Skip to main content
Marsh logo

Article

Competing in a new risk regime

CERAWeek 2026 reinforced a clear shift in how leaders are thinking about risk, growth, and the future of the energy system.

08/04/2026 · 6 minute read

CERAWeek 2026 reinforced a clear shift in how leaders are thinking about risk, growth, and the future of the energy system.

Across our Risk & Resilience Forum with S&P, public sessions, and discussions with clients and partners, a consistent message emerged: the industry is no longer navigating cycles of disruption… It is operating in a structurally different environment where volatility, constraint, and interdependence are constant. 

But what truly stood out this week is how strongly Oliver Wyman and Marsh’s perspectives on risk resonated across leaders from energy, technology, capital, and government to compete through risk, not around it.

1. Structural risk is now the baseline

In the Risk & Resilience Forum co-created with Marsh Risk’s Amy Barnes and Oliver Wyman’s Bob Orr, there was broad agreement that risk has fundamentally changed in nature. 

The discussion moved quickly beyond cyclical or episodic shocks. Leaders pointed to structural drivers such as geopolitics, regulatory complexity, and deeply interconnected supply chains. Even where there was debate about frequency, there was alignment that the severity and complexity of events are increasing. This aligns with data from Marsh’s Sentrisk platform, showing that 94% of organisations have at least one supplier in a conflict zone and 65% face single points of failure upstream.

What is changing alongside this is behaviour. Risk management is no longer treated as a periodic exercise. It is increasingly embedded in core decision-making, from capital allocation to operational strategy. As highlighted in the forum, resilience requires organisational capacity and sustained investment, not just frameworks.

2. Resilience is becoming a source of advantage

A clear shift across sessions was the move from growth as the primary narrative to resilience as the condition that enables it. 

This came through in leadership discussions featuring figures such as Chris Wright, Mike Wirth, Patrick Pouyanné, and John Ketchum. There is increasing alignment that resilience is not reactive but is designed and built into the system.

At the same time, resilience is creating strategic flexibility. Organisations with stronger balance sheets, diversified supply chains, and more mature risk processes are able to take on risk in ways others cannot.

This was reflected in smaller group discussions as well, where leaders emphasized that the constraint is often internal execution capacity rather than demand. The need to “find another gear” is becoming a common theme as companies look to accelerate delivery.

3. Demand is accelerating faster than the system can respond

Another theme that dominated: demand growth. 

Electricity demand – driven by AI, digital infrastructure, and broader industrial activity – is increasing at a pace the system has not seen in decades. Over the past decade, global demand grew at roughly 1.3% annually, but in the last two years, that rate has nearly doubled, with global electricity consumption expected to rise 3.6% annually through 2030. 

The system is not built for this level of acceleration. Infrastructure timelines remain long, supply chains are constrained, and large-scale projects require sustained coordination across stakeholders. 

In several discussions, leaders noted the shift from delayed supply to constrained availability. This is already having real implications for downstream industries and reinforcing the importance of resilience across the full value chain. 

4. New players are reshaping how the system works

Mike Kolodner’s session, Intelligence per Watt: AI Meets Sustainability, highlighted how the energy ecosystem is expanding. 

Technology companies are no longer just consumers of power; They are influencing how energy is valued, contracted, and integrated into business models. Electricity is increasingly treated as a strategic asset. 

This shift introduces new dynamics. Bringing new participants into a highly technical and capital-intensive system creates challenges around alignment, timelines, and risk tolerance. 

It is also reshaping risk allocation. Differences in risk appetite between traditional energy players and new entrants are influencing how projects are structured, financed, and executed. 

5. The system is integrating across sectors and stakeholders

One of the most notable developments this year was the continued integration across sectors. 

Energy, technology, capital, and public stakeholders are operating in a more interconnected way. This was evident in both formal sessions and cross-sector discussions, where leaders from oil and gas, utilities, and technology are increasingly aligned around shared challenges.

Partnerships are forming across the value chain, linking resource supply, power generation, and digital infrastructure. Public power entities are playing a more active role, and investment is flowing across traditional boundaries, including into areas such as nuclear. 

At the same time, geopolitical context continues to shape priorities. Discussions reinforced the linkage between energy security, supply chain security, and national security, with leaders viewing these as part of a single, interconnected challenge. 

6. The path forward is pragmatic and increasingly flexible

There was broad alignment on direction, but far less certainty on how the system evolves from here. 

This uncertainty is also showing up in the conditions required to deploy capital at scale. In discussions on biofuels and low-carbon fuels, for example, leaders highlighted the challenge of attracting investment amid policy complexity and variability, along with the difficulty of underwriting long-term projects without clearer, more stable signals. 

Across sessions and discussions, the focus has shifted toward execution under uncertainty. Demand continues to grow, timelines remain compressed, and infrastructure constraints persist. In that environment, companies are making decisions without the benefit of clear, stable signals. 

What is emerging instead is a more pragmatic approach. Rather than anchoring to a single pathway, leaders are planning for a system where multiple energy sources, technologies, and timelines develop in parallel. 

This aligns with our Risk Regimes perspective. Volatility is not a temporary disruption. It is a structural feature that needs to be built into strategy, capital allocation, and operating models. 

In practice, this is driving a shift toward flexibility: 

  • Greater optionality in investment decisions  
  • More modular approaches to development  
  • Increased focus on supply chain resilience, particularly as trade dynamics and localisation reshape access to critical inputs
  • A recognition that different parts of the system will move at different speeds  

The result is less emphasis on debating the future state and more focus on how to operate effectively within a system that is evolving in real time. 

Competing through risk, not around it

CERAWeek 2026 made clear that the industry is operating in a structurally different system. The shift is not just in the level of risk, but in how it is created, transmitted, and managed across an increasingly interconnected environment. 

The organisations that will outperform will be those that build the capability to understand risk more deeply, manage it more effectively, and act on it with greater speed and confidence. 

In that context, resilience is not just about withstanding disruption. It is what enables companies to move faster, take on more complex challenges, and create advantage in a system where uncertainty is constant.

Our people

Amy Barnes

Energy & Power, Climate & Sustainability Strategy Head, Marsh Risk

  • United Kingdom

Mark Pellerin

Mark Pellerin

Global Head of Energy and Natural Resources, Oliver Wyman

  • United States