Welcome to Green Giants, Titans of Renewable Energy, a podcast where insights and innovation meet. Every episode, we dive into conversations with industry leaders, experts, and change makers, bringing you the stories and ideas in the renewable energy sector that shape our world. And now, let's jump into today's episode with your host, West Ashworth.
Welcome back to Green Giants, Titans of Renewable Energy. Today's guest is Jason Few, president and CEO of FuelCell Energy. Jason has spent more than three decades leading across energy, telecom, technology, and industrial businesses, and he has built a reputation for seeing where markets are headed and positioning companies to meet the moment. As AI, data centers, and rising electricity demand put new pressure on the grid, the industry is being forced to rethink reliability, speed to power, and what kinds of clean energy can deliver at the scale and timing the market now demands. Today, we explore why fuel cells may have a bigger role to play than many realize, what the market still gets wrong about the technology, and what this moment means for the future of distributed clean energy. Jason, welcome to the show.
Thank you very much, West. Really appreciate it. Glad to be here.
Yeah, it's an absolute pleasure to have you. Excited to get into it. We'll start out, as always, sort of your path, and I think your background does give us important context for how you see this moment. So, as I said there in the intro, you've led across telecom, energy, software, industrial businesses, and large-scale turnarounds. What's the through line in your career, and what prepared you best to lead FuelCell Energy?
That's a great question. The through line in my career is building and repositioning businesses at moments when the market is changing faster than the organization. I've spent my career in industries where execution, capital allocation, and timing really matter. Telecom taught me scale and infrastructure discipline. The goal when I was at SBC AT&T was to be the first DSL provider to get to a million subscribers. That was in the late '90s. And you think about how popular broadband is now, but back then that was a big deal. We executed this project called Project Pronto. It was $6 billion about getting fiber to the curb, and we made it happen. We got it done. Energy has taught me long cycle assets, regulation, and resilience. Software, my experience there has all been about that business around technology. It matters only if it solves a customer's problem. And as I think about FuelCell Energy, the thing that really prepared me for FuelCell Energy was learning how to separate interesting technology from commercial value. When I arrived, I saw a company with extraordinary science, deep purpose, and real intellectual property, but great companies don't win because they're interesting. They win because they solve important problems better, faster, and more reliably than the alternatives. My job was to make that shift real for the company.
Yeah, it makes a ton of sense. Really, really interesting journey. It also does explain why you seem to approach this less as a pure technology story, more as a market and leadership challenge. So, when you arrived at FuelCell Energy in 2019, what did you see that others were missing both about the company and about where the market was headed?
I saw two things. First, I saw a company that spent years proving that it could innovate, but it hadn't yet fully organized itself to innovate around customer needs. Second, I saw the market was going toward, you know, was going to reward power quality, resilience, and distributed infrastructure more than many people appreciated at the time, really. The market didn't look like it yet, but in a dramatic way, the pressure was already building. Grid congestion, reliability concerns, decarbonization pressure, and now AI-driven load growth. The seeds of this moment were already there, and that's what I saw.
Yeah, that's always a really interesting thing to me and kind of what you see walking in. And especially sort of when a company's being judged by maybe an old narrative, while the real opportunity is really starting to shift underneath it, and being able to capitalize on that opportunity. So, again, and you've built this reputation for acting decisively in high-stakes moments. Not an easy thing to do, but how do you know when a signal is strong enough to reorganize a company around it?
Well, the first thing is you can't wait for a consensus, right? You have to look for patterns. One customer doing something can be an anecdote, right? Five customers asking the same thing, perhaps maybe in different ways, is a signal. And when you see demand, policy, economics, and customer urgency starting to line up, that's when leaders need to move. The second test is a bit harder. Can your company uniquely solve the problem? If the signal is strong, but you don't have the edge, you shouldn't reorganize around it. In our case, the signal was strong, and our platform had relevant strengths. Continuous onsite power, modular scalability, very low emissions, community compatibility, and the ability to integrate thermal value. Those were very strong things that lined our organization up around the opportunity.
Yeah, such great wisdom there and insight. And it's always such a hard call, right? Waiting can be expensive, moving too early can be just as risky and expensive as well too. So, getting it right is really important, but being able to do that is incredible. What have you learned about leading through skepticism, especially when people think they understand the technology before they actually do?
You know, look, skepticism is healthy. In energy, it should be. The mistake is assuming that skepticism is the same as understanding. Many people think they understand fuel cells because they've heard about them for years, but they often are reacting to old mental models about the technology. The answer is not about arguing harder about fuel cells. The opportunity for us and the challenge is to educate more clearly. Show where the technology fits. Show where it doesn't. Show real operating history. Show how we solve customer problems. Then let the economics and use cases do the talking. We have operating assets from microgrids to large utility-scale CHP installations, and that matters because credibility in energy is earned through operation, not adjectives.
Yeah, that's awesome. I love that so much, so much of what you said there. And skepticism is not understanding. I like that call out. And that's a real thing we deal with in this industry. Old assumptions can stick around a lot longer than they should, but I love the way you framed that up. So, what's been harder at FuelCell Energy? Is it changing the strategy, changing the story, or changing what customers and investors think the company is?
That's a great question. I think changing what customers and investors think the company is has been the hardest. Strategy can change in the boardroom. The story can change in a deck. Market perception changes only when you execute consistently enough that people can no longer hold onto the old narrative. That is why, for us, why lean has mattered so much. We needed repeatable operating systems, so we needed a system and a way to do that. We needed better visibility. Lean has helped me to do that. We need better prioritization. We're using our fuel cell business system anchored in lean to do that. And a culture that solves customer problems, not just technical ones. And that's really what we're focused on doing as a company.
Yeah, I like that so much. That perception piece is so important, because even when a company evolves, the market doesn't always catch up right away. And so, being able to do that, that's the true test, right? That's incredible. And I think all that gives us a good foundation on the leadership side. Now, I want to get into the market moment itself, because it feels like one of those periods where the strain on the system is becoming impossible to ignore. Data center power challenge feels like one of those rare moments that can really reshape the industry. Why do you see it as such a defining turning point? And what's on your mind about it?
You know, look, I think this is actually bigger than just data centers. I really believe it's a redefinition of infrastructure. For years, the assumption has been that compute scaled first and power followed. This is no longer true. Power has become the gating factor for AI deployments. AI is not compute constrained, it's power constrained. When power becomes the bottleneck, the value shifts to companies that can deliver reliable megawatts quickly, modularly, and in a community-compatible way. This is not a niche issue, this is a market architecture issue, is the way that we think about it.
Yeah, I know that's good. I like the way you spell that out. And it does feel like one of those moments where a demand shift really does force the whole system to reveal what's working and what's not, presenting new issues as you described there too. Overall, there's a lot of noise out there around the data center power challenge and AI and these sort of things. What's your just kind of overall take on it when friends and family kind of ask you around the table, like what do you share?
You know, I think most people first start out by underestimating time. The grid can absolutely remain central to the long-term energy system, but it's not moving at the speed the market wants or needs. Grid interconnection delays can be three to seven years, while AI infrastructure needs power at a very different timeline. It needs it now. I think people also underestimate the quality of power demand. These are not ordinary loads. High-density AI facilities need reliability. They need ramp management. And increasingly, architectures that match modern computing environments. This is why the conversation is shifting from where do I get electrons to how do I build the right power stack. And that's where we think our power block stacked architecture and its modularity makes a big difference.
Yeah. And one of these phrases that's kind of showing up more and more is bring your own power. With all that in mind that you just shared there, what does that mean in practical terms and why is it gaining some traction now?
Look, I think first it means a lot of communities are getting maybe a bad reputation for standing in the way of some of this development, and I don't think that people mind progress. I just think they don't want to pay for other people's progress. It means that developers or operators can't continue to assume that the grid will deliver enough power. They can't assume it's going to come on the right timeline and at the right reliability level to really support the economics they need to drive at a particular site. So, instead of waiting, they increasingly secure power on site as part of the site strategy. And we think bringing your own power in practice means on-site generation, flexible interconnection strategies, layered architecture with generation plus storage plus UPS, and power becoming part of the real estate decision from day one. So, I think the planning has changed, the architecture has changed, and the way in which compute happens today in this AI world, especially when you're talking about learning, the grid wasn't necessarily built for that. So, you need a different layered architecture to address that and that's where technology like ours becomes very valuable.
Yeah, really fascinating shift, and we will get into your technology as well in a little bit. So, when people talk about solving data center power demand, they usually jump to transmission, gas, renewables, or storage. What problem are fuel cells solving right now that other options maybe still struggle to solve fast enough?
You know, with fuel cells, it's fast to deployment, so time to power. It's clean, it's modular, it's resilient. We like to think about it as community-compatible power at the point of demand. And we really think delivering power at the point of demand drives enormous efficiencies in the system. You remove, for example, the need for things like high-voltage transmission. But I think if you think about the overall energy mix, it's really more of an and story, we believe. Gas turbines, renewable storage, and transmission — they all have a role, but when customers need speed of power, base load operation, smaller load footprint, low sound, and reduced permitting friction, fuel cells are very compelling to addressing the opportunity.
Yeah, checking quite a few boxes there. And I've often said that it is a — it should be an and, not an or, as we look at this. But this is to me where the conversation gets much more useful because the real question is not what sounds best in theory, it's what actually solves the problem, and your point, the customer's problem on the required timeline as well too. You've shared a bit about this already, but is this moment exposing a deeper flaw in how we plan modern power systems, the assumption that the grid would always be able to absorb these new categories of demand on the timeline that the market wants? You've already touched on that, but if you just want to expand on that as well.
Sure. I mean, maybe a good example would be if you think about other industries, if I go back to my telecom days. And you think about developing countries, nowhere in the world is anybody today digging holes, putting in telephone poles, and running wire to deliver phone calls. It's 5G networks on the edge. So, I think the deeper flaw that's been exposed here is that we planned and built a nationwide grid architecture that was all around predictable load growth and centralized delivery. We're now entering a period where load growth is lumpy, it's urgent, geographically concentrated. I mean, just think about northern Virginia as an example. And it's commercially unforgiving. It has to work. It doesn't mean the grid is obsolete by any means, but it means the grid alone is no longer sufficient for every use case and certainly not on every timeline.
Yeah, a sharp way to frame it and incredible how quick that's shifted, where it's not predictable anymore. It's going to require some unique solutions and different solutions in addition to the grid. And kind of getting into that, so let's kind of stay there, make the technology side practical because fuel cells are still one of those categories people may have heard about without always fully understanding, and I want to cover that. So, for people who know the term, but not the reality, how do you explain a fuel cell in plain English and what's the simplest way to understand how it differs from combustion-based generation?
So, look, the easiest way I can explain it and for everyone just kind of goes back to their chemistry class for a moment, and you think about some of those great opportunities you had in elementary or middle school or high school to mix a couple things together and get a reaction. And you didn't need to use fire or you didn't need to combust it in order to get a reaction. You can think about fuel cells in the same way. We convert fuel into electricity through what's known as an electrochemical process rather than burning it. So, if you think about that, a combustion-based generator makes power by igniting fuel. A fuel cell makes power by converting fuel without combustion. We react it. This is why our emissions profile, noise profile, and efficiency is different, because we make effective use of that fuel without doing the things to the fuel that create criteria pollutants and other things that aren't necessarily community-friendly, but using a fuel that allows us to deliver a continuous base load power is really important. We just use fuel in a better way.
Yeah, using fuel in a better way. I love how you put that in very easy to follow, and I think it's helpful because I think even a basic reset there changes how people think about the category. What's the single most outdated assumption people still make about fuel cells? Why does it persist, and then what do you say about it?
You know, I think it starts with going kind of back to chemistry and science, that fuel cells are still a science project. We launched our first commercial product in 2003. We've had commercial platforms running for 23 years. We've got very large utility-scale projects, 60 MW that have been running for 13 years continuously. So, this science project assumption persists because the industry has talked for years in technical language and often outside commercial context. So, I talked about earlier one of the things that we had to really change is even how we define success and really thought about a commercial lens to our approach. The market today really cares a lot less about the label and more about whether the system can deliver power, if it fits the site, meets the permitting requirements, and supports returns. That's a better conversation for us because we've proven large-scale deployments, utility scale. And like I said, operating for 23 years, we've been in commercial business. That's not a science project. That's real power being delivered, offering real value in addition to the other value streams we deliver from our platform like thermal.
Yeah, absolutely. Not a science project, hasn't been for a long time. It's funny, every sector, especially within kind of the renewable space, has those narratives that just keep hanging around long after those facts have changed. I always like to put those out there when we can. I'll ask you this. So, if you had one minute with a utility executive or a data center operator, what's the case for taking fuel cells seriously right now? What would you share with them?
I would say they should take fuel cells seriously because the market has changed. If you need reliable on-site power, if the grid timeline doesn't work, if community acceptance matters, and if you want modular deployments with strong efficiency and thermal integration, this is a serious infrastructure option for those customers. We're not asking to replace every asset in the system. What we're saying is that there are use cases where distributed fuel cell power solves real problems right now. If you think about our platform, we think about five core values that we deliver. One, accelerated time to power. Two, AI-native architecture. We're already where the puck is going. Three, infrastructure grid scalability. Four, revenue and return acceleration. And something that's really, really important — capital preservation and regulatory resilience. So, you can buy our platform today, deliver power in AC, tomorrow that infrastructure is direct DC. You don't change on our platform, you go to direct DC. Today, emissions may be less of a question in some parts of the country. Tomorrow, it's going to be an important question again. So, that regulatory resiliency that we provide, we think that's really important. Those five value propositions, we think uniquely distinguish the FuelCell Energy platform.
Yeah, I like the frame and I like the five kind of value props as well too. It gets you right down to the heart of it. What was the process for that? Like how did you get to those sort of five laser-focused value propositions? I'm always curious sort of the creative process, like how you got there.
Look, we thought about, again, kind of maybe going back to the Clayton Christensen model of what is the job that needs to be done. What problem are you solving for a customer? The customer needs quick power. Check, we do that. The customer is making long-term purchase decisions. So, how do we give them a platform or offer up a benefit that says, you can make a decision today, that today is a 20-year decision. And guess what? The decision you make today, in year 18, that is still going to be a great decision because you'll be in a DC world, we're there. You'll have a different regulatory regime, we're there. The capital purchase you've made is preserved over that 20 years. You need a platform that will continue to scale, not in these massive chunks, but that will scale at the same pace in which you're scaling your infrastructure. Maybe one year that's 15 MW or 20 MW. Maybe the next year it's 75 MW. Our 1.25 MW FuelCell Energy block allows that scalability. And then certainly, revenue and return acceleration, really important. So we said, look, how do we do that? What is the value of our product? And like those five things just kind of stood out on the page as our true value proposition.
