Investors in Houston and across Texas are proving to be transformational partners to finance and grow energy hardware startups. Photo via Getty Images

Texas is a national leader in wind and solar, generating more energy in these categories than any other state since 2006 and double that of next placed California. As investment in renewable energy continues to skyrocket, the limitations of the 19th-century grid prevent the industry from realizing the benefits of this 21st-century technology.

For years, Texas has grappled with insufficient infrastructure for its current mix of energy sources, which includes surging renewables. The Alternating Current (AC) grid — the standard since the 1800s — requires matching supply and demand in real-time to maintain a stable frequency, which is complex and costly, especially with renewable energy when the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow.

Startup firms are busy developing technologies to solve this issue. For example, it’s possible to modernize the AC grid to control the voltage of the distribution network precisely, to ensure fast adjustments to demand, and to adapt to changes in supply from renewables. Enoda, a U.K.-based scale-up, is an example of an innovative company developing and delivering technology to enable the AC grid to accommodate much higher levels of renewable energy and electrification.

Equally important to these technical innovations are innovations in financing for energy startups. On two levels, investors in Houston and across Texas are proving to be transformational partners to finance and grow energy hardware startups.

1. Innovative Funding Structures

Because of the long timelines, hardware investing requires, in part, more patient capital than the typical Silicon Valley venture capital model prevalent in startup investments. Their playbook is best suited for software companies that develop new features in weeks or months. Energy hardware startups require a longer timeline because of the far greater complexity and upfront capital outlay.

Texas investment firms and family offices are, however, accustomed to investing in complex energy projects with longer development timelines. This complexity presents a high barrier to entry for competitors, which significantly increases the upside potential that risk-capital investors seek should the innovation find market traction. At the same time, up-front capital requirements have decreased considerably, making hardware more appealing to investors.

2. Visionary partnership

Attracting investors and demonstrating early-stage traction differs for hardware companies because of the lengthy pre-revenue R&D process. Software innovators can launch with a minimum viable product, gain a few early customers, and then grow incrementally. By contrast, energy hardware technology must be fully developed from launch. Each Enoda PRIME exchanger, from the first unit sold, represents a piece of critical infrastructure on which households will rely for their electricity supply for its 30-year lifespan. For venture investors who focus on software, it’s easy to assess the health of a software company based on well-established metrics related to customer growth and the cost of customer acquisition.

Hardware investing requires investors to have a much deeper understanding of the problem being solved and assess the quality of the solution objectively rather than rely on early customers for a minimum viable product. Texas investors have been quick to understand the problems that the energy industry must solve around energy balancing and keeping the frequency of a system stable in order to grow renewable energy. Why the keen insight? Because that problem is being solved today by gas power plants. A visionary investor with many years of deep industry perspective is far more likely to appreciate that than a VC firm looking across many industries based on a standard set of metrics.

Visionary partnership is precisely what energy startups need because it’s important not to evaluate the company as it is today but what it will be in five years. Hardware startups need visionary investor partners who understand the importance of parallel pathing fundamental innovation, product development and delivery, and customer development to grow and succeed. Hardware startups succeed only when they can do these things simultaneously—and require investors who can imagine a possible future and understand the path to reach it.

Changing the way investment works

Many energy startups are worthy inheritors of Houston’s bold entrepreneurial spirit that led to technological innovations like deep-sea drilling and hydraulic fracturing. They will continue to need equally bold investors who recognize the world of opportunities at their doorstep.

———

Paul Domjan is the founder and chief policy and global affairs officer at Enoda. Derek Jones and Paul Morico are partners at Baker Botts.

Texas gets a gold star when it comes to projected wind power capacity. Photo via Getty Images

Texas ranks among the leading states for projected wind power capacity

We're No. 1

A new report ranks Texas in the top three states that are blowing away nationwide wind power capacity projections.

Texas, Wyoming, and Iowa are standing out in terms of wind power capacity, according to a report from Texas Real Estate Source, a Texas real estate, travel, and lifestyle website, that analyzed all 50 states and ranked them by total projected capacity, capacity per capita, and capacity per square mile.

Nationwide wind power capacity is projected to grow exponentially in the coming years, with Texas, Wyoming, and Iowa leading the charge. With 44,974 megawatts of projected wind power capacity, Texas leads the country in terms of volume. Wyoming, meanwhile, leads the nation in projected wind power capacity per capita with 6,679 MW serving a population of 581,381, and Iowa takes first place in projected wind power capacity per square mile.

"As renewable energy continues to command center-stage attention and massive financial investment, wind power has proven to be an indispensable tool in the clean energy toolbox," reads the report.

In its top spot, Texas' projected wind power capacity is more than triple the capacity of second place, Oklahoma, but the Lone Star State falls to ninth place in the ranking of capacity per capita with 1.5 kilowatts.

