You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
The buzzy clean energy tax credit marketplace expanded into debt right in the nick of time.
The Inflation Reduction Act opened up a whole new avenue for project financing when it allowed clean energy developers to sell the tax credits that they earned on their projects to any willing buyer on the open market. It also opened up a lucrative fintech opportunity: A digital marketplace where buyers and sellers of these credits could easily transact.
One of the first — and certainly most successful — startups to jump on this opportunity was Crux Climate. But by the time Crux announced its $50 million Series B funding round last month, however, some Congressional Republicans were already considering axing tax credit transferability in their budget proposal. Then last week, the House of Representatives’ Ways and Means committee followed through on this rumored threat, proposing a plan to get rid of transferability for all credits by 2028 (though the details are still in flux). So what’s to become of Crux now?
Everything’s going to be okay, Crux’s co-founder CEO Alfred Johnson told me late last week. In fact, “the business is in great shape,” he said. I was a tad confused. But as Johnson reminded me, the company always planned on being more than a mere tax credit marketplace. The question is whether developers will buy into this vision of Crux as the everything store for project financing.
In March, right before the company announced its Series B, Crux launched a debt marketplace, where developers and manufacturers can access financial tools such as short-term bridge loans, construction financing, and flexible lines of credit to fund the buildout of renewables projects. “The market size for transferable credits is $30 billion per year, while the market size for project finance debt is more than seven-and-half times as big: $230 billion,” Johnson told me.
This new offering may have come just in the nick of time. It’s also likely just the first in a series of platform expansions, some of which are already in the works.
“There are many more multibillion-dollar markets among the thousands of developers, manufacturers, investors, and corporate buyers that make up the market for U.S. energy and manufacturing project finance,” Johnson told me. Playing in all those markets is a lofty goal for a company that was founded just two years ago, but so far Crux has been good at defying expectations. After all, it’s been profitable since its second year, Johnson told me, a rare and rapid rise for an early-stage startup.
Crux shared some exclusive numbers with me that illustrate some ways in which it’s starting to outgrow its roots. For one, Johnson told me that Crux’s revenue for the first one-and-a-half quarters of this year is nearly 10 times higher than for the same period last year. While he wouldn’t reveal what portion of that was comprised of tax credit deals versus debt financing deals, he did say that in the two months since the debt marketplace launched, “lenders have issued $1.3 billion of term sheets.” Those are nonbinding loan offers, $700 million of which have turned into actual deals so far. “It took more than a year for the tax credit market to reach similar throughput," Johnson said.
In the meantime, Crux is by no means giving up on the embattled transferable tax credit marketplace. The company sounded a relatively optimistic note last week as it published a list of takeaways from the Ways and Means Committee’s proposal, stating, “This is the starting point and we anticipate that the final bill will take a more favorable stance on transferability and tax credits.” The company looks like it’s preparing to fight for that outcome, too, as a few months ago it hired new teams of tax lobbyists and brought on Hasan Nazar, former federal policy lead at Tesla, to direct these lobbying efforts.
Johnson said that the debut of Crux’s debt marketplace had developers, manufacturers, and investors rushing to its website in numbers not seen since the company launched. It logged more “inbound interest” on that one day in March than when it announced its Series A and its Series B — that is, more than on both of those days combined.
“We didn’t invest in Crux with the belief that this would be a transferable tax credit business forever,” David Haber, a general partner at Andreessen Horowitz, told me. The venture capital firm led the company’s $18.2 million Series A funding round. “We viewed that as a great wedge product to bootstrap a financial exchange that could help facilitate the types of financial products needed for this ecosystem,” he said. Clay Dumas of Lowercarbon Capital, which led Crux’s Series B, also saw the company as a so-called “wedge” into a “multi-hundred-billion-dollar opportunity to finance energy and advanced manufacturing through debt and a wide range of other products.”
Not all investors felt as confident that companies built around tax credit transferability could become a one-stop financing shop, however. As of now, most of Crux’s direct competitors — such as Basis Climate, Reunion Infrastructure, and Common Forge — haven’t expanded into other parts of the climate capital stack.
“We know the fundamental risk that a stroke of the pen can have in any of these sort of marketplaces,” Juan Muldoon, a partner at the climate software VC firm Energize Capital, told me. Thus far, Energize has not funded any tax credit-based marketplace, diligence platform, or underwriting tool. “We wanted to wait for signs of resilience and more complete platforms, more complete business models, versus solving for things that might be more transient in value,” Muldoon said. Last week’s committee proposals validate Energize’s core investment strategy, he added — supporting nimble software companies that can withstand political headwinds and change tacks quickly.
