Transcript
Jigar Shah: The way we power the world is changing at a fundamental level. Across the United States, clean energy now makes up more than 90% of new electricity added to the grid — not because of politics or ideology, but because these technologies simply work better.
Jamie Nolan: They're cheaper to build, faster to deploy, and easier to scale than anything we've had before.
Jigar Shah: Whether you're curious about where the economy is headed, how energy affects your daily life, or who's behind the billion-dollar deals shaping our future —
Jamie Nolan: Energy Empire is your guide to what comes next.
Jigar Shah: Hello, my name is Jigar Shah and I'm a clean energy entrepreneur.
Jamie Nolan: And I'm Jamie Nolan, a clean energy communications consultant. And this is Energy Empire.
Introduction
The Political Moment Around Data Centers
Jigar Shah: Very exciting, Jamie. We've got our good friend Tim Hade joining us. And in perfect timing — we just got a bunch of wild bills released by Congress. Bernie Sanders released a video saying we should ban all new data centers in the country until we figure things out. And Josh Hawley and Richard Blumenthal basically said all data centers should be required to run off-grid until we can justify that they won't add to people's electricity bills. I don't know who's advising these people, but it's crazy town.
Jamie Nolan: Both of those proposals are obviously super unrealistic — very narrow chances of passage. But I do think they're reflective of rising and very loud opposition to data centers in communities across the country. Energy is a big part of it, but it's not all of it. Just at a dinner party at my house a couple of weeks ago, someone was asking me about rising electricity bills here in Virginia and saying, "Isn't it the data centers?" When these become kitchen table issues, it's striking for those of us who work in the industry. There's a lot of nuance to it.
Tim is our favorite friend of the pod. He has a really interesting perspective as someone who has done a lot of off-grid and microgrid project development throughout his career through his company, Scale Microgrids. Before we get to him, there are a couple of terms worth clarifying.
Jigar Shah: Right — when you do "behind the meter," that means it's hooked up after the meter that records how you use power from the grid. So if you lose power, you can back up your house or business with that battery. If you install a battery "in front of the meter," it might sit on your land — you collect rent — but it's not available to back up your house. It's a grid asset controlled by the utility.
Jamie Nolan: For example, most people's rooftop solar systems and battery backup systems are behind the meter on the customer side — they own or lease and control those systems. Front of the meter is typically owned and controlled by the utility. That's a really important distinction.
Jigar Shah: One other thing worth mentioning: so many veterans serve in the clean energy sector. A lot of people served in Iraq and Afghanistan and realized those wars were largely about oil and energy resources — and then came home and said, I want to work in clean energy so people don't have to die overseas for something so preventable.
Jamie Nolan: I know for a fact — because I worked on this when I was at the Solar Office at DOE — that there's a higher percentage of veterans in the solar energy industry than in the overall economy. The solar industry has done a great job recruiting and retaining a veteran workforce. We're really proud of that, and proud to have Tim on the pod to talk about his journey from the Air Force to our sector.
Interview: Tim Hade
New Jersey to the Air Force Academy
Jigar Shah: We are joined by a friend of the pod — probably the first friend of the pod — Tim Hade. Super excited to have you here. We're just going to dive right in.
Tim Hade: First of all, I'm putting "first friend of the pod" on my resume. And secondly, I'm just here for Jamie.
Jigar Shah: We're all just here for Jamie. Let's be honest.
Jamie Nolan: Tim, when I was describing you to Simon yesterday, I said he reminds me of Jigar — very different personas, but it's your authenticity, your enthusiasm is infectious, and your optimism is just lovely to be around. So welcome.
Jigar Shah: The difference is that you can bench a lot more than I can. Those broad shoulders come in handy. I can buy off the rack though.
Tim Hade: There's a reason Jigar has meant so much to me over the years and I've learned a ton from him. But look — there are a lot of reasons to be optimistic right now, despite the chaos of the world. I think we're in a really good spot from a distributed energy standpoint. More people need to be talking about that. This is kind of our moment and we've got to capture it.
Jigar Shah: It only takes two of us, Tim. Kidding. Alright, let's go back to the beginning — where were you born?
Tim Hade: Paterson, New Jersey. Paterson with one T.
Jigar Shah: I feel like you've got that New Jersey boy look to you.
