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:
“We grew quickly and made some mistakes,” Generate executive Jonah Goldman told Heatmap.

In a tumultuous time for clean energy financing, leading infrastructure investment firm Generate Capital is seeking to realign its approach. Last month the firm trumpeted its appointment of a new CEO, the first in its 11-year history. Less publicly, it also implemented firm-wide layoffs, representatives confirmed to Heatmap.
“Like many others in our space, we grew quickly and made some mistakes,” Jonah Goldman, Generate’s head of external affairs, told me. He was responding to a report from infrastructure and energy intelligence platform IJ Global, which last week reported that Generate had “shut down its equity investing arm” and laid off 50 people. While Goldman confirmed that there were indeed layoffs earlier this summer, he would not specify how many employees were let go, and disputed the claim that any particular team was dissolved. “We have not ‘shut down’ any strategies,” he told me. “Our investment team continues to find opportunities across the capital stack.”
Goldman’s comments echoed those of the firm’s new CEO, David Crane, a former undersecretary for infrastructure at the Department of Energy. In an article published to Generate’s website a few weeks ago, Crane admitted that the firm had “deviated from our operational roots,” a reference to the firm’s unconventional investment strategy.
Generate is unique as a sustainability-focused investor, in that it often acts as an owner and operator for the projects it finances rather than taking a passive equity stake The firm also provides tailored project financing options for its partners to help manage risk.
But over the past few years, Generate made a number of large equity investments in companies whose projects it did not directly oversee. These included utility-scale solar and energy storage developer Pine Gate Renewables, which is on the verge of bankruptcy, and green hydrogen developer Ambient Fuels, which was recently acquired by Electric Hydrogen amidst tumult in the industry.
“While other investors had no choice but to act as pure investors, we were distracted from who we are and what we were good at,” Crane wrote, noting that this distraction led to “poor performance in one component of our investment portfolio.” That would appear to be its equity division.
Generate’s model is designed to bridge a critical gap in the climate tech ecosystem known as the “missing middle,” the phase at which a company with some proven tech has outgrown early-stage venture capital but is still considered too risky for most traditional infrastructure investors. Historically, the firm has generated high returns by backing “leading-edge technologies,” Jigar Shah, the firm’s co-founder and former director of the DOE’s Loan Programs Office, said on the Open Circuit podcast he co-hosts. These include investments in projects involving fuel cells, anaerobic digesters, and battery storage.
Shah hasn’t worked at Generate since he joined the Biden administration in 2021. But from the outside, he says, the firm appears to have moved away from taking these riskier but potentially more lucrative bets. “They ended up with 38 people in their capital markets team, and their capital markets team went out to the marketplace and said, Hey, we have all this stuff to sell. And the people that they went to said, Well, that’s interesting, but what we really would love is boring community solar,“ Shah said on the podcast. As he saw it, Generate began making equity investments into lower-risk projects such as community solar, which naturally generated stable but lower returns. Then once interest rates went up post-Covid, that put downward pressure on equity returns.
Shah said it’s these slipping returns that have made it harder for Generate to raise capital over the past two years. Axios Pro recently reported that the firm is now exploring an IPO to bring in additional funding, following hesitation from some of its existing backers to reinvest.
While Goldman acknowledged that “there is some skepticism in the capital markets about our space now,” he disagreed with the idea that Generate has abandoned its focus on leading-edge technologies. “We have invested over the last number of years in a lot of assets that are predictable assets with predictable cash flows that have performed very strongly for our investors. And we continue to have the creativity of the team that’s focused on trying to bring newer technologies to the market to bridge the bankability gap,” he told me.
By way of example, he highlighted two of the firm’s most recent investments, a $200 million loan to Pacific Steel Group for the first green steel mill in California and a $100 million scalable credit facility for green data center developer Soluna, which allows the company to increase its borrowing capacity as new projects come online.
The latter deal was announced just weeks after Crane stepped into his new role. Having served as the CEO of five publicly traded energy companies before joining Generate, Crane is now promising to turn around the firm’s fortunes. With the Trump administration rolling back federal support for clean energy infrastructure and investors remaining cautious, Crane has said that now is the time to jump on undervalued opportunities.
“Right now, there’s a lot of noise telling people to stop writing checks. But this is precisely the time to invest in the infrastructure that will power the next twenty years,” he wrote. Goldman backed this up, telling me, “We believe managers who understand the space and who can take advantage of the opportunities that are underpriced in this tougher market environment are set up to succeed.”
Just as tech giants such as Google, Salesforce, and Amazon were able to expand rapidly in the wake of the dot-com bubble and consolidate their positions in the market, Generate’s leadership say they’re now well positioned to help select clean energy companies do the same.
