Three young professionals have made the cut for this year's Forbes Under 30 list in the Energy and Green Tech list for 2025. Photos via Forbes

A handful of Houstonians have been named to the Forbes 30 Under 30 Energy and Green Tech list for 2025.

Kip Daujotas is an investment associate at Aramco Ventures, a $7.5 billion venture capital arm of the world's largest energy company. Houston is the Americas headquarters for Saudi Aramco. Since its inception in 2012, Aramco Ventures has invested in more than 100 tech startups. Daujotas joined the team over two years ago after studying for an MBA at Yale University. He led Aramco’s first direct air capture (DAC) investment — in Los Alamos, New Mexico-based Spiritus.

Also representing the corporate side of the industry, Wenting Gao immigrated from Beijing to obtain an economics degree from Harvard University, then got a job at consulting giant McKinsey, where she recently became the firm’s youngest partner. Gao works on bringing sustainability strategies to energy and materials companies as well as investors. Her areas of expertise include battery materials, waste, biofuels, and low-carbon products.

Last but not least, Houston entrepreneur Rawand Rasheed is co-founder and CEO of Houston-based Helix Earth. He co-founded the startup after earning a doctoral degree from Rice University and co-inventing Helix’s core technology while at NASA, first as a graduate research fellow and then as an engineer. The core technology, a space capsule air filtration system, has been applied to retrofitting HVAC systems for commercial buildings.

Each year, Forbes 30 Under 30 recognizes 600 honorees in 20 categories. The 2025 honorees were selected from more than 10,000 nominees by Forbes staff and a panel of independent judges based on factors such as funding, revenue, social impact, scale, inventiveness, and potential.

Specifically, the Energy & Green Tech category recognizes young entrepreneurs driving innovation that’s aimed at creating a cleaner, greener future.

“Gen Z is one of the fastest-growing groups of entrepreneurs and creators, who are reshaping the way the world conducts business, and our Under 30 class of 2025 proves that you can never begin your career journey too early,” says Alexandra York, editor of Forbes Under 30. “With the expansion across AI, technology, social media, and other industries, the honorees on this year’s list are pushing the boundaries and building their brands beyond traditional scopes.”

According to McKinsey data, more than $3.5 trillion will be invested in green hydrogen, carbon capture, renewable energy, and other projects that are working toward net-zero transition by 2050. Photo via ses-estimating.com

McKinsey acquires Houston-area co. to enhance sustainability services

M&A Moves

A global management consulting company has executed on an acquisition key to its plans amid the energy transition.

McKinsey & Company announced the acquisition of Strategic Estimating Systems, a Sugar Land-based consulting firm specializing in cost estimation for oil, gas, and chemical process industries. The acquisition provides McKinsey with enhanced benchmarking capabilities across capital project management — especially within the energy transition.

The terms of the deal were not disclosed.

"The capital projects ecosystem is presented with a once-in-a-generation chance to aid in transforming economies to achieve net zero," Justin Dahl, partner and global leader of McKinsey & Company's Capital Analytics, says in a news release. "By integrating SES's unmatched capabilities, we're not only enhancing our sustainability services, such as carbon capture, but also expanding the scope of our existing Capital Excellence capabilities to crucial industries and wider geographies."

"This allows our clients to gain an independent perspective on value, cost, and timing at every phase of the capital project lifecycle, thereby improving bottom-up estimating," Dahl continues. "Committed to innovation and excellence, this acquisition empowers us to explore new value dimensions and further refine our expertise in bottom-up estimating for our clients."

According to McKinsey data, more than $3.5 trillion will be invested in green hydrogen, carbon capture, renewable energy, and other projects that are working toward net-zero transition by 2050.

"We are thrilled to join McKinsey and expand our footprint to serve more clients on a larger scale," SES Founder and CEO Mike Monteith, who joins as Leader of McKinsey & Company's Capital Analytics, says in the release. "McKinsey is unparalleled in developing scalable and sustainable transformation strategies, leveraging industry leading insight and expertise in capital excellence.

"By working together, we will amplify our strengths, driving greater impact for clients at every stage of the capital project lifecycle, and delivering end-to-end transformations that create lasting value," he continues.

Nuclear could be a powerful tool to address rising greenhouse-gas emissions. But to get there, the industry needs to raise its game. Photo via Pexels

Houston expert explains what’s needed to bend the curve on nuclear power

guest column

I argued previously that nuclear power can help the world deal with two related challenges: energy security and climate change. I still think that is the case.

McKinsey & Company, where I worked for more than 30 years, also recently turned to the topic. The authors agreed that nuclear can play a significant role in decarbonization, and noted that there were some encouraging trends, even in markets, such as the United States, where new plants are thin on the ground. And then the authors asked a critical question: “Can the industry reverse the trend of exceeding budgets and timelines while scaling up fast enough to rise to the climate challenge?”

That query got me thinking. To me, the case for nuclear is clear and compelling. Given that electricity demand could triple by 2050, the need for low-emission and constant power is acute. Nuclear fits that bill. Other sources either emit much more (coal, gas, oil) or are intermittent (wind, solar). Little new hydro is being built. Nothing else is at anything like scale.

But clearly, nuclear has not carried the day, particularly in Europe, Japan, and the United States. These markets are, at best, wary of nuclear power. They are willing to invest some money in next-generation technologies or maybe to extend an operating license. But they are not doing much about the conditions that make new construction so costly and difficult.

For that to happen, I think we need to go deeper—to change mindsets among two very different sets of players.

Anti-nuclear green activists. As the Rolling Stones wisely noted, “You can’t always get what you want.” To deal with something as complicated and wide-ranging as climate change, there will be trade-offs. But if you want reliable power and lower emissions and if you don’t want thousands of square miles of land coated with wind and solar farms, something has to give.

Consider France. It gets more than two-thirds of its power from nuclear, which is a huge part of the reason it ranks 60th in the world in per capita carbon-dioxide emissions (4.46 tons), a much better performance than global peers like Japan (8.5), Belgium (8.1), Germany (7.9), and Austria (7.3). Those four countries have all dialed back on nuclear. Here is the Austrian energy minister, Leonore Gewessler: “The attempt to declare nuclear energy as sustainable and renewable must be resolutely opposed.”

If the goal is to reduce emissions, though, why should that be the case? Well, one response is that championing nuclear power could reduce investment in renewables. But again, if the goal is to reduce emissions, then why not embrace technologies that do exactly that? Whether nuclear can be considered “renewable” seems to me to be almost a theological question, not a technical one. And certainly not a useful one. The goal should not be X or Y percent of renewables, but how to promote an energy transition that delivers reliable, low-emission power. Somehow that point is lost, or dismissed. Instead, major environmental groups such as the Sierra Club (“unequivocally opposed”), Greenpeace (“say no to new nukes”), the Climate Action Network Europe, the European Environmental Bureau (“We advocate for an exit from nuclear energy”) and so on don’t see a place for nuclear.

The mindset shift needed among these and other green groups is to see nuclear as one component of a diversified energy system that can be part of the climate solution, and then to turn their considerable power and creativity toward convincing the public. I just don’t see how shutting down nuclear plants before their time, and replacing them with higher-emissions sources, as is often the case, helps to reduce emissions.

I am not holding my breath on this, but stranger things have happened. Heck, nuclear has found an unlikely advocate in film-maker Oliver Stone. His new documentary, “Nuclear,” argues that the public “has been trained, from the very beginning, to fear nuclear power. The very thing that we fear is what may save us.”

Nuclear could be a powerful tool to address rising greenhouse-gas emissions. But to get there, the industry needs to raise its game. Stone’s nuclear-could-save-us scenario would be likelier if the industry made a better case for itself. Not in safety or reliability, where its record is remarkably good, but in frustration and economics. The stereotype of huge delays and budget over-runs is no myth. Georgia is the only US state building plants, and they are both running years and billions beyond the initial projections.

Granted, some things are beyond the industry’s control: legal challenges plus complex and shifting regulation add up. Some countries clearly do better than others on this. South Korea, for example, gets a third of its power from nuclear, is building three more plants, and is expanding its export market. It will be interesting to see if it could develop something like a nuclear assembly line that drives down its costs, which are already much lower than in the United States.

