Why can't utilities innovate?

0:06All right.

0:07Quinn Nakayama: Hello, greetings and salutations, everyone. This is Volts for August 21st, 2026. Why can't utilities innovate? I'm your host, David Roberts. U.S. electric utilities are caught between a rock and a hard place. On one side, electricity demand in the U.S. is rising for the first time since the 1970s, partially but not entirely due to data centers, and utilities are responding with record capital spending. However, on the other side, residential electricity rates have risen around 40 % since 2021. And as you might have noticed, if you've watched the news recently, the public is extremely pissed off about it.

0:59Quinn Nakayama: There is very little political patience for further rate increases. In short, utilities are being asked to build lots more, lots faster, while raising bills lots less. or even reducing them. There is simply no version of that math that works out at their current levels of productivity. The only solution is, in a word, innovation. Rapidly deploy new technologies, new methods of planning and interconnection, and new types of partnerships in order to provide more and better electricity service at lower cost. But that need has been visible on the horizon for well over a decade, and the record is not encouraging.

1:48Quinn Nakayama: American utilities spend about 0.2 % of their revenue on research and development, lower than any other major sector of the economy. In 1992, NARUC, the Utility Regulators Association, recommended that they get that up to 1%. That was 34 years ago, and they are still nowhere close. Why is an industry about to spend a quarter of a trillion dollars a year in a politically volatile environment so uninterested in figuring out how to spend more effectively? Is the technology not as ready as all the startups claim? Is the utility business model fundamentally broken? Are regulators too hidebound and risk-averse?

2:38Quinn Nakayama: Are the people and organizational processes inside utilities outdated and overly conservative? Or all of the above? Hash through these questions, I have with me today two longtime veterans of this space. Quinn Nakayama, a previous Volts guest, runs the innovation shop at California Utility PG &E. So he has seen this problem from the inside. With him is Hannah Green, who spent years at a grid software company trying and largely failing to sell utilities new tools and who now leads Energy Go-To-Market at Microsoft. I'm eager to hear their perspectives on this question, which has never been more urgent.

3:28Quinn Nakayama: All right, then. With no further ado, Quinn Nakayama, Hannah Green, welcome to Volts. Thank you so much for coming. Thanks for having us.

3:36Hanna Grene: Thanks for having us.

3:38Quinn Nakayama: Cool. So let's start here, Quinn. Let's start with you. So here on Volts, I cover all kinds of cool new technologies to help the grid, grid enhancing technologies, dynamic line ratings, advanced conductors, power flow controllers, grid forming inverters, VPPs, all sorts of AI control systems on and on, etc. down the line. Many of these technologies have been deployed for a long time and at some considerable scale in other places like in Europe. Why in the U.S. are they still a rounding error? Why are U.S. utilities not deploying them at scale? I'll just start with the simplest form of this question.

4:30Thanks for asking a really interesting question regarding what Europeans are doing versus the

4:35Quinn Nakayama: United States. And I would say, well, part of it is some of those systems that they operate, especially in the kind of the DER related space operates in a completely different regulatory market. It's not that these systems don't work. The applications are fairly basic in what their capabilities are. In the DER related world, the issue isn't necessarily the technology itself. it's more of how does each regulatory market perceive the value of distributed energy resources across its entire sector from the system view versus transmission view versus distribution view you have to actually get to something that works that actually reduces rates if you put together a dcr strategy that just compensates customers but you don't get the actual value from the utility side of the house, then rates just rise, you know?

5:28Quinn Nakayama: And we've seen that in various other type of DER-related programs like net energy metering and so on and so forth. You can't do that, right? So, you know, I don't think it's really necessarily a technology issue. For other type of technologies, such as like dynamic line rating, such as other type of GETS-related technologies, we are seeing a significant increase in adoption in the California utilities. What I would say is that, you know, we want... Can I cut in, just for listeners' benefit, that gets GETs, grid-enhancing technologies. I'm trying to explain all our acronyms as we go here. Oh, yeah, I'm tracking, yeah.

6:00Quinn Nakayama: Grid-enhancing technologies, like advanced conductors, new types of conductor-related technologies. You have dynamic line rating. You have advanced power flow controllers. The one that really comes to the top of the mind, where the Europeans use much more predominantly than maybe in the United States, is probably dynamic line rating. And I think the California utilities and the United States utilities in general, first off, didn't really have a major need. Five, seven years ago, data center things were interesting, but not really need. Most United States utilities across the board had flat in some areas, negative load growth.

6:38Quinn Nakayama: And so, you know, being able to pivot extraordinarily quickly into a technology is really difficult for utilities to do. In California, I think we're a little bit more ahead of the area. We already have ambient adjusted ratings. So dynamic line rating, from our perspective, just is a wind measurement tool and a much more granular temperature measurement tool. We feel like we've already been able to do some of the things that technologies such as dynamic line rating can do, which measures temperature and wind and other factors on a transmission line and enables you to push more energy through than maybe what the common ratings of those assets are.

7:23Quinn Nakayama: And so I would say that the need has really progressed very quickly for the utilities much faster than a lot of utilities are able to react to. And so, you know, seeing that type of adoption as fast as, you know, the industry might hope. So, yeah, yeah, I think this is a theme we're going to come back to is just that the speed of demand rising and the speed of new technologies developing is much faster than the speed of utilities operating, which is sort of kind of what we're getting at throughout here. Hannah, I want to talk about your current role, but before we get there, previously you were at a company called Pice trying to sell these grid controlling software to utilities.

8:07Quinn Nakayama: And of course, like they desperately need that stuff. And yet it was a frustrating thing many times. And I'm sort of curious about, I want to kind of start with a story of failure. Like when you tried to sell these things to utilities that would help them manage distribution grids better, why did it fail? What did they say when they didn't buy it? Why aren't they buying these things? What sort of things would you hear?

8:34Hanna Grene: Well, I'll give you a slightly different perspective. I don't know that a gigawatt of global projects is failure. Well, I mean, at the scale of the U.S.

8:44Quinn Nakayama: utilities sector, they're not doing it on anything like the scale I think we would want them to. Let's say like your company can succeed with this sector is not, I would say, succeeding on this.

8:53Hanna Grene: I think more broadly, if you open up and you look at digital grid controls, the retail sector globally has matured it much, much faster than, say, you know, traditional T &D utilities. And there's good reasons behind that, you know, as you integrate more and more hybrid power plants, just larger solar sites, more complex, you know, natural gas tied to batteries and connected to solar. We've needed on the generation side, both retail and integrated utility, we've needed more advanced controls faster than you have necessarily downstream in the distribution space. Some of that has just come from market maturity, market need.

