Tallhamn said in the blog post that the company failed to draw a lead investor “willing to commit enough capital to fill out the round with follow on investors.” His insights are an indicator of the struggles for the entire energy management sector, including potential competitors that Tallhamn used in a slide from the Cleantech Open including Ecofactor, EnergyHub, AlertMe, and Control4.

The investment community’s perspective on this space had become significantly more critical since we got started, and probably for good reasons. A lot of capital has been destroyed in Series A-Z rounds of funding by our competitors, and most investors made it clear that they’d want to see massive traction before committing capital. They were taking a “wait and see” approach.

The business of helping consumers reduce and manage energy consumption in homes and across appliances and devices is such a small market right now, there can’t be too many players going after basically non-existent revenue. OPower, which provides data analytics and software for utilities for energy bills, is one of the few companies in energy management that I know of that is doing well.

Many of the revenues right now depend on scoring utility deals, which can take months and years to implement. Though, there has also been recent attention from the telcos and consumer electronics companies in the energy management space. But as we’ve mentioned pure play energy management gadgets probably won’t be that interesting to consumers — the gadgets will have to do something else, too, like manage your media or run a home security system. Tallhamn said in his blog post: “On a micro level, the average household’s energy costs are so small ($4k on average across electricity and fuel) that any direct to consumer product aiming to reduce them needs to deliver something beyond just savings.”

Hug was taking a free approach, and looking to mine energy information, with Scoble calling Hug the “Mint of your energy bill.” The company had launched a downloadable energy management application for computers that compiled how many minutes your computer slept and basically called your attention to how much energy you were saving. That app was only a “trojan horse” into a plan to grab a greater piece of the energy management sector, and the company’s idea was to start building a user base before the smart energy devices hit the market, “so that we’d be in a great position for becoming the leading supplier of analytics and control software once they had arrived,” writes Tallhamn.

But alas, you can’t build a product without funding. Tallhamn writes:

Knowing when to push through and when to call it quits is probably one of the hardest things for an entrepreneur, and while I’ll never know for sure, I feel quite confident that this was the right decision for everyone involved.

For more research related to smart grid check out GigaOM Pro (subscription required):

• Z-Wave: Gaining Ground on ZigBee for Home Energy Networking?
• Is the Opt-Out Model the Future of Home Energy Management
• The Developer’s Guide to Home Energy Management Apps

Coskata has gotten a letter of intent from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for a $250 million loan guarantee to build a plant to make ethanol from woody biomass. The plant will have the capacity to make 55 million gallons per year. Coskata’s plant plans seriously stalled during the recession, and Coskata has been waiting for this loan guarantee to come through. The company is well-known for touting a $1 per gallon production price and its backers including Khosla Ventures, General Motors, and Advanced Technology Ventures.

The USDA also awarded Enerkem a conditional commitment for an $80 million loan guarantee to build a 10 million-gallon-per-year refinery for making ethanol out of municipal solid waste. Enerkem, which uses a thermochemical trash-to-syngas process, was already awarded a $50 million Department of Energy grant, and also raised funding from trash giant Waste Management, Cycle Capital, Rho Ventures, Braemar Energy Ventures and BDR Capital.

At the same time, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is awarding a $241 million loan guarantee — its first for a biofuel plant — to Diamond Green Diesel. The guarantee will help Valero build a plant in Louisiana that will make 137 million gallons of biofuel per year primarily from animal fats and used cooking oil.

The USDA said it’s not done doling out financial help to biofuel producers. It plans to announce new rules “soon” that will make more money available from the loan guarantee program, which originated from a 2008 Farm Bill.

Lining up money to build refineries has been a huge hurdle for a slew of biofuel companies in the past two years. The recession is only partly to blame. Many of these companies have encountered technical problems for converting plants and wastes into fuel. Investors once flocked to these startup companies, especially when the federal government announced goals to gradually increase the nation’s supply of renewable fuel until it hits 36 billion in 2022.

Well, hitting the goals has proven a lot more difficult. Congress initially set 100 million gallons as the 2010 target for cellulosic biofuel, but the Environmental Protection Agency cut that to 6.5 million gallons. It appears the industry might have produced less than 1 million gallons last year, reported ClimateWire, citing an estimate by a government analyst.

