Apex Clean Energy has raised $150 million to build two batteries in Texas, 200 MW and 400 MWh between them. In the same market, a battery of exactly that size was financed for $65.2 million, and another for $202.3 million. All three loans describe the same megawatts. They do not describe the same job.
Key takeaways
- Apex Clean Energy secured $150 million from First Citizens Bank and United Bank, announced on 14 May 2024, for the construction and operation of the Great Kiskadee and Angelo battery storage projects in Texas.
- Great Kiskadee Storage is a 100 MW, 200 MWh battery in Hidalgo County, Texas, and Angelo Storage is a 100 MW, 200 MWh battery in Tom Green County, Texas, both under construction with operations anticipated by the third quarter of 2024.
- Apex's $150 million financing for 200 MW and 400 MWh of Texas battery storage works out at $0.75 million per MW, or about $375,000 per MWh of storage capacity.
- Among nine Texas battery debt packages in Leap that state their storage capacity between July 2023 and October 2024, Apex's Great Kiskadee and Angelo loan ranks fourth per MWh, below Plus Power's $674.3