Podcasts about EPC

De Verenigde Staten staan op het punt een nieuwe handelsoorlog met Brazilië te beginnen. Er worden verschillende redenen genoemd, maar de opvallendste betreft het Braziliaanse betalingssysteem Pix. Pix is een ongekend succes. Het verwerkt inmiddels de helft van alle betalingen in het land en wordt gebruikt door 170 miljoen mensen, bijna 80% van de bevolking. Consumenten betalen niets voor de dienst, ondernemers slechts een bescheiden vergoeding. Een betaalpas of creditcard is niet eens meer nodig. Pix kost gemiddeld 0,22% per transactie. Een Braziliaan is daarmee zelfs goedkoper uit dan de westerse bankenklant. Geen wonder dat andere landen belangstelling tonen. En daar begint het probleem. Voor Visa en Mastercard vormt Pix een directe bedreiging. Hun verdienmodel is gebaseerd op een netwerk dat vrijwel alle kaartbetalingen faciliteert. Stel dat landen massaal overstappen op een goedkoop publiek alternatief, dan verdwijnt hun belangrijkste inkomstenbron. En die bron is enorm. De cijfers spreken boekdelen. In vier jaar tijd steeg de nettowinst van Visa naar $20 mrd (+63%) en van Mastercard naar $15 mrd (+72%). U snapt nu meteen waarom Washington dit Braziliaanse betaalsysteem als strategische bedreiging ziet. De Amerikaanse aanval op Pix is zelfs de inzet geworden van de verkiezingsstrijd tussen de huidige president van Brazilië Lula da Silva en zijn uitdager Flávio Bolsonaro. Mocht die naam u bekend voorkomen: het is inderdaad de zoon van oud-president Jair Bolsonaro, die een gevangenisstraf van 27 jaar uitzit. Bolsonaro junior kiest nadrukkelijk de kant van Washington en zet vraagtekens bij de internationale uitbreiding van Pix. Dat valt in Brazilië niet in goede aarde. De weerstand tegen Visa en Mastercard beperkt zich bovendien niet tot Brazilië. Ook in de VS zelf groeit de kritiek op de marktmacht van deze bedrijven en staat hun duopolie onder druk. Wie naar de podcasts van The Wall Street Journal luistert, hoort regelmatig advertenties van de Electronic Payments Coalition (EPC). Dat zijn de creditcardmaatschappijen die kiezers oproepen om hun vertegenwoordiger tegen de Credit Card Competition Act te laten stemmen. Deze wet wil de concurrentie op de Amerikaanse creditcardmarkt vergroten. Een van de argumenten die de EPC aanvoert is dat de grote retailers daardoor nog meer winst zouden maken. Daarop zeg ik: leg de retailwinstmarges even naast die van de creditcardmaatschappijen. Als je naar de rente van de creditcardmaatschappijen kijkt, dan zou je denken dat daar hun winst zit. Maar de grootste winstbron is de tolheffing die ze ontvangen voor alle betalingen die door het systeem lopen. Ook als u met uw betaalpas of creditcard van ING, Rabo of ABN Amro betaalt, gaat dat via de netwerken van deze maatschappijen. En elke keer ontvangt Visa of Mastercard een beetje tol voor toegang tot hun systeem. De VS noemen zichzelf graag the land of the free. Op de betaalmarkt geldt eerder het omgekeerde. Pix is gratis en juist dat kan weleens heel duur uitpakken voor Visa en Mastercard. Over Corné van Zeijl Corné van Zeijl is analist en strateeg bij Cardano en belegt ook privé. Reageer via c.zeijl@cardano.com. Deze column kun je ook iedere donderdag lezen in het FD.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

She's been in the news more often in the last year than at any other time of her 12 year stint on Winnipeg city council, and in Episode 28 you'll hear directly from Councillor Cindy Gilroy about the key issues heading into her re-election campaign.In Part 1, Gilroy reviews initiatives undertaken to preserve infrastructure and restore parks and trees in her Daniel McIntyre ward. 11.00- Marty Gold compares her success in saving amenities for the West End with the destruction of Happyland Pool in the St. Boniface neighborhood. "You're raising a very big challenge that all inner-city wards have ... we don't really balance it out," saying she is "always terrified of what could happen to Sherbrook Pool."17.25 Part 2- Gilroy describes her fight to ensure Sherbrook Pool is properly staffed and that the area is made safer for users, including adding cameras and staff. She advocates hiring locals as they 'get' the community, and wants to help establish programming to train kids to become lifeguards.As to homelessness and addictions, "that is something that has impacted residents and businesses in my ward," and she explains why she supports a managed encampment that city leaders refused to consider. "I cannot understand the rationale for leaving things the way they are... You are correct marty, we would see a reduction in the (emergency) services required... I do think there is room for the province to be part of the discussion."If services were delivered there and "not in neighborhoods where it's affecting families (it would be) much safer than wehave it now." Gilroy also believes overdose deaths would be reduced. 25.30 - Gilroy is asked about the NDP provincial government refusing to provide space on provincial property for homeless women and addicts at risk of exploitation in encampments. She called for law enforcement to arrest the perps.“They need to be in jail. If you are exploiting somebody, if you're raping somebody, they're not in an encampment- I want them in jail, that's the reality… if you're doing something so blatantly violent towards other people, you need to be in jail and kept in jail.” 31.00- In regards to the recent police blitz on open drug use, which included her ward, Gilroy supported it, stating “I have seen very blatant” outdoor drug dealing, and “my business owners are threatening to shut their doors because they feel unsafe.” Importantly, she noted that “sometimes, it was because theywere arrested” that addicts sought treatment and recovered. While Mayor Gillingham directed citizens to complain tothe Police Board after police chief Gene Bowers bowed to the demands of social service agencies to back off the crackdown, “I don't feel as a councillor, I have a say… It's a frustrating system in terms of what I can and can not do as an elected official.”Gilroy explains how the NDP's “Your Way Home” strategyprevents the city from removing encampments and move people along, and a lack of coordination between departments.37.45 Part 3 - We went into overtime to get Cindy Gilroy's views on issues like - The Arlington Bridge controversy after former Councillor Terry Wachniak tried to blow the whistle on potential risks to the public purse -"he has concerns that are valid." - The new restrictions on valuable public input to council, including that "5 minutes is not enough" and being denied the chance to respond to dubious 'verbal reports' by the bureaucrats. - "Dealing with the 'Strong Mayor' model that is not equitable" is Gilroy's solution, as "people who are not on EPC do not have the access to information." - (At 50.40) on the city nearing its borrowing limit: "I 100% think it's dire and we need to prioritize looking at these big massive projects when there's no need"- The "unbearable" effects of the disastrous WinnipegTransit roll-out and routing buses onto narrow residential roads: "I've used the system, they aren't being whiners." ****To support our reporting- martygoldlive@gmail.com

#309EPC rules for UK landlords are changing from October 2026 — and a recent Nationwide report found that 67% of landlords have no idea it's coming.This episode is here to make sure you're not in that 67%.Energy Performance Certificates are about to get a major overhaul in England and Wales, and if you're a remote landlord managing UK property from abroad, these changes affect what you can rent, what you must upgrade, and how much it could cost you.To break it all down, I'm joined by Tim Kampel of Box Property Solutions, who has spent nearly two decades doing EPCs day in, day out — as a domestic, commercial and retrofit assessor, and as a property investor himself.Tim explains the new four-metric EPC system arriving in October 2026, which will score properties separately on fabric performance, heating system, energy cost, and smart readiness — replacing the single headline rating landlords are used to.We cover the exemptions being removed, so heritage properties, HMOs where even a single room is let, and short-term rentals will all need a valid EPC.We get into the big one: the requirement for most privately rented UK properties to reach EPC band C by 2030, with a £10,000 per-property spending cap.Tim also gives an honest reality check on why EPC deadlines keep shifting, how the rules are being used as a political bargaining chip, and why "proposed" doesn't mean you can afford to ignore them.And crucially for overseas landlords, Tim shares the single most important takeaway of the whole episode: under the new regime, you have to be able to prove everything — without evidence, the work simply won't count.Please note this episode focuses on England and Wales; Scotland has its own EPC rules.Check out our shorts on YouTubeOur WhatsApp  groupProperty Engine discounts (Code: EXPAT)Starter: 30 day trialPro: 30 day trial/3 mths 1/2 price, Ultimate: 1/2 price 3 monthsGoalsettingLeave a review37 Question Due Diligence Checklist / Auction GuideOur Sponsors: Finnigan McNeill Property GroupWhat you'll learn:The new four-metric EPC system coming to England and Wales in October 2026, and what each metric measures.Which EPC exemptions are being removed, and why heritage homes, HMOs and short-term lets are now caught.What the EPC band C by 2030 requirement means for UK landlords, and how the £10,000 spending cap works.Why EPC deadlines keep getting pushed back, and how to plan around rules that aren't yet law.The order EPC improvements should be tackled in, from fabric-first insulation to heating systems, and when that advice isn't practical.Why a recent software change has pushed some properties up to a C rating automatically, and why it's worth getting reassessed.How solar could become one of the smartest ways for landlords, especially HMO owners, to raise a rating and cut running costs.Guest: Tim Kampel of Box Property Solutions — a domestic, commercial and retrofit EPC assessor with nearly twenty years' experience, and a property investor himself.If you own or plan to buy UK rental property, understanding these EPC changes now — rather than in 2029 — could save you thousands and keep your properties legally lettable. Details of how to join our WhatsApp group for overseas investors are below.KeywordsUK property, UK property investment, UK property market, UK landlords, Expat property, UK real estate, Buy-to-let UK, Energy Performance Certificate (EPC), EPC legislation UK, EPC band C requirements, EPC rules England and Wales, Property investment UK, UK rental property, HMO EPC requirements, Heritage property UK, Solar panels UK property, EPC changes 2026 UK, Landlord tips UK, EPC compliance UK, Property refurbishment UK, Non-standard construction UK, How to improve EPC rating UK property, EPC exemptions for landlords UK, EPC and mortgage eligibility UK, Using EPC data for property investment UK, Best energy improvements for UK rental property, Proven ways to reach EPC band C UK, EPC requirements for short term rentals UK, Solar installation cost for UK landlords, Documenting property improvements for EPC UK, Landlord guide to energy efficiency UK, Avoiding non-standard construction in UK real estate, EPC for HMOs England and Wales, What can boost EPC rating in UK homes, Preferential green rate mortgages UK property, Tips for choosing an EPC assessor UKCheck out our new YouTube Channel @ExpatPropertyStory

What does it take to turn next-generation solar technology into a bankable commercial product?Swift Solar is closing the U.S. heterojunction and perovskite tandem solar cell gap. Dr. Gunter Erfurt, managing director at Swift Solar and former Meyer Burger CEO, joins Tim Montague and John Weaver to explain why U.S. module capacity sits near 50 gigawatts while domestic cell capacity trails at 5 gigawatts.Following Swift Solar's acquisition of Meyer Burger's technology, intellectual property, manufacturing equipment, and engineering team, Dr. Erfurt shares how the company plans to accelerate U.S. solar manufacturing while preparing for the future of perovskite tandem solar cells. John Weaver presses Erfurt throughout on tariffs and real project pricing, drawing on his own current commercial bid.The conversation explores why heterojunction (HJT) technology is the ideal foundation for perovskites, why bankability matters as much as efficiency, and how domestic solar manufacturing can strengthen energy security and supply chain resilience.Whether you're a solar developer, EPC, utility professional, investor, policymaker, or clean energy enthusiast, this episode offers valuable insights into where the solar industry is heading over the next decade.In this episode, you'll learn:Why Swift Solar acquired Meyer Burger's manufacturing assets and IPHow heterojunction technology supports the future of perovskite tandem solar cellsWhy Swift Solar plans to commercialize HJT modules before launching tandem productsThe importance of reliability, bankability, and long-term module performanceWhy glass-glass solar modules outperform traditional glass-backsheet designsHow domestic U.S. solar manufacturing is evolving, and why module capacity still outpaces cell capacity by a factor of tenThe challenges of scaling advanced solar cell manufacturingWhy the utility scale market is Swift Solar's primary focusHow electrification is expected to triple or quadruple global electricity demand, and why Tim and Dr. Erfurt believe solar, wind, and batteries scale faster than nuclear to meet itJohn Weaver's pushback on tariffs, grounded in real project pricing, and Dr. Erfurt's counter on how the IRA tax credit shaped domestic manufacturing growthWhat the next five years could look like for solar manufacturing and clean energyAs electrification accelerates and global electricity demand climbs toward a projected tripling or quadrupling in the coming decades, the solar industry faces real pressure to build technology that is efficient, reliable, and ready to scale. This conversation with Dr. Gunter Erfurt, joined by Tim Montague and John Weaver, offers a behind-the-scenes look at what it actually takes to move breakthrough innovations from the research lab into commercial production. From heterojunction technology and perovskite tandem cells to domestic manufacturing, bankability, and long-term reliability, this episode provides valuable insight into the engineering and business decisions that will shape the next generation of solar. Connect with Dr. Gunter Erfurt on LinkedIn.https://www.linkedin.com/in/gunter-erfurt-55103850?originalSubdomain=de Support the showConnect with Tim  Clean Power Hour  Clean Power Hour on YouTubeTim on TwitterTim on LinkedIn Email tim@cleanpowerhour.com Review Clean Power Hour on Apple PodcastsThe Clean Power Hour is produced by the Clean Power Consulting Group and created by Tim Montague. Contact us by email:  CleanPowerHour@gmail.comCorporate sponsors who share our mission to speed the energy transition are invited to check out https://www.cleanpowerhour.com/support/The Clean Power Hour is brought to you by CPS America, maker of North America's number one 3-phase string inverter, with over 6GW shipped in the US. With a focus on commercial and utility-scale solar and energy storage, the company partners with customers to provide unparalleled performance and service. The CPS America product lineup includes 3-phase string inverters from 25kW to 275kW, exceptional data communication and controls, and energy storage solutions designed for seamless integration with CPS America systems.  Learn more at www.chintpowersystems.com

