Data centers are creating big opportunities for E&C companies and tougher decisions for their CFOs

Data centers built the boom. Readiness will decide who captures it.

8 minute read
November 03, 2026

Anthony Caletka

Principal, Capital Projects & Infrastructure Energy Leader, PwC US

Michael Sobolewski

Partner, Engineering and Construction Leader, PwC US

Karim Bibawi

US Engineering and Construction and Professional Services Technology Leader, PwC US

Key takeaways:

A booming data center backlog can mask which projects are truly ready to generate revenue.
Power access and grid readiness increasingly determine whether projects advance or risk being delayed.
E&C CFOs need a site-level view when making capital allocation decisions to uncover timing risks and hidden infrastructure dependencies.
As multiple stakeholders enter the project lifecycle earlier, strong governance, documentation, pricing discipline, and controls can help E&C companies protect margins and revenue by effectively managing change orders.
Smarter project scoring can sharpen capital allocation, forecasting, and deal terms.

The data center race is on, and the stakes are enormous.

Global data center investment could total a cumulative $31.6 trillion through 2050, according to PwC’s Global Data Centre Outlook. And annual investment is projected to more than double throughout that period, from almost $800 billion this year to $1.8 trillion in 2050.

Capital is pouring into new facilities and infrastructure, creating enormous opportunities for engineering and construction (E&C) companies. While data centers may look like an enticing growth story, the value and timing of these opportunities increasingly depend on whether each project can secure power and interconnection on schedule, as well as the ability to secure permitting and community support, which are increasingly also contributing to stalled and delayed projects.

Project starts, scope, and sequencing can all be impacted at the site and utility interface level. As states impose moratoriums on data center construction and grid operations install more explicit readiness requirements, access to power and community support are becoming the biggest factors determining where data center capital flows.

In the past, developers could count on utilities catching up as projects progressed. That’s a much riskier assumption amid surging power demand, and as complex site requirements, multiyear grid expansion, and long lead times for equipment delay even well-funded projects. PwC’s Large Energy User Survey found 76% of respondents said power outages and other electricity supply disruptions have already caused operational or financial impacts. Seven-in-ten respondents say they are less confident in grid reliability than they were two years ago.

For CFOs navigating this business environment, capital allocation decisions increasingly hinge on a basic question: Which projects are truly executable given the realities of interconnection timing, utility capacity, substation readiness, and other site-specific dependencies out of management’s control? Finance leaders should look beyond headline backlog and adopt a site- and utility-level view of exposure, one that distinguishes booked demand from construction-ready demand and helps determine where capital can be deployed to drive business value.

Not all backlog should be created equal

Booked demand isn’t the same as executable demand. For CFOs, that means pressure-testing two considerations: how much revenue is in the pipeline and how much can realistically convert on schedule. This assessment increasingly has to happen at the site and utility-interface level, where access to power, interconnection progress, and infrastructure readiness often determine whether work should move ahead.

When schedules slip, the effects ripple through the financials, from billing and revenue timing to labor, procurement, and working capital. These aren’t always short-term snags. Connecting a new data center to the grid can require major transmission and distribution upgrades, new substations, and equipment that’s already in short supply. What begins as an operational delay can quickly become a finance issue if resources are committed ahead of grid readiness.

A project’s potential value means little if it can't get off the ground as planned. Consider two similarly sized projects. One has a clear path to power, utility commitments, and critical infrastructure progressing against established milestones. The other is waiting on utility studies, substation upgrades, inter-connect, or equipment with a multiyear lead time. Both may be in the backlog, but they shouldn't carry the same weight in the forecast.

Power constraints can also dramatically reshape how projects move from construction to operation. Customers may phase, resize, or defer builds based on when power can be delivered. Demand may remain intact even as capital allocation shifts across phases and timelines. That creates a more complicated forecasting challenge than a simple go/no-go decision. For finance leaders, the task is to understand not only whether work is delayed, but how delay changes scope, timing, margin expectations, review, and capital needs.