Crux certainly hopes that expanding into the debt market will put any fears of its potential transience to rest. After all, Johnson told me, “all parts of the capital stack are opaque, illiquid, bespoke and manual.” That includes not only transferable tax credits, but also debt and equity financing. “These are private transactions that require a ton of documentation, models, advisory lawyers. But it doesn't have to be as bad as it is,” he said.
But if the transferable tax credits do indeed disappear, many renewable energy developers may be forced to return to one of the most opaque funding mechanisms of all: tax equity financing, which Crux is not currently set up to facilitate. As my colleague Emily Pontecorvo recently explained, prior to the passage of the IRA, renewable energy developers who wanted to liquidate their tax credits had to partner with tax equity investors — usually banks — who would give them cash in exchange for an equity stake in their clean energy project and the benefits of their tax credits. But forming these types of partnerships is both legally complicated and costly, and thus not a viable option for many smaller developers.
Presumably, Crux could shake up and simplify this space, too. And while it’s made no official commitments to a tax equity product, the company’s website has been reconfigured to advertise it as the go-to platform to “source new opportunities for lending, equity, and tax credit transfers,” as it commits to “financing the future of energy.”
Crux has its work cut out for it, though, as often the more complex the financial transaction, the more customized it must be. “The competitors are offline advisors for the most part,” Haber told me. Thus, standardizing and digitizing as many esoteric and project specific elements of the capital stack as possible is going to be, as he put it, “their opportunity and their challenge.”
Johnson says Crux is up for it. “It’s never going to be, you know, one click buy it on Amazon. That’s a ridiculous and implausible concept for deals of this size and importance. But these negotiations and transactions can be so much better.” Efficiency, at the very least, seems to be something we can all get behind. So as the partisan fighting over tax credits and transferability commences and the clean energy incentives start to fall, maybe at least this one climate tech darling can weather the storm.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A war of attrition is now turning in opponents’ favor.
A solar developer’s defeat in Massachusetts last week reveals just how much stronger project opponents are on the battlefield after the de facto repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act.
Last week, solar developer PureSky pulled five projects under development around the western Massachusetts town of Shutesbury. PureSky’s facilities had been in the works for years and would together represent what the developer has claimed would be one of the state’s largest solar projects thus far. In a statement, the company laid blame on “broader policy and regulatory headwinds,” including the state’s existing renewables incentives not keeping pace with rising costs and “federal policy updates,” which PureSky said were “making it harder to finance projects like those proposed near Shutesbury.”
But tucked in its press release was an admission from the company’s vice president of development Derek Moretz: this was also about the town, which had enacted a bylaw significantly restricting solar development that the company was until recently fighting vigorously in court.
“There are very few areas in the Commonwealth that are feasible to reach its clean energy goals,” Moretz stated. “We respect the Town’s conservation go als, but it is clear that systemic reforms are needed for Massachusetts to source its own energy.”
This stems from a story that probably sounds familiar: after proposing the projects, PureSky began reckoning with a burgeoning opposition campaign centered around nature conservation. Led by a fresh opposition group, Smart Solar Shutesbury, activists successfully pushed the town to drastically curtail development in 2023, pointing to the amount of forest acreage that would potentially be cleared in order to construct the projects. The town had previously not permitted facilities larger than 15 acres, but the fresh change went further, essentially banning battery storage and solar projects in most areas.
When this first happened, the state Attorney General’s office actually had PureSky’s back, challenging the legality of the bylaw that would block construction. And PureSky filed a lawsuit that was, until recently, ongoing with no signs of stopping. But last week, shortly after the Treasury Department unveiled its rules for implementing Trump’s new tax and spending law, which basically repealed the Inflation Reduction Act, PureSky settled with the town and dropped the lawsuit – and the projects went away along with the court fight.
What does this tell us? Well, things out in the country must be getting quite bleak for solar developers in areas with strident and locked-in opposition that could be costly to fight. Where before project developers might have been able to stomach the struggle, money talks – and the dollars are starting to tell executives to lay down their arms.
The picture gets worse on the macro level: On Monday, the Solar Energy Industries Association released a report declaring that federal policy changes brought about by phasing out federal tax incentives would put the U.S. at risk of losing upwards of 55 gigawatts of solar project development by 2030, representing a loss of more than 20 percent of the project pipeline.
But the trade group said most of that total – 44 gigawatts – was linked specifically to the Trump administration’s decision to halt federal permitting for renewable energy facilities, a decision that may impact generation out west but has little-to-know bearing on most large solar projects because those are almost always on private land.
