CLIMATE TECH

LANDSCAPE

Duke Energy Club

 Table of Contents

01 Screening Criteria 02 Top Companies

2
01
Screening
Criteria

3
 Methodology
❖ Pitchbook
➢ Filter by: Investors
➢ Deal Status: Completed
➢ Deal Size: Minimum $10M; Only search for lead/sole investors
➢ Deal Type: All Series
➢ Verticals: Preferences: Clean Tech, Impact Category: Energy
➢ Sort by: Average Deal Size x Most Active Investors
■ Start with largest players, work downwards to smaller shops according to relevance

4
5
 Information Collected from
❖ Company Name
Pitchbook
❖ Average Deal Size

❖ AUM

❖ Deal Types (Seed, Accelerator, Early Stage VC, Late Stage VC, LBO)

❖ Industries Invested In

➢ To get a sense of range/interest outside of climate tech

❖ Geography

❖ Pitchbook Contact Name/Email

❖ Top 5 Largest Energy Deals Company Name & Deal Size,

➢ And other geothermal companies invested in, if exist

6
 Information Collected from
Additional Research

❖ Mission Statement
➢ Company website
❖ Duke connections
➢ LinkedIn search
❖ Duke email
➢ Alumni Directory and/or LinkedIn

7
02
Most Relevant
Companies

8
 By US Market Presence

Company Name US Market Presence

3x5 Partners US 100%

Breakthrough Energy Ventures US 96.29%

Khosla Ventures US 92.2%

Valor Equity Partners US 92%

Alumni Ventures US 90.91%

Energize Ventures US 89.7%

9
 By Geothermal Deals

Breakthrough Energy Ventures Dandelion Energy (deal size 31M 2021, 70M 2022), Fervo
Energy(deal size 11M 2019, 28M 2021, 138.22M 2022),
Zap Energy(Deal size 162M 2022)

Equinor Ventures: Booster(deal size 125M 2022), H2Site(deal size 13.82M

2022)

ArcTern Ventures ev.energy (deal size 17.1M 2022), SPARQ(deal size 11M
2014)

3x5 Partners Fervo Energy

Congruent Ventures Fervo Energy

10
By Deal Size

11
By AUM

12
 By Overall Quality
❖ Breakthrough Ventures: main focus on US, active investor, medium to large deal
size, only climate-focused
➢ Con: Has considerable capital invested in other geothermal companies
❖ SOSV: Climate Tech 100 Portfolio market leader, connections with leaders in
venture
➢ Con: Specializes in pre-seed programs, no geothermal companies in current portfolio
❖ Softbank Investment Advisors: high AUM, large deal size, considerably large
emphasis in North America.
➢ Con: Not just focused on climate, would fit in Frontier Tech portfolio
❖ Energy Impact Partners: Long-established in climate tech (2015), narrow focus
on decarbonization, invests across life-cycle
➢ Despite 100+ decarbonization investments, no geothermal interest
❖ Valor Equity Partners: large average deal size and AUM, offers funding at early
& growth stage
➢ Con: No climate or energy-specific focus portfolio

13
 Conclusions

With the exception of Some of the largest The largest funds have
Breakthrough Energy, funds have interest in impact
few of the largest investments in startups throughout
players are true upcoming geothermal their lifecycle, leaving
impact investors, major technologies, others ample opportunity for
investors are appear to have no Quaise to seek
institutional players appetite for the longer funding at every stage
with impact branches. time horizon. of development.

Impact vs. Geothermal Opportunity

Fund Size Interest Varies across Life
Cycle

14