Recent Posts:

Two cleantech deals: Oryxe and Protonex

Rob Day: April 6, 2005, 7:12 PM
  • Oryxe, a promising fuel-additive company, announced a $2.5m Series C add-on raise, apparently led by Ridgewood Capital. I haven't seen much information about the raise other than a brief mention, but here is Oryxe's website. They're strongly positioned in regulation-driven markets, specifically "non-attainment" air quality regions, where local regulations are mandating significant changes to fuel mixes. Instead of extremely costly changes at the refinery -- which supplies much wider regions than the regulatory-affected regions -- Oryxe's fuel additive enables similarly improved emissions performance, and can be added closer to the point of use. One interesting thing about this deal: Ridgewood Capital hasn't been a big cleantech investor to date, but in the last few months they've invested in Oryxe and Comverge. Another new entrant to the cleantech space...

  • Protonex announced a $9m second round. The fuel cell company's round was led by existing investors Conduit Ventures Ltd., SAS Investors, Solstice Capital and Commons Capital. New investors are Parker Hannifin Corporation, Contango Capital Management and the Massachusetts Green Energy Fund. The company is as much a "homeland defense" play as a cleantech play, as the fuel cells are used mainly in military applications to date (although they claim to be targeting commercial applications as well).

Some of the best clean technologies…

Rob Day: April 5, 2005, 5:56 AM
... aren't high profile technologies like solar power, fuel cells, desalination of water, etc. They're basic innovations that help make our use of basic materials more efficient.

One good example might be Hycrete Technologies, which announced a $2m Series A on Monday. The company manufactures an additive to concrete that helps prevent corrosion, which (they report) therefore prolongs the life of the concrete. Since concrete is a highly energy-intensive industry, this seemingly minor improvement could have some significant benefits for both users and the environment. It will be interesting to see how the company develops; and it provides a good example of some of the lower-profile cleantech opportunities out there.

California Clean Energy Fund gets started

Rob Day: April 2, 2005, 1:44 PM
One good outcome of the PG&E bankruptcy here in California -- as part of the bankruptcy settlement, $30m has been set aside for clean energy venture investments.

The advisors tasked with setting up the California Clean Energy Fund (CalCEF) originally looked at setting up the fund as an independent direct-investment entity, but eventually decided to allocate most of their fund to three existing firms for co-investment and fund management -- Nth Power, DFJ, and Vantage Point got the call.

One implication of this decision is that the CalCEF capital will now be tied to the same types of investments (with the same return expectations, timeframes, etc.) as the co-investment firms' funds target. As a "public benefit" fund, any profits will be recycled back into the CalCEF for future investment.

One alternative would have been a standalone fund that targeted lower returns, essentially as a non-profit. This would have possibly allowed CalCEF to target investments with longer exit horizons, or lower expected returns -- seed funding for 10-year-plus potential "breakthrough" technologies, funding for less-scalable service and consulting business, or funding for niche opportunities, as some examples -- something that private VC cannot realistically address. In many cases, such funding is either made through angel investors or government grants, or often isn't made at all. So it would have been interesting to see how that might have played out.

However, one cannot fault CalCEF's advisors for choosing to leverage the existence of several established funds in the clean energy space, it is certainly the safer decision...

Recurring revenue and cleantech: Pros and cons

Rob Day: April 1, 2005, 2:56 PM
Recurring revenue is a recurring theme in cleantech investing.

For a couple of reasons, cleantech entrepreneurs and investors often look for firms to develop business plans that bring in annual revenue from services instead of one-time sales.
  • First of all, it creates more stable cashflows for the firm, which makes it easier for management and easier for investors to underwrite.
  • Secondly, it often means that the end users of the technology/ product are signing up for easier-to-swallow annual expenses instead of large one-time capital expenditures; this is especially important when selling to certain types of customers (facilities managers, for example, often have a tough time getting approval for large capex budgets), or in selling long lifetime equipment (e.g., solar power systems with a 20-year lifetime). By amortizing costs and margins over the expected lifetime of the equipment and charging an associated annual cost (using the solar example from above, selling the power over a long-term guaranteed contract), the manufacturer doesn't scare customers away from expensive solutions (as are often found in clean technologies...).
  • Finally, it also puts a lot of the risk in the hands of the manufacturer of often unproven equipment -- if the equipment fails, they are still required to provide the service one way or another, instead of a customer being stuck with a very large, useless piece of equipment.
Makes sense, right? Thus you see companies like SunEdison doing quite well in selling solar services along the lines of the example described above by using innovative financial solutions, and a number of distributed generation companies (e.g., RealEnergy) have set themselves up as "onsite utilties" offering combined heat and power (CHP). There are plenty of examples outside of energy as well -- water technologies offered as services, monitoring technologies offered as outsourced options, etc.

