In Part 1 of the series, we suggested that achieving energy transition objectives requires outcome-level accountability through an orchestrator of the energy infrastructure ecosystem.

In Part 2, we explored what an orchestrator actually does: sequencing activity, aligning incentives, shaping market signals, and unlocking stalled capital.

But even with strong coordination and strategic action, certain problems persist. They reappear across projects. They survive personnel changes. They outlast reform programs.

These are not process problems. They are ecosystem problems.

Process problems vs ecosystem problems

A process problem sits within a mandate. It can be resolved by improving capability, resourcing or workflow inside an agency or project team.

An ecosystem problem sits between mandates. It arises from the interaction of incentives, sequencing and institutional boundaries. No single actor owns it, yet many are affected by it.

Connection delays that repeat across regions. Policy settings that unintentionally undermine delivery. Approvals pathways that assume linear sequencing in a system that now operates in parallel. These may be process or ecosystem problems or a mix of both. Regardless, they are systemic blockers and the orchestrator’s job is to surface and resolve them.

Ecosystem intelligence and insight

Orchestration resembles a portfolio management office, with an important distinction.

The portfolio is not a list of projects within one department. It is the collective activity across the ecosystem that affects the achievement of the objectives the orchestrator is accountable for supporting.

An orchestrator tracks both project-level progress and system-level performance. It draws intelligence from coordinators, facilitators, delivery agencies, regulators, community engagement teams, and policy units. It listens for recurring friction.

Where are projects slowing? Where are trade-offs emerging? Where is social licence tightening? What policy settings are coming that may unblock progress, or create new bottlenecks?

The focus is not reporting for its own sake. It is identifying patterns across the ecosystem that indicate a structural constraint.

Identifying and understanding systemic blockers

Managing systemic blockers requires a disciplined process.

First, systemic blockers must be identified. This means distinguishing between an isolated issue and a recurring pattern.

Second, they must be understood. What is the root cause? Is it a mandate misalignment? An incentive conflict? A sequencing assumption embedded in policy or regulation?

A policy setting may sit legitimately within one agency’s remit, yet have cascading effects across the ecosystem. It may persist for sound historical reasons. But if it is now constraining the achievement of objectives, it becomes a systemic issue.

Understanding this requires a change in perspective. The question is no longer “is this policy working as intended?” but “is this setting enabling the ecosystem to achieve the objectives?”

Analysing and pulling the levers

Once a systemic blocker is understood the orchestrator analyses the available levers.

Some levers are overt: legislative amendment, program redesign, and regulatory refinement.

Others are subtler. Clarifying sequencing expectations. Adjusting incentives. Improving visibility across the pipeline. Convening actors to negotiate shared solutions.

Not every lever will be easy to pull. Some require time. Some require negotiation. Sometimes more than one lever must be attempted before an acceptable solution emerges.

The orchestrator does not need to control every lever. But it is accountable for ensuring the right levers are pulled. That accountability is visible. It sits at system level. It requires persistence.

A maturity shift for structures that govern the ecosystem

Most governance models were designed for discrete projects and defined mandates. The energy transition operates as an interdependent ecosystem.

As ecosystems mature, governance models must mature with them.

Some jurisdictions already exhibit elements of orchestration. Others will need to evolve further. The shift is not about fault. It is about recognising that achieving system-level objectives requires a function explicitly accountable for resolving cross-boundary constraints.

In the next article, we turn to the project level. Interface breakdowns between developers, networks, regulators, local governments and communities are often treated as tactical issues. In reality, they are levers that can materially influence system performance.

Where are you in your ecosystem maturity journey?

Ask yourself:

• Can your system identify persistent blockers that affect multiple projects or actors?
• Can you understand why these blockers exist (mandates, incentives, sequencing)?
• Do you have authority or levers to intervene to remove blockers effectively?

About the authors

Michael Panich is an Associate Director at Rennie, based in Sydney.

Tim Brunner is an Executive Director at Rennie, based in Perth.