Proverbs Part 1: The beginning of wisdomProverbs 1:1-7Rev. Justin OlivettiMain idea: You have to humble yourself to receive God's wisdom

God and David vs Satan and Goliathfeat. Gaelen Negus

Feeling overwhelmed by podcasting advice, creator conferences, and too many decisions? This conversation shows how Empowered Podcasting Conference 3 (EPC3) is being built to help podcasters overwhelmed by information overload find more simplicity, stronger connections, and a real sense of community.In this episode, I hand the conversation over to the Podcasting Morning Show team for a behind-the-scenes look at Empowered Podcasting Conference 3. Joining me are Jason Cercone, Rich Perry, Ralph Estep, and members of the podcasting community as we discuss the origins of EPC, the lessons learned from the first two conferences, the challenges of planning an intimate event, and why independent podcasters need spaces where they can feel supported, connected, and inspired instead of overwhelmed.Episode Highlights:[10:19] Why Creators Need EPC[16:20] The EPC Origin Story[18:44] Early Risks and First Wins[21:04] Lessons from the EPC2 Stress Test[26:53] Partners and Event Roles[31:37] The Virtual Tickets Debate[35:07] Building Year-Round Sponsorships[40:30] Community and Networking Matter Most[47:36] Intimacy vs. Conference Growth[50:53] How Speakers Are Selected[55:29] Volunteers Wanted!Links & Resources:Join us at Empowered Podcasting August 21-23:https://empoweredpodcasting.com (20% off with code: EPCMARC20)Connect with Jason Cercone:https://www.bombtrackmedia.com/Connect with Rich Perry:https://richperry.com/Feature Your Podcast on the Podcasting Morning Show:https://PodcastingMorningShow.com/spotlightThe Podcasting Morning Show:⁠⁠www.podcastingmorningshow.com⁠⁠Ways to Watch or Listen:⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.podcastingmorningshow.com/joinus/Meet the Cast and Crew:⁠⁠https://podcastingmorningshow.com/people⁠⁠Join The Empowered Podcasting Facebook Group:⁠⁠www.facebook.com/groups/empoweredpodcasting⁠⁠⁠Book A Free Call With Marc:https://calendly.com/ironickmedia/freestrategycallApplication To Submit Your Show For Evaluation:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcastingmorningshow.com/eval⁠⁠Powered by⁠⁠⁠ ⁠iRonickMedia.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ and⁠ ⁠ContentCreatorsAccountant.com⁠⁠Send in your mailbag questions:⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.podcastingmorningshow.com/contact/⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠marc@ironickmedia.com⁠Want to be a guest on The Podcasting Morning Show? Send me a message on PodMatch, here:https://podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/1729879899384520035bad21b

Whoever you ask, you are likely find broad agreement that the world needs more energy infrastructure. Whether you are worried about ensuring secure supplies, powering new data centres, or cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the answer is most often going to be investing in new assets: power plants, transmission lines, factories, pipelines, ports… the list goes on. But all too often, getting big projects built is painfully slow, expensive and unpredictable. It is particularly difficult in high-income countries, and perhaps in the US most of all.For this episode, host Ed Crooks and regular guest Dr. Melissa Lott are joined by Craig Albert, the President and COO of Bechtel, one of the world's biggest engineering and construction companies. Together, they discuss the critical problems that get in the way of infrastructure projects, and what businesses and governments can do to get past them.First off, Craig acknowledges that the problems in the system all reflect good intentions. Communities, safety, the environment and local impacts all deserve scrutiny. The problem, especially in the US, is that the process used to take all those factors into account when approving large projects is slow, fragmented and uncertain. The result is that it pushes up costs, delays revenue, creates financing risk, and ultimately slows progress towards energy security and a lower-carbon energy system.The conversation digs into the role of trust and certainty in decision-making. Once a project has been assessed and approved, how do you stop it from being endlessly revisited? Craig argues that some aspects of the US system create particular difficulties. Other developed countries have shown that infrastructure projects can be brought in on time and on budget. Craig cites the Western Sydney International Airport project, which moved from site selection to full construction approval in just two and a half years. In the US, he says, the same process could easily take eight to ten.The discussion then turns to nuclear power, and the lessons from the two new AP1000 reactors built at the Vogtle plant in Georgia. Craig calls Southern Company and Georgia Power “national heroes” for taking on the first greenfield US nuclear project in decades, but he is candid about what went wrong. His biggest takeaway is the importance of deeply integrated EPC: engineering, procurement and construction working as one system from the start. He also stresses the need for earlier investment in workforce training, stronger supply-chain visibility and better sequencing to reduce costly reworks.From there, Ed and Melissa widen the lens to look at other energy sectors. Craig explains why the US LNG industry offers a more hopeful model of projects delivered without huge cost overruns and multi-year delays. In that industry the construction companies are building repeated, standardised projects, with integrated delivery, and a relentless focus on finding and fixing bottlenecks. Bechtel has delivered dozens of LNG trains, he says, all on schedule and within budget, while still improving speed from one project to the next. Similar lessons apply in solar, where scale, automation and better execution are helping push installation rates sharply higher.But policy and project design are only part of the story. Craig argues that workforce is the other great constraint. If every new power plant, grid upgrade, semiconductor fab and airport ultimately depends on skilled craft labour, then the US has to start treating those jobs with the respect they deserve. Restoring the status of skilled trades is not just a cultural issue. It is essential to the country's ability to build, Craig says. The closing message is both practical and cautionary: if the US wants more energy security, more electricity for AI and data centres, and faster progress on decarbonisation, it has to get much better at building. That means fixing permitting, reducing project uncertainty, investing earlier in supply chains, and treating skilled labour as a strategic asset, rather than an afterthought.This episode of Energy Gang is brought to you by ENGIE, the smarter energy supplier. ENGIE doesn't just provide the power to run your business — they supply the energy to move it forward, with reliable, flexible solutions built for what's next. Learn more at engieresources.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Jobs report out a day early and a little soft. New revelation  about data-center capacity smack tech shares. June ends on an upbeat note – July is very interesting so far. Our guest, Peter Schiff of Echelon Wealth Partners . NEW! DOWNLOAD THE AI GENERATED SHOW NOTES (Guest Segment) Peter Schiff began his investment career as a financial consultant with Shearson Lehman Brothers in 1987. A financial professional for over twenty years, he joined Euro Pacific Capital, Inc. (EPC) in 1996 and has served as its President since January 2000. Peter Schiff is a widely recognized economic and financial analyst and has appeared frequently on Fox News, Fox Business, CNBC, CNN, and other financial and political news outlets. Peter is a highly recommended broker by many leading financial newsletters and investment advisory services and achieved national notoriety in 2008 as being one of the few economists to have accurately forecast the financial crisis well in advance. Between 2004 and 2006 he had made numerous high-profile statements predicting the bursting of the real estate bubble, significant declines in national real estate prices, the collapse of the mortgage market and the banking sector, the bankruptcy and bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Peter has authored several best-selling books including Crash Proof, Crash Proof 2.0, How and Economy Grows and Why it Crashes, The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets, and The Real Crash. He also served as an economic advisor to the 2008 Ron Paul presidential campaign. Check Out EuroPacific Asset Management Follow @andrewhorowitz Check this out and find out more at: http://www.interactivebrokers.com/ Looking for style diversification? More information on the TDI Managed Growth Strategy – HERE Stocks mentioned in this episode: (GLD), (SLV), (BTCUSD), (GOOG), (MU), (INTC), (META), (ORCL)

Fintech is swimming in capital, yet the deal count collapses and the message is blunt: the market still funds big ideas, but it no longer rewards sloppy execution. We call this moment the “summer compression” a quiet reset where operational discipline, transparency, and provable trust replace the old era of growth-at-any-cost storytelling. If you build in payments, banking, compliance, or financial technology strategy, this is the shift that will decide who survives the next cycle. We dig into why Europe is forcing maturity with real deadlines: the EU AI Act makes explainability a live requirement for credit, risk, and fraud models, and instant payments push verification of payee as a baseline safety check. From there, we use Romania's fintech ecosystem to show how consolidation really looks on the ground: revenue concentration, a profitability gap, and a new hybrid consensus where banks bring scale and trust while fintechs provide the infrastructure plumbing. Then we zoom out to the modern growth playbook: a profitable neobank expands across markets by staying lean with an AI assistant embedded in operations and by focusing hard on one segment digital nomads and cross-border professionals. That focus ties directly to the next infrastructure upgrade, EPC's OCTINST and ISO 20022, which aim to make cross-border instant payments feel as seamless as domestic transfers. But speed creates a “speed trap” for fraud teams, so we explore agentic AI, “human plus agent” oversight, and what audit-ready governance must look like when money moves in seconds. If this helped you see where fintech is headed, subscribe, share the episode with a builder or investor, and leave a review. What part of the trust reset feels most urgent to you right now?Thank you for tuning into our podcast about global trends in the FinTech industry.Check out our podcast channel.Learn more about The Connector. Follow us on LinkedIn.CheersKoen Vanderhoydonkkoen.vanderhoydonk@jointheconnector.com#FinTech #RegTech #Scaleup #WealthTech

Creation Outside Genesis Part 9: Creation 2.0Romans 8:19-23 and Hebrews 1:10-12 and Revelation 21:1-5 Rev. Justin OlivettiMain idea: Jesus will continue to create forever

A single design error on a commercial solar project can cost $60,000 to $70,000 to fix. Scott Wyssling and Catherine Kelso of Wyssling Consulting explain what quality design actually looks like, why AI cannot replace a licensed engineer reviewing plans, and how battery integration really fits into commercial solar today.In this episode, Tim Montague sits down with Scott Wyssling, founder and principal at Wyssling Consulting, and Catherine Kelso, Director of Commercial Design and electrical engineer at the firm. Wyssling provides structural and electrical engineering and design for residential and commercial solar and storage projects across the United States. With 75 employees and an engineer-owned, engineer-led structure, the firm has built its reputation on quality control, fast turnaround, and a refusal to treat the PE seal as a formality.With the ITC safe harbor deadline pushing a construction boom through 2027, the pressure to move fast is real. Scott's point is direct: speed without engineering integrity creates liability that lands on the EPC and installer, not just the firm that signed the plans.What you'll learn in this conversation:Why a single design error on a commercial project can cost $60,000 to $70,000 to fix, and how $3,000 to $4,000 in better upfront engineering eliminates that risk entirely.How Wyssling's QAQC process actually works, including internal peer reviews and a 20% audit of already-delivered projects, and why that sets a different standard than automated or outsourced design.Why Catherine Kelso says battery integration is simpler than most EPCs expect, whether you're retrofitting storage onto an existing system or designing it in from day one, and what to watch for when choosing a manufacturer.Scott Wyssling's direct case against letting AI replace hands-on engineering review, and why a licensed PE needs eyes on the actual roof, the actual photos, and the actual electrical equipment.How 15 to 20 year old solar farms are creating a new engineering challenge as 600-volt inverters age out in a market now built around 1,000 and 1,500-volt equipment, and why this only grows from here.Quality control gets treated as optional right up until a six-figure correction lands on your desk. This episode gives you concrete criteria for telling a serious engineering partner from a shortcut operation before you sign anything.Connect with Guests Website: https://www.wysslingconsulting.com/Scott LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/scott-wyssling-5b2aa77/Catherine LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/catherine-kelso-pe-997b014a/ Support the showConnect with Tim  Clean Power Hour  Clean Power Hour on YouTubeTim on TwitterTim on LinkedIn Email tim@cleanpowerhour.com Review Clean Power Hour on Apple PodcastsThe Clean Power Hour is produced by the Clean Power Consulting Group and created by Tim Montague. Contact us by email:  CleanPowerHour@gmail.comCorporate sponsors who share our mission to speed the energy transition are invited to check out https://www.cleanpowerhour.com/support/The Clean Power Hour is brought to you by CPS America, maker of North America's number one 3-phase string inverter, with over 6GW shipped in the US. With a focus on commercial and utility-scale solar and energy storage, the company partners with customers to provide unparalleled performance and service. The CPS America product lineup includes 3-phase string inverters from 25kW to 275kW, exceptional data communication and controls, and energy storage solutions designed for seamless integration with CPS America systems.  Learn more at www.chintpowersystems.com

