Houston firm closes oversubscribed $450M fund for clean energy innovation

seeing green

Pelican Energy Partners has raised more than it intended with its new nuclear-focused fund. Photo via Getty Images

Houston-based private equity firm Pelican Energy Partners has raised a $450 million fund to invest in nuclear energy services and equipment companies.

Pelican had aimed to raise $300 million for Pelican Energy Partners Base Zero LP and had imposed an initial “hard cap” of $400 million. Investors include endowments, foundations, family offices, and pension plans.

As of the fund’s closing date, the fund had wrapped up six investments, with several more deals expected to close by the end of this year.

In a news release, Pelican says the fund “is committed to growing and improving nuclear services companies, which are critical to sustaining and enhancing the installed nuclear power generation base.” Nuclear energy accounts for more than one-fifth of U.S. power generation and nearly half of U.S. carbon-free electricity.

“The wide-ranging enthusiasm for Base Zero is a testament to the growing interest and necessity of nuclear power. We look forward to continuing to build an outstanding portfolio where we can add substantial value and achieve excellent returns for our partners,” says Jay Surina, managing director of Pelican.

Since 2012, Pelican has raised over $1 billion for investments in companies in the energy services, equipment manufacturing, and technology sectors.

Houston-area companies that have received Pelican investments include AWC Frac Technology, Axon Energy Services, GHT, Vault Pressure Control, Epic International, P360 Management Solutions, Multilift Wellbore Technology, EnerCorp, Downhole Technology, and Capline Environmental Services.

------

This article originally ran on EnergyCapital.

From Your Site Articles
Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

2 Houston health innovation leaders award grants to cancer-fighting researchers

dream team

Five cancer-fighting research projects were named inaugural recipients of a new grant program founded by two Houston institutions.

Last summer, Rice University and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center announced they were teaming up to form the new Cancer Bioengineering Collaborative. The shared initiative, created to form innovative technologies and bioengineering approaches to improve cancer research, diagnosis and treatment, recently launched with an event at the TMC3 Collaborative Building in Helix Park.

At the gathering, the Cancer Bioengineering Collaborative announced the projects that were selected for its first round of seed grants.

  • “Enhancing CAR-T immunotherapy via precision CRISPR/Cas-based epigenome engineering of high value therapeutic gene targets,” led by Isaac Hilton, associate professor of biosciences and bioengineering at Rice and a Cancer Research and Prevention Institute of Texas (CPRIT) scholar; and Michael Green, associate professor of lymphoma/myeloma at MD Anderson.
  • “Nanocluster and KRAS inhibitor-based combination therapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma,” led by Linlin Zhang, assistant research professor of bioengineering at Rice; and Haoqiang Ying, associate professor of molecular and cellular oncology at MD Anderson.
  • “Engineering tumor-infiltrating fusobacteriumas a microbial cancer therapy,” led by Jeffrey Tabor, professor of bioengineering at Rice; and Christopher Johnston, associate professor of genomic medicine and director of microbial genomics within the Platform for Innovative Microbiome and Translational Research at MD Anderson.
  • “Preclinical study of nanoscale TRAIL liposomes as a neoadjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer liver metastasis,” led by Michael King, the E.D. Butcher Professor of Bioengineering at Rice, CPRIT scholar and special adviser to the provost on life science collaborations with the Texas Medical Center; and Xiling Shen, professor of gastrointestinal medical oncology at MD Anderson.
  • “Deciphering molecular mechanisms of cellular plasticity in MDS progression,” led by Ankit Patel, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at Rice and of neuroscience at Baylor College of Medicine; and Pavan Bachireddy, assistant professor of hematopoietic biology and malignancy and lymphoma/myeloma at MD Anderson.

The event was a who’s who of Houston-based cancer specialists. Speakers included our city’s favorite Nobel laureate, Jim Allison, director of the James P. Allison Institute, as well as MD Anderson’s vice president of research, Eyal Gottlieb. Attendees were welcomed by the leaders of the initiative, Rice’s Gang Bao and MD Anderson’s Jeffrey Molldrem.

