Green Giants – Episode 72

Jae Choi (02:47)

Yeah, there was a project early in my career that really stuck with me. Technically, everything worked. Everything looked good on paper. The system performed exactly as designed. However, the project still failed in terms of financial performance. It failed because the business case didn’t hold out. It was an eye-opening experience for me. It made me realize that the real challenge was not just about building a good technology or a good system on the technical side. It was making the economics work so projects could actually can survive in the market. And that’s what pulled me into large-scale energy storage and electrification as an asset operator.

Battery storage, in particular, is where the technology and the business models meet. It’s the piece that makes clean energy reliable and financially viable. Once I saw that, I knew this was the space I wanted to dedicate myself to.

Wes Ashworth (03:44)

Yeah, it’s incredible. And your story sets the stage perfectly. I want to zoom out a little bit to just the big market picture. The demand for electricity is exploding. Profitability may not be keeping pace. And I want to dig into why. So, let’s talk about hyperscale AI centers and fleet electrification. Why is the demand surge not necessarily translating into business viability for some developers and CPOs, or charging point operators?

Jae Choi (04:09)

Great question. The short answer is that demand doesn’t equal revenue. Just because you see megawatts of new load doesn’t mean the business model works. As an example, take hyperscale AI centers. They are announcing 200 megawatt campuses, even gigawatt campuses, but the interconnection cost, cooling requirements, the utility upgrades are massive. Very time-consuming too.

If you don’t have a plan for how to recover those costs and make up for those time delays unseen, demand alone just drains cash. It’s the same story with fleet electrification. You can sign up a big fleet customer, but if you simply rely on charging fees and ignore things like demand charges and grid constraints and downtime penalties, the math falls apart fast.

I have seen developers with win contracts on paper but lose money in operations because they didn’t design for the full cost and revenue picture. So, the real problem is that some developers and CPOs are chasing the demand headlines. Look how much load we have got, but they don’t have a layered, resilient business model to make it viable.

Wes Ashworth (05:06)

Yeah, and another part of that is you hear a lot of revenue stacking and so we say revenue stacking. What’s being missed in the discussion, and how have you seen it transform project economics in real-world deployments?

Jae Choi (05:42)

What you usually miss is that revenue stacking isn’t just about piling services on top of each other. It’s about making sure the services do not cannibalize each other. If you are not careful, you will have an asset that is busy all the time, not actually making money. Let me give you a few examples that I saw in the past.

California, which is known for the premium, the premier league for battery storage and the renewable industry, right? I have seen several battery storage projects in California, as an example of 15-megawatt battery storage system, originally designed for just peak shaving, which was not financially attractive. Nowadays, it’s a no-brainer, but back then, I’m talking about roughly 10 years ago.

That was a big push for the project and then it did not pencil out as planned. Once it started participating in resource adequacy, RA contracted with the utility and also earned net metering credits from solar integration, the economics completely flipped, instead of a 7 to 8 percent IRR that was initially planned. It actually jumped to mid-10s. It increased by more than twice.

Switching to different regions, in the UK, I worked with a few companies that developed projects over there. Big push in the market, I think it’s still the same today, was frequency regulations. In the UK, battery projects that relied only on frequency regulation crashed when the price collapsed.

But the ones that stacked frequency with capacity market payments and merchant trading stayed viable. The same as that but with smarter revenue stacking, survived the downturn and stayed bankable.

Wes Ashworth (07:34)

Yeah, incredible and some great examples there and really, as you’ve gone through that you’ve described the tension between sort of that soaring demand and financial struggle. So, we painted the picture of the problem a little bit and we’ll start digging into some of the solution parts of it. But I think that tension gets even sharper when we look at policy and bring in H.R. 1, also known as the big beautiful bill. Depending on your perspective, it’s either maybe a catalyst or a constraint.

So, I want to unpack what it means for renewables from your perspective. Obviously nicknamed the big beautiful bill, though not everyone in the renewable sector would agree with that description. You framed it as a market reset rather than an obstacle. And I love that perspective. How did you arrive at that perspective? And can you just tell us a bit more about that?

