How carbon capture works and the debate about whether it's a future climate solution

Energy Transition

“It’s one piece of a puzzle in this broad fight against the climate change.” Photo via Getty Images

Power plants and industrial facilities that emit carbon dioxide, the primary driver of global warming, are hopeful that Congress will keep tax credits for capturing the gas and storing it deep underground.

The process, called carbon capture and sequestration, is seen by many as an important way to reduce pollution during a transition to renewable energy.

But it faces criticism from some conservatives, who say it is expensive and unnecessary, and from environmentalists, who say it has consistently failed to capture as much pollution as promised and is simply a way for producers of fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal to continue their use.

Here's a closer look.

How does the process work?

Carbon dioxide is a gas produced by burning of fossil fuels. It traps heat close to the ground when released to the atmosphere, where it persists for hundreds of years and raises global temperatures.

Industries and power plants can install equipment to separate carbon dioxide from other gases before it leaves the smokestack. The carbon then is compressed and shipped — usually through a pipeline — to a location where it’s injected deep underground for long-term storage.

Carbon also can be captured directly from the atmosphere using giant vacuums. Once captured, it is dissolved by chemicals or trapped by solid material.

Lauren Read, a senior vice president at BKV Corp., which built a carbon capture facility in Texas, said the company injects carbon at high pressure, forcing it almost two miles below the surface and into geological formations that can hold it for thousands of years.

The carbon can be stored in deep saline or basalt formations and unmineable coal seams. But about three-fourths of captured carbon dioxide is pumped back into oil fields to build up pressure that helps extract harder-to-reach reserves — meaning it's not stored permanently, according to the International Energy Agency and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

How much carbon dioxide is captured?

The most commonly used technology allows facilities to capture and store around 60% of their carbon dioxide emissions during the production process. Anything above that rate is much more difficult and expensive, according to the IEA.

Some companies have forecast carbon capture rates of 90% or more, “in practice, that has never happened,” said Alexandra Shaykevich, research manager at the Environmental Integrity Project’s Oil & Gas Watch.

That's because it's difficult to capture carbon dioxide from every point where it's emitted, said Grant Hauber, a strategic adviser on energy and financial markets at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

Environmentalists also cite potential problems keeping it in the ground. For example, last year, agribusiness company Archer-Daniels-Midland discovered a leak about a mile underground at its Illinois carbon capture and storage site, prompting the state legislature this year to ban carbon sequestration above or below the Mahomet Aquifer, an important source of drinking water for about a million people.

Carbon capture can be used to help reduce emissions from hard-to-abate industries like cement and steel, but many environmentalists contend it's less helpful when it extends the use of coal, oil and gas.

A 2021 study also found the carbon capture process emits significant amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that’s shorter-lived than carbon dioxide but traps over 80 times more heat. That happens through leaks when the gas is brought to the surface and transported to plants.

About 45 carbon-capture facilities operated on a commercial scale last year, capturing a combined 50 million metric tons of carbon dioxide — a tiny fraction of the 37.8 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector alone, according to the IEA.

It's an even smaller share of all greenhouse gas emissions, which amounted to 53 gigatonnes for 2023, according to the latest report from the European Commission’s Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research.

The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis says one of the world's largest carbon capture utilization and storage projects, ExxonMobil’s Shute Creek facility in Wyoming, captures only about half its carbon dioxide, and most of that is sold to oil and gas companies to pump back into oil fields.

Future of US tax credits is unclear

Even so, carbon capture is an important tool to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, particularly in heavy industries, said Sangeet Nepal, a technology specialist at the Carbon Capture Coalition.

“It’s not a substitution for renewables ... it’s just a complementary technology,” Nepal said. “It’s one piece of a puzzle in this broad fight against the climate change.”

Experts say many projects, including proposed ammonia and hydrogen plants on the U.S. Gulf Coast, likely won't be built without the tax credits, which Carbon Capture Coalition Executive Director Jessie Stolark says already have driven significant investment and are crucial U.S. global competitiveness.

