Houston agriculture robotics co. raises $21.5M series A to grow climatetech solution

freshly funded

The series A funding will support the deployment of its biochar machines across Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Photo courtesy of Applied Carbon

A Houston energy tech startup has raised a $21.5 million series a round of funding to support the advancement of its automated technology that converts field wastes into stable carbon.

Applied Carbon, previously known as Climate Robotics, announced that its fresh round of funding was led by TO VC, with participation from Congruent Ventures, Grantham Foundation, Microsoft Climate Innovation Fund, S2G Ventures, Overture.vc, Wireframe Ventures, Autodesk Foundation, Anglo American, Susquehanna Foundation, US Endowment for Forestry and Communities, TELUS Pollinator Fund for Good, and Elemental Excelerator.

The series A funding will support the deployment of its biochar machines across Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana.

"Multiple independent studies indicate that converting crop waste into biochar has the potential to remove gigatons of CO2 from the atmosphere each year, while creating trillions of dollars in value for the world's farmers," Jason Aramburu, co-founder and CEO of Applied Carbon, says in a news release. "However, there is no commercially available technology to convert these wastes at low cost.

"Applied Carbon's patented in-field biochar production system is the first solution that can convert crop waste into biochar at a scale and a cost that makes sense for broad acre farming," he continues.

Applied Carbon rebranded in June shortly after being named a top 20 finalist in XPRIZE's four-year, $100 million global Carbon Removal Competition. The company also was named a semi-finalist and awarded $50,000 from the Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Removal Purchase Pilot Prize program in May.

"Up to one-third of excess CO2 that has accumulated in the atmosphere since the start of human civilization has come from humans disturbing soil through agriculture," Joshua Phitoussi, co-founder and managing partner at TO VC, adds. "To reach our net-zero objectives, we need to put that carbon back where it belongs.

"Biochar is unique in its potential to do so at a permanence and price point that are conducive to mass-scale adoption of carbon dioxide removal solutions, while also leaving farmers and consumers better off thanks to better soil health and nutrition," he continues. "Thanks to its technology and business model, Applied Carbon is the only company that turns that potential into reality."

The company's robotic technology works in field, picking up agricultural crop residue following harvesting and converts it into biochar in a single pass. The benefits included increasing soil health, improving agronomic productivity, and reducing lime and fertilizer requirements, while also providing a carbon removal and storage solution.

"We've been looking at the biochar sector for over a decade and Applied Carbon's in-field proposition is incredibly compelling," adds Joshua Posamentier, co-founder and managing partner of Congruent Ventures. "The two most exciting things about this approach are that it profitably swings the agricultural sector from carbon positive to carbon negative and that it can get to world-scale impact, on a meaningful timeline, while saving farmers money."

From Your Site Articles

What is it going to take to make Houston a leader in the energy transition? Access to capital, according to a panel from Venture Houston. Photo by Natalie Harms/EnergyCapital

Experts: Houston needs to unlock early-stage capital to lead the energy transition

show me the money

Last week, Tim Latimer sat on a panel that consisted mostly of his company's investors and discussed what he felt the missing piece still was for Houston's energy transition and innovation community.

“There’s no better place in the world than Houston to build and scale a climate tech startup," he says on a Venture Houston panel titled Seeding Sustainability: Unlocking the Power of Early Stage Investments.

“But I don’t know if I’m ready to make the claim that we’re the best place to start a business,” he adds.

Latimer, who co-founded Fervo Energy in the Bay Area in 2017 before relocating the company to Houston, explains that his company raised capital on the West Coast ahead of moving to Texas to grow and scale. This allowed the company, which recently announced the success of a major pilot, to tap into early stage funding and then make the most of every dollar raised by moving to a region where the money would last longer — and where there's talent, customers, and more.

“The dream for us to have a truly unlocked ecosystem is that the whole pattern can happen here in Houston, and the gap I see is that capital formation side,” he says.

Latimer was joined on the panel by some of Fervo's investors: Mark Cupta, managing partner of Prelude Ventures; Andrea Course, venture principal of Shell Ventures; and Joshua Posamentier, co-founder and managing partner of Congruent Ventures.

Each of the panelists weighed in on what it would take for Houston to emerge as a leader within the global energy transition. Cupta says that it's going to take the city time to build out activity, successful outcomes, talent, money, and more.

“The venture capital community is an ecosystem, and that ecosystem consists of multiple stakeholders that all have to work in concert with each other," he says. "It has to be a flywheel that spins up over time.”

Course, the only Houston-based investor on the panel, says that Houston has potential because it's got talent, industry, and money, or TIM, as she describes.

“I think Houston is actually the perfect place for becoming the energy transition capital. If you ask me, I think we already are.” Course explains. “It really just takes people doing what we’re doing now to make it even greater."

