Womble Bond Dickinson 2023 Energy Transition Outlook Survey Report

Click here to view this report as a PDF.

Click here to view the press release. 

Table of Contents

• Executive Summary
• Industry Insights on Energy Transition
• Policy and Regulation
• Green(er) and Clean Energy Solutions
• The Path Ahead
• Methodology
• Energy and Natural Resources Sector

Executive Summary

In a year of sudden geopolitical shifts and associated market upheaval, energy sector executives and investors are adjusting their energy transition strategies to respond to the rising pressure to access sufficient – and ideally lower-carbon – energy in the short term, while moving to carbon-free renewable sources in the long term. Accordingly, many industry leaders are deepening their focus on decarbonization, “cleaner” technologies and fully renewable resources. However, some in the sector are also dipping back into legacy fuel sources amid more recent supply and demand imbalances.  

These findings from the Womble Bond Dickinson (WBD) 2023 Energy Transition Outlook Survey extend our Global Energy and Natural Resources Team’s ongoing effort to provide insight into international progress toward a net-zero economy and the factors influencing the pace of the energy transition. This year’s results provide a fresh perspective as to how executives and investors in the sector are navigating the challenges and seizing the opportunities amid unprecedented and chaotic times.

Among the major takeaways:

• At least 70% of both energy executives and investors have changed their transition strategies to some degree over the past year.
• Energy executives deepened their interest in three key areas that are vital to energy transition: 1) energy efficiency, 2) electrification in areas like smart buildings, efficiency technologies, and transportation, and 3) options for the development and expanded use of biofuels/biomass.
• While interest in hydrogen and geothermal investments remains strong, most investors expect it will take at least five or more years for green hydrogen or geothermal to have a meaningful impact.
• Nuclear power has increased its appeal as an investment or growth opportunity; however, many investors still worry about public opposition to the technology, a concern some executives share.  
• When it comes to ESG, nearly three-quarters of energy executives report having implemented ESG policies or are in the process of doing so, though it appears to be less of a priority for investors this year.

Skepticism around U.S. climate goals persists. Even though 42% of respondents said the U.S. is “likely” or “very likely” to reach President Biden’s target of decarbonizing the power sector by 2035 – up from 32% last year – nearly a quarter said that goal is “very unlikely,” compared to 13% in 2021. At the same time, while executives are more confident than they were a year ago that energy companies are prepared to reduce GHG emissions, investor confidence on that front has slipped.

Societal expectations continue to be a critical driver for this global transformation. But so is increased awareness of the energy security imperative. At this year’s Asia Pacific Petroleum Conference, energy security was among the hottest topics, with energy availability a key concern for governments the world over. The war in Ukraine has disrupted energy supplies – most obviously in Europe – while driving considerable demand shifts across the globe.  

These factors have driven heightened interest in renewables and other clean power sources as energy prices surge worldwide, with global oil and gas sector income set to rise to $4 trillion this year, double the 2021 level and more than twice its five-year average, according to the International Energy Agency. Indeed, market shifts and new policies to address the global energy crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could expedite the clean energy transition away from fossil fuels, assuming governments follow through on those policy goals, the IEA said in its 2022 World Energy Outlook, released October 27. Many hope the transition to renewables will help ease the strain on industries and consumers facing a sharp rise in energy costs.  

To that end, oil and gas companies are investing profits in renewables projects as part of a long-term strategy. In the medium term, the accelerating development of decarbonization technologies demonstrates the recognition that fossil fuels will be part of our energy security equation for years to come.  

Here in the United States, sweeping domestic legislation such as the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) – which contained tens of billions of dollars committed to clean energy investments, including more than $62 billion for Department of Energy (DOE) programs – gave a significant boost to renewable energy development. Meanwhile, this year’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the most significant U.S. climate legislation ever passed, provides considerable follow-on incentives for the energy industry. The bill’s approximately $369 billion in funding provides considerable investment for clean energy production and the development of clean energy technology, support for transitioning utilities to clean electricity and increased tax credits for a broad array of renewable projects, including those that embrace hydrogen and carbon capture technology.