Like any other sector, nuclear needs to excel at competitiveness, cost control, and innovation—and it hasn’t. In the United States, the typical template has been to build really big plants, each unique, and each very expensive because of the size. The McKinsey report noted a number of things that the industry itself could do better, such as learning and applying best practices for large-scale projects; establishing standard designs; and using modular construction techniques. US construction productivity has stagnated for decades; the use of digitization and automation could help.

There are reasons to believe that the industry is improving. A cluster of companies is developing smaller, salt-cooled reactors; these are cheaper and safer. In January 2023, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission certified NuScale’s small modular reactor that uses natural water circulation, obviating the need for pumps and thus lowering capital costs. Compared to the 1,000 MW Georgia plants, NuScale’s are about 77MW, but can be added onto. No such plants have been built yet in the United States, though; advanced fission and fusion are even further away. So at the moment, this is all about potential. As one Department of Energy official put it, “It becomes truly real when electrons go on the grid.”

McKinsey concluded: “We believe a nuclear scale-up is achievable. It’s time for the industry to meet the challenge.” I agree,

Nuclear could be a powerful tool to address rising greenhouse-gas emissions. But to get there, the industry needs to raise its game. And it could use a little help from its enemies.

------

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

New report ranks Texas in the middle for sustainable development

room to improve

Texas appears in the middle of the pack in a new ranking of the best states for sustainable development.

SmileHub, a nonprofit that rates charities, examined 20 key metrics to create its list of the best states for sustainable development. Among the metrics it studied were the share of urban tree cover, green buildings per capita and clean energy jobs per capita. Once SmileHub crunched all the numbers, it put Texas in 24th place — one notch above average.

The United Nations defines sustainable development as “meeting present needs without compromising the chances of future generations to meet their needs.”

Here’s how Texas fared in several of SmileHub’s ranking categories:

  • No. 2 for water efficiency and sustainability
  • No. 7 for presence of wastewater reuse initiatives
  • No. 18 for environmental protection charities per capita
  • No. 25 for green buildings per capita
  • No. 34 for clean energy jobs per capita
  • No. 34 for industrial toxins per square mile
  • No. 38 for share of tree cover in urban areas

California leads the SmileHub list, followed by Vermont, Massachusetts, Oregon and Maryland.

When it comes to water, a 2024 report commissioned by Texas 2036, a nonpartisan think tank, recommends that Texas invest $154 billion over the next 50 years in new water supply and infrastructure to support sustainable growth, according to the Greater Houston Partnership.

“The report underscores a stark reality: a comprehensive, sustainable funding strategy for water is necessary to keep Texas economically resilient and competitive,” the partnership says.

Houston-led project earns $1 million in federal funding for flood research

team work

A team from Rice University, the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University have been awarded a National Science Foundation grant under the CHIRRP—or Confronting Hazards, Impacts and Risks for a Resilient Planet—program to combat flooding hazards in rural Texas.

The grant totals just under $1 million, according to a CHIRRP abstract.

The team is led by Avantika Gori, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Rice. Other members include Rice’s James Doss-Gollin, Andrew Juan at Texas A&M University and Keri Stephens at UT Austin.

Researchers from Rice’s Severe Storm Prediction, Education and Evacuation from Disasters Center and Ken Kennedy Institute, Texas A&M’s Institute for A Disaster Resilient Texas and the Technology & Information Policy Institute at UT Austin are part of the team as well.

Their proposal includes work that introduces a “stakeholder-centered framework” to help address rural flood management challenges with community input.

“Our goal is to create a flood management approach that truly serves rural communities — one that’s driven by science but centers around the people who are impacted the most,” Gori said in a news release.

The project plans to introduce a performance-based system dynamics framework that integrates hydroclimate variability, hydrology, machine learning, community knowledge, and feedback to give researchers a better understanding of flood risks in rural areas.

The research will be implemented in two rural Texas areas that struggle with constant challenges associated with flooding. The case studies aim to demonstrate how linking global and regional hydroclimate variability with local hazard dynamics can work toward solutions.

“By integrating understanding of the weather dynamics that cause extreme floods, physics-based models of flooding and AI or machine learning tools together with an understanding of each community’s needs and vulnerabilities, we can better predict how different interventions will reduce a community’s risk,” Doss-Gollin said in a news release.