Jae Choi (08:15)

Sure, for me, it comes down to discipline. Before H1, a lot of projects got pushed through mainly because the tax credit made them look good on paper, especially to lenders. Once those credits shifted, the economics didn’t hold up and we saw a lot of shaky deals. To be honest, that includes some of the projects that we have had through our subsidiary companies.

H.R. 1 forces developers and investors to focus on projects that actually deliver value to the grid, whether that is congestion relief, local capacity, or resiliency. If a project can stand on its own economically and it still works, great. If we cannot, then it probably should not have been built in the get-go.

So, I see it less as an obstacle, but more as a reset button. It’s painful. It’s really painful in the short term, but in the long run, I think it’s healthier for the industry because it weeds out projects that were never truly sustainable from the beginning.

Wes Ashworth (09:20)

Yeah, really great perspective. As you’re describing that, that shift from tax credit-driven viability to grid value-driven design. Can you walk us through what that change looks like in practice and for developers and IPPs? What are you seeing now, the ones that are doing it right?

Jae Choi (09:36)

It flips the order of how you think about a project. Before, a lot of project developers started with, how do we qualify for tax credits? And then built a project around that. Now, on the HR1, we have to start with what does the grid actually needs here? Maybe it’s a congestion relief in a transmission pocket, maybe it’s a peak capacity for a utility program, or maybe it’s resiliency for local customers.

You design the project to solve that problem first. If incentives line up on top of that, great. But they’re just a bonus, not the foundation to me. The projects that succeeded in this environment are the ones built around real great value, not just chasing subsidies. Revenue modeling and procurement may become more challenging due to more items to roll out and have contingencies on, but I think it’s a necessary step toward a more sustainable industry..

Wes Ashworth (10:46)

Yeah, great perspective and agreed. I agree with the point, although you said a little painful, you know, with the reset, but ultimately, probably a good thing long term. For project financiers worried about volatility. You’ve said that, again, aligning with real grid needs like congestion relief, state-led capacity programs can help secure lower-cost financing. How does that play out in just real deal structures?

Jae Choi (11:09)

The difference is how predictable the cash flow looks. If your only plan is to chase merchant arbitrage and frequency markets, the lenders will see a lot of risks. Prices swing and there’s no guarantee the revenue will still be there. That means higher interest rates and tighter debt coverage ratios. But if you have a contract tied to something the grid genuinely needs, like state-led capacity programs or a congestion relief contract within the utility. The lender sees that as stable, almost like a mini power purchase agreement, PPA. That stability lowers the perceived risk, which lowers the cost of capital.

In practice, I have seen projects that could only get 50 % debt coverage under a pure merchant model jump 70 to 80 % once they locked in a grid services contract. Same hardware, same site, but the financing terms improved because the cash flow is anchored to a real ongoing grid need.

Wes Ashworth (12:17)

It’s really Interesting, kind of just to dig into it. So, I guess if you were building out a project portfolio today under H.R. 1, what would your ideal balance be between contracted merchant market exposure? What would that ideal balance look like if you were building it out from scratch?

Jae Choi (12:32)

Yeah, important question, but a very tough question. So, I would probably target about a 70 and 30 split, 70 being contracted, 30 being merchant contracted piece, things like capacity payments or green service agreements, they really give you the stability to cover data and operating costs. That’s what keeps the lights on, right?
The 30 % merchant side is where you capture the upside. Price spikes, congestion pricing, and arbitrage opportunities. You don’t want to rely on that for survival, but you do want exposure to it because that’s where the real upside comes from. So, it’s really about balance. Too much contracted, you leave money on the table. Too much merchant, you are betting the company on market volatility. So, I think a 70-30 split, personally, I think that is safer and you can remain still competitive.

Wes Ashworth (13:31)

Yeah, I think great wise words and make a ton of sense to me. So HR1 obviously reshapes the playing field. I do want to talk a little bit about technology, especially storage, electrification, AI, and changing the way projects are actually designed and deployed. And ARKn, for those who don’t know, is a subsidiary of SK, which has roots in acquisitions like Key Capture Energy and expansion via Passkey. How do those moves reflect your broader strategy in storage and charging?