Against this volatile backdrop, WBD again sought to capture attitudes and insights in the sector by surveying a cohort of 130-plus energy industry leaders, from investors to C-suite executives, across a range of energy subsectors, including oil and gas, renewables, utilities, mining and minerals, and nuclear energy. Responses from “executives” comprise those with C-suite titles, business or operations managers and in-house legal roles.

Our second annual survey results show that, despite rising challenges, the energy industry remains committed to shifting to more sustainable power sources while looking to natural gas as the transition fuel of choice to help manage energy security concerns as it moves toward more sustainable power sources. 

Key Findings

• Energy leaders have responded to difficult market and geopolitical conditions by accelerating their adoption of generally cleaner fuel sources. Both executives and investors expect the industry to increase energy supply, notably regardless of fuel source, to counteract current price inflation. 
• At least half of all respondents think the IIJA will move the needle on areas including battery storage, hydrogen hubs and the transmission grid. Considerably fewer think that nuclear power will benefit from the legislation. 
• Respondents viewed vehicle pricing, lack of infrastructure and battery supply roughly equally when asked about hurdles to consumer electric vehicle (EV) adoption. Insufficient driving range and lack of compelling incentives were less of a concern, likely because respondents find the foundational technologies to be, at least in the near term, lacking.
• Utility executives are in broad agreement about the biggest challenges facing the industry. Far and away, they cite fuel availability, supply chain disruptions and regulatory compliance as their most pressing challenges. 

Authors

• Jeffrey Whittle, Head of Global Energy and Natural Resources Sector at Womble Bond Dickinson
• Lisa Rushton, Co-Head of Energy and Natural Resources Sector and Head of Renewable Energy Subsector at Womble Bond Dickinson
• Belton Zeigler, Co-Head of Energy and Natural Resources Sector and Head of Utilities Subsector at Womble Bond Dickinson
• Shawan Gillians, Of Counsel in Energy and Natural Resources Sector at Womble Bond Dickinson

Industry Insights on Energy Transition

Energy transition strategies have shifted

Reflecting the strong geopolitical and market pressures of the past 12 months, 79% of energy executives and 72% of investors have changed their transition strategies at least slightly since 2021, with both groups placing more focus on renewables, natural gas and decarbonization technologies. Those pressures – along with significant regulatory and legislative shifts – are prompting many in the sector to reassess their priorities, needs and capabilities in areas from meeting reduction targets to implementing ESG policies. An increasing number of energy executives also say energy efficiency improvements, biofuel/biomass, and electrification of areas like smart buildings, efficiency technologies, and transportation are relevant investment or growth opportunities for their business. 

“Volatile market conditions are pushing industry leaders to increase their focus on renewables, with the high price of fuel helping to push the transition along,” said Jeffrey Whittle, global head of WBD’s Energy and Natural Resources Sector. That’s certainly the case for utility providers, according to WBD Energy and Natural Resources Sector attorney Shawan Gillians, who noted, “The electric market is moving toward renewables for financial reasons, regardless of what the political headwinds are.”

Market conditions appear to have influenced this change

Market conditions are accelerating the rate of transition and determining the prioritization of investments even as the need to mitigate climate change is the foundational driver. As high demand for natural gas and fuel outstrips supply, the sector is turning back to traditional energy sources such as oil and coal, potentially as stopgap measures to ensure near-term energy security. And, with soaring profits and increased pressure to meet ESG metrics, energy executives have increased capital budgets to invest in the development of renewable resources, transmission and storage. 

“Given the uncertainty of the times, energy leaders seem to be trying to extend the life of coal as much as they can, as a hedge,” Whittle said. “But the use of renewables is clearly on the rise across the board.”

Of course, executives and investors approach the issue of energy transition differently. Investors place multiple bets on a variety of technologies, while executives tend to focus on one or two most relevant to their core businesses. As you will see throughout this report, the contrast between strategy and tactics is apparent in the approaches of these two groups. 

Executives are more optimistic than investors that the build-out of the grid and further development of renewables will counter rising prices

Executives are far more bullish than investors on the potential for new developments in decarbonization technologies and the acceleration of renewable development to counteract recent price hikes. More striking, however, is the disparity in what executives and investors view as the role energy storage must play in addressing rising energy costs. This likely arises from a recognition by executives that storage is vital for grid stability – especially when integrating fluctuating renewable energy resources – as well as for the overall balance of supply and demand. The greater pessimism among investors, on the other hand, may stem from concern about the source of funding for building out and modernizing the grid to support a large-scale renewable transition.