From Your Site Articles

A key threshold for limiting global warming will be nearly unavoidable, scientists say. Photo via Pexels

Scientists warn greenhouse gas accumulation is accelerating and more extreme weather will come

Climate Report

Humans are on track to release so much greenhouse gas in less than three years that a key threshold for limiting global warming will be nearly unavoidable, according to a study released June 19.

The report predicts that society will have emitted enough carbon dioxide by early 2028 that crossing an important long-term temperature boundary will be more likely than not. The scientists calculate that by that point there will be enough of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere to create a 50-50 chance or greater that the world will be locked in to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) of long-term warming since preindustrial times. That level of gas accumulation, which comes from the burning of fuels like gasoline, oil and coal, is sooner than the same group of 60 international scientists calculated in a study last year.

“Things aren’t just getting worse. They’re getting worse faster,” said study co-author Zeke Hausfather of the tech firm Stripe and the climate monitoring group Berkeley Earth. “We’re actively moving in the wrong direction in a critical period of time that we would need to meet our most ambitious climate goals. Some reports, there’s a silver lining. I don’t think there really is one in this one.”

That 1.5 goal, first set in the 2015 Paris agreement, has been a cornerstone of international efforts to curb worsening climate change. Scientists say crossing that limit would mean worse heat waves and droughts, bigger storms and sea-level rise that could imperil small island nations. Over the last 150 years, scientists have established a direct correlation between the release of certain levels of carbon dioxide, along with other greenhouse gases like methane, and specific increases in global temperatures.

In Thursday's Indicators of Global Climate Change report, researchers calculated that society can spew only 143 billion more tons (130 billion metric tons) of carbon dioxide before the 1.5 limit becomes technically inevitable. The world is producing 46 billion tons (42 billion metric tons) a year, so that inevitability should hit around February 2028 because the report is measured from the start of this year, the scientists wrote. The world now stands at about 1.24 degrees Celsius (2.23 degrees Fahrenheit) of long-term warming since preindustrial times, the report said.

Earth's energy imbalance

The report, which was published in the journal Earth System Science Data, shows that the rate of human-caused warming per decade has increased to nearly half a degree (0.27 degrees Celsius) per decade, Hausfather said. And the imbalance between the heat Earth absorbs from the sun and the amount it radiates out to space, a key climate change signal, is accelerating, the report said.

“It's quite a depressing picture unfortunately, where if you look across the indicators, we find that records are really being broken everywhere,” said lead author Piers Forster, director of the Priestley Centre for Climate Futures at the University of Leeds in England. “I can't conceive of a situation where we can really avoid passing 1.5 degrees of very long-term temperature change.”

The increase in emissions from fossil-fuel burning is the main driver. But reduced particle pollution, which includes soot and smog, is another factor because those particles had a cooling effect that masked even more warming from appearing, scientists said. Changes in clouds also factor in. That all shows up in Earth’s energy imbalance, which is now 25% higher than it was just a decade or so ago, Forster said.

Earth’s energy imbalance “is the most important measure of the amount of heat being trapped in the system,” Hausfather said.

Earth keeps absorbing more and more heat than it releases. “It is very clearly accelerating. It’s worrisome,” he said.

Crossing the temperature limit

The planet temporarily passed the key 1.5 limit last year. The world hit 1.52 degrees Celsius (2.74 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming since preindustrial times for an entire year in 2024, but the Paris threshold is meant to be measured over a longer period, usually considered 20 years. Still, the globe could reach that long-term threshold in the next few years even if individual years haven't consistently hit that mark, because of how the Earth's carbon cycle works.

That 1.5 is “a clear limit, a political limit for which countries have decided that beyond which the impact of climate change would be unacceptable to their societies,” said study co-author Joeri Rogelj, a climate scientist at Imperial College London.

The mark is so important because once it is crossed, many small island nations could eventually disappear because of sea level rise, and scientific evidence shows that the impacts become particularly extreme beyond that level, especially hurting poor and vulnerable populations, he said. He added that efforts to curb emissions and the impacts of climate change must continue even if the 1.5 degree threshold is exceeded.

