Stakeholders in the Australian energy sector are anti-hibernators, in a way … whilst summer for many is time best spent away from the office (at the beach, the cricket, or skiing in the north) it seems to be the winter months where ‘Conference Season’ really kicks into gear.

Dan already kicked off some observations back at the start of June in his article ‘Reflections on supply and demand from a week split between attending and presenting at two very different industry conferences’ … so I’m thinking of that as ‘Part 1’:

• and continuing on with Part 2 here.
• with a Part 3 still potentially to come…

Which Conferences are we speaking about?

In terms of our participation at conferences (and other events) that this article draws from, I thought it would be useful to make the following list – but note that it’s not comprehensive:

… but (of course), wait and there are still more events to come (like the big one next week).

Here’s 14 observations we’ve collated, from what we have heard (thus far)

From the presentations through the sessions above, along with in-person conversations, interactions on social media (including via the hash tags above) and on our own internal #conference channel on Slack, we’ve been coalescing a number of observations.

Here’s some of them for you today …

Observation #1)  Where are the Conferences (or Sessions) about ‘Operating in the NEM’?

On prior occasions (especially in feedback I have provided to event organisers) I’ve noted that:

1)  there is far more attention focused on the early stages of a project’s life cycle:

(a)  especially:

i.  Getting to Financial Close; or

ii.  Getting from Financial Close to Operating (and, in this respect, not much focus on Commissioning … or maybe I’ve not been in the right conferences/sessions?)

(b)  there seems more stakeholders involved ‘upstream’, and perhaps it’s ‘sexier’

2)  unfortunately that means that there seems to be much less attention paid to rather than the hard yards about actually operating, and getting the best out of, an asset – after it’s built.

At least in my experience, Conference Season for winter 2026 was no different (take a look at the agenda for next week’s ACES 2026, for instance) … no matter:

1)   whether it was developers looking to build supply-side assets,

2)  or demand-side assets (particularly Data Centers), there’s much more interest there.

… that’s part of the reason why the EUAA Conference is always like a breath of fresh air (as that’s full of established companies grappling with how to keep operations going through this energy transition!

For instance here on WattClarity® we’ve just hosted Dave Scott (fresh out of the AEMO) in a four-part series of articles that are about  MPFR  and FPP:

1)  It’s an excellent series, and well worth a read, if you’re operating assets in the NEM

2)  Part 4 was published on Thursday 23rd July as ‘FPP-Reg-FCAS Recovery: to what extent has it succeeded, and could it be improved?’, and that links to the first 3.

3)  But there are not many conference sessions I’ve seen that are focused on theses sorts of ‘devil in the detail’ operational details … or am I missing events we should be at?

Observation #2)  Early-stage project struggles … getting to Financial Close

Notwithstanding the concerns in Observation #1, in terms of ‘getting to Financial Close’ there are obviously big challenges.  For instance, writing following Australian Energy Week, Angela MacDonald-Smith nailed the concern with the headline in ‘Renewables’ 2030 target running years late as hurdles mount, say CEOs’ on 10th June.

In his ‘Part 1’ article, Dan noted this as well at AWIF2026:

For some long-standing (and very patient*) readers, you’ll have heard me start to sound like a broken record … because my sense is that a reason for these challenges that people are feeling now stems from certain villains I spoke about 9 years ago (at ACES 2017) or even further back…

* to those readers, thanks for your patience!

Observation #3)  What a Grand CIS-appointment!

In my question during this week’s Endgame seminar in Brisbane, I was a bit more blunt than this tile, in asking the question ‘if the CIS a dog, … [ROLL ONTO QUESTION]?’.   It’s useful to highlight that questions have been brewing on this one for quite some time:

1)  Earlier on:

(a)  There were a number of others who were quite vocal, in their pockets of social media;

(b)  and Dan wrote a series of articles about this in September and October 2025:

i.  Part 1 with the observation that:

‘What the chart shows is that even after contracts have been awarded, many projects remain slow to move through AEMO’s status categories — underlining the challenges of translating tender success into financial close or the commencement of construction.’

ii.  Part 2 (stepping into understanding the delivery challenges)

iii.  Part 3 (taking a more focused look at the confusion surrounding who’s exposed to network curtailment risk … and I’ve since noticed others delving even further into this rabbit hole).

iv.  Part 4 (linking into the Nelson Review, which was underway at the time).

(c)  which I then also flagged in NEMdev 2025.

2)  From a quieter beginning, there are now many more voices openly criticising (or at least questioning) the CIS process, which has been amazingly underwhelming in terms of real capacity on the ground (as distinct from ‘announceables’ for the Minister).

3)  So it was no surprise to see this noted in Conference Season Winter 2026 as part of the broader theme of Observation #1.

(a)  Seven weeks ago, via Dan’s ‘Part 1’ article, he noted that this also resonated with him as well – though perhaps Dan’s not been around the block as long as me, so is more polite in his synopsis:

(b)  Interestingly, we saw Giles Parkinson write ‘Struggling wind projects warned their unused capacity will be returned to future CIS tenders’ on 22nd July 2026.

4)  Watch this WattClarity® space, for more to come …

Observation #4)  As an industry, we’re waking up – the focus should be on value (and not cost)

It was back in December 2018* that I wrote about ‘Villain #5c – too much focus on COST, not enough focus on VALUE’:

* yep, that was approaching 8 years ago, now, when I wrote that article …  and that followed on from my ‘Forecast of Sorts’ at ACES 2017 where I initially highlighted villains like these (that was almost exactly 9 years ago.

(a)  At the time, I felt like I was speaking Martian for the blank looks I received from the audience at the time.

(b)  It seemed like the vast majority of people were still fixated on simplistic measures like LCOE at the time.

Better late than never, it seems that a growing number of people are waking up to the need to focus on value (rather than fixating on cost).  For instance:

1)  From the CEC WIF 2026:

(a)  See from Dan’s ‘Part 1’ article, this resonated with him as well, though perhaps Dan’s not been around the block as long as me, so is more polite in his synopsis:

(b)  Gero Farruggio (from Rystad) note in his LinkedIn update here that:

‘Australia’s Wind Sector Needs a New Investment Mindset

One of the strongest themes from today’s discussions was that the future value of wind in Australia will not be determined by LCOE alone — but by when, where, and how reliably energy can be delivered into the system.

The final presentation made an important point for the industry:

… The era of relying on LCOE as the primary measure of value is over.

As renewable penetration increases, the conversation is shifting toward *market value*, capture price, firmness, flexibility, and system contribution.’

(c)  I’m not sure which of the speakers particularly inspired Gero’s comment, because I saw:

i.  Stan Kaluwin at Aurecon highlight the need to look past cost to revenue:

ii.  and Oliver Nunn at Endgame point directly at the fallacy of LCOE focus, and need to focus on Value:

2)  At the Australia Wind Energy Summit 2026 we saw online:

(a)  Sandra James in this LinkedIn update (from Australia Wind Energy Summit 2026) note:

‘Great opening session led by Tim Buckley on ‘Navigating NEM Reform and Pricing Strategies’. Unpacking the role of wind in an investment portfolio and challenging thinking to value service, rather than just average cost. Everyone is feeling the toughness of the environment – clarity of timing of generation and transmission coming in is critical. Can remote REZ work? Yes! But we need to address point to point issues and generation volumes to ensure the system can cope.’

(b)  and David Moretto (who was in the same panel at the Australia Wind Energy Summit 2026) later wrote the following in this LinkedIn update:

‘Metrics such as the Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE), which estimates the average cost of producing one megawatt-hour of electricity over the life of an asset, are a useful benchmark for comparing projects. But LCOE measures cost, not value.

The electricity system doesn’t just need low-cost energy. It needs energy at the right times and in the right places.

A project that generates electricity when supply is tight creates far greater value than a lower-cost project producing when the market is already well supplied.

etc…’

Whilst it’s welcome news that others are thinking and speaking above value (not cost), I can’t help but wonder how many $billions and Years we’ve wasted, worshipping at the altar of LCOE … which some might recall we wrote about back in March 2020 via ‘We’ve been killing New Entrants with kindness?’ (a.k.a Villain no7).

Observation #5)    Killing off King Coal (is our focus getting in the way of a real plan for closure?)

Given that it happened almost exactly 9 years ago today, worth starting this review of recent commentary and presentations with a recollection of one thing that happened during ACES 2017:

1)  following my delivery of this ‘Forecast of Sorts’

2)  when, answering an audience member question, I expressed my thinking that the most important action we might take would be a direct focus on a detailed plan for the closure of coal:

Back at the time:

1)  We’d only a few months earlier seen the closure of Hazelwood in April 2017

(a)  as the first coal closure that had materially mattered across the NEM

(b) notwithstanding the occasional challenges in South Australia after Northern closed in 2016;

2)  We were a couple months away from the release of the ESOO 2017 in September 2017:

(a)  which Allan reviewed here afterwards

(b)  which was silent on the closure of any other coal unit after Hazelwood;

3)  And the AEMC’s ruling on Generator 3-year notice of closure:

(a)  Was 9 months away from initiation (in May 2018)

(b)  And 16 months away from final determination.

4)  In terms of the energy transition, my recollection is that:

(a)  There was an almost singular focus on the ongoing support for ‘Anytime/Anywhere Energy’

(b)  But precious little recognition, even, to the need to replace the ‘Keeping the Lights on Services’ that would depart when coal closed.

That’s why I made the suggestion, in terms of a much better frame of reference for delivering a focus to the transition.

My recollection is that it was only after my answer to the question (though obviously not directly attributable, of course!) that we started seeing the ongoing use of the type of ‘coal closure schedule’ charts that Paul Simshauser used at the AIE event in May 2026:

Whilst there’s been much water under the bridge in the 9 years that have followed (including the publication about ‘the schism’ in the GRC2018 and then GenInsights21 ), I’m concerned that we still appear to be quite wide of the mark, in terms of something a broad level of understanding about what’s actually required to close coal.

1)  A recognition of the need to close coal was the number 1 theme that struck the ETSI team from their attendance at AuWE2026 in Melbourne in early July

… but I wonder how many of those were of the mindset of ‘just get them out of the way’, without considering all the nuances involved in replacing what they currently provide.

2)  The mainstream media that turned up reporting this sentiment.  Such as when Perry Williams wrote ‘Extended coal life and rising costs hobble Australia’s wind-farm rollout’ in the Oz following the same conference that the ETSI team attended

3)  And there were numerous comments we collated on social media bemoaning coal for sticking around so long … with my interpretation being that such commenters may not have really understood that coal was sticking around because we had not yet built what was going to replace them!

… something Andrew Richards at the EUAA has framed along the lines of ‘you can’t destroy your existing house until you’ve built the one you’re going to move into’ (although I don’t think I heard him use that term this year).

However I fear that it’s still not as easy as some people are thinking it is … which means that (because ‘people’ assume its easy) there is more misunderstanding and confusion then there needs to be – which leads to real delay and loss (in $$ and time).

Here’s two particular points of confusion I’ve witnessed…

Concern 5a)  A simplistic understanding of the broad range of replacement services required to to actually close coal.

Witness the angst that greeted the announcements:

1)  that, Eraring would not close in 2025 …

2)  and no, it won’t close in 2027 either (despite the plentiful wishful thinking)

Which, to me (and others) seemed quite inevitable outcomes, given that we’d not yet replaced both:

1)  The energy component, including with ‘Anytime/Anywhere Energy’

2)  But also, importantly (but perhaps not so obviously to some) the ‘Keeping the Lights on Services’ that have still not fully been built out to be supplied by other sources.

I’m wondering how much easier/clearer it would have been, with respect to the closure of Eraring

1)  There was a single central document from the AEMO that

(a)    was self-evidently titled ‘Here’s everything we need to do, to be able to close Eraring’

(b)   and that was updated on some form of regular basis that covered all of the aspects of what will need to be replaced

2)  Compared to now, where:

(a)    one must read the ESOO for the energy balance and ‘Reliability’ risks (remembering that Reliability is not Resilience)

(b)  and still remember to look elsewhere (such as the TPSS and other places) for coverage of some aspects of the ‘Keeping the Lights on Services’

Or, better still, why didn’t we align the CIS with specific coal closure outcomes:

1)  Instead of ‘helicopter support’ focused on bunches of ‘VRE’ and ‘Shaping’ projects (perhaps not actually ‘Firming’, to use the Nelson Review sense)

2)  Why not have a tender round based on the principle of delivering sufficient kit (of whatever type) to supply everything that would be required to close Eraring?

…. because that would have then made it much easier for NEM stakeholders (including Origin, and the NSW Government that’s supporting the station) to look at milestones for a defined list of projects with a mindset that ‘when they are all operational, we can close Eraring’.

Let’s not get started with the closure of Yallourn,

… where on top of the above considerations the incumbent VIC Government:

1)  appears too ashamed of blow-back from the green-left contingent to make public whatever support mechanism is in place for continued

2)  and has bet on a mirage to replace it (in terms of off-shore wind)?

