Author: John Tough

Capital Allocators Forcing Energy Transition

Capital Allocators Forcing Energy Transition

Capital allocation is a critical lifeline for the oil & gas industry. The industry is incredibly capital intensive: pipelines, refineries, rigs, fracking sites… are all multi-billion dollar efforts.

Given the capital intensity to build and maintain these carbon-emitting assets, when the money talks, the executives listen. And the money is beginning to talk:

Last year, Larry Fink at BlackRock wrote an impactful note to his fellow CEOs on climate change.

Climate Risk is Investment Risk: In the near future – and sooner than most anticipate – there will be a significant reallocation of capital.

The proclamation was bold, but not specifically targeting any asset or company. But now the allocators are calling out companies and climate negative firms.

That is a big change in communications and I expect we will see this level of climate-related activism grow. And the firms will listen.

Industrial Tech: do more with more

Industrial Tech: do more with more

In yesterday’s post I covered one of the subtle highlights of revenue diversification: The New York, New York Rule to Revenue. Quite simply, the companies that can get lean and profitable on low margin industries can be very successful when tweaking their product as the company scales into higher margin verticals. And there is a second, hidden benefit to revenue diversification.

Hidden Benefit 2: Do More With More

The verticals within energy and industrials behave more similarly than appears on the surface. Generally each of these analog and hard-asset industries has the following stages to their process:

Sales & Development -> Construction/Fabrication -> Distribution -> Operations & Maintenance -> Customer Management

At Energize I am fortunate to see where startups focus their efforts, and a common belief is to focus on one vertical and one point in this ecosystem: O&M analytics for wind; distribution logistics for a commodity; sales management for hardware OEM…

While I applaud focus, in this space, making a product cross-industry ready as soon as possible is a huge positive. Energize has seen the greatest success for this expansion when the core product has a data advantage. The expansion can look like this:

Energize Ventures has seen success in software firms expanding within the critical infrastructure verticals. The data products have the most success in expansion.

Why?

  • Improving your product & data model with cross-industry use cases: the best start-ups are looking to hoover up as many data sources as possible to improve the underlying analytics & model. The decisions in critical infrastructure, are concave: the predictions need to be correct and a bad prediction can be catastrophic. (Thanks to Ash Fontana for the concave/convex framework) Great entrepreneurs realize this early on and seek multiple inputs to their data product. For example, inspection algorithms trained to work for a transmission line tend to learn from models that evaluate within oil & gas pipelines, or when a SME is inspecting a railroad track. And since these are mission critical assets, decisions and predictions need to be faultless and subject matter experts pay premiums for proven models.
  • Early horizontal expansion forces and entrepreneurs to build scalable distribution and implementation. The best teams use this moment to build distribution (intra-customer and cross-customer) within the product at this stage.
  • Accelerate new revenue: leverage the fact that the sales and purchase patterns are surprising similar across these hard asset industries. And the software needs, specifically the data products, have incredible overlap. Serving multiple industries might require some change to the marketing and value-proposition language but the models are quite similar.
  • Critical infrastructure customers are looking for validation: your ability to engage and retain a high-touch customer. Your ability to show different industry logos at an enduring level drives confidence in your staying power as a firm and your ability to be a good partner throughout the lengthy sales implementation timeline. This is the why BD and channel partners work so well in these industries.

As shown above, by deliberately seeking cross-industry adoption, a startup can drive product enhancements and force a more traditional approach to software distribution. More is more.

The New York, New York Rule to Revenue

The New York, New York Rule to Revenue

Portfolio and revenue diversification has its’ documented benefits.

When covering revenue diversification, most teams focus on removing the downside risks: revenue concentration, regulatory impacts, competition, sales cycles, etc…

BUT, there are two hidden benefits to revenue diversification that are not as well covered that I look for when evaluating a business. I will cover those topics today & tomorrow.

