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 Department of Energy is advancing 24 companies in its purchase prize contest. What these companies are getting is more important than $50,000.

The Department of Energy is advancing its first-of-a-kind program to stimulate demand for carbon removal by becoming a major buyer. On Tuesday, the agency awarded $50,000 to each of 24 semifinalist companies competing to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere on behalf of the U.S. government. It will eventually spend $30 million to buy carbon removal credits from up to 10 winners.
The nascent carbon removal industry is desperate for customers. At a conference held in New York City last week called Carbon Unbound, startup CEOs brainstormed how to convince more companies to buy carbon removal as part of their sustainability strategies. On the sidelines, attendees lamented to me that there were hardly even any potential buyers at the conference — what a missed opportunity.
Conference panelists asserted that the industry needed to rebuild trust. Purchasing carbon credits has become a risky strategy for companies. In one investigation after another, journalists and researchers have shown that many of the projects behind these credits fail to produce the climate benefits they advertise. There’s a class action lawsuit against Delta Air Lines for marketing itself as “carbon neutral” after purchasing such questionable carbon offsets.
Carbon removal credits are technically different from the offsets that companies bought in the past, which were based on projects that reduce emissions to the atmosphere rather than remove carbon that’s already heating the planet. But there’s still a risk of sham projects. And because the field is relatively new, there’s not yet a set of widely agreed-upon standards to measure and verify how much carbon is being removed.
The Department of Energy hopes that by selecting 24 companies that have been vetted by government scientists, it’s sending a signal to the private sector that there are at least some projects that are legitimate. “We can’t wait to invest in CDR until those standards have been codified,” Noah Deich, the agency’s deputy assistant secretary of carbon management, told me. “We need to invest now so that we actually get the data that we can use to inform the standards, and then over time codify those standards and strengthen and improve them.”
The semifinalists represent a wide range of carbon removal methods. Nine of the companies are building machines that capture carbon dioxide directly from the air. Seven take advantage of the natural ability of plants and algae to suck up carbon, and have developed systems to sequester that carbon for far longer than would otherwise occur. Five employ rocks that naturally absorb carbon and have figured out how to speed up the process. The last three capture carbon from the ocean, enabling the world’s biggest carbon sink to draw down more from the atmosphere.
To proceed to the final round, all of these companies will have to draw up contracts that say how quickly they will be able to remove the promised tons of carbon, and who they will work with to measure and verify the process.
The Biden administration is spending billions on research, development, and deployment of carbon removal. Some of the semifinalists, like Climeworks, Heirloom Carbon, and 1PointFive, were already selected for grants from the DOE to build the U.S.’s first “direct air capture hubs” — projects capable of removing one million tons of carbon from the air per year. But those hubs will fail if the companies don’t ultimately find buyers for their carbon removal. “Every single CDR project that we’re seeing today requires some sort of voluntary credit sale to be profitable,” said Deich.
The Department of Energy’s $30 million budget to buy carbon removal is relatively small. The semifinalists said they could deliver a wide range of credits with their share of the funds, from 3,000 over a three-year period, to more than 30,000. In any case, DOE is unlikely to afford much more than 100,000 tons of carbon taken out of the atmosphere, equivalent to about 0.002% of the CO2 the United States emitted in 2022. When distributed among 10 companies, it’s certainly not enough to finance a project. But Deich told me he sees this contest as a public-private partnership. The agency is challenging the semifinalists to leverage the DOE’s recognition to try and sell as many credits as they can. It’s one of the criteria they’ll be judged on for the final phase of the contest.
Several semifinalists I spoke with were optimistic the DOE’s backing would help. “One of the things that the private sector is wrestling with is the technical underwriting of various carbon dioxide removal technologies,” Barclay Rogers, the CEO of the carbon removal company Graphyte, told me. Graphyte’s process almost sounds too simple to work. The company takes discarded plant matter from forests and fields, dries it out so that it doesn’t decompose, compresses it into bricks, and then buries them. Graphyte has already built a small processing facility in Arkansas and secured a burial site that could store an estimated 1.5 million tons of CO2. Rogers was excited to have DOE’s backing as “a broad signal to the market of the viability of Graphyte’s carbon casting process.”