9:31Hanna Grene: Some of the most productive places in the world that have advanced DERM systems and that have been early to market are places like California. I had the great privilege of partnering with Quinn, the PG &E team, and our partners at Schneider Electric to work on their DERM system because we have a lot of distributed energy resource management system. But places like California, places like Australia, we have more DERs. We've had more volatility and push to interconnect more devices within the distribution system. And so you've had a market need there. And so, you know, coming back to what Quinn said, I don't know that this is a technology problem.

10:08Hanna Grene: Some of it has been more, what is the problem we're solving in the market? And does the market really need or demand this level of technology? And I think anybody in grid controls, it's been slow going or bumpy at different times in the market. I mean, my goodness, if you're sitting where we're all sitting right now, the market is fast and chugging. And, you know, there's a lot of capabilities that, you know, I might have heard like, well, we don't need a Ferrari controller. I might have heard that 10 years ago in parts of North America because, you know, we're not California. We don't have solar on every rooftop, a Tesla in every driveway.

10:45Hanna Grene: But let me tell you, with data center demand, with reindustrialization, you know, even just with EV growth across middle America, I would sort of challenge the industry, like find me a grid that doesn't need more advanced real time controls than what we have today. Sometimes this all comes down to market maturity and market need. And we're in a moment of market need. We're trying to do hard things a lot faster than we've done them before.

11:08Quinn Nakayama: Yeah. And I think if we were to double down on that, right, Dave? For example, we haven't had to do a lot of changes to our applications or system softwares for the past like 100 years, right? Like the utility industry has been fairly stable. So, you know, think about what a utility industry is. It's a pipes and wires company. Yes, we transmit electricity and we do, you know, it depends on the type of regulated or non-regulated type of utility, unregulated utility you are. Predominantly, you are a infrastructure company. And so you put wires up in the air and you dig trenches and you put pipeline in the ground.

11:45Quinn Nakayama: And if you think about the type of skill sets that a utility really needs to excel at, it's project management and engineering, right? that's what you need. You need to be able to design these suckers from an engineering perspective and make sure that they operate reliably and effectively. And then you need to have the project management capability to construct these things. And, you know, utilities are very similar to like a road construction or any type of infrastructure construction related company. And now, you know, we are quickly needing to become a technology company. Those type of skill sets are completely different.

12:20Quinn Nakayama: How do you move from a project management and engineering over to having, for example, a chief technology officer or chief product officer and then hiring people who have product backgrounds? That's a complete mind shift and skill shift shift. Well, relatedly, what you often hear, what I often hear from people, especially people who are in the business of trying to sell cool new advanced technologies to utilities, is that they get trapped in pilot program hell, basically. like a remarkably high, like I was looking at the study, something like 70 % of the startups, they surveyed said, yeah, we were able to get a pilot from out of utilities, but very often that's just where things stay.

13:11Quinn Nakayama: So talk a little bit about the dynamics of pilot projects and who's running those and why aren't they, you know, you would think what you would want is for pilot programs to be a pipeline of things that then become programs, that then become integrated, but that very frequently doesn't happen. Tell us a little bit about the pilot dynamic. Yeah. And I'd love to hear from Hannah, who's seen a lot of other utilities around, but I can give you my own personal perspective is that there is no world where a technologist comes to us and says, hey, listen, here's a technology that works exactly in the ways that you need to do.

13:49Quinn Nakayama: It is 100 % baked. All you need to do is click the install button or put this onto your assets and boom, magically it resolves all of your related issues and makes you a cup of coffee, washes your car and takes your kids to school at the same time. That doesn't exist. And so, you know, throughout my entire experiences, what I found is that technologies typically are around 70 percent 60 percent 70 percent baked and what is required is the utility subject matter expertise and our data to be able to then work with these companies to modify their products or customize their products whatever you might want to call it to fit our needs and so this is where the product development skill set really comes into play dave where you're not just testing something and saying, oh, here's the reason why it doesn't work.

14:42Quinn Nakayama: Thank you very much. We'll talk to you in four years when you can get it done. A product development mindset would be, hey, listen, we're going to commit to you as a technology and we're going to expose all of our data and our subject matter expertise into your product technology and we're going to get it to 100%. That's a different mindset. But isn't that what the pilot program is supposed to do? I mean, And isn't that what a pilot is?

15:11Hanna Grene: Yeah, I want to challenge the mindset a little bit because I think where we're at today with technology broadly, but I work for an AI leading company, so I will lean a little bit more into what we're seeing with AI here. I think the trap you fall into when you talk about pilots or when you talk about even just sort of having a dedicated AI strategy is you fall into a trap that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of making it a bolt-on. Well, we'll try that thing over there. And, you know, I think we'll hear more from Quinn about some of this innovation muscle. And, you know, you do have to create safe spaces to fail in a utility and sandboxing and trying things before you scale them is important.

15:53Hanna Grene: But how do you create a process that brings it back into your core strategy as a company? And do you have technology and innovation as a core strategy in your company? that's a really important foundation to have because otherwise you could sort of treat these things like side projects and that's where you end up into trouble. And so there's three big things that I see in companies across not just utilities, but retail power providers. My team works directly with oil and gas companies as well that play in this space. And we get to co-innovate and sit with them and work on their strategy and help deliver AI outcomes with them.

16:32Hanna Grene: And so There are three big things that I've seen that really are the differentiator between a company that sort of treats technology like a bolt-on and those who make technology part of their culture and part of their core strategy and make innovation part of their culture and core strategy. The first is really obvious. They've invested in and have a strong digital spine. Do they have a mature data strategy? Do they have a strong IT and data information organization? Like, have you put down some good foundations to the house that you're going to build on it? So you do have to have that strong digital spine.

17:11Quinn Nakayama: How common is that in utilities, right? I think intuitively you'd like to think they would have that.

17:17Hanna Grene: More common than not, but everybody's foundation needs some work. So you are in this, we are right now as an industry in a big upgrade and refresh cycle for core systems. You know, I would sort of say, find me a utility that's not going through some sort of modernization, whether it's in their customer system, their supply chain system, their geospatial system, their grid. And that's healthy and that's normal. But modernizing those and building up that good spine is key. And it's part of being ready for this future and delivering affordably, I would say.

17:48Quinn Nakayama: Yeah, I would also say like, you know, the digital spine is one thing, but like your data quality on that digital spine is a whole nother ball of wax. So like utilities writ large may have that digital spine available, but either the data that they have in their systems doesn't exist because they never had to collect it before or it's poor. right so dave like one of the things that i think about is as a utility we never really had to care whether you were on what phase of our secondary and our primary system no utility had to really record that because you could get things to balance generally on the system and you were fine now with all the solar with all this ev with all of this two-way power flow that becomes really needed in order to operate your grid well and effectively and efficiently but you don't have any of that data recorded or it's poor.