Jae Choi (13:56)

That acquisition was really about building both pipeline and capacity. Key Capture has been considered as one of the top five project developers and IPPs in merchant markets such as ERCOT and NYISO markets. They brought a strong development pipeline and market presence. Its parent company, Paskey, brought the financial backing and also know-how to actually deliver and finance complex projects on a large scale.

Putting it together means we are not just chasing projects, chasing after projects. We can originate them, build them, finance them, and own and operate them in-house. That full stack is the strategy. Control the value chain so we are not dependent on someone else at the most critical moment. It makes us more resilient and lets us move faster and adapt to changes as the market shifts.

Wes Ashworth (14:51)

Absolutely, and it seems to be that trend is happening, where more people are kind of like an all-in-one type of organization and doing some of those strategic alignments and things like that, not across the board, but it does seem to be like that’s coming up more and more. Thinking a little bit about just AI, obviously, it’s the craze and everything everybody talks about now. But in what ways is AI-powered storage or grid optimization transforming how projects are conceived and delivered?

Jae Choi (15:18)

To touch base on your earlier points about how the market is slowly moving toward a vertically integrated versus just a pure project developer and operator. It’s an interesting shift, an important shift. However, should everybody consider doing that? My answer is no. First of all, it’s very capital cost-intensive and it’s very time-consuming too.

So, you’ve got to ask yourself objectively and your organization, are we ready to do it? If so, how quickly can we deploy a project from scratch? If there’s hesitancy and if you are not fully ready to answer that question quickly, then it’s most likely a no sign.

So, to me, this is where you need to form a strategic partnership with multiple players, not just the battery vendors but also, more importantly, system integrations. There are many things that can happen and your project technically needs to be future-proof. Meaning your system needs to be able to adopt new technology, additional generations, and be fluidic down the road during operational years.

To handle all that, I would first think about whether it would make sense to leverage a partnership instead of doing everything in-house. There are pros and cons.

Wes Ashworth (16:37)

Yeah, absolutely. Appreciate you clarifying that. Good wisdom to put out there as well, too. And we’ll kind of go back to that. That second part of that was the AI-powered storage, grid optimization. How is that transforming just how projects are conceived and delivered? And what does that look like today?

Jae Choi (16:53)

AI changes the game from static to dynamic, in short. Before, we would design a project around a fixed schedule, charge here, discharge there, and hope the forecast held up. Now, AI can digest market signals, weather data, and load profiles in real time, and adjust every few minutes or even seconds in your future.

That means projects can be designed with more confidence in the upside. You don’t have to size the system just for one use case. You can design knowing it will adapt across multiple services. In practice, that turns the storage system from a blunt instrument to a precision tool.

Wes Ashworth (17:39)

Yeah, I like that.

Jae Choi (17:41)

When you show financiers that kind of adaptability, it changes how to deal with the structure better because the revenue looks more resilient.

Wes Ashworth (17:50)

Yeah, it’s good stuff. And switching a little bit to data centers, how do data centers’ siting decisions, from load profiles to infrastructure constraints, how does that inform your team’s design of integrated energy systems?

Jae Choi (18:02)

There is no fixed answer. It’s a moving target. We have to make our aim precise every single time, somewhat differently, from different angles. Siting drives almost every design choice. A data center with a flat 24/7 load profile may look very different from one with sharp spikes. If the site has limited interconnection capacity, we will build in storage or on-site generation to smooth things out. If it’s in a region with transmission congestion, we may prioritize systems that can provide local grid support.

Even infrastructure details matter. Distance to substations, cooling needs, and land use restrictions can change whether we go with a straight grid-tied or hybrid microgrid, or even a modular setup. In short, the siting profile tells us what problems we need to solve and what kind of integrated system we should tailor around that.

Wes Ashworth (19:08)

And what are the key interconnection or permitting bottlenecks you’re seeing most frequently? As you hear a ton about that, I would love your perspective. And then, maybe how can policy or design innovations overcome those?

Jae Choi (19:18)

The interconnection queues are the big ones. Projects are sitting in line for years. The process is often unpredictable. Every utility and ISO has its own way of doing studies, and developers do not get a clear timeline or cost until late in the game. On the permitting side, battery storage is still treated as kind of novel in a lot of jurisdictions.

