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 government agency is quietly funding some of the industry’s most exciting early stage companies.
When the George W. Bush administration established the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy, better known as ARPA-E, the number one goal for the new agency sounded an ambitious and patriotic note: “To enhance the economic and energy security of the United States through the development of energy technologies.” And from that uncontroversial foundation, a bipartisan bastion of cleantech innovation was born.
I knew I wanted to dig into the critical role that ARPA-E plays in the climate tech funding landscape after Rajesh Swaminathan, a partner at Khosla Ventures, told me that he views the agency as the “least talked about VC in town.” So I reached out to ARPA-E’s director, Evelyn Wang, to learn more.
Of course, ARPA-E isn’t actually a venture capital firm — it provides no-strings-attached funding to promising energy projects rather than aiming for a return on investment. “So a little bit different,” Wang told me. “Our mission is very much focused on energy independence, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and enhancing energy efficiency.”
The Bush administration established ARPA-E in 2007 with the passage of the America COMPETES Act, which aimed to improve the technological competitiveness of the United States via investments in research and development. But the agency was funded for the first time in 2009, under Obama, as a part of an $800 billion stimulus package in response to the Great Recession. A substantial chunk of that funding — $90 billion — was allocated for clean energy, which the administration would go on to boast amounted to the “largest single investment in clean energy in history.”
Yet whether it’s been Bush or Obama — or Trump or Biden — in the White House, the messaging around ARPA-E has always trended less towards renewables and climate mitigation and more towards energy security and economic competitiveness. As the name suggests, ARPA-E is modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, which was established in 1958 in response to the Soviet’s launch of the Sputnik satellite. DARPA has since helped birth such little-known tech as the entire internet, GPS, automated voice recognition, and self-driving cars.
But while the de facto customer for DARPA-developed tech is always the Department of Defense, the pathway to commercialization for ARPA-E projects mainly relies on private sector interest. In that sense, the goal of ARPA-E is neatly aligned with that of venture capitalists: Get tech to market. Because while scientific learnings are all well and good, Wang said that “ultimately, we need to see these technologies commercialized — to actually be out there — to actually affect the ecosystem and change the energy landscape.”
Since ARPA-E can eschew the profit motive, it’s able to fund high-risk, high-reward projects at the earliest stages, when most investors would be reluctant to take on that level of uncertainty. Yet the inherent risk means the success rate for ARPA-E projects as measured by metrics such as the number of companies it’s spawned (157), exits via mergers, acquisitions or IPOs (30), and additional partnerships with other government agencies (360), can seem low compared to the 1,590 projects that the agency has funded over the past 15 years. A climate tech investor I spoke with on background told me that while they love ARPA-E and are glad it exists, they were expecting more success stories by now.
That’s at least partially because even after a project is funded and proof-of-concept has been demonstrated, there’s often still a ways to go before investors are ready to jump in. “I think when we first stood up ARPA-E, the idea was that at that point, it would be sufficiently de-risked for the private sector to then pick it up and invest,” Wang told me. But frequently, that hasn’t been the case. ARPA-E usually funds projects for one to three years, but often climate tech innovation relies on deeply complex and thus inherently slow advancements in science and engineering — think fusion energy, novel battery development, or direct air capture. Many venture funds have 10 year time horizons, so if investors don’t see a payoff happening in that timeframe, they’ll probably hold back.
The investor I spoke with on background told me that ARPA-E has become more effective in partnership with the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, established in 2021 under the Department of Energy, which uses its $25 billion budget to create model buildouts of new technology with private sector partners. Earlier this year, OCED selected six ARPA-E awardees focused on industrial decarbonization to receive a combined total of up to $775 million.
Even so, the investor told me, ARPA-E funding alone still might not be enough to get companies to a place where OCED would be interested. To help close that gap, ARPA-E started a program called SCALEUP, a mouthful of an acronym for The Seeding Critical Advances for Leading Energy (Technologies) with Untapped Potential, in 2019. It provides a small number of ARPA-E projects with follow-on funding to further prove out their concepts — provided they can identify at least one commercialization partner such as a potential customer, end-user, or supplier willing to take a stake in the development of the tech and help it get to market.
