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 New York-based startup aims to create a market for clean energy tax credits.
One of the least-noticed changes in the Inflation Reduction Act may be one of the most important.
For years, the government has encouraged developers, power utilities, and other companies to build clean energy by offering tax credits. But those tax credits were difficult to transfer to other companies, meaning that complicated financial instruments had to be created to allow them to share in the wealth.
The IRA continues to employ tax credits. But for the first time, it allows companies to buy and sell tax credits to each other.
A new crop of startups have appeared to help companies trade these new “transferable” tax credits. One of the largest is Crux, a New York-based startup backed by Andreessen Horowitz and Lowercarbon Capital.
On Tuesday, Crux announced that it has now brought some of the country’s largest energy developers into its fold. Clearway Energy, Intersect Power, Pattern Energy, and Électricité de France (commonly known as EDF) have all made strategic investments in Crux, the company announced. It had not previously disclosed their involvement in January’s $18.2 million Series A round.
“We had an opportunity to bring in some of the leading developers who collectively represent a pipeline of more than 100 gigawatts of power,” Alfred Johnson, Crux’s CEO, told me.
Crux has now raised more than $27 million in capital since its founding early last year. The offshore wind developer Orsted, as well as the energy developers LS Power and Hartree, have previously joined as strategic investors.
Under the Inflation Reduction Act, as in the past, companies can claim money on their taxes by building zero-carbon electricity generation, new factories, buying electric vehicles, and more.
But energy developers and utilities rarely need to use all the tax credits that they generate from their projects. A $30 million solar farm might generate as much as $10 million of tax credits, for instance — far too much for most companies to use in a reasonable amount of time.
That meant that developers had to bring in a third-party firm — usually a bank or another financial institution — that could pay for the privilege of using those tax credits. Before the IRA passed, many clean energy projects were therefore structured as complicated “tax equity” deals, where the bank or tax credit “buyer” owned part of the project so that it could claim its tax credits. About $20 billion in tax equity deals happened last year, according to research from the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright.
The IRA aimed to make that process easier by, in essence, creating a market for tax credits.
Crux estimates that $7 to $9 billion of these new “transferrable tax credits” were sold in that new market last year. It believes that the opportunity will grow rapidly. The advisory firm Evercore has projected that the transferrable tax credit market could exceed $100 billion by 2030.
Crux is not the only company that hopes to capitalize on that burgeoning market, potentially speeding the energy transition at the same time. Basis Climate, another New York-based startup, is also trying to serve as a key platform in the space.
Ilmi Granoff is an expert on climate finance, a senior fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Law, and an advisor to Basis Climate. “The market is going to be diverse and large enough to support a number of pure play platforms that are specialists in this — and you’re going to have the banks moving in, consultancies, the tax advisors, and more,” Granoff told me. “For those looking for an environmental commodities market that really drives climate change, you can stop looking at the voluntary carbon market and just monetize the tax credit market for carbon solutions. It is going to be a very reliable market, backed by the government.”
Johnson, the Crux chief executive, also pointed to the scale of climate-related investment on the horizon. “We just have to build so much in the next 10 years. The level of infrastructure investments that have happened up to this point — and the scale of what will be built — is really, really dramatic,” Johnson said.
Crux’s product is a standardized platform where developers, utilities, and manufacturing companies can describe and sell their tax credits to buyers.
When a buyer first uses Crux, all tax credits available on the service are presented anonymously. They can then anonymously contact a specific seller. The buyer and seller can gradually reveal information to each other throughout the ensuing negotiation, culminating in a Crux-hosted “data room” where each teams’ accountants and lawyers can trade and view documents relevant to the sale.
“This is not a point and click transaction,” Johnson told me. “These are still complicated transactions with lots of moving pieces, with many underlying documents and lots of stakeholders at the table.” The goal of Crux, he said, is to make these transactions “efficient and standardized.”
The company says it’s already having some success speeding up the average sale. It recently facilitated a deal between an electricity utility, which was selling tax credits, and a Fortune 100 company, which was buying them, in just 22 days, Johnson told me. By contrast, a traditional tax equity deal would take six to nine months to structure and close, he said.
Many of the company’s leaders once helped shape high-level Democratic policy. Johnson, a former White House aide under President Barack Obama, was deputy chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen until 2022. He and Crux’s cofounder, Allen Kramer, previously cofounded the startup Mobilize, which helped organizations manage and recruit volunteers.
William Daley, a former Obama White House chief of staff and Commerce Secretary under President Bill Clinton, joined Crux as a senior advisor last week.
In an interview, Daley told me that — with the defense industry excepted — he could not remember the government investing in a strategic industry the way it is now investing in clean energy. “These are economic decisions that investors are making — they’re not just going out there and doing things that may or may not be financially rewarding,” he told me. “For every dollar the government puts forward in a subsidy or credit, the private sector is investing $5.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more of this week’s top renewable energy fights across the country.
1. Otsego County, Michigan – The Mitten State is proving just how hard it can be to build a solar project in wooded areas. Especially once Fox News gets involved.