In this episode, Michael Rhodes claims the gospel is inherently political, and "the Lord reigns" was never just a private comfort but a statement about who actually runs the world. We name the two instincts that keep so many of us stuck: retreating into a safe bubble or chasing the halls of power, and why a more holistic approach is necessary. And we get practical: city council meetings, speed bumps, a libertarian business owner whose whole politics quietly rearranged once he started hiring single moms. In a moment when faith and politics have collapsed into the culture war, this feels like a third way, or a faithful way - a politics you can practice this week, on your own street, as a small taste of the beauty of the Kingdom of God.Michael J. Rhodes (PhD, Trinity College / University of Aberdeen) is lecturer in Old Testament at Carey Baptist College in Aotearoa New Zealand. He is the author of several books, including Reimagining Biblical Politics, Just Discipleship, Formative Feasting,and Practicing the King's Economy (with Robby Holt and Brian Fikkert). Rhodes (an ordained EPC pastor) and his family currently live in South Auckland, where they are part of an intentional community engaged in Christian community development.Michael's Book:Reimagining Biblical PoliticsConnect with Joshua: jjohnson@shiftingculturepodcast.comGo to www.shiftingculturepodcast.com to interact and donate. Every donation helps to produce more podcasts for you to enjoy.Follow on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Threads, Bluesky or YouTubeSupport the podcast and the ministry that my wife and I do around the world. Just click on the support the show link below Support the show

Creation Outside Genesis Part 8: Believing in CreationHebrews 11:1-3Rev. Justin OlivettiMain idea: God gives us faith to believe that he created

Recorded live at New York Tech Week, Karl and Erum sit down with Brenton Alexander (CTO at Roebling) to unpack one of the biggest bottlenecks in scaling “biology as technology”: figuring out what it really takes to design and finance physical infrastructure. Brenton walks through how Roebling uses AI alongside deterministic engineering models (physics/thermodynamics) to accelerate early facility design, generate capex/opex estimates with uncertainty ranges (not false precision), and help teams run scenarios fast—so founders, investors, and operators can make better go/no-go decisions earlier, reduce wasteful iteration across siloed teams, and focus human expertise where it matters most.Grow Everything brings the bioeconomy to life. Hosts Karl Schmieder and Erum Azeez Khan share stories and interview the leaders and influencers changing the world by growing everything. Biology is the oldest technology. And it can be engineered. What are we growing?Learn more at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.messaginglab.com/groweverything⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Chapters:(00:00:00) Welcome to Grow Everything Live at NY Tech Week(00:02:10) The “infrastructure gap”: why feasibility work is slow and expensive(00:03:05) What Roebling does: accelerating the path from R&D to final investment decision(00:05:05) Live demo setup: building a yeast-based fermentation facility for a red bio-dye(00:07:15) What the platform decides (and why inputs matter): equipment, DSP, and cost drivers(00:10:00) “Why not just use Claude?” Deterministic models + AI tooling for defensible results(00:14:30) Handling uncertainty: ranges, distributions, and Monte Carlo-style scenario runs(00:18:40) What changes for engineers/consultants: shifting effort from manual work to judgment(00:23:10) Reading the outputs: capex/opex, IRR, and the “tornado chart” of uncertainty drivers(00:28:10) Audience Q&A: logistics/customer delivery, AI's impact on costs, review fatigue, and assumptions(00:29:30) Long-term direction: more fidelity, narrower bounds, EPC-ready handoff(00:30:05) Audience Q&A begins(00:30:30) Q1: logistics + customer delivery costs (not just “at the gate”)(00:32:55) Q2: how AI changes operating cost assumptions over time(00:34:15) Q3: review fatigue—how to structure checks and triage what matters(00:36:10) Q4: what did the model assume for “colorant”? (and why specificity matters)(00:38:15) Wrap-up + thank-yousLinks and Resources:RoeblingRoebling Early Access ProgramBrentan AlexandarEdward Shenderovich65. Scaling Cells, Dreaming Big: The Biomanufacturing Cloud with Synonym's Edward Shenderovich166. The Great Reformulation: Joshua Lachter Rethinks How We Make Everything at Scale172. Generating Needles in Haystacks: Elise de Reus Designs Proteins with CradleBioInnovations Events - For 25% off use code: Grow EverythingTopics Covered:Roebling, bioprocess modeling, techno-economic analysis, fermentation economics, food dyes, bio-based ingredients, process engineering, AI for biomanufacturing, scale-up planning, regulatory considerations, industrial engineering AI.Have a question or comment? Message us here:Text or Call (804) 505-5553⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ / ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ / ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ / ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Youtube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ / ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Grow Everything⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Music by: Nihilore Production by: Amplafy Media

Creation Outside Genesis Part 7: Works of delusion, works of powerJeremiah 10:1-16Rev. Justin OlivettiMain idea: God is the only actual Creator

On the eve of Ward Church's denomination's annual gathering, Rev. Sean Carroll reflects on the heart of the EPC motto—“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity”—through Romans 14. He clarifies the difference between core gospel convictions and faithful disagreements, grounding the church in the authority of Scripture while calling believers to humility in areas where interpretations differ. This message invites us to hold firmly to the truths that define our faith—such as the person and work of Jesus—while extending grace and freedom to others in non-essential matters. With pastoral clarity, he reminds us that Christian maturity is not just about being right, but about reflecting Christ in how we relate to one another. As we live within the tension of conviction and compassion, the church becomes a witness to the gospel through its love. May we be a people who embody truth with tenderness, so that our unity and love point others to Jesus.

What does it mean to be a people marked by prayer? In this episode of In All Things, Dave Strunk, outgoing Moderator of the 45th General Assembly and Thursday morning worship speaker, reflects on the theme of prayer through the story of Hezekiah and Isaiah. Drawing from scripture and his experience serving the EPC, Dave offers encouragement for leaders and churches to seek the Lord with humility, dependence, and trust. As we gather for General Assembly, this conversation reminds us that our strength as a church is found not in ourselves, but in the Lord, and that we are “Better Together” when we come to Him in prayer. To learn more about the 2026 General Assembly and to register, visit: epconnect.org/ga2026

In this episode, we speak with Elvis Ebikade, Director of Strategic Market Development at Bioleum Corporation, about why the Global South should be producing SAF rather than just exporting raw feedstocks, how renewable fuels are becoming an energy security play, the technical challenge of getting aromatics into SAF, and what actually separates a bankable SAF project from a good-looking spreadsheet.Ebikade discusses:The case for Africa and Southeast Asia as SAF producers, not just feedstock suppliersWhy exporting feedstocks and reimporting SAF adds a carbon intensity penalty that undermines the product's core valueFeedstock diversity in Africa: HEFA, alcohol-to-jet, woody biomass, and e-fuelsThe energy security reframe: why renewable fuels change who sits at the tableExport vs book-and-claim: why there's no single model for Global South SAFWhat Bioleum is building: lignin-to-aromatics, cellulosic ethanol, and the Hexas Biomass acquisitionWhy most SAF today still needs to be blended with fossil jet fuel before it can be used to power aircraftWhat makes a SAF project bankable: feedstock, offtake, EPC, and a credible path to cost parityThe gap between financial models and operational realityIf you LOVED this episode, you'll also love the conversation we had with Meg Gentle, Executive Director at HIF Global, about how synthetic fuels and waste-based pathways could reshape the economics of sustainable aviation fuel. Check it out here. Learn more about the innovators who are navigating the industry's challenges to make sustainable aviation a reality, in our new book ‘Sustainability in the Air: Volume 2'. Click here to learn more.Feel free to reach out via email to podcast@simpliflying.com. For more content on sustainable aviation, visit our website green.simpliflying.com and join the movement. It's about time.Links & More:Bioleum Corporation Why the Global South could produce aviation's cheapest sustainable fuels - SimpliFlyingThe six-times markup that convinced a Kenyan entrepreneur to make his own SAF - SimpliFlying Could Cameroon become Central Africa's SAF gateway? - SimpliFlying The country that banned petrol cars is now betting on SAF - SimpliFlyingHexas: A sustainable solution to the food vs. fuel debate - SimpliFlying

Creation Outside Genesis Part 6: The true CreatorIsaiah 45:7-12Rev. Justin OlivettiMain idea: God is the only actual Creator

Paulo Passoni, Managing Partner at Valor Capital, and Olga Maslikhova sit down with their first-ever TJC Debrief guest — Ivana Delevska, Founder and CIO of Spear Invest and Portfolio Manager of the Spear Alpha ETF (SPRX, Nasdaq), one of the best-performing actively managed AI ETFs. Ivana spent a decade at Tiger Management, Millennium, and Citadel before founding Spear, where she now runs over $100M in AUM as a one-person fund augmented by AI. This is the June 2026 edition of TJC Debrief — a monthly show covering tech, venture, and capital markets through a global lens.We cover where $1 of AI spend actually goes — 50% to compute, 15–20% to networking, 15% to power and physical build-out — and why networking is the most under-the-radar layer of the value chain, why behind-the-meter power and former Bitcoin mining sites (Applied Digital) are the most overlooked plays in AI infrastructure, why Latin America could become a serious data center alternative to the US given cheaper electricity and faster permits, why hyperscaler-backed offtake deals are solving the cost-of-capital problem for data center build-outs, the SpaceX IPO at $1.77 trillion and 60x forward revenue with only 15% growth — and why Paulo thinks the employee lockup wall is the biggest risk, why Anthropic at ~$1T with $15B revenue scaling to $200B in 2027 is the more reasonable bet on a 12-month horizon while SpaceX is the better 10-year hold, why the application layer is where the next wave of billion-dollar revenue companies will emerge — using Higgsfield as a case study going from $0 to nearly $500M in revenue in one year by orchestrating 30 video models, why speed and revenue per employee ($1–10M is the new bar) are the only real moats left in software, why Elon is the "king of hardware" and what the EPC contractor insourcing playbook actually looks like, why community is the anti-AI moat — from independent watchmaker collector groups to Corgi's coffee shop in Silicon Valley, why the air pocket of AI demand is the real risk to watch (token prices are the early signal), and why wealth concentration from the AI boom is the biggest macro risk of all — and what forced-savings products and intelligent wealth transfer mechanisms could prevent it.Subscribe to The J Curve Insider newsletter for deeper insights and follow Olga on LinkedIn and Instagram.

We are excited to welcome guest preacher Katie Piquette, as she continues our summer series with Psalm 63. Katie is a teaching elder in the EPC and a chaplain at the VA Hospital.

Creation Outside Genesis Part 5: The good news of CreationIsaiah 40:9-31Rev. Justin OlivettiMain idea: The Creator is in your corner