It will certainly be a boon for the sector if they can, given the abundance of undercapitalized climate tech opportunities, from clean cement to thermal energy storage, next-generation geothermal, and carbon capture, all looking to build first-of-a-kind projects. And there’s not nearly enough infrastructure funding to go around.
So if Generate has indeed lost the confidence of its investors, it’s critical that Crane, Goldman, and company regain it swiftly. Their ability to do so could shape not only which technologies drive the energy transition, but how quickly they do so.
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 new front opens in the data center wars.
A series of lawsuits filed in federal court asks a big question – are data center moratoria constitutional?
In early August, data center developer DC Blox sued the city of Nashville in federal court to overturn a zoning moratorium stopping them from building a hyperscale facility adjacent to the city zoo. “The Data Center Moratorium, moreover, is a targeted attack against DC BLOX, in violation of federal constitutional protections,” the suit argued, claiming that it defied the corporation’s due process and equal protection rights.
Around the same time, another developer – Wixom Industrial One – filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Wixom, Michigan, to try and “invalidate the city’s illegal police power moratorium” blocking their data center.
These two cases were far from novel or the first of their kind, and they’re now a fresh front in the battle over hyperscale data centers. At least that’s what some who work on these cases say: In April, attorneys with the law firm Vorys published a “client alert” asserting “many moratoria may be vulnerable to statutory, procedural, and constitutional challenges.” The attorneys advised that constitutional arguments against moratoria “may be stronger where a government singles out data centers without a sound factual basis, treats similar land uses differently without a reasonable basis, or adopts a restriction driven more by political pressure than by defensible planning or regulatory objectives.”
Months later, according to court documents, the Vorys attorneys who authored the alert now represent real estate firm Thor Equities in a federal case against the Ohio city of Urbana, arguing the city’s decision to reject their data center project broke “fundamental protections” under the U.S. Constitution. (Vorys and Thor Equities did not respond to requests for comment.)
It’s unclear how many of these kinds of cases have been filed to date. Data on federal court cases is quite opaque. But legal experts and industry attorneys tell me we should expect them to be on the rise as developers seek whatever tools they can find to get projects built.
“Bringing a lawsuit like this is fairly cheap, something they can do at a relatively low cost, and imposes a real cost on local governments to defend themselves,” said Daniel Metzger, director of the Cities Climate Law Initiative at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center. “The cases out there will be bellwethers. And if successful, there’ll be a lot more of them.”
What developers probably want looks a lot like Hill County, Texas, where an LLC proposing an $80 million data center project was stymied in May by the state’s first countywide moratorium. (It predated Governor Greg Abbott’s temporary freeze of data center development in Texas by three months.) Within a period of only a few weeks, the LLC sued and the county rescinded the pause on approvals. The case was dropped a month later. Local reports state the county had to afterwards pay the corporation $100,000 in legal fees – a drop in the bucket compared to what a drawn-out court battle would have cost the rural county.
Metzger said whether the companies will win these cases is ultimately not the point – their goal is to win a finished data center, not a judicial ruling. By filing expansive litigation in the national court system, a hypothetical developer can exhaust the coffers of a city or county with legal expenses that are chump change compared to would-be billions in private financing for compute infrastructure.
“These lawsuits may deter some local governments from taking steps to oppose data center development, just because of the cost it would impose on them to defend a lawsuit, even if they know they have a strong legal basis for the action they want to take.”
Those I spoke to in private practice about data center developers’ constitutional arguments agreed with Metzger’s assessment that it’s too early to tell whether the companies will win. Generally, they said, a city or county will win this kind of case if it demonstrates a rational basis for its decision-making and courts typically want to defer to governmental autonomy. The onus will be on the developers to prove a moratorium was meritless – that’s the due process challenge – or unfairly targeted their industry in a way other sectors don’t face, which is the basis of the equal protection claim.
“What they’re saying is in essence that these actions the municipality is taking are arbitrary and capricious, which is one of the sort of catch-all standards,” Thomas Allen, a partner at K&L Gates, told me. “They say the laws lack a rational basis. And then they make equal protection claims, saying data centers are being singled out because of political concerns as opposed to actual things relevant to the legislature’s directive. They’re not basing their decisions on the underlying merits of the project but reacting to political pressure.”
“It’s a reliance question and it’s about the treatment of their projects,” added Laura Morton, an attorney with Ashurst Perkins Coie. “It’s always been important to talk about and engage with communities where your infrastructure is planned. Here, I think this is the developers going in, maybe having conversations, and then suddenly they’re getting a reversal after already receiving these approvals and making investments based off of what the conversations and rules were.”
The likelihood of these constitutional challenges reaching higher courts anytime soon is quite low. It’ll be a long time before we see one of these cases reach a verdict, let alone some kind of appeals process come to fruition. Nevertheless, the new legal ambiguity around these local restrictions is an important new facet of the data center wars, including for developers.