Others were grateful that the government was branching out to new technologies. To date, most of the DOE’s carbon removal programs have supported direct air capture. Companies working on other approaches have been shut out of funding opportunities, and some worry that this has contributed to a perception among buyers that direct air capture is the only valid method. “We think this is a huge step forward, since it’s really the first time not only that the U.S. government is going to become a purchaser of carbon removal, but also funding a full range of carbon removal solutions,” Nora Cohen Brown, head of market development and policy at Charm Industrial, told me. (Charm also buries plant waste underground, but in the form of oil.) “We really think that biomass CDR has immense potential,” she said. “It’s a big deal to have DOE’s blessing for that pathway.”
Edward Sanders, the chief operating officer of a startup called Equatic, told me that being a semifinalist meant the company would be able to build a plant in the U.S. much sooner than it initially planned. Equatic has developed technology to remove carbon from seawater, enabling the ocean to take up more carbon. It’s currently building its first large-scale plant in Singapore. “This tells prospective future buyers that there is a role to play in the near term in the U.S. for a marine-based pathway.”
Many of the companies on the list, including the three I just mentioned, have already been relatively successful in selling credits. Graphyte sold 10,000 to American Airlines. Equatic has a 62,000 deal with Boeing. Charm will remove more than 100,000 tons for Frontier Climate, a group of buyers that includes Stripe, Alphabet, Shopify, and Meta. But even though a handful of tech companies and airlines are buying carbon removal, these sweeping gestures are not enough to sustain the industry, let alone grow it to the scale that scientists say will be necessary to halt climate change.
DOE’s purchase may help increase confidence in some of these companies and approaches, but it may not do much to solve another problem: There’s little incentive for anyone to pay for carbon removal today, and it’s much more expensive than other options companies have to reduce their emissions. Credits can cost between several hundred to more than a thousand dollars each.
Deich said the agency was trying to set an example for other buyers. Instead of creating a net-zero target and searching for the cheapest credits to accomplish its goal, it’s prioritizing quality and only buying what it can afford. “We need to pay what it costs,” he said, “and then developers can develop projects and figure out how to do it cheaper so that over time, it starts to come down the cost curve significantly, and we can buy larger and larger quantities.”
But this is only the near term plan to help the industry mature. Ultimately, Deich doesn’t think that the voluntary trade of credits will be enough to support the levels of carbon removal that will make a difference in climate change. He sees this purchase prize program as a way to start building the government’s capacity to play a larger role. “There’s going to need to be some sort of mandate or public procurement that happens for the field to really scale beyond 2030,” he said.
Avnos, Inc. — direct air capture — 3,000 credits
Carbon America — direct Air Capture — 3,400 credits
CarbonCapture, Inc. — direct air capture — 3,333 credits
Climeworks — direct air capture — 3,500 credits
Global Thermostat and Fervo Energy — direct air capture — 3,500 credits
Heirloom — direct air capture — 3,030 credits
1PointFive — direct air capture — 3,861 credits
280 Earth — direct air capture — 3,000 credits
8 Rivers — direct air capture — 7,200 credits
Arbor Energy — biomass with carbon removal and storage — 8,000 credits
Carbon Lockdown — biomass with carbon removal and storage — 17,143 credits
Charm Industrial — biomass with carbon removal and storage — 5,000 credits
Clean Energy Systems — biomass with carbon removal and storage — 11,320 credits
Climate Robotics — biochar — 30,252 credits
Graphyte — biomass with carbon removal and storage — 30,000 credits
Vaulted Deep — biomass with carbon removal and storage — 10,320 credits
Alkali Earth — enhanced rock weathering and mineralization — 8,108 credits
CREW Carbon — enhanced rock weathering and mineralization — 7,500 credits
Eion — enhanced rock weathering and mineralization — 9,900 credits
Lithos Carbon — enhanced rock weathering and mineralization — 8,109 credits
Mati Carbon — enhanced rock weathering and mineralization — 4,561 credits
Ebb Carbon — marine-based carbon removal — 3,000 credits
Equatic — marine-based carbon removal — 6,521 credits
Vycarb Inc. — marine-based carbon removal — 3,000 credits
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Giving up on hourly matching by 2030 doesn’t mean giving up on climate ambition — necessarily.
Microsoft celebrated a “milestone achievement” earlier this year, when it announced that it had successfully matched 100% of its 2025 electricity usage with renewable energy. This past week, however, Bloomberg reported that the company was considering delaying or abandoning its next clean energy target set for 2030.