So far, Wang says the program has yielded some successes. The list includes LongPath Technologies, which monitors methane emissions and leaks in the oil and gas industry and received a conditional loan last year from the DOE’s Loan Programs Office; Natron Energy, which just opened the first commercial-scale sodium-ion battery production facility in the U.S.; and Sila, a battery materials manufacturer that has raised over $1.3 billion in total, and secured contracts with Mercedes-Benz and Panasonic.
When you look at ARPA-E’s success rate in terms of dollars in and dollars out, though, it starts to look pretty darn efficacious as is. Since 2009, ARPA-E has provided more than $3.8 billion for research and development, leading to over $12.6 billion in private-sector follow-on funding, while the 30 exits to date have yielded a combined market valuation of $22.2 billion. And since it often takes climate tech companies around a decade to mature to the point where they’re ready for an exit event, many of ARPA-E’s companies have yet to reach the acquisition or IPO threshold.
These days, ARPA-E projects are facing a completely different funding landscape than in the 2000s — one ripe with both excitement and cash as well as increasing competition. So while Wang told me that the agency’s goal is always to look for “technological whitespace” in the energy landscape, “it's getting more crowded,” she said. “And I think in that context, we've strategically decided that we should also think about broader vision type efforts.” To that end, ARPA-E has identified three comprehensive focus areas: developing clean primary energy sources such as geothermal, small modular nuclear reactors, fusion and geologic hydrogen; power delivery for non-electrical sources, such as energy transported via hydrogen or heat; and figuring out how to source carbon sustainably, such as via engineered plants and algae.
Now that ARPA-E has been supporting projects for a decade and a half, it’s getting more experimental when it comes to developing novel testbeds for its tech. Exhibit A is the San Antonio International Airport, whichrecently signed a memorandum of understanding with the agency to deploy a series of ARPA-E backed technologies.
Many major airports are actually higher tech than passengers may realize, and given the mounting pressure on the aviation industry to decarbonize, they’re also open to novel sustainability solutions. In San Antonio, the airport is deploying EV chargers from Imagen Energy and sodium-ion battery tech from Natron Energy, both of which could help electrify their ground vehicles, as well as a distributed energy management system from Autogrid, which allows airports to control their virtual power plants, microgrids, EV fleet, and demand response measures. Other tech, such as hybrid-electric planes from Ampaire, could be integrated into the airport in the future.
That’s a lot of technology development for not many headlines. And when a company raises a major round or goes public, sometimes you have to dig deep to discover their ARPA-E origins. Hence, the “least talked about VC in town” comment. In some sense, Wang says, this is intentional.
“When we think about success, if our teams, our companies are successful, and they shine, then we shine,” she told me, and maybe that’s the way it should continue to be. Because while advertising government investment in anything seen as “clean” or “green” can immediately draw both partisan praise and ire, funding for ARPA-E has been steadily creeping up nearly every year since 2015. And yes, that includes the Trump era, even though the former president seemingly wanted to axe the agency altogether. Congress, it turned out, was not on board with that plan.
“Our mission is about energy independence and bolstering our economy and I think everyone agrees with this mission,” Wang told me. “Everyone,” of course, will always be an overstatement. But perhaps Wang is right that the agency does function better as a behind-the-scenes player. As she put it, speaking of the companies the agency funds, “It’s more about them, right? And how that affects the ecosystem, and helps our nation in terms of what we need to do as a country, and how that sets an example for the world.”
Editor’s note: This story initially misstated the size of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the amount of funding allocated to clean energy.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Current conditions: Typhoon Yagi was downgraded to a tropical depression after tearing through northern Vietnam • Hollywood Bowl had to cancel a show on Sunday because excessive heat knocked out power to the venue • Forecasters are watching storm Francine in the Atlantic Basin that is likely to strengthen into a hurricane.
The fast-moving Line Fire in California’s San Bernardino County has burned more than 20,500 acres and prompted evacuation orders for thousands of people. The blaze started last week, but doubled in size between Saturday and Sunday as a heat wave on the West Coast sent temperatures soaring. The neighboring town of Riverside recorded a new daily record of 110 degrees Fahrenheit yesterday. Smoke from the fire is forming clouds and storm systems that are causing lightning strikes, which can spark even more fires. The blaze remains zero percent contained, with more than 36,000 structures in its path.
In Nevada, the Davis Fire, just south of Reno, scorched 6,500 acres and forced some 20,000 people to evacuate. Schools in the area are closed. Excessive heat warnings will remain in effect across southern California and the Southwest today.
Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris are gearing up to face off in their first 2024 presidential debate tomorrow. Trump is reportedly already planning to call the ABC News event “rigged,” and has repeatedly attacked the network in recent days. He might also use the debate to draw attention to Harris’ previous call for a ban on fracking. In 2020, Harris was opposed to fracking, but has since changed her position. “We can grow and we can increase a thriving clean energy economy without banning fracking,” Harris told CNN’s Dana Bash recently. But like President Biden during his tenure, Harris has to balance the interests of several important demographics on climate and energy issues. “The Harris campaign is trying to avoid being pulled between environmentalists and the Pennsylvania oil and gas sector,” Kevin Book, a managing director at consulting firm ClearView Energy Partners, told E&E News.
Massachusetts and Rhode Island on Friday selected 2,878 megawatts of wind power capacity from three projects – SouthCoast Wind (owned by Ocean Winds), New England Wind 1 (developed by Avangrid Inc.), and Vineyard Wind 2 (from Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners’ Vineyard Offshore). The selections were the result of a multi-state procurement collaboration, the first in the U.S., and amount to the largest offshore wind initiative New England has seen so far. Massachusetts secured most of the capacity, with 2,678 MW. Once online, this wind power will meet nearly 20% of the state’s electricity demand and result in emissions reductions equivalent to removing 1 million gas-powered cars from the roads. “The economic ripple effects of these projects will be massive,” wrote Michelle Lewis at Electrek. “New England’s ports in New Bedford, New London, Salem, and Providence are now booked with offshore wind tenants through 2032. These hubs will serve as launching points for wind turbines and other infrastructure that will transform the region’s energy landscape.”
CEOs planning their business strategies are prioritizing sustainability less now than they have over the last few years, The Wall Street Journalreported, citing a new report out from Bain & Co. Executives are thinking more about issues like inflation, artificial intelligence, and geopolitical uncertainty, even as 60% of consumers (and especially Gen-Z consumers) say their own levels of climate concern have grown due to extreme weather events. A recent WSJ Pro analysis found that mentions of sustainability are high in company financial reports, but low in earnings calls and marketing materials. Meanwhile, just over a third of businesses are falling short of their Scope 1 and 2 emissions targets, and more than half are missing their Scope 3 targets.
A new study suggests sharks are abandoning coral reefs due to warming ocean waters caused by climate change. Grey reef sharks tend to stay close to shallow reef habitats in the Indo-Pacific, but the research team, led by marine scientists at Lancaster University, found that warmer waters are forcing the sharks to leave for extended periods of time. Their absence could further disrupt reef ecosystems. “Faced with a trade-off, sharks must decide whether to leave the relative safety of the reef and expend greater energy to remain cool or stay on a reef in suboptimal conditions but conserve energy,” said David Jacoby, a lecturer in zoology at Lancaster University and one of the authors on the study. “We think many are choosing to move into offshore, deeper and cooler waters, which is concerning.”
Zion National Park in Southern Utah has replaced its propane shuttle buses with 30 all-electric buses. The National Park Service is working on similar zero-emission fleets at other parks including Grand Canyon, Acadia, Yosemite, Bryce Canyon, and Harpers Ferry.
NPS/Colton Johnston
Any EV is better for the planet than a gas-guzzler, but size still matters for energy use.
A few Super Bowls ago, when General Motors used its ad spots to pitch Americans on the idea of the GMC Hummer EV, it tried to flip the script on the stereotypes that had always dogged the gas-guzzling SUV. Yes, it implied, you can drive a military-derived menace to society and still do your part for the planet, as long as it’s electric.
You don’t hear much about the Hummer anymore — it didn’t sell especially well, and the Tesla Cybertruck came along to fill the tank niche in the electric car market. But the reasoning behind its launch endures. Any EV, even a monstrous one, is a good EV if it convinces somebody, somewhere, to give up gasoline.