Hidden Benefit 1: THE NEW YORK, NEW YORK RULE

One hidden benefit for industrial technologies that serve the critical infrastructure verticals is how customer diversity grants a start-up exposure to win higher margin contracts. Here is my incredibly simple approach: the higher the margin available in the customer’s underlying product, the more investment that prospective customer can make in advancing IT/OT technologies. This approach is naturally consistent with the “value based pricing” blog I wrote about last month. The driver to this opportunity is the forcing function of lean product development and efficient distribution in the lower margin industries that subsequently creates greater cumulative profitability elsewhere.

If an industrial technology company is forced to make their unit economics work for the narrow-budgeted, low margin commodity provider (read: power, utilities) then the margin available to deliver that product to higher margin verticals should allow for materially greater profits. (competition pending!) These lower margin industries are a bootcamp to focus on delivering the highest value at the lowest price with an efficient go to market strategy. I joke that this is my Sinatra “New York New York Rule” and that ““If you can make it here you can make it anywhere” I insist that start-ups increase pricing when going to these other verticals… they deserve it!

The site, Ready Ratios, shows gross margin by industry. And these directionally line up with my broad strokes interpretation below:

Show me a technology start-up making good margin in agriculture and power and I will show you an excellent business in the other verticals.

Uber’s Big Electric Vehicle News

Uber’s Big Electric Vehicle News

Earlier today the CEO of Uber announced the following:

Awesome announcement and i wanted to do a back of the envelopment analysis of Uber impact for their US footprint:

5 billion trips per year 6 miles per trip is ~ 30 billion miles per year. At 20 miles/ gallon gas that means just in the US alone that Uber is removing 1.5 billion gallons of fuel. REMOVED. At $3 a gallon, Uber is removing $4.5 billion in fuels revenue to the oil & gas industry.

~ 1 kWh takes an EV ~4 miles. In order to power all of the Uber trips with electric power, the US needs to add annual production of 7 billion kWh. A large wind turbine generates ~6 million kWh of energy per year, meaning that to power all of those Uber rides we need to add ~1,200 wind turbines. There are already over 50,000 wind turbines operating in the US and another 10,000+ in development.

At 10 cents per kWh, the cost to the Uber drivers for their energy source is now a total of $700M, a savings of over $3 billion to drivers.

These outcomes, where obvious unit economics drive change, are going to continue to make press releases.

There are many winners in this outcome. Here are a few:

+ Consumers for improved air quality and less local emissions

+ Utilities as mobility moves to being powered by electrons: rate base new renewable generation and local EV infrastructure

+ Energy management firms who upgrade local power distribution: Schneider, Honeywell, Rockwell, ABB. The grid needs to be able to manage increased power flow

+ EV charging networks are now increasingly important

+ Uber drivers who now spend less on fuel

Resilience & Generation at the Edge

Resilience & Generation at the Edge

Decarbonization. Decentralization. Digitization.

I didn’t think we needed to explicitly state “reliability” as a pillar because no-one expected a decline in quality with our next generation structures. But, given the increasing climate-based fluctuations, as well as the intermittent nature of current renewables, we likely need to adjust our 3-pronged approach to specifically include resilience.

I, perhaps incorrectly, thought that we had addressed base-load and resilience issues through better digital controls and more voluminous, decentralized generation. There is an increasingly unchallenged assumption that growth of intermittent renewables will eventually be paired with the cost-decline of batteries. And while I still believe that batteries will be the eventual/ critical complementary power source, there are many ways batteries will engage with the grid… + even the definition of a battery may change to include modular nuclear.

As stated in a past post, Energize is investing in the transition, not the outcome: “Rather than attempting to monetize a self-selected outcome (clean energy) we now focus our process on enabling the energy and industrial transition.” Energize remains focused on the software applications enabled by this transition.

Over the coming months I will be expanding my scope to better understand how and why we can better directly address resilience in supply. There are a number of jump-off points to revisit to see if the technology is ready for prime time:

– vehicle to grid (V2G) software (resi, fleets)

– next generation inverters and home / commercial control systems (and biz model)

– broader co-generation opportunities, including small modular nuclear reactors, modular batteries (readiness, policy)

All of these technologies still assume increased generation and distribution at the edge. I see smaller-scale generation’s ability to grow and iterate more quickly as a key component to the energy transition.

Who should we be speaking to making advancements in this space?

Labor Day: Thanks to the utility workforce

Labor Day: Thanks to the utility workforce

There are 540,000 employees tagged to the US utility industry. According to NAICS this definition includes:

  • Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution: NAICS 2211
  • Natural Gas Distribution: NAICS 2212
  • Water, Sewage and Other Systems: NAICS 2213

The composition of this workforce is actually down by ~3% over the past decade. While I am uncertain on the future employment growth in the industry, I am certain that the underlying types of jobs (wind technicians, battery engineers) are going to change.

The majority of the current workers are front-line, either for installation, repair or meter reading. At times these workers have thankless jobs and are asked to work at all hours in response to storms and other difficult situations. There are many reasons to be thankful on Labor Day, but here is another to add to your list: if you see a utility worker, be sure to say thanks.

Sunday Sales Series – Retail Energy Contracts

Sunday Sales Series – Retail Energy Contracts

Today’s sales topics are going to cover the commissions that retailer energy providers, rooftop solar installers, and community solar firms are willing to pay to acquire residential and commercial customers:

I co-wrote this post with Jonathan Crowder. And before getting to the numbers, w need to define a few key terms:

Originators: In the energy space the main forms of customer acquisition remain offline brokers. These brokers operate through door-to-door sales, outbound phone sales, and other traditional sales techniques. Online origination through state sites, comparison sites, energy websites and connected home /clean energy brands are the fastest growing form of customer acquisition

Upfront: the amount that an energy firm is willing to pay upon confirmation of a customer’s enrollment. The energy firm usually pays this spiff upon receiving the customer’s payment information – or upon the the payment of the first month’s energy bill.

Residual: the % of the supply portion of the energy bill that an energy firm is willing to pay the originator for as long as the customer stays with the energy firm. This payment option is more specific to retail energy and is meant to incentivize the originator to not keep flipping the customer to another provider every time the customer contract comes up for renewal. These payments are done monthly, in arrears, and are usually tied to the size of the customer’s energy bill.

A “mil”: In the energy compensation narrative, a mil refers to Is 1/1,000th of a US dollar, or 1/10th of a cent. This is important to know because the “mils” are how energy providers create business alignment with originators. The mil is used to calculate how much an originator earns in monthly commissions. For example, if a small business uses 10,0000 kWh of energy per month, and the originator agreed to a “5 mils” contract, then the originator gets paid a monthly amount of (10,000 kWh * $0.005 dollars per kWh)= $50 per month of commission.

Contract Term: Like a cable bill or your phone plan, many energy contracts can range from prepaid monthly plans to 3, 6, 12 or 24+ month contracts. Some community solar contracts are 5 years, or more! And a rooftop solar contract is ultimately tied to the house (vs the homeowner) and can be 20+ years long. Like with other home services products, terminating a contract early likely results in a pre-payment penalty.

Renewal: At the end of a contract, customer’s can either roll over into a new plan with their existing energy supplier or search for a new firm.

Rate: The amount, usually charged per kWh (just like your utility bill), that you pay for energy. It is important to note that there are different prices, depending on the portion of the energy bill you are covering. Some firms (retail energy providers, community solar) may just be substituting out the supply portion of your energy bill. Other offerings, like rooftop solar, may include both supply and broader distribution charges as part of their rate.

SALES CONTRACTS

Since we are talking about a commodity here any additional margin paid to a broker is very simply added to the underlying rate. If a retailer is pricing energy at 10 cents and you want to make a penny of margin as an originator, they will simply allow you to Mark the rate as 11 cents in your reseller agreement. The problem with this structure is that the least informed customers can pay very non-standard rates if they are sold hard by a broker. I have heard horror stories where offline brokers charges a 50% premium to the underlying commodity.

Thankfully, digitall experiences are bringing better experiences. And there is greater consistency to what online brokers are able to charge, and therefore able to pass along to the consumer. Here they are:

Residential consumer, Texas: $125 upfront 2-3 mils. The average texas home consumes around 15,000 kWh so the retailer is willing to pay up to $175 for the first year of contract and about $50-75 per year thereafter.

Residential consumer, non-Texas: $75 upfront and 2-3 mils. The average US home outside of Texas consumes about 10,000 kWh so these accounts are smaller and usually less profitable. This results in about a $100 first year payment and $30-40 annual value thereafter.

One of the most ludicrous part of this energy experience is the equivalent “rake”. At best, a customer can expect to save around $50-75 a year by choosing a retail supplier that isn’t their own utility. And the retailers pay nearly double that to acquire a customer. The cost to educate and acquire a customer is at least 2x the savings – so the system is mostly broken.

Commercial consumer: standards are variable but usually ranges from 3 to 10 mils depending on the size of the account. At Choose we had a lot of small accounts (restaurants) who were around 30,000 kWh per year so they would pay us about $150 per year at 5 mils. Once we had a huge warehouse in the Port of NJ sign up through our site at 10 million kWh+ annually and we made tens of thousands of dollars each year on one meter. This range shows how variable the commercial market can be in the supply arena. It is these big accounts where offline brokers focus and try to add large broker fees to make mega-commissions and a lot of the “fat” still lives in the system.

Bill Gurley famously covered the different “rakes” of online platforms. Online sites commissions range from ~3-30%. In retail energy, if the average rate is 10 cents supply, then the originators are taking about a 5% take- pretty low. However, if you take into account that this is a commodity with lower margins, at these commissions the originators capture as much as 50% of the profit. And that is the real apples-apples comparison here.

Next week we will cover “green retail plans”, community solar and rooftop solar origination figures. I will also cover how retail suppliers coordinate to monetize on the broader connected home opportunity.

Fire 🔥 and Technology’s Response

Fire 🔥 and Technology’s Response

Unless you have been under a rock for a few months, you know that yet another California fire season started months early. The volume and ferocity of these fires seems to grow every year. And recent data that less than 20,000 forest firefighters are working in the state shows that we do not have enough manpower to address these infernos head-on. Rather, we need to use next-gen technology solutions to amplify our efforts in prevention, detection, and immediate response to these fires.

There are a number of companies trying to help solve this problem either through observation, prediction, and response and I wanted to highlight them here today:

Overstory: (Link) Combines AI and satellite data to support vegetation management at utilities. Vegetation encroaching upon poles & wires is a leading ignition cause.

Descartes Labs: (Link) Applies ML to data sources like satellite imagery for better forecasting, monitoring and historical analysis, enabling clients to collect data daily from public and commercial imagery providers and calibrate it for scientific analysis. This satellite imagery can help spot fires at their infancy.

Jupiter Intelligence: (Link) Uses AI and proprietary climate modeling techniques to deliver asset level predictions on peril impact: fire, wind, heat and water perils, from 1 hour ahead to 50 years. (Note: Energize is an investor here!) The company also received a Moore grant to build fire predictions for California public entities.

Zonehaven: (Link) Combines critical data and modeling capabilities to help first responders and communities understand, minimize and respond to an emergency. As fires become more commonplace around our towns and cities, we will need to have better response and evac plans.

Of course, a top long-term priority for addressing climate change is to continue to invest in new tech that is decarbonizing our power and mobility sectors. In the meantime, though, we must invest in adaptation technologies to live alongside changes in our environment.

Who else is leveraging new technology to address the fire problem?

** ADDING NAMES SHARED FROM TWITTER NETWORK **

Terrafuse.ai (Link) Actionable climate intelligence for a resilient earth

FirePerimiter.com (Link) Situational intelligence for public safety based on collaborative, real-time disaster visualization

GeoSite Inc: (Link) Geosite is a cloud-based geospatial data marketplace with integrated spatial data management and collaboration.

BuzzSolutions: (Link) Safeguarding the world’s energy infrastructure through: “Artificial Intelligence, Actionable Insights and Predictive Analytics for Power Line and Grid Inspections”

NearSpace Labs: (Link) Near Space Labs provides timely wide-scale imagery from the stratosphere at down-to-earth prices.

All Energy Transition Projections are Wrong

All Energy Transition Projections are Wrong

Energy analysts are bad at predicting system-wide changes. Every year the Department of Energy and other agencies vastly underestimate the new energy resources being energized across the country.

The same incorrect predictions are now also occurring around electric vehicles. The graphs below on EV adoption projections shows how key industry research groups are now also incorrectly predicting EV adoption. Each of these groups have to keep re-upping estimates every subsequent year.

The main entities that predict these levels include: OPEC, EIA, and BNEF. Of course, some of the oil & gas projections should be taken with a grain of salt as they are scared about this transition! Knowing that, as seen below, there is a big difference between the estimates of these groups!

Big, growing markets with a range of projected outcomes allow for contrarian operators and investors to create large businesses with great returns. Energize is energized about this opportunity.

Energy Transition M&A: Is a new wave coming?

Energy Transition M&A: Is a new wave coming?

(Note: this post was co-authored with Kevin Stevens, Partner at Intelis Capital)

Much like its industrial counterpart, energy technology is broad, but in a different way. Energy has the usual two categories, enterprise, and consumer, but also contains “hard” technologies like solar and battery storage. This bifurcation along two segments creates varying outcomes.

Since the energy transition is an emerging trend, data points for exits are limited. The companies that have exited are the success stories of “cleantech 1.0”. The average Series A date in our dataset is Q2 2008 which is the heart of this era and the majority of exits occurred before the end of 2017. 

Capital for energy technology largely dried up between 2009-2016, so it’s unsurprising that exits became less common as fewer companies were funded. Additionally, it’s likely the outcomes in our dataset are smaller than future outcomes as we haven’t seen many exits in today’s market which values technology even more favorably than just a few years ago. Link to analysis can be found here.

CONSUMER TECHNOLOGIES

Using the median data here’s the narrative for consumer technologies in energy (note: Tesla and Sunrun are outliers):

  1. A startup raises $9.6M on a ~$24M post-money valuation
  2. Over the next 6 years, the company raises an additional $165M in capital prior to exit
  3. At the time of exit, the startup has an approximate revenue/bookings of $108M for a cash efficiency of 65%.
  4. The company exits at $972M, meaning the average multiple is 6.4x Trailing Twelve Month revenue. And the exit price is a 2.9x multiple on total invested capital, a 57.9x return on the Series A, and a 1.2x return on the pre-exit round.

ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGIES

Using the median data here is the narrative for enterprise technologies selling to energy companies:

  1. A startup raises $5.4 on a ~$16M post-money valuation
  2. Over the next 5-6 years, the company raises an additional $40M in capital prior to exit
  3. At the time of exit, the startup has an approximate revenue/bookings of $157M 
  4. The company exits at $557M, meaning the average multiple is 4.1x Trailing Twelve Month revenue. And the exit price is a 10.5x multiple on total invested capital, a 21.6x return on the Series A, and a 1.5x return on the pre-exit round.

What are the comparative takeaways for each of these segments?

  1. The data points are limited, we only have 5 true exits in the consumer data set with two big outliers – Tesla and Sunrun – and only 8 documented exits in the enterprise segment. As with the industrial analysis, the larger narrative is how fell exits there are- and that the graveyard doesn’t necessarily speak the truth.
  2. In these companies, early-stage investors did extremely well. This makes sense since most of the Series A investors in this dataset financed product development in a category that was unproven. 
  3. Consumer businesses require more capital to grow but also reach larger markets. As a result, they earn higher multiples and exit prices than their enterprise counterparts. 
  4. At 16x trailing twelve-month revenue, software companies earn the highest multiple. hardware companies earn just over 5x. And a surprising narrative is that the “tweener” companies that merge hardware and software actually have the lowest multiple at 3x.
  5. There has been a lull in exits which makes intuitive sense. From 2007-2012, clean energy-related startups received $20B annually in new funding – that number plummeted to $3B from 2013-2017. Fewer companies funded = fewer companies to exit. 

Given the average time to exit post a Series A is 5-6 years this means that the renewed funding levels in 2018 and 2019 will likely start to produce headline exits in 2023. Grab your popcorn!