Three takeaways from EIC’s Bankable Energies Conference 2026

Three takeaways from EIC’s Bankable Energies Conference 2026: why projects still stall before FID

By Mahmoud Habboush, EIC Communications Advisor

Too many energy projects are still failing to clear the bankability hurdle. This was the overarching message from EIC’s Bankable Energies Conference 2026 in London, where speakers agreed that capital is available, but too many projects are still getting stuck between concept, development and final investment decision.

The discussions, supported by findings from the new EIC Bankable Energies Report, made clear that the problem is no longer a lack of ambition or pipeline. It is whether projects can give lenders, investors and counterparties enough confidence on revenues, risk and delivery to move forward.

The conference brought together developers, lenders, policymakers, advisers and supply chain leaders involved in financing and delivering energy projects.

Here are three takeaways from the event.

1. FEED is not delivery

The first point was that a long project pipeline does not mean enough projects are reaching construction.

Conference speakers pointed to improving FID activity in hydrogen, carbon capture and clean fuels in the UK and Europe over the past year. But they also made clear that progress remains too slow to meet the targets governments and industry have set.

That gap is reflected in the EIC Bankable Energies Report. Some 44% of industry respondents said bankability had slowed in 2025, while 18% said it had remained stagnant. Only 38% reported improvement.

In other words, too many projects are still sitting in development for too long. The industry has ideas, studies and early-stage activity, but not enough projects are making the move from engineering and feasibility into real capital deployment.

2. Risk has to sit with the right party

Banks are willing to lend, but speakers were clear that debt providers should not be expected to carry development risk, sponsor risk or first-of-a-kind technology risk. When those risks sit in the wrong place, projects become harder to finance and more likely to stall.

That is why bankability depends on more than debt capacity alone. It depends on whether projects have credible offtake, realistic capital and operating cost assumptions, clear contractual structures, and lenders and insurers involved early enough to test the model properly.

Speakers also stressed the commercial impact of delays. When projects slip, financing costs rise, contracts come under pressure and the economics can quickly deteriorate. In some cases, delay risk can be as damaging as technical risk.

What the conference concluded is that bankability is something built much earlier the project, through realistic assumptions, disciplined structuring and clear allocation of risk across the value chain.

3. Government is most important when it reduces uncertainty

Speakers agreed that many energy transition projects still depend on public policy support, whether through direct funding, revenue support mechanisms or risk-sharing in more complex multi-party structures such as carbon capture.

The Contract for Difference remains one of the clearest examples of a mechanism that has helped build confidence. But the discussion also exposed the limits of policy support when visibility is weak. Developers and lenders still face uncertainty over future auction rounds, timelines and long-term policy direction. Permitting delays, grid constraints and infrastructure gaps continue to slow otherwise viable projects.

In areas such as sustainable aviation fuel, conference discussions also pointed to the importance of revenue certainty mechanisms in helping compensate for limited commercial track record. In effect, government support can help bridge the gap between technical promise and financeable proposition.

The lesson was not that government should carry every project on its own, but that policy works best when it is durable, visible and matched by practical delivery conditions.

Conclusion

The conference made one point especially clear. The real test is not whether a project can look bankable on paper. It is whether it can stay credible long enough to move from design to construction.

That requires durable policy, bankable revenues, credible counterparties, realistic risk allocation and confidence that permitting, grid access and supply chain capacity will be there when needed.

Without that alignment, the industry will keep producing projects faster than it can finance them.