[powerpresss] My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 175 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Bruce Dearling, patent attorney and partner at Hepworth Browne in the UK, and we talk about how non-technical features must be considered when assessing inventive step of patents at least according to recent decisions of the UK supreme court and the Unified Patent Court. Profile of Bruce Dearling UK Supreme Court Emotional Perception AI Limited UPC Abbot vs Sinocare But before we jump into this interesting interview, I have news for you: On May 20, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the fully revised Patent Ordinance, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027, together with the revised Patent Act. In the future, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property will prepare a mandatory search report for each application; applicants can choose between a partially examined version and a full examination that assesses novelty and inventive step. The full examination costs an additional 300 Swiss francs, and renewal fees will increase by a total of eight percent over the 20-year term. On May 19, 2026, Asus entered into a licensing agreement with the Wi-Fi multimode patent pool managed by Sisvel, thereby ending all ongoing infringement proceedings. Sisvel bundles standard-essential patents in the pool from, among others, Atlantia, ETRI, and Mitsubishi Electric. On May 18, 2026, the UPC Local Chamber in Düsseldorf rejected Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against its Chinese competitor Angelalign. Angelalign may continue to sell its clear aligners within the UPC jurisdiction. Our partners Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz, and Wanze Zhang, together with Arnold Ruess, successfully represented Angelalign. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced midweek that, since October of last year, it has invalidated or is seeking to invalidate approximately 10,500 trademark applications and registrations in eleven administrative orders. Reasons include forged attorney signatures and the fabrication of non-existent filing requirements. This stems from ongoing abuse of the U.S. trademark system, primarily by non-U.S. applicants, which can lead to conflicts with validly registered trademarks for legitimate businesses. On May 12, 2026, the British Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that would have required Nokia to grant interim licenses for video coding patents. The court found that Nokia's license offer to the Taiwanese manufacturers Acer and Asus had already been made on RAND terms. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the ongoing Corteva v. Inari litigation, expressing antitrust concerns regarding certain patent practices in the field of plant breeding. This marks the first time the agency has actively intervened in a biopharmaceutical patent dispute with implications for seed innovations. Episode 175 of the IP Fridays podcast was a conversation I will not forget quickly. My guest Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK and a patent attorney for 36 years, took a case through every level of the British court system up to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, fundamentally changed patent law for AI inventions in the UK. The case is called Emotional Perception, and its effects reach well beyond British borders. Below I summarize the key points from our conversation. The full episode is available at IP Fridays. A. What Is the Emotional Perception Case About? The underlying invention concerns artificial neural networks. Specifically, it relates to a method of closing what is called the semantic gap at the output of a neural network. That sounds abstract, but the idea is straightforward: a neural network always produces an output that does not fully correspond to what a human would actually expect or feel. Closing that gap brings the system closer to human perception and human expectations. Bruce Dearling drafted this application himself and filed it at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Office rejected it as excluded subject matter, characterizing it as essentially a computer program as such. The legal basis for that rejection was the Aerotel decision from 2006. The case then went to the High Court, which found in favor of the applicant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Then the UK Supreme Court stepped in and changed everything. B. The Aerotel Test and Its Flaws Since 2006, the Aerotel test had been the standard British method for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under patent law. It was a four-step approach: construe the claim, identify the actual contribution the invention makes to human knowledge, ask whether that contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter, and finally check whether the contribution is technical in nature. The problem Dearling described in our conversation is that Aerotel reverses the logical order of the analysis. You start with the contribution and only then ask about the exclusions under Article 52 EPC. The UK Supreme Court described Aerotel in its judgment as “unsound law” and overturned it. The EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal had previously called Aerotel “disingenuous,” which at the time led to a public dispute between the British courts and the Boards. With the Emotional Perception ruling, that conflict has now been resolved in favor of harmonization with the EPO. C. What the UK Supreme Court Decided The Supreme Court made two central findings. First, the exclusion of computer programs “as such” is overcome as soon as a claim includes any piece of hardware. It does not matter whether that is a processor, a memory module, or any other component. The threshold is deliberately low. Dearling described this as the “any hardware” approach, which aligns fully with the EPO’s position following G1/19. Second, and in Dearling’s assessment the more important finding: when assessing inventive step, the invention must be considered as a whole. The Court introduced what it called an “intermediate step,” an analytical stage in which the interactions between all features of a claim are examined before the question of inventive step is addressed. Non-technical features cannot simply be struck out if they contribute to the overall technical effect of the invention. D. Inventive Step: The Intermediate Step This is the heart of the judgment. In EPO practice, Dearling said, it happens regularly that examiners strike through features they consider non-technical and thereby fail to assess the invention’s inventive step correctly. A recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, T 1249/22, already criticized this approach: a claim directed at a technical solution to a problem can be patentable even if the underlying problem is non-technical in nature. Dearling recalled a remark made by a Board of Appeal member at a hearing he attended years ago: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” That quote stayed with him because it names a structural problem that the intermediate step now addresses directly. The British method for assessing inventive step is the Pozzoli test, which differs from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court explicitly retained Pozzoli because the problem-solution approach, in its view, is structurally infected with hindsight reasoning: you already know the invention, you work backwards to formulate an objective technical problem, and then you ask whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at precisely that solution. Dearling sees this as a source of unfairness toward genuine inventions. E. Alignment with the Unified Patent Court In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in Abbott v. Sinocare (APP_000000901/2025, judgment of 17 April 2025). Dearling pointed out that this decision uses language and reasoning strikingly similar to the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling of February 2025. That is significant because the UPC is bound neither by UK courts nor by the EPO. The overlap suggests voluntary convergence. Dearling reported a conversation with a person close to the EPO, whom he did not name, who used the word “permissive” to describe the UK Supreme Court’s approach and indicated that the EPO might move toward it. Whether and how quickly that happens remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UPC, as the new European patent court, is setting its own standards, and the question of how to handle non-technical features in inventive step assessment is now being asked at multiple levels simultaneously. F. Implications for the EPO and Practice The EPO is not directly bound by the ruling. It is an administrative body, not a court. Dearling is nonetheless optimistic that change is coming. On one hand, external pressure is building: when the UK Supreme Court and the UPC articulate similar principles, convergence becomes hard to resist. On the other hand, Article 27.1 TRIPS requires all contracting states to make patents available in all fields of technology. Examiners routinely striking non-technical features from AI claims and rejecting them on that basis sits uncomfortably with that obligation. For the underlying application in the Emotional Perception case, the ruling has a pointed consequence. The Supreme Court did not grant the patent itself; it referred the matter back to the UKIPO for reconsideration under the intermediate step. The Office’s subsequent response was, in Dearling’s words, unconvincing. He suspects the Office is attempting to reintroduce the Aerotel test through the back door. As a last resort, he has not excluded a judicial review, a procedure that does not simply challenge the substantive decision but holds the Comptroller General of Patents to account for whether the Office is deliberately circumventing the Supreme Court’s direction on the intermediate step. That is, as Dearling put it, “a nuclear option,” but one he would not rule out if the evidence in the file already suggests the Office is in contempt of court. There is also an international dimension. Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office launched a public consultation shortly after the ruling, asking whether Singapore should adopt the Emotional Perception approach into national law. That is British soft power operating in real time within the Commonwealth. G. Three Takeaways for Patent Practitioners At the end of our conversation I asked Bruce Dearling to distill the most important practical points. His first takeaway: make sure the claim contains hardware. This applies not only to UK and European applications but is simply good drafting hygiene. Without hardware in the claim, the application remains exposed. The second takeaway concerns the description. Anyone filing an AI invention needs to explain clearly which function is achieved by which piece of hardware, circuit, or software. Not as boilerplate, but as a complete technical account that describes the real-world effects. Dearling’s experience is that practitioners who write the claim first and fill in the description afterward run into trouble. The third takeaway emerged from the conversation itself: how the EPO assesses inventive step for AI inventions is not a settled question. It is worth following the development of UPC case law and any shifts in EPO practice closely. Anyone advising on AI patent applications today needs to know these arguments. H. Conclusion The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling is not a British footnote. It has declared the Aerotel test dead, introduced the intermediate step that brings non-technical features back into the inventive step analysis, and set off a convergence movement that is already visible at the UPC and still pending at the EPO. For everyone working in AI patent practice, whether in prosecution, examination, or counseling, this ruling is required reading. Rolf Claessen: Our interview guest on IP Fridays podcast is Bruce Dearling. He has been in the IP field and a patent attorney for 36 years and is partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure, Rolf. Thank you for inviting me. Rolf Claessen: All right. We just met at the INTA annual meeting in London. And you talked about the UK Supreme Court case where you were involved. And the core questions were whether non-technical features would be considered when assessing inventive step of patents. Can you briefly summarize this case? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit more than that. It started — I actually wrote the case. And I prosecuted it through the patent office. The patent office rejected the case for being excluded subject matter. So pretty much the excluded subject matter provisions in the UK are nearly identical. They’re as near as practical to the language of the EPC, so those of the European Patent Office — Article 52.2. But again, they apply as such. The actual technology relates to artificial neural networks. And the invention related to a very clever way of what is termed closing the semantic gap at the output of the neural network. So that means that in a neural network, there is always a discrepancy between the output of the neural network in terms of what it’s telling you you should be thinking essentially, and what reality is. So if you can close the semantic gap, then you align the neural network or the artificial intelligence system to better reflect human knowledge or human reactions and human expectations. So that’s really what the invention is about. There’s no point in going into too much detail with it — that’s the way it is. It’s very clever. So the UKIPO rejected this because they said it was essentially a computer program excluded from patentability as such. And they used a decision which is called Aerotel, which has been around since 2006. And that decision has caused considerable consternation and tension between the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal and the UK courts. Aerotel was described as being essentially disingenuous by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. And the UK courts pushed back and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s where it fell apart. So that’s where they rejected it for essentially being a computer program as such, possibly with a bit of business methods thrown in as well. But let’s leave that for the time being. So the case then went to the High Court and at the High Court, we won. The judge said, actually, it’s not a computer program. Neural networks aren’t computers. They’re not programs themselves. There’s more to them than that. And the invention as claimed is not excluded from patentability as such. The UKIPO obviously weren’t very happy about that because they liked their Aerotel case and so they appealed it. And they appealed it on several grounds, including a new one, which was that it was a mathematical method. The Court of Appeal decided that the UKIPO was right and that we were wrong, so we lost the case. So we then went to the Supreme Court. Well, actually, they denied us an ability to go to the Supreme Court. The court said no appeal. We went — actually, no, I think there is a bigger issue here — because we realized, or I realized at that point, that the work that we were doing was much broader than this. It requires real consideration of what an invention is at a fundamental level. So not only exclusions, but how inventive step is applied. And these issues were built into the case from the very beginning. And they sort of — I wouldn’t say crept up on the court as we went through — but they became more and more prominent to the extent that ultimately, when we made an application to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went, yeah, we’ve got some issues here. We want to hear the full arguments on why this is not excluded from patentability, why Aerotel is potentially bad and how we more or less try to align ourselves with the European Patent Office. So that’s essentially what happened. And the Supreme Court hearing was last July. It took them the thick end of eight months to come out with a decision, which was issued in early February, at which point the entire legal landscape in the UK changed because they said we were right. The Patent Office doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Aerotel is bad. It’s unsound. That’s what they described it as — unsound law. It needs to be removed and we’re going to harmonize with the European Patent Office. So before I — I’m just going on a bit of a rant here, standing on my soapbox telling you what you already know. But the Aerotel test essentially was — it was a four-step test, past tense. So you firstly had to construe the claim. That’s pretty straightforward. Then you actually had to identify the actual contribution. This is what they said — identify the contribution. Really in this aspect, you’re asking what, as a matter of substance rather than form, the inventor has added to human knowledge. So that’s what they said the contribution was. And then they said, the next step in Aerotel was to ask, well, does that contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter field or realm? And then they said, well, if you get through that question, then you check the actual contribution or the alleged contribution to see whether it’s technical in nature. So that’s the Aerotel test as it was. And what the Supreme Court in their unanimous final decision said was that Aerotel at best jumbles up the order. It reverses the logical order of the analysis by starting with the contributions and then addressing the Article 52 exclusions. And then finally it goes back to what the technical nature of the invention is about. So they really went, no, we don’t like any of this stuff. It’s bad, it’s stupid, it puts the cart before the horse. So, in the intervening period between finding the case and actually seeing it progress all the way to the Supreme Court, we obviously had the G1/19 decision from the EPO Enlarged Board. And they basically said that they are going to validate any hardware as the approach. And that’s essentially what the UK also went with. The UK Supreme Court said we’re going to say that the threshold of patentability — or the exclusion to patentability — is simply overcome by the inclusion in a claim of any piece of hardware, whether it’s a processor or a piece of memory or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Any hardware makes the invention a technical invention. So it’s a really low threshold to consider. And they then went, well, actually, if we now align and harmonize with the European Patent Office sensibly, then we need to look at how we assess inventive step, which is the other thing that we raised with the Supreme Court. In fact, we probably raised it at other times and in all the other instances as well, but it came to a head at the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court then also went a bit further and said, well, actually, whilst we do like the global approach to assessing inventive step for all fields of technology — whether it’s chemistry or biotech or electronics or software or AI — we use a test called Pozzoli. So that isn’t problem-solution. We don’t like problem-solution. We think it’s not codified in the European Patent Office. It’s just a mechanism that the EPO has come up with to try to objectively assess inventive step. We don’t particularly think that’s appropriate. We like our approach called Pozzoli. That’s it. So we’re going to say with Pozzoli, however, in order to actually understand — particularly in the context of mixed inventions having technical and non-technical features — it’s necessary for the examiner to undertake the so-called intermediate step, where you have to look at the interactions between features within a claim. The invention is defined by the claim. That’s what the act says. That’s what everyone understands. It’s the invention defined by the claim. So you look at the claim features and then you have to understand the interactions that take place. And even if they are between technical and non-technical features, if they bring about an overall technical effect when you consider the invention as a whole, then your claim should be good and you can assess it for classical inventive step. So that’s really where we’re at. There’s a lot to unpack there already. It’s probably a podcast in its own right, but that’s the positive history of where we’re at. And I can keep going if you wish me to for a second and talk about why I think this is — we’ll just contrast it quickly with the problem-solution approach at the EPO and COMVIK. So for inventions in the computer-implemented field, they use COMVIK and the problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court said, as I said, they don’t like problem-solution. I think the problem-solution issue is that it is also inherently pre-baked with hindsight because you have to look at the invention and then step back and exclude those features which are common. And then you formulate a problem based on the function that the claim achieves. And then you’re asking whether or not it would be obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention, having been given that hindsight-developed problem. So COMVIK is not great by any means. And we know from a practical perspective that examiners are only too willing to look at a claim and simply line through features which they believe are non-technical, whereas they don’t actually look at the interaction of those features in the context of the claim as a whole. There is also a decision — very recent one actually, about a year ago — T 1249/22, where the Technical Board of Appeal told the examiners and the examining division, you cannot do this. It’s okay to have a claim directed towards an invention in a non-technical field, as long as the invention is directed to a technical solution of that problem. I think it’s paragraphs 11 and 12 or 10 of that decision that are worth looking at. But they’re saying that in all fields of technology, it doesn’t matter as long as the technical solution is about technology — therefore, you should be able to obtain a patent as long as there is a realistic and appropriate technical effect. Be careful actually, Bruce — I don’t mean technical contribution, I mean technical effect. There’s a reason for that distinction. Rolf Claessen: The non-technical features are nevertheless used to assess inventive step in the UK now after this decision, right? Bruce Dearling: Yes, that is the intermediate step. The decision says you must look at the invention as a whole. It’s the important thing. There are a couple of issues that arise out of this. The first one is that you have to provide context for the invention. The Supreme Court never provided any specific guidance about how we deal with the intermediate step or what the exact test is, which is in some respects fine. It seems to be fairly clear that you just have to engage your gray matter — your neurons — to work out what is going on in the real world. And once you work out what’s going on in the real world, what the benefits are, then you look at whether or not the actual implementation of the invention fundamentally has a technical flavor to it, which is not just coding, not just simple coding, but it does something smarter. There’s a real technical impetus. There’s a technical effect. Now that actually brings me onto something I’ve postulated or said. I think the intermediate step will follow something like what I’ve termed the holistic character test, which essentially is: work out what’s going on in the real world. Then once you’ve worked out what’s actually being achieved, what the benefits are, what the invention’s concerned with, then you ask the question, how am I achieving it technically? And how is there a technical effect? How does the technical effect arise? That brings out a couple of issues. The first one is that it’s actually about the word “contribution” because it depends on how the word is used. So if you look at head note one in COMVIK, it uses the word “contribute” — how the non-technical feature contributes to the invention. So that’s an additive inclusive concept. The UK IPO historically, and arguably at the moment today whilst they’re trying to retrain their 400 examiners — which this has caused them to have to do — their idea of contribution is this backward-looking concept. So technical contribution and technical effect, I think — although we mix them up and interchange them — are distinct. Technical contribution: you’re looking backwards. Technical effect is what you look at when you look forward into what’s going on. So this is subtle — it’s really subtle, but it’s important. And once you realize that you are actually looking for the technical effects, then you’re on much safer ground. It’s much more objective in terms of the assessment. This might be somewhat contentious, because it’s the way I’m looking at this, but I’ve been working on this a long, long time and thinking about it for probably decades, worryingly so. So technical contribution and technical effects are probably not the same, where they are interchangeably used to mean the same thing within existing decisions. Rolf Claessen: And in the beginning you said, now that Aerotel is dead basically, it’s more harmonized with the EPO’s approach. But what I take from the discussion now is that maybe — especially in view of the problem-solution approach — it’s not fully harmonized with the EPO’s approach at the moment, right? Or did the UK Supreme Court get something wrong, or was that a desired outcome from your point of view that this is not so completely harmonized with the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Well, the EPO — the any-hardware solution is fully harmonized, no doubt. So it’s now a question of inventive step under Article 56 or Section 3 of the Act. The EPC nowhere mandates the use of problem-solution. And we know that there are many different ways of actually assessing inventive step, including the concrete elaboration test from last year and problem-of-invention approaches. So there are numerous ways of assessing inventive step. So the UK says, “Pozzoli — we like Pozzoli.” Interestingly, I had a discussion with someone I probably can’t mention. They’re saying that the UK approach may actually be more permissive now. It might even influence how the EPO operates. So they may move away from COMVIK towards more of a Pozzoli approach, which basically says this: You identify the notion of the skilled person — step one. You identify the common general knowledge of that skilled person — step one B. You identify the inventive concept of the claim in question, where you construe it if you can’t work out what it is. You then identify what the differences are. And then you ask the question, is it obvious to the skilled person, given knowledge of the common general knowledge? This is entirely not artificial because, as I said beforehand, when you look at problem-solution, you are formulating a problem by backtracking from what the claimed invention is to a situation where you say, well, these are the common features and I’m going to project a problem to try and solve. Now that is already tainted with hindsight reasoning. It’s not safe, it’s not thoroughly objective. There is an inherent problem with this which sees good inventions cast by the wayside. Although it’s a preferred mechanism, it’s not fully baked. There are situations where examiners are inherently lazy, or they just simply use something like the requirements specification argument, which is just factual. It just demonstrates that they can’t be bothered to actually argue it properly or think about what the invention is. Sorry to any examiners listening to this, but this is just my personal view, that sometimes there are problems. I’m reminded of a quote from an EPI hearing I was at a long time ago, where the Legal Board of Appeal member said: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” Now that one has stayed with me because you think — did someone just say that? And the answer is yes, they did. But it just goes to show that there is some tension between the TBA and the examining divisions, and they don’t always get it right. Rolf Claessen: So there might be a small difference now between the UKIPO’s future approach of assessing inventive step and the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, it might do. But the other interesting thing here — and thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t entirely caught up with it, I’ve been traveling beforehand and I missed some of the UPC case law. So the UPC case law — in, was it — yeah, we talked about that. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. There was a decision in April, Abbott versus Sinocare. Bruce Dearling: Yeah, 901 of 2025. So a Court of Appeal decision from the UPC. It was APP_000000901, I believe, 2025. Decision 17th of April, hearing 27th of March. The UPC is not bound by — it’s a court. The European Patent Office is not a court, it’s an agency that administers and looks after the administrative rule of law. So the fact that this decision came out from the UK Supreme Court in February, and you see almost identical language used in the UPC decision, suggests that there is some alignment here, or some convergence in thought. Now, whilst the UPC decision also references G1/19 and uses problem-solution, there is enough — you’ve got to bear in mind that high-level courts do look at each other’s decisions. And this is really a question of influence and the desire to converge. So the fact that they’ve done this at this time is quite interesting. Again, I can’t quote someone directly from the EPO, although I would love to. They were saying — at a very high level — and they used the words “converge UPC practice towards UK Supreme Court practice on interpretation of the law.” So this may actually be happening in real time. Again, it would be wrong to actually refer to anyone by name, but it’s an observation that when I looked at the case, I can see why this is going ahead. And I can see why the judiciaries — they want to maintain independent judicial controls. They won’t reference the UK Supreme Court decision, not least because we’re not in the UPC. But if you look at the arguments in sections 106 and 107 of the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision and head note one, you go — wow, this is very close. Rolf Claessen: Very close and nearly identical wording. Yeah. And the UPC also now uses non-technical features for assessing inventive step. Is that a problem for the EPO that has historically been aggressive in throwing out non-technical features for inventive step analysis? Bruce Dearling: Well, I think they really need to get to the situation — I don’t know — this holistic character test that I’m sort of proposing, where you really have to think about what the invention is achieving, and then look at how it’s technically being achieved. And then if you look at that again in the context of that other decision I mentioned — T 1249/22 — it says something like, in the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method, provided the non-technical method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The board validated the approach of identifying the non-technical method and then goes through and says it’s patentable. There are decisions like this which suggest that examining divisions have to give it a bit more thought, because the Technical Board will realize that to satisfy the WTO requirements — which pretty much everyone is bound by — Article 27.1 TRIPS, which requires that you protect all fields of technology. And that means whether it’s data processing or business methods, because business methods can be patentable so long as they are implemented on a technical basis. That essentially seems to be what T 1249/22 is saying, although it doesn’t explicitly say “allowing business methods.” The exclusion is only “as such.” So does this decision, in combination with the Supreme Court case and the movement of the UPC, say: well, actually, let’s look at this properly? It requires objective assessments, not just superficial “let’s strike through that feature because I don’t like it, it looks non-technical.” Rolf Claessen: So are you hopeful that the EPO is adjusting and will reshape their case law in view of the UPC decision and the UK Supreme Court decision? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit unfortunate that the corresponding UK case at the EPO was dropped by the applicants, because it was heading towards an examination hearing at the examining division. It would have gone to the TBA, and I’m sure it would then have gone from the TBA to the Enlarged Board. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. There is another case from the same client which will probably argue the same thing because the specs are almost identical. It’s just lagged in time. So is it going to change? I hope so, because I think the EPO have got it wrong — more often than not in this field. Well, maybe not more often than not — they get it wrong more times than they should do. Would I like to see it changed? Yes, I would, because I want the examiners to actually think about the technology as opposed to just — oh, it’s not — I don’t want to engage the gray matter. That serves no one. That doesn’t serve technology. That doesn’t serve industry. These patent rights are there for a reason. They are property rights. I’m referring to the award of the 2025 Nobel Prize for Economics — they are a core driver for society’s development. So the 2025 Nobel Prize was for something called creative destruction — the replacement of old technology with new — and it’s based on the patent paradigm. So all this stuff is coming to a head now. It’s just a question of how quickly the EPO actually catch up, and maybe they have something to catch up on. It’s just understanding that the examiners have to start to think. As I said, we’ve got the issues at the UKIPO where they’re going to have to retrain 400 examiners. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, right. Bruce Dearling: The Emotional Perception case wasn’t granted by the Supreme Court. They referred it back to the patent office for consideration under the intermediate step. So the patent office produced a response that I would describe as — I’d say arguably — not well reasoned, which I’ve filed the response to, which basically says you don’t really know what you’re talking about. What really worries me a bit is that I think they’re trying to introduce the Aerotel case through the back door. It’s backsliding. It’s a mechanism for trying to apply it in a different way or a different context, which would be wrong. I think they believe that the applicant will appeal this if they get a bad decision — they will appeal it back to the courts again via the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court route. I say maybe not. I say maybe the client will file what they call a judicial review, which is a nuclear option. That’s when you actually hold the Comptroller General of Patents to account and get full discovery of whether or not there’s internal documentation showing that they are deliberately circumventing the direction of the Supreme Court on the intermediate step. This is basically holding them to account and saying: if you’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately, you are in contempt of the law. So judicial review is a really serious thing to do, but it’s certainly something I would not exclude from consideration. We’ll see what happens. It’s not saying we’re just going to go through the courts and make them decide on this. We’re going to say you’re wrong. And there’s already enough evidence in the files to suggest that they are probably in contempt of court and they’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately. They may not know any better at the moment — they need to be guided — but the consequences for them are potentially severe. Rolf Claessen: I have another question for you. You were the instructing attorney — do you think the decision was perfect? What argument that you made was the most underappreciated by the court? And where do you think the judgment got it wrong, or was it all perfect? Bruce Dearling: No, it got 90% or 95% correct. The intermediate step is right. That’s the most important thing in the decision — it’s the intermediate step. The any-hardware thing — that’s logical, that makes some sense — but if people say “if the any-hardware rule is the important bit,” no it isn’t. It’s the intermediate step. That’s the important thing. Where do they go wrong? I think they went wrong because — and you’ve got to bear in mind that unlike German courts, I’ve got to be careful about how I express this — generally, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary in Germany on patent cases are generally more technically able. They’re normally technically qualified. I look at the Supreme Court justices and the Court of Appeal justices — we had one who was a humanities undergrad, one was a chemist. Good luck with trying to argue complex artificial neural network technologies, which are difficult even for me to understand. And I’ve been working in the field. They’re hard to understand. They require real understanding, real appreciation. They could say, well, actually we don’t need to look at the technology — but frankly, if you’re looking at the statutes and exclusions to patentability and asking what a computer program is, then you need to understand what these technical terms really are. And if you can’t, then the judgment is potentially flawed. Their finding that the neural network is a computer program is, I think, technically obtuse. You know that the Singaporean government — the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore — released about six weeks ago a consultation note to the Singaporean profession and population, asking: is the Emotional Perception case right, and do we need to adopt it into Singaporean national law? So this is direct soft power from the UK Supreme Court changing Commonwealth legislation and statutes. We’ll see what happens. But from what I’ve seen of a draft response from the attorneys, they’re saying essentially: we agree any hardware is right, the intermediate step is right. The assessment of the neural network as a computer program is wrong, or it just doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve made the same comments before in SIPA, in the relevant round in March. There’s a disconnect. I mean, it’s like they equate a computer program with being able to be run on an analog computer. Now, an analog computer has no central processing unit. An analog computer just has resistors and transistors and capacitors. So if they’re saying that an analog computer can run a program — that’s essentially what they’re saying in part of the judgment. Where is the program in an analog computer? And if they’re saying it’s in the values of the resistors and the capacitors, then that has implications for any circuit we’ve got — it’s potentially a computer program — which is just madness, because it doesn’t sit well with the legislation and decisions we’ve looked at over the last 50 years. This is a real problem. It may be a storm in a teacup because you can overcome the objections by having any hardware, but it’s an argument they shouldn’t have been making. It seems to be abstract legal argumentation which has little credibility in my personal view, although it’s now law. It may be that someone can take that, have an argument with the Supreme Court, get them to fix this. The other thing is the EPO looks at a neural network as a mathematical method, and the UK now says it’s a computer program. Neither is right. The EPO is wrong as well. If you look at the actual decision which they regularly quote — the Vicom case — if you actually read the claim and look at the case, you see that it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. A neural network has applied mathematics in it. It can be based on a computer program because it’s required to set up the learning objectives and the loss function. Mathematical processes — it tweaks the weighting factors of neurons over the course of the training epochs. But at the end of the day, if the function performed by the neural network is new and it’s directed towards a technical implementation which is technically relevant, then it shouldn’t fail for being a mathematical method. And I think the EPO guidelines actually say that. Even recommendations — the UK court said that a recommendation is not technical. Well, actually it is, because it’s data processing, and you’ve got to work out how does the data processing work to provide an improved recommendation? Again, it goes back to the T 1249/22 decision. There’s a whole raft of these things which are left not entirely resolved. There’s enough here to keep someone busy for a few more years. Rolf Claessen: Right. So I have a question for you now that we’ve talked about the decision of the UK Supreme Court and the UPC — the Unified Patent Court — with very, very similar wording. What do you say are the three most important takeaways for patent practitioners in the US, in Europe, in the UK, before the EPO? Are there any things that you really want patent practitioners to take away from our discussion here? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, okay. So first: make sure the claim has some structure in it. You need to have any hardware. That’s number one — in terms of claim drafting. In terms of the description, you really have to understand what the invention is about. And you’ve got to make sure that you explain what function is achieved by what piece of hardware, kit or software. And if you do that — don’t nickel-and-dime this by writing the claim first — I would suggest that you run into problems. You need to understand what the invention is about. And you need to make sure that the description is complete and full to describe the functionality and the effects that are achieved in the real world. And if you can do that, then you’re on a much sounder basis — much, much stronger. There’s a much stronger foundation for this. So that’s two things. Is there a third one? That’s me being a bit cheeky, but I suppose I know what’s going on. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, but maybe the third takeaway is that maybe the EPO will rethink the way — at least how AI inventions are assessed for inventive step. Bruce Dearling: Well, as I said to you before, it could be that that’s the case. I don’t want to repeat myself again. The word “permissive” was used in a conversation I had with respect to the UK Supreme Court approach. COMVIK fundamentally still breaks with me and has done for years, because the way it’s set up and the way it’s applied distorts fundamentally what the invention is about. And until such time as that distortion is removed, there is a problem of objectivity versus subjectivity. And I think that’s really what the EPO has to grapple with. It’s not an easy thing to deal with, but maybe there are things going on. Bruce Dearling: It’s not an easy thing to deal with. I don’t know who’s going to argue it. It would have been useful for me to still have the original case up and running at the EPO because these arguments would have been fleshed out. I’m pretty sure they would have been referred to the Enlarged Board. We would have got it resolved. So it’s whether or not I can now work this into the existing case to try and get the examining division to — well, they will refuse, I suspect. And then it’ll go to the TBA. And then the TBA will have to look at this, hopefully with the referrals to the Enlarged Board. And then that fixes the problem on a national and international basis. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. Let’s see. [Laughs] Bruce Dearling: No, we don’t know. I mean, you might have a different view. What do you think? Do you think COMVIK is fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong? Rolf Claessen: Well, I’m not so much into AI inventions. I’m a chemist and I usually deal with chemistry inventions. But from the discussion that we had, I think that the EPO might rethink their position. I don’t know. Let’s see. Let’s hope so. Bruce Dearling: Well, they liked it. They liked problem-solution. It’s been with us for 25 years. It suggests that it’s a compromise. It’s not mandated by the European Patent Convention — that’s the point. It’s something they think works. And these things only work until such time as someone comes along and says, actually, you’re wrong, and this is the reason. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if they choose a different route at least for AI inventions. So Bruce, thank you very much for your insight and for talking about the case that you were involved in with the UK Supreme Court. Where could people reach you if they have more questions about this field — basically patents, AI protection in the UK and Europe — and if they want to ask you more questions about this case? Bruce Dearling: Sure. Through the Hepworth Brown website or my LinkedIn profile, I suppose. The Hepworth Brown website has an email link. I’m trying to post things on it as well to try and provide a bit more context. But if people have fundamental questions on this stuff, then I’m happy to try and answer them. I suppose that I can be considered to be quite knowledgeable in the area. Rolf Claessen: Right. Certainly more than I am. [Laughing] Bruce Dearling: So I was fortunate. As a consequence of the work I’m doing, I was appointed last year to the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents and Privacy. That was discussed for the issues of where WIPO goes and what the direction of the problems are that we have in high-tech areas. So there seems to be some degree of understanding that I might know what I’m talking about. I think I probably do. Rolf Claessen: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure. Thank you very much, Rolf.