Tim Hade: I'm a California transplant, but New Jersey born and bred. According to my wife, that is definitely part of my personality. I grew up in a pretty lower middle-class community. I loved it — great education, great people, great coaches and teachers and neighbors who all looked out for me. My father passed away when I was young, so it wasn't the perfect nuclear family situation, but the community really stepped up. And that set me up to be able to go to the best undergrad college in the United States — the United States Air Force Academy.
Jigar Shah: Is it really the best? I feel like you only went because it's in Colorado.
Tim Hade: As we say at the Air Force Academy — it's 7,258 feet above sea level. Far above West Point and Annapolis.
I was in the military for 10 years. Bob Menendez — who is now in prison — was the senator who wrote my recommendation to the Air Force Academy. So if you're listening from prison, Bob, thank you. I was an intelligence officer and did a variety of things while I was in the military. Got to see a lot of the world, but a lot of places in the world that not a lot of people get to see. That had a big impact on how I think about the type of work I want to do.
When I got out, the Department of Defense was talking about climate change as the number one national security threat — which I believed, and still do, though I think it's now co-championed with AI.
From Afghanistan to Distributed Energy
Jigar Shah: Getting fuel to forward bases was how we were losing the most soldiers in Afghanistan. When did you discover electricity?
Tim Hade: One of the biggest problems in Afghanistan was fuel logistics. We had all these forward operating bases on the border of Pakistan, and the main U.S. base was Bagram Air Force Base on the western side. Getting diesel fuel from Bagram to the forward operating bases meant either dropping it out of planes with parachutes and hoping it landed on target, or running fuel convoys across Afghanistan. It was the worst job in the military. Casualty rates were preposterously high.
So there was an experimental program at the time: can we power forward operating bases with solar and batteries so we don't need as many fuel convoy runs? We couldn't really figure it out — this was 2007, 2008, and the technology wasn't where it is today by any means. But even then you could start to see the writing on the wall. Battery technology was evolving really quickly. Solar was evolving really quickly. You could see where this was going. That's what sparked my interest in the commercialization of these technologies, and I've been working on it ever since.
Starting Scale Microgrids
Jamie Nolan: So you left the Air Force — did you immediately start Scale Microgrids? What was your evolution into the private sector like?
Tim Hade: I went to grad school for two years right after the military, mostly because I had no idea what I wanted to do. I didn't know anything about the private sector. I was still figuring out how to translate my skill set. Then my best friend from growing up — who is currently the CEO of Scale Microgrids — was at Boston Consulting Group at the time and decided to leave and take over his family's diesel generator business. They did resilience projects for big, complicated projects in New York and the surrounding area — Goldman Sachs' data center, Verizon's 911 call center. He decided to try to turn it into a sustainable energy company, starting with cogeneration. He pitched me on it and I was like, yeah, I don't have anything better to do.
We started a cogeneration company and went through an acquisition — that business was bought by Centrica in the UK. About five years in, I was really convinced that the future of distributed energy was solar and storage. Centrica had just bought a cogeneration business and was very interested in me doing more cogeneration projects. So I decided to go focus on solar and storage and create something new. Ryan came with me, and we started Scale with Duncan Campbell, Pete Krasko, and Ryan's dad Howard in 2015. Scale Microgrids became my life for the next ten years. Then I sold it in February, and I've been a free agent ever since.
The Art of Knowing When to Say No
Jigar Shah: When I met you at Scale, we'd already seen a bunch of these cogen projects. Cogen — for those who don't know — is largely natural gas-powered generators where you also capture the heat for cooling, heating, and other uses. One of the things we realized very quickly at Generate Capital after meeting you was that you could look at any system design and in about five seconds say, yeah it'll work, or no it won't — without $50,000 worth of engineering work. How did you develop that?
Tim Hade: Maybe the answer is because I'm not that brilliant. What we figured out about cogeneration very quickly was that you basically needed the perfect customer to pull a project off. A lot of our peers in the space would spend enormous amounts of time trying to jam round pegs into square holes — the HVAC system wasn't perfect, the incoming service entrance wasn't perfect, but we can engineer around it. For bigger projects you can afford that kind of customization. But when you're talking about sub-five-megawatt work, it either works or it doesn't. It requires a near-perfect set of circumstances.
So we started saying: instead of modeling projects on 10,000 different parameters up front, let's develop a heuristic — a way to very quickly dismiss the projects that aren't going to work and spend our time on the ones with a high probability of success. That came from a lot of trial and error. I spent months on projects that would die when we discovered a $200,000 engineering upgrade we hadn't budgeted for. But over time, we developed the ability to source projects really quickly. That gave us a higher conversion rate than most people in the space and let us get more projects built.