One in four energy executives has already implemented ESG initiatives in their organizations 

Environmental, social and governance (ESG) metrics and values have become part of the calculus for energy companies as investors prioritize businesses that develop and implement strategies to address these factors. While some companies are addressing ESG reactively based on stakeholder or investor demands, others are viewing ESG as a way to define their long-term value-creation strategies for investors and other stakeholders. Regardless of the underlying motivation, more than a quarter of energy executives surveyed report having already implemented ESG policies, while another 44% say they’re in the process of doing so.

Despite this embrace of ESG, a subgroup of executives appear to have reexamined their priorities in this area or paused implementation of ESG strategies. This could be due to the influence of certain events during this past year, including geopolitical circumstances, increased enforcement against greenwashing and the lack of clear regulatory standards. It will be interesting to see how the numbers shift again next year once new rules and regulations are implemented in the U.S., U.K. and Europe.

For those energy executives that are implementing or considering implementing ESG initiatives, fewer report that they were under pressure from boards or regulators to implement ESG policies, and more say that the adoption of a broader corporate social responsibility strategy and industry standards encouraged ESG participation. 

Meanwhile, only half of energy executives say GHG reduction targets are a key focus of their ESG efforts.  This could be because “net-zero” targets have already been established, or because the results of environmental efforts may take longer to be realized. For investors, the time horizon matters. 

Both shifts suggest that, overall, energy companies have made progress over the past year and are now embarking on more advanced ESG-related initiatives.

“While some consider ESG a potential hindrance to profits, energy companies that implement ESG programs aren’t just setting the stage for the energy transition – they’re also ensuring their organizations’ long-term access to both public and private capital,” said Lisa Rushton, co-head of WBD’s Energy and Natural Resources Sector and head of the firm’s Renewable Energy Subsector.

Investors and executives largely agree on energy transition challenges

Both investors and executives cite political gridlock, infrastructure requirements and supply chain issues as critical hurdles affecting energy transition. Investors, however, appear significantly more concerned about the financial burden of stranded assets – such as coal-fired power plants – that are created by efforts to meet decarbonization targets.

Policy and Regulation 

Sentiment has shifted over the last year on preparedness to meet emissions-reduction benchmarks  

President Biden has set an ambitious goal for the U.S. to reduce 2030 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 50% from today’s level while signing an executive order to decarbonize the entire U.S. electricity sector by 2035. 

Over the past year, the realization of what it means to meet those goals appears to have polarized opinions on the matter, with the percentage of energy executives and investors saying that energy companies are “not prepared” and those who said they are “very prepared” both increasing. This split may reflect general upheaval in the sector, with government support for the clean energy transition bolstering a positive outlook for some despite the many challenges that exist to a universal shift to renewables. Optimists for decarbonizing the power sector seem to be focused on improvements in technology and government incentives from recent legislation and regulations enacted under the Biden administration, while pessimists are concerned about compliance costs, the ability to meet energy demand and the pace of change. As we continue to monitor sentiment going forward, these differences of opinion and the drivers of those differences will be particularly important to watch.

More energy executives believe their organizations are prepared to cut GHG emissions than last year

Despite evidence of growing pessimism about the ability of energy companies in general to meet Biden’s 2030 goals for GHG reductions, more executives have grown confident in their own organization’s ability to do so. The gap in sentiment may reflect concerns over significant global supply chain and geopolitical disruptions. Executives could well be unsure as to how their peers are handling these issues, yet they are close enough to their own situations and so are more confident in their own companies’ response to growing pressures. 

Energy investors, however, are not as confident in the readiness of their portfolio companies to meet a commitment to a reduction of more than 50% in GHG emissions by 2030. Grim headlines doubtless spark investor concern about the energy industry’s ability to meet its reduction obligations. As stated above, industry operators are deeply entrenched in the daily operations of their business and could have a positive bias on their ability to meet their goals. Investors, however, may be more skeptical by nature and receive only periodic reports from their portfolio companies.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is widely viewed as bolstering key aspects of the energy transition

On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed the $1.2 trillion IIJA into law. The bill represented a historic investment in our country’s infrastructure, from roads and bridges to ports, airports and wastewater management and treatment – and, of course, to energy production, research and development and storage. The legislation encompasses investments in clean energy demonstrations, existing emission-free electricity plants (like hydropower facilities), grid modernization, the clean energy supply chain and energy efficiency, among other things.