Haroon Inam is Co-founder and CEO of DG Matrix, a company that makes the world's most compact Power Router, aggregating distributed energy for GenAI datacenters, microgrids, fleet electrification, and associated systems. As AI workloads drive unprecedented electricity demand and legacy grid infrastructure struggles to keep pace, DG Matrix has commercialized the world's first multi-port solid-state transformer to meet the energy needs. In this episode, Inam explains why transformer bottlenecks, distributed generation, and 800V DC architectures are reshaping the future of power delivery for AI infrastructure. He discusses DG Matrix's product strategy, manufacturing scale-up plans, and the role of software-defined power systems in next-generation data centers. Finally, Inam shares his take on the future of distributed microgrids and “cellular power” and how to scale power electronics manufacturing. DG Matrix recently closed a $60 million Series A led by Engine Ventures that MCJ is proud to have participated in.  Episode recorded on May 13, 2026 (Published on May 26, 2026) In this episode, we cover:  (00:00) Overview of DG Matrix  (01:41) Introducing the Founders: Haroon Inam and Dr. Bhattacharya (05:25) How traditional grid architecture became constrained for AI workloads (09:57) Solid-state transformers (SST), multi-port systems and voltage classes (12:18) Why early SST efforts struggled economically (13:13) How DG Matrix's multi-port architecture works (16:48) Comparing DG Matrix hardware footprint to legacy power systems (20:08) Transformer shortages and data center infrastructure bottlenecks (24:27) DG Matrix's medium-voltage and low-voltage product strategies (27:55) Product rebranding and current commercial deployments (30:45) Partnerships with EPC firms, battery providers, and turbine manufacturers (34:27) Manufacturing scale-up plan and hyperscaling production (36:36) Supply chain strategy to avoid rare earth dependencies (38:16) Reliability engineering and software-defined power systems (43:47) DG Matrix's go-to-market and hybrid hardware/software business model (46:36) The vision for distributed “cellular power” (48:14) Utilities, microgrids, and the future of interconnected distributed infrastructure Enjoyed this episode? Please leave us a review! Share feedback or suggest future topics and guests at info@mcj.vc.Connect with MCJ:Cody Simms on LinkedInVisit mcj.vcSubscribe to the MCJ Newsletter*Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant

This limestone battery can achieve 100+ hour heat storage without lithium and zero standby losses.Industrial heat is a $1T+ problem, but most solutions ignore storage, especially those using ancient chemistry.Arpit Dwivedi is the founder and CEO of Cache Energy, building thermal storage systems for industrial decarbonization.Cache uses calcium oxide chemistry to store and release heat, targeting sub-1,000°F processes that represent ~75% of global industrial demand, with modular systems designed for rapid deployment and low cost.Here's what we discussed:Unit economics anchored in materials, not breakthroughs – Limestone feedstock at

Energy resilience for homeowners is the mission behind Energy Access Innovations, a multi-brand clean energy company building an end-to-end ecosystem for solar and battery storage. Nicole Tomasin, Chief Commercial Officer at EAI, joins Tim Montague to explain how the company serves the consumers the rest of the industry ignores, including DIYers and rural markets.Battery storage and solar access for homeowners is moving beyond coastal markets and high-income consumers. Energy Access Innovations has built a multi-brand portfolio covering distribution, DIY support, installation, and financing under one mission: making energy resilience affordable for every American. Nicole walks Tim through how the company's sister brands, including EG4, Signature Solar, Outback Power, Solar 76, Sun Atlas Power, and EA365, work together to serve customers that most distributors and installers turn away. The company's new XR60 battery, 60 kWh with a 16 kW inverter for under $20,000, and its EA365 prepaid lease, which returns a 30% rebate directly to homeowners, are proof that affordability and transparency are not competing goals. Here is what you will learn in this conversation about residential battery storage affordability and energy resilience:You will find out how the XR60 delivers 60 kWh of storage and a 16 kW inverter for under $20,000, why it ships as a single freestanding unit weighing 1,600 pounds, and when it arrives in market.Learn how the EA365 prepaid lease returns a 30% rebate directly to homeowners, making the residential ITC phase-out less damaging for consumers who no longer qualify for the tax credit.Understand why Energy Access Innovations built Sun Atlas Power, its own EPC company, to capture DIY customers who need installation help, and how it taps a network of 2,000 to 3,000 regional contractors already buying through Signature Solar.Find out why Tim pushed back on a California developer's claim that consumer-owned residential batteries are done, and what EAI's experience with DIY customers suggests about that prediction.You will hear why Texas surpassed California in storage deployment, how PJM grid services programs are generating returns that recover a battery investment in two to three years, and why Illinois is a priority market for EAI.The residential ITC phase-out is compressing margins across the solar industry and pushing more customers toward third-party ownership models. Illinois is incentivizing 1.8 gigawatts of distributed batteries through its clean energy incentive program, and Texas has already surpassed California in storage deployment. Contractors who are not yet offering storage are running out of time to get positioned.Connect with Nicole Tomasin, Energy Access Innovations Nicole Tomasi: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicole-santos-tomasin/Sun Atlas Power: https://www.sunatlaspower.com/Episode 325, James Showalter: https://youtu.be/7CoJQ_lTLkU Support the showConnect with Tim  Clean Power Hour  Clean Power Hour on YouTubeTim on TwitterTim on LinkedIn Email tim@cleanpowerhour.com Review Clean Power Hour on Apple PodcastsThe Clean Power Hour is produced by the Clean Power Consulting Group and created by Tim Montague. Contact us by email:  CleanPowerHour@gmail.comCorporate sponsors who share our mission to speed the energy transition are invited to check out https://www.cleanpowerhour.com/support/The Clean Power Hour is brought to you by CPS America, maker of North America's number one 3-phase string inverter, with over 6GW shipped in the US. With a focus on commercial and utility-scale solar and energy storage, the company partners with customers to provide unparalleled performance and service. The CPS America product lineup includes 3-phase string inverters from 25kW to 275kW, exceptional data communication and controls, and energy storage solutions designed for seamless integration with CPS America systems.  Learn more at www.chintpowersystems.com

Is the 18-year property cycle about to trigger a crash? Plus, with EPC rules changing, should landlords be upgrading now or holding off? Your questions answered on this week's episode of Ask Rob & Rob. (00:45) Phil's wondering, could the conflict in Iran spark a property crash and prove the 18-year cycle right? Rob B explains why he's confident enough to go on record saying it won't happen this year. (06:08) Pete's properties are rated D and E. Should he start upgrading now to meet the 2030 EPC deadline? Rob D reveals why waiting for the new criteria could save you thousands and a lot of unnecessary hassle. Enjoy the show? Leave us a review on Apple Podcasts - it really helps others find us! Sign up for our free weekly newsletter, Property Pulse Got a question? Send it in here Find out more about Property Hub Invest

Creation Outside Genesis Part 4: Floored by awePsalm 33Rev. Justin OlivettiMain idea: The proper response to God's creative work is awe

What does it mean to be part of Christ's global church? In this episode of In All Things, Ed McCallum, ITEN's Associate for Site and Program Development and our Tuesday evening worship speaker at this year's General Assembly, reflects on Matthew 16 and the promise that Christ will build His church. With a focus on global mission and the upcoming World Outreach Commissioning service, Ed shares how the EPC participates in God's work around the world. This episode reminds us that the church is truly global and that we are “Better Together” as we join in God's mission across nations and cultures. To learn more about the 2026 General Assembly and to register, visit: epconnect.org/ga2026

Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) are everywhere - but do they actually help homeowners make decisions? Alongside expert insight from David Sanders from Vibrant Energy Matters, Phil Spencer breaks down what EPC ratings are meant to do, why they often fall short, and why so many homeowners find them confusing or frustrating. They explore how EPCs fit into the retrofit conversation, what factors actually affect the rating and why better guidance is needed. Do you know your home's EPC rating, and has it ever been useful? We want this series to reflect real homeowners so please do share your retrofit experiences, questions, and home upgrade stories in the comments. Your input will help shape future episodes and support others on the same journey!