You can have a fire code review drag out for months or sometimes longer than a year because that authority doesn’t have a clear framework for lithium-ion technology. The fixes are not complicated, however. On the interconnection side, we need standardized, transparent processes and more proactive grid planning instead of one-off studies.

On permitting, we need model codes and pre-approved design standards, so developers are not reinventing the wheel every time. Both would cause years off project timelines and make the whole industry more predictable.

Wes Ashworth (20:21)

Yeah, so that and I love hearing that solutions are simple and I would agree they are, but yet it still just seems a battle. I guess how far away do you think some of those simple solutions are what needs to happen or change from your perspective like what is there hope on the horizon what’s what timeline that looks like and we’ve heard so much, years and years and years around just the interconnection cues and you’re right it seems it’s somewhat frustrating at times where you’re like the solution is somewhat simple, but why can’t we get there?

Jae Choi (20:52)

I think we need a phased step approach. Instead of working on the transmission level, maybe it’s a perfect time to laser focus on nodes and even lower levels in the electrical grid system and work closely with the utilities and local customers who have big loads and try to resolve what problems they have and how to pencil it out for both solution provider perspective and also for the local utilities and the local customers with a big load.

I think the good-sounding financial strategy will promote to resolve issues faster and expedite those technical and permitting-related issues one by one. It’s a slow process. I wish there were a standard way of fast-tracking everything and streamlining everything on a large scale for developers, but I just do not see that movement yet.

Wes Ashworth (21:50)

Yeah, it’s good to know that. I think a little hope may be on the horizon at some point. It’s good at least that the solutions are, as you said, simple. It’s not something like I don’t know, people are scratching their heads like I don’t know how we’ll ever figure this out. It’s there. So, you hope that as things drive forward, it’ll kind of happen.

Jae Choi (21:54)

A lot of companies they have their own crystal ball to foresee the future.

Wes Ashworth (22:10)

Yeah, mine’s broken. Behind all this, you’re thinking about policy and some of the challenges and things like that. Are the people who really have to; they’re the ones navigating the volatility, adapting strategies, staying resilient. And I want to talk about leadership in this moment of transition. And for you, as both a strategist and a mentor, how do you help your team navigate volatility and stay resilient?

Jae Choi (22:35)

I try to keep the team focused on what we can actually control, building safe, reliable projects that deliver value. Market swings, policies, policy changes. But if you nail the fundamentals, you don’t get knocked off balance. The other piece is communication. I’m transparent about the challenges and the risks. People handle volatility better when they understand the why behind the decisions instead of just getting hit with surprises. And finally, I encourage them to treat setbacks as data, not failures.

If a project fails, we ask, what did we learn? And we move on quickly. That mindset keeps the team resilient and motivated instead of burned out.

Wes Ashworth (23:10)

Yeah, I think that’s a master class there in leading in general, especially through volatility. And I love so many points that you made there. What are some other maybe mindset or leadership qualities that have helped ArkN maintain optimism and adaptability amid disruption? As we know, the industry that we’re in, call it solar coaster, references all forms of renewable energy and those connected. A lot of ups and what are those other leadership qualities that have helped?

Jae Choi (23:46)

At a high level, two things stand out for me: the decisiveness and adaptability. When markets are moving fast, the worst thing you can do is get stuck in analysis paralysis. I’d rather make a clear decision with 70 % of data and adjust later than wait for perfect certainty and miss the window. The other piece is adaptability. We have had a project that looked solid for one month and didn’t pencil out the next month because of policy shifts and course changes.

Instead of getting discouraged, we treat it like a part of the game. You adjust the model, redesign if you have to, and keep moving. I think that combination, make the call, then be willing to pivot, is what kept us optimistic and moving forward even in choppy markets.

Wes Ashworth (24:13)

Yeah, I love that. I love that perspective. Let me ask you a question, just following up on that. So, when you’re hiring, you’re hiring for your team to know the market volatility. Are there certain traits that you look for, kind of as a baseline to be there to know, yeah, this person will be OK? The little encouragement, a little leadership, they’ll ride the wave and figure it out.

