Category: All posts

Sunday Sales Series – Retail Energy Contracts

Sunday Sales Series – Retail Energy Contracts

Today’s sales topics are going to cover the commissions that retailer energy providers, rooftop solar installers, and community solar firms are willing to pay to acquire residential and commercial customers:

I co-wrote this post with Jonathan Crowder. And before getting to the numbers, w need to define a few key terms:

Originators: In the energy space the main forms of customer acquisition remain offline brokers. These brokers operate through door-to-door sales, outbound phone sales, and other traditional sales techniques. Online origination through state sites, comparison sites, energy websites and connected home /clean energy brands are the fastest growing form of customer acquisition

Upfront: the amount that an energy firm is willing to pay upon confirmation of a customer’s enrollment. The energy firm usually pays this spiff upon receiving the customer’s payment information – or upon the the payment of the first month’s energy bill.

Residual: the % of the supply portion of the energy bill that an energy firm is willing to pay the originator for as long as the customer stays with the energy firm. This payment option is more specific to retail energy and is meant to incentivize the originator to not keep flipping the customer to another provider every time the customer contract comes up for renewal. These payments are done monthly, in arrears, and are usually tied to the size of the customer’s energy bill.

A “mil”: In the energy compensation narrative, a mil refers to Is 1/1,000th of a US dollar, or 1/10th of a cent. This is important to know because the “mils” are how energy providers create business alignment with originators. The mil is used to calculate how much an originator earns in monthly commissions. For example, if a small business uses 10,0000 kWh of energy per month, and the originator agreed to a “5 mils” contract, then the originator gets paid a monthly amount of (10,000 kWh * $0.005 dollars per kWh)= $50 per month of commission.

Contract Term: Like a cable bill or your phone plan, many energy contracts can range from prepaid monthly plans to 3, 6, 12 or 24+ month contracts. Some community solar contracts are 5 years, or more! And a rooftop solar contract is ultimately tied to the house (vs the homeowner) and can be 20+ years long. Like with other home services products, terminating a contract early likely results in a pre-payment penalty.

Renewal: At the end of a contract, customer’s can either roll over into a new plan with their existing energy supplier or search for a new firm.

Rate: The amount, usually charged per kWh (just like your utility bill), that you pay for energy. It is important to note that there are different prices, depending on the portion of the energy bill you are covering. Some firms (retail energy providers, community solar) may just be substituting out the supply portion of your energy bill. Other offerings, like rooftop solar, may include both supply and broader distribution charges as part of their rate.

SALES CONTRACTS

Since we are talking about a commodity here any additional margin paid to a broker is very simply added to the underlying rate. If a retailer is pricing energy at 10 cents and you want to make a penny of margin as an originator, they will simply allow you to Mark the rate as 11 cents in your reseller agreement. The problem with this structure is that the least informed customers can pay very non-standard rates if they are sold hard by a broker. I have heard horror stories where offline brokers charges a 50% premium to the underlying commodity.

Thankfully, digitall experiences are bringing better experiences. And there is greater consistency to what online brokers are able to charge, and therefore able to pass along to the consumer. Here they are:

Residential consumer, Texas: $125 upfront 2-3 mils. The average texas home consumes around 15,000 kWh so the retailer is willing to pay up to $175 for the first year of contract and about $50-75 per year thereafter.

Residential consumer, non-Texas: $75 upfront and 2-3 mils. The average US home outside of Texas consumes about 10,000 kWh so these accounts are smaller and usually less profitable. This results in about a $100 first year payment and $30-40 annual value thereafter.

One of the most ludicrous part of this energy experience is the equivalent “rake”. At best, a customer can expect to save around $50-75 a year by choosing a retail supplier that isn’t their own utility. And the retailers pay nearly double that to acquire a customer. The cost to educate and acquire a customer is at least 2x the savings – so the system is mostly broken.

Commercial consumer: standards are variable but usually ranges from 3 to 10 mils depending on the size of the account. At Choose we had a lot of small accounts (restaurants) who were around 30,000 kWh per year so they would pay us about $150 per year at 5 mils. Once we had a huge warehouse in the Port of NJ sign up through our site at 10 million kWh+ annually and we made tens of thousands of dollars each year on one meter. This range shows how variable the commercial market can be in the supply arena. It is these big accounts where offline brokers focus and try to add large broker fees to make mega-commissions and a lot of the “fat” still lives in the system.

Bill Gurley famously covered the different “rakes” of online platforms. Online sites commissions range from ~3-30%. In retail energy, if the average rate is 10 cents supply, then the originators are taking about a 5% take- pretty low. However, if you take into account that this is a commodity with lower margins, at these commissions the originators capture as much as 50% of the profit. And that is the real apples-apples comparison here.

Next week we will cover “green retail plans”, community solar and rooftop solar origination figures. I will also cover how retail suppliers coordinate to monetize on the broader connected home opportunity.

Fire 🔥 and Technology’s Response

Fire 🔥 and Technology’s Response

Unless you have been under a rock for a few months, you know that yet another California fire season started months early. The volume and ferocity of these fires seems to grow every year. And recent data that less than 20,000 forest firefighters are working in the state shows that we do not have enough manpower to address these infernos head-on. Rather, we need to use next-gen technology solutions to amplify our efforts in prevention, detection, and immediate response to these fires.

There are a number of companies trying to help solve this problem either through observation, prediction, and response and I wanted to highlight them here today:

Overstory: (Link) Combines AI and satellite data to support vegetation management at utilities. Vegetation encroaching upon poles & wires is a leading ignition cause.

Descartes Labs: (Link) Applies ML to data sources like satellite imagery for better forecasting, monitoring and historical analysis, enabling clients to collect data daily from public and commercial imagery providers and calibrate it for scientific analysis. This satellite imagery can help spot fires at their infancy.

Jupiter Intelligence: (Link) Uses AI and proprietary climate modeling techniques to deliver asset level predictions on peril impact: fire, wind, heat and water perils, from 1 hour ahead to 50 years. (Note: Energize is an investor here!) The company also received a Moore grant to build fire predictions for California public entities.

Zonehaven: (Link) Combines critical data and modeling capabilities to help first responders and communities understand, minimize and respond to an emergency. As fires become more commonplace around our towns and cities, we will need to have better response and evac plans.

Of course, a top long-term priority for addressing climate change is to continue to invest in new tech that is decarbonizing our power and mobility sectors. In the meantime, though, we must invest in adaptation technologies to live alongside changes in our environment.

Who else is leveraging new technology to address the fire problem?

** ADDING NAMES SHARED FROM TWITTER NETWORK **

Terrafuse.ai (Link) Actionable climate intelligence for a resilient earth

FirePerimiter.com (Link) Situational intelligence for public safety based on collaborative, real-time disaster visualization

GeoSite Inc: (Link) Geosite is a cloud-based geospatial data marketplace with integrated spatial data management and collaboration.

BuzzSolutions: (Link) Safeguarding the world’s energy infrastructure through: “Artificial Intelligence, Actionable Insights and Predictive Analytics for Power Line and Grid Inspections”

NearSpace Labs: (Link) Near Space Labs provides timely wide-scale imagery from the stratosphere at down-to-earth prices.

All Energy Transition Projections are Wrong

All Energy Transition Projections are Wrong

Energy analysts are bad at predicting system-wide changes. Every year the Department of Energy and other agencies vastly underestimate the new energy resources being energized across the country.

The same incorrect predictions are now also occurring around electric vehicles. The graphs below on EV adoption projections shows how key industry research groups are now also incorrectly predicting EV adoption. Each of these groups have to keep re-upping estimates every subsequent year.

The main entities that predict these levels include: OPEC, EIA, and BNEF. Of course, some of the oil & gas projections should be taken with a grain of salt as they are scared about this transition! Knowing that, as seen below, there is a big difference between the estimates of these groups!

Big, growing markets with a range of projected outcomes allow for contrarian operators and investors to create large businesses with great returns. Energize is energized about this opportunity.

Energy Transition M&A: Is a new wave coming?

Energy Transition M&A: Is a new wave coming?

(Note: this post was co-authored with Kevin Stevens, Partner at Intelis Capital)

Much like its industrial counterpart, energy technology is broad, but in a different way. Energy has the usual two categories, enterprise, and consumer, but also contains “hard” technologies like solar and battery storage. This bifurcation along two segments creates varying outcomes.

Since the energy transition is an emerging trend, data points for exits are limited. The companies that have exited are the success stories of “cleantech 1.0”. The average Series A date in our dataset is Q2 2008 which is the heart of this era and the majority of exits occurred before the end of 2017. 

Capital for energy technology largely dried up between 2009-2016, so it’s unsurprising that exits became less common as fewer companies were funded. Additionally, it’s likely the outcomes in our dataset are smaller than future outcomes as we haven’t seen many exits in today’s market which values technology even more favorably than just a few years ago. Link to analysis can be found here.

CONSUMER TECHNOLOGIES

Using the median data here’s the narrative for consumer technologies in energy (note: Tesla and Sunrun are outliers):

  1. A startup raises $9.6M on a ~$24M post-money valuation
  2. Over the next 6 years, the company raises an additional $165M in capital prior to exit
  3. At the time of exit, the startup has an approximate revenue/bookings of $108M for a cash efficiency of 65%.
  4. The company exits at $972M, meaning the average multiple is 6.4x Trailing Twelve Month revenue. And the exit price is a 2.9x multiple on total invested capital, a 57.9x return on the Series A, and a 1.2x return on the pre-exit round.

ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGIES

Using the median data here is the narrative for enterprise technologies selling to energy companies:

  1. A startup raises $5.4 on a ~$16M post-money valuation
  2. Over the next 5-6 years, the company raises an additional $40M in capital prior to exit
  3. At the time of exit, the startup has an approximate revenue/bookings of $157M 
  4. The company exits at $557M, meaning the average multiple is 4.1x Trailing Twelve Month revenue. And the exit price is a 10.5x multiple on total invested capital, a 21.6x return on the Series A, and a 1.5x return on the pre-exit round.

What are the comparative takeaways for each of these segments?

  1. The data points are limited, we only have 5 true exits in the consumer data set with two big outliers – Tesla and Sunrun – and only 8 documented exits in the enterprise segment. As with the industrial analysis, the larger narrative is how fell exits there are- and that the graveyard doesn’t necessarily speak the truth.
  2. In these companies, early-stage investors did extremely well. This makes sense since most of the Series A investors in this dataset financed product development in a category that was unproven. 
  3. Consumer businesses require more capital to grow but also reach larger markets. As a result, they earn higher multiples and exit prices than their enterprise counterparts. 
  4. At 16x trailing twelve-month revenue, software companies earn the highest multiple. hardware companies earn just over 5x. And a surprising narrative is that the “tweener” companies that merge hardware and software actually have the lowest multiple at 3x.
  5. There has been a lull in exits which makes intuitive sense. From 2007-2012, clean energy-related startups received $20B annually in new funding – that number plummeted to $3B from 2013-2017. Fewer companies funded = fewer companies to exit. 

Given the average time to exit post a Series A is 5-6 years this means that the renewed funding levels in 2018 and 2019 will likely start to produce headline exits in 2023. Grab your popcorn!

Matt Ridley’s Newest Book Covers… ENERGY Innovation!

Matt Ridley’s Newest Book Covers… ENERGY Innovation!

Matt Ridley is the author of a number of award-winning books. Notable hits include The Evolution of Everything and How Ideas Emerge. My personal favorite of his is The Rational Optimist. One of the many reasons I enjoy Matt’s writing is his ability to deconstruct complex outcomes to their foundational drivers.

I am working on a longer-form paper that details some of the emergent behaviors of technology in the energy and industrial transition. In the research process I have engaged a number of complexity and platform leaders. One of those leaders, the esteemed VC Bill Gurley of Benchmark, pointed me to Matt Ridley’s latest book, How Innovation Works and referenced that there is actually a section on energy innovation. Well, one week later and I have covered the book and am happy to give it a ringing endorsement. Whether you are new to energy or an experienced pro, you will learn something new. And, classic to Matt Ridley, he frames energy innovation in a refreshing way.

My Favorite Themes, Quotes & Takeaway from the Energy Section

Theme 1: Failure is the father of Innovation

Innovation is itself a product, the manufacturing of which is a team effort requiring trial and error.

Edison called his work “the invention business”. “He remained relentlessly focused on finding out what the world needed and then inventing ways of meeting the needs…his method of invention was always trial and error. In developing the nickel-iron battery his employees undertook 50,000 experiments. (!!)

“Inventing is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration”

Theme 2: Innovation is Inevitable

I am fascinated by how technology inventions seem to converge at a specific point in time. And particularly how this convergence occurs after extreme technology advancement and trial/error reminds me a lot of Michael Waldrip’s Complexity. The technologies that enable a transformation are all advancing independently AND interacting with each other. Add in a number of entrepreneurs, acting as catalysts, and suddenly new structures emerge at the “edge of chaos” that result in a new, higher order of efficiency. This arrival to a ‘higher order’ occurred with the lightbulb, and looks a lot like what is happening today with the interacting forces driving a digitized and decentralized energy network.

“Simultaneous invention marks the progress of technology as if there is something ripe about the moment. It does not necessarily imply plagiarism. In this (steam engine) case, the combination of better metalworking, more interest in mining and a scientific fascination with vacuums has come together.. to make a steam engine almost inevitable.”

“The lightbulb emerged inexorably from the combined technologies of the day. It was bound to appear when it did, given the progress of other technologies.”

Theme 3: Innovation Turns Ideas into Practical, Reliable and Affordable Reality

There is a difference between invention and innovation. According to the book, innovation is how famous names like Thomas Edison rise to the top of the 21 inventors who lay claim to inventing the lightbulb. Edison was focused on innovating and specifically on reliability as he tested over 6,000 different filaments for duration and cost.

The ability to take a technology invention and gradually (through testing) get to a customer-available product is where innovators stand out.

Theme 4: Innovation in Energy is Evolution, not a Series of Revolutions

“Long after the key technologies had been invented, innovation continues.”

The first turbine was 2% efficient and today a combined cycle gas turbine is 60% efficient. This 100+ year journey was a collaborative effort with no 1-time transformations. Innovation came from small steps of experts, testing along the way.

The book then also explains why certain atomized production processes improve. And then goes into great detail on how other large scale projects, hampered by the rising costs for regulation, begin to dis-innovate. This is my favorite line:

“Nuclear is ill-suited to the most critical innovation practices: learning by doing. ” The best products leverage subject matter experts to tweak and innovate along the way. The experts find a way to test, iterate and improve. This testing happened successfully with shale gas exploration and fracking: west Texas wildcatters who had small companies were able to buy mineral rights from land owners and were more nimble to do small tests. In other, more regulated oil & gas countries, this innovation could not persist as the state/country owned the land rights.

What this Means TODAY

The installed bases of new energy technologies is gaining critical mass: wind, solar, batteries, EV charger. Wind and solar have gained efficiencies over the years: wind OEMs have made increasingly aerodynamic and larger blades alongside improved gearboxes and materials costs; solar is improving absorption rates and further accelerating efficiency through better inverters, trackers and 2-sided panels. In addition to the hardware, operators are getting better at O&M as they leverage remote communications network, drones, and predictive analytics. All of these continued innovations are consistent with the slow & steady march towards record-setting productions levels.

This installed renewable base coupled with advances in data products, connected devices, and software management, are apt to create a new wave of simultaneous digital advancements. These software solutions will not only accelerate the efficiency of these verticals but improve interoperability with the operating environment. As a result, we are likely to see innovative customer behaviors as these energy consumers adapt to the new product suite available. While fantastical now, these prospective new products and behaviors will seem like inevitable advances in the near-future. How fortunate are we to have the march of innovation?

Summary

In How Innovation Works, Matt covers other verticals Public Health, Transport, Food and Communications. Then he pivots to more horizontal themes such as the economics of innovation, and identifying fads and frauds. He ultimately wraps up with how to get around (the expected) resistance to innovation and which cases are worth fighting. Again, go buy the book – the perspective is clarifying and refreshing.

Hiro Mizuno & Investor Responsibility During the Energy Transition

Hiro Mizuno & Investor Responsibility During the Energy Transition

Last month, Hiro Mizuno was on the Capital Allocator’s podcast with Ted Seides. Ted runs and is the host of the Capital Allocators podcast, and I am a regular listener. I encourage you to add his podcast to your library.

Hiro Mizuno is the recently departed Executive Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer of GPIF, Japan’s $1.5 trillion Government Pension Investment Fund. During the conversation with Ted, Hiro spent time covering how to align ESG metrics to investment performance. Near the end of the conversation Hiro goes on a great monologue about investor responsibility and how active investors can take on the responsibility of addressing ESG metrics through governance influence- and he specifically covers carbon-generating industries..

“I refuse to actually compete for less carbon footprint of the global portfolio. We could do that by divesting a carbon-heavy industry. But given our universal ownership approach, it doesn’t make any difference. Maybe we divest coal, tobacco…. But from our universal ownership perspective, it sounds like we are passing ownership of those problematic businesses to the people that don’t care about it. We don’t want to divest the carbon footprint of our portfolio by divesting the carbon-heavy industry as that doesn’t reduce the carbon footprint of the world.”

I really appreciate how Hiro talks about the responsibility to address problematic businesses. He wants to own the problem so that he can improve the outcome. What a powerful statement.

At Energize, most of our digital investments address the renewable and/or digital side of the energy and industrial transition. However, as shown yesterday in our petrochemical review, our goal is to be a student of the entire energy ecosystem and understand how digital technologies can provide value across different energy types. The fact is that transition fuels like natural gas and their byproducts will be around for a long time and digital technologies that advance renewables (like drones, or cybersecurity) can also be leveraged into providing a more secure and environmentally friendly transition for these carbon-based fuels.

We embrace this responsibility, are tracking our ESG metrics, and seek to advance the entire transition. Here is to a responsible, digital, energy transition. And thank you, Ted & Hiro, for a great discussion.

The Energy Transition May Force Petrochemical Growth

The Energy Transition May Force Petrochemical Growth

The next most logical investment in the energy transition is to continue to develop balanced renewable energy sources. At this point, the Levelized Cost of Energy graph is commonplace and the final chapter of the LCOE story is well-written: Step 1- we will decarbonize most of power generation …and as a result… Step 2- most of the mobility market as electric vehicle motors overtake internal combustion engines.

However, focusing exclusively on continued investment in wind, solar and batteries is not taking into account that this energy transition is a multi-player, rules-changing game, with a specific player who can walk to a different table at any time. Why? Natural gas is still an economics-driven commodity, and a versatile one at that. 

Natural gas is a commodity that has both thermal value as a power generation resource and chemical value as a feedstock for higher value consumer products. As demand for natural gas decreases in power generation, supply remains high, and new use cases emerge. 

Consumer packaging, rubber tires, hand sanitizer, and millions of other CPG products all come from natural gas. And because natural gas is so abundant in the U.S., it is actually cheaper to make these petrochemicals domestically and ship them to Europe and Asia than it would be to produce them in those regions. 

The graph below shows there is $150BN of petrochemical capital expenditure investments underway in the U.S. right now and almost all of these assets are being built to EXPORT a natural gas byproduct. This new construction is in addition to the ~$750BN of existing petrochemical assets already in the ground here in the US. For perspective, the $150BN of investments is 10x greater than the size of the $14BN US wind energy 2019 investments!

These petrochemical investments will be a consumer of our energy resources for decades to come, and therefore deserve their place on our “attention shelf” when evaluating the Energy Transition. Mark Tomasovic of the Energize Ventures is helping us understand this petrochemical dynamic and identify how our financial and impact missions can positively address this market.

We are also looking to understand how better recycling technologies s can be created to improve upon the (meager) 7% of plastics that actually get recycled.

If you are an entrepreneur looking to positively address this market with digital technologies, please reach out.

and very timely, just today there was an article in the NY Times on the petrochemical and fossil fuels industry trying to make Kenya and Africa a distribution center and destination for US plastics. Here are a few quotes:

”The plastics proposal reflects an oil industry contemplating its inevitable decline as the world fights climate change. Profits are plunging amid the coronavirus pandemic, and the industry is fearful that climate change will force the world to retreat from burning fossil fuels. Producers are scrambling to find new uses for an oversupply of oil and gas. Wind and solar power are becoming increasingly affordable, and governments are weighing new policies to fight climate change by reducing the burning of fossil fuels.

”Pivoting to plastics, the industry has spent more than $200 billion on chemical and manufacturing plants in the United States over the past decade. But the United States already consumes as much as 16 times more plastic than many poor nations, and a backlash against single-use plastics has made it tougher to sell more at home.”

Sunday Sales Series: Contract 1, AI for Industrial Operations

Sunday Sales Series: Contract 1, AI for Industrial Operations

If you can’t tell, I have a keen interest in how software companies commercialize their products in the energy & industrial verticals.

I also feel that there is no central resource to track common contracts that serve the energy & industrial verticals. It is widely known what the costs are for traditional technology solutions: a CRM, an email management platform, a HR network. But what about the energy and industrial customers: AI model to optimize manufacturing production? Wind turbine or solar O&M contracts? Developer software like construction management or inventory management and logistics? We need to democratize access to many of these answers so that we can accelerate the energy and industrial technology transition

Every Sunday, I am going to be posting details on publicly known software contracts (specific or trends) that serve customers in the energy and industrial verticals. I will also aim to cover the reasons for the pricing structure, the value offered, and the likely sales cycle and channel. I will post this information in the (Natural) Resources section of the site. My aim is to showcase hundreds of contracts so that entrepreneurs looking to serve these customers (either initially or through expansion) have more data on how to best commercialize in this space, avoid common pitfalls, and understand value. Of course, the best outcome here is that more software contracts signed further

Contract 1: “Intelligence Industrial Operations” Software contract

The technology: Deep learning platform assigned to evaluate datasets from industrial processes and increase throughput and operational efficiency of the facility

Replacing / Enhancing: Replacing manual spreadsheets and the goal is to enable subject matter experts (SMEs) and institutionalize employee knowledge.

Target Customers: Smart factories that have complex production facilities

Business Model: Small implementation fee to train the SMEs; Upon implementation the product is priced on a “training cycles per month” revenue basis. This pricing structure aligns the software’s revenue to the complexity of the production site’s architecture. The more complex a production site, the more cycles the model will require to identify prospective recommendations.

Pricing: These contracts ultimately get value-based pricing, but the standard is around 1-2 cents per model run. And an industrial customer will likely run 5 to 10 million models on an industrial production site per year. This results in an ~$100k contract for a high value production facility.

Analysis: While the software vendors in this space have been lenient on pricing, one of the beauties of this model is that the pricing self-selects a customer. Firstly, a customer has to have a production facility that is digitized and ready to engage. Secondly, the SME needs to be aware of optimization potential AND the General Manager of the site needs to have a grasp on the potential value of the improvements. If a customer leans in, all three gateways have been passed. Usually, a great software contract can capture about 33% of the value it provides. Armed with this knowledge, a sales team should look to understand a site’s throughput and pick up any small hints about software-derived improvements to begin to ballpark the $/model. Of course, even if you are helping drive $10M in improvements, you are unlikely to capture the full upside…. competitors and general sticker shock will come up. A ballpark figure around $50-$250k per site is where I am seeing successful Industrial AI software contracts get done.

Power Down, Episode 0 – A Casual Approach to the Energy & Industrial Transition

Power Down, Episode 0 – A Casual Approach to the Energy & Industrial Transition

I recently recorded the first (hopefully of many!) episodes in a video series called “Power Down“. The idea was hatched between Kevin Stevens of Intelis Capital and me as we wanted to show a more casual approach to discussing the topics accelerating the energy transition and industrial technology movement. We intend to add a 3rd individual to many of the recordings, and if you would like to join, reach out!

Kevin and I go way back as we worked together at Choose Energy, the (then, maybe still?) largest US online energy marketplace backed by KPCB, and ultimately acquired by RedVentures. I will discuss more about Choose’s growth in the future.

On this first video, there is no incredible editor…. the lighting is poor, the sound quality is dubious at times, but I feel the content quality is pretty good.

Our topics in the energy and industrial transition will cover everything from technology, to business fundamentals, the financing markets, exits, general market trends, predictions, and lessons learned.

The video is below and the clip I highlighted starts when Kevin and I talk about what business model changes are needed to enable faster innovation. Here is a summary of these first few minutes:

“we need full alignment between consumption and the business model. It is really hard to create a transformational business when there is deflationary pricing at the top line… people need to start thinking about “what can we do with this excess power and we can start pricing electricity based on value and not some arcane rate…”

Kevin called this “Episode 0” because it really was something we did on a whim, and we would love feedback. What else do you want us to cover? Who else wants to join?

The Energy Transition has a Distribution Problem

The Energy Transition has a Distribution Problem

In the power landscape, one particular graph has been a key area of focus: the Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy chart. An Energize-equivalent summary of the chart is below:

As the chart highlights, renewable energy is now more cost effective than the ongoing operating costs of conventional generation. Wind and solar are the cheapest form of new energy generation. And batteries will be paired with these intermittent generation sources to further decelerate carbon-based generation.

Despite rooftop solar’s breakneck growth, big swaths of the US will continue to be served by a utility-scale generation source. And renewable energy’s greatest inputs (wind, solar) are generally most abundant outside of key metropolis areas – see the graph below and the wind speeds in the middle of the country!

Many power developers are placing big investments in utility scale transmission lines to move renewable power from the midwest to the eastern seaboard. Just like a startup needs an easy way to get its’ product into customer’s hands, our energy industry needs better mechanisms to deliver our renewable energy to the end-consumer. And unfortunately, digital investments in transmission are mostly nonexistent.

Great platforms, like Arcadia and Level10, are attaining incredible growth by delivering a renewable experience to renewable-inclined consumers and corporations. And firms like Amperon are making congestion and demand data more readily available. Ultimately, we are going to need structural changes to our transmission system. And we suspect that digital solutions will play a big role in that change, just as these digital solutions positively impacted the cost curves for solar & wind costs. If you are working on a digital technology that advances the transmission system, reach out.