Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Climate Tech

United Airlines Bets on Heirloom’s Direct Air Capture

The airline is making an investment with an eye toward one day producing jet fuel from the captured carbon.

•
An airplane and carbon capture.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Like so many other businesses in the aviation sector, United Airlines is largely banking on sustainable aviation fuel to power its transition to net-zero emissions. Now the company’s VC arm, United Airlines Ventures, is taking a bet on direct air capture to help produce this fuel using carbon extracted straight from the atmosphere. Today, UAV’s Sustainable Flight Fund announced an equity investment in legacy DAC player Heirloom. This builds on Heirloom’s recent $150 million Series B funding round and will allow the fund to purchase up to 500,000 tons of CO2 removal from Heirloom, either to produce sustainable fuel or to sequester permanently underground. (The two companies didn’t disclose the size of the latest investment.)

Right now, producing green jet fuel — whether via biomass or captured carbon — is much more expensive than producing jet fuel the standard way, by refining crude oil. And making sustainable fuel using direct air capture, which usually costs upwards of $600 per ton of CO2 removed, would likely be the most costly method possible. DAC-based SAF might not make economic sense for a decade or more, which is why the fund is waiting to see where the carbon removal market goes in the coming years before finalizing its carbon removal purchase.

While there are well over 100 direct air capture companies at this point, UAV’s managing director, Andrew Chang, told me that United took a bet on Heirloom because the company has secured contracts with major buyers such as Microsoft and Frontier. It also has a flexible business model that allows it to either sequester carbon underground or use it as an input to make valuable end products such as SAF.

“They've demonstrated an early ability to go out and get some of these paying customers for that CO2 offtake,” Chang said. “They have a working pilot plant out in California that we visited, and they're planning to do their next scale-up facility in the Gulf Coast region, probably. So there's a lot of tangible points that the company has demonstrated.”

While the Heirloom investment represents United’s first foray into direct air capture, it isn’t the airline’s first rodeo when it comes to carbon removal. The Sustainable Flight Fund, which launched in 2023, has also invested in Svante, which makes filters and machines for carbon capture, and Banyu Carbon, which seeks to remove excess CO2 from the ocean. Altogether, the fund totals over $200 million in investments, about a third of which comes from United itself and the rest from its corporate partners, which include Air Canada, JetBlue Ventures, Google, and Bank of America. This means that Heirloom’s carbon removal credits wouldn’t accrue specifically to United, but rather to the fund itself.

“We're not smart enough to know what the silver bullet is,” Chang told me of the fund’s diversified approach to sustainable fuel investments. UAV has also backed hydrogen companies, an algae-based biofuel company, and companies making fuel using cooking oil, fats and grease. “I actually don't think there is a silver bullet. I think you need to run as hard as you can across all possible alternatives.”

Right now, only about 0.1% of United’s fuel is sustainably made. In order for the airline to reach its 2035 goal of decreasing carbon intensity by 50%, that number needs to ramp astronomically in the coming decade. And that also has to happen without raising the cost of flights for consumers, which Chang told me is simply not an option.

“You have higher prices, people are going to fly less, or we're going to go out of business,” Chang said. As he’s been told, United will not pay a premium for SAF. Thus, this fuel must be subsidized by other players, which can include large corporate customers eager to address emissions from their employees’ business travel or fuel companies that produce SAF simply as a byproduct.

“People are chasing higher value, higher volume products — gasoline, diesel, naphtha,” a petroleum-derived liquid used as a feedstock for fuels and petrochemicals — “what have you. No one optimizes for jet,” Chang explained. He doesn’t think producing SAF alone is a viable business model, which is why he views Heirloom’s multiple potential revenue streams as an attractive option for UAV’s portfolio. As he told me, “The best way for you to have a chance to execute on SAF commercialization and production is to not focus on that exclusively.”

Green
🔒

You’ve reached your free article limit

Subscribe to Heatmap News for unlimited access to daily energy and climate coverage.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Spotlight

A Giant Data Center Offers a Permitting Reform Test Case

What would happen to Project Jupiter if the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act is passed?

Project Jupiter.
Heatmap Illustration/Project Jupiter, Library of Congress

One of the nation’s largest data centers is struggling under permitting woes. So let’s play a game: would the bipartisan permitting bill in Congress make the path easier, or might the federal legislation be irrelevant to large hyperscalers under development today?