“Companies want to act within the law to get [things] done, so whatever tactics they can do to help get the project over the line that are legal and ethical, they may try those,” Allen told me. “And if that includes the pressure of a lawsuit, that’s a judgment they’ll have to make.”
And more on this week’s conflicts around project development.
1. Montgomery County, Pennsylvania – We reached a new normal in the data center backlash, and it all seems to have started in King of Prussia.
2. Columbia County, Wisconsin – The gubernatorial race in this state is transforming local fights over wind projects into must-watch popcorn fodder for anyone obsessed with the state of the energy transition, or national politics for that matter.
3. Shelby County, Alabama – One quick update on the intervention of John Rich, the country star turned Trump’s “special envoy for American landowners,” in an Alabama Power transmission project: it’s getting a lot more elected officials involved.
4. New Jersey – We try to conclude every Hotspots on a positive note. So this week’s silver lining comes to you from the Garden State, where state regulators have approved more than a dozen agrivoltaics projects.
A conversation with Ella Nilsen — formerly of CNN, now with Echo Communications — about where we stand in the fight over the energy transition.
This week’s conversation is with Ella Nilsen, who recently left CNN as a climate reporter and is now a new vice president at energy and cleantech PR firm Echo Communications. Having worked on Capitol Hill alongside Nilsen, I knew her to be an exceptional reporter who asked hard questions of those in power on all sides. So when I found out she was taking her journalism hat off and putting the comms cap on, I wanted to do something you rarely get to do with one of your reporting peers: ask for her own opinion about where we stand in the fight over the energy transition.
Our chat was lightly edited for clarity.
What’s it like going from CNN and climate journalism to advising on communications in the energy sector, especially when it comes to clean tech in this fraught moment?
So before I covered climate and clean energy, I was a political reporter who covered campaign cycles and Capitol Hill for a while, and I was always interested in the nexus of politics and politics. I tried to make as much of my coverage about that. Politics is policy, and the other way around.
Being on the other side of it is, well, I know from my experience as a reporter what interests them. I’m trying to figure out ways to make sure when I’m bugging you all that the pitch lands, because hopefully it’ll be something people are interested in. Things are changing so fast. It’s a really fascinating time to be a reporter and be in the clean energy comms space.
Okay, but now that you’re in clean energy comms, how do you handicap the fight over developing these technologies? Who is winning, who is losing, and why?
I think it’s tough to call exact winners and losers right now because over the last few months, there have been so many new and interesting developments.
Look at the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition, which has been getting involved in Republican primaries for Freedom Caucus members. There’s been this perception for a long time that the clean energy industry didn’t fare well in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act fight. They had important wins while losing pretty key stuff. But there’s been this interesting reckoning within the industry, and even this last summer, where people are moving the ball forward in interesting ways. They’re trying to get involved in political fights with direct results.
What messages do these primaries send? On the one hand I can see there being political consequences but also, now, more solar energy money going into Republican politics has the anti-renewable folks saying they need to go harder at them. I’m curious how you see the energy fight landscape changing in light of these election results.
I think it shows the industry has some fight in it. What the Coalition would probably say is, they want to be lethal and this is political warfare. They’re trying to be taken seriously.
There is sort of this two-pronged strategy happening right now. Obviously Invest in Tomorrow has gotten a lot of press attention for their track record. There’s also within the industry an attempt to shape a public narrative around wind, solar, battery storage to combat misinformation, both through conventional media and social media. They’re happening in tandem and it's a reflection of the results.
How is the backlash over data center development affecting the work you’re now doing?
Well, I’m still early, but I think the data center question is a fascinating one. Conversations around policy and where we go from here really seem to me to be happening in the state realm. Not a lot of policy happening at the federal level. There’s New York State’s data center pause, which is leading to lawmakers trying to get more leverage.
It’s in the backdrop, where projects are being announced with massive power plants to supply new data center demand, and at the same time there’s a conversation around virtual power plants, DERs. Another phrase emerging for it is “community power.”
It’s starting to be a fascinating conversation around community benefits. There are tax benefits when a data center comes to town but when it comes to energy use, what can communities actually leverage out of this? I know former Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has been arguing for strong community benefit agreements, getting big tech companies to pay for solar and EVs and then using all of that to create a virtual power plant. Getting that to be flexible for data centers. That’s only one part of the pie but it’s fascinating to have this conversation about what forms of energy we need for all this demand happening.
What do you foresee about the impact of the backlash, given that land use, visuals, air, and water – its all being swept up in the same conversation?
I don’t have a crystal ball and have the same questions.
It’s all happening so quickly and it’s all playing out in so many different states. There are really important questions here and there are people smarter than I am on this, talking about how we meet this demand in the short term and long term or whether this is an opportunity for getting clean energy onto the grid. But it’s a delicate dance.