Heatmap Pro can tell us how much is at stake here. To give you a sense of perspective, across the U.S., over 81 gigawatts worth of renewable energy projects are being contested right now, with non-Western states – the Northeast, South and Midwest – making up almost 60% of that potential capacity.
If historical trends hold, you’d expect a staggering 49% of those projects to be canceled. That would be on top of the totals SEIA suggests could be at risk from new Trump permitting policies.
I suspect the rate of cancellations in the face of project opposition will increase. And if this policy landscape is helping activists kill projects in blue states in desperate need of power, like Massachusetts, then the future may be more difficult to swallow than we can imagine at the moment.
And more on the week’s most important conflicts around renewables.
1. Wells County, Indiana – One of the nation’s most at-risk solar projects may now be prompting a full on moratorium.
2. Clark County, Ohio – Another Ohio county has significantly restricted renewable energy development, this time with big political implications.
3. Daviess County, Kentucky – NextEra’s having some problems getting past this county’s setbacks.
4. Columbia County, Georgia – Sometimes the wealthy will just say no to a solar farm.
5. Ottawa County, Michigan – A proposed battery storage facility in the Mitten State looks like it is about to test the state’s new permitting primacy law.
A conversation with Jeff Seidman, a professor at Vassar College.
This week’s conversation is with Jeff Seidman, a professor at Vassar College and an avid Heatmap News reader. Last week Seidman claimed a personal victory: he successfully led an effort to overturn a moratorium on battery storage development in the town of Poughkeepsie in Hudson Valley, New York. After reading a thread about the effort he posted to BlueSky, I reached out to chat about what my readers might learn from his endeavors – and how they could replicate them, should they want to.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So how did you decide to fight against a battery storage ban? What was your process here?
First of all, I’m not a professional in this area, but I’ve been learning about climate stuff for a long time. I date my education back to when Vox started and I read my first David Roberts column there. But I just happened to hear from someone I know that in the town of Poughkeepsie where I live that a developer made a proposal and local residents who live nearby were up in arms about it. And I heard the town was about to impose a moratorium – this was back in March 2024.
I actually personally know some of the town board members, and we have a Democratic majority who absolutely care about climate change but didn’t particularly know that battery power was important to the energy transition and decarbonizing the grid. So I organized five or six people to go to the town board meeting, wrote a letter, and in that initial board meeting we characterized the reason we were there as being about climate.
There were a lot more people on the other side. They were very angry. So we said do a short moratorium because every day we’re delaying this, peaker plants nearby are spewing SOx and NOx into the air. The status quo has a cost.
But then the other side, they were clearly triggered by the climate stuff and said renewables make the grid more expensive. We’d clearly pressed a button in the culture wars. And then we realized the mistake, because we lost that one.
When you were approaching getting this overturned, what considerations did you make?
After that initial meeting and seeing how those mentions of climate or even renewables had triggered a portion of the board, and the audience, I really course-corrected. I realized we had to make this all about local benefits. So that’s what I tried to do going forward.
Even for people who were climate concerned, it was really clear that what they perceived as a present risk in their neighborhood was way more salient than an abstract thing like contributing to the fight against climate change globally. So even for people potentially on your side, you have to make it about local benefits.
The other thing we did was we called a two-hour forum for the county supervisors and mayor’s association because we realized talking to them in a polarized environment was not a way to have a conversation. I spoke and so did Paul Rogers, a former New York Fire Department lieutenant who is now in fire safety consulting – he sounds like a firefighter and can speak with a credibility that I could never match in front of, for example, local fire chiefs. Winning them over was important. And we took more than an hour of questions.
Stage one was to convince them of why batteries were important. Stage two was to show that a large number of constituents were angry about the moratorium, but that Republicans were putting on a unified front against this – an issue to win votes. So there was a period where Democrats on the Poughkeepsie board were convinced but it was politically difficult for them.
But stage three became helping them do the right thing, even with the risk of there being a political cost.
What would you say to those in other parts of the country who want to do what you did?
If possible, get a zoning law in place before there is any developer with a specific proposal because all of the opposition to this project came from people directly next to the proposed project. Get in there before there’s a specific project site.
Even if you’re in a very blue city, don’t make it primarily about climate. Abstract climate loses to non-abstract perceived risk every time. Make it about local benefits.
To the extent you can, read and educate yourself about what good batteries provide to the grid. There’s a lot of local economic benefits there.
I am trying to put together some of the resources I used into a packet, a tool kit, so that people elsewhere can learn from it and draw from those resources.
Also, the more you know, the better. All those years of reading David Roberts and Heatmap gave me enough knowledge to actually answer questions here. It works especially when you have board members who may be sympathetic but need to be reassured.