What comes after achieving 100% renewable energy, you might ask? What Microsoft did in 2025 was tally its annual energy consumption and purchase an equal amount of solar and wind power. By 2030, the company aspired to match every kilowatt it consumes with carbon-free electricity hour by hour. That means finding clean power for all the hours when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.
The news that Microsoft is revisiting this goal could be read as the beginning of the end of corporate climate ambition. Microsoft has long been a pioneer on that front, setting increasingly difficult goals and then doing the groundwork to help others follow in its footsteps. Now it appears to be accepting defeat. The news comes just weeks after my colleague Robinson Meyer broke the news that the company is also pausing its industry-leading carbon removal purchasing program.
Delaying or abandoning the clean energy target — the two options presented in the Bloomberg story — represent quite different scenarios, however.
“There’s going to be a big difference between them saying, We’re going to keep trying as hard as we can to go as far as we can, but acknowledge we may not hit it, versus saying, Well, we can’t hit this extremely ambitious goal we set for ourselves, therefore we’re just giving up on the overall mission,” Wilson Ricks, a manager in Clean Air Task Force’s electricity program, told me.
The goal was always going to be difficult, if not impossible, for Microsoft to hit, Ricks said. Yes, it’s gotten tougher as Microsoft’s electricity usage has surged with the rise of artificial intelligence, and because Congress killed subsidies for clean energy as the Trump administration has done its best to stall wind and solar development. But some of the technologies likely needed to achieve the goal, such as advanced nuclear and geothermal power plants, have yet to achieve commercial deployment, let alone reach meaningful scale, and probably won’t by 2030 — especially not across all the regions that Microsoft operates in.
Nonetheless, some clean energy advocates (including Ricks) argue that keeping hourly matching as a north star is paramount because it helps put the world on the path to fully decarbonized electric grids.
Google was the first to introduce a 24/7 carbon-free energy strategy in 2020, and for a moment, it seemed that the rest of the corporate world would follow. A handful of companies joined a coalition to support the goal, but to date, I’m aware of just two — Microsoft and the data storage company Iron Mountain — that have followed Google in committing to achieving it.
Most companies approach their clean energy claims with considerably less precision. The norm is to purchase “unbundled” renewable energy certificates, tradeable vouchers that say a certain amount of renewable energy has been generated somewhere, at some point, and that the certificate owner can lay claim to it. Many simply buy enough of these RECs to cover their annual electricity usage and call themselves “powered by 100% renewable energy.”
There’s a spectrum of quality in the RECs available for purchase, but the market is flooded with cheap, relatively meaningless certificates. A company that operates in a coal-heavy region like Indiana can buy RECs from a wind farm in Texas that was built a decade ago, which won’t do anything to change the makeup of the grid in either place.
Today, the gold standard for companies with capital to throw around is instead to seek out long-term contracts directly with wind and solar developers known as power purchase agreements. That doesn’t mean the wind and solar farms send power to the companies directly. But these types of contracts are more likely to bring new projects onto the grid by providing guaranteed future revenues, helping developers secure the financing they need to build.
Microsoft started buying unbundled RECs more than a decade ago, and in 2014, it reported it had matched all of its global electricity usage. In 2016, the company began setting goals for direct procurement of renewable energy. In 2020, it pledged to achieve 100% renewable this way by 2025 — but it wasn’t going to sign just any wind or solar agreements. It aimed to pursue contracts with projects that were in the same regions as the company’s operations and that wouldn’t have been built without the company’s support. “Where and how you buy matters,” it wrote in its 2020 sustainability report. “The closer the new wind or solar farm is to your data center, the more likely it is those zero carbon electrons are powering it.”
In 2021, Microsoft upped the ante again by establishing its 2030 hourly matching target, which it referred to as “100/100/0” — 100% of electrons, 100% of the time, zero-carbon energy.
Microsoft has never publicly reported its progress toward the 2030 goal. The company’s enthusiasm for the target has also appeared to wane. In 2020, before Microsoft even made the 100/100/0 commitment, it touted a solution it developed to track and match renewable energy generation and consumption on an hourly basis. In the years since, it has led its peers in investments in round-the-clock nuclear power, even signing a 20-year power purchase agreement with Constellation Energy to bring the shuttered Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania back online.
But Microsoft has stopped publicizing the goal in blog posts and press releases. It went unmentioned in the recent announcement about the 2025 renewable energy achievement, for instance. And a section in the company’s annual sustainability report listing its climate targets that had previously advertised the 2030 goal as “Replacing with 100/100/0 carbon-free energy” was re-written in 2025 as “Expanding carbon-free electricity,” fuzzier rhetoric that now reads as a harbinger of a softer approach.