Concern 5b)  As coal closes (and the remaining fleet ages) the risks increase

We’ve written many times before about how ‘the level of risk in the NEM is increasing’.  Coal closures just represent one aspect of this risk … but, even here, there are several layers:

A reduced number of assets

I understand that a senior industry figure was required to explain to a prominent CEO-at-the-time why certain stressful supply-demand events were unfolding in the NEM following the closure of the Hazelwood units.  They explained by using the analogy of playing Russian Roulette with more bullets in the chamber (or same number of bullets but fewer chambers) with fewer coal units still operational.

This was also noted by Oliver Nunn at the Endgame Q3 seminar this week, when he noted ‘as coal units retire, outages (either planned or unplanned) become increasingly important’.

Ageing Assets

Couple the above with the fact that these assets are ageing … with Paul Simshauser illustrating the increased risks with a ‘bathtub curve’ illustration.

Readers should keep in mind that the y-axis here is a catch-all ‘outage rate’ (which takes account of Planned Outages, Unplanned Outages, and also Economic Outages).

Observation #6)  Bridging the Chasm Schism

No, this is not a reference to Geoffrey Moore’s wonderful book, but a short note that to say that it’s good to see sessions at conference events speaking to the details of different aspects of ‘Keeping the Lights on Services’:

1)  There are plenty of sessions at conferences about storage

 … albeit that the short-duration (Shaping) sessions seem to be more popular than the longer-duration (Firming) sessions

2)  And there are even occasional presentations about Essential System Services like System Strength:

… at AWIF Bruce Miller gave a presentation (in a session I could not attend, being in another room), but we were pleased to be able to share his thoughts via his article ‘Reframing the grid discussion from system strength to system behaviour’ afterwards.

Observation #7)  A broad realisation that Gas has an important role to play

It seems such a simple concept to grasp (for me) … so why has it been so difficult for others to understand (or perhaps accept)?

——————————

The Principle, that Gas has a role to play

There’s 4 edges to this principle:

1)  At times, we’re going to need a large installed capacity of gas-fired (or other) Firming* capacity

* i.e. adopting the Nelson Review differentiation between Shaping and Firming.

2)  We hope it’s not going to run all that often … and, in fact, most credible modelling suggests that it won’t

3)  But, when it does run, it might need to run for days-on-end

… such as exactly what happened during the recent wind lull during June 2026 in South Australia!

4)  We need to prepare the system into which we are transitioning such that this is actually deliverable

e.g. enough kit on the ground, enough fuel supply and delivery capacity etc…

——————————

My sense from Conference Season 2026 is that understanding is growing about this Principle … which is a great thing!

1)  Whereas back in May 2025 I wrote ‘Green shoots of pragmatism at the CEC’s Clean Energy Investor Forum in Sydney on 3rd April 2025?’, because I can still remember my ‘fall off chair’ surprise at hearing a prominent CEC Staff Member state ‘let’s talk about gas!’.

2)  That was 14 months ago now,

(a)  and there has been quite the changing of the guard within the CEC …

(b)  … which I gather was (at least in part) because pragmatism sits uncomfortably with those who live by ideology.

What a difference a year makes!

1)  it did not surprise me at all that the AIE event in May demonstrated these principles…

(a)  Firstly with an illustration by Adrian Gibney of a modelled future week (note the title ‘GPG will start less often, but could run for 3 days’)

(b)  but also then Paul Simshauser illustrating some concerns on deliverability (I wonder how much this is resonating in the appropriate places?):

2)  it was from the 2026 AEP Conference that Erik Vandenberg references (which would be expected to be more supportive of gas in any case) but this comment around 3rd June 2026 on LinkedIn jumped out at me:

‘The tone coming out of the 2026 Australian Energy Producers Conference in Adelaide felt noticeably different to a few years ago.

Rather than debating whether oil and gas have a role in the energy transition, much of the discussion focused on how Australia can maintain energy security, support industrial competitiveness, reduce emissions intensity, and attract the investment required to deliver new supply.’

3)  Through his modelled results, Oliver Nunn at AWIF demonstrated that adding a limited amount of GPG to a mix of Solar + Storage + Wind enormously reduced the total cost to serve the customer:

So hopefully there are not too many people remaining at the extreme left of the Emotion-o-meter who don’t understand (and/or accept) this reality?