“It’s no surprise to see Texas significantly outpacing the nation in installed and projected wind power capacity," says a spokesperson from Texas Real Estate Source. "The combination of boundless land, favorable wind patterns, and highly-respected research institutions has made it the perfect place for wind power adoption. It’s revealing, however, to see the per capita and per square mile rankings: they give us a more complete picture of which states are at the forefront of wind power development.”

A few other states to take note of in the report are California and Arkansas. California ranks No. 7 when it comes to total projected wind power capacity but only is No. 24 in the per capita ranking. And, considering the state has only 104 MW currently under construction, California doesn't seem to be keeping up with its population.

Arkansas, meanwhile, has 180 MW currently under construction — previously having a projected zero MW of wind power capacity. Once this is done, Arkansas will outperform 17 other states.

When it comes to wind power jobs, the Lone Star State is making some moves on that front too, according to another report. The SmartAsset study found that 2.23 percent of workers in the Houston area hold down jobs classified as “green.” Per the Department of Energy, Texas tallied almost 25,500 wind energy jobs in 2021.

Energy sources are often categorized as renewable or not, but perhaps a more accurate classification focuses on the type of reaction that converts energy into useful matter. Photo by simpson33/Getty Images

How is energy produced?

ENERGY 101

Many think of the Energy Industry as a dichotomy–old vs. new, renewable vs. nonrenewable, good vs. bad. But like most things, energy comes from an array of sources, and each kind has its own unique benefits and challenges. Understanding the multi-faceted identity of currently available energy sources creates an environment in which new ideas for cleaner and more sustainable energy sourcing can proliferate.

At a high level, energy can be broadly categorized by the process of extracting and converting it into a useful form.

Energy Produced from Chemical Reaction

Energy derived from coal, crude oil, natural gas, and biomass is primarily produced as a result of bonds breaking during a chemical reaction. When heated, burned, or fermented, organic matter releases energy, which is converted into mechanical or electrical energy.

These sources can be stored, distributed, and shared relatively easily and do not have to be converted immediately for power consumption. However, the resulting chemical reaction produces environmentally harmful waste products.

Though the processes to extract these organic sources of energy have been refined for many years to achieve reliable and cheap energy, they can be risky and are perceived as invasive to mother nature.

According to the 2022 bp Statistical Review of World Energy, approximately 50% of the world’s energy consumption comes from petroleum and natural gas; another 25% from coal. Though there was a small decline in demand for oil from 2019 to 2021, the overall demand for fossil fuels remained unchanged during the same time frame, mostly due to the increase in natural gas and coal consumption.

Energy Produced from Mechanical Reaction

Energy captured from the earth’s heat or the movement of wind and water results from the mechanical processes enabled by the turning of turbines in source-rich environments. These turbines spin to produce electricity inside a generator.

Solar energy does not require the use of a generator but produces electricity due to the release of electrons from the semiconducting materials found on a solar panel. The electricity produced by geothermal, wind, solar, and hydropower is then converted from direct current to alternating current electricity.

Electricity is most useful for immediate consumption, as storage requires the use of batteries–a process that turns electrical energy into chemical energy that can then be accessed in much the same way that coal, crude oil, natural gas, and biomass produce energy.

Energy Produced from a Combination of Reactions

Hydrogen energy comes from a unique blend of both electrical and chemical energy processes. Despite hydrogen being the most abundant element on earth, it is rarely found on its own, requiring a two-step process to extract and convert energy into a usable form. Hydrogen is primarily produced as a by-product of fossil fuels, with its own set of emissions challenges related to separating the hydrogen from the hydrocarbons.

Many use electrolysis to separate hydrogen from other elements before performing a chemical reaction to create electrical energy inside of a contained fuel cell. The electrolysis process is certainly a more environmentally-friendly solution, but there are still great risks with hydrogen energy–it is highly flammable, and its general energy output is less than that of other electricity-generating methods.

Energy Produced from Nuclear Reaction

Finally, energy originating from the splitting of an atom’s nucleus, mostly through nuclear fission, is yet another way to produce energy. A large volume of heat is released when an atom is bombarded by neutrons in a nuclear power plant, which is then converted to electrical energy.

This process also produces a particularly sensitive by-product known as radiation, and with it, radioactive waste. The proper handling of radiation and radioactive waste is of utmost concern, as its effects can be incredibly damaging to the environment surrounding a nuclear power plant.

Nuclear fission produces minimal carbon, so nuclear energy is oft considered environmentally safe–as long as strict protocols are followed to ensure proper storage and disposal of radiation and radioactive waste.

Nuclear to Mechanical to Chemical?

Interestingly enough, the Earth’s heat comes from the decay of radioactive materials in the Earth’s core, loosely linking nuclear power production back to geothermal energy production.

It’s also clear the conversion of energy into electricity is the cleanest option for the environment, yet adequate infrastructure remains limited in supply and accessibility. If not consumed immediately as electricity, energy is thus converted into a chemical form for the convenience of storage and distribution it provides.

