.png)
TECHNOLOGY & ENERGY · INDUSTRY CONVERGENCE
Compute and Power: Two Industries That Need One Conversation
By David Swank, CEO, i3 Power & Energy
I have spent time running organizations in both of these industries. Utility CEO. Technology CEO. The experience taught me something that neither sector has fully internalized about the other. These are two of the largest and most sophisticated infrastructure sectors in the American economy, and they still largely operate as separate industries, with separate vocabularies, separate financing conventions, and separate assumptions about how projects get done. The convergence has been coming for years. Data center growth is now forcing it, whether either sector is ready or not.
The default response so far has been for each side to send liaisons across the boundary. Utilities hire technology-facing account executives. Data center firms hire energy-facing procurement teams. Both parties are trying, in good faith, to bridge the gap. What is still missing in most of these arrangements is not effort. It is the shared operational language and integrated planning discipline that would let the sectors work together rather than negotiate across a divide.
.png)
What Each Industry Assumes About Time
Utility planning horizons run fifteen to twenty-five years. That is not a preference. It is what regulated planning, long-duration asset economics, and the physical realities of grid infrastructure require. Technology infrastructure horizons run eighteen to thirty-six months. That is not a preference either. It is what the pace of workload evolution, the competitive dynamics of the compute market, and the depreciation schedules of the underlying equipment allow.
Neither of these clocks is wrong. Both are correct for their sector, and both encode decades of institutional learning about what timelines actually work in each context. Progress requires acknowledging that they are different rather than pretending they can be reconciled by force of will.
.png)
“Imagine if you will a project meeting where the utility team is worried about 2045 and the technology team is worried about Q3. Both are right. Neither has been in the other's meeting.”
What Each Industry Assumes About Risk
Utility risk is regulatory, reliability-based, and cost-recovery oriented. Getting an asset approved, keeping it running within acceptable performance bands, and earning back the invested capital across a regulated rate structure. The mitigation strategies that follow from those risks are familiar to anyone who has spent time in a utility planning cycle.
Technology risk is time to market, workload displacement, and competitive positioning. Getting compute capacity online before the competition, ensuring the workloads it was built for still exist by the time it comes online, and maintaining strategic optionality in a market that shifts on quarterly cycles. The mitigation strategies that follow from those risks are equally familiar to anyone who has run a technology infrastructure organization.
When these two risk portfolios meet on the same project, the risk conversation is often the hardest one in the room. It is also the conversation that most often gets glossed over rather than fully worked through.
Where the Vocabularies Diverge
Utility language is built around capacity factors, ancillary services, load duration curves, and cost of service. Technology language is built around uptime, workload placement, capex and opex trade-offs, and latency budgets. These are not just different words. They are different institutional lenses. A utility executive hears "uptime" and thinks about reliability standards, forced outage rates, and NERC compliance. A technology executive hears the same word and thinks about SLA commitments, redundancy design, and customer credits. The gap is not translation. It is context.
Firms that speak both vocabularies fluently, natively, from actual operating experience, can accelerate the entire process by which projects get scoped, negotiated, and delivered. Firms that treat the vocabularies as translation problems tend to produce projects that satisfy one sector's expectations while missing the other's.
.png)
.png)
The Firms That Will Define the Convergence
The organizations that will lead through this convergence are not the pure-play developers who partner with the other side. They are firms with genuine, native operational experience in both sectors, and the ability to hold both conversations at the same table with the same people. That capability is rare. It is also structurally decisive over the next decade, because every large infrastructure decision now sits at the intersection of these two industries.
i3 was built for exactly this convergence. Not as a translation service between sectors, but as an organization that operates natively in both. The framework we use, and the way we bring parties together to develop projects, reflects the reality that compute and power are no longer separable problems. They are one integrated problem, and it requires one integrated conversation.
.png)
What Convergence Actually Produces
The convergence of compute and power is one of the defining infrastructure shifts of this decade. It will produce projects, firms, and business models that neither sector alone would have generated. The organizations that lead through the convergence will be the ones that can genuinely hold both conversations at the same table, not the ones that build handoff protocols between siloed teams. Both industries are learning. The learning goes faster when someone has already done the work of speaking both languages, and can bring parties into a conversation that neither would have known how to convene alone.