This line of thinking isn’t wrong. A fully electric version of a big truck or SUV is far better, emissions-wise, than a gas-powered vehicle of equivalent size. It’s arguably superior to a smaller and efficient combustion car, too. A Ford F-150 Lightning, for example, scores nearly 70 in the Environmental Protection Agency’s miles per gallon equivalent metric, abbreviated MPGe, that’s meant to compare the energy consumption of EVs and other cars. That blows away the 20-some miles per gallon that the gas F-150 gets and even exceeds the 57 combined miles per gallon of the current Toyota Prius hybrid.
In terms of America’s EV adoption, then, we’ve come to see all EVs as being created equal. Yet our penchant for large EVs that aren’t particularly efficient at squeezing miles from their batteries will become a problem as more Americans go electric.
Big, heavy cars use more energy. This is how we worried about the greenness of cars back in the days before the EV: Needlessly enormous models such as the Ford Expedition and the Hummer H2 deserved to be shamed, while owning a fuel-sipping hybrid or a dinky subcompact was the height of virtue.
This logic has gotten a bit lost in the scale-up phase of electric vehicles going mainstream. We talk at length about EV sales and how fast their numbers are growing; we rarely talk about whether the EVs we buy are as energy-efficient as they could be. As a new white paper from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy points out, though, getting more miles out of our EV batteries would save drivers money and reduce the strain on the grid that will come from millions of people charging their cars.
The simplest way to measure an EV’s fuel efficiency is to know how many miles it travels per kilowatt-hour of electricity. Popular crossovers like Tesla’s Model Y and Kia’s EV6 achieve a pretty-good 3.5 miles per kilowatt-hour. Look at bigger, heavier vehicles and you’ll see a major fall-off. InsideEVs found that Rivian’s R1S gets between 2.1 and 2.4 miles per kilowatt-hour. The hulking Hummer EV scores just 1.5, according to Motor Trend’s testing. The EPA’s MPGe data is another way to see the same story. The 60-some miles per gallon equivalent of an electric pickup like the Rivian R1T or Chevy Silverado EV crushes the mileage of petro trucks, but pales next to the 140-plus MPGe that an electric sedan from Hyundai or Lucid can claim. (Those EVs can deliver 4 or more miles per kilowatt-hour.)
Even modest gains in EV efficiency could cause beneficial ripple effects, the ACEEE says. Drivers who own a 3.5 miles per kilowatt-hour car would save hundreds of dollars on fuel annually compared to those whose vehicles get 2.5 miles per kilowatt-hour. More efficient cars should be less expensive, as well. Huge, inefficient EVs need to carry enormous batteries just to reach an adequate range, and the bigger the battery, the bigger the cost. Whereas a Model Y’s battery capacity ranges from 60 kilowatt-hours for standard range to 81 kilowatt-hours for long range, a Rivian’s runs from 92 to 141.5 kilowatt-hours. ACEEE calculates that the jump from 2.5 to 3.5 kilowatt-hours could shave nearly $5,000 from the cost of making a car because it would need so much less battery.
Making EVs more efficient would mean faster charging stops, too, since drivers wouldn’t need to cram so many kilowatt-hours into their batteries. It would ease demand for electricity, making it easier for the grid to keep pace with an electrifying society. But convincing Americans to buy smaller, more efficient vehicles has been an uphill battle for decades.
Earlier this summer, Ford CEO Jim Farley called for a return to smaller vehicles as more of the U.S. car fleet turns over to electric. Yet it was Ford that just a few years ago quit making cars altogether (outside of the Mustang) because it reaped so much more profit on the pricier crossovers, SUVs, and pickups that Americans have voted for with their wallets. And not long after Farley’s speech, the company scaled back its EV ambitions, clearly struggling to find a way to sell electric vehicles profitably.
The issue is not only carbuyers’ preference for big, heavy vehicles. ACEEE points out that public policy doesn’t punish big electric cars. “The EPA standard treats all EVs as having zero emissions. It therefore provides no incentive to improve EV efficiency since inefficient and efficient EVs are treated the same for compliance purposes,” the paper says.