Jae Choi (24:56)

Yeah, I usually focus on when I interview candidates, I usually look for clarity on their personality. This market is the industry, renewable battery storage, microgrid, fleet, and electrification. This market is emerging. To me, emerging means people are getting more educated on what they need to know and what they want to know and then they start making better decisions more effectively. And so, to me, that’s what it means. That yields a lot of uncertainty, a lot of variables on the technical side, especially. There are two types of engineers. There are engineers who enjoy taking on new challenges, working through problems, and solving those problems in a teamwork environment, versus very static engineers who want to work in a very strict and fixed process with fixed data parameters every single time.

I put a higher value on the first case because this market is evolving and it’s not going to stop shifting and moving. So, I usually ask candidates what their biggest challenges are and what frustrates them when they design something.

Wes Ashworth (26:08)

Yeah, that’s great. Great perspective. And I’ve found the same, I think those two types are there and we need both. Both are very important, but if you put one or the other in the wrong place or the wrong industry and start having some problems. I was glad to hear you say that. And I would agree, having the ones that are just a bit more hardwired to, hey, I kind of enjoy it. I like a little bit of the uncertainty and things evolving and moving fast. And that’s just a fit perspective, in my opinion.

So, is there a vivid win or breakthrough, whether it’s technical, operational, or strategic, that sticks with you as proof that these layered strategies just work?

Jae Choi (26:44)

Yes, one project really stands out. It was struggling under its original model because it relied on a single revenue stream and the return just wasn’t there. Instead of walking away, we redesigned it because it was within our ownership and operations. But eventually, we sold it out to resolve those financial and revenue-related issues.

We layered in a grid services contract, added fully charging during off-peak hours, and fine-tuned the dispatch with better control. Within a year, the project went from barely breaking even to solidly profitable. The same hardware, same site, just a smarter strategy.

For me, that was proof that these layered approaches are not just theory. When you design around multiple value streams, you can take a project that looks like a loss and turn it into a win.

Wes Ashworth (27:39)

Yeah, that’s incredible. I love that example. And as we’ve kind of looked through, like the challenges are steep, but I think so are the opportunities. There’s a ton of opportunity. I’m going to transition a little bit and look at what comes next.

So, looking ahead, what does successful electrification and sustainable infrastructure look like five to 10 years from now?

Jae Choi (27:58)

Again, looking at looking through my own crystal ball, to me, success looks like integration, battery storage, renewables and loads all working together as a one coordinated system instead of a separate asset. For fleets, that means charging that is reliable and cost-effective because it’s paired with battery storage and grid services.

For AI data centers, it means they can expand without straining the grid because the energy system around them is designed to flex. In five to 10 years, I think the projects that stand out will be the ones that do not just deliver electrons but deliver resilience and systems that can adapt in real time, support the grid, and give customers predictability. And that’s what sustainable infrastructure looks like.

Wes Ashworth (28:52)

Absolutely. So, how does ArkN or the industry at large need to evolve to support emerging segments like AI data centers or mass fleet transitions? We’ve again painted that problem a little bit earlier, but what needs to happen to support those emerging markets?

Jae Choi (29:07)

At a high level, I think we need to start treating flexibility as a product, not as a side benefit. The grid was not built for 200-megawatt data centers or entire truck fleets plugging in overnight. If we keep thinking in old terms, just add additional generations and hope it doesn’t fall behind.

That means market rules have to reward flexible services, financing models need to back projects that can shift and adapt. And permitting has to catch up with technologies like battery storage and advanced charging technologies.

In short, the industry has to evolve from building more capacity, building more supplies to designing systems that can actually flex. That’s the only way we will keep up with the scale of AI data centers and fleet electrification.

Wes Ashworth (30:00)

Absolutely. It’s a great perspective again. It really helps just shine a light on what needs to happen, where things are headed, and hopefully that does occur and happen. I’ll ask you this since we’ve got your crystal ball out: if you could enact one policy or technical innovation just to accelerate your vision, what would it be?

