ADVERTISEABOUT USSUBMIT A STORYSUBSCRIBETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICY
Visit our family of Brands

Unlocking climate tech’s potential in Houston: What health innovation's rise can teach us

guest column

If we can channel the same sense of urgency and public commitment toward climate change as we did for health crises in the past, climate tech could overcome its current obstacles. Photo via Getty Images

Over the past several decades, climate tech has faced numerous challenges, ranging from inconsistent public support to a lack of funding from cautious investors. While grassroots organizations and climate innovators have made notable efforts to address urgent environmental issues, we have yet to see large-scale, lasting impact.

A common tendency is to compare climate tech to the rapid advancements made in digital and software technology, but perhaps a more appropriate parallel is the health tech sector, which encountered many of the same struggles in its early days.

Observing the rise of health tech and the economic and political support it received, we can uncover strategies that could stabilize and propel climate tech forward.

Health tech's slow but steady rise

Health tech’s slow upward trajectory began in the mid-20th century, with World War II serving as a critical turning point for medical research and development. Scientists working on wartime projects recognized the broader benefits of increased research funding for the general public, and soon after, the Public Health Service Act of 1944 was passed. This landmark legislation directed resources toward eradicating widespread diseases, viewing them as a national economic threat. By acknowledging diseases as a danger to both public health and the economy, the government laid the groundwork for significant policy changes.

This serves as an essential lesson for climate tech: if the federal government were to officially recognize climate change as a direct threat to the nation’s economy and security, it could lead to similar shifts in policy and resource allocation.

The role of public advocacy and federal support

The growth of health tech wasn’t solely reliant on government intervention. Public advocacy played a key role in securing ongoing support. Voluntary health agencies, such as the American Cancer Society, lobbied for increased funding and spread awareness, helping to attract public interest and investment. But even with this advocacy, early health tech startups struggled to secure venture capital. VCs were hesitant to invest in areas they didn’t fully understand, and without sustained government funding and public backing, it’s unlikely that health tech would have grown as quickly as it has.

The lesson here for climate tech is clear: strong public advocacy and education are crucial. However, unlike health tech, climate tech faces a unique obstacle — there is still a significant portion of the population that either denies the existence of climate change or doesn’t view it as an immediate concern. This lack of urgency makes it difficult to galvanize the public and attract the necessary long-term investment.

Government support: A mixed bag

There have been legislative efforts to support climate tech, though they haven’t yet led to the explosive growth seen in health tech. For example, the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 and the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 gave universities and small businesses the rights to profit from their innovations, including climate-related research. More recently, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 has been instrumental in advancing climate tech by creating opportunities to build projects, lower household energy costs, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite this federal support, many climate tech companies are still struggling to scale. A primary concern for investors is the longer time horizon required for climate startups to yield returns. Scalability is crucial — companies must demonstrate how they will grow profitably over time, but many climate tech startups lack practical long-term business models.

As climate investor Yao Huang put it, “At the end of the day, a climate tech company needs to demonstrate how it will make money. We can apply political pressure and implement governmental policies, but if it is not profitable, it won’t scale or create meaningful impact.”

The public’s role in scaling climate tech

Health tech’s success can largely be attributed to a combination of federal funding, public advocacy, and long-term investment from knowledgeable VCs. Climate tech has federal support in place, thanks to the IRA, but is still lacking the same level of public backing. Health tech overcame its hurdles when public awareness about the importance of medical advancements grew, and voluntary health agencies helped channel donations toward research and innovation.

In contrast, climate nonprofits like Cool Earth, Environmental Defense Fund, and Clean Air Task Force face a severe funding shortfall. A 2020 study revealed that climate nonprofits aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions only received $2 billion in donations, representing just 0.4% of all philanthropic funding. Without greater public awareness/sense of urgency and financial support, these groups cannot effectively advocate for climate tech startups or lobby for necessary policy changes. This type of philanthropic funding is also known as ‘catalytic capital’ or ‘impact-first-capital’. Prime Impact Fund is one such fund that does not ‘view investments as concessionary on return’. Rather their patient and flexible capital allows support of high risk, high-reward ventures.

A path forward for climate tech

The most valuable insight from health tech’s growth is that government intervention, while critical, is not enough to guarantee the success of an emerging sector. Climate tech needs a stronger support system, including informed investors, widespread public backing, and nonprofits with the financial resources to advocate for industry-wide growth.

If we can channel the same sense of urgency and public commitment toward climate change as we did for health crises in the past, climate tech could overcome its current obstacles.The future of climate tech depends not just on government policies, but on educating the public, rallying financial support, and building a robust infrastructure for long-term growth.

———

Nada Ahmed is the founding partner at Houston-based Energy Tech Nexus, a startup hub for the energy transition.

From Your Site Articles
Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Houston energy expert asks: Who pays when AI outruns the power grid?

Guets Column

For most of the past 20 years, U.S. electricity policy relied on predictable trends in demand. Electricity use, in most regions, increased gradually, forecasts were stable, and utilities adjusted the system in small steps. Power plants, transmission lines, and substations were generally added to reflect shifts in load, rather than growth, and costs were recovered through modest adjustments to customer bills.

Growth in AI data centers has disrupted this model. A single facility can add as much electricity demand as a small town. That demand comes all at once, runs continuously, and has little tolerance for outages. If electricity service drops even briefly, computation stops, and services shut down. Ironically, data centers need reliable service, a point that their emergence is driving concern around for the rest of the grid.

What the numbers say

The International Energy Agency projects global electricity consumption from data centers to double by 2030, reaching roughly 945 TWh, nearly 3 percent of global electricity demand, with consumption growing about 15 percent per year this decade. McKinsey projects that U.S. data center demand alone could grow 20–25 percent per year, with global capacity demand more than tripling by 2030.

After years of roughly 0.5 percent annual demand growth, many forecasts now place total U.S. electricity demand growth closer to 2–3 percent per year through the mid-2030s, with much higher growth in specific regions. In Texas, some forecasters are saying electricity demand could double over the next five years, a staggering 10 percent per year growth rate. What sounds incremental on paper translates into a major challenge on the ground. Meeting this pace of growth is estimated to require $250–$300 billion per year in grid investment, about double what the system has been absorbing.

Where the system starts to strain

The strain appears first in the interconnection queue. It shows up as long waits, backlogs, and delays for connecting new loads and new generation.

Before new generators or large load customers can be connected, a study is required to assess their impact on the grid, whether it can physically handle the added load, and whether upgrades are required. With AI-driven data centers, utilities face far more connection requests than they can realistically support. In ERCOT, large-load interconnection requests exceed 200 gigawatts, most tied to data centers. That amount exceeds historical norms, and it is several times larger than what can be practically studied or built in the near term.

To be clear, public utility commissions are required to study these requests because they must manage system capabilities to ensure minimal disruption. This means engineers spend time evaluating projects that may never be built, while other more commercially viable projects may wait longer for approvals. This extends timelines and makes infrastructure planning less reliable.

Why policymakers are rethinking the rules

Utilities and their regulators must decide how much generation, transmission, and substation capacity to build years before it comes online. Those decisions are based on expected demand at the time projects are approved. When it comes to data centers, by the time infrastructure is completed, they may end up deploying newer, more efficient chips that use less power than originally assumed. This can result in grid infrastructure built for a higher load than what actually materializes, leaving excess capacity that still must be paid for through system-wide rates.

That’s the central dilemma. If utilities build too little capacity, the system operates with less reserve margin. During periods of grid stress, operators have fewer options, increasing the likelihood of curtailments or outages. However, if utilities build too much, customers may be asked to pay for infrastructure that is not fully used.

In response, policymakers are adjusting the rules. In some regions, regulators are moving toward bring-your-own-power approaches that require large data centers to supply or fund part of the capacity needed to serve them or reduce demand during system stress. At the federal level, permitting reforms tied to datacenter infrastructure increasingly treat electricity as a strategic economic input.

As Ken Medlock, senior director at the Baker Institute Center for Energy Studies (CES), explains:

“Many of the planned data centers are now also adding behind-the-meter options to their development plans because they do not anticipate being able to manage their needs solely from the grid, and they certainly cannot do so with only intermittent power sources.”

Behind-the-meter (BTM) refers to power that a consumer controls on its side of the utility meter, such as on-site gas generation or a dedicated power plant. These resources allow data centers to keep operating during grid-related service. Most facilities remain connected to the grid, but the backup BTM generation serves as insurance for operating their core business.

This shifts responsibility. Utilities traditionally manage reliability across all customers by maintaining an operating reserve margin, or spare capacity. Increasingly, large-load customers manage part of their own electricity reliability needs, which changes how infrastructure is planned and how risk is distributed.

Bottom line

AI-driven load growth is arriving faster and in more concentrated places than the power system was built to accommodate. Utilities and regulators are being forced to make decisions sooner than planned about where to build, how fast to build, and which customers get priority when capacity is limited. The effects extend beyond data centers, showing up in system costs, reliability margins, competition for grid access, and pressure on communities and industries that depend on affordable and dependable power. The issue is not whether electricity can be generated, but how the costs and risks of rapid demand growth are distributed as the system tries to keep up. How regulators balance these decisions will determine who pays as AI demand outruns the power grid.

-----------

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.

Texas solar set to overtake coal for first time in 2026, EIA forecasts

solar on the rise

Solar power promises to shine even brighter in Texas this year.

A new forecast from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicates that for the first time, annual power generation from utility-scale solar will surpass annual power generation from coal across the territory covered by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT).

Solar generation is expected to reach 78 billion kilowatt-hours in 2026 in the ERCOT grid, compared with 60 billion kilowatt-hours for coal, the EIA forecast says. The ERCOT grid supplies power to about 90 percent of Texas, including the Houston area.

“Utility-scale solar generation has been increasing steadily in ERCOT as solar capacity additions help meet rapid electricity demand growth,” the forecast says.

Although natural gas remains the dominant source of electricity generation in ERCOT, accounting for an average 44 percent of electricity generation from 2021 to 2025, solar’s share of the generation mix rose from four percent to 12 percent. During the same period, coal’s share dropped from 19 percent to 13 percent.

EIA predicts about 40 percent of U.S. solar capacity, or 14 billion kilowatt-hours, added in 2026 will come from Texas.

Although EIA expects annual solar generation to exceed annual coal generation in 2026, solar surpassed coal in ERCOT on a monthly basis for the first time in March 2025, when solar generation totaled 4.33 billion kilowatt-hours and coal’s totaled 4.16 billion kilowatt-hours. Solar generation continued to exceed that of coal until August of that year.

“In 2026, we estimate that solar exceeded coal for the first time in March, and we forecast generation from solar installations in ERCOT will continue to exceed that from coal until December, when coal generation exceeds solar,” says EIA. “We expect solar generation to exceed that of coal for every month in 2027 except January and December.”

For 2027, EIA forecasts annual solar generation of 99 billion kilowatt-hours in the ERCOT grid, compared with 66 billion kilowatt-hours of annual coal generation.

In April, ERCOT projected almost 368 billion kilowatt-hours of demand in ERCOT’s territory by 2032. ERCOT’s all-time peak demand hit 85.5 billion kilowatt-hours in August 2023.

“Texas is experiencing exceptional growth and development, which is reshaping how large load demand is identified, verified, and incorporated into long-term planning,” ERCOT President and CEO Pablo Vegas said. “As a result of a changing landscape, we believe this forecast to be higher than expected … load growth.”

Houston startup raises $12M to commercialize quantum energy chip technology

seed funding

Houston-based Casimir has emerged from stealth with a $12 million seed round to commercialize its quantum energy chip.

The round was led by Austin-based Scout Ventures. Lavrock Ventures, Cottonwood Technology, Capital Factory, American Deep Tech, and Tim Draper of Draper Associates also participated in the round. The oversubscribed round exceeded the company’s original $8 million target, according to a news release.

Casimir’s semiconductor chips can generate power from quantum vacuum fields without the need for batteries or charging. The company plans to commercialize its first-generation MicroSparc chip by 2028.

The MicroSparc chip measures 5 millimeters by 5 millimeters and is designed to produce 1.5 volts at 25 microamps, comparable to a small rechargeable battery, without degradation and no replacement cycle.

“Casimir represents exactly the kind of breakthrough dual-use technology Scout Ventures was built to back,” Brad Harrison, founder and managing partner at Scout Ventures, said in the release. “This is based on 100 years of science and we’re finally approaching a commercial product … We’re proud to lead this round and support Casimir’s journey from applied science to deployed technology.”

Casimir says it aims to scale its technology across the ”full power spectrum,” including large-scale energy systems that can power homes, commercial infrastructures and electric vehicles.

Casimir's scientific work has been supported by DARPA-funded nanofabrication research and its technology was incubated at the Limitless Space Institute (LSI). LSI is a nonprofit that works to innovate interstellar travel and was founded by Kam Ghaffarian. Technology investor and serial entrepreneur Ghaffarian has been behind companies like X-energy, Intuitive Machines, Axiom Space and Quantum Space.

Harold “Sonny” White, founder and CEO of Casimir, believes the technology can power devices for years without replacements.

“Millions of devices will operate for years without a battery ever needing to be replaced or recharged because we have engineered a customized Casimir cavity into hardware capable of producing persistent electrical power,” White added in the release. “I spent nearly two decades at NASA studying how we power humanity’s future. That work led me to the Casimir effect and the quantum vacuum, where new tools have allowed us to build on a century of scientific knowledge and bring abundant power to the world.”

---

This article originally appeared on our sister site, InnovationMap.com.

View All Listings