Microsoft did not respond to questions about its progress toward the 2030 target. In an emailed statement, a spokesperson emphasized the company’s commitment to maintaining its annual matching goal — the one achieved in 2025. No doubt that will take a lot more investment in the years to come now that the company is gobbling up a lot more electricity for data centers — some of it directly from natural gas plants.
Microsoft also shared a statement from Melanie Nakagawa, Microsoft’s chief sustainability officer, emphasizing the company’s commitment to become carbon negative. “At times we may make adjustments to our approach toward our sustainability goals,” she said. “Any adjustments we make are part of our disciplined approach—not a change in our long-term ambition.”
Even if Microsoft axes its hourly matching target, the company might have to start reporting its clean electricity usage on an hourly basis anyway. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, a nonprofit that sets standards for how companies should calculate their emissions, is currently considering adopting an hourly accounting requirement. While the protocol’s standards are voluntary, companies almost uniformly follow them, and they will soon become mandatory in much of the world, as governments in California and Europe plan to integrate them into corporate disclosure rules.
The accounting rule change is highly controversial, with many companies arguing that it will deter them from investing in clean energy altogether, since their purchases won’t look as good on paper. “I don’t think anybody is debating having rules and guidelines around how you do more narrow matching, we should have that,” Michael Leggett, the co-founder and chief product officer for Ever.Green, a company that sells high-impact RECs, told me. “I think the debate has largely been around, is that required?”
Leggett said he could see how Microsoft’s pullback could be twisted to support either side. Proponents of the hourly accounting method will say, “Aha! See? This is why we have to require it.” Opponents will say, “See, even Microsoft can’t do it, so how are you going to require all these other companies to do it?”
I spoke to Alex Piper, the head of U.S. policy and markets at EnergyTag, a nonprofit that advocates for reforms to enable 24/7 clean energy, who saw the news as vindicating.
“What we’re seeing right now is many of the hyperscale technology companies look to the fastest path to power, and whether it is or not, some of them are turning to gas as that solution,” he told me. Piper argued that companies are choosing natural gas in part because they can get away with clean energy claims under the protocol’s existing rules. “The proposed rules for the greenhouse gas protocol would require those companies to at least be transparent.”
But Microsoft walking back its hourly matching goal does not have to mean that it’s walking back its climate ambition. It’s possible for companies to achieve significant emissions reductions by focusing their clean energy purchases on the places where wind and solar will do the most to displace fossil fuels, rather than worrying about matching every hour. For a company that operates in California, for example, supporting the addition of solar power to a coal-heavy grid — even if it’s in a different part of the country or the world — will do more, faster, than helping to build solar locally or waiting for around-the-clock resources such as geothermal power to come online.
Critics of hourly accounting argue that it doesn’t give companies credit for this kind of approach. “What I would love to have happen is anything to incentivize, recognize, and reward companies signing 20-year contracts that enable new projects coming online,” Leggett said of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s forthcoming rule change.
Ricks, of Clean Air Task Force, rejects the idea that an hourly accounting requirement would deter these kinds of deals. “That doesn’t mean that they can’t report any other set of numbers they want to,” he said. “Many companies do report things that aren’t currently recognized in the Greenhouse Gas Protocol.”
Microsoft is a prime example. The company includes two measures of its renewable energy usage in its annual reports: “percentage of renewable electricity,” which includes the unbundled RECs Microsoft has continued to buy over the years, and “percentage of direct renewable electricity,” which tracks power purchase agreements and the renewable portion of the grid mix where its facilities are located. The former uses the Greenhouse Gas protocol’s current accounting method, under which Microsoft says it has hit 100% every year since 2014. But the latter is the company’s own bespoke calculation.
The company’s 2025 feat was based on this made-up methodology, and it represents the first time Microsoft has announced to the world that it used 100% renewable energy. It never previously made such claims about its REC purchases, as far as I can tell. In other words, Microsoft’s standards for what it publicizes are far more rigorous than what the Greenhouse Gas Protocol requires.
Regardless of what the protocol decides, it will determine only what companies must report. It won’t prevent them from offering up their own, additional metrics of success.
PJM Interconnection has some ideas, as does the state of New Jersey.