Jae Choi (30:19)

Yeah, I think a lot of project developers and operators will name this one thing in common. I got to pick this one. It would be national interconnection reform. Right now, we have got gigawatts of projects stuck in queues because every utility and ISO runs their own very, very slow. If we had a standardized, transparent framework with predictable timelines. We would unlock an enormous amount of clean capacity that is already waiting to be built. That single change would move the needle more than any new subsidy or technology can do.

Wes Ashworth (30:57)

Absolutely. Hopefully, your wish comes true and we can just get out that crystal ball, make that one happen. That’d be a great one. So, kind of like getting closer to the time before we wrap. I want to leave the audience with some personal wisdom and inspiration from you. We’ll spend a bit of time here.

So, for fellow leaders under pressure, you know, I think maybe when I’ve seen not everybody’s gone through it as long, you know, there’s a bit of uncertainty. Maybe those who haven’t been in this industry quite as long. So, leaders out there that are all under pressure, kind of feeling it, what advice would you offer to them to just stay future-oriented and innovative?

Jae Choi (31:33)

It’s about balance, but first and foremost, I would say don’t waste your energy trying to predict every curveball because it’s impossible. The market will always throw a surprise at you. What matters is building a team and portfolio that can take a hit and keep moving. The other piece is carving out some space for forward thinking, even when things are chaotic, like today.

If you are only firefighting, you will never innovate, right? I normally block some time, especially in the morning, to step back and scan the horizon and ask what is changing and how do we get ahead of it? That discipline keeps you future-oriented, I think.

Wes Ashworth (32:13)

Yeah. I love that. And can you break down practically, what does that time look like when you reserve that time to just look out at the horizon? How long is it? What’s the environment? And then how do you do that? Because I think you hear that a lot, right? And I think that is important, but many just get stuck in that day-to-day firefighting and in it and maybe just don’t even know where to start with that.

Jae Choi (32:37)

Yeah, my day-to-day is usually composed of three parts. All in the morning, starting at 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. I don’t read emails. I usually immerse myself in the task that I worked on yesterday, and I really list the things that need to be done today or this week. Just re-prioritize and ask myself, are they really urgent? What are the things that can wait? I usually apply the 80-20 rule.

And then I start taking calls and participating in meetings from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. So, to me, these are the most critical meetings. I usually put together meetings that are important back-to-back, early on and then I put some non-urgent, not-as-important meetings in the later time slots.

Wes Ashworth (33:03)

Yeah, I love that. And just like a real-life practical advice, there and how to do that. I don’t know if you’ve seen it. So, there was this analogy at some point and there was a kind of a glass round container and the person had big stones and some sand and some pebbles. And what they did was they put in the sand first, which is like those little maybe lower priority items that typically we tend to gravitate towards first of just because it’s right in your face. Let me just deal with the sand. And then they put in the gravel, then they put in the stones, and it’s overflowing. They just can’t fit it all in there.

And then when you do the reverse, you take these big stones, you put those in first, and then the pebbles, then the sand, and it’s kind of, it all goes together and you end up with actually space at the top. That’s the perfect illustration for what you just described and just how important it is. It’s not, it’s simple, but it’s not easy to do, but really powerful when you are able to do that. I’ll ask you another question.

So, what excites you personally about the long-term clean energy trajectory? Help give people some hope, and what you’re excited about and what you’re looking at in the future?

Jae Choi (34:29)

When I first started my career in this industry, somewhat accidentally. I just hit my four-year mark in my career at that one small startup in Van Nuys, California. And my wife came to me and she looked concerned and she was carefully asking me a question. Jae, I think it’s time to reconsider your career path. Dealing with the battery system it sounded exciting. However, is the market really growing? Is it a valid question?

I think a lot of companies, especially people fresh out of college people who are looking into renewable systems, but do not know exactly where to start. They may have similar questions, right? Now, all these ITCs for renewables are going away, and the battery storage seems to be stuck due to domestic content, and no one is making a huge success being a pure American company yet. But what I want to say is that I have some faith there. And then because it just works. If you think about it on a high level, it’s just a matter of time. It’s a matter of when, not if.

What really excites me is that we are past the debate about whether we are going to transition. It’s happening. It has been happening. And it’s bigger and deeper in terms of market size and the maturity of the market. The only question that is left is how fast and who is going to lead it. That shift is powerful because it means we can focus less on convincing people, but more on competing to build the best solutions.