At the same time, the project aims to help communities gain a better understanding of climate science in their terms. The framework will also consider “resilience indicators,” such as business continuity, transportation access and other features that the team says more adequately address the needs of rural communities.

“This work is about more than flood science — it’s also about identifying ways to help communities understand flooding using words that reflect their values and priorities,” said Stephens. “We’re creating tools that empower communities to not only recover from disasters but to thrive long term.”

Can the Texas grid handle extreme weather conditions across regions?

Guest Column

From raging wildfires to dangerous dust storms and fierce tornadoes, Texans are facing extreme weather conditions at every turn across the state. Recently, thousands in the Texas Panhandle-South Plains lost power as strong winds ranging from 35 to 45 mph with gusts upwards of 65 mph blew through. Meanwhile, many North Texas communities are still reeling from tornadoes, thunderstorms, and damaging winds that occurred earlier this month.

A report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that Texas led the nation with the most billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in 2023, while a report from Texas A&M University researchers indicates Texas will experience twice as many 100-degree days, 30-50% more urban flooding and more intense droughts 15 years from now if present climate trends persist.

With the extreme weather conditions increasing in Texas and nationally, recovering from these disasters will only become harder and costlier. When it comes to examining the grid’s capacity to withstand these volatile changes, we’re past due. As of now, the grid likely isn’t resilient enough to make do, but there is hope.

Where does the grid stand now?

Investment from utility companies have resulted in significant improvements, but ongoing challenges remain, especially as extreme weather events become more frequent. While the immediate fixes have helped improve reliability for the time being, it won't be enough to withstand continuous extreme weather events. Grid resiliency will require ongoing efforts over one-time bandaid approaches.

What can be done?

Transmission and distribution infrastructure improvements must vary geographically because each region of Texas faces a different set of hazards. This makes a one-size-fits-all solution impossible. We’re already seeing planning and investment in various regions, but sweeping action needs to happen responsibly and quickly to protect our power needs.

After investigators determined that the 2024 Smokehouse Creek fire (the largest wildfire in Texas history) was caused by a decayed utility pole breaking, it raised the question of whether the Panhandle should invest more in wrapping poles with fire retardant material or covering wires so they are less likely to spark.

In response, Xcel Energy (the Panhandle’s version of CenterPoint) filed its initial System Resiliency Plan with the Public Utility Commission of Texas, with proposed investments to upgrade and strengthen the electric grid and ensure electricity for about 280,000 homes and businesses in Texas. Tailored to the needs of the Texas Panhandle and South Plains, the $539 million resiliency plan will upgrade equipment’s fire resistance to better stand up to extreme weather and wildfires.

Oncor, whose territories include Dallas-Fort Worth and Midland-Odessa, analyzed more than two decades of weather damage data and the impact on customers to identify the priorities and investments needed across its service area. In response, it proposed investing nearly $3 billion to harden poles, replace old cables, install underground wires, and expand the company's vegetation management program.

What about Houston?

While installing underground wires in a city like Dallas makes for a good investment in grid resiliency, this is not a practical option in the more flood-prone areas of Southeast Texas like Houston. Burying power lines is incredibly expensive, and extended exposure to water from flood surges can still cause damage. Flood surges are also likely to seriously damage substations and transformers. When those components fail, there’s no power to run through the lines, buried or otherwise.

As part of its resiliency plan for the Houston metro area, CenterPoint Energy plans to invest $5.75 billion to strengthen the power grid against extreme weather. It represents the largest single grid resiliency investment in CenterPoint’s history and is currently the most expensive resiliency plan filed by a Texas electric utility. The proposal calls for wooden transmission structures to be replaced with steel or concrete. It aims to replace or strengthen 5,000 wooden distribution poles per year until 2027.

While some of our neighboring regions focus on fire resistance, others must invest heavily in strengthening power lines and replacing wooden poles. These solutions aim to address the same critical and urgent goal: creating a resilient grid that is capable of withstanding the increasingly frequent and severe weather events that Texans are facing.

The immediate problem at hand? These solutions take time, meaning we’re likely to encounter further grid instability in the near future.

---

Sam Luna is director at BKV Energy, where he oversees brand and go-to-market strategy, customer experience, marketing execution, and more.