We’ve already talked this week about Pennsylvania asking whether the modern “regulatory compact,” which grants utilities monopoly geographical franchises and regulated returns from their capital investments, is still suitable in this era of rising prices and data-center-driven load growth.
Now America’s biggest electricity market and another one of that market’s biggest states are considering far-reaching, fundamental reforms that could alter how electricity infrastructure is planned and paid for over 65 million Americans.
New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill anchored her 2025 campaign on electricity prices, and for good reason — in the past four years, electricity prices in the state have gone up 48%, according to Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub, while average bills have risen from $83 per month to $130. On her first day in office, Sherrill issued two executive orders acting on that promise, directing the state to make funds available to freeze rates and declaring a state of emergency to ease the way to building more generation.
Included in that first order was a review of utility business models to be carried out by state regulators. What that review will entail is now coming into focus.
On Wednesday, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities issued a statement announcing that it will look specifically at “whether New Jersey’s century-old utility business model — one that rewards electric distribution companies (EDCs) for capital spending even when cheaper alternatives exist — should be replaced with a framework tied to performance, affordability, and long-term cost stability.” In case anyone was still ambiguous as to what the outcome of said study might be, the board added that it is “expected to drive the most significant restructuring of utility regulation in New Jersey in decades.”
The current system, the board’s president Christine Guhl-Savoy said at a hearing Thursday, “creates a structural incentive to favor capital intensive solutions, even when lower costs, non-wires or demand side alternatives may be available.”
This structure, she said, could help explain why “over the past decade, electric delivery charges in New Jersey have risen steadily.” Within the service territory of PSEG, one of the four major New Jersey utilities, distribution charges alone have risen from $19.24 per month in January 2020 (as far back as the Heatmap-MIT data goes) to $21.84 as of April, while transmission charges have risen from around $20 to just over $29 per month. Many critics of the utility business model point to high levels of local grid spending on distribution as a way that utilities pad their earnings with returns harvested from ratepayers.
In the system regulators explored at the hearing, new projects would get a more skeptical look and ratepayers payouts would be partially determined by utilities hitting pre-defined service goals. NJBPU executive director Bob Brabston also indicated that the review process would take a close look at utilities’ regulated returns on equity — echoing his neighbor across the Delaware River, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, who wrote in a letter to his state’s utilities earlier this week that these returns must be “transparent” and “justifiable,” and no longer be based on “educated guesses.”
“We want to make sure that the actual cost of equity and the returns on equity are close,” Brabston said Thursday. “We don’t want there to be a significant gap between the cost of equity that you all experience and the returns that the agencies that the agency awards.”
Meanwhile, in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, the framework within which New Jersey’s utilities exist is coming in for its own examination.
PJM Interconnection — the nation’s largest electricity market, which covers not just Pennsylvania and New Jersey but also part or all of 11 other states — released an almost 70-page paper Wednesday, in which the organization’s president David Mills wrote that “the current situation is not tenable.”
PJM has been the poster child for a host of issues plaguing the electricity markets across the country, including fast-rising prices, a failure to quickly bring on new generation, and an inability to assure the market’s preferred level of reserve reliability. This set of challenges, Mills said in the paper’s introduction, “reflects something more fundamental than a design that needs recalibration.” Instead, PJM must consider “whether the foundational assumptions of the market remain valid – and if not, what a valid set of assumptions would require.”
The problem with the electricity market, he argued, can be solved by more markets. Right now, when prices shoot up, governments intervene with price caps, suppressing the market signal necessary to bring on sufficient generation that would bring down prices.
To replace that system, the paper proposes three possible models. The first, which it calls “Stabilized Markets,” would allow capacity to be procured for several years at a time outside of the current auction system, so that utilities could make sure their basic needs were covered before they go into the annual auctions. This would provide long term security for new investment.
The second path would be a more fundamental reform. This “Differential Reliability” approach would do away with the “shared reliability compact,” under which all loads must be served by the system at all times. Instead, PJM would “develop the operational and commercial framework to explicitly differentiate reliability,” incentivizing approaches like bring your own generation or curtailing power for new large sources of demand.
The third path is an “Energy Market Transition,” which might also be called the “Texas option.” Following this path, the capacity market would shrink as a portion of revenues earned by generators, and more revenue would come from real-time or near-real-time electricity sales.
