronounced when everyone in the organization shares transparent, consistent views on risk and value. Transparency ensures that every stakeholder understands the underlying assumptions behind a model. When those assumptions are clear and the methodology is unified, teams have a single source of truth and can focus on making strategic choices.

How can Zema Global help you make better decisions?

The new competitive advantage is therefore built on three pillars: 

• Speed: The ability to update views and reach actionable answers within hours, and so secure first-mover advantage.

• Transparency: A clear view of assumptions, data lineage, and methodology that strengthens confidence and reduces friction.

• Consistent views of risk and value: A single shared framework lets teams compare scenarios side by side and align on risk, value, and action.

Zema Global’s Decisioning Advantage brings together data, curves, and analytics to show how deliverability, price risk, and policy conditions coevolve — and what that means for siting, procurement, hedging, commercial structuring, and long-term portfolio choices. Through probabilistic, operationally realistic modeling, we help organizations quantify the downside of constraints, test the durability of plans under volatility, and act with clarity even when conditions shift.

That matters when policy deadlines, interconnection queues, equipment availability, and price signals are changing at different speeds across markets.

Ready to build a grid strategy that is defensible under uncertainty — across any market, asset mix, or planning cycle?

Let’s schedule a short walkthrough to map your current planning, commercial, or trading workflow to a decisioning framework that reflects today’s and tomorrow’s constraints — and identify the fastest path to measurable decisioning gains.