Cannabis, Cogen, and Discovering Product-Market Fit
Jigar Shah: The biggest problem with cogen was that electric utilities had your number. They designed standby charges precisely to make your economics not work. But then there was a breakthrough with the cannabis industry — these operations were stuffing two megawatts of lighting into warehouses with 500-kilowatt interconnection capacity, couldn't get connected to the grid fast enough, and needed cogen. Talk about the role of luck versus preparation there.
Tim Hade: My entire career in distributed energy has been a search for product-market fit. When we looked at the cannabis industry in 2015, we saw a few things. We had a theory that Hillary Clinton was going to be president and was going to facilitate federal legalization of cannabis.
Jigar Shah: That worked out perfectly.
Tim Hade: Perfectly. But that movement was happening anyway — post-legalization in Colorado and Massachusetts, California coming online. At the time it was about a $6 billion a year business, but it was uninsurable and unbankable. Cannabis in most states has to be cultivated within state lines, which means if you're growing in Massachusetts, you're not doing it outdoors — you need a controlled environment. So you have a warehouse full of cannabis worth millions of dollars that you can't insure. Power resilience becomes critical. Energy costs were also around 40% of total operating costs for cannabis cultivators. The idea was: we have a microgrid product that adds resilience and can be cheaper than the utility rate. You care deeply about both of those things.
There's actually a somewhat infamous Energy Gang episode from 2015 where I told this whole story and Jigar basically said, "You're crazy — this isn't bankable." And he was right. We made some progress in the cannabis industry but a lot of deals fell apart because the credit worthiness and collateral just weren't there. But in building those projects, we made a bunch of huge technical breakthroughs. Right now, Scale is doing some of the most pioneering work in the co-located data center space — combining solar, storage, natural gas, and power electronics to support the needs of AI compute clients. A lot of the reason they can do that is because of things we figured out building cannabis projects ten years ago.
That's one of my big lessons from this whole experience: success isn't linear.
The Warburg Pincus Question
Jigar Shah: One thing we talked about in our first episode was my journey at SunEdison — at the end, because of the 1x preference that investors had ahead of us, we didn't all make a lot of money off the sale. I think you had a similar experience. If you had to do it all over again, would you have taken the Warburg Pincus money, or would you have just sold the company then?
Tim Hade: It's a good question. When you look up the sale number they put in the press release, people assume I can buy Montecito. That's definitely not the case. I've made more money than I ever thought I was going to make, and I can't complain. But thinking about the business model and the funding mechanisms for clean energy is something I wish I had known more about at the time.
The short answer: yes, I would take the Warburg Pincus deal again. In 2019, when we closed that funding round, it was essentially a $500 million line of credit. There weren't a lot of people willing to make that kind of bet on Scale Microgrids. We didn't have 50 or 100 people running an auction process for us. We had a few interested parties, and we thought Warburg Pincus was the best strategic fit to take the business forward.
But there are a lot of things I've learned since then. The work that Jigar and Jonathan Silver are doing at Multiplier — this is exactly why that matters. If you're a founder or an early employee, you should be thinking about how the funding for your business is structured and what that ultimately means for you at exit, whether that's two years or ten years down the road. I didn't think about that enough. Hindsight being 20/20, do I wish I'd known more? For sure. Do I wish Multiplier had existed? Yes. But now I know. And I live in Santa Barbara, so it's not the end of the world.
The Data Center Fantasy
Why Off-Grid Data Centers Are Not the Answer
Jigar Shah: Let's get to your hot take. Elon Musk turned on a data center in Memphis in record time — about 22 days — using natural gas generators, connected it to the grid, and then brought in Tesla Megapacks. And somehow he's convinced all of Silicon Valley and all the tech bros that you can just run a data center off-grid. Set us straight.
Tim Hade: The basic idea is that there are a lot of problems with the U.S. electric grid supporting the data center build-out at the scale Silicon Valley wants. So the prominent theory has become: we don't connect data centers to the grid, we just build co-located power generation, they run off-grid, and we don't need the grid. According to the report Jigar sent me last week, there are 56 gigawatts of these co-located data center projects in the queue.
Jigar Shah: People have lost their minds.