18:40Quinn Nakayama: And so, you know, the digital spine is one thing. Well, one of the things people complain about precisely in this area is the smart meter thing, because this was sort of a wave of like supposed innovation. A few years ago, everybody was pushing smart meters. They got installed all over the place. But then like precisely to what Hannah's saying, that smart meter data never really got integrated, it seems like, or used particularly well or like integrated into operations particularly well. I mean, you can buy private products now that make use of that smart meter data to do really sophisticated things at the household microgrid level.

19:21Quinn Nakayama: And still utilities don't seem to be using that information. Like, isn't that information out there? Isn't the data out there from all those smart meters? I would say yes and no. I would say a lot of the smart meters that are out there are your, what I would consider your flip phone type of smart meters, right? And so you want to browse the internet on a flip phone. Good luck with that. I remember back in my day when I was doing this, I could play snake maybe if you were lucky, right? These AMI 1.0 meters basically read your meter. Some of them might read voltages. Some of them might send that back.

19:58Quinn Nakayama: It really just depends on where you're on that journey and to be able to go to an ami 2.0 which is exactly your smartphone built into a smart meter i think that you have those type of capabilities pg &e does for example we are rolling out ami 2.0 that really measures voltage at a second layer 32 kilohertz type of resolution and enables you to build apps onto that but name me how many utilities have wide-scale rollout of AMI 2.0, and I can count them on my hand. So, you know, you can't program and flip phone to run massive apps that enable you to do all the things that you want to do and you're talking about on your podcast until you get to that related infrastructure.

20:44Quinn Nakayama: I'm sorry, Hannah. I know I cut you off from...

20:46Hanna Grene: No, it's all good. I'm going to come back to this.

20:48Quinn Nakayama: Yeah, Hannah, we interrupted, but how much of that data layer that you're talking about here, you've got two more on your list, but that data layer that you're talking about, How much of that, in your experience, do they have that data to work with?

21:02Hanna Grene: I sort of laughed when you said the AMI work we did a few years ago. AMI 1.0 rollout was like 22 years ago now.

21:09Quinn Nakayama: It's all a blur. It's all a blur.

21:12Hanna Grene: To Quinn's point, it's time for the refresh and the new meters are totally, totally different capability and very, very exciting to actually deliver more useful data in our low voltage networks and support customers. So we as an industry have more data than nearly any other peer industry. I think healthcare might hit higher than us. We throw off so much data, this phenomenally engineered system that we all get to be a part of in the grid is the richest data resource. Our opportunity is to put it to work. And this is really the gift that AI is going to be able to give us in energy is there's not a utility out there that necessarily needs more data, but do we have that data in a clean and usable format?

22:00Hanna Grene: AI helps with that too. And then are we able to turn data into insights? If you go into any control room anywhere, you're drowning in alarms, you're drowning in data, but is that data usable? Is it insightful? Does it help you act? That's a different proposition. So I think that's really the opportunity in front of us. But yeah, do you have that digital spine? Is your data useful? Do you have a clear point of view on what you're migrating and modernizing? And have you integrated AI into that vision? That's the step one. The step two piece, to get through these quickly, the step two piece is people.

22:34Hanna Grene: The technology capabilities we have at our fingertips now are truly, truly incredible. And they can lift up and enable our industry to do more faster, more affordably, which is the moderately crazy mandate we've been handed, right? to go out. And in some cases, some companies are talking about tripling the size of their generation capabilities in a very short number of years. I don't waste a single second worrying about us losing jobs and energy. I spend a lot more time thinking about how do we empower people with this technology to do more in the really difficult and fun and fast moving jobs that they have right now.

23:10Hanna Grene: So what that looks like functionally is have you rolled out the tools to your people? Have you trained your people in AI capabilities? I'll pick on co-pilot because that's what I live and work with. Have you skilled people up and given them the time and the capability to learn and to get familiar with tools like AI? And then are you supporting it as a strategy? And some of that comes from tone at the top from the executive level. Some of it comes from managers and team leaders who create space and have the mandate and the culture around them to be able to bring their team together and say, well, actually, how would we completely reinvent our residential interconnect process now that we have these tools?

23:55Hanna Grene: So are you creating those spaces? And do you have that culture?

23:58Quinn Nakayama: Let me ask about this. There's sort of giving tools to the teams and organization as currently constituted. But how much of this, the internal to the org chart, you know what I mean? Like how much of this is how utilities are organized? Do they need to rethink the buckets or rethink the teams themselves? How much are they internally organized to innovate? I guess it would be the question.

24:26Hanna Grene: I'd love to hear from Quinn's perspective on this as well. But I will just say we at Microsoft, we already talk about org chart versus work chart. And there's a big difference between the people who report to me and the people that I and my team partner with on projects. And I think I sit at a big tech company. It's not a utility. But I think you're going to see that more and more and more and more. And already in some companies and energy, you already are. Do you bring the right people together across disciplines to sit in a room and solve a problem? One team, one problem, one focus versus sort of spend time in silos in order to integrate technology and use AI effectively in an organization.

25:04Hanna Grene: You have to be cross-functional. So I think we're going to see this shift. But Quinn, are you already seeing it today?

25:10Quinn Nakayama: Yeah, I would say structure is just a small piece of the overall issue for innovating quickly. You know, there's a couple of things that I think about. You need five things or at least four things predominantly to make innovation work. The fifth thing being given. The first one is strategy. So let me go through the five. You need to have strategy, structure, people, process and technology. If you don't have those five things lined up, things never going to work. The strategy is usually the top level strategy of the company or the utility that you're talking with. Do you have the right KPIs at the very top that you can then attack your innovation to and say, we're going to make a difference on the following KPIs and move it from this to this.

25:49Quinn Nakayama: And that is the key performance indicator. So like whether it's your reliability key performance indicator, whether it's your affordability key performance indicator, whatever it might be. you have maybe like a three to five year trajectory that's set at the very top of the company that says we're looking to target between now and 2030 the following trajectory of our top level metrics and that's our strategy so if you can attach your innovation to those top level metrics you'll have a more chance of succeeding because it's really really important to the company and if it's really important to the company people will pay attention and they'll invest the second portion is what you're talking about, Dave, which is your structure.

26:27Quinn Nakayama: Are you structured correctly to be able to take technology and roll it out quickly? There is a question regarding whether you go centralized versus decentralized and what's the best way to do that. And we can spend a whole podcast arguing about organizational structure on centralized, decentralized. You have skunk works. That's the epitome of the examples of a centralized R &D. And then you have companies that just leave it up to their functional areas and do what you want. Hannah touched upon the people side. I I touched upon that a little bit on like, what are the people that you have and how are they skilled to be able to adopt technology fast?

27:02Quinn Nakayama: Then you just have process. And there's actually a, there's a process for innovation and product development. Venture companies use it all the time. Startups use it all the time. But you know, a utility doesn't have an innovation process. You mean process just like iterating, assessing, et cetera, just a process for development. You have the ideate, incubate, accelerate, and scale. There's different words depending upon what consultant you talk to, right? They all brand it a little bit differently. But like, you know, you want to take all these ideas. You might have hundreds of them and whittle it down to 10.

