From large global projects to the small and local, infrastructure developments are still coming thick and fast. In a world where headlines are dominated by macro-economic pressures and geopolitical volatility, infrastructure has not been marginalised. 

“The scale of the opportunity and need in infrastructure is gigantically bigger than it was even 20 years ago, when we were getting very excited about it,” says Richard Threlfall, global head of infrastructure, government and healthcare at KPMG. “We’ve come to understand that infrastructure is not only the main driver of economic growth for countries and the most significant way of achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, but also essential to addressing the climate emergency.”

A quick browse through my inbox on one random morning last month shows the different types of infrastructure investment, and where it’s happening across the globe. KKR announced a $400m (£328m) investment in Singapore’s OMS Group for the development of digital infrastructure in South-East Asia; the Emerging Africa Infrastructure Fund has put $48m towards the Côte d’Ivoire government’s plan to give its people universal access to electricity; on the home front and on a decidedly humbler level, Manor House Golf Club in Wiltshire announced the installation and electrification of EV chargers for its players.

Everywhere, it seems, there is huge demand for infrastructure investment – and the UK is no different. The big theme is energy transition, but it’s far from being the only one. In a low-growth world, new infrastructure is being used to deliver economic growth – including in less affluent areas as part of the government’s ‘levelling up’ agenda. At the time of writing, the focus in the UK was on flood defences in a long period of almost constant rain, but pressures on the health service and schools also continue to be talking points. HS2 has been a long-drawn-out debacle, but upgrading rail infrastructure for long-suffering commuters remains another priority. 

The funding question

In November 2020, the UK government published the National Infrastructure Strategy, which set out a roadmap for the sector in the UK, and paved the way for the launch of the UK Infrastructure Bank. But, as has been the case with infrastructure for a while now, the challenge is less one of demand and more one of supply of finance. In some areas, the UK is seeing much less of that finance coming from the private sector sources that were once courted with a passion. 

“I think the big question, from an infrastructure investor’s point of view, is how much of the opportunity is investible,” says Tim Jones, a partner in the financial advisory practice and transport sector lead for Deloitte. “The trend with large-scale transport schemes – such as HS2 and Crossrail – and social infrastructure since the demise of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) has been towards more public-sector funding and financing of infrastructure programmes.”

Perhaps the area where the biggest current demand for private capital is found – not just in the UK, but around the world – is energy transition and decarbonisation. The government did launch the Transition Plan Task Force in November, which is a consultation sector-specific transition plan guidance for investors and operators. The outcome will be published next spring. The required investment amount could hardly be described as small change. In March this year, the International Renewable Energy Agency said it estimated that, for a successful global energy transition, $35trn of investment was needed by 2030. And, unlike in certain areas of infrastructure, private capital is the dominant force. 

“There is a fundamental need for more energy infrastructure to hit net-zero targets, and the appetite and skill sets to deliver on that infrastructure are there in abundance,” says Gavin Quantock, head of KPMG’s clean energy M&A team. A clear example of the potential for private capital to assist energy transition came in early October when the Australian competition regulator cleared a consortium led by Brookfield to acquire Origin Energy, the country’s second-largest power generator, for $10.2bn. The deal is seen as a way to help speed up the country’s renewable energy ambitions.

Rising costs

While the need for finance is clear and the sources of finance are willing, even the fashionable area of energy transition is not immune to macro-economic pressures. Once-hyped supply chain issues may have been pushed out of the headlines by rising interest rates, but they have had a damaging effect on the cost of building energy infrastructure. Higher costs have the potential to put a real dampener on market activity. 

In the UK, the classic example was the latest offshore wind auction, where no bids were submitted and allegations arose that the government had not taken seriously claims that such schemes were no longer economically viable. The government did move swiftly to increase the maximum price available for offshore wind projects by 66% to encourage investors. 

“There are some estimates that the cost of delivering an offshore wind farm has gone up by about 40% due to supply chain issues, and that’s really hurting the offshore sector right now,” says Quantock. “Only time will tell how long that this will go on for.”

Threlfall says it’s important that industry is believed when it says there are issues around cost, as building trust between the parties is vital given the scale of investment that’s needed. He points to the creation of ‘energy islands’ in the North Sea as one example of the huge scaling up that’s taking place: Germany, France, the Netherlands, the UK and Norway committed in April to connect offshore green generation sites, aiming to quadruple offshore wind energy capacity by the end of the decade. 