Jamie Nolan: And to credit the author of that report — that's Michael Thomas at CleanView. His data visualizations are incredible. In that report, there's a chart showing that data center power plants would use five times more electricity than New York City. Forty-six data centers with a combined capacity of 56 gigawatts plan to build their own power plants.
Tim Hade: My hot take: 80% of those projects will never get built. And putting a power plant next to a data center is about 20% of the work. The hard part is the power electronics. The difference between building a natural gas power plant and a co-located data center is the difference between building a power plant and building a utility. The co-located data center is its own utility.
Data centers are power electronics divas. They have inrush currents, harmonics, fast ramp rates, nonlinear current — all these crazy electrical characteristics that make it really difficult to load balance locally.
Jigar Shah: Let me quote from the paper you sent me, which I'm going to make you publish. You write: "When people say we need more electrons, what they're actually saying is we need more short circuit strength, more reactive support, and more tolerance for fast ramps." What does that mean?
Tim Hade: A data center essentially hosts GPUs. How GPUs behave in a training capacity is something everyone is still learning. But initial data shows the power characteristics of these things are remarkable — they'll go from using five watts to one watt in a millisecond and the system has to respond to that.
When you connect a data center to the electric grid, which is how every data center was built until recently, you benefit from the inertia of the grid. The grid can absorb momentary lapses in frequency, harmonics, or inrush current. If the data center has a generator on site that gets out of phase with the data center's power characteristics, it'll trip the generator and force the data center to shut down. If you're connected to the grid and the same thing happens, the grid has the inertia to backstop that problem and keep the data center online.
This is fundamentally about system uptime — which matters enormously to data center operators. Building a co-located data center is a massive power electronics challenge.
Now — the reason I think 20% of those 56 gigawatts will get built is that there are companies that are genuinely good at this. Scale Microgrids can do it. Sheldon Kimber at Intersect Power can do it. The Crusoe guys can do it. But it's a very short list.
Jigar Shah: Even Scale can probably get to three nines of reliability, not five nines. And Sheldon's projects aren't really off-grid — he filed interconnection permits in Texas five years ago. Those are going to be grid-connected systems with a hybrid power plant behind them, which is the right approach. And even Crusoe has had some power quality issues.
Tim Hade: Right. The question "is it possible to build co-located data centers" is yes. "Is it a good idea" is a completely different question.
Jigar Shah: You also write: "Co-location is not a hack around the grid. It is the decision to become your own utility — not just in ownership, but in technical obligations. The grid interconnection point is not merely a wire. It is access to an infinite bus, a massive system that provides voltage stiffness, frequency stability, high fault current, and an ocean of inertia. When you step behind the meter, you don't just change who owns the electrons, you change the physics of the power system."
Tim Hade: Correct.
Jigar Shah: And then: "None of this is to say co-location is foolish. It will work in some places for some projects, especially when executed by firms that know how to build and operate power plants. But the idea that co-location can scale to meet the entire wave of AI load growth assumes a labor market, a supply chain, a permitting environment that does not exist."
Tim Hade: There aren't many firms that know how to do this. And the people who run the engineering teams at those firms are obsessively focused on every single piece of equipment in that ecosystem, making sure it's tier-one, tested, and works within the full context of the system.
There is a way to build them. But now look at what's actually happening. Developers throughout the country right now are buying used aircraft engines from recycled military planes, putting them on trailers, bringing them to data center sites, and trying to build power plants out of them. And people think that capacity is going to come online.
The Selfish Math of Going Off-Grid
Jigar Shah: How much do you have to hate your neighbors to do that? You also write: "The core mistake in the 'build a plant next to every data center' worldview is treating the grid as a static obstacle. The grid is not just where power comes from. It is the reliability machine that makes modern electricity usable. Even co-located projects lean on it for backup, for trading, for reserve sharing — and often for the very fuel and maintenance ecosystem that keeps generation online."
Tim Hade: The grid is the answer for data centers. The idea that data centers are the things that should come off the grid is the exact opposite of what we want. From a power quality standpoint, the best way to build a data center is to hook it up to the grid. The only reason to mess around with co-location is if you simply cannot connect to the grid. So the real question is: can we hook more data centers up to the grid? And the answer is yes.
Jigar Shah: This feels like people who move to Florida, set up a private gated community with private security, send their kids to private school, and then vote to cut everyone's taxes. Just because you have the money to build private infrastructure doesn't mean you should abdicate the public systems everyone else depends on. And Scale Microgrids or anyone else is not going to get above 99.9% reliability on their own. So it not only won't work as well — it's also just deeply selfish.