27:37Quinn Nakayama: Your no rate should be at least 90 % or greater of every single idea that comes across your desk because you don't have the capacity to do all this related stuff. then you have the incubate process where you really want to get down to what is this going to achieve for my business do i have an operating model do i have a business plan do i have the go to market strategy these are all terms that a utility never really has to deal with but if you're a startup you're all about these three or four real big things and unless you have that you're never going to make it. The accelerate function is like, okay, I'm going to take by quarter.

28:19Quinn Nakayama: What am I trying to achieve? And if it doesn't hit those particular success metrics, we're going to fail it. And we're just going to move on to the next thing. Too many times you sink too much time and effort into a technology. And then you burn away all this like people and capital and it doesn't work and you should fail things fast. And you have very clear dictated ways to go through and accelerate and then scale. The scale portion is probably the hardest for utilities because every single functional area feels like they're 30 % to 50 % underfunded. And so you're going to be asking them to take an additional haircut to be able to scale a technology.

28:57Quinn Nakayama: Like if it doesn't have a payoff within year, those VPs and those directors that are owning those budgets are not going to give you more money to scale. But if you can demonstrate that these technologies through your accelerate phase does pay off within year of a financial year, they'd be much more willing to fund it within their already constrained budgets that they feel like they don't have. So, you know, you got to have the process, too. You can't just deal with this on structure alone.

29:26Hanna Grene: And I think kind of coming up a meta level, even on top of process, this is where I would land my number three on my like, you know, big three muscles that we see companies exercising to effectively integrate innovation in digital technology. The third one for me is, do you know how to build and use your ecosystem? And so your own internal process is part of that. This is a real skillset. And there are varying maturities of this across different companies in the industry. Do you know how to build and use your ecosystem? Do you know what you want to buy that is not worth your time to innovate? It is not worth your time to rethink.

30:01Hanna Grene: You just want to go buy it. Do you know what you want to build that is probably a pretty thin list, even though it is much, much, much easier to build new product and build new capability than ever before with AI. Writing code is no longer a problem. It's really easy to build stuff. But what do you want to be in charge of the care and feeding of long-term? And what do you want to own the enterprise scale behind? Enterprise scale is a very real skill set in development. And there's a big difference between vibe coding something and rolling it out to 45 ,000 people securely over time. And so what do you want to build?

30:39Hanna Grene: And then what do you want to buy and build with? And I think this is the fastest changing part of the industry. And Quinn touched on it earlier too. What do you want to look at the market and see and then build on top of? Some of that might be partnering with a company who has most of a solution, but I think even more, it's going to be working with, this is what my team does every day. So working with teams like mine to come in and build the capabilities that you need with AI to move you forward? And that doesn't mean you start from scratch. We have lots of blueprints. We have lots of capabilities.

31:13Hanna Grene: We work with a lot of partners. But do you have a core group of strategic partners who can innovate with you? They're not just, you know, hucking you a$10 ,000 contract, but they understand intimately your strategy and they're part of your success team. And that's a muscle.

31:30Quinn Nakayama: Let me surface what might be a slight disagreement maybe between the two of you or just flush it out a little bit. Because, Quinn, one of the things you're saying, you said in an email to me, and I think you mentioned before, that when technologies get delivered to the utilities, they're like 50 to 70 percent what the utility needs. And there's that extra work of integrating them into the actual utility operations and flows. you have said that utilities need to hire people to do that who are good at that engineers who are good at that final bit but basically like hannah's business model at this point i mean i don't know if she'd agree with this characterization but it kind of seems like microsoft is like fine we'll do it you know like if you won't develop that internal expertise just rent our engineers, they will come sit in your rooms and do that final 30 % of development for you.

32:27Quinn Nakayama: Is there a tension between how much in-house expertise utilities need to develop on this stuff and how much they can rent from a partner like Microsoft? And is there any risk in renting from a partner that you get lock in or if the vendor disappears or if something happens to the vendor, you're bereft. Is there a tension there? Both of you.

32:54Hanna Grene: Let me reframe a little bit first because I want to be clear on where I see the market need. You're going to have a big, robust ecosystem of partners. Every utility does. A subset of them are going to run your core systems. A subset of them are going to be, you know, big technology platform providers who might So you have some core systems, but you also use a lot of their development tools. I think we would sit in that space as Microsoft. And then there's a subset of them that you're going to do innovation and create the future together work. And those aren't mutually exclusive. You could have the same logos in the same buckets, but you're going to have different flavors of relationships.

33:30Hanna Grene: I don't think any part of that ecosystem reduces the need for you to have a great set of in-house technology and innovation talent. So I don't see them as duplicative. When my team gets to do what we get to do best, which is come in and develop with and accelerate with and partner with the utility, we are partnering with the phenomenal group of technology and innovation leaders on the other side of the fence.

33:52Quinn Nakayama: Yeah.

33:52Hanna Grene: And so it's definitely not a replacement of, it's high five and let's go faster together.

33:57Quinn Nakayama: Yeah, I don't think Hannah and I are saying things that are actually conflicting with each other. Like when I talk about product development, I'm not saying that we are going to be doing all the build on our side. right? We don't have that type of capability. And I don't think we are looking to do a significant amount of that related work. But we do have a lot of subject matter expertise when it comes to our engineering and how we do planning and how do we do construction and all that other type of stuff. We also have all of our data. So it's about like working with a vendor partner to utilize all that subject matter expertise and data to be able to product develop their product.

34:35Quinn Nakayama: So it gets it to 100%. And I think Hannah and I are saying the same things here. Here's what I would tell you, though, is that this whole build by partner thing, you just have to be careful in the fact that I can hear my CIO and CIOs across the entire country out there saying, if you start to have a thousand applications that you're working with on all these related startups, you have data flying everywhere. You have all these APIs that you need to maintain. And the cost structure just becomes insurmountable. And so we have to weigh, do I want to work with a startup or even a small technology company versus do I want to build this with the partners that I already have, the big partners like Schneider, SAP, Oracle, you know, and build it through there?

35:26Quinn Nakayama: Or is there like a matchmaking opportunity where these big companies can then do the B2B, right? The business to business transaction between them and a small startup so that I don't have to take all the integration risk and they can create it like a module. Again, that might even be a strategy for a lot of these startups. So some of this is us playing like a matchmaker related and Microsoft does this really well of trying to say, hey, listen, you know, these big utilities, they use these massive systems that they've invested a ton of money for instead of trying to go to them directly, maybe it might make sense if you try to work with them through GE Vinova or work with them through Schneider or work with them through SAP or Oracle, you might have a better chance of success.