But while the UK – which built a strong reputation for offshore wind delivery with previous auctions – has suffered some embarrassment, Jones thinks it’s important not to get the issue out of proportion. “I don’t think you should necessarily extrapolate from an individual auction that there is a wider malaise in renewable or energy transition investment in the UK,” he says. “I’m sure the lessons will be learned, but the CfD structure has been a highly successful instrument in driving renewables investment in the UK, so I don’t think you can say it’s symptomatic of a wider issue.”

However, while that may be true of energy transition, when it comes to other aspects of infrastructure, there’s no shortage of observers saying they see symptoms of a serious issue in the UK. In some sectors, there is simply a lack of projects, such as airports and ports.

When looking at social infrastructure, past prime minister Boris Johnson’s pledge three years ago to build 40 new hospitals by the end of this decade now appears very unlikely to materialise. The first of the 40 is scheduled for completion soon, but work on others is well behind schedule. Moreover, it has become clear that much of the promise related to upgrades to existing sites rather than completely new sites. 

Part of the problem with social infrastructure schemes today is that the PFI – launched in 1992 by the Conservatives and accelerated by Labour under the then prime minister Tony Blair as a way of efficiently channelling private capital into infrastructure projects – fell out of favour some years ago. PF2 replaced it, but a perceived lack of value for money, and perhaps less backing from government and the general public, resulted in its downfall. 

“Sentiment in the UK has swung quite firmly against PFI and it seems increasingly impossible to bring it back to the table after it became political anathema a few years ago,” says Threlfall. “There is zero interest at the heart of government to reopen the conversation.”

It’s worth noting that some public-private partnership projects are still ongoing – such as the £1.2bn Lower Thames Crossing, a new road connection under the River Thames. But by and large, they are considered to have had their day as a delivery mechanism for new infrastructure.

New broom

The demise of PFI means that a greater proportion of infrastructure funding now comes from the public purse, with all the potential controversy that can bring in its wake. This was most recently evident in the government’s decision to cancel the northern leg of HS2, the high-speed rail line now set to run only from London to the West Midlands rather than to Manchester; the Leeds extension having already been shelved in 2021. The government said it believed the £36bn cost of the northern leg could be more usefully deployed on other projects. 

Understandably those in the market are reluctant to comment in detail on government decisions, but they acknowledge the gravity of pulling back from such a landmark project. “I would say that HS2 has put the delivery of infrastructure into really sharp focus,” says Quantock. “Has it undermined confidence? I’m sure there are investors out there who would say yes. It’s a difficult decision that elicits an emotive response from almost anyone you speak to about it.” 

Threlfall makes the point that, due to their long-term nature, infrastructure projects are subject to changes in the economic and political cycle. “In a democracy, where governments are subject to five-yearly elections, there’s always nervousness about exactly how committed things can be,” he says. 

Since the announcement of the HS2 decision, a lot of attention has now been focused on whether the money saved from that will be allocated to other infrastructure projects – something strongly hinted at when Prime Minister Rishi Sunak made the cancellation announcement. 

Jones makes the point that there is unlikely to be £36bn of savings made available for new projects in the near term: “Cancelling phase two does potentially release funding that could be deployed in the north or elsewhere, but that cost would probably not have been incurred until 2028-30 or beyond. So is there money to be deployed right now? Probably not.”

What could potentially shake up the UK infrastructure is a general election, which is expected to take place some time next year – and which in any case must happen by the end of January 2025 at the latest. “There is no doubt that if there’s a change in government there will be a review of current policies around the delivery of infrastructure, so it does feel like we’re in a holding pattern at the moment,” says Quantock. “One thing that can be said with confidence is that, if there’s a change in government, there’ll be a change in policy.”

Turning a corner

There is a view that a Labour government would want to not only continue backing energy transition projects, but also to revive social infrastructure in areas such as health and education. There is still also hope that they might row back on the government’s recent announcement that it was slowing certain green targets – in relation to making electric vehicles compulsory and phasing out gas boilers, for example. 

Regardless of who actually wins the election, Threlfall expresses optimism that it may mean a turning of the corner for a UK infrastructure market that has had its challenges. “I’m quite optimistic that we should find ourselves in a position where we have fresh thinking, fresh programmes and hopefully, therefore, a landscape that will be more attractive to private investors than the past couple of years have been,” he says.