Observation #8)  Again with the (belated) realism … getting all the way to 100% renewables will be hugely expensive

Nice to see Tim Buckley note in this comment on LinkedIn here that:

‘Good update on Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)’s ISP modelling by Paul Graham, lead energy economist at CSIRO. The current expectations of going to 100% Zero Emissions is very expensive, better to get some abatement offset elsewhere. CEF agrees, lets first get to 95% Renewable Energy as the target, and worry about the last 5% later.’

There have been a number of other similar comments we have seen from others … but no time to add them in here.

Observation #9)  Every asset has an ‘end of life’ date (a.k.a. we’ll be building forever?)

As noted above, the past ~9 years (since ACES 2017) has seen a marked uptick in the conversation about, and focus on, when coal will* close

 * although there is still a ways to go to understand all the nuances involved in this, as perhaps we should replace ‘will’ with ‘can’.

Where we have seemed even further behind  is in terms of understanding the aging of other assets … including the newer (but shorter life) assets we’ve focused on installing in the past decade.

That’s why seeing Gill Cashion at Rennie Advisory presenting about the ageing wind farms (and when they will need to be replaced) so refreshing:

To frame this another way … with the possibility that the last coal closures might occur out close to 2050, it is possible that much of the existing fleet of wind farms across the NEM will have needed to have been replaced before that last coal unit closes.

The 2026 ISP was released a few weeks ago now:

1)  I’ve not had time to crack the cover on that one (and won’t have time to do so for quite a while);

2)  So am hoping that some knowledgable reader can help me understand what is modelled inside of the ISP in terms of replacement rate for the current stock of Large-Scale VRE and Battery Plant?

Observation #10)  Modelling of VRE is complex (much improvement still to come)

Readers here will recall that we’ve posed* the provocative question ‘Is VRE Forecastable?’.

* and invested into that same challenge!

So at AWIF (with some of our colleagues from ETSI in the audience) we appreciated the opportunity to listen to Jessica McMahon at Everoze provide some useful context to some challenges in modelling of wind … albeit at the other end of the time-horizon compared to the ETSI team.

In conversations afterwards, Jessica has helpfully pointed me to the direct URL to access the paper ‘Modeling the effect of wind speed and direction shear on utility-scale wind turbine power production’ used to present this slide.

Observation #11)  Pricing Patterns are changing … and modelling pricing is complex as well!

Back at the AIE briefing, Paul Simshauser presented this slide to highlight a growing loosening of what used to be a tight coupling between wholesale gas prices and wholesale electricity prices:

See from Dan’s ‘Part 1’ article, that he’s been thinking about pricing patterns as well:

After his presentation at the EUAA (and after a sojourn at the World Cup – ask him about that next week, if you see him!) Dan has followed on with his annual recap in ‘A down year: a review of Q2 2026 spot prices’.

Whilst Dan (on 2nd April here) and then Franz (on 8th July here) have both explored the chicken-or-egg implications for the expanding fleet of battery assets (both small invisible CER and large Scheduled) , we also saw recently how the price patterns were blamed in two corporate collapses … albeit one said prices were too high, and another said too low?!

In the Endgame seminars and presentations, there was also much discussion about price (and revenue) implications…

Observation #12)  All Models are Wrong, but some might be useful

With a title of this week’s Endgame seminar being ‘Expanding the modeller’s toolkit’, it was obvious that it would be a NEM Modeller’s (and general NEM Junkie’s) playground for ideas.

This seminar (and other presentations thus far in Conference Season 2026) reminded me that ‘forecasting is a mugs game’  … which is something that we wrote about here back in December 2016:

1)  highlighting 3 main flaws that I saw then (and still see now).

2)  and used as a preface to my ‘Forecast of Sorts’ at ACES 2017.

Elsewhere in this article I’ve shared other insights I gleaned with respect to modelling – but worth calling out specifically here how some presentations spoke to the complexities involving ‘How many years of reference data are required to construct a robust model of the future?’.  I’ve made some notes and thought it would be worth adding as a separate short article:

Observation #13)  Are we grasping for yet another ‘Magic Wand’ to make the numbers add up?

Again with respect to modelling for the future, in Dan’s ‘Part 1’ article, we see that Daniel Westerman’s address at the EUAA Conference jumped out to him:

Given our two decades of experience in supporting a particular form of Demand Response, however, I am only too aware of the tendency of people to reach for negawatts as a form of ‘magic wand’ (to make the modelling stack up).