36:13Quinn Nakayama: And so that's the balance. Well, in addition to the sprawl and the budget sprawl, presumably there's security questions too. I mean, everybody is always mocking utilities for being so slow, but there's a reason they're slow is that there's a lot at stake and they don't have a very big margin for error. And the more interfaces you open up, the more APIs you have, the more kind of things you have going on, the more attack surfaces you have, the more errors are possible, et cetera, et cetera.

36:47Hanna Grene: Dave, I want to punctuate this because it's even more, we've always talked about attack surface area and endpoints and APIs, and that's all still true, but it's the velocity of this has changed with AI. And there is a business model out there where you give company X a bunch of your data and they ship you back AI-driven insights on it. And that is data leakage. That is not just your IP leaking. That's not just your PII leaking, but that is a security risk. And I see this in a few different forms in companies a lot. The first is, this comes back to my people point, if you have not enabled your people with AI tools within your governed enterprise data environment, your people are super smart.

37:30Hanna Grene: And they're going to go use the best tools out there to get their job done. And we have a ton of survey data on this. And the number of people using AI at work keeps going up. The number of people using unsanctioned AI at work is like stayed the same because people are doing it. And so you do.

37:46Quinn Nakayama: Well, this is a nightmare when you think about utilities. If you're building a widget, but if you're running a grid and your people are using LLMs on the side without telling you, that just gives me chills.

37:59Hanna Grene: You've got to give your people the structured enterprise environments and the training so that they can be successful with AI. And, you know, just one more point on this. I want to come back to the cybersecurity piece. I sort of feel like the way we've rolled out, some companies have rolled out AI tooling where they're like, we're a 40 ,000 person company, but we'll give it to 200 people. It would be like if you gave email to HR and legal and a couple people in C-suite and you were like, let's test the efficacy of email. Like, it's just not the right way to do this. And so democratize the access to the AI tools, train people, set them up for success so that you don't have this data leakage and so that you get the broader benefits of people using this technology inside your company.

38:38Hanna Grene: But the other part of it is we talk about it as people paying twice. You've paid a company to give you some insider capability back, but you've also paid them with your data. And this carries cybersecurity risk. It carries IP risk. It carries legal risk. And so where we really want to encourage companies to think about, you know, building in protected enterprise environments, like your data is your data is your data. Let me shout it again from the rooftops. Your data is your data. Like we don't backhaul it for our AI models. You know, we think you should be very critical of companies that do. And so, you know, then you come back to this premise of, do I have the right companies in the boat with me to go on this hyper accelerated journey that I need to go on over the next three years to do things that we've never done at this speed and scale in this industry before?

39:31Hanna Grene: And that's where, you know, it comes to, do you have the smaller set of close partners who understand your strategy, can run with you and can innovate alongside you and add those capabilities to you?

39:43Quinn Nakayama: Yeah, I would say like, I'm not trying to, I'm not going to defend the slowness of innovations adopting technology by any means. I will say that we do need to be faster. We do need to come with a product mindset. We do need to have like utilities need to start thinking about whether they need to have a chief technology officer to sit aside, to sit besides a chief information officer. Like these are things that I think utilities need to think about. But the higher that you go on the innovation scale of your system, the larger your risks are. So as we innovate on like data centers and transmission, I'm not talking about 4 ,000 people losing power.

40:22Quinn Nakayama: I'm not talking about 300 ,000 people losing power. And so I can't just be like, well, Dave Roberts or these other podcatchers are telling me that I'm not innovating enough. enough. And so therefore, it's their fault that I had this 300 ,000 customer outage because, you know, this technology didn't do exactly what we needed to do. And so I would say that, yes, we do need to innovate faster. But you're right. There are risks involved with as we move higher up the energy supply chain, right, or the energy transmission chain, the amount of risks that we carry that if we get this wrong could result in massive number of customers outages and not to say that's the reason why we shouldn't do some things, but it's just something just to consider as we're going through how fast we can adopt these technologies and ensuring that those risks don't happen as we adopt those technologies.

41:15Hanna Grene: Totally. And I think for me, one of the mindsets that I am being in a tech company for the last five years and going through and living through AI projects the way we are right now, I think we're going to see some more shift on that process that Quinn talked about. Traditionally, you know, as an industry, we will like plan a project for two years. You know, it's sort of a planning phase. And then you get this hard ramp when you go into deployment phase. And then there's a run rate phase. And, you know, if you were plotting it on a chart.

41:43Quinn Nakayama: Well, Hannah, you told me in an email, you said that these sort of like product development cycles at utilities, this is something that was kind of a revelation to you, are like five to seven years. And you just back that out and do that math. And you're like, if it's five to seven years for everything, we're doomed. We're never going to get there as fast as we need to get. So I was wanting to ask you, what is going on during those five to seven years? As you say, at this point, you can build these AI tools and agentic systems and whatever on months, cycles. What is taking up those five to seven years?

42:20Quinn Nakayama: What is taking so long? hey there everybody don't worry i'm not going to tell you about a new mattress or push a credit card on you this isn't an ad there are no ads on volts it is supported entirely by listeners like you if you'll indulge me for a second i'd like to ask for your support i started volts because we're all surrounded by depressing news about climate change and misinformation about clean energy and it's never been more important to share the stories of the real people on the ground doing the real work of transition and all the ingenuity and courage and public spirit they are bringing to it.

42:58Quinn Nakayama: People are hungry to hear these stories, to learn from and find inspiration in them. I've heard from people who change majors or careers after hearing episodes of Volts, people using it in classrooms and community groups, even state legislators who have passed bills inspired by specific episodes. Sharing these stories matters. It makes a difference. If you have found value in it and want to help me continue doing it, I hope you will join the community of paid subscribers at volts.wtf. It's about the cost of a cup of coffee a month. If you don't like subscriptions, you can make a one-time contribution, leave a review on Apple or Spotify, or just tell a friend about Volts.

43:37Quinn Nakayama: I am grateful for any and all support. If you're already a paid subscriber, thank you. And now, back to the show. What is taking up those five to seven years? What is taking so long?

43:51Hanna Grene: Well, we're living in between, you know, a bridge between two worlds. And the world we're coming from are these sort of big, chunky core system implementations where, you know, if you were to chart it on something that was like a graph, they would look like big blocks, right? That you were standing up a big block, running a big block, ramping down a big block, starting a new big block. and where we're seeing this shift with AI, it's going to look a lot more like a bunch of little loops because the market is moving really fast. The capabilities are moving very fast. The future that I'm seeing is every company is going to use multiple AI models.

44:25Hanna Grene: You need that strong data foundation, but you're going to use different AI models to do different things. You continue to need those strong systems at the base, but you're going to have different agents in different parts of your company. And so you need visibility into those agents. You need a very clear control plane to be able to see how people are using AI within your enterprise. And then more and more for big things you do, meter to cash, like supply chain ordering, like interconnection, like planning, you are going to have these more agentic systems that integrate AI into different parts of a big, chunky process.