Just last week, reports emerged that Range Fuels, backed by venture capital firms such as Khosla Ventures, was laying off workers and shutting down its refinery in Georgia in order to tackle technical problems and raise more money. Colorado-based Range Fuels received an $80 million loan guarantee from the USDA to help fund its refinery, which began production by making methanol instead of ethanol last year.

Perhaps the USDA will see quicker success from its latest bets. Aside from Coskata and Enerkem, the agency also touted a loan guarantee conditional commitment for a $75 million loan guarantee to INEOS Bio and its partner New Planet Energy, which it first announced a few weeks ago.

INEOS Bio (which is the biofuel arm of petrochemical giant INEOS) and developer New Planet Energy say they will use the loan guarantee to build the “INEOS BioEnergy Center,” near Vero Beach, Florida, that will produce 8 million gallons of advanced biofuels and 6 MW of biomass power from plant waste and trash per year. The companies say the center will begin producing biofuels and bioenergy in 2012, and will create 175 jobs during the construction process and 50 jobs when the center is completed.

Loan guarantees are important awards for companies looking to build plants for these next-gen biofuel projects. A loan guarantee essentially is a promise by the government to back a loan if the company can’t pay it, and it enables companies to finance projects with a better interest rate and at a lower cost.

For more research, check out GigaOM Pro (subscription required):

• Report: Cleantech’s Third Quarter Growing Pains
• The Real Reason Google Is Buying Wind Power
• An Assessment of the Lighting Controls Market

The Agua Caliente project will use panels from First Solar, is set for completion in 2014 and is supposed to create 400 construction jobs. Northern California utility PG&E plans to buy the electricity from the project. NRG plans to invest up to $800 million in equity in the project, and the deal between First Solar and NRG requires that First Solar installs, operates and maintains the project.

This is the third big round of DOE loan guarantees for the solar industry. Last summer, the DOE awarded close to $2 billion in loan guarantees to Spanish solar company Abengoa Solar and Colorado-based solar panel maker Abound Solar. Abengoa Solar was awarded a $1.45 billion loan guarantee to help it build Solana, a solar thermal, trough-based, solar farm that is under contract to sell power to Arizona utility APS in Gila Bend, Arizona. BrightSource also received a $1.37 billion loan guarantee to build out BrightSource’s Ivanpah solar project, which is the first new solar thermal power plant being built in California’s deserts in 20 years.

Loan guarantees essentially serve as a promise by the government to make good on a loan if the company can’t, and typically enable better interest rates and lower costs than would otherwise be available to a company for project financing. As DOE Loan Chief Jonathan Silver told us recently, it takes about six months “soup to nuts” to get these applications processed and finalized.

These types of solar projects make sense for the DOE loan guarantee program, because these are the first projects from some of these solar firms in the U.S. The idea is to get a company like BrightSource across the so-called “valley of death,” between proving the technology and building out and scaling up actual plants. Solar projects also offer construction jobs and good press.

Silver told us recently that the “first couple biofuels deals” will be announced “shortly” for the loan guarantee program, and that biofuels will likely be among the next several loan guarantees issued. In the coming year, he said, we’re also likely to see “additional interest” in nuclear and “advanced fossil fuel technologies,” such as “clean coal” and carbon capture.

For more research, check out GigaOM Pro (subscription required):

• Report: Cleantech’s Third Quarter Growing Pains
• The Real Reason Google Is Buying Wind Power
• An Assessment of the Lighting Controls Market

Bloom Energy, which has raised at least $400 million from investors, is saying that over a 10-year period, it can offer its customers electricity contracts for its Bloom Boxes for a cost less than standard grid power. Bloom says “customers can immediately save up to 20 percent on their energy bills,” and that Walmart, Staples, Coca-Cola, Caltech, Kaiser Permanente and BD have signed up for the program.

Update: According to VentureWire, Bloom has “quietly raised about $100 million more in equity in the past few months . . . according to two people familiar with the matter.”

