fresh funds

Houston companies scoop up $31 million in funds from DOE, EPA methane emissions program

Seven projects from Houston companies were granted more than $41 million in federal and non-federal funding through the Methane Emissions Reduction Program. Photo via Canva

The U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced the selection of seven projects from Houston companies to receive funding through the Methane Emissions Reduction Program.

The projects are among 43 others nationwide, including 12 from Texas, that reduce, monitor, measure, and quantify methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. The DOE and EPA awarded $850 million in total through the program.

The Houston companies picked up $31.7 million in federal funding through the program in addition to more than $9.5 million in non-federal dollars.

“I’m excited about the opportunities these will create internally but even more so the creation of jobs and training opportunities for the communities in which we work,” Scott McCurdy, Encino Environmental Services CEO, said in a news release. His company received awards for two projects.

“These projects will allow us to further support and strengthen the U.S. Energy industry’s ability to deliver clean, reliable, and affordable energy globally,” he added.

The Houston-area awards included:

DaphneTech USA LLC

Total funding: $5.8 million (approximately $4.5 million in federal, $1.3 million in non-federal)

The award was granted for the company’s Daphne and Williams Methane Slip Abatement Plasma-Catalyst Scale-Up project. Daphne will study how its SlipPure technology, a novel exhaust gas cleaning system that abates methane and exhaust gas pollution from natural gas-fueled engines, can be economically viable across multiple engine types and operating conditions.

Baker Hughes Energy Transition LLC 

Total funding: $7.47 million (approximately $6 million in federal, $1.5 million in non-federal)

The award was granted for the company’s Advancing Low Cost CH4 Emissions Reduction from Flares through Large Scale Deployment of Retrofittable and Adaptive Technology project. The project aims to develop a scalable, integrated methane emissions reduction system for flares based on optical gas imaging and estimation algorithms.

Encino Environmental Services

Total funding: $15.17 million (approximately $11 million in federal, $4.17 million in non-federal)

The award was granted for two projects. The Advanced Methane Reduction System: Integrating Infrared and Visual Imaging to Assess Net Heating Value at the Combustion Zone and Determine Combustion Efficiency to Enhance Flaring Performance project aims to develop and deploy an advanced continuous emissions monitoring system. It’s Advancing Methane Emissions Reduction through Innovative Technology project will develop and deploy a technology using sensors and composite materials to address emissions originating in storage tanks.

Envana Software Solutions

Total funding: $5.26 million (approximately $4.2 million in federal, $1 million in non-federal)

The award was granted for the company’s Leak Detection and Reduction Software to Identify Methane Emissions and Trigger Mitigation at Oil and Gas Production Facilities Based on SCADA Data project. It aims to improve its Recon software for monitoring methane emissions and develop partnerships with local universities and organizations.

Capwell Services Inc.

Total funding: $4.19 million (approximately $3.3 million in federal, $837,000 in non-federal)

The award was granted for its Methane Emissions Abatement Technology for Low-Flow and Intermittent Emission Sources project. It aims to to deploy and field-test a methane abatement unit and improve air quality and health outcomes for communities near production facilities and establish field technician internships for local residents.

Blue Sky Measurements 

Total funding: $3.41 million (approximately $2.7 million in federal, $683,000 in non-federal)

The award was granted for its Field Validation of Novel Fixed Position Optical Sensor for Fugitive Methane Emission Detection Quantification and Location with Real-Time Notification for Rapid Mitigation project. It aims to field test an optical sensing technology at six well sites in the Permian Basin.

Southern Methodist University, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station and Hyliion Inc. were other Texas-based organizations to earn awards. See the full list of projects here.

Trending News

A View From HETI

No critical minerals, no modern economy. Getty images

If you’re reading this on a phone, driving an EV, flying in a plane, or relying on the power grid to keep your lights on, you’re benefiting from critical minerals. These are the building blocks of modern life. Things like copper, lithium, nickel, rare earth elements, and titanium, they’re found in everything from smartphones to solar panels to F-35 fighter jets.

In short: no critical minerals, no modern economy.

These minerals aren’t just useful, they’re essential. And in the U.S., we don’t produce enough of them. Worse, we’re heavily dependent on countries that don’t always have our best interests at heart. That’s a serious vulnerability, and we’ve done far too little to fix it.

Where We Use Them and Why We’re Behind

Let’s start with where these minerals show up in daily American life:

  • Electric vehicles need lithium, cobalt, and nickel for batteries.
  • Wind turbines and solar panels rely on rare earths and specialty metals.
  • Defense systems require titanium, beryllium, and rare earths.
  • Basic infrastructure like power lines and buildings depend on copper and aluminum.

You’d think that something so central to the economy, and to national security, would be treated as a top priority. But we’ve let production and processing capabilities fall behind at home, and now we’re playing catch-up.