So, can I just say that I remain sceptical of grand claims like this:

1)  We’ve already written about ‘Real Barriers we’ve experienced in the growth of Demand Response in the NEM’ to early 1999

2)  We’ve already seen how the Centralised Negawatt Dispatch Mechanism :

(a)  has been a disappointment

i.  even as recently as on 21st and 22nd June 2026 in South Australia

ii.  and also on Wednesday evening 8th July 2026 across the southern regions.

(b)  despite the boosterism that prompted the AEMC to introduce the WDRM in various quarters (including gullible media).

3)  And we’ve also read much about how the take-up of VPPs has been so much lower than prior modelling would have suggested.

So, whilst we’re delighted to see various pockets of the demand side responding to price (or other) signals in order to deliver beneficial outcomes for themselves and the market more broadly, let’s be cautious in not over-egging the possibility …

1)  for instance, in years gone by, the ‘hydrogen hype machine’ was one of the shiny new ‘magic wands’ that were latched onto in order to make the modelling numbers add up. 

2)  One growth sector that does seem to be a bit less all Hot Air (though still with some staggering numbers) is the Data Center sector …

Observation #14)  Data Centers – Doomsday or Delight (Diamonds or Demons)?

Last year at 2025 ACES, the ‘Data Center’ topic featured as one of four in Dan’s ‘Four answers we received during the 2025 Clean Energy Summit in Sydney this week’.  As Dan noted here in 2026, also this year Data Centers have certainly been a subject of discussion:

Not just in conferences, but in the broader industry discussion, my sense is that there seems to be a few focal points for discussions about data centers:

Focal Point #1)  A concern about Grid Stability

… and is it any wonder about this concern:

1)  given a growing number of experiences of sudden disconnection around the world (such as in PJM on Wednesday 22nd July)

2)  and a reminder that the sudden disconnection of several wind farms in SA was one precursor, in a chain of events, leading to the SA System Black.

Hence our interest in collating ‘reports and thoughts about Large Loads (and particularly Data Centres)’.

Focal Point #2)  Good Corporate Citizens (incl with respect to the environment)

Others have specifically chosen to focus on these challenges – particularly in terms of emissions and water usage.

Focal Point #3)  ‘Best’ economic value from available electricity supplies

Dan speaks to this in his last paragraph above.

To me this rhymes a little with my recollection of the past ~15 years of (particularly Federal) government policy relating to Australia’s gas resources – whereby we might have started with a position at the Laissez-faire end of the spectrum, but learned experience including concerns about National Security (and some pronounced lobbying from some groups) have moved the needle back towards a distinctive gas reservation policy.

So watch this space…

It was with these focal points in mind, we appreciated the opportunity to attend the recent QEC event featuring Craig Scroggie.  Looking past the TED-talk style glitz, did also deliver some details about what approach NextDC has done to consider the above (noting that Craig posted more detail here on LinkedIn the next day):

I also found Craig’s session (and others during Conference Season 2026) useful from an educational perspective, to help reinforce such things as:

1)  Thinking back to the Castrol ‘oils ain’t oils’ adds of the 1980s, ‘data centers ain’t data centers’

… different facilities can have quite different purpose, and hence

2)  Even in the AI sub-sector, there’s a difference between two main purposes:

(a)  Training on data … which (my recollection is that) Craig noted was unlikely to be done in Australia, because of copyright laws;

(b)  Inferencing, based on the trained model … which is what’s happening across the NEM, and in some other off-grid spots.

3)  There does appear to be some unclear/contradictory messaging about the importance of latency to different customers

… we are yet to really see data centers established outside of Capital Cities:

(a)  though there are some big numbers mentioned for rural grid-connected places (and even more remote, not connected to the NEM);

(b)  and of course we have the character that reminds me of Sir Hugo Drax planning to put them in earth orbit.

So, whilst conference season 2026 has helped, this road still has a long long way to run.  Speaking of the intersection of the Energy Transition and Data Centers, several people (including Kane himself here) have highlighted the ironies of Kane Thornton’s transition into the Data Center sector:

My sense there will be many people who will have a heightened interest in what happens within the CDC Data Centers in terms of energy usage – including:

• what technologies are used to maintain stable energy supplies for use onsite; along with
• the impact of their processes back outside on the grid.

Queuing up for more, at ACES!

Obviously we’re not yet through the season … and next week features the CEC’s Australian Clean Energy Summit 2026:

Following from that event (and some others afterwards) perhaps there will be a Part 3 to this Conference Recap?