2. Atlantic County, New Jersey – Opponents of offshore wind in Atlantic City are trying to undo an ordinance allowing construction of transmission cables that would connect the Atlantic Shores offshore wind project to the grid.
3. Benton County, Washington – Sorry Scout Clean Energy, but the Yakima Nation is coming for Horse Heaven.
Here’s what else we’re watching right now…
In Connecticut, officials have withdrawn from Vineyard Wind 2 — leading to the project being indefinitely shelved.
In Indiana, Invenergy just got a rejection from Marshall County for special use of agricultural lands.
In Kansas, residents in Dickinson County are filing legal action against county commissioners who approved Enel’s Hope Ridge wind project.
In Kentucky, a solar project was actually approved for once – this time for the East Kentucky Power Cooperative.
In North Carolina, Davidson County is getting a solar moratorium.
In Pennsylvania, the town of Unity rejected a solar project. Elsewhere in the state, the developer of the Newton 1 solar project is appealing their denial.
In South Carolina, a state appeals court has upheld the rejection of a 2,300 acre solar project proposed by Coastal Pine Solar.
In Washington State, Yakima County looks like it’ll keep its solar moratorium in place.
And more of this week’s top policy news around renewables.
1. Trump’s Big Promise – Our nation’s incoming president is now saying he’ll ban all wind projects on Day 1, an expansion of his previous promise to stop only offshore wind.
2. The Big Nuclear Lawsuit – Texas and Utah are suing to kill the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s authority to license small modular reactors.
3. Biden’s parting words – The Biden administration has finished its long-awaited guidance for the IRA’s tech-neutral electricity credit (which barely changed) and hydrogen production credit.
A conversation with J. Timmons Roberts, executive director of Brown University’s Climate Social Science Network
This week’s interview is with Brown University professor J. Timmons Roberts. Those of you familiar with the fight over offshore wind may not know Roberts by name, but you’re definitely familiar with his work: He and his students have spearheaded some of the most impactful research conducted on anti-offshore wind opposition networks. This work is a must-read for anyone who wants to best understand how the anti-renewables movement functions and why it may be difficult to stop it from winning out.
So with Trump 2.0 on the verge of banning offshore wind outright, I decided to ask Roberts what he thinks developers should be paying attention to at this moment. The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity.
Is the anti-renewables movement a political force the country needs to reckon with?
Absolutely. In my opinion it’s been unfortunate for the environmental groups, the wind development, the government officials, climate scientists – they’ve been unwilling to engage directly with those groups. They want to keep a very positive message talking about the great things that come with wind and solar. And they’ve really left the field open as a result.
I think that as these claims sit there unrefuted and naive people – I don’t mean naive in a negative sense but people who don’t know much about this issue – are only hearing the negative spin about renewables. It’s a big problem.
When you say renewables developers aren’t interacting here – are you telling me the wind industry is just letting these people run roughshod?
I’ve seen no direct refutation in those anti-wind Facebook groups, and there’s very few environmentalists or others. People are quite afraid to go in there.
But even just generally. This vast network you’ve tracked – have you seen a similar kind of counter mobilization on the part of those who want to build these wind farms offshore?
There’s some mobilization. There’s something called the New England for Offshore Wind coalition. There’s some university programs. There’s some other oceanographic groups, things like that.
My observation is that they’re mostly staff organizations and they’re very cautious. They’re trying to work as a coalition. And they’re going as slow as their most cautious member.
As someone who has researched these networks, what are you watching for in the coming year? Under the first year of Trump 2.0?
Yeah I mean, channeling my optimistic and Midwestern dad, my thought is that there may be an overstepping by the Trump administration and by some of these activists. The lack of viable alternative pathways forward and almost anti-climate approaches these groups are now a part of can backfire for them. Folks may say, why would I want to be supportive of your group if you’re basically undermining everything I believe in?
What do you think developers should know about the research you have done into these networks?
I think it's important for deciding bodies and the public, the media and so on, to know who they’re hearing when they hear voices at a public hearing or in a congressional field hearing. Who are the people representing? Whose voice are they advancing?
It’s important for these actors that want to advance action on climate change and renewables to know what strategies and the tactics are being used and also know about the connections.
One of the things you pointed out in your research is that, yes, there are dark money groups involved in this movement and there are outside figures involved, but a lot of this sometimes is just one person posts something to the internet and then another person posts something to the internet.
Does that make things harder when it comes to addressing the anti-renewables movement?
Absolutely. Social media’s really been devastating for developing science and informed, rational public policymaking. It’s so easy to create a conspiracy and false information and very slanted, partial information to shoot holes at something as big as getting us off of fossil fuels.
Our position has developed as we understand that indeed these are not just astro-turf groups created by some far away corporation but there are legitimate concerns – like fishing, where most of it is based on certainty – and then there are these sensationalized claims that drive fears. That fear is real. And it’s unfortunate.
Anything else you’d really like to tell our readers?
I didn’t really choose this topic. I feel like it really got me. It was me and four students sitting in my conference room down the hall and I said, have you heard about this group that just started here in Rhode Island that’s making these claims we should investigate? And students were super excited about it and have really been the leaders.