44:59Hanna Grene: But instead of that being a monolith of one big project that you undertake, you're going to be building and iterating and building and iterating in a much faster manner. And that's just the nature of how the technology is changing and how much easier it is to build and adapt with AI technology. And so Agile has so much pre-existing culture around it as a software development capability. So I struggle not to use Agile, but the activity will require more agility. And this interesting and extremely important intersection is going to be how do you balance between that rigor and that safety culture that is essential to everything we do in energy, period, and the recognition that technology is moving a lot faster.

45:49Hanna Grene: And developing the process between the two is, I think, where a lot of the really productive and interesting work is happening right now.

45:55Quinn Nakayama: I can tell you right now that there are listeners out there listening to you talk about integrating AI into this system and that system quickly and just the hairs on their arms are going up. You know, a lot of people have a lot of leeriness about AI. You know, some of it informed, some of it not. But like.

46:14Hanna Grene: It's true.

46:14Quinn Nakayama: There's a lot of fright out there. And the idea of just rapidly integrating it into infrastructure, I'm sure just makes a lot of people extremely nervous inside and outside of utilities.

46:26Hanna Grene: Well, and that's an important point to make. This is always a good point to remind everybody that our industry has been using AI for 20 years. I think the part that's rapid is the speed that the technology is evolving, not necessarily the speed that you're integrating it into core infrastructure. So that's the important part. It's how do we as an industry stay up to breast and stay current with this technology that's evolving? How do we get the best from it? And then how do we very thoughtfully integrate it into the parts of our business where it makes sense? companies have moved very quickly in some spaces, using it to improve customer experience, using it to improve things like billing, supply chain, safety for field workers.

47:08Hanna Grene: But, you know, there will be more methodology and a higher standard for anything that's about core infrastructure and core operations. And I should say, too, you know, my personal perspective, but the perspective of the team that I'm a part of is human led. And so you are using AI in cases to augment human capacity, to support automation of a process with human oversight. But we are very much AI enabled, human led, operator led. And I do think that's an important distinction.

47:39Quinn Nakayama: Yeah. And I think this is really important, like understands false positive, false negatives and hallucinations so that they can find and catch those and identify those and feed those back. into the system to make it smarter. But having automated decision-making is a whole nother ball of wax. And I think, you know - Yeah, you want somebody accountable at the end of the, especially on infrastructure. That's right. If something goes wrong, you want a human accountable. And there's like, for example, if you start to do AI-informed asset health, because you have all these sensors out there and they're telling you, you know, how the pole's doing or how the wires are doing.

48:17Quinn Nakayama: And if you have a whole bunch of false positives, your maintenance program is going to be underwater. If you have a whole bunch of false negatives, you're not aware of potential asset failures that may be occurring. So having that type of human in the loop, taking a look at how that AI matures is going to be really important. Now, one day you may find yourself in a position where that type of dynamic doesn't require human in the loop because the technology has matured. But I think you can't just start there. You have to always have that type of human in the loop, make sure that it's running, not hallucinating, not creating that positive negative value, and then just continue feeding it until it gets to that position.

48:56Quinn Nakayama: And you're right, Dave, the higher you go, the more consequences there are, the more careful you need to be. And that may lead to what may be considered slowness from the utility's perspective on adopting some of these technologies.

49:08Hanna Grene: And this is an area I spent some time recently with EPRI, which of course plays a big role in disseminating innovation out across our industry globally and helping us innovate together.

49:19Quinn Nakayama: This is the utility trade group.

49:21Hanna Grene: Yes, I think of them as a lab for the industry. Lots of a trade group, more of an innovation center that helps disseminate and hold R &D for our global industry, the Electric Power Research Institute. And something that we've sponsored and have been an early supporter to is what they announced just this week with saferai.power. This is an initiative to actually work through AI use cases that might be more sensitive and to help drive some industry consensus on how you'd approach them, how you'd apply well thought out. We've been doing responsible AI work at Microsoft for over 10 years. And so just as one example, how do you take things that companies have been doing for a long time to de-risk and be very thoughtful about where you use AI and then build on top of them for the very specific critical infrastructure needs of our industry so that we're not all having to individually make those calls as companies and as leaders.

50:14Hanna Grene: But you could go to a framework and say, you know, this would be the way that I, the methodology by which I would assess this risk and also the risk that it's been assessed. And here's how I can think about it. So, you know, this is an area where the beauty of our industry and how we share and how we collaborate allows us to partner up and work together so that you don't have to think about these things alone in a box.

50:36Quinn Nakayama: I want to double down on that. Like Dave, one of the things that you'll hear is And the sales cycle in a utility is super long and it crushes some of these startups, right? Like, or it crushes some of these companies. It's like, all right, even if I work with a utility, it's like a three-year sales cycle. And then I get one utility and then I get, you know, I have to go to another utility and the sales cycle is three to five years. And it's just super slow. I think, you know, organizations like EPRI could be really helpful in doing, you know, I love the concept of advanced market commitments. Like there could be a key maker out there.

51:15Quinn Nakayama: Like PGNIA, for example, we have to innovate on things like Wildfire faster than the rest of the utilities. Or maybe it's drone related technologies or maybe it's computer vision. Either way, whatever it might be. Well, on all of these things, I mean, one of the big problems is that none of the utilities want to be the first to go. or even the second to go, really. All the utilities want to be the third to go. All the utilities want someone else to do the first thing, but like somebody's got to do the first thing. Right. And so let's say PG &E is going to be the first one, right? Just because in the West Coast, you have wildfires, you have electrification, you have data centers, you have all this type of stuff all happening at the same time.

51:54Quinn Nakayama: Fine. We'll be the kingmaker. That's fine. What we would love to do is work with an organization like EPRI as an example and say, okay, fine. If I build it, can you do an advanced market commitment with seven different other utilities? And if we build it, they buy it too. They'll put up, let's say$10 million. I don't know. We'll just throw that out there as a rough number of sales that says, hey, if PG &E can build it, builds it to these specifications can prove that it works on their system and requires very minimal adjustments on theirs. Yeah, I'll buy$10 million year one. You put, I don't know, seven, 10 utilities together for that.

52:36Quinn Nakayama: You get a 70 million to a hundred million dollar type of advanced market commitment. Sure. Maybe it's non-binding fine, but like it sends a signal to the VCs out there. It sends a signal to any of the investor community out there. And they're like, Oh, well, you already have seven to 10 customers already lined up after the kingmaker does whatever they need to do to product develop into this space with their subject matter experts with their data and now there's seven to 10 utilities waiting to just buy this once it gets done like there's a lot of value there there's a value for the startup there's a value for the vc community that gets that direction if we're going to be the kingmaker or the first mover in some of these technologies then we want some of that value to, whether it's like really low cost and a procurement agreement for the next five years, maybe we'll do a warrant, maybe, you know, there's other things that we can think about from the joint IP.