Crossing the threshold "means increasingly more frequent and severe climate extremes of the type we are now seeing all too often in the U.S. and around the world — unprecedented heat waves, extreme hot drought, extreme rainfall events, and bigger storms,” said University of Michigan environment school dean Jonathan Overpeck, who wasn't part of the study.

Andrew Dessler, a Texas A&M University climate scientist who wasn't part of the study, said the 1.5 goal was aspirational and not realistic, so people shouldn’t focus on that particular threshold.

“Missing it does not mean the end of the world,” Dessler said in an email, though he agreed that “each tenth of a degree of warming will bring increasingly worse impacts.”

A new study on Mars is shining a light on the Earth's own climate mysteries. Image via UH.edu

Houston scientists create first profile of Mars’ radiant energy budget, revealing climate insights on Earth

research findings

Scientists at the University of Houston have found a new understanding of climate and weather on Mars.

The study, which was published in a new paper in AGU Advances and will be featured in AGU’s science magazine EOS, generated the first meridional profile of Mars’ radiant energy budget (REB). REB represents the balance or imbalance between absorbed solar energy and emitted thermal energy across latitudes. An energy surplus can lead to global warming, and a deficit results in global cooling, which helps provide insights to Earth's atmospheric processes too. The profile of Mars’ REB influences weather and climate patterns.

The study was led by Larry Guan, a graduate student in the Department of Physics at UH's College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics under the guidance of his advisors Professor Liming Li from the Department of Physics and Professor Xun Jiang from the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences and other planetary scientists. UH graduate students Ellen Creecy and Xinyue Wang, renowned planetary scientists Germán Martínez, Ph.D. (Houston’s Lunar and Planetary Institute), Anthony Toigo, Ph.D. (Johns Hopkins University) and Mark Richardson, Ph.D. (Aeolis Research), and Prof. Agustín Sánchez-Lavega (Universidad del País, Vasco, Spain) and Prof. Yeon Joo Lee (Institute for Basic Science, South Korea) also assisted in the project.

The profile of Mars’ REB is based on long-term observations from orbiting spacecraft. It offers a detailed comparison of Mars’ REB to that of Earth, which has shown differences in the way each planet receives and radiates energy. Earth shows an energy surplus in the tropics and a deficit in the polar regions, while Mars exhibits opposite behavioral patterns.

The surplus is evident in Mars’ southern hemisphere during spring, which plays a role in driving the planet’s atmospheric circulation and triggering the most prominent feature of weather on the planet, global dust storms. The storms can envelop the entire planet, alter the distribution of energy, and provide a dynamic element that affects Mars’ weather patterns and climate.

The research team is currently examining long-term energy imbalances on Mars and how it influences the planet’s climate.

“The REB difference between the two planets is truly fascinating, so continued monitoring will deepen our understanding of Mars’ climate dynamics,” Li says in a news release.

The global-scale energy imbalance on Earth was recently discovered, and it contributes to global warming at a “magnitude comparable to that caused by increasing greenhouse gases,” according to the study. Mars has an environment that differs due to its thinner atmosphere and lack of anthropogenic effects.

“The work in establishing Mars’ first meridional radiant energy budget profile is noteworthy,” Guan adds. “Understanding Earth’s large-scale climate and atmospheric circulation relies heavily on REB profiles, so having one for Mars allows critical climatological comparisons and lays the groundwork for Martian meteorology.”

The world can't keep on with what it's doing and expect to reach its goals when it comes to climate change. Radical innovations are needed at this point, writes Scott Nyquist. Photo via Getty Images

Only radical innovation can get the world to its climate goals, says this Houston expert

guest column

Almost 3 years ago, McKinsey published a report arguing that limiting global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels was “technically achievable,” but that the “math is daunting.” Indeed, when the 1.5°C figure was agreed to at the 2015 Paris climate conference, the assumption was that emissions would peak before 2025, and then fall 43 percent by 2030.