This influx of government capital is potentially game-changing as it reduces investment risk, and, unsurprisingly, our respondents felt that the bill will have a positive impact on a wide variety of energy transition goals, from improving battery storage capacity to hydrogen hub development to electric vehicle infrastructure.

Battery Storage

Over 50% of respondents believe the IIJA will be effective when it comes to battery storage. Certainly, the $500 million allocated to long-duration energy storage, with additional funding potentially coming from part of the $15-plus billion allocated to grid resiliency, demonstrates an understanding of the importance of storage in rendering effective wind, solar and other intermittent clean resources. While additional support will likely be needed, storage deployment will move us that much closer to a carbon-neutral future. 

Fifty percent (50%) of respondents also believe the IIJA will have a positive impact on both transmission grid and electric vehicle infrastructure build-out, perhaps because the bill attempts to address supply-side issues. But aid is not enough. As referenced above, the market will also need clear and reliable guidance from federal and state regulators to ensure future investments are stable once IIJA aid is exhausted. 

However, more broadly, not all respondents are convinced that the IIJA will help the energy transition. We asked what would increase the confidence of those skeptical of the bill. Nearly one in three (30%) found that the IIJA would be ineffective in achieving its stated goals.  More than 70% of these respondents expressed concern about a lack of follow-up legislation or simply said they had little faith that the bill would be effective as written.

More constructively, those unconvinced respondents offered substantive ideas for improving the IIJA’s effectiveness. Three-fourths said the act would benefit from improved alignment between policies at the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). By way of example, the IIJA offers significant grants and incentives for the development of hydrogen technologies and the establishment of hydrogen hubs. 

But questions remain regarding which agency has or will have jurisdiction over such projects and which regulations will apply. The main agencies with the ability to influence the development of the hydrogen industry and related infrastructure include the DOE, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the EPA. Each agency has some form of authority over hydrogen development, deployment and use – but there is no comprehensive regulatory body, and existing regulations tend to address hydrogen issues only incidentally. Additionally, 64% said an increase in economic development incentives and the development of public-private partnerships would help. And 59% said the bill would work better if there was a restructuring of the regulatory powers between federal and state jurisdictions. 

Asked more broadly about how economic incentives such as tax credits, loans and grants will affect the clean energy transition, energy executives and investors said battery development and hydrogen infrastructure will see the biggest impact. Our research showed an expectation that this government support would have less of an effect on other elements of the transition (e.g., creation of a national grid geared toward renewable energy, wind turbines, transmission upgrades and electric vehicle charging). However, the IRA’s passage on August 12th has likely increased optimism and bolstered confidence in the overall ability to meet emissions reductions goals as government investment and incentive programs help companies reduce and manage risks moving forward. 

In addition to providing substantial support for renewable energy projects, the IRA increases the availability of funding and federal income tax credits, commonly known as 45Q credits, for decarbonization technologies such as carbon capture, utilization and sequestration (CCUS) by increasing the annual tax credit value per metric ton while lowering the threshold on qualified carbon dioxide that CCUS projects must reach to be eligible. Had the IRA support been in place prior to our survey, sentiment on CCUS may have been even more positive than is reflected here.  

The IRA also includes a lucrative tax credit for the hydrogen industry that could dramatically reshape that energy subsector. Hydrogen has the potential to be a key solution to the carbon emissions problem, however current technology and infrastructure limitations make green hydrogen production roughly 10 times as expensive as natural gas. The biggest driver of cost reduction in the sector will likely be through scaling up the production and distribution of hydrogen and the manufacturing of system components, according to the Hydrogen Council, an industry group. The investment required to achieve this kind of scale will be enormous, but intervention by the federal government through legislation like the IIJA and IRA has moved us further down the road to making hydrogen a viable clean energy resource. 