For me, that’s very exciting, we are in a race to shape the future and it’s wide open.

Wes Ashworth (36:14)

Yeah, that’s incredible. I love that. I’ll ask you another question. if you’re thinking about, you mentioned sort of new professionals, fresh out of college, getting started in the industry, thinking about them being future leaders of the industry. These are future directors and VPs, and CEOs and all of those kinds of things. What advice would you give them early on in their career that maybe will help set them up for one day when they’re in that executive seat leading a company, leading an operation that will help them along the way?

Jae Choi (36:44)

About 6-7 years ago, I had an opportunity to sit down with a project manager who was in his 60s, actually. And I asked them how many projects he has commissioned. Because I expected a lot, probably more than hundreds. But his answer was only five. Only five throughout his entire career and he was one of the best engineers and also a project manager for the company.

It was a different division from our renewable battery sector. He was in charge of project executions for nuclear power plants. He says it all. Nuclear power plants take such a long time for planning, execution, permitting, designing, execution, commissioning, and operation. It’s a long marathon. If you are lucky, you may end up commissioning four to five in your life. But he did more than five.

In this industry, renewable, everything shifts fast-paced, technology changes, and things are evolving. And you will have a great fun. If you are one of the persons who enjoys new technologies and building and taking on new challenges, then you will love all these new technologies, communicating and learning from new vendors, new technology developers, and contemplate how to utilize those different Lego pieces and make it into something brand new, totally new. It’s a great market to be in.

So, staying curious, studying the new market shift, whether it’s policy or technology. If that is your thing, then my advice is to stay curious and always study and learn.

Wes Ashworth (38:29)

Yeah, love that. Great, great words there. Let’s see one practical takeaway. What’s the biggest shift either in strategy or mindset that you hope listeners will dig into tomorrow after they’ve listened to this episode, digested it? What do you hope they come away with and sort of have that shift?

Jae Choi (38:47)

If there is one shift I would push for, it’s designing for resilience. Not just in the technology, but in your revenue model and in your team. Markets will swing, policies will change, but if your project and your people are built to flex, you will be standing when others are not. That mindset shift, resilience first, is what separates the project that lasts from ones that don’t.

Wes Ashworth (39:14)

Yeah, good stuff. The final question will be just an open one. Any other final words of wisdom, parting words of advice, things you didn’t get to share that you’d like to, what do you want to leave the audience with?

Jae Choi (39:25)

Well, there was a recent event where more than 300 employees of the South Korean company Hyundai and LG Energy Solutions employees were held up and then got released just last week. It indicates, it raises many red flags.

First, if it’s really the main goal to invite foreign companies to invest in the US, two questions arise. One, do the foreign companies, do they really have a good understanding of the local regulations? Not just a permitting purpose, but also as basic as legitimate entry to the US to bring their people to start building the factories, right? And secondly, for the US government side, are they really promoting this program, inviting other companies, foreign companies to make an investment in the US on a fast track?

In renewable energy, like I mentioned earlier, the renewable industry is moving fast. If someone is building a factory, chances are they already have a locked-in customer to deliver their product and services in three years, in less than four years for sure. Time is already ticking.

So, all these environmental factors need to work out as a whole. It’s not just about whether or not a certain factory has reached a failure threshold to be qualified as a tier one and to be called a high-quality product. That comes later. What’s more important at this phase is the readiness as a market on both the policy side, the government, and also other aspects of the market.

Wes Ashworth (41:08)

Yeah, no, good stuff and good perspective. Again, just to hear it, I have a real idea of kind of what’s happening out there and some of the challenges and what we can do about it, and I love it.

Jae, thank you so much for bringing such clarity and perspective to this conversation, really, from revenue stacking to grid value-driven design to rethinking HR1. You’ve shown how strategy and innovation can turn today’s challenges into tomorrow’s opportunities. And I love that, love that optimism.

To our listeners, as always, thank you for tuning in. I hope this episode gave you a fresh insight into how leaders are navigating the energy transition. If you enjoyed it, please subscribe, share the show, and leave us a review so more people can discover these conversations. And with that, we will see you soon.