Given that 2022 saw the highest emissions ever—36.8 gigatons—the math is now more daunting still: cuts would need to be greater, and faster, than envisioned in Paris. Perhaps that is why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted March 20 (with “high confidence”) that it was “likely that warming will exceed 1.5°C during the 21st century.”

I agree with that gloomy assessment. Given the rate of progress so far, 1.5°C looks all but impossible. That puts me in the company of people like Bill Gates; the Economist; the Australian Academy of Science, and apparently many IPCC scientists. McKinsey has estimated that even if all countries deliver on their net zero commitments, temperatures will likely be 1.7°C higher in 2100.

In October, the UN Environment Program argued that there was “no credible pathway to 1.5°C in place” and called for “an urgent system-wide transformation” to change the trajectory. Among the changes it considers necessary: carbon taxes, land use reform, dietary changes in which individuals “consume food for environmental sustainability and carbon reduction,” investment of $4 trillion to $6 trillion a year; applying current technology to all new buildings; no new fossil fuel infrastructure. And so on.

Let’s assume that the UNEP is right. What are the chances of all this happening in the next few years? Or, indeed, any of it? President Obama’s former science adviser, Daniel Schrag, put it this way: “ Who believes that we can halve global emissions by 2030?... It’s so far from reality that it’s kind of absurd.”

Having a goal is useful, concentrating minds and organizing effort. And I think that has been the case with 1.5°C, or recent commitments to get to net zero. Targets create a sense of urgency that has led to real progress on decarbonization.

The 2020 McKinsey report set out how to get on the 1.5°C pathway, and was careful to note that this was not a description of probability or reality but “a picture of a world that could be.” Three years later, that “world that could be” looks even more remote.

Consider the United States, the world’s second-largest emitter. In 2021, 79 percent of primary energy demand (see chart) was met by fossil fuels, about the same as a decade before. Globally, the figures are similar, with renewables accounting for just 12.5 percent of consumption and low-emissions nuclear another 4 percent. Those numbers would have to basically reverse in the next decade or so to get on track. I don’t see how that can happen.

Credit: Energy Information Administration

But even if 1.5°C is improbable in the short term, that doesn’t mean that missing the target won’t have consequences. And it certainly doesn’t mean giving up on addressing climate change. And in fact, there are some positive trends. Many companies are developing comprehensive plans for achieving net-zero emissions and are making those plans part of their long-term strategy. Moreover, while global emissions grew 0.9 percent in 2022, that was much less than GDP growth (3.2 percent). It’s worth noting, too, that much of the increase came from switching from gas to coal in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine; that is the kind of supply shock that can be reversed. The point is that growth and emissions no longer move in lockstep; rather the opposite. That is critical because poorer countries are never going to take serious climate action if they believe it threatens their future prosperity.

Another implication is that limiting emissions means addressing the use of fossil fuels. As noted, even with the substantial rise in the use of renewables, coal, gas, and oil are still the core of the global energy system. They cannot be wished away. Perhaps it is time to think differently—that is, making fossil fuels more emissions efficient, by using carbon capture or other technologies; cutting methane emissions; and electrifying oil and gas operations. This is not popular among many climate advocates, who would prefer to see fossil fuels “stay in the ground.” That just isn’t happening. The much likelier scenario is that they are gradually displaced. McKinsey projects peak oil demand later this decade, for example, and for gas, maybe sometime in the late 2030s. Even after the peak, though, oil and gas will still be important for decades.

Second, in the longer term, it may be possible to get back onto 1.5°C if, in addition to reducing emissions, we actually remove them from the atmosphere, in the form of “negative emissions,” such as direct air capture and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage in power and heavy industry. The IPCC itself assumed negative emissions would play a major role in reaching the 1.5°C target; in fact, because of cost and deployment problems, it’s been tiny.

Finally, as I have argued before, it’s hard to see how we limit warming even to 2°C without more nuclear power, which can provide low-emissions energy 24/7, and is the largest single source of such power right now.