While this path isn’t “full Texas” (ERCOT doesn’t have a capacity market at all), it would mean allowing for higher prices for energy in real-time, a.k.a. “scarcity pricing” which is arguably the defining feature of the ERCOT system (though even that was scaled back when prices got too high).
“The choices embedded in these paths involve genuine trade-offs, and those trade-offs affect different stakeholders uniquely,” the paper says.If PJM has learned anything in the past few years, it’s that it doesn’t get to make decisions on its own. Those stakeholders will get their say, one way or another.
Big fundraises for Nyobolt and Skeleton Technologies, plus more of the week’s biggest money moves.
Following a quiet week for new deals, the industry is back at it with a bunch of capital flowing into some of the industry’s most active areas. My colleague Alexander C. Kaufman already told you about one of the more buzzworthy announcements from data center-land in Wednesday’s AM newsletter: Wave energy startup Panthalassa raised $140 million in a round led by Peter Thiel to “perform AI inference computing at sea” using nodes powered by the ocean’s waves.
This week also saw fresh funding for more conventional data center infrastructure, as Nyobolt and Skeleton Technologies both announced later-stage rounds for data center backup power solutions. Meanwhile, it turns out Redwood Materials is not the only company bringing in significant capital for second-life EV battery systems — Moment Energy just raised $40 million to pursue a similar approach. Elsewhere, investors backed an effort to rebuild domestic magnesium production, and, in a glimmer of hope for a sector on the outs, gave a boost to green cement startup Terra CO2.
Cambridge-based startup Nyobolt has become the latest battery company to reach a $1 billion valuation, with its expansion into the data center market helping fuel excitement around its tech. Spun out of University of Cambridge research in 2019, the company develops ultra-fast-charging batteries based on a modified lithium-ion chemistry. Its core innovation is an anode made from niobium tungsten oxide, which Nyobolt says enables its batteries to charge to 80% in less than five minutes, with a cycle life that’s 10 times longer than conventional lithium-ion, all without the risk of fire.
The company has now raised a $60 Series C, following what it describes as a period of “rapid commercial momentum,” with revenue increasing five-fold year-over-year as customers in the robotics and data center industry piled in. Symbotic, an autonomous robotics company and existing customer, led the latest round. While Symbotic previously relied on supercapacitors to power its robots, Nyobolt’s says its batteries provide six times more energy capacity in a lighter package, allowing its warehouse robots to work for retailers like Walgreens, Target, and Kroger around the clock.
Now the startup is targeting data center customers too, positioning its tech as a fast-acting fix for the sudden power surges common to large-scale artificial intelligence workloads, as well as a temporary backup power solution for outages. While it has no confirmed domestic data center customers to date, it does have a nonbinding agreement with the Indian state of Rajasthan to deploy over 100 megawatts of off-grid AI data center and power management infrastructure, part of a broader push to expand its presence across the country.
Notably, the press release made no mention of plans to sell its tech to electric vehicle automakers, though this appears to have been a central focus previously. As recently as last summer, executive vice president Ramesh Narasimhan told the BBC that he hoped Nyobolt’s batteries would “transform the experience of owning an EV.” But while its tech does enable extremely fast charging, its underlying chemistry is not optimized for long-range driving. A sports car built to test the company’s batteries had just a 155 mile range. So like many of its climate tech peers, the company appears to be betting that data centers now represent a more reliable opportunity.
This week brought additional news from another European player aiming to smooth out data center power surges. Estonia-based supercapacitor startup Skeleton Technologies raised $39 million in what it describes as the first close of a pre-IPO funding round, with a U.S. listing planned for next year. Its core tech is built around a “curved graphene” structure, which the company likens to a crumpled sheet of paper with a high surface area. The graphene’s many exposed surfaces and edges allows it to hold more electric charge, which Skeleton says delivers a 72% improvement in energy density.
Like Nyobolt, Skeleton says its tech offers faster response times and longer cycle life. But supercapacitors are a fundamentally different technology than Nyobolt’s modified lithium-ion solution. Though they offer near-instantaneous response times, they store very little energy — just enough to smooth out microsecond power spikes in GPU workloads. Nyobolt’s batteries, by contrast, aim not only to smooth out data center power spikes, but also to deliver about 90 seconds of backup power in the case of an outage, before a generator or other backup source kicks in.
Skeleton is already mass-producing supercapacitors in Germany and delivering to unnamed “major U.S. hyperscalers for AI infrastructure.” It’s also making moves to expand its U.S. footprint ahead of its pending IPO, opening an engineering facility in Houston and aiming to begin domestic manufacturing of AI data center solutions in the first half of this year.