Posamentier, who previously shared his outlook on Houston in a Q&A with EnergyCapital, explains that access to funding isn't the only issue. “There’s a lot more money than there are investable opportunities at the moment,” he says.

The panel also weighed in on the difference between venture capital and funding coming out of corporations.

“VCs and CVCs have different timelines,” Course explains, saying VC firms have 5- to 7-year life cycles. After that, they need to see an exit to be able to provide that return. “With a CVC, we don’t really have that. Of course we want to show financial returns, but we are long-duration capital.

CVC is patient capital with value-add investors, but Course admits there's a longer due diligence because she wants to find a strategic stakeholder before an investment is made.

“The worst thing that could happen is that Shell gives you money, but they don’t give you business. We don’t want that,” she says.

Waiting for that right investor can be extremely important to company success, Latimer says from the founder perspective.

“It’s hard to put a hard dollar value on help, but our ability to have advisers and introductions from different types of investors … makes all the difference in the world,” he says on the panel. “A lot of startup founders think about their org design very critically and who they want to bring onto the team, and you should be deliberate on your cap table.”

Josh Posamentier, co-founder and managing partner at Congruent Ventures, will join Venture Houston as a speaker this year. Photo via congruentvc.com

Sustainability investor addresses startup challenges, Houston's capital shortages, and more

Q&A

It's been a challenging year for venture capital, but how are climatetech startups doing specifically? One Bay Area investor shares his point of view on this this topic ahead of Venture Houston next week.

Joshua Posamentier, co-founder and managing partner of Congruent Ventures, a San Francisco-based firm that invests in early-stage sustainable companies, is taking the stage at Venture Houston on September 7. Among others, Posamentier will be in conversation with the founder of one of his firm's portfolio companies, Fervo Energy, discussing seed and early-stage funding for sustainability-focused startups.

Venture Houston is presented by HX Venture Fund, a fund of funds that deploys capital into non-Houston firms to encourage investment in local startups. This year's theme is "Spotlighting the path for decarbonization in a digital world."

Posamentier, who has worked over a decade in this space, shares some of his thoughts on Houston as an energy transition leader, the challenges climate-tech startups face, and more in an interview with EnergyCapital.

EnergyCapital: How do you see Houston and its role in this energy transition, its challenges, its opportunities, etc.?

Josh Posamentier: I actually tend to disagree with the people that say Houston is too far down the oil and gas path. I mean, it's it's capitalism at the end of the day. There's money to be made in in climate mitigation technologies. People are going to go chase it, and I think Houston, of all places, is a pretty capitalistic city. And people are definitely not shy about chasing the next big opportunity. I mean, it was oil and natural gas before, and now it's now it's alternative energy. And so I think from that perspective, it's fine. There's a lot of money.

I think the biggest challenge is honestly, especially on a perception basis, a lot of the policy and social stuff that's endemic to Texas, which is a bummer. I mean, especially for younger talent. Austin had a shine, but I think that's largely gone and Houston never had it. So, I think it's something that needs to be overcome and needs to be thought about at a state level basis, especially if you're going to want to attract young entrepreneurial talent.

EC: What are some of the challenges energy transition startups are facing these days? How is your fund kind of supporting your portfolio companies through these challenges?

JP: There's some normalization that's had to happen over the last 9 to 12 months. As you know, corrections have come down the pipe in the venture ecosystem. By all accounts, it has been really frothy for the last few years, especially so in parts of climate. Some of that's due to the the proliferation of investment from non climate-specific firms. And it's, in many ways, decoupled from the ups and downs of different parts of the venture ecosystem, but it also has different timelines. I think not everyone always appreciates what that means and what that implies for for startups. So there's a lot of frustration and a lot of missed expectations in the early stage part of the ecosystem that are slowly getting fixed. I think getting expectations more in line with reality is going to help immensely.

The other thing is just figuring out how to talk more in a language that venture investors understand. I think that's a little bit of a challenge. There's there's actually a pretty big gap between if you're an oil and gas developer and thinking about how you fund that kind of a business versus how you fund a technology-enabling business. Fervo Energy is an interesting example. It's a tech company, but now it's really a tech enabled developer because they have no choice but to do that full stack. They went to school out here. They understand the ecosystem. They've really taken the effort to really understand all the capital players. And so we're waiting to see how that ultimately plays out.

But there's just different capital. I think it is a little challenging. And this is a good thing. There does need to be a way, I think, to just get people more exposure to to the market there — in the Houston market specifically. If you're spinning at Stanford, there are hundreds of VCs within walking distance. In Houston, the ones I know I can count on one hand.

EC: Has that pace of commercialization changed over the years or have founders found ways to survive that valley of death?