The Reality Check: We’re Not in Control

Right now, the U.S. is deeply reliant on foreign sources for critical minerals, especially China. And it’s not just about mining. China dominates processing and refining too, which means they control critical links in the supply chain.

Gabriel Collins and Michelle Michot Foss from the Baker Institute lay all this out in a recent report that every policymaker should read. Their argument is blunt: if we don’t get a handle on this, we’re in trouble, both economically and militarily.

China has already imposed export controls on key rare earth elements like dysprosium and terbium which are critical for magnets, batteries, and defense technologies, in direct response to new U.S. tariffs. This kind of tit-for-tat escalation exposes just how much leverage we’ve handed over. If this continues, American manufacturers could face serious material shortages, higher costs, and stalled projects.

We’ve seen this movie before, in the pandemic, when supply chains broke and countries scrambled for basics like PPE and semiconductors. We should’ve learned our lesson.

We Do Have a Stockpile, But We Need a Strategy

Unlike during the Cold War, the U.S. no longer maintains comprehensive strategic reserves across the board, but we do have stockpiles managed by the Defense Logistics Agency. The real issue isn’t absence, it’s strategy: what to stockpile, how much, and under what assumptions.

Collins and Michot Foss argue for a more robust and better-targeted approach. That could mean aiming for 12 to 18 months worth of demand for both civilian and defense applications. Achieving that will require:

  • Smarter government purchasing and long-term contracts
  • Strategic deals with allies (e.g., swapping titanium for artillery shells with Ukraine)
  • Financing mechanisms to help companies hold critical inventory for emergency use

It’s not cheap, but it’s cheaper than scrambling mid-crisis when supplies are suddenly cut off.

The Case for Advanced Materials: Substitutes That Work Today

One powerful but often overlooked solution is advanced materials, which can reduce our dependence on vulnerable mineral supply chains altogether.

Take carbon nanotube (CNT) fibers, a cutting-edge material invented at Rice University. CNTs are lighter, stronger, and more conductive than copper. And unlike some future tech, this isn’t hypothetical: we could substitute CNTs for copper wire harnesses in electrical systems today.

As Michot Foss explained on the Energy Forum podcast:

“You can substitute copper and steel and aluminum with carbon nanotube fibers and help offset some of those trade-offs and get performance enhancements as well… If you take carbon nanotube fibers and you put those into a wire harness… you're going to be reducing the weight of that wire harness versus a metal wire harness like we already use. And you're going to be getting the same benefit in terms of electrical conductivity, but more strength to allow the vehicle, the application, the aircraft, to perform better.”

By accelerating R&D and deployment of CNTs and similar substitutes, we can reduce pressure on strained mineral supply chains, lower emissions, and open the door to more secure and sustainable manufacturing.

We Have Tools. We Need to Use Them.

The report offers a long list of solutions. Some are familiar, like tax incentives, public-private partnerships, and fast-tracked permits. Others draw on historical precedent, like “preclusive purchasing,” a WWII tactic where the U.S. bought up materials just so enemies couldn’t.

We also need to get creative:

  • Repurpose existing industrial sites into mineral hubs
  • Speed up R&D for substitutes and recycling
  • Buy out risky foreign-owned assets in friendlier countries

Permitting remains one of the biggest hurdles. In the U.S., it can take 7 to 10 years to approve a new critical minerals project, a timeline that doesn’t match the urgency of our strategic needs. As Collins said on the Energy Forum podcast:

“Time kills deals... That’s why it’s more attractive generally to do these projects elsewhere.”

That’s the reality we’re up against. Long approval windows discourage investment and drive developers to friendlier jurisdictions abroad. One encouraging step is the use of the Defense Production Act to fast-track permitting under national security grounds. That kind of shift, treating permitting as a strategic imperative, must become the norm, not the exception.

It’s Time to Redefine Sustainability

Sustainability has traditionally focused on cutting carbon emissions. That’s still crucial, but we need a broader definition. Today, energy and materials security are just as important.

Countries are now weighing cost and reliability alongside emissions goals. We're also seeing renewed attention to recycling, biodiversity, and supply chain resilience.

Net-zero by 2050 is still a target. But reality is forcing a more nuanced discussion:

  • What level of warming is politically and economically sustainable?
  • What tradeoffs are we willing to make to ensure energy access and affordability?

The bottom line: we can’t build a clean energy future without secure access to materials. Recycling helps, but it’s not enough. We'll need new mines, new tech, and a more flexible definition of sustainability.

My Take: We’re Running Out of Time

This isn’t just a policy debate. It’s a test of whether we’ve learned anything from the past few years of disruption. We’re not facing an open war, but the risks are real and growing.

We need to treat critical minerals like what they are: a strategic necessity. That means rebuilding stockpiles, reshoring processing, tightening alliances, and accelerating permitting across the board.

It won’t be easy. But if we wait until a real crisis hits, it’ll be too late.

———

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally appeared on LinkedIn on April 11, 2025.


Trending News