While Bloom didn’t specify that customers will only save that kind of money in California, or only in states with aggressive subsidies, it seems like the math would work out that way. Lux Research has estimated that the cost of electricity over a Bloom server’s 10-year life is “$0.08/kWh to $0.10/kWh (when running as base-load for 24 hours a day), including government incentives and assuming a $7/mmBTU natural gas long-term contract.” Without subsidies, Lux predicted “electricity would cost $0.13/kWh to $0.14/kWh, with about $0.09/kWh from system cost and about $0.05/kWh coming from fuel cost. Note that this is high compared to average retail U.S. electricity costs of roughly $0.11/kWh.”

Perhaps removing the upfront fee will bring in more customers, though Bloom Energy founder KR Sridhar has maintained that the payback on investment for Bloom Box customers is 3 – 5 years in energy cost savings. Sridhar confirmed to me that the 3 – 5 year claimed payback is with the California and federal subsidy.

If you’re not familiar with the Bloom Box product, it’s a fuel cell that looks like an industrial-sized refrigerator. Fuel cells are kind of like chemical batteries, which combine solutions to create a chemical reaction that delivers electricity. Fuel cells have been under development by hundreds of manufacturers in the consumer electronics and auto industries for decades, but have remained too expensive and have been unable to break into the mainstream.

The nine-year-old Bloom launched last year to much fanfare, at an event with a list of customers like Google, and eBay, and with speeches by its celebrity backers: Kleiner Perkins’ John Doerr and Colin Powell.

The Bloom Box sucks up oxygen on one side and fuel (natural gas, biomass, etc) on the other. Bloom bakes sand and cuts it into little squares that are turned into a ceramic, which are then coated with green and black “inks.” Using a special process, Bloom creates these ceramic discs and stacks them together interspersed with metal plates of “a cheap metal alloy.” The bigger the stack, the more power the Bloom Box will create.

Bloom is having a live press conference to talk more about the announcement at 10:00 a.m. PST at Caltech. Watch it if you want to follow the news.

Related Content From GigaOM Pro (subscription required):

• Top 10 Greentech Companies of 2010
• 7 Things That Spell Growing Pains for Greentech in 2011
• Green IT 2011: China Marches Towards Greentech Dominance

There was good reason to expect a lower valuation from the Englewood, Colo.-based startup, Lux research analyst Samhitha Udupa told us in August. The company generated $660,000 and lost $19.89 million in 2009, and had accumulated a deficit of $50.3 million as of March 31, 2010. Still, Lux has put Gevo among its top-ranked biofuel startups for the past two years, giving it high marks for its innovative retrofit model toward cheaper production costs.

Gevo, which has backing from Khosla Ventures and Virgin Green Fund, wants to retrofit old corn ethanol plants to turn cellulosic feedstocks like agriculture waste into isobutanol, a fuel additive and precursor to plastics and other products. The startup is retrofitting an ethanol plant in Luverne, Minn. to produce about 18 million gallons of isobutanol per year, and says its retrofit model could allow it to scale up to 50 million gallons-per-year for about $24 million, or 100 million gallons for $40 million to $45 million.

Empty ethanol plants aren’t necessarily hard to come by — oil refining giant Valero bought up seven plants from bankrupt corn-to-ethanol maker VeraSun in 2009. If Gevo meets its new IPO targets, it could command a market value of $349 million, according to Renaissance Capital. The company booked $2 million in sales for the fiscal year ending in September 2010 and has said it has letters of intent from customers including chemical company Lanxess, French oil giant Total’s subsidiary Total Petrochemicals USA, plastic maker Toray Industries, airline company United Air Lines and oil industry technology developer CDtech.

One big question is whether Gevo will tackle the biofuel market right away, or focus on providing isobutanol for the plastics and chemicals industries. The company got EPA clearance to sell its isobutanol as a fuel additive in November, but it is also looking to supply makers of plastics, fibers, rubber and other polymers.

