Where stakeholder pressure is building across electric and gas, water and wastewater and telecommunications and broadband.
Stakeholder pressure is rising fastest where infrastructure expansion collides with affordability, local control and unequal allocation of costs or impacts.
Utilities are being asked to expand, modernize and harden essential infrastructure while customers, regulators and communities are placing greater scrutiny on how those decisions are made and who is expected to pay.
The most consequential near-term challenge is no longer simply whether utilities can build enough infrastructure. It is whether regulators, customers and host communities believe utilities are making defensible decisions about who benefits, who pays and who bears the disruption.
That pattern cuts across electricity and gas, water and telecommunications. A rate increase can become a judgment about governance. A transmission project can become a dispute over local burden and regional benefit. A water-conservation campaign can become harder to sustain when communities approve new high-volume users. A broadband award can lose credibility if residents still cannot order service at their address.
Increasingly, stakeholders are judging utility decisions not only on whether they are technically justified or regulatorily compliant, but on whether the distribution of benefits, costs and consequences feels fair. That changes the role of communications and stakeholder engagement. These functions are becoming part of infrastructure delivery itself because questions of affordability, process, local influence and institutional responsibility can affect whether a project moves forward smoothly.
Request a stakeholder risk briefing tailored to your operating environment and priorities.
The index ranks stakeholder exposure, not technical-failure probability. Higher-ranked issues affect more stakeholders, show stronger political or regulatory acceleration and have greater potential to delay projects or damage trust.
Electric and gas utilities requested $18.6 billion in rate increases during the first half of 2026 while roughly one in six households was reportedly behind on energy bills. Similar affordability pressure appears in water and broadband. The stakeholder risk is that technical cost-recovery decisions become judgments about utility management, profitability and fairness. 1234
Data centers and other large loads are forcing regulators to decide how infrastructure risk should be shared among developers, utilities, shareholders and existing customers. The evidence supports escalating disputes over forecast credibility and cost allocation, not a blanket claim that every large load currently raises residential rates. 2122235
Local opposition is increasingly developing through zoning, planning commissions and community coalitions before conventional utility proceedings begin. The issue is not simply whether infrastructure is needed, but whether affected communities believe they had meaningful visibility and influence before major decisions hardened. 101112
NERC reported a stronger summer 2026 outlook, but longer-term analysis still points to rapid peak-demand growth and resource-adequacy challenges. The stakeholder risk is increasingly about planning credibility: how utilities explain uncertain forecasts, connection pressure and the slower pace of generation and transmission delivery. 62526
Widespread drought and Colorado River reductions are placing water systems between existing customers, agriculture, tribes, developers and large industrial users. The communications challenge is highest where conservation appeals coexist with continued approval of new high-volume demand. 152728
Cyber incidents increasingly create questions about service safety, preparedness and transparency rather than remaining technical events. Water is particularly sensitive because customers may interpret any operational disruption as a drinking-water safety problem. 82930
Wildfire-exposed utilities are expected to prevent ignitions, limit shutoffs, protect vulnerable customers, compensate victims and keep mitigation costs manageable. Those objectives do not always align, creating persistent stakeholder pressure around the balance among safety, continuity and affordability. 731
Water utilities are asking customers to fund aging, buried infrastructure at the same time federal financing faces uncertainty. Preventive investment is difficult to communicate because the avoided failure is invisible, making neighborhood-level service outcomes increasingly important to the capital narrative. 332
BEAD is moving from maps and awards into construction while rules, technology choices and location data continue to change. Communities will judge success less by statewide award totals and more by whether service reaches their address, performs as expected and remains affordable. 191320
Federal, state and local priorities are diverging across reliability, climate, affordability, broadband and infrastructure policy. Utilities and providers can become the visible face of externally imposed decisions unless authority, responsibility and cost recovery are clearly delineated. 17181920
These recurring tensions help explain why otherwise defensible infrastructure decisions can become difficult to communicate, politically volatile or slow to execute.
All three sectors require sustained investment, but stakeholders are increasingly challenging the assumption that costs should simply be socialized across the broader customer base. The core question is becoming who benefits from an investment, how certain the underlying demand is and why the proposed allocation of cost is fair.
Customers expect electricity, safe water and connectivity to remain available through increasingly difficult operating conditions. Resilience, redundancy and hardening cost money, often before customers see a tangible benefit. Utilities can therefore be criticized for spending too much before an event and too little after one.
Federal and state policy increasingly favors faster infrastructure delivery while local communities want more disclosure, time and influence. Data centers, transmission, broadband construction and water-supply projects all show that faster formal approval does not necessarily produce faster delivery if stakeholder acceptance has not kept pace.
New industrial development can create jobs, tax revenue and utility demand, but existing customers want assurance that growth will not shift infrastructure costs, reduce reliability or consume constrained resources without clear protections.
Utility projects increasingly sit inside fragmented decision systems involving federal agencies, state regulators, municipalities, tribal governments, regional operators, developers and utilities. When authority is unclear, organizations can be held accountable for decisions or timelines they did not fully control.
The flagship establishes the cross-sector story. Each sector report goes deeper into the specific risks, stakeholders and signals most relevant to that operating environment.