Green(er) and Clean Energy Solutions

Concerns linger about electric vehicle adoption 

While most American adults support incentives for increasing the use of electric or hybrid vehicles, they are divided over whether they would consider buying one themselves, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. Indeed, a majority of U.S. adults oppose phasing out gas-powered vehicles in the immediate future, highlighting the considerable public ambivalence in the U.S. around electric vehicles. Hybrid sales grew 76% last year, suggesting that consumers do recognize the need for fuel economy, but they don’t yet want to rely on a fully electric vehicle.  

Our survey revealed similar concerns among industry leaders, with energy executives and investors most worried about the high price of electric vehicles, the relative lack of availability of charging stations and the scarcity of raw materials needed to build electric vehicle batteries. “This isn’t surprising,” Gillians said. “Consumers are concerned about the effectiveness of electric vehicles as well – particularly their range – and that’s hampering their adoption in the marketplace.”

The IRA, however, seeks to lower the cost and thereby increase the adoption of electric vehicles. The bill enacts or extends several end-consumer tax credits for electric vehicles while also allocating billions to electrifying the fleets of the U.S. Postal Service and those of numerous states, municipalities, school districts and Indian tribes – provisions that led one electric vehicle adoption advocacy group to call the IRA “perhaps the most significant legislation to accelerate transportation electrification in U.S. history.” 

Hydrogen appeals to energy executives, but it’s not yet a practical option  

Both investors and executives are very interested in hydrogen’s potential, but, as noted above, the technology remains in a development stage and is not yet ready for mainstream deployment by most energy companies. Hydrogen production remains costly, with zero-emission green hydrogen being the most difficult and expensive to produce. Reducing those costs will entail significant public and private investment, such as that included in the IIJA and IRA, to address these technological and infrastructure barriers. 

Investors, unsurprisingly, are focused on hydrogen for industrial use.  These are proven applications with a more predictable ROI. What is somewhat surprising is the relative lack of interest among executives in distribution and delivery. 

Investors find cost curve and incentive scarcity greater challenges than executives, who worry most about distribution, the pace of technology development and the lack of infrastructure 

This divergence in perspective is attributable to the differences between investor goals and executive goals. It would seem that energy investors are concerned with the development of a hydrogen market in which the fundamental economics make sense, hence that group’s interest in distribution and delivery infrastructure projects. Energy executives are more focused on time horizon and the practicalities of getting the fuel where it needs to be, with 42% viewing complexity of distribution as a challenge, compared to 26% of investors.

Geothermal is gaining traction, building on recent momentum 

Fueled by “the sun beneath our feet,” geothermal energy is the heat produced by the decay of radioactive elements at the Earth’s core. Its worldwide abundance could play a critical role in making clean electricity available globally, and we are seeing that geothermal is gaining favor as an alternative resource. The challenge, however, is figuring out how to harness this long-neglected form of energy. 

Energy executives are more optimistic about the pace of adoption for geothermal power, with 56% seeing it as having a meaningful impact on clean energy transition in five to nine years, compared to 43% of investors. Far and away, installers (power plant setups, optimization and/or energy system planning) and system producers (power plant part manufacturers) hold the greatest appeal for both investors and executives. 

Optimism around the “picks and shovels” – the infrastructure and equipment needed to generate power – versus the riskier bet on exploration and production might indicate that executives and investors are 1) somewhat skeptical about traditional geothermal energy generation in the near term or 2) more certain that developers will at a minimum try to make a go of it, but are less sure of eventual widespread use. They may also see a continued need to improve geothermal technology and learn how to use it in new ways, such as the capture of thermal heat from other locations around heat-generating sources.

Executives and investors recognize the promise and peril of nuclear power, albeit with some differences

Nuclear energy is a clean and powerful energy source. Unlike renewable assets that provide fluctuating power, like solar and wind installation, nuclear power plants typically are baseload and produce maximum power over 90% of the time. The plants require considerably less maintenance than natural gas or coal-generation facilities and are not associated with any carbon emissions. Nuclear power is the largest source of clean energy in the U.S., accounting for more than half the domestic output of emissions-free electricity in 2020, according to the DOE.

Recently, there has been considerable investment in small modular reactors (SMRs), or “mini-nukes,” theoretically a less capital-intensive and scalable technology that has garnered the attention of several prominent investors. Questions, however, remain. How will the waste be managed? Can SMRs exacerbate waste issues? What about updates, maintenance and the potential overhaul of existing nuclear facilities?