Perhaps the expertise and talent of Houstonians serving the flourishing academic and industrial sectors of energy development will soon resolve many of our current energy challenges by exploring further the circular dynamic of the energy environment. Be sure to check out our Events Page to find the networking event that best serves your interest in the Energy Transition.


------

Lindsey Ferrell is a contributing writer to EnergyCapitalHTX and founder of Guerrella & Co.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Rice University spinouts named among 50 top cleantech companies to watch

green team

Two Rice University spinouts, Coflux Purification and DexMat, appear on a new list of the world’s 50 cleantech companies to watch.

Cleantech Group’s 2026 Cleantech 50 to Watch list recognizes early-stage companies “creating groundbreaking solutions to address some of the world’s most pressing environmental and sustainability challenges.”

Cleantech Group, a market research, consulting, and events company, selects the 50 honorees based on insights from analysts and early-stage innovators, along with public nominations.

Destroying “forever chemicals”

Coflux, founded in 2024, offers an onsite treatment system that captures and destroys manufactured “forever chemicals”—per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—in water and wastewater. It’s a member of Greentown Houston.

Alec Ajnsztajn, CEO; Jeremy Daum, chief technology officer; and Dana Vazquez, chief commercial officer, co-founded Coflux. Ajnsztajn and Daum earned doctoral degrees from Rice, and Vazquez earned an MBA from the university.

Coflux spun out of Rice labs directed by professors Rafael Verduzco and Pulickel Ajayan.

Last year, Coflux received a $175,000 grant from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture. The startup has also raised more than $500,000 in non-dilutive funding, including $80,000 awarded in 2024 by Rice’s One Small Step Grant program.

Promoting an alternative to copper

DexMat, founded in 2015, produces carbon nanotube products such as fibers, yarns, cables, and fabric. The company’s products address demand for materials that can reduce carbon emissions, according to CB Insights.

Its main product, Galvorn, is a copper alternative made of carbon nanotube fibers. CB Insights says Galvorn is engineered to be lighter and stronger than traditional conductive materials like carbon and steel. It’s used in industries such as energy, aerospace, defense, automotive, consumer electronics, and health care.

DexMat emerged from Matteo Pasquali’s Carbon Lab at Rice. Pasquali, co-founder of DexMat, co-invented the company’s technology with the late Nobel Prize-winning chemist Rick Smalley. Smalley was a professor of chemistry, physics, and astronomy at Rice.

Pasquali is a professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering, chemistry, materials science, and nanoengineering at Rice. He co-founded DexMat with Rice graduate Dmitri Tsentalovich, the company’s director of product innovation.

Earlier this year, DexMat raised $5 million in seed funding from Non Sibi Ventures, Governance Partners, Tailwind Futures, BetterWay, Capital Factory, and other investors. The company also secured $3 million in non-dilutive funding.

In 2023, DexMat raised $3 million in a pre-seed round led by Shell Ventures.

TotalEnergies expands solar joint venture with $1.2B portfolio in Texas, Ohio

solar expansion

TotalEnergies, a French company whose U.S. headquarters is in Houston, announced this month that it is expanding its renewable energy joint venture with New York-based investment firm KKR by adding 700 megawatts of utility-scale solar projects.

The deal will add three utility-scale solar assets in Texas and Ohio, which are expected to reach commercial operation by Q1 2027, according to a news release from the company. The portfolio is valued at $1.2 billion.

The 50/50 joint venture between TotalEnergies and KKR currently holds 1.4 gigawatts of renewable energy and will grow to 2.1 gigawatts.

The new deal is expected to close this year. Once completed, TotalEnergies will operate the assets. The electricity generated from the solar projects will be sold to third parties, the company reports.

The companies originally formed the joint venture about a year ago when TotalEnergies sold KKR a 50 percent stake in a North American solar portfolio valued at $1.25 billion. The deal originally included six utility-scale solar assets, primarily located in the U.S.

“TotalEnergies is a renewable energy industry leader globally, and we are thrilled to establish this joint venture with the TotalEnergies team to support their renewables business," Cecilio Velasco, managing director KKR, said in a release last year. “We have long been investors in renewables through our infrastructure platform, having committed more than $23 billion to date in energy transition investments. TotalEnergies’ North American solar portfolio is a great fit for us, representing high-quality renewable energy assets with long term contracts.”

TotalEnergies reports that by June 2026 it held more than 37 gigawatts of gross renewable power generation capacity. It aims to achieve over 100 terawatt-hours of net electricity production by 2030.

The company signed a major power purchase agreement with Google earlier this year. Through the deal, TotalEnergies will supply the tech giant with 1 gigawatt of solar power for its data centers in Texas over a 15-year span.

However, the company also recently redirected nearly $1 billion in capital away from wind energy projects and "decided to renounce offshore wind development in the United States." Read more here.