Related Content From GigaOM Pro (subscription required):

• Top 10 Greentech Companies of 2010
• 7 Things That Spell Growing Pains for Greentech in 2011
• Green IT 2011: China Marches Towards Greentech Dominance

Amazon Web Services, which popularized cloud computing with its Elastic Compute Cloud and Simple Storage Service, has moved up the stack from infrastructure to providing Amazon Elastic Beanstalk, its Platform-as-a-Service play. However, Amazon is layering its PaaS offering on top of its other services in a way that’s easily reversed, which means developers can take the easy way out of developing on Beanstalk, or they can peel back the platform to manually provision and tweak their underlying VMs if they want.

Adam Selipsky, VP of Amazon Web Services, says the service was built to address the idea of vendor lock-in and inflexibility that commonly afflicts other platforms for application development. With the first efforts, Amazon is providing a framework for folks to build Java apps on AWS with other programming languages and partnerships to follow. It’s not surprising, given the attention that Platforms-as-a-Service have been getting in the last 12 months or so. At the beginning of last year, Microsoft finally opened up its Azure platform, while a few months later, VMware and Salesforce.com teamed up to offer VMforce, a Java cloud hosted on Salesforce’s infrastructure, and VMware eased into the PaaS market in other ways this year. Google amped up its App Engine offering, tying it to Salesforce and VMware, while smaller providers of Platforms-as-a-Service such as Makara and Heroku were snapped up (by Red Hat and Salesforce respectively).

For Amazon, long the leader in the cloud space, seeing competitors move up the stack and developers taking advantage of those platforms that weren’t necessarily built on AWS infrastructure was a warning. As my colleague Derrick Harris wrote back in May (GigaOM Pro sub req’d):

So, my question is this: If AWS really will be simplifying management within the coming weeks, what are the chances it does so via a PaaS offering of sorts? It would be wise for AWS to leverage its current leads in market and mind share and preempt any serious momentum by PaaS providers. Technically, they’re not competitors yet (to the degree that IaaS and PaaS can vary differently in terms of target audience), but the next generation of PaaS offerings will blur those lines. AWS has the tools to build a holistic PaaS offering, the economies of scale to make it profitable, and the SDKs to cater to specific set of developers. If it does so, the cloud-computing discussion will take on an entirely different tenor as PaaS providers scramble to differentiate themselves from AWS in this area, too.

Amazon’s Beanstalk offering has taken longer to launch than the few weeks Derrick had hoped for, but now it’s here. Amazon’s next move will be expanding beyond Java, something it could do via partnerships with other providers or on its own. Brian White, a developer with AWS, said PHP and Ruby are high on Amazon’s list, but declined to specify how partnerships with other providers might look. When asked about competing with other PaaS providers who host their platforms on AWS infrastructure, Selipsky suggested that perhaps those might become partners for supporting other languages.

Indeed, in its press release on Beanstalk, Amazon included a quote from John Dillon, CEO of Engine Yard, saying the company is working with Amazon to provide a Ruby on Rails offering on Beanstalk. So will Amazon be a giant lumbering down the beanstalk to crush the PaaS competition, and will it lift others up to its height?

Image courtesy of Flickr user Melody.

Related GigaOM Pro Content (sub req’d)

• Multi-Language PaaS: Salesforce.com Is Just One Option
  
• Are the Stars Aligning for an Amazon PaaS Offering?
  
• Java-PaaS: A Bevy of Options in the Blink of An Eye
  

The agreement with Verizon has three implications, with the first being that Bandwidth.com now knows what it will pay to terminate VoIP calls to landlines, which will help it build out a stable cost basis for its business and thus help other VoIP companies it serves do the same. Much like the agreement with the SoundExchange helped Pandora, the online radio station, figure out the costs of providing streaming music to users so it could build out a business model to support itself, this agreement helps Bandwidth.com and other VoIP providers by setting a baseline cost. David Morken, CEO of Bandwidth.com, says he’s in talks with another major wireline provider to sign a similar deal.

The agreement could also help Verizon, which also has a lot of VoIP traffic on its network, pay lower rates to rural telephone companies. Verizon has to pay other telecommunications providers to terminate its VoIP calls, and in some places, it pays almost a half-cent per minute to do so. By publicizing this agreement, Verizon has told the world what it’s charging others, and said what it wants to pay. Expect rural providers to experience pressure from Verizon to bring their VoIP termination fees down to this $0.0007 cent level. From a research note issued today by investment research firm Stifel Nicolaus:

In the absence of reform, we believe Verizon and others are looking to put downward pressure on intercarrier compensation in the marketplace. Verizon is disputing rural carrier collection of access charges for connecting VoIP calls while attempting to negotiate deals, including the one with Bandwidth.com, that move the industry toward lower rates.