Meet Project Jupiter, a mega project in southern New Mexico in Dona Ana County under development by Oracle and OpenAI, with financial backing from SoftBank and political support from the Trump administration for being a part of Stargate, a major Trump administration public-private initiative boosting AI development. Project Jupiter would be one of the largest data centers in the country if completed and currently is expected to run on a microgrid powered by fuel cells converting gas to electricity, which the developers claim will burn much cleaner than a typical off-grid gas turbine power plant.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

The Trump Administration Is Still Messing with Offshore Wind Farms

And more of the week’s top news around project fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. New England (and Maryland) – The Trump administration is still messing with offshore wind farms, even while trying to pass a permitting reform deal. Examining the court filings reveals why they may feel empowered to do it — and I’m not sure how this ends.

  • Last Friday, in a legal case brought by anti-wind activists, the Justice Department submitted a motion in federal court to send the construction and operations plan for Orsted’s Revolution Wind project in New England back to the Interior Department for more analysis. On Wednesday, the DOJ entered a similar motion in another case challenging the construction and operations plan for U.S. Wind’s MarWin project off the coast of Maryland in a lawsuit brought by the state’s coastal community of Ocean City.
  • Trump’s actions led some to question whether the president was sabotaging the deal, and others to claim the media coverage itself was an attempt to kill it. Going further, supporters of the bipartisan bill claimed the DOJ's motions were precisely why the bill should become law, implying it would guard offshore wind farms against this sort of maneuver.
  • However, for the bill’s backers, it’s worth considering why the Trump administration believes it has the legal authority to do this. It’s also time to ask whether the bill would actually protect these wind farms against this tactic.
  • To answer those questions, you have to rewind. On May 1, 2025, the Interior Department withdrew a Biden solicitor’s opinion instructing the agency to “strike a rational balance” between wind power and fishing interests. This revocation document is technically not in effect at the moment; one year later, a federal court ruled the opinion was potentially illegal as a part of a preliminary injunction on five anti-renewables actions requested by solar and wind trade groups. The Trump administration is contesting that ruling, and the administration has filed a notice of appeal.
  • In August, despite that opinion being in doubt, a federal judge granted Trump permission under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to remand the construction and operations plan for the now-defunct Atlantic Shores offshore wind farm in the waters of New Jersey. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb specifically wrote that Atlantic Shores failed to demonstrate the federal government had limitations under OSCLA on revisiting these plans and that the injunction from the litigation on appeal “did not prohibit all reevaluation of agency action.”
  • In the recent Revolution and MarWin filings, Trump’s Justice Department argues the construction and operations plans should be remanded under OSCLA without being vacated. The DOJ motions include claims that previous decision documents did not adequately explain impacts to commercial fishing and other industries that use OSCLA waters. It’s not clear if the administration will win these motions.
  • The bipartisan permitting bill would bar the Interior Department and other federal agencies from taking “any new action that would revoke, rescind, withdraw, terminate, suspend, amend, or alter a federal authorization or permit in effect on or after September 16, 2026,” or “any other action to interfere with or prevent the construction or operation at full capacity of a project that has secured all necessary federal authorizations and permits.” The restriction exempts cases where “the agency is required to take such action by order of a court.” As I wrote in our lengthy piece explaining the bill, this provision has a damages component that allows companies impacted by violations to pursue financial compensation.
  • Here’s the billion-dollar question I expect we won’t have answered unless the bill language is enacted and then litigated: Would the court order exception apply to rulings that grant these motions? Or would the developers be able to sue for damages?

2. Columbia County, N.Y. – New York’s renewable energy permitting office has rejected an upstate solar farm on farmland as a House Democrat representing the area joined hands with the Trump administration in publicly railing against the project.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Politics

Climate Races to Watch This November

These seven elections could change state energy policy.

Watching voting.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

No matter how well Democrats do in the House and Senate in November, it’s unlikely to mean anything new on climate policy in Washington, D.C., for as long as Donald Trump remains in the White House.

That is not true when it comes to the other elections this year.

Several states are on the verge of a possible Democratic trifecta, meaning unified control of both chambers of the state legislature and the governor’s mansion. It’s a position that could enable such states to either top off existing climate and energy policies passed in the last decade or to make the first real run at climate legislation in recent history.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue