Clean Energy Tech Deals Are Booming—Powered By Data Centers

Welcome back to Current Climate. The public pushback to data centers shows no sign of slowing, with New York announcing a moratorium on new such projects last week. Yet those power-thirsty facilities, blamed for jacking up utility costs for consumers, are also boosting financial deals for clean energy-related companies.

Globally, there were 153 cleantech-related public listings and acquisitions in the year’s first half, the highest level ever, according to data compiled by researcher Currence. Venture investment in the space surged 55% from a year earlier to $26 billion, the highest level in four years.

The uptick comes even amid less favorable policies for clean energy in the U.S. under the Trump administration, which pivoted aggressively away from renewables to promoting oil, gas and coal. Yet a rapid rise in energy demand driven by data centers and the declining cost of renewables, combined with successful IPOs for companies like geothermal power provider Fervo, which raised $1.9 billion, and nuclear reactor developer X-Energy, which snagged $1 billion, helped the space boom. Investment funds also flowed into nuclear power startups such as Inertia and Blue Energy in the first half, even though they won’t have commercial projects generating power for years.

And regardless of New York’s new rule, more data center-related energy deals are on the way this year. “An urgent need for capital to expand manufacturing and power capacity has private companies turning to public markets,” Currence said. “Appetite for any way to invest in the data center boom shows no sign of slowing down. Expect many more data center suppliers to go public this year.”

U.S. sales of electric vehicles have plunged since the Trump administration killed a $7,500 federal credit last year, but a group of startups hopes to change that. They’re preparing to launch a new wave of quirky, affordable battery-powered models over the next year that are distinctly different from anything Tesla or other big automakers offer.

The newest is a small, inexpensive “life utility vehicle” from Miami-based Chip, which starts taking reservations today. It only has a top speed of 25 miles per hour, and is intended as a secondary vehicle designed to handle daily shopping trips, school runs and short commutes. It’s available in four- and six-seat versions, with a $15,000 base price. Though essentially a beefed-up golf cart resembling a small jeep it has far more safety features, including higher ground clearance, a roll bar and flat LFP battery pack along the floor to protect occupants. It also has multiple cameras and radar to monitor traffic conditions. The vehicle’s range is 100 miles per charge, which can be done with a standard 110-volt wall outlet, though a 240-volt socket will repower it in less than half the time.

Founder and CEO Jameson Detweiler said he plans to add autonomous driving features, such as self-parking and the ability to drop off and pick up passengers or make grocery runs on its own, but did not provide a timeline. There’s already a $6 billion U.S. market for electric golf carts, including those used on public roads in coastal, suburban and retirement communities, but Detweiler says a product with more technology, safety and rider comfort is needed.

“I like to say golf carts have escaped the golf communities, and the biggest growth sector has really been young families in these kinds of edge urban and suburban markets,” he told Forbes. “But golf carts are also fundamentally unsafe. … So I decided really what we needed to do is create a best-in-class, category-defining vehicle with a direct-to-consumer and direct-to-business sales model.”

I started the Partnership 12 years ago. It was this idea that we need to do it differently to hold brands accountable for all the stuff they're making, but also put them to work. There are lots of nonprofits that name and shame, but I wanted to build something that insisted and assisted, which means hold them accountable and then help. We've grown by more than $650 million since that idea. I'm so proud of what we've done, including passing significant policy in this country that did not exist, that further holds the companies that we're working with accountable–and getting their support and holding them accountable.

But founders have a shelf life, and it's been 12 years. I felt like when I stepped down at the end of the month, I left it all on the table. But I love this work so much that I want a next leader who's ready to bring the same amount of gusto that I've brought.

We've put grant dollars from those companies making stuff into more than 20% of the recycling facilities across the country. So we've expanded recycling infrastructure. We've worked in thousands of communities. We've put 2 million recycling carts on the ground. We have 200 active grants right now in communities across the country. That's all important, but that's all voluntary work. Which is an important demonstration tool, but has a ceiling. I'm proud of that work.

I'm also proud to show that we are an example of the ceiling of what voluntary climate or environmental action can do. But you really need policy to get it done. So the passing of policy, extended producer responsibility, but then implementing it. Passing it is actually a ton of work, and it's the easy part. Implementing it is really the hard part. So we're still there doing that.

Those are the three big buckets that I think I'm really proud of. That center one, of talking about the cap of what you can expect from voluntary action, was super helpful with the UN Global Plastics Treaty discussions, which have all but stalled and are changing. … I think we're a great example of how much can get done and where the ceiling is.

Is there any frustration with the loss of support or interest by the current administration when it comes to recycling and environmental policies?

It's definitely different. But I testified in front of Congress last summer at the House Energy Committee. I was the only witness of the Democrats, and it was about a plastics topic. I thought I might get my testimony and nothing else since I was the underdog, but I had the most questions. They were from the full spectrum of right and left. The policymakers were interested in how their communities are going to pay for their trash and recycling. They were interested in the domestic supply chain, which is what recycling is. It's creating feedstock for manufacturing. They were interested in the human health impacts of plastics. So we built real bipartisan support out of that. We've applied that to the Circle Act, which is a bill in Congress right now that has bipartisan support.

It helps bring tax incentives for recycling. So I continue to thread the needle between right and left and blue and red, but also public and private. I think that's what's unique about the Recycling Partnership. I say the exact same thing to Greenpeace that I say to Exxon. It's all data-driven, “this is the truth. Where are we? Where do we need to go?”