Creation Outside Genesis Part 3: Sculpting with wisdomProverbs 8:22-31Rev. Justin OlivettiMain idea: Jesus sculpted the universe with wisdom

Andrew Davies is a Principal Consultant at 9 Degrees Consulting, specialising in onshore wind energy projects with deep expertise in multi-contract delivery and split scope contracting. With a background spanning technical engineering, project execution, and commercial advisory across Australia and Europe, Andrew brings a well-rounded perspective on how wind farm projects are delivered. In this episode, Andrew joins host Bijay to break down the evolving contracting landscape in the wind energy sector. They explore the shift from traditional EPC models to split scope contracting, the risks and rewards for developers, and how financing, cost pressures, and supplier dynamics are shaping decisions. The conversation also touches on emerging trends like battery storage, grid stability, and rising electricity demand, offering ideas for engineers, developers, and anyone navigating large-scale renewable energy projects. Resources and links: Andrew Davies on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-davies-9degrees/ Connect: The Society of Construction Law Australia website: https://www.scl.org.au/ The Society of Construction Law Australia on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/society-of-construction-law-australia/ Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this podcast series are those of the individual contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Society of Construction Law Australia (SoCLA). The content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, professional, or other advice. Listeners should consider their own circumstances and seek appropriate advice from qualified professionals before acting on any information contained in this podcast. This show is produced in collaboration with SoundCartel. Visit soundcartel.com.au for more information.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Week in Review - May 13, 2026In this Week in Review, we discuss the fallout from the EPC summit in Yerevan, Armenia's role as a platform for anti-Russian messaging, and Putin's warning about a possible “separation” if Armenia moves toward the EU. They examine the Armenia-EU declaration, focusing on TRIPP, Ukraine, hybrid threats, security cooperation, visa liberalization, and the Armenian Nuclear Power Plant. The episode then turns to Armenia's election campaign, Pashinyan's claim that Artsakh was “never ours,” Aliyev's parallel messaging from occupied Artsakh, pressure on opposition figures, the Swiss Peace Initiative, and sharp divergence between election polls.Topics:EPC fallout and Russia responseArmenia-EU declaration controversiesPashinyan's Artsakh campaign narrativeAliyev-Pashinyan tag-team messagingSwiss Peace InitiativePollsters diverge on election forecastsHosts:Hovik ManucharyanAsbed BedrossianEpisode 545 | Recorded: May 12, 2026SHOW NOTES: https://podcasts.groong.org/545VIDEO: https://youtu.be/pLYUk6q9Wx4#WeekInReview #Armenia #SwissPeaceInitiative #NagornoKarabakh #ArtsakhSubscribe and follow us everywhere you are: linktr.ee/groong

American solar manufacturing is getting a reboot. Dean Solon, founder of Create Energy and formerly of Shoals Technologies, sold 1 GW of product in Q1 of this year alone. In this episode, he walks Tim Montague through his vertically integrated factory in Portland, Tennessee, and names exactly why utility-scale solar equipment is quietly failing at scale. American solar manufacturing has a reliability problem, and the utilities and independent power producers who own these fields for 30 to 50 years are the ones absorbing the cost. Dean Solon, founder of Create Energy and the man who built and took Shoals Technologies public on the NASDAQ in 2021, has spent three years building a vertically integrated solar manufacturing operation in Portland, Tennessee, to address this directly. Create sold 1 gigawatt of product in Q1 of this year, with Q2 expected to double that output. Host Tim Montague tours the Create Energy factory floor and draws out exactly what full-stack, American-made solar hardware looks like in practice. Here is what you will learn from this conversation:You'll hear Dean Solon explain why module warranties are misleading and why EPC economics push toward equipment designed to last only past the two-year mark, leaving utilities and IPPs exposed for the decades of ownership ahead.Find out how Create Energy's OnTrack system uses one common control board across trackers, E-boss units, weather stations, and inverters, giving asset owners a single view of every row in a solar field with no separate pony panel required.Learn why Create offers a 10-year bumper-to-bumper warranty on its full product stack, and what Solon means when he says he eliminated failure modes rather than reduced them.Understand how automated, electric vegetation control cuts solar O&M costs in half, and why long-term asset owners should treat this as a budget line item, not a feature.For any asset owner weighing supply chain decisions in 2025, this conversation is a direct look at what the American manufacturing alternative looks like on the ground. Connect with Dean Solon and Create LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dean-solon-b8876649/Website: https://www.create.energy/ Support the showConnect with Tim  Clean Power Hour  Clean Power Hour on YouTubeTim on TwitterTim on LinkedIn Email tim@cleanpowerhour.com Review Clean Power Hour on Apple PodcastsThe Clean Power Hour is produced by the Clean Power Consulting Group and created by Tim Montague. Contact us by email:  CleanPowerHour@gmail.comCorporate sponsors who share our mission to speed the energy transition are invited to check out https://www.cleanpowerhour.com/support/The Clean Power Hour is brought to you by CPS America, maker of North America's number one 3-phase string inverter, with over 6GW shipped in the US. With a focus on commercial and utility-scale solar and energy storage, the company partners with customers to provide unparalleled performance and service. The CPS America product lineup includes 3-phase string inverters from 25kW to 275kW, exceptional data communication and controls, and energy storage solutions designed for seamless integration with CPS America systems.  Learn more at www.chintpowersystems.com

Conversations on Groong - May 11, 2026Anna Grigoryan of Hayastan Dashinq (Armenia Alliance) joins Groong to discuss Armenia's June 7 parliamentary election and the start of the official campaign. The conversation examines the EPC and Armenia-EU summits in Yerevan, EU political and financial support for Pashinyan, Aliyev's remote demarche, and opposition protests around Artsakh rights, Armenian prisoners, and democratic backsliding. The episode also covers opposition coalition math, Hayastan Dashinq's 8% bloc threshold, Strong Armenia's lead among opposition forces, possible post-election governing formulas, and the risks of a falsified vote. Grigoryan also discusses Armenia's foreign policy direction, the peace treaty with Azerbaijan, TRIPP and Syunik amid the Iran war, education as a national priority, and Hayastan Dashinq's core message to voters.Topics:Election campaign and opposition strategyEPC, EU-Armenia summit, and foreign influenceForeign policy, security, and regional risksDomestic priorities and election integrityGuest: Anna GrigoryanHosts:Hovik ManucharyanAsbed BedrossianEpisode 544 | Recorded: May 9, 2026SHOW NOTES: https://podcasts.groong.org/544VIDEO: https://youtu.be/SV2I8iBr9ss#AnnaGrigoryan #Armenia #ArmenianPolitics #ArmeniaElections #HayastanDashinq #EPCSummit #TRIPP #ArtsakhSubscribe and follow us everywhere you are: linktr.ee/groong

Creation Outside Genesis Part 2: Beyond our questionsJob 38:1-33Rev. Justin OlivettiMain idea: God's creation establishes his sovereignty

Creation Outside Genesis Part 1: The ballad of CreationPsalm 104Rev. Justin OlivettiMain idea: God's creation shows us that he is beautiful, loves order, and is a provider

Pick your pollster, party fundraising, a legislative all-nighter, a new Governor General Links BC Politics: Still-leaderless BC Conservatives open 10-point lead over NDP amid DRIPA uncertainty B.C. Politics: NDP Holds Narrow Lead as Housing, Health Care, and Deficit Concerns Keep Pressure on Government, Leger Poll 2026 First Quarter Interim Financial Reports Available | Elections BC B.C. premier calls allegations that cabinet minister was target of investigation false – The Globe and Mail Politicians were up all night debating B.C.'s Bill 9. Why does it matter so much? | CBC News Minister's statement about amendments to Bill 9 Supporting students in Tumbler Ridge with new secondary school Tumbler Ridge Secondary School will be demolished and rebuilt after mass shooting, province says | CBC News Louise Arbour to be installed Canada’s next governor general June 8 | CBC News Canada and Europe should get ‘creative' in forging closer ties, EU ambassador says | CBC News ‘I would be very pleased': PM Carney invited to address European Parliament Canada to be first non-European nation at EPC summit as Carney seeks allies Pension funds should invest more in Canada, Senate finance committee chair says – The Globe and Mail

What role does church planting play in the future of the EPC, and how can we be a part of it? In this episode of In All Things, Tom Ricks, National Director of Church Planting, shares a vision for church planting across the denomination and reflects on the opportunities available for current and prospective planters. Tom highlights the ways the EPC is working to equip, support, and send leaders into new communities with the gospel. With a special focus on this year's General Assembly, this conversation invites listeners to consider how they might engage in the work of church planting – whether by going, sending, or supporting – and reminds us that in this shared mission, we are truly “Better Together.” To learn more about the 2026 General Assembly and to register, visit: epconnect.org/ga2026

Solar racking is one of the lowest-cost line items on a DG project and one of the highest-risk failure points. Kyle Sinclair, Co-founder and CEO of SDE (Sinclair Designs and Engineering), joins Tim Montague to explain how USA-made steel and 4-day commercial engineering turnarounds are solving the lead time and logistics failures that slow commercial solar projects. SDE produces 3 megawatts of racking in a single 8-hour shift.On this episode of the Clean Power Hour, host Tim Montague speaks with Kyle about the full arc of SDE's product line, from the Skyrack 2.0 fixed-tilt ground-mount system to a new I-beam solution designed for rocky soil conditions in Texas and on the West Coast. They also cover the realities of solar carport installation, including foundation risk, soil testing, and why carport projects require a fundamentally different approach than ground mount racking.Here is what you will learn in this conversation:Learn how SDE turns around residential stamped drawing packages in 2 days and commercial packages in 4 days, and why that speed has become the deciding factor for EPCs managing safe harbor deadlines.Understand the difference between C-channel and I-beam ground mount racking, including why high refusal rates in rocky soil conditions led SDE to develop a 6x9 and 6x15 I-beam solution that Kyle says is more cost-effective than most competitors' C-channel designs.Learn what every EPC should know before pricing a solar carport installation: how soil conditions drive foundation costs from $1,500 per hole to $2,800 per hole, and why planning for worst-case geotech results protects your margin.Find out how SDE holds a 95% delivery accuracy rating using ISO 9001 quality management and Keyence scanning technology integrated into their ERP system, and why that matters when your crew is at a remote site expecting a full kit.Any EPC designing projects in the Midwest or expanding into new geographies need to hear Kyle's approach to engineering for conditions that historical data no longer predicts accurately.Connect with Kyle Sinclair, SDE Kyle LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kyle-sinclair-b9b60a62/SDE Website: https://www.sinclair-designs.com/ Support the showConnect with Tim  Clean Power Hour  Clean Power Hour on YouTubeTim on TwitterTim on LinkedIn Email tim@cleanpowerhour.com Review Clean Power Hour on Apple PodcastsThe Clean Power Hour is produced by the Clean Power Consulting Group and created by Tim Montague. Contact us by email:  CleanPowerHour@gmail.comCorporate sponsors who share our mission to speed the energy transition are invited to check out https://www.cleanpowerhour.com/support/The Clean Power Hour is brought to you by CPS America, maker of North America's number one 3-phase string inverter, with over 6GW shipped in the US. With a focus on commercial and utility-scale solar and energy storage, the company partners with customers to provide unparalleled performance and service. The CPS America product lineup includes 3-phase string inverters from 25kW to 275kW, exceptional data communication and controls, and energy storage solutions designed for seamless integration with CPS America systems.  Learn more at www.chintpowersystems.com

Groong Week in Review - May 3, 2026This Groong Week in Review examines a volatile week across Armenia and the region. Asbed and Hovik discuss Trump's declared ceasefire with Iran, the failed US-Iran talks in Islamabad, the continuing naval blockade, and the wider political pressure shaping Washington's war posture. The episode also covers “Operation Kochari,” the secret visit of Azerbaijani deputy prime minister Shahin Mustafayev to Armenia, border demarcation, TRIPP, and the political theater around trade with Azerbaijan. The discussion turns to Azerbaijan's destruction of the Stepanakert cathedral, the muted international response, and Pashinyan's comments on the issue. The hosts also analyze the latest MPG poll, opposition coalition math, election fraud concerns, the EPC meeting, legal pressure on the opposition, mass surveillance, and Armenia's falling press freedom ranking.Topics:Iran WarMustafayev in ArmeniaDestruction of the Stepanakert cathedral by AzerbaijanElection politicsHosts:Hovik ManucharyanAsbed BedrossianEpisode 539 | Recorded: May 2, 2026SHOW NOTES: https://podcasts.groong.org/539VIDEO: https://youtu.be/eIIg1IWYm1w#Armenia #Azerbaijan #IranWar #TRIPP #Artsakh #Stepanakert #ArmenianElections #GroongSubscribe and follow us everywhere you are: linktr.ee/groong

永遠不回頭 因為頭沒油臭 深層去油垢 洗淨頭皮油臭 一次全擁有倫士度洗回頭皮健康狀態 7天有感去味 LUCIDO倫士度．頭皮去味洗髮精 極淨去味配方 深層洗淨熟男黏膩油垢 立即體驗7天去味不回頭： https://fstry.pse.is/9699zq —— 以上為 Firstory Podcast 廣告 —— 第8屆歐洲政治共同體(EPC)峰會，4日首度於「亞美尼亞 首都葉里凡」舉行。更邀請加拿大總理卡尼首度跨海出席，展現泛歐與北美同盟的團結。法國總統馬克宏針對當前受阻的中東能源供應鏈，向美伊喊話。烏克蘭總統澤倫斯基也現身呼籲對俄羅斯加大外交施壓。 加入會員，支持節目： https://cku2d315gwbbo0947nezjmg86.firstory.io/join 留言告訴我你對這一集的想法： https://open.firstory.me/user/cku2d315gwbbo0947nezjmg86/comments YT收看《寰宇全視界》