One approach is to assign each project a confidence rating based on how far they've progressed against key milestones, from securing power and utility commitments to completing necessary infrastructure upgrades. That gives CFOs a clearer picture of which projects are likely to move forward as planned, which could slip, and where revenue forecasts may need adjusting. To inform this planning process, CFOs of E&C firms are increasingly commissioning their own studies on utility interconnect times and other distributed generation options.

There’s also another risk that’s easy to miss. Projects may look diversified across different customers and locations, but still rely on the same utility, substation, or path to power. If that shared infrastructure hits a delay, several projects can get pushed back at once.

Be selective about the bet

The volume of potential projects can make it difficult to separate the promising opportunities from those that carry too much timing, infrastructure, or concentration risk. That’s where finance leaders need to force choices—about what the company pursues, what it counts on, and what level of uncertainty it is willing to absorb. In a power-constrained market, those decisions should include site and utility-interface level issues, such as interconnection status, utility territory, and shared infrastructure dependencies. That’s in addition to customer, geography, or headline contract value.

We’ve identified five considerations:

Before chasing an opportunity, assess whether it can realistically move forward. Score potential projects based on customer strength, economics, strategic fit, and readiness milestones, including power availability, interconnection, and infrastructure requirements. A simple gold, silver, bronze, or high risk rating can help leaders decide which projects deserve priority, which need more work, and which are better left on the table. It also gives finance, operations, business development, and risk teams a common framework for making capital allocation decisions they can defend with investors and lenders.

States and grid operators are tightening the rules on data center development. Even promising projects can hit roadblocks as requirements quickly change. CFOs should factor these risks into investment decisions before tying up capital and resources. They should have a relatively dynamic governance approach to deal with the changing circumstances that enables them to quickly redeploy capital.

Early involvement in the project lifecycle can secure advantaged positions, but starting before design and scope are fully defined can create hundreds of change orders, margin leakage, and lost revenue disputes. CFOs should insist on contract structures, governance, and documentation that clearly defines scope, while considering strategic collaborations and financing models that reduce upfront capital exposure and procurement risk.

Not every company should make the same data center bet. Existing capabilities, customer relationships, and market position should help determine where to lean in. A project that makes sense for an experienced data center contractor may carry a very different risk profile for a company stretching into unfamiliar territory.

Unresolved infrastructure shouldn’t simply become risk the company absorbs. Use what’s known about site readiness to inform pricing, phasing, sequencing, hiring plans, procurement, and customer commitments, and how much capacity gets locked in upfront. As the risk changes, the deal may need to change with it. Bake in flexibility.

A delay on one project may be manageable. Several slipping at once can change the financial picture quickly. Stress tests should consider both the effects of an individual project getting canceled, and what clustered delays could mean for cash, staffing, procurement, and liquidity.

Capital and capacity committed to data centers can’t be deployed somewhere else. Weigh the expected return against what the company may be giving up, including investment in markets and capabilities where it already has an advantage. Going bigger on data centers may be the right call, but the tradeoffs should be explicit.

Underwrite the opportunity before you commit the capital

When the construction dust settles on the data center boom, what will likely separate projects that met expectations from those that stumbled or failed is the analysis the finance function did on securing power, navigating interconnection queues, and confirming availability of supporting equipment before capital was deployed. In a market where demand can appear abundant, but project timing is increasingly shaped by external constraints, finance leaders need a clearer way to distinguish promising opportunities from those that may tie up capital or distort forecasts.

Having the capability to evaluate data center exposure first at the site and utility-interface level—rather than relying only on geography or contract value — gives CFOs a more disciplined underwriting lens to identify which opportunities are ready to support hiring, procurement, and committed plans; which should stay in lower-confidence categories; and where contingency measures, deal terms, or capital pacing may need to change. It can also reveal whether multiple projects share the same hidden infrastructure dependencies, creating concentration risk that traditional backlog views may miss.

For E&C companies, the data center buildout represents a meaningful growth opportunity. But the companies most likely to convert that growth into returns may be the ones that treat grid readiness as a variable in capital allocation decisions. Better analysis won’t eliminate uncertainty, but it can help management separate durable opportunity from timing-sensitive exposure and deploy capital with more conviction, so they are capitalizing on the boom instead of chasing it.

Contact us