53:29Quinn Nakayama: There has to be something in it for us to be the kingmaker. But if we can figure out how to create, you know, these type of coalitions of utilities together to say, hey, listen, we'll let Duke or we'll let, you know, some of these other East Coast utilities be the kingmaker on maybe some technologies on transmission because they went first on data centers. We'll do drones and wildfire related technologies and computer vision. And this other utility over here will do be the kingmaker on something else. We could probably create really strong signals to the market that enables even faster product development happening on some of these type of technology companies, which would be really cool.

54:10Quinn Nakayama: Well, quickly, we're running out of time and there's a couple of key questions left I wanted to ask, and this gets at one of them, which is one of the things that we've not really talked about yet is funding. It's just money. Utilities need to spend on this stuff. And as Volt's listeners know, the way utilities spend and make money is rather peculiar. A lot of this, I think R &D stuff gets put in the operations and management budget. Then you need a rate case to make the money back. There are some utilities that are innovating and ways of putting stable pots of money aside to devote to these faster cycle innovation cycles.

54:53Quinn Nakayama: Quinn, how much is just the way utility budgets are structured in the way here and what are some ways they can just spend better? Yeah, I would say that a lot of this is talk to some of my peers and they're using the little tin can and they're going out everywhere trying to get small dollars from everywhere. And that's the best they can do. And that really stifles innovation within their organization. I would say that California has been unique, right? We have something called EPIC, which is the electric program investment charge. It appears on your bill as a public purpose program. But if you were to dive underneath that, it has really enabled utilities in California to invest in R &D.

55:38Quinn Nakayama: That has been a commission-led effort to say, to your point, commission utilities aren't investing in R &D and innovation. So we're just going to force them to do so by forcing them to gather money, allocating it only for this related purpose under these type of priorities that the commission dictates. You go do the innovation and you de-risk these technologies. And so since 2011, we've had four cycles of this. We're about to go into our fifth cycle. And that has been the real catalyst for California utilities to innovate. Like the biggest thing for us is we have to demonstrate its value. So if I can demonstrate that there is a per kilowatt hour cent reduction on customers' bills, as we think about the savings that are attributed to, you know, hey, if I get$50 million, can I turn it into$150,$200 million worth of savings?

56:41Quinn Nakayama: like that's a pretty good, you know, worthwhile investment. And so as long as you're able to prove that and you're not just working on things to work on things and doing research projects to write white papers, as long as it's applied innovation, that's going to move the needle, especially in areas of affordability these days, which is like PG &E's real sole view, right? How do we get our rates more affordable? And as long as you can show that type of payoff, then these type of R &D efforts that a commission can stand up and give to their utilities as a mechanism enables them to achieve some of the objectives that they might have as a regulator in their system.

57:23Quinn Nakayama: California is somewhat unique in that, though. Hannah, do you find that a barrier when you're working with utilities, just the pots of money that they have to draw from and the way money is allocated? Are you able to find funding for what you need?

57:38Hanna Grene: Two pieces on this. The first is that a lot of the utility rate making mechanism is about CapEx versus OpEx. And I do think we are in, it's really important, certainly not just because of AI, but because of how we started this conversation with guests and digital grid infrastructure. we actually need to reframe a lot of this investment in terms of digital infrastructure. Infrastructure is no longer the best spend of a capital dollar may not be a pole or a wire or a sensor. It may be the digital infrastructure that enables that greater affordability and that greater customer outcome. And so I do think that there's much more maturity in the market of that understanding now than there was five years ago.

58:27Hanna Grene: I've seen that evolution. But that's really, really important for us to just recognize that software broadly is a massive component to how we're going to optimize this grid and how we're going to accelerate capital delivery and deliver it affordably. And we all need to get our heads adjusted to the idea of spending more on digital and about it being digital infrastructure. That's one piece. I think the other piece, and this comes back to where we started the conversation, when you start to sort of go like, well, R &D is a nice to have. Innovation is a nice to have. Technology is something that IT does for us over there in IT.

59:06Hanna Grene: Those are traps. and I think the evolution I really want to encourage us to think about broadly all of us in energy is to think about how technology is more and more and more and certainly AI unleashes this it is a tool for how you are going to deliver the future of your business across your people and attracting and retaining and growing talent across your core strategy and how you deliver it into the market and for your communities and in how you have, you know, a secure, healthy ecosystem across your hardware, your software, and the infrastructure that you operate. And so technology must and innovation, therefore, must be embedded in your core strategy.

59:51Hanna Grene: It can't be a nice to have. It can't be a bolt on. And as wonderful as it is that we have these innovation and R &D funds in California, like you can't wait for that cavalry to show up in your state. It needs to become a muscle and become part of how you deliver against your metrics.

1:00:06Quinn Nakayama: Well, this brings me to my final question, Quinn. Maybe this is where you're going, but this is probably the question that my listeners have been waiting for me to ask this whole hour, which is if the utility spends a capital dollar on a pole and a wire, they spend a large chunk of money and they get a guaranteed rate of return on it. They make money that way. Whereas if you come in with some digital solution and you say, here's a super cheap software-based solution that can help you avoid the need for that pole and that wire, look, you can save money. A normal business would be like, oh, good, I get to save money.

1:00:48Quinn Nakayama: But a utility business, if they save that money, makes less money. You know, this is something we come back to again and again and again on this pod. The utility wants to spend money. That's how they make money. And almost everything we're talking about under the heading of innovation is one way or another something that avoids the need to spend a bunch of CapEx on big infrastructure, i.e. something that is going to reduce an investor-owned utility's profits. And I just don't know. It just seems to me like the very basic business model we're talking about here, the very basic regulatory structure of these utilities is working against innovation almost intrinsically.

1:01:40Quinn Nakayama: How do you get around that? I guess is my question. Like, how do you work around that very basic mismatch of incentives? I would say there's a couple things here. One is that used to be the case. And I would say that if you take a look at a lot of the utilities that had zero to 2 % flat growth in their utility sector, and they weren't building a lot of infrastructure, and all of them would be like, yeah, let's do more capital. We need to figure out how to get a rate of return. That may have been the case in a lot of utilities in the past. now all these utilities, including ourselves, are like, we need to get rid of some of this capital because we can't spend it all without really ballooning rates.

1:02:23Quinn Nakayama: Like, if there are ways that we can defer capital spend, if there are ways that we can have alternative ways. It may be in California, Quinn, but look out at the country. Like, I see utility executives just like drunk on this. They're like, heck yeah. Like, you want us to build a lot? We're going to build all we can build. We're super excited to spin CapEx. We're super to spin more and more. And I'm not sure that the political blowback has fully reached them yet or changed their mindset yet. I would say there was a swing where all of these data centers happened very quickly that caused all this infrastructure to build, be built out, that then caused this lag on the generation side.