The third implication has to do with the somewhat esoteric world of regulation and telecommunications law. The FCC has never ruled on intercarrier compensation rates for VoIP services, because it has never decided if VoIP is a telecommunications service like wireline telephone or an information service like email. Obviously, folks don’t have to pay $0.0007 cents to send an email, although email doesn’t really cross from an IP network to an analog world unless the recipient has dial-up. This private agreement classifies VoIP as an information service and sets a rate — something the FCC hasn’t yet done for VoIP calls. So while the FCC has decades of rate setting and compensation agreements for voice traffic, it has never made the leap to set rates for VoIP. This has left the Verizons and other telcos of the world able to set prices, and the market for VoIP to develop in a way that’s vastly different from the market for email.

So this rather dull-sounding agreement is a big deal for companies like Google, Skype, Twilio and Bandwidth.com, as well as for rural telcos and the FCC. If the FCC decides to make a decision on VoIP interconnection fees rates this year, as some sources have said it will, then Morken says he can let the agreement expire (or not) depending on what the rules say. For Bandwidth.com, which has gone from operating 1 million numbers at the end of 2009 to 17 million numbers today, the agreement is like a hedge against higher prices and regulatory uncertainty that Morken can use to build his business.

With $100 million in annual revenue, up from $85 million the year before, Bandwidth.com is growing well without ever having taken on venture investment. The company, which is profitable, expects to file to go public within the next 18 months, said Morken. We’ve covered the business in December 2009, and I think as an infrastructure provider for VoIP services, Bandwidth.com can sell itself as a credible VoIP platform. Contracts like this only reinforce that legitimacy, although should the FCC declare VoIP an information service, I suppose the contract could become a cost burden other providers wouldn’t have to deal with.

Related GigaOM Pro Content (sub req’d):

• Who Will Profit From Broadband Innovation?
• The New Net-Neutrality Debate: What’s the Best Way to Discriminate?
• When It Comes to Pain at the Pipe, Upstream Is the New Downstream

OpenStack’s storage component, called Object Storage, is now fully functional and ready for industry adoption beyond its use as the foundation of Rackspace’s Cloud Files offerings. According to Scott Hrastar, SVP of technology at Internap, Object Storage is advanced enough that his company was able to implement it with relatively little effort and focus most of its effort on building differentiation into the user-facing aspects of XIPCloud. In fact, Hrastar noted, his team was able to deploy Object Storage without any formal support, relying instead on a few knowledgeable in-house developers and the robust OpenStack community.

That’s good, because OpenStack doesn’t offer formal support — yet. Jonathan Bryce, chairman of the OpenStack Project Oversight Committee and Rackspace Cloud co-founder, said Rackspace has discussed ways to monetize OpenStack, and that support could be a natural fit given Rackspace’s expertise and reputation in technological support. Already, he noted, several Asian companies are providing installation support services, as the project is very popular in Japan and China.

Whether or not Rackspace launched a formal OpenStack support offering, though, the project will continue to mature. With the second release,”Bexar,” set for next month, OpenStack’s computing component will be ready for deployment in small- to mid-size data centers, and Bryce said it will have even more features than expected by this point. This is thanks, in part, to a thriving ecosystem that presently includes more than 40 technology partners and significantly more individual developers. Bryce said OpenStack is still on pace to be ready for use by service providers and webscale data center operators with its “Cactus” release in April, as I reported in November. Bryce added that OpenStack is evaluating how to integrate the Cloudkick technology that Rackspace acquired last month — a difficult proposition because much of Cloudkick’s value comes from being a hosted service — and that the work it has done to help incorporate OpenStack into Canonical’s latest Ubuntu Linux release will pay off in terms of helping the project better understand operating system integration.