Simon explores the significant impact of evolving Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) regulations on property investors in England and Wales, where 55% of properties currently fall short of the C rating required by 2030.  He discusses the shift from measuring energy use to energy retention, the practical challenges of retrofitting older properties like Victorian terraces, and the potential pitfalls of installing unapproved high-efficiency appliances. Highlighting a growing trend of landlords exiting the market due to these hurdles and other legislative pressures, the episode identifies a unique opportunity for savvy investors to acquire off-market properties by connecting with local landlord networks. KEY TAKEAWAYS EPCs are transitioning from measuring how much energy a property uses to how effectively it retains heat, which can lower ratings for properties with poor insulation despite efficient heating systems. Investors may fail to improve their EPC rating if they install the latest energy-efficient boilers or appliances before they are officially added to the government's approved list, as assessors cannot grant points for unlisted items. There is a spending cap—currently around £10,000—where landlords who cannot reach a C rating after spending this amount may be exempt, as are certain listed buildings where heritage requirements prevent necessary energy upgrades. The complexity of these regulations, combined with the Renters' Rights Act and rising interest rates, is prompting many landlords to sell, creating a prime opportunity to find off-market deals through HMO registers and networking. BEST MOMENTS "55% of properties in England and Wales are not sufficient to meet the EPC rating C standard that is required by the year 2030." "No longer is it going to measure how much energy is used, but how good the property is at retaining energy." "The whole EPC system is kind of broken at the moment... it takes a while for the latest, most efficient products to be actually added onto the list and approved." "This is fueling the desire for many landlords to sell their properties, to exit the property market and do something else with their money." VALUABLE RESOURCES To find your local pin meeting visit: ⁠www.PinMeeting.co.uk⁠ and use voucher code PODCAST to attend you first meeting as Simon's guest (instead of paying the normal £20). Contact and follow Simon here: Facebook: ⁠http://www.facebook.com/OfficialSimonZutshi⁠ LinkedIn: ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/simonzutshi/⁠ YouTube: ⁠https://www.youtube.com/SimonZutshiOfficial⁠ Twitter: ⁠https://twitter.com/simonzutshi⁠ Instagram: ⁠https://www.instagram.com/simonzutshi/⁠ Simon Zutshi, experienced investor, successful entrepreneur and best-selling author, is widely recognised as one of the top wealth creation strategists in the UK. Having started to invest in property in 1995 and went on to become financially independent by the age of 32. Passionate about sharing his experience, Simon founded the property investor's network (pin) in 2003 ⁠www.pinmeeting.co.uk⁠   pin has since grown to become the largest property networking organisation in the UK, with monthly meetings in 50 cities, designed specifically to provide a supportive, educational and inspirational environment for people like you to network with and learn from other successful investors. Since 2003, Simon has taught thousands of entrepreneurs and business owners how to successfully invest in a tax-efficient way.  How to create additional streams of income, give them more time to do the things they want to do and build their long-term wealth. Simon's book “Property Magic” which is now in its sixth edition, became an instant hit when first released in 2008 and remains an Amazon No 1 best-selling property book. Simon launched his latest business, ⁠www.CrowdProperty.com⁠, in 2014, which is an FCA Regulated peer to peer lending platform to facilitate loans between private individuals and property professionals. This Podcast has been brought to you by Disruptive Media. ⁠https://disruptivemedia.co.uk/

Next-level peace with Gaelen Nagus

What does it mean to uphold faithful ordination standards in today's church? In this episode of In All Things, guest host Annie Rose sits down with Doug Resler and Julie Hawkins, co-chairs of the ad-interim committee on ordination standards, to discuss the work of their committee and the recommendations being presented to this year's General Assembly. They offer insight into the importance of ordination standards for the health of the church and the preparation of its leaders, as well as the process their team followed in studying and discerning these issues together. As the EPC looks ahead, this conversation highlights the value of thoughtful collaboration and shared discernment, reminding us that we are truly Better Together. To learn more about the 2026 General Assembly and to register, visit: epconnect.org/ga2026

As the utility-scale solar market collides with an era defined by massive load growth, EPC (engineering, procurement, and construction) firms are rethinking their strategy to meet the moment. In this episode, Shayle speaks to George Hershman, CEO of SOLV Energy, one of the largest solar and storage construction firms in the US. George offers a unique perspective into the state of the market as well as the logistics of building gigawatt-scale projects and insights into how automation is changing the EPC game. Shayle and George discuss: Why George believes rising demand can help solar move past boom-and-bust cycles How SOLV is taking on larger projects without needing to increase its workforce proportionally How automation helps SOLV build and install utility-scale solar faster The logistics bottleneck impacting EPCs' ability to scale How AI-driven simulations can help optimize installations Catalyst: Can AI revolutionize EPC? Catalyst: 2026 trends: Gas turbines, Texas' load queue, and China electrifies Catalyst: Scaling America's domestic solar supply chain Latitude Media: Can the US bring solar installation to below $2 per watt?  Latitude Media: This former solar installer is all-in on software-only sales Credits: Hosted by Shayle Kann. Produced and edited by Max Savage Levenson. Original music and engineering by Sean Marquand. Stephen Lacey is our executive editor. Catalyst is brought to you by FischTank PR, an award-winning climate and energy tech, renewables, and sustainability-focused PR firm dedicated to elevating the work of both early-stage and established companies. Learn more about their PR approach and how they can support your company's messaging by visiting fischtankpr.com. Catalyst is brought to you by EnergyHub. EnergyHub helps utilities build next-generation virtual power plants that unlock reliable flexibility at every level of the grid. See how EnergyHub helps unlock the power of flexibility at scale, and deliver more value through cross-DER dispatch with their leading Edge DERMS platform, by visiting energyhub.com. Tune into Critical Capital, a brand new podcast from Crux and Latitude Studios. Hosted by Crux CEO Alfred Johnson, Critical Capital explores the interlocking forces powering clean and critical infrastructure. Join us every other Tuesday for in-depth conversations at the intersection of energy, government, finance, and global markets. Listen here, or wherever you get podcasts.

Ensuing Loss Explained: Steven M. Bush on Coverage, Causation & Policy Language   Attorney Steven M. Bush of Merlin Law Group delivers a deep training session on one of the most misunderstood areas of property insurance claims: ensuing loss, concurrent causation, efficient proximate cause, and anti-concurrent causation language. This session was part of the "Mastering the Art of Public Adjusting" class provided by United Claims Professionals, hosted by Jack Hanks, with the recording sponsored by ShieldWolf Strongholds. In this training, Steven M. Bush explains why public adjusters must do more than simply identify damage. They must understand how the policy language works, how exclusions operate, how coverage can be brought back through ensuing loss language, and how different jurisdictions may treat the same facts very differently. This session covers: • What "ensuing loss" really means • Why the excluded cause may not be the end of the coverage discussion • How to read policy language with purpose and intent • The difference between ensuing loss, concurrent causation, and efficient proximate cause • Why anti-concurrent causation language can change the entire claim analysis • Florida, Texas, and Illinois distinctions • Why Texas claims often require careful damage allocation • The role of weather forensics, photos, intake forms, and investigation • Why public adjusters must know the policy before arguing the claim Steven also shares a practical highlighting system for reading insurance policies, including how to identify coverages, exclusions, endorsements, post-loss obligations, and key restrictions. This is not a beginner-level conversation. It is a "meat, not milk" training designed for public adjusters who want to sharpen their craft, protect policyholders more effectively, and understand how coverage decisions are shaped by policy language, facts, causation, and jurisdiction. Featured Speaker: Steven M. Bush, Attorney Merlin Law Group Training Provided By: United Claims Professionals Hosted By: Jack Hanks Recording Sponsored By: ShieldWolf Strongholds Educational Disclaimer: This video is for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Public adjusters should consult qualified legal counsel regarding specific claims, policy interpretation, statutes, case law, and jurisdiction-specific issues. Suggested Chapters 00:00 Welcome to Mastering the Art of Public Adjusting 07:01 Steven M. Bush Introduction 09:40 What Is Ensuing Loss? 11:46 What Ensuing Loss Does and Does Not Cover 13:20 Policy Highlighting System for Public Adjusters 16:50 Two Purposes of an Ensuing Loss Clause 20:17 Separate and Independent Resulting Losses 22:11 Common Policy Language to Look For 23:32 Roof Leak Example: Faulty Workmanship and Interior Damage 26:01 Ensuing Loss vs. Concurrent Causation 27:40 Efficient Proximate Cause Explained 31:35 Why the Chain of Events Matters 40:49 Concurrent Causation Doctrine 43:52 Florida's Sebo Case Discussion 47:05 Texas Burden of Allocation 48:31 Weather Forensics in Texas Claims 52:21 Failure to Segregate Damages in Texas 56:54 Anti-Concurrent Causation Clauses 1:00:24 Common Exclusions and "In Any Sequence" Language 1:04:31 Wind, Flood, Ordinance, and Anti-Concurrent Causation 1:08:11 Florida vs. Texas Coverage Overview 1:09:42 Final Review: Ensuing Loss, EPC, and Concurrent Causation #PublicAdjusting #PropertyInsurance #InsuranceClaims #MerlinLawGroup #UnitedClaimsProfessionals #ShieldWolfStrongholds #EnsuingLoss #InsuranceCoverage #ClaimsTraining #PublicAdjusterTraining

What happens when the biggest threat to your publishing business is also buried inside the data you're not looking at? Jorge Barbosa of wecantrack, joins Lee-Ann to talk about what is actually happening to publishers right now, why most of them are flying blind without realising it, and what the ones who are thriving are doing differently. The conversation covers HCU updates, AI overviews cannibalising traffic, the overlooked relationship between affiliate managers and publishers, and why EPC broken down by traffic source might be the most important number in your business that you're not tracking.Talking Points Include:The visibility gap most publishers don't know they have and why logging into your affiliate network reports is not the same as understanding your businessHow one publisher shifted from 80 percent organic to 80 percent paid traffic over four years and grew overall revenue in the processWhy AI overviews are changing the user journey in ways that affect affiliate managers just as much as publishers and what you should be doing about it depending on who your audience actually isThe case for affiliate managers paying for their top publishers' tracking tools and the commercial intelligence that comes back in returnListen to Find Out More About:Why EPC by traffic source and landing page is the one metric Jorge always leads with in demos, and what it reveals that network reports never willHow big publishers use automated link testing and monetisation scripts to protect revenue at scale without adding headcountThe LLM tracking feature wecantrack is building that measures how often an AI model is crawling your content, not just mentioning itWhy affiliate marketing as a side hustle is the myth that drives Jorge mad, and what the industry actually looks like when you pull back the lensWhat the successful publisher looks like in 2027, in one sentenceWhy publishers building a brand rather than just a website is the single most important strategic shift happening in the industry right nowKey Segments of This Podcast and Where You Can Tune In to Go Direct:[02:00] The pain points publishers are dealing with right now: HCU losses, AI overview traffic cannibalisation, and why most are still guessing about where their revenue comes from[06:50] A live demo reality check: the publisher who thought YouTube was irrelevant until the data showed it was their best-converting channel[22:08] Pivot or die: real examples of publishers who lost eighty percent of organic revenue and rebuilt stronger by acting on what the data told them[28:00] The rapid fire round: the one metric everyone should track, the best and worst things to happen to publishers in two years, and what 2027 looks like for the publishers who make itCall to ActionA big thank you to Jorge for being so generous with what he's seen on the ground. If this episode has made you think differently about the data sitting inside your publishing business or program, that is worth acting on sooner rather than later. Have a look at their Affiliate Dashboard or book a demo if this episode has sparked your interest.KonverJ works with brands and affiliate managers to build publisher relationships and program strategies that are grounded in what the data actually shows. If you want to stop guessing and start making decisions that compound, get in touch with the team here.Rate, Review and Subscribe on Send me a text with your questions

Solar modules once cost $8 per watt. Geoff Greenfield bought his first panels from a classified ad in Home Power magazine. Twenty-six years later, he leads an EPC division building 67 MW projects and negotiating 100 MW contracts.In this episode of The Clean Power Hour, host Tim Montague sits down with Greenfield to trace the full arc of the U.S. solar industry, from off-grid battery systems with lead-acid batteries to utility-scale construction backed by a multi-billion-dollar general contractor. They cover NABCEP's role in professional standards, why U.S. residential solar costs two to three times more than in Australia or Germany, and why the industry needs to prepare for a future without tax credits.EPISODE HIGHLIGHTSStarting a solar company in 2000 meant buying used 53-watt panels from classified ads at $6 per watt. Greenfield traces how the economics shifted from pure environmental motivation to grid parity and beyond.NABCEP credentials go beyond technical competence. Organizations have lost certification over ethical violations, and state attorneys general are now pursuing solar bad actors.Panel efficiency is approaching physical limits, but economic efficiency still has room.In PJM territory, commercial battery storage pays for itself through peaking value and ancillary services, sometimes faster than solar alone. Resilience sells in residential, but the commercial case depends on grid services math.The solar tax credit is likely not returning. Companies preparing for 2028 and beyond are cutting soft costs, joining procurement cooperatives like Amicus Solar, and building business models that work without incentives.This conversation provides a 26-year field perspective on what it took to grow from a one-person off-grid installer to a utility-scale EPC, and what comes next for companies facing the same transition.Connect with Geoff Greenfield, Kokosing Geoff LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/geoff-greenfield-595a406/Kokosing Website: https://kokosingsolar.com/ Support the showConnect with Tim  Clean Power Hour  Clean Power Hour on YouTubeTim on TwitterTim on LinkedIn Email tim@cleanpowerhour.com Review Clean Power Hour on Apple PodcastsThe Clean Power Hour is produced by the Clean Power Consulting Group and created by Tim Montague. Contact us by email:  CleanPowerHour@gmail.comCorporate sponsors who share our mission to speed the energy transition are invited to check out https://www.cleanpowerhour.com/support/The Clean Power Hour is brought to you by CPS America, maker of North America's number one 3-phase string inverter, with over 6GW shipped in the US. With a focus on commercial and utility-scale solar and energy storage, the company partners with customers to provide unparalleled performance and service. The CPS America product lineup includes 3-phase string inverters from 25kW to 275kW, exceptional data communication and controls, and energy storage solutions designed for seamless integration with CPS America systems.  Learn more at www.chintpowersystems.com