1:03:04Quinn Nakayama: And, you know, more broadly, it was just, it just happened a lot faster than a lot of folks could react to. But if you think that this whole politics on raising rates and the blowout that's happening on rate side, isn't on the top of executives' minds across the entire nation, I think that's just not true. And I think the reason why is that, listen, utilities actually don't want legislation coming into their area. I don't think that they actually, utilities writ large, because you have everybody commenting into areas that maybe people are not as well informed into. And the utility space is very complicated.

1:03:46Quinn Nakayama: It's an engineering nightmare. You've got to think about protection. You've got to think about a whole bunch of other type of things. and so i would say that most utilities out there most utility executives are very concerned about customer affordability they just need to figure out how exactly do they incorporate all this ai data center related large growth that's happening super fast without coming across as being obstructionist toward that growth and at the same time figuring out how to do this with less capital I feel like, you know, that pendulum is vastly swinging the other direction now.

1:04:22Quinn Nakayama: We have way too much capital everywhere. And wildfire, by the way, is not just a California problem. I don't know if you've seen, but there's wildfires happening everywhere. Yes, I noticed. So like hardening infrastructure for capital, everybody's going to be coming out of their ears with capital. Now it's going to be about how do you meet these objectives that you have on these really big ambitions that the state has on low growth the state might have on wildfire related risk or whatever other catastrophes that they're having with a changed climate that's already out there. and then trying to do all of that with less money because the rate blowback is just going to be too big.

1:04:58Quinn Nakayama: I think that in order for us to do this effectively, though, I think we need to figure out how to take some of these O &M related expenses, operation management, operation and management related expenses and figure out how to peanut butter them a little bit more across a broader range of time, which smells like capital. But what I'm just trying to say is that when you have an operations and maintenance related expense, it hits the rate payer the next year, right? Yeah. A capital project that's$300 million that's spread over 40 years hits the rate payer much less over a long period of time. That's why I think even in a utility such as California, we don't want a lot of O &M expenses on our books just because next year that's going to hit your rates.

1:05:50And a capital project can spend a lot more money, but hit the rate payers very fractionally

1:05:58Quinn Nakayama: as rate making occurs in all of our areas. So that's just something to consider. It doesn't really necessarily have to do with a rate of return. Hannah, how about you? Are you finding the utility, the basic incentive structures of utilities a barrier at all? Because you are selling solutions that reduce capital spending ultimately? Like, is that a problem for you?

1:06:20Hanna Grene: It depends. I think depending on the management, the leadership, what part of the world we're talking about, there are certainly leadership teams that have had the aha moment and said, if I'm buying software to help me run the grid, it is digital infrastructure, not IT back office. And so for me, I think I would encourage folks to think more about the evolution of we're using technology to run a lot more of the core systems of how power and utilities companies deliver power to communities. And so technology is a lot, lot more on the CapEx side of the equation. Technology is playing a bigger role, period.

1:07:02Hanna Grene: And that expands the tent beyond just an internal IT function much more into a critical system that helps operate at all parts of the value chain. And so I do think when you click into that mindset and you're like, whether it's digital controls or AI or sensor that we're pulling AI on top of, technology is going to be a bigger and bigger and bigger part of how we optimize, how we operate and how we do this with the resilience and safety that we need to deliver on us in industry. And so if you accept that and challenge you to find somebody who doesn't see that as the road we're all going down, we need to start thinking about software and AI as part of that core delivery and as part of that capital side of the equation.

1:07:46Hanna Grene: I'm an optimist. I think optimism helps you jump out of bed in the morning and go do hard things. And I love this industry and I am an optimist about it. And I have a lot more conversations about how we're going to use technology to support affordability and to help restore power faster from a storm, how we're going to prevent the spread of a spark and identify fires before they spread, about how we're going to maintain affordability over the long run. I have a lot more conversations about how we use technology for that than I've seen folks move pennies around. It's not to say it doesn't happen, but we've got a lot to do in this industry.

1:08:23Hanna Grene: And I think the focus is on how we get it done.

1:08:25Quinn Nakayama: All right, Quinn, any final words, any final advice to utility executives out there before we wrap this up on how to innovate faster and better? Yeah, I wanted to reiterate what Hannah said earlier around you have these ambitions that utilities have that will show itself up into the top level metrics of how they are judging their performance over multiple spans of years. and you're going to have gaps to those targets where, you know, a CEO or chief operating officer or the board of directors may say, okay, well, here's your targets for the next five years. And when you take a look at your budgets to be able to execute that, they just won't be large enough to be able to hit some of those metrics.

1:09:12Quinn Nakayama: And so you're going to have gaps to targets. Great. That is where innovation and technology lives. And that creates a beautiful conversation with all of the executives within their company, if you have this big gap to target, innovation and technology, let us do the projects and the innovation required to be able to bridge that gap. And they'll be very interested in that because, you know, they are looking at their targets that may be red or they may be amber for the next three years. And they're scratching their heads and thinking, well, how do I do this by process alone? And the answer is, well, technology is going to be the new process for you so let us come in and let us do our thing let us use our product development capabilities let us use you know our startup mentality our vc mentality our venture process to be able to do this for you and we can do it very fast let's not do this in five to seven years let's do this in a year less than a year can we come to market and get these really, really important areas for your business to be go back to green.

1:10:17Quinn Nakayama: I think that's where the beautiful internal partnerships can be had in creating a product development mentality and achieve technology type of capability within each one of the utilities. So that's what I would say. All right, Hannah, any final words? If you own a process in your company and you aren't stepping

1:10:36Hanna Grene: back and saying, how would I totally rethink this, considering the world has moved in three years since the launch of AI? If you aren't stepping back and, I mean, for me, this is so fun. It's really an invitation. Engage the smart people in your team, get in a room, grab a whiteboard, and think about how you would fundamentally rethink and rerun the part of the business that you operate because what we can do today, what is at our fingertips with AI, with the ecosystem of partners, it has changed really, really quickly. And that makes it exciting. So get creative and think about what you could do.

1:11:15All right.

1:11:16Quinn Nakayama: Well, we'll wrap it there. We can talk about this forever. It is a hot topic, I'm sure, and will remain so for many years to come. So thank you two for coming on and sharing your perspectives. Thank you. Appreciate it.

1:11:27Hanna Grene: Thank you.

1:11:30Quinn Nakayama: Thanks, everybody. You've been listening to Volts, founded and hosted by me, David Roberts, produced by Nate Peavy, and supported entirely through the generosity of listeners like you. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider telling a friend about Volts. That's how this show grows and survives, through word of mouth. See you next time.