The Object Storage readiness is great, but the world really has been waiting for OpenStack Compute since July. When it’s finally production-ready, we’ll see whether it can live up to its hype of not only elevating Rackspace’s cloud offerings, but also providing an open-source seed that can spawn an ecosystem of interoperable, highly advanced cloud offerings both from service providers and within enterprises. Its progress thus far is promising, but it’s a market rife with competition, from Amazon Web Services to VMware.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

• Defining Internal Cloud Options: From Appistry to VMware
• Why New IaaS Providers Enter at Their Own Risk
• Why OpenStack Has Its Work Cut Out

The financing isn’t KLD Energy’s first. Last Summer the electric vehicle tech maker raised $4.9 million in equity, and then another $2.8 million in equity and debt earlier this month. KLD also announced a $1 million Series A financing round in 2009, and regulatory filings show a pair of $2 million equity raises during the first few months of 2010.

KLD Energy makes an electric drive system that includes a battery, battery management system, electric motor and motor controller. The company says its technology can give electric two- and three-wheeled vehicles speed and performance capabilities on par with gas-powered counterparts. KLD’s system has no transmission, has high frequency and low RPM, and uses a computerized controller.

Ferber told us last summer that KLD planned to build its business by first deploying its system in electric three-wheelers and scooters internationally (starting in Asia and South America), and targeting the electric scooter market in the U.S. through a deal with Vietnamese scooter manufacturer Sufat (with a starting scooter price of $3,288). KLD Energy offers the technology for licensing, while its subsidiary KLD Motors America manufactures electric motors using a nano-crystalline composite material at a facility in Vinh Phuc, Vietnam.

As we’ve noted before, companies that move early and fast to dominate the EV market in China — which has significant government support on its side and could reach $220 billion by 2030 — could use the country as a springboard for a broader international play.

But remember it’s not exactly easy to be a startup electric scooter maker. The business costs a lot of capital (as you can see by the fund-raising), and it’s a field that has no shortage of casualties (Vectrix closed up shop in 2009 but has more recently emerged). There’s also a lot of competition from players like Brammo, Zero Motorcycles, UltraMotors, Mission Motors, and Vectrix (and that’s only the startups).

For more on vehicles and IT check out GigaOM Pro (subscription required):

• Report: IT Opportunities in Electric Vehicle Management
• Mobility on Demand Takes Aim at Transport Networks’ “Last Mile”
• Electric Vehicles Give “Mobility as a Service” a Jumpstart

During the launch event, EMC showed off its VNXe line — for small- to medium-size business customers — which is cheaper and contains nifty features, such as the ability to provision the hardware from an iPad, and a graphical interface that represents the hardware box, so users can determine what’s wrong. EMC “proved” how easy this system is for folks by getting a fourth grader armed with an iPad to troubleshoot the hardware.

EMC also announced a new product using its $2.1 billion Data Domain acquisition for faster sending of backup information, as well as a new version of its Atmos line of software built on its $2.25 billion acquisition of Isilon. For those drowning in data, EMC offered a new version of it VMAX box that’s twice as fast, with more brains inside for processing big data. (It contains a 128-core processor to manage the memory.) The VMAX system also does away with Fibre Channel interconnects, and instead, counts on the better brains and Flash memory to provide the faster speeds.

However cheesy the presentation, EMC is clearly aware of the big trends in the enterprise, and how the market is fragmenting between the high and low end. At the low end, businesses want cheap, easy-to-use and something that resembles the Apple experience. But at the high end, where there may be fewer customers, but they buy a lot of boxes, EMC is aware that speed, scale and big data are changing the way IT views storage. It’s no longer this backroom archive, but a real-time delivery system for information that could be called upon at any moment. So EMC, which said it has shipped over 10 petabytes of Flash memory last year, is trying to deliver the new future of data. It’s always on, and is the new foundation for business decision-making.

For more on how the data deluge is affecting the enterprise and innovative ways startups are tackling their own data problems, come to our Big Data conference held March 23 in NYC.

Related Content from GigaOM Pro (subscription required)

• Why Cloud Storage is So Hot Right Now
• How to Make Cloud Computing Greener
• The Future of Data Center Storage