But there are some real drawbacks to this approach. RealEnergy, for example, has had some major difficulties as explained in this Distributed Energy article. In general, the pursuit of recurring revenue can hurt companies in the following ways:
  • If, as noted above, the customers aren't incurring the technology risks... the startup is. And the startup is probably not very positioned to deal with any problems that arise, due to limited financial resources.
  • Such a strategy often forces the startup to guess how the customers will end up using the technology. Guessing wrong, even a little bit, can kill a great technological solution. For example, RealEnergy guessed that large office buildings would pay for the backup power presented by their offerings. Instead, where CHP services are gaining ground, it appears to be in other settings where power usage is close to 24/7, and where hot water is used in higher volumes (e.g., hospitals, colleges) than in offices. It can be a lot easier simply to put the technology out there, and allow people to use it as they see fit.
  • In order to pay for the equipment they are placing at the customer sites, the startup will need additional capital. In some cases, they seek project financing or debt -- but that can be very tough for a startup to arrange. Often, startups are asking VCs for the money -- but as mentioned in earlier posts, VCs often don't like the idea of using their expensive capital to purchase long-life, hard assets. Even if the company is able to arrange the financing somehow, they've got to pay for it over time. So this creates a huge financial risk for the company.
  • Setting up a service organization is very different from setting up a manufacturing organization. So this sets up an additional set of challenges for the startup to tackle, at a time when they should be trying to stay very focused.
So what is the answer? In reality the answer is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Some startups will successfully build recurring revenues and be very successful. Others will be very successful simply selling product and growing from there. Entrepreneurs who are experienced in their industries will often know what works best in their market.

Successful VCs also keep this in mind, providing guidance on this issue based on their experiences, flexibility on a case-by-case basis, and strong contacts in the project financing world when needed.

So… where is the money going to go?

Rob Day: March 31, 2005, 8:03 PM
"[Venture] funds raised three years ago still have a significant amount set aside for new investments. According to the survey, 15% of 2001 funds remain set aside for new investments compared to 50% of 2002 funds, 60% of 2003 funds and 85% of 2004 funds." Hence the $53.6B overhang.

This from an article titled, "Venture Capital Fund Raising Doubles in 2004." And echoed in this Economist article.

Cleantech, according to many, is in the fortunate position of remaining underinvested even in the midst of such well-capitalized "optimism," as a quote in the article terms it.

The real renewable energy opportunity: Transmission?

Rob Day: March 31, 2005, 12:24 PM
Received an interesting UtiliPoint Issues Alert email today from Ken Silverstein (unfortunately, it's not posted yet on their website, but I will link to it when it's available).

Silverstein's message is that utilities are increasingly backing renewable energy, driven in no small part by Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) which are now in effect in 19 states. While the aggregate non-hydro renewable energy supply remains less than 2% of the US's 770,000MW overall generation capacity, he reports that some experts think that share might triple within four years.

One thing to note, however, is that what this really comes down to is wind and geothermal power. While solar power is coming along, waste-to-energy continues to make some noise, and some still hold out hope for microgen fuel cells to play a part, wind and geothermal are already the renewable energy of choice for most utility or renewable energy certificate (REC) programs. And when you consider that there are few venture-backable deals to be found in wind and geothermal now, as those industries have matured, then it isn't clear how a venture-stage investor can take part in the emergence of renewable energy by utilities.

Something else that Ken reports, however, is also notable: Transmission is the key constraint for many of these projects. Wind and geothermal power resources are often found inconveniently far away from existing transmission lines. For that power to be useful, there's got to be a connection made to get that power to where it will be used.

This can be a significant obstacle -- at the recent PowerGen Renewable Energy Conference in Las Vegas, one presenter I saw showed that it made more sense to place a new renewable energy project in a certain location in New Mexico that wasn't as good in terms of the efficiency of the local resources, but was more conveniently sited to the best transmission resources.

Ken points out that the transmission grid in the Midwest is already overloaded, making it difficult to harvest that region's significant wind power potential. Also, he notes that in Texas it has been estimated that new transmission costs up to $1m per mile, and that bringing 10,000MW of renewable power to market would require an additional investment of $2B.

Thus, the market opportunity for new technologies that enable lower-cost, reliable, higher-throughput power transmission could be huge, and near-term...

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Rob Day: March 30, 2005, 2:00 PM
Here is a sobering story on the state of the world's natural resources.

Whether one is a pessimist or an optimist about the future of global resources, it's worth noting that every time a story like this comes out, it simply bolsters the argument that clean technologies will be increasingly advantaged over the long run. The trick is to find such technologies that are also money-makers over the short term...