Tim Hade: It's actually dumber than the private school analogy, because at least those people in Florida are paying for a premium service. What hyperscalers are buying with co-located data centers is something worse than the grid. The fundamental insight is this: there is a symbiotic relationship between a good grid and building a lot of data centers. There is a way to connect a lot of compute to the grid in a way that not only lets hyperscalers build everything they want — it also lowers retail rates for consumers by increasing grid utilization. That's what we should be focused on.
Virginia's Blueprint: Grid Utilization as a Metric
Tim Hade: The way you do that is you make grid utilization a metric. Virginia just did this — 99 to nothing in the state House, bipartisan. When you measure grid utilization, you're likely going to find that a lot of utilities are operating their distribution systems at 40 to 50% capacity. Then the question is: can we increase that efficiency? Because if we move more kilowatt hours through the grid for the same fixed cost, rates go down.
The answer is yes. Load flexibility. Generally, that means batteries — taking the 2% of commercial sites across the country, roughly 150,000 locations, and adding 250 kilowatts to five megawatts of batteries at each site. The customer gets resilience. If you put it at a school or a church, it becomes a community lighthouse — people get revenue for hosting it, and the data center companies end up paying for the batteries. So it's a genuine win-win.
Jigar Shah: One of your quotes: "If you're a community starting at a data center, you're basically being told — trust us, we'll bring you zero permanent jobs. That's not very compelling. But if you say we're paying to harden local businesses and public buildings with batteries and backup capability, that's tangible. It's a way to convert local opposition into local benefit, and to convert a permitting fight into a deal."
Tim Hade: Exactly. And look, this is important because part of the argument is just energy economics. On energy economics alone, the answer is: don't make the data center flexible, make the grid around the data center flexible. Deploy batteries. But what's actually happening in the data center world is there are two bottlenecks. Speed to power — how long to get interconnected. And speed to permit — can you get local permission to build. Increasingly, the bottleneck is becoming speed to permit.
The polling on data centers is awful. Deploy Action shared data with me showing that about 80% of people they talked to are opposed to data centers being built in their local community. Microsoft is still waiting for permission to start construction on a data center in Wisconsin — a state that generally has a "do whatever you want" attitude toward industry. And the people in Wisconsin are just pissed. They feel like they were being railroaded.
Jamie Nolan: And what's really going to win people over is putting a bunch of old airplane engines in their backyard and pumping out local air pollution.
Tim Hade: Right. And look, one of the things that has bothered me in conversations with the hyperscalers is that their view is basically: the local people just don't understand. They don't understand that data centers actually put downward pressure on rates, they're misinterpreting the data. But it's way more complicated than that. When I talked to Arnab about this, the feedback from local community members wasn't ignorant. It was: this isn't creating permanent jobs for us. There are construction jobs for 18 months and then basically nothing. Also — we don't know how we feel about AI and how fast it's moving, and we have real concerns about that.
The Uncertainty Problem
Jigar Shah: And that goes to cost overbuild risk. If you say yes to Duke Energy's $103 billion proposal to build out their grid and then the data center load doesn't show up, someone still has to pay that back. That's why grid utilization and batteries are so smart — it's about one-tenth the cost, and it's flexible if the load doesn't materialize.
The other point: data center companies are combining training with inference and not being transparent about it. For training large models, yes, you need 1,000 megawatts of chips in one place — doing training in a distributed fashion is genuinely hard. But according to Anthropic, the total training demand they need is something like 25,000 megawatts. Yet companies are asking for 100,000 megawatts of new data centers in 1,000-megawatt blocks. Even Nvidia came out recently saying we could build a bunch of five-megawatt data centers that fit nicely into existing infrastructure for inference. But none of the data center companies will answer the question of how much they actually need for training.
Tim Hade: I wouldn't say anyone at the tech companies is lying. I just think they don't know. LBNL put out their most recent forecast for electricity consumption in 2028 — two years away — and the range was 325 to 580 terawatt hours. When I was coming up in this industry, a spread like that would be 300 to 310. Essentially narrow. Now it's 325 to 580. Nobody knows anything.
So part of the planning process needs to account for uncertainty. If you build a one-gigawatt power plant in the middle of Louisiana and your compute forecast turns out to be wrong, you have a one-gigawatt facility that's useless. But if you deploy that same gigawatt as 10,000 distributed batteries around a distribution network, and it turns out you don't need it for data centers — now you have a better network.