Whether justified or not, nuclear power energy carries heavy baggage regarding public perception. Investors are particularly concerned about public opposition, likely because of capital intensity and protracted and unpredictable development timelines, though that may pale in comparison to the pushback from a potentially large number of constituencies (local governments, environmental groups, etc.). Executives, on the other hand, cited financial and economic issues/perceived investment risk as the biggest barrier to the development and deployment of SMR technology. 

Investors and executives are divided on how soon nuclear power will make an impact 

Executives and investors agree nuclear will not make an impact in the near term. But executives are slightly more optimistic that we could see some advances within a decade. One reason for the newfound optimism in the five-to-nine-year period likely relates to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) August issuance of its first-ever design approval for SMRs. The first power module is expected to be operational by 2029, assuming – of course – that there are no delays in licensing and/or construction.

Barriers to nuclear adoption seem to drive the divergence of opinions between these two groups on the timeline for the technology to make an impact. Executives justifiably view financial concerns as the most challenging hurdle – cost overruns for the construction of nuclear power plants over the last five decades have continued to soar – but those problems may be easier to overcome than the public opposition issues that worry investors. While SMR demonstration projects or other events may ameliorate public concerns regarding the development and operation of nuclear facilities, opposition of any sort creates a risk when it comes to permitting. Changing public opinion through education may prove challenging, given recent discussions of nuclear risks tied to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  

The Path Ahead

When we published last year’s survey, the energy industry was already facing an unprecedented multi-decade challenge to transition to a net-zero world. Since then, several factors have complicated the picture, not the least of which was Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the resulting disruptions – potentially permanent – to the world’s energy supply. The threat of energy security has become all too real for Germany, the rest of the EU and the U.K. Ultimately, that threat exists for us all.

Those pressures can increase the perception that energy security and a world free of human-generated greenhouse gas emissions is an either-or proposition. Decisions that 12 months ago would have been unthinkable are now being made – or at least weighed. Would we have imagined that Germany would reactivate a coal-fired energy plant? Or that the U.K. might lift the ban on fracking? The world is being forced to make near-term choices that seem antithetical to long-term, 100% renewable goals.

Change is likely the only constant in the energy industry, yet our research supports the conclusion that energy leaders and investors remain focused on moving to a cleaner, greener world. After a year of turmoil and uncertainty, this ongoing commitment, coupled with practical approaches to near-term needs, is indeed a cause for optimism. 

Methodology

From August to September 2022, 137 decision-makers in the energy industry completed Womble Bond Dickinson’s 2023 Energy Transition Outlook Survey via an online survey tool. Respondents included C-suite executives (29%), business or operations managers (14%) and in-house legal counsel (19%) – a group combined and referred to as “energy executives” throughout this report – as well as investors (36%). 

In addition to the range of professionals surveyed, there was a mix of energy industry subsectors. Nearly half of the surveyed companies (47%) employed more than 5,000 people, and 93% of the organizations had corporate headquarters in the U.S. 

Respondents reported their organization’s estimated 2021 revenue, with 48% of the sample reporting $499 million or less, 29% reporting $500 million to $4.9 billion, 18% reporting $5 billion or more and 5% electing not to disclose.

Energy and Natural Resources Sector

Womble Bond Dickinson’s Global Energy and Natural Resources Sector is a multi-disciplinary group of more than 100 attorneys skilled in counseling companies and investors as they navigate the challenges and complexities of the energy transition. Our team provides practical and innovative solutions to support clients in their quest to achieve sustainable growth, strong returns on technology investments, and ESG-focused success at this time of unprecedented industry transformation.

Our work covers the broad spectrum of energy and natural resources subsectors including all segments of the oil and gas industry, renewables, all types of electricity generation and transmission, water and water infrastructure, and commodities and trading. Our global practice addresses the full range of clients’ transactional, intellectual property, regulatory, and litigation needs.

Womble Bond Dickinson’s diverse client base includes integrated energy entities and established industry players, as well as those entrepreneurs and early-stage companies who are at the forefront of change as they innovate, monetize, and commercialize the technologies of our green(er) energy future.