JP: I don't think anything's really changed fundamentally. I think people have gotten a little more clever about understanding how the adoption occurs, and figuring out how to phase into those processes that that comes with experience. But there's only so much acceleration you can do when you're dealing with critical infrastructure. You know, people are not going to want to just jump right in, rip out, and replace things that keep the lights on. And so you just have to figure out how to how to capitalize a business in such a way that you can you can live with those kinds of timelines. Venture capital is a fantastic tool, and it is far from the right tool for every problem. And so there are plenty of opportunities to deploy other tools that are more appropriate to different kinds of different kinds of challenges.

EC: What attracted you to investing in Fervo Energy?

JP: So, it's how we think about portfolio construction. Fervo has an amazing team, which we will bend a lot of rules for, and we saw this opportunity as something they could build a ton of value by validating the tech, establishing a huge land position, and then raising different kinds of capital for the out years and for the project development. A bunch of our companies took venture capital to develop a technology, and then they know that venture is not the right class of capital to then scale that throughout the world and whatever. So they would basically raise other forms of capital in the out years to deploy the technologies.

EC: And one of those options is government funding. How do your portfolio companies utilize that?

JP: A big chunk of our portfolio has some government money, even if it's very early stage research grants or something like that. I see government money being the most effective in a couple of ways. One way obviously is to get the core research out of it versus just spin it into something more commercial that we can all then look at.

The other place that is really exciting is in is getting technologies to scale where they're then cost effective without further subsidies. When we underwrite companies, we are very explicitly underwriting them in the absence of subsidies at scale. The assumption is those are just there to basically bridge the gap between "this is totally uneconomic because it's a tiny, tiny little factory or something" versus "it would be plenty economic if it were a big factory." So, if they can just bridge that gap with a little bit of government money.

We've been through this this cycle a couple of times, and we can't in good faith underwrite anything assuming that government subsidies are going to continue. We very much believe it's a bridge — it's got to be a bridge to something. It can't be a bridge to nowhere. And I think there are a lot of companies out there today that are almost designed to just pump the government incentives, and that's not a recipe for a business that can grow on its own over time.

------

This conversation has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Ad Placement 300x100

Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Innovative Houston clean hydrogen company expands to Brazil

on the move

Houston biotech company Cemvita has expanded into Brazil. The company officially established a new subsidiary in the country under the same name.

According to an announcement made earlier this month, the expansion aims to capitalize on Brazil’s progressive regulatory framework, including Brazil’s Fuel of the Future Law, which was enacted in 2024. The company said the expansion also aims to coincide with the 2025 COP30, the UN’s climate change conference, which will be hosted in Brazil in November.

Cemvita utilizes synthetic biology to transform carbon emissions into valuable bio-based chemicals.

“For decades Brazil has pioneered the bioeconomy, and now the time has come to create the future of the circular bioeconomy,” Moji Karimi, CEO of Cemvita, said in a news release. “Our vision is to combine the innovation Cemvita is known for with Brazil’s expertise and resources to create an ecosystem where waste becomes opportunity and sustainability drives growth. By joining forces with Brazilian partners, Cemvita aims to build on Brazil’s storied history in the bioeconomy while laying the groundwork for a circular and sustainable future.”

The Fuel of the Future Law mandates an increase in the biodiesel content of diesel fuel, starting from 15 percent in March and increasing to 20 percent by 2030. It also requires the adoption of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) and for domestic flights to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1 percent starting in 2027, growing to 10 percent reduction by 2037.

Cemvita agreed to a 20-year contract that specified it would supply up to 50 million gallons of SAF annually to United Airlines in 2023.

"This is all made possible by our innovative technology, which transforms carbon waste into value,” Marcio Da Silva, VP of Innovation, said in a news release. “Unlike traditional methods, it requires neither a large land footprint nor clean freshwater, ensuring minimal environmental impact. At the same time, it produces high-value green chemicals—such as sustainable oils and biofuels—without competing with the critical resources needed for food production."

In 2024, Cemvita became capable of generating 500 barrels per day of sustainable oil from carbon waste at its first commercial plant. As a result, Cemvita quadrupled output at its Houston plant. The company had originally planned to reach this milestone in 2029.

Capitalism and climate: How financial shifts will shape our behavior

guest column

I never imagined I would see Los Angeles engulfed in flames in this way in my lifetime. As someone who has devoted years to studying climate science and advocating for climate technology solutions, I'm still caught off guard by the immediacy of these disasters. A part of me wants to believe the intensifying hurricanes, floods, and wildfires are merely an unfortunate string of bad luck. Whether through misplaced optimism or a subconscious shield of denial, I hadn't fully processed that these weren't just harbingers of a distant future, but our present reality. The recent fires have shattered that denial, bringing to mind the haunting prescience of the movie Don't Look Up. Perhaps we aren't as wise as we fancy ourselves to be.