That's one of the great things about distributed energy: you build it from the bottom up, which means it's inherently more flexible than building from the top down. If we're off by 10 or 50%, we can adapt. You can't do that with bigger centralized infrastructure.
The idea is not to take data centers off the grid. It's to build a grid that's more accepting of data centers. If we do both of those things, we'll have a better grid, lower rates, and all the compute power we need.
Who Leads the Charge?
Jamie Nolan: Who does this message need to reach? Is it the hyperscalers? The utilities? Who creates the permission structure here?
Jigar Shah: Largely the governors. There are over 30 governors races this fall. Every one of them is going to lose unless they have an answer to how they're going to manage data center growth. People do not want to be trampled by hyperscalers. Governors are going to have to protect their voters and ensure that all of these best practices are followed. They shouldn't just be chasing the $25 million a year in property taxes that hyperscalers pay — they need to make sure it's a net positive for the community, the way Virginia enshrined into law.
Tim Hade: Jigar's right. The governors have a big responsibility. And I think candidly, leadership matters here — and it doesn't seem like it's going to come from Secretary Wright.
What's fascinating is that for the hyperscalers — really about seven companies — energy has always been something they procure, but it's never been a core competency. If you go talk to the C-suite at these organizations, they're new to energy. They're thinking about this for the first time. And I think that's actually where you're seeing the most progress — they're pretty quickly coming to the realization that load flexibility matters, that they need to figure out how to work with communities.
Jigar Shah: Our friend Tyler Norris wrote that paper and then got hired by Google.
Tim Hade: Google is hiring everyone we know. Yeah.
Jigar Shah: We've got to get invited to the next Google party.
Takeaways
Jigar Shah: Tim Hade is truly a tour de force. It is so hard to come out of a conversation with him without learning a lot. We covered his background, why he's such an expert — and his clear view that most of these off-grid data centers are not going to get built.
Jamie Nolan: Tim is the guy on this issue. I love that in preparation for our recording, he just shot over a heavily researched eight-page position paper so we could study up. He clearly has a perspective. I just wonder when the hyperscalers are going to be knocking on his door — because I feel like he's got this all figured out.
Jigar Shah: I feel like they're already knocking. When you think about his trajectory — and it's one we also heard from Dean Solon, and it's certainly my own story at SunEdison and then at Generate Capital — a lot of this is preparation, and then you're waiting for luck. Tim was doing the right thing for farmers and agribusiness and small commercial customers who wanted cogen microgrids. It was slow going. But then the cannabis industry took off, Warburg Pincus came in with serious capital, and then EQT came in and paid a premium because they had big data center investments and wanted Scale to build co-located plants specifically for them.
It sounds like Tim didn't become filthy rich off it — even though if anyone deserves to, it's him. But it is a clear story of what happens in this industry: timing matters a lot, but how you're capitalized matters just as much. Warburg Pincus clearly negotiated a deal where they got the larger share of the EQT payout. The employees got less.
Jamie Nolan: He didn't seem bitter about it at all. He seemed very at peace. And if I lived in Santa Barbara, I'd probably be at peace too.
What was it when you first met him — more than ten years ago — that made you want to bring him into your orbit? What did you see in him?
Jigar Shah: I genuinely can't tolerate arrogance. There are so many extraordinary people in our industry who are difficult to be around, and I just don't follow up with them more than I have to. But the other thing — what we touched on with his exit story — is gratitude. Some of it comes from growing up in a place like Paterson, New Jersey, or Sterling, Illinois, or wherever — there are folks who are genuinely grateful for the position they're in. That comes through in how they treat the people around them. Tim is not someone who thinks the universe revolves around him. And obviously the guy is brilliant — just gobsmacking how brilliant he is.
Jamie Nolan: And enthusiastic. After talking to Tim you feel empowered. You leave the conversation like, let's go build some things. We can get this done. I think that's his best quality.
Tim is evidence of the fact that this is the era for distributed power. And now we — as he mentioned — need to be thinking at billion-dollar scale instead of million-dollar scale. That's the theme of the year. That's what we're here to explore on Energy Empire.
Jigar Shah: If not now, when? If not us, who?
Thanks for listening to Energy Empire. Review us on Apple Podcasts and Spotify — it really helps if you leave a comment, that's how the algorithm works. Smash the subscribe button on our YouTube channel. Reach us at energyempire.fm.