GUEST COLUMN

Houston expert: Navigating the energy transition is a dance between incumbents and startups

Energy innovation expert, Barbara Burger, shares how she sees the future of energy playing out as a dance between mice — the startups — and elephants — the incumbent corporations. Photo via Getty Images

There is so much good to say about the state of innovation toward a lower carbon future. All the necessary ingredients seem to be here – passionate, committed and incredibly sharp innovators, capital support from seed to growth, incumbent corporations that are looking to decarbonize their base businesses and build new ones, and government agencies that have developed the incentives and programs that are needed to help navigate over the traditional valleys of death.

Why then is this so hard?

I spend a lot of my time now listening and learning from the startups (the mice) and the incumbent corporations (the elephant) and then looking for ways to help them better collaborate.

The questions I frequently get asked from both sides reflect the different worlds they live in. Many mice don’t know who to engage within the elephants — or, more importantly, how to engage with them. Nor is it often clear what the elephant might want to get out of a collaboration. Many elephants envision collaboration with startups at the conceptual level but don’t know how best to find the most promising ones nor what to do once they locate a promising one. There could likely be an entire book on the dance but for this article, let’s focus on the very early part of the dance.

Let’s assume that some early diligence has been done on one or both sides. Of course, we all know that most relationships start by one party pursuing the other (rather than some magical meeting at the center of the dance floor). Knowing the why for both parties is one of the best starts. Here’s some questions that might help with this.

For the startup, are you looking for validation of your technology solution, investment, pilots, customers, a development partner, a commercial or operating partner, an ultimate exit, or maybe all of the above? What stage of development are you at? This collaboration is key to your success; how important is it to the elephant’s success? Would your tech live outside of their fence line or within? The answers to these questions can help pinpoint where in the elephant you want to target for your initial discussions as well as start to figure out the elephant’s why.

For the incumbant corporation, are you looking for potential solutions to problems in your base business? Possible new businesses? Understanding of the landscape with a view on both threats and opportunities? How important is this problem to solve in the priorities of your company? How does the startup’s problem definition align with one that your company wants to address? What is your experience with trialing new technology? Are you okay with a startup that is backed by one of your competitors? How easily will it be to make the argument internally to get resources to deepen a relationship? If, given the go ahead internally, do you have team members that have the time and capability to collaborate with the startup? Are you willing to have it known that you are collaborating with the startup?

There are lots of questions here and the why is often an iterative journey for both sides. It is as much mindset, influence, strategy, champions, and risk tolerance at individual levels as it about technology and economics.

Let’s hope these questions get you out on the dance floor with a promising partner.

------

Barbara J. Burger is a startup adviser and mentor and serves on the board of directors for Greentown Labs. She previously led corporate innovation for two decades at Chevron.

------

This arrticle originally ran on InnovationMap.

Trending News

A View From HETI

The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has raised concerns about Tesla's public messaging on its "Full Self-Driving" system. Photo via tesla.com

The U.S. government's highway safety agency says Tesla is telling drivers in public statements that its vehicles can drive themselves, conflicting with owners manuals and briefings with the agency saying the electric vehicles need human supervision.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is asking the company to “revisit its communications” to make sure messages are consistent with user instructions.

The request came in a May email to the company from Gregory Magno, a division chief with the agency's Office of Defects Investigation. It was attached to a letter seeking information on a probe into crashes involving Tesla's “Full Self-Driving” system in low-visibility conditions. The letter was posted Friday on the agency's website.

The agency began the investigation in October after getting reports of four crashes involving “Full Self-Driving" when Teslas encountered sun glare, fog and airborne dust. An Arizona pedestrian was killed in one of the crashes.

Critics, including Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, have long accused Tesla of using deceptive names for its partially automated driving systems, including “Full Self-Driving” and “Autopilot,” both of which have been viewed by owners as fully autonomous.

The letter and email raise further questions about whether Full Self-Driving will be ready for use without human drivers on public roads, as Tesla CEO Elon Musk has predicted. Much of Tesla's stock valuation hinges on the company deploying a fleet of autonomous robotaxis.

Musk, who has promised autonomous vehicles before, said the company plans to have autonomous Models Y and 3 running without human drivers next year. Robotaxis without steering wheels would be available in 2026 starting in California and Texas, he said.

A message was sent Friday seeking comment from Tesla.

In the email, Magno writes that Tesla briefed the agency in April on an offer of a free trial of “Full Self-Driving” and emphasized that the owner's manual, user interface and a YouTube video tell humans that they have to remain vigilant and in full control of their vehicles.

But Magno cited seven posts or reposts by Tesla's account on X, the social media platform owned by Musk, that Magno said indicated that Full Self-Driving is capable of driving itself.

“Tesla's X account has reposted or endorsed postings that exhibit disengaged driver behavior,” Magno wrote. “We believe that Tesla's postings conflict with its stated messaging that the driver is to maintain continued control over the dynamic driving task."

The postings may encourage drivers to see Full Self-Driving, which now has the word “supervised” next to it in Tesla materials, to view the system as a “chauffeur or robotaxi rather than a partial automation/driver assist system that requires persistent attention and intermittent intervention by the driver,” Magno wrote.

On April 11, for instance, Tesla reposted a story about a man who used Full Self-Driving to travel 13 miles (21 kilometers) from his home to an emergency room during a heart attack just after the free trial began on April 1. A version of Full Self-Driving helped the owner "get to the hospital when he needed immediate medical attention,” the post said.

In addition, Tesla says on its website that use of Full Self-Driving and Autopilot without human supervision depends on “achieving reliability" and regulatory approval, Magno wrote. But the statement is accompanied by a video of a man driving on local roads with his hands on his knees, with a statement that, “The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself,” the email said.

In the letter seeking information on driving in low-visibility conditions, Magno wrote that the investigation will focus on the system's ability to perform in low-visibility conditions caused by “relatively common traffic occurrences.”

Drivers, he wrote, may not be told by the car that they should decide where Full Self-Driving can safely operate or fully understand the capabilities of the system.

“This investigation will consider the adequacy of feedback or information the system provides to drivers to enable them to make a decision in real time when the capability of the system has been exceeded,” Magno wrote.

The letter asks Tesla to describe all visual or audio warnings that drivers get that the system “is unable to detect and respond to any reduced visibility condition.”

The agency gave Tesla until Dec. 18 to respond to the letter, but the company can ask for an extension.

That means the investigation is unlikely to be finished by the time President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January, and Trump has said he would put Musk in charge of a government efficiency commission to audit agencies and eliminate fraud. Musk spent at least $119 million in a campaign to get Trump elected, and Trump has spoken against government regulations.

Auto safety advocates fear that if Musk gains some control over NHTSA, the Full Self-Driving and other investigations into Tesla could be derailed.

Musk even floated the idea of him helping to develop national safety standards for self-driving vehicles.

“Of course the fox wants to build the henhouse,” said Michael Brooks, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, a nonprofit watchdog group.

He added that he can't think of anyone who would agree that a business mogul should have direct involvement in regulations that affect the mogul’s companies.

“That’s a huge problem for democracy, really,” Brooks said.

Trending News