That is why ACEEE floats the idea of a policy change. For example, its paper suggests the fees some states levy against EVs (ostensibly to make up for the lost revenue from those cars avoiding the gas tax) could be tweaked to charge more for inefficient EVs. Rebates for purchasing an EV could be changed in the same manner.
It was, after all, regulatory loopholes and misplaced incentives that helped big gas guzzlers conquer the roads in the first place. With better rules about big EVs, perhaps we could avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.
On new heat records, Trump’s sea level statements, and a super typhoon
Current conditions: Torrential rains flooded the streets of Milan, Italy • The U.K. recorded its coldest summer since 2015 • The temperature in Palm Springs, California, hit 121 degrees Fahrenheit yesterday.
Summer 2024 was officially the warmest on record in the Northern Hemisphere, according to new data from the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service. Between June and August, the average global temperature was 1.24 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the 1991-2020 average, beating out last summer’s record. August 2024 tied August 2023 for joint-hottest month ever recorded globally, with an average surface air temperature of 62.27 degrees Fahrenheit.
C3S
“During the past three months of 2024, the globe has experienced the hottest June and August, the hottest day on record, and the hottest boreal summer on record,” said Samantha Burgess, deputy director of C3S. “This string of record temperatures is increasing the likelihood of 2024 being the hottest year on record. The temperature-related extreme events witnessed this summer will only become more intense, with more devastating consequences for people and the planet unless we take urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
During a speech at the Economic Club of New York yesterday, former President Donald Trump said that because of climate change, “the ocean is going to go down 100th of an inch within the next 400 years,” and dismissed this as “not our problem.” This appears to be a warped variation of his repeated claim that “the ocean is going to rise one eighth of an inch over the next 400 years.” He’s said this many times, occasionally subbing in “200 to 300 years” for 400 years. Either way, he’s incorrect. “Trump’s numbers are orders of magnitude off the mark,” wrote Heatmap’s Jeva Lange in her epic historical fact check of Trump’s various climate statements. “The oceans are on track to rise 3.5 feet to 7 feet along America’s coastlines by 2100,” Lange said. Back in 2022, Michael Oppenheimer, director of the Center for Policy Research on Energy and the Environment at Princeton University, called Trump’s sea-level calculation “so far from accurate as to appear to have been entirely fabricated.”
The U.S. and China had “excellent discussions” during climate talks this week in Beijing, climate envoy John Podesta said today. The two nations came closer to being on the same page about climate finance and greenhouse gas emissions cuts. “Notwithstanding some friction in our bilateral relationship, we can find places to collaborate for the good of our people and the good of our climate,” Podesta said. As Bloombergnoted, this is likely the last opportunity for the world’s two biggest emitters to try to find common ground ahead of the U.S. presidential election and the COP29 climate summit in November.
Ford reported some interesting August sales figures yesterday. The company saw a 50% jump in hybrid sales last month compared to a year before, and a 29% rise in electric vehicle sales, with F-150 Lightning sales up 160% year over year. But internal combustion engine cars still made up 86% of total monthly sales. The automaker recently scrapped its plans to build a three-row EV crossover and instead plans to make that vehicle as a hybrid, and will double down on producing more hybrid models.
China evacuated 400,000 people from some of its southern provinces in anticipation of Super Typhoon Yagi. Schools are shut down, flights have been canceled, and Hong Kong’s stock market is closed. The storm struck the Philippines earlier this week but has doubled in strength since, and now packs wind speeds of about 140 miles per hour, giving it the power of a Category 4 hurricane. It made landfall on the popular tourist island of Hainan this morning and is expected to hit Guangdong, China's most populous province, before churning toward Vietnam’s historic Ha Long Bay. It is the strongest typhoon to strike China’s southern coast in 10 years, and according to NASA, it has been supercharged by unusually warm water in the Northwest Pacific Basin.
“Everybody’s getting drunk and having a good time: ‘Oh, look at the gift they brought us!’ But at night, they’re going to sneak out of that horse, and they’re going to leave an environmental disaster.” –A long-time resident of Superior, Arizona, ponders the promise and perils of mining the town’s copper deposits, one of the largest remaining in the world.