The LA fires aren't an isolated incident. They're part of a terrifying pattern: the Canadian wildfires that darkened our skies, the devastating floods in Spain and Pakistan, and the increasingly powerful hurricanes in the Gulf. A stark new reality is emerging for climate-vulnerable cities, and whether we acknowledge the underlying crisis or not, climate change is making its presence felt – not just in death and destruction, but in our wallets.

The insurance industry, with its cold actuarial logic, is already responding. Even before the recent LA fires, major insurers like State Farm and Allstate had stopped writing new home policies in California, citing unmanageable wildfire risks. In the devastated Palisades area, 70% of homes had lost their insurance coverage before disaster struck. While some homeowners may have enrolled in California's limited FAIR plan, others likely went without coverage. Now, the FAIR plan faces $5.9 billion in potential claims, far exceeding its reinsurance backup – a shortfall that promises delayed payments and costlier coverage.

The insurance crisis is reverberating across the nation, and Houston sits squarely in its path. As a city all too familiar with the destructive power of extreme weather, we're experiencing our own reckoning. The Houston Chronicle recently reported that local homeowners are paying a $3,740 annually for insurance – nearly triple the national average and 60% higher than the Texas state average. Our region isn't just listed among the most expensive areas for home insurance; it's identified as one of the most vulnerable to climate hazards.

For Houston homeowners, Hurricane Harvey taught us a harsh lesson: flood zones are merely suggestions, not guarantees. The next major hurricane won't respect the city's floodplain designations. This reality poses a sobering question: Would you risk having your largest asset – your home – uninsured when flooding becomes increasingly likely in the next decade or two?

For most Americans, home equity represents one of the largest components of household wealth, a crucial stepping stone to financial security and generational advancement. Insurance isn't just about protecting physical property; it's about preserving the foundation of middle-class economic stability. When insurance becomes unavailable or unaffordable, it threatens the very basis of financial security for millions of families.

The insurance industry's retreat from vulnerable markets – as evidenced by Progressive and Foremost Insurance's withdrawal from writing new policies in Texas – is more than a business decision. It's a market signal. These companies are essentially pricing in the reality of climate change, whether we choose to call it that or not.

What we're witnessing is the market beginning to price us out of areas where we've either built unsustainably or perhaps should never have built at all. This isn't just about insurance rates; it's about the future viability of entire communities and regional economies. The invisible hand of the market is doing what political will has failed to do: forcing us to confront the true costs of our choices in a warming world.

Insurance companies aren't the only ones sounding the alarm. Lenders and investors are quietly rewriting the rules of capital access based on climate risk. Banks are adjusting mortgage terms and raising borrowing costs in vulnerable areas, while major investment firms are factoring carbon intensity into their lending decisions. Companies with higher environmental risks have faced higher loan spreads and borrowing costs – a trend that's accelerating as climate impacts intensify. This financial reckoning is creating a new economic geography, where access to capital increasingly depends on climate resilience.

The insurance crisis is the canary in the coal mine, warning us of the systemic risks ahead. As actuaries and risk managers factor climate risks into their models, we're seeing the beginning of a profound economic shift that will ripple far beyond housing, affecting businesses, agriculture, and entire regional economies. The question isn't whether we'll adapt to this new reality, but how much it will cost us – in both financial and human terms – before we finally act.

---

Nada Ahmed is the founding partner at Houston-based Energy Tech Nexus.

Houston renewables developer powers two new California solar parks

now open

EDP Renewables North America LLC, a Houston-based developer, owner, and operator of renewable energy projects, has unveiled a solar energy park in California whose customers are Houston-based Shell Energy North America and the Eureka, California-based Redwood Coast Energy Authority.

Sandrini I & II Solar Energy Park, located near Bakersfield, is capable of supplying 300 megawatts of power. The park was completed in two phases.

“Sandrini I & II represent EDP Renewables’ continued commitment to investing in California and are a direct contribution to California's admirable target of achieving 100 percent clean electricity by 2045,” says Sandhya Ganapathy, CEO of EDP. “The Golden State is known for its leadership in solar energy, and EDP Renewables is elated to meet the growing demand for reliable clean energy sources.”

Shell signed a 15-year deal to buy power from the 200-megawatt Sandrini I, and the Redwood Coast Energy Authority signed a 15-year deal to buy power from the 100-megawatt Sandrini II.

In July, EDP announced the opening of the 210-megawatt Pearl River Solar Park in Mississippi. Earlier in 2024, the company debuted the 175-megawatt Crooked Lake Solar Park in Arkansas and the 74-megawatt Misenheimer Solar Park in North Carolina. Click here to read more.

View All Listings

ENERGYCAPITALHTX EMAILS ARE AWESOME