“This collaborative initiative builds on the strong foundation of our existing relationship, combining Rice’s expertise in bioengineering, artificial intelligence and nanotechnology with MD Anderson’s unmatched insights in cancer care and research,” Rice’s president Reginald DesRoches says at the event. “This is a momentous occasion to advance cancer research and treatment with the innovative fusion of engineering and medicine.”

The collaboration is part of Rice’s 10-year strategic plan for leadership in health innovation, called “Momentous: Personalized Scale for Global Impact.” Its goals include a commitment to responsible use of cutting-edge AI.

“As both institutions continue to make breakthroughs every day, we hope this collaborative will enable us to tackle the complex challenges of cancer care and treatment more effectively, ultimately improving the lives of patients here in Houston and beyond," Carin Hagberg, senior vice president and chief academic officer at MD Anderson, adds. "Whether our researchers are working on the South Campus or within the hedges of Rice, this collaborative will strengthen each other’s efforts and push the boundaries of what is possible in cancer.”

Houston innovator on how health tech’s rise offers roadmap for climatetech growth

guest column

Over the past several decades, climate tech has faced numerous challenges, ranging from inconsistent public support to a lack of funding from cautious investors. While grassroots organizations and climate innovators have made notable efforts to address urgent environmental issues, we have yet to see large-scale, lasting impact.

A common tendency is to compare climate tech to the rapid advancements made in digital and software technology, but perhaps a more appropriate parallel is the health tech sector, which encountered many of the same struggles in its early days.

Observing the rise of health tech and the economic and political support it received, we can uncover strategies that could stabilize and propel climate tech forward.

Health tech's slow but steady rise

Health tech’s slow upward trajectory began in the mid-20th century, with World War II serving as a critical turning point for medical research and development. Scientists working on wartime projects recognized the broader benefits of increased research funding for the general public, and soon after, the Public Health Service Act of 1944 was passed. This landmark legislation directed resources toward eradicating widespread diseases, viewing them as a national economic threat. By acknowledging diseases as a danger to both public health and the economy, the government laid the groundwork for significant policy changes.

This serves as an essential lesson for climate tech: if the federal government were to officially recognize climate change as a direct threat to the nation’s economy and security, it could lead to similar shifts in policy and resource allocation.

The role of public advocacy and federal support

The growth of health tech wasn’t solely reliant on government intervention. Public advocacy played a key role in securing ongoing support. Voluntary health agencies, such as the American Cancer Society, lobbied for increased funding and spread awareness, helping to attract public interest and investment. But even with this advocacy, early health tech startups struggled to secure venture capital. VCs were hesitant to invest in areas they didn’t fully understand, and without sustained government funding and public backing, it’s unlikely that health tech would have grown as quickly as it has.

The lesson here for climate tech is clear: strong public advocacy and education are crucial. However, unlike health tech, climate tech faces a unique obstacle — there is still a significant portion of the population that either denies the existence of climate change or doesn’t view it as an immediate concern. This lack of urgency makes it difficult to galvanize the public and attract the necessary long-term investment.

Government support: A mixed bag

There have been legislative efforts to support climate tech, though they haven’t yet led to the explosive growth seen in health tech. For example, the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 and the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 gave universities and small businesses the rights to profit from their innovations, including climate-related research. More recently, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 has been instrumental in advancing climate tech by creating opportunities to build projects, lower household energy costs, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite this federal support, many climate tech companies are still struggling to scale. A primary concern for investors is the longer time horizon required for climate startups to yield returns. Scalability is crucial — companies must demonstrate how they will grow profitably over time, but many climate tech startups lack practical long-term business models.

As climate investor Yao Huang put it, “At the end of the day, a climate tech company needs to demonstrate how it will make money. We can apply political pressure and implement governmental policies, but if it is not profitable, it won’t scale or create meaningful impact.”