Last year brought a wave of new climate tech coalitions, with one of the most ambitious efforts known as the All Aboard Coalition. This group of venture firms is targeting the investment gap known as the missing middle, which falls between early-stage venture rounds and infrastructure funding. The model is relatively mechanical: When three or more member firms participate in a later-stage round for a company, the coalition automatically coinvests out of its own fund, matching the members’ combined contribution.
The group made its first investment in January, supporting the AI-powered geothermal exploration and development company Zanskar’s Series C round. This week, it announced its second: a $22 million commitment to low-carbon cement startup Terra CO2, bringing the company’s Series B total to $147 million. Cement production accounts for roughly 8% of global emissions, a figure Terra aims to shrink by making so-called "supplementary cementitious materials” — which can partially displace traditional cement in concrete mixes — from abundant silicate rocks. By grinding and thermally processing these rocks into a glassy powder, Terra’s product mimics the properties of conventional cement. The company says it can replace up to 50% of the cement in typical concrete mixes, lowering associated emissions by as much as 70%.
The new funding will help Terra build its first commercial-scale plant in Texas, exactly the type of first-of-a-kind project that the coalition was designed to support. But the scale of this challenge remains clear. As noted in ImpactAlpha’s coverage, the coalition has raised just $100 million toward its goal of a $300 million fund — already a relatively modest goal considering the capital intensity of novel infrastructure projects. Bloomberg previously reported that the group aimed to raise the full amount by the end of October 2025, raising questions about the willingness of LPs to bet on projects at this crucial but capital-intensive juncture.
When I think about repurposing used electric vehicle batteries for stationary storage, I think of battery recycling giant Redwood Materials, which raised a $425 million Series E in January after moving aggressively into this promising market. But while Redwood’s well-established recycling business certainly provides it with the largest pipeline of used batteries, it’s far from the only company pursuing this business model. A smaller player with a largely similar approach underscored that this week, when it announced a $40 million Series B to scale its gigafactory in Texas and expand its facilities in British Columbia.
That’s Moment Energy, which focuses on using second-life EV batteries to power commercial and industrial sites such as data centers, hospitals, and factories. Like Redwood, it relies on proprietary software to aggregate battery packs with myriad chemistries and design specs into coordinated grid-scale systems. What the company sees as its critical differentiator, however, is its safety standards. Moment has achieved UL certification, a key safety benchmark that it says others in the industry have yet to meet.
In a shot at its competitors, the company described itself in a press release as the “only provider proven capable of deploying second-life battery storage systems in the built environment without special dispensations or regulatory loopholes.” While Moment never names names, Redwood’s first commercial-scale system sits on its own private land in an open air setting, where certification is arguably unnecessary. “What most other second life [battery] companies are now trying to say is, let’s just lobby to make second life UL certification easier, because it is impossible to get UL certification, as it stands,” the company’s CEO, Edward Chiang, told TechCrunch. “But at Moment, we say that’s not true. We got it.”
As I wrote last September, it’s a good time to be a critical minerals startup, because as you may have heard, “critical minerals are the new oil.” These materials sit at the center of modern energy infrastructure — batteries, magnets, photovoltaic cells, and electrical wiring, to name just a few uses — plus their supply is concentrated in geopolitically tense regions and subject to extreme price volatility. It also certainly doesn’t hurt that the Trump administration loves them and wants to mine and refine way more of them in the U.S.
The latest beneficiary of this enthusiasm is Magrathea, which this week raised a $24 million Series A to build what it says will be the only new magnesium smelter in the U.S., in Arkansas. The company has now raised over $100 million in total, including a $28 million grant from the Department of Defense. Its approach relies on an electrolysis-based process that’s able to extract pure magnesium from seawater and brines, which it positions as a cleaner, cheaper alternative to the high-heat, emission-intensive method that China uses to produce most of the world’s magnesium today.
The U.S. military has taken note of this potential new domestic supply. Magrathea’s 2022 seed round coincided with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as the military looked to scale domestic defense tech supply chains. Magnesium alloys are often used to help reduce weight in EV components, a benefit equally applicable to military helicopters, drones, and next-generation fighter jets. So while these defense applications represent somewhat of a pivot from the startup’s initial focus, a greener fighter jet is still better than a dirty fighter jet.