None of these things is particularly popular; none get the publicity of things like a cool new electric truck or an offshore wind farm (of which two are operating now in the United States, generating enough power for about 20,000 homes; another 40 are in development). And we cannot assume fast development of offshore wind. NIMBY concerns have already derailed some high-profile projects, and are also emerging in regard to land-based wind farms.

Carbon capture, negative emissions, and nuclear will have to face NIMBY, too. But they all have the potential to move the needle on emissions. Think of the potential if fast-growing India and China, for example, were to develop an assembly line of small nuclear reactors. Of course, the economics have to make sense—something that is true for all climate-change technologies.

And as the UN points out, there needs to be progress on other issues, such as food, buildings, and finance. I don’t think we can assume that such progress will happen on a massive scale in the next few years; the actual record since Paris demonstrates the opposite. That is troubling: the IPCC notes that the risks of abrupt and damaging impacts, such as flooding and crop yields, rise “with every increment of global warming.” But it is the reality.

There is one way to get us to 1.5°C, although not in the Paris timeframe: a radical acceleration of innovation. The approaches being scaled now, such as wind, solar, and batteries, are the same ideas that were being discussed 30 years ago. We are benefiting from long-term, incremental improvements, not disruptive innovation. To move the ball down the field quickly, though, we need to complete a Hail Mary pass.

It’s a long shot. But we’re entering an era of accelerated innovation, driven by advanced computing, artificial intelligence, and machine learning that could narrow the odds. For example, could carbon nanotubes displace demand for high-emissions steel? Might it be possible to store carbon deep in the ocean? Could geo-engineering bend the curve?

I believe that, on the whole, the world is serious about climate change. I am certain that the energy transition is happening. But I don’t think we are anywhere near to being on track to hit the 1.5°C target. And I don’t see how doing more of the same will get us there.

------

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 ran on LinkedIn.

Ad Placement 300x100

Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Texas Gov. Abbott broadens crackdown on data centers by halting all permits

data center crackdown

Responding to public outcry, Gov. Greg Abbott has stepped up his campaign against data centers by temporarily halting approval of environmental permits for data center projects.

This and previous moves by Abbott essentially amount to a temporary freeze on the development of new data centers in Texas. His actions come at a time when Texas’ stature as a data center hub has been soaring.

On Monday, Abbott directed the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to stop issuing permits for data center developments until the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and Public Utility Commission of Texas complete their review of projects seeking power grid connections.

With regulatory reviews underway and environmental permitting now frozen, state regulators currently cannot approve or deny requests from data center developers, Abbott said.

In a letter to the environmental quality commission’s executive director, Kelly Keel, Abbott said this directive is “consistent with my whole-of-government approach to ensure Texans’ natural resources and way of life are protected.”

Abbott previously ordered the Texas Water Development Board to require data centers to meet reporting requirements for water use. He also told the board to impose penalties for failure to comply with those requirements and to collaborate with ERCOT on its review.

Abbott launched his crackdown on data centers in August by ordering the Public Utility Commission and ERCOT to review data center projects in Texas. The audits will examine all data centers in the queue for interconnections before any more projects can move forward. Interconnections enable data centers to share power, data and computing resources.

In calling for those audits, Abbott cited concerns over data centers’ use of water and electricity, and the centers’ effect on infrastructure expenses and consumers’ utility rates.

“Simply put, Texans must come first,” the governor said.

During next year’s legislation session, Abbott will push for the elimination of state financial incentives for data center projects.

Ed Hirs, an energy fellow ⁠at the University of Houston, told Reuters that Abbott was backtracking on “his earlier pronouncements about data centers leading to lower electricity prices.”

Abbott’s actions come amid growing public backlash over data centers. A recent University of Houston survey found that nearly 63 percent of Houston-area residents opposed construction of a data center within a mile of their home.

Only 8 of 160 utility companies in Texas have filed wildfire response plans

Utility News

Only eight of 160 utility companies that operate in fire-prone areas of Texas have complied with a law that helps mitigate wildfires, lawmakers recently learned. The revelation comes on the heels of a chaotic wildfire season that has continued through the summer.