How rapid system expansion, reliability obligations, wildfire exposure and long-lived infrastructure decisions are reshaping stakeholder pressure.
How infrastructure financing, scarcity, public-health obligations and emerging industrial demand are changing local stakeholder expectations.
How federal deployment promises, network modernization and service continuity are being judged at the address and community level.
For planning purposes, communications and public affairs teams should track not only the issue itself but the expectations and leverage of the groups most likely to shape the outcome.
| Stakeholder | Primary questions |
|---|---|
| Customers and ratepayers | What will this cost me? Is service reliable? Am I paying for someone else's growth? |
| Regulators and commissions | Are forecasts credible? Is cost allocation defensible? Were alternatives considered? |
| State policymakers | How will this affect bills, reliability, economic development and constituent pressure? |
| Local governments | What are the land-use, infrastructure, tax-base and community impacts? |
| Tribal governments and communities | Was consultation meaningful? Are rights, land, water and cultural resources protected? |
| Community and consumer advocates | Is the process transparent? Are affordability, health and environmental impacts being addressed? |
| Large commercial and industrial users | Can capacity be delivered quickly and predictably? What commitments are required? |
| Property owners and host communities | What local burden will the project create and what influence or benefit does the host community receive? |
| Emergency and critical-service partners | How will continuity, notification and restoration work during an event? |
| Workforce, labor and contractors | Can staffing, equipment and contractor capacity support the promised schedule? |
These are not predictions. They are developments that would indicate stakeholder pressure is moving from emerging concern toward a more durable policy, regulatory or reputational issue.
Would formalize beneficiary-pays expectations across more jurisdictions.
Escalation: Multiple additional PUCs require separate classes, minimum bills, collateral or exit fees.
Could disrupt utility planning assumptions before capacity is built.
Escalation: Statewide siting rules, coordinated county ordinances or additional moratoriums.
Would make large-load uncertainty a formal regulatory test.
Escalation: Independent audits or project-by-project probability weighting.
Would pull utility governance directly into electoral politics.
Escalation: Utility bills dominate additional statewide races or ballot initiatives.
Would turn scarcity into a visible development constraint.
Escalation: Moratoriums, industrial curtailment or litigation over priorities.
Would move cybersecurity from voluntary guidance toward compliance exposure.
Escalation: New baseline requirements or state reporting mandates.
Could turn infrastructure coordination into a national BEAD credibility issue.
Escalation: Rapid growth in accelerated FCC complaints.
Could trigger state AG action and local opposition to modernization.
Escalation: High-profile failure involving alarms, elevators, medical devices or rural service.
Many of these issues cannot be solved by communications. Communications becomes consequential when organizations have to explain trade-offs, understand where expectations are diverging and act before disagreement hardens into opposition.
Technical necessity is no longer enough on its own. Major investments increasingly need a clear explanation of who benefits, who pays, what alternatives were considered and what protections exist if assumptions change.
Siting, route, contract and cost-allocation decisions can determine whether later engagement is perceived as meaningful or merely explanatory.
Forecasts, compliance timelines, restoration estimates and project schedules all contain uncertainty. Hiding that uncertainty can create a larger credibility problem when conditions change.
Organizations need a shared understanding of who approves, pays, operates, communicates and responds across multi-party projects before an issue becomes public.
Stakeholders do not need to agree with every utility decision, but they increasingly expect the process, cost allocation and distribution of impacts to be defensible.
The index applies the same stakeholder-risk framework across sectors, with additional weight given to recent developments and issues likely to remain consequential over the next 6–12 months.
The Fall 2026 Index assesses stakeholder pressure across U.S. electric and gas utilities, water and wastewater systems and telecommunications and broadband providers. Research covers developments from Sept. 1, 2025 through Sept. 2, 2026.
Risks were assessed on: breadth of stakeholder exposure; regulatory and political intensity; public visibility and narrative volatility; potential operational or project-delivery consequence; geographic spread; evidence that pressure is accelerating; and likely persistence.
Increasing indicates strengthening political, regulatory, customer or community pressure. Stable indicates persistent structural exposure without clear recent acceleration. Declining indicates immediate pressure appears to be easing even if the underlying issue remains.
Confidence reflects the strength and breadth of evidence. Private organizations are generally not named when an adverse incident is used only to illustrate a broader stakeholder pattern.
The analysis distinguishes emerging stakeholder disputes from established causal claims. The evidence supports increasing concern over large-load cost allocation and forecast uncertainty, but not a blanket conclusion that every data center raises residential rates.
Stronger near-term electric reliability conditions do not eliminate longer-term planning pressure, and changes to PFAS implementation timelines do not mean water-safety concerns have disappeared.
The most resilient organizations will not be those that avoid disagreement. They will be the ones that identify where disagreement is likely to become consequential early enough to make better decisions, clarify responsibility and engage stakeholders before positions harden.
Go beyond the cross-sector outlook with a focused discussion of the stakeholder pressures, emerging issues and communications implications most relevant to your organization.
Request a BriefingGo beyond the sector-level outlook with a focused discussion of the stakeholder pressures, emerging issues and communications implications most relevant to your organization.