How the Next 12–18 Months May Shape the Trajectory of UK Waste, Energy & Infrastructure                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

The period to 2026 is emerging as one where infrastructure policy, compliance obligations and capital deployment meet more directly with construction feasibility and delivery capacity.

Across waste management, EfW, renewables and industrial construction, decisions taken within the next 12-18 months are likely to determine which projects progress, which stall, and where pressure points form across the supply chain.

Rather than speculating on outcomes, this piece aims to map the key forces now shaping the sector; and to show how these pressures, opportunities and constraints may influence which projects move forward over the next 12-18 months.

Planning & Infrastructure Bill Reform

Reforms to planning and infrastructure governance have been designed to reduce approval times for nationally significant energy and waste assets.

If consistently adopted through local authorities, the pathway from feasibility to consent could contract; enabling earlier entry into design, procurement and construction sequencing.

However, faster decision cycles do not simplify approval; they heighten the need for technical completeness and consultation clarity at submission.

A system that moves more quickly also becomes less tolerant of ambiguity.

Local determinations could be more easily escalated or overturned under strengthened national mechanisms, reducing the influence of local objection in some cases but also increasing the importance of defensible environmental assessment and well-evidenced design rationale.

In effect, reform may not reduce the work required: only the window in which that work must be delivered.

The outcome is likely to reward early feasibility, disciplined documentation and engineered design resolution, while compressing the viability of reactive redesign or late-stage scope change.

GGSS Defines the Development Window for AD & Biomethane

With no extension referenced in the Autumn Budget, the Green Gas Support Scheme continues to set the practical outer boundary for biomethane commissioning.

Projects already well-advanced may move through to build, but those still in feasibility face a narrowing development runway; where delivery timing becomes as material as design or financing.

Supply-chain capacity is becoming stretched across civils, process engineering, biogas upgrading and commissioning resource, and if multiple schemes converge on similar delivery windows, competition for contractors, specialist equipment and grid-connection slots is likely to intensify; not to mention the very real possibility of putting even more pressure on the already struggling National Grid. Delays in one part of the chain risk propagating across the programme.

In the near term, technology is not the limiting factor; the constraint is delivery within a finite window of incentivised time, against supply chains operating close to capacity.

Waste, EfW & ABP Compliance

Mandatory kerbside food-waste rollout will increase the volume of Category 3 ABP material entering the system, even though ABP regulations themselves are unchanged.
For facilities without full containment, traceability and hygiene segregation capability, this shift has direct infrastructure implications; retrofit, expansion or new-build requirements are likely where biosecurity risk increases.

EfW operators entering the UK-ETS framework will operate under carbon price exposure.

Gate fees, retrofit decision-making and long-term asset viability will increasingly be shaped by emissions cost rather than throughput alone. For the sector, the regulatory landscape is not new, but the scale of application is.

In 2026, compliance becomes operational, not theoretical.

Autumn Budget 2025

The Autumn Budget maintains £120bn in public capital allocation and introduces a National Wealth Fund intended to mobilise up to £70bn in private investment across strategic technologies including hydrogen, storage and industrial manufacturing.

It also commits to increasing annual R&D spend to £22bn by 2029, supporting innovation-led decarbonisation.

However, capital availability does not directly resolve delivery constraints.

Progress remains dependent on planning capacity, grid availability, labour, procurement lead times and commercial incentive clarity.

The Budget did not amend revenue mechanisms for biomethane or waste-derived energy, meaning market progression will be shaped by execution capability rather than policy expansion.

The fiscal environment is supportive of infrastructure build, but not sufficient by itself to deliver it.

Maturing Technology and Variable Commercial Certainty in Renewables

The next phase of renewable deployment will prioritise system resilience: long-duration storage, flexible generation and integrated low-carbon system design.

Technical readiness is improving, but commercial certainty remains inconsistent across CCUS, energy storage and hydrogen.

Grid-connection timelines continue to vary regionally and may govern delivery more strongly than technology maturity.

Projects with defined offtake structure, measurable carbon reduction, and strong engineering scope are more likely to secure investment in the current environment.

Concept-stage schemes without integrated economic rationale may struggle to convert policy intent into bankable delivery.

In simple terms: readiness is now more valuable than potential.

Construction Dynamics Shaping Project Progression

Industrial construction is the mechanism through which energy transition becomes operational reality.

The strongest activity signals sit in EfW, AD, storage, hydrogen-adjacent infrastructure and grid reinforcement: all of which demand coordinated engineering, interface management, procurement discipline and controlled commissioning.

Labour availability, component lead times and cost variability remain material risks.

Faster planning does not accelerate construction if supply chains cannot scale or if integration risk is underestimated. Infrastructure build in 2026 will be determined not by project volume, but by resource capacity.

Policy creates intent. Construction capacity determines outcome.

Our Expected Areas of Delivery Focus

Over the next 12-18 months, we - the PWCL team - anticipate continued activity across anaerobic digestion; particularly from developers progressing projects toward the end of the GGSS window and from operators seeking throughput optimisation, upgrade integration or new-build feasibility.

We are already supporting several AD schemes at various stages of development and expect project delivery to remain a significant component of our workload as sites move from feasibility into construction.

We are also preparing for movement in small-scale energy-from-waste infrastructure, and while the economics of EfW remain sensitive to UK-ETS pricing and waste-stream certainty, we are seeing early-stage interest in modular and regionally targeted recovery capacity.

If policy stability and permitting throughput hold, we expect a number of these projects to advance toward viability testing and early design resolution; areas where coordinated engineering, civil planning and construction integration remain essential.

In both areas, the delivery environment is likely to be shaped less by technology limitation and more by sequencing, and supply-chain availability.

Our role will continue to centre on reducing programme risk, improving buildability, and helping developers and operators translate ideas into projects

A Testing Period Rather Than a Transformational Guarantee

The next 12-18 months do not imply automatic acceleration.

They define the conditions under which acceleration is achievable; contingent on execution quality, regulatory throughput and market bandwidth.

Planning reform may shorten consent pathways, but only if resourced. GGSS maintains momentum for biomethane, but compresses delivery windows.

UK-ETS introduces carbon-price exposure that will change thermal economics.

The National Wealth Fund signals industrial investment intent, but not certainty. Grid access may ultimately govern pace more than any single policy instrument.

2026 is not a pivot point; it is a proving period.

The determining factor will not be optimism or policy alignment, but delivery readiness, engineering clarity and real-world feasibility under constraint.