The public’s role in scaling climate tech

Health tech’s success can largely be attributed to a combination of federal funding, public advocacy, and long-term investment from knowledgeable VCs. Climate tech has federal support in place, thanks to the IRA, but is still lacking the same level of public backing. Health tech overcame its hurdles when public awareness about the importance of medical advancements grew, and voluntary health agencies helped channel donations toward research and innovation.

In contrast, climate nonprofits like Cool Earth, Environmental Defense Fund, and Clean Air Task Force face a severe funding shortfall. A 2020 study revealed that climate nonprofits aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions only received $2 billion in donations, representing just 0.4% of all philanthropic funding. Without greater public awareness/sense of urgency and financial support, these groups cannot effectively advocate for climate tech startups or lobby for necessary policy changes. This type of philanthropic funding is also known as ‘catalytic capital’ or ‘impact-first-capital’. Prime Impact Fund is one such fund that does not ‘view investments as concessionary on return’. Rather their patient and flexible capital allows support of high risk, high-reward ventures.

A path forward for climate tech

The most valuable insight from health tech’s growth is that government intervention, while critical, is not enough to guarantee the success of an emerging sector. Climate tech needs a stronger support system, including informed investors, widespread public backing, and nonprofits with the financial resources to advocate for industry-wide growth.

If we can channel the same sense of urgency and public commitment toward climate change as we did for health crises in the past, climate tech could overcome its current obstacles.The future of climate tech depends not just on government policies, but on educating the public, rallying financial support, and building a robust infrastructure for long-term growth.

———

Nada Ahmed is the founding partner at Houston-based Energy Tech Nexus, a startup hub for the energy transition.

This article originally ran on EnergyCapital.

Houston schools lead rankings for best entrepreneurship programs for 6th consecutive year

top of class

Rice University and the University of Houston have once again topped The Princeton Review and Entrepreneur’s lists of the best graduate and undergraduate schools for entrepreneurship studies.

Rice ranks first in the graduate category for the sixth consecutive year, and UH ranks first in the undergraduate category for the sixth consecutive year.

“At Rice Business, our students learn both inside and outside the classroom, drawing on our strong industry and community connections in Houston and beyond,” says Peter Rodriguez, dean of Rice’s Jones Graduate School of Business. “With small class sizes and tailored programs, we aim to equip our students with the skills to create new ventures and excel in a fast-changing business landscape.”

UH President Renu Khator praises the ranking as recognition for the impact of the Cyvia and Melvyn Wolff Center for Entrepreneurship at the C.T. Bauer College of Business.

“This program is a tremendous asset not only to the University of Houston and the Bauer College of Business, but also to the city of Houston, where entrepreneurship fuels both socioeconomic mobility and economic growth,” Khator says. “We are proud to see the impact of this program reverberate throughout our community.”

Rankings for The Princeton Review and Entrepreneur’s 2025 lists were based on a survey of administrators at nearly 300 schools in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and Europe that offer entrepreneurship studies. Among the more than 40 factors used for the rankings were academic programs, faculty credentials, mentorship opportunities, and alumni entrepreneurship ventures.

The top 10 schools on the list of the 50 best undergraduate schools for entrepreneurship studies are:

  1. University of Houston
  2. University of Texas at Austin
  3. Babson College
  4. University of Washington
  5. Washington University in St. Louis
  6. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
  7. University of Maryland-College Park
  8. Miami University of Ohio
  9. Tecnológico de Monterrey in Mexico
  10. Northeastern University

The top 10 schools on the list of the 50 best graduate schools for entrepreneurship studies are:

  1. Rice University
  2. University of California-Los Angeles
  3. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
  4. Washington University in St. Louis
  5. Babson College
  6. University of Washington
  7. University of Texas at Austin
  8. University of Virginia
  9. Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands
  10. University of South Florida
View All Listings