Pre-Investment Considerations: Deep Dive with Climate Investment’s Rick Cutright
Rick Cutright, Technology Director with Climate Investment (CI), played a critical role in the creation of Frame’s methodology guidance, Pre-Investment Considerations: Diving Deeper into Assessing Future Greenhouse Gas Impact. He was one of eight authors and is a committed member of Frame’s Content Working Group. His efforts greatly guided the methodology guidance’s section on potential GHG impact, including market sizing, market adoption, and technology diffusion.
In the following Q&A with Project Frame, Cutright shares his thoughts on the complexity inherent to forward-looking emissions impact assessments, how standardization can lead to transparency and accountability, and the value of collaboration.
What motivated you to contribute to Project Frame's methodology for assessing forward-looking emissions impact?
As someone who has worked as a product manager and systems engineer in climate tech for a long time, I have a deep commitment to the climate space and a strong desire to make a positive impact. Recognizing the critical need for all investors to consider the emissions impact of their decisions, especially in light of the increasing amount of climate funds being announced globally, I was motivated to contribute to developing a common collaborative framework.
This quest was driven by my entrepreneurial experience and desire to make the investment process more efficient. Entrepreneurs often spend countless hours answering various climate questions because every investor uses different approaches, terminology, and time horizons. I wanted to streamline the process and make it easier for everyone, enabling engineers and scientists to spend more time-solving climate change and less time discussing it.
Collaborating with other investors and stakeholders in the climate space has allowed me to learn from their perspectives and experiences and contribute to a comprehensive framework that should work for most situations. This framework enables all investors to embrace climate impact as part of their investment criteria without undergoing the trials and tribulations that our Content Working Group members have gone through to reach where we are today.
Of the topics covered by the methodology, which did you feel was the most pressing to address and why? How do you feel this work addressed that topic? Are there any questions that remain?
The most pressing topic to address was the systematic approach to covering both planned and potential GHG impact using standard building blocks and sound principles, like technology diffusion. This approach allows for a simple model that can work for investors with different investment objectives or thresholds.
The methodology addressed this topic by providing a comprehensive framework covering all emissions impact assessment aspects supported by common terminology. However, new questions always arise, and ongoing collaboration will be necessary to refine and improve the framework.
Transparency, accountability, and inclusivity are three of Project Frame's values. How do you feel this work upholds those values?
Wearing my systems engineer hat, I see transparency, accountability, and inclusivity as critical elements of any effective system or framework. Project Frame's methodology is designed with these values in mind, and the collaborative approach ensures that all stakeholders have a voice in the process.
Using standard building blocks and sound principles, such as technology diffusion, enables a transparent and accountable model that can work for investors with different investment objectives or thresholds. Additionally, the framework is inclusive, focusing on community and dialogue, allowing diverse perspectives and experiences to be considered. These values are integral to the success of any system, and Project Frame's methodology upholds them admirably.
Are there any key takeaways, reflections, or learnings from your experience collaborating on the methodology that you would like to share?
Through my experience working on climate investments and collaborating on the methodology, I have realized that many individuals and organizations spend an inordinate amount of time trying to allocate blame or credit for greenhouse gas emissions and climate solutions.
ESG reporting has become tangled up in distinguishing between Scope 1, 2, 3, and 4 emissions. At the same time, investors are focused on measuring their value-add or claiming GHG impact based on their equity, board participation, or entry stage.
Every solution we consider involves a complex ecosystem. A watch needs every gear to tell time and an electric car requires many components to move people from point A to point B. Any climate startup needs suppliers, investors, employees, offices and factories, and customers to deliver impact at scale. The main objective of forward-looking estimates is not to determine who gets credit or blame, but to ensure that we are efficiently and quickly moving toward our collective climate goals.
As a Technology Director with Climate Investment (CI), Rick Cutright supports and leads Climate Investment’s mission – creating positive outcomes in the reduction of climate change through the accelerated development, commercialization, and deployment of advanced technologies. Before joining Climate Investments, Rick served as the Senior Director of Energy Storage for General Electric. Rick is a veteran of the United States Navy nuclear submarine program who holds an MBA and B.S. in Nuclear Engineering.
Climate Investment is an independently managed specialist investor focused on accelerating capital-efficient decarbonization of heavy emitting sectors. Operational since 2017, its team of investment and technical experts has built a portfolio of over 35 outstanding technology and business model innovations. Collectively, its portfolio delivered 57 MT CO2e of cumulative greenhouse gas reduction in the period 2019-2022. Climate Investment was founded by member companies of the Oil & Gas Climate Initiative (“OGCI”). They have invested in Climate Investment funds and deployed many of its portfolio innovations, supporting their early commercial development.
