Newton

Get the latest jobs and industry news

Record utility capital spending brings greater scrutiny. Who is now testing whether approved capital is delivering value? In my previous post, I looked at the true cost of a lack of delivery certainty. Now, the burden of proof is rising. Large-load customers want speed and certainty. For a data center, energization can matter as much as price. Residential and small-business customers prioritize affordability, reliability and protection from costs created by new load. Shareholders expect approved capital to become assets, earnings and growth. Regulators assess investment through reliability, resilience, affordability and customer protection. Approval gets capital into the plan. Recovery depends on evidence that the investment was needed, costs were reasonable and the assets entered service. In Maryland, the Commission reduced Pepco’s March 2026 reconciliation request from $30.6 million to $13.36 million. In October 2026, it found that project-plan changes reduced the value of advance review and called for clearer explanations of project and budget changes, cost controls and customer benefits. In Pennsylvania, the Commission approved about $275 million in June 2026, versus PPL Electric Utilities’ $356.3 million request. It also required annual reports on approved reliability programs, spending, completed work and measurable outcomes. In North Carolina, Duke Energy Corporation proposed an October 2026 large-load agreement that, if approved, would require upfront payments for customer-specific facilities and deposits or guarantees for shared grid upgrades. Its stated aim is to protect existing customers from the costs of serving new large loads. This is not opposition to investment. It is closer scrutiny of whether approved capital is delivered as proposed and produces the customer outcomes used to justify it. Cost overruns and material changes to approved work are under greater scrutiny. This is where standardization and harmonization can support delivery certainty. A defined set of transformer specifications and substation designs enables reusable engineering, simpler procurement, common training and fewer inventory variants. It also allows projects to be sequenced by readiness, reducing future O&M complexity and cost. Better estimates, clearer utility/EPC accountability and earlier visibility of risk also matter. Technology and AI can help where they improve estimates and expose risk sooner. Approved capital is not a blank check. It is a delivery commitment to customers, regulators and investors. Affordability, reliability and stakeholder support are central to this year’s Edison Electric Institute agenda. I will be at the 61st #EEI Financial Conference in Phoenix from November 8–10 with the Newton team and look forward to continuing the conversation there. 👉 Which pressure is changing capital decisions fastest: affordability, delivery against plan, growth and returns, or speed to connection? #Utilities #Capex #CFO #EEI2026 #Newton

At a time of record #utility capital spending, what is the true cost of a lack of delivery certainty? The U.S. power sector is in the middle of a major investment cycle. Across North America, Fitch Group, Inc. describes utility capital spending of around $240 billion in 2026 as a record. The question is whether that capital can become assets in service at the expected cost and on the promised timeline. #Capital plans are expanding rapidly. #Utilities are also managing equipment-supply and workforce constraints, alongside finite engineering, construction and outage capacity. That makes delivery certainty one of the biggest issues for every utility leadership team. Delay is one symptom. At circa 9% annual allowed return, a one-month average delay on $1 billion of annual capital spend represents about $7.5 million of return timing on that capital. AFUDC or CWIP in rate base where permitted, can soften the timing impact. They do not remove the delivery risk, project costs or the delay in customer benefits. But delay is only part of the value at stake. In Newton’s capital project work, we split the opportunity into three buckets because each has different causes and requires a different response: 1. Recovery and earnings timing: assets enter service later than planned. 2. Costs directly linked to delay: additional labor, overhead, contractor and project-management costs. 3. Cost growth beyond delay: scope and design changes, weak estimates, rework, procurement changes, unclear utility/EPC hand-offs and misaligned contracts. In one recent T&D review, the potential annual benefit from faster recovery and lower delay-related labor and overhead was estimated at 5–10% of capex. The separate potential benefit from reducing cost growth beyond delay was estimated at 10–20%. Standardization may unlock further capital and O&M benefits by reducing avoidable design variation. Two specific financial tests can help reveal a loss of delivery certainty: • How many months of T&D capex are sitting in CWIP, and does that exceed the normal cycle for the longest projects? • Are replacement and resilience programs taking more of the crews, engineering capacity and outage windows needed to connect new load? Better delivery requires clear accountability, repeatable designs, stronger estimates and tighter control of change. Technology and AI can help where they improve forecasts and expose risk earlier. 👉 Who pays the price when utility capital delivery loses certainty? We are examining this across utility filings ahead of EEI. I would welcome comparing notes on how capital plans are converting into assets in service. Load growth, affordability and returns are central to the Edison Electric Institute agenda. I will be at the 61st #EEI Financial Conference in Phoenix from November 8–10. More to come on what this means for regulatory scrutiny and recovery. #CFO #Newton #Certainty #Capex #EEI2026

25 years of Newton. What strikes me most about that milestone is not simply longevity. It is the scale and complexity of what has been delivered over those 25 years. #Newton has been trusted to work on some extraordinarily complex challenges across energy, utilities, water, defence, nuclear, transport, public sector and major businesses. That has meant contributing to programmes of genuine national importance, from nuclear and defence to major energy networks, water infrastructure and large scale capital programmes. And, importantly, delivering outcomes. Billions in measurable value created. Capital programmes accelerated. Operational performance improved. Productivity increased. Critical infrastructure strengthened. Businesses and public services transformed. These are often the problems that sit right at the top of a #CEO, #CFO or #COO agenda, where capital, operations, technology and people all have to come together to deliver. For 25 years, Newton has also stood behind that delivery in a fairly unusual way, putting 100% of our implementation fees at risk against the outcomes we agree with our clients. There are not many consulting businesses that can combine that longevity, complexity of work and accountability for results. A quarter of a century of outcomes delivered, with plenty still to do. I am very excited about the future! Steven Phillips, Helen Moore, Emily Lawson, Wil Schoenmakers, Richard Lum, Philip Sunley, Ben Grinnell FBCS, Craig Hoggett