Lawmakers learned about the slow progress last week during a House State Affairs committee hearing, led by Rep. Ken King, who led the charge on the new law last year. The law under House Bill 145 requires utility companies to file wildfire mitigation plans to the Public Utility Commission.

The plans must include emergency protocols in the case of a wildfire, utility operating plans during high-risk weather conditions, management of grass, shrubs and other vegetation in areas that are at risk of wildfires, inspection of poles and other electric equipment and identified areas of wildfire risks within a utility’s service territory.

King, a Republican from Canadian where much of the wildfire damage occurred during the Panhandle wildfires, pressed utility companies on the lack of compliance.

“I’m very, very disappointed with the industry,” King said. “I think it’s imperative for anybody that has not filed that report to realize January is coming. You will file that wildfire mitigation plan, and if you’re dragging your feet, there’s no excuse good enough for me.”

Last year, King filed a slew of bills in response to the devastating Smokehouse Creek wildfires in the Texas Panhandle and parts of Oklahoma in 2024. It was the largest wildfire in Texas history, started when a decayed power pole owned by Xcel Energy snapped and landed in dry grass.

It was one of a spate of fires, the majority of which were linked to electrical ignitions.

This year alone has been a very active wildfire season. Nim Kidd, chief for the Texas Division of Emergency Management, said the state has helped local governments respond to more than 1,200 fires since the start of the year. The Ross Fire, which burned for more than three weeks in North Texas, was finally contained by firefighters last week. It’s now the second largest wildfire in the region’s history.

Two wildfires have broken out on Craig Cowden’s Panhandle ranch this year, both ignited by electrical equipment used by oil and gas companies. Cowden extinguished them, before they could spread beyond 5 acres — a fraction of the 20,000 acres he lost to wildfires in 2024.

Cowden was one of many ranchers who worked with lawmakers last year to address the problem. Over the years, several fires have started on Cowden’s land, most of which were the result of faulty or damaged electrical equipment.

“It’s kind of discouraging that there hasn’t been more proactively submitting their wildfire plan,” Cowden said.

Slow progress

There has been progress since the bill was filed. According to King, six fires have been linked to electrical issues this year, a significant decrease from 80 in 2024.

Connie Corona, director at the PUC, explained the lag in filings to lawmakers, stating that on top of the eight who have submitted, four more have given the PUC a date for when they intend to file their plans. Corona said another 135 have indicated to the PUC they are in the process of preparing their plan. This leaves 13 who have not communicated their plans to the PUC.

“We’ve asked for a heads-up notice of when the utility plans to file, and try to ensure that meets with the resources we have available,” Corona told lawmakers.

Corona said PUC staff had created a model wildfire mitigation plan that utility companies can use as a template. The model is intended to support smaller utility companies that lack sufficient resources to make their own plan. King asked Corona for a list of entities who complied with the requirement.

“When eight out of 160 have complied, and we’re sitting here in September, that doesn’t sound like a very good response to me,” King said.

A looming deadline

Brad Baldridge, interim president of Southwestern Public Service Company, which operates as Xcel Energy, told lawmakers what his company is doing to mitigate wildfires. The company was heavily criticized in the wake of the fires and has since deployed 97 wildfire detection cameras across its service territory. The cameras use AI to detect smoke and provide that information in real-time to utility personnel, local fire responders and emergency managers. It also uses Public Safety Power Shutoffs to turn off power in certain areas during critical wildfire conditions to prevent an electrical start. Baldridge said since 2024, the company has had to shut off power five times.

When King asked if the company had submitted its wildfire mitigation plans, Baldridge said it was submitted last month. It would have been submitted earlier, he said, but there was “tremendous” vegetation that grew from rain earlier in the year.

“All of our experts were focusing on wildfire mitigation,” Baldridge said. “Which delayed us a little bit in our filing.”

Mark Bell, CEO for the Association of Electric Companies of Texas, said they are using remote cameras and sensors to detect wildfires and are taking a more aggressive approach to manage vegetation. They also use power shutoffs in extreme conditions to minimize the risk. Bell testified that their utility companies were on track to file their wildfire mitigation plans.

“I think all the plans are going to be filed by the end of the year,” Bell said.

King reminded Bell that it’s September, and many haven’t filed yet.

“That’d be 148 (plans) approved before January,” King said.

Bell assured King that five of them have filed their plans and one is scheduled to file in October.

Corona, with the PUC, said there are also pole and maintenance plans due in January that will detail a complete inventory of those assets owned by utilities. King said the plan is to have the companies list everything they own in Texas, where it is and how old it is. However, he said they aren’t being compliant and lawmakers will see what happens in January.

Cowden, the rancher in the Panhandle, told the Tribune that while it’s not technically fire season anymore, there are still small fires that ignite around the area.

Cowden sees the amount of work being done by Xcel Energy to upgrade their electrical poles and infrastructure in the area. He said it’s different than before the wildfires in 2024. He thinks the fires got their attention.

“You can tell they’re making a conscious effort to try to upgrade their infrastructure,” Cowden said.

This story was originally published by The Texas Tribune and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.

Houston-based ‘grid in a box’ provider Branch Energy raises $33M

fresh funding

Houston-based startup Branch Energy, which offers a self-contained “grid in a box,” has collected $33 million in a Series B round.

Piva Capital and Clean Energy Ventures led the round, according to a news release. Active Impact Investments, Whitecap Venture Partners, Prelude Ventures, Zero Infinity Partners and Inovia Capital also contributed to the round.

In 2024, Branch raised $10.8 million in an oversubscribed Series A round.

Branch’s business model

Branch, which launched in 2021, says its proprietary Arc “grid in a box” contains everything needed to store and supply electricity. A container about the size of a parking space holds an industrial-grade battery, grid connection equipment, cooling capabilities, autonomous controls and cloud-based management software.

The startup installs Arc systems at warehouses, hotels, factories, stores and other commercial properties. Each system arrives on a flatbed truck and can be online within two days, Branch says.

Under Branch’s business model, a property owner avoids upfront payment for an Arc system.

Aside from equipping a host business with an Arc system, Branch serves as the business’ power provider. The startup says it guarantees savings on the host’s energy bills and delivers backup power during outages.

Branch generates revenue by sending the battery’s stored power to the grid or to customers like hyperscale data centers. It also benefits by shifting energy from low-cost periods at night to high-cost periods during daily power peaks.

The startup handles permitting, installation, insurance and operations for each Arc system. The host provides a parking-lot-sized plot of land for the system.

Alex Ince-Cushman, co-founder and CEO of Branch, says the startup’s “grid in a box” can quickly meet the substantial power requirements of hyperscale data centers.

“We can do it on the timeline of a delivery, not a construction project. Our customers don’t lift a finger, don’t pay a dime and get guaranteed savings,” Ince-Cushman said in the release.

Entering the Illinois market

Branch already operates in Texas and is entering the Illinois market.

PJM, which operates Illinois’ power grid, recently paved the way for major energy users like data centers to connect to the grid sooner when they rely on their own electricity generation. PJM’s territory covers roughly 1.2 million commercial buildings and represents 20 percent of U.S. power demand, according to Branch.

“Grids around the country need the distributed capacity that [the Arc] system can supply, especially in states with fast-growing power demand like Texas and Illinois,” Lee Larson, principal at Piva Capital added in the release.

To keep up with that demand, Branch plans to build tens of thousands of Arc systems in the U.S.

A multibillion-dollar company in the making?

Daniel Goldman, co-founder and managing partner of Clean Energy Ventures, said Branch holds the potential to become a multibillion-dollar competitor in the emerging market for distributed power.

“With utility-scale generation and storage challenged by interconnect and siting constraints, behind-the-meter commercial, and industrial storage sites have become the ultimate market opportunity with ease of interconnect, ability to combine distributed AI data centers, and identifiable savings in rapidly growing markets,” Goldman said.

View All Listings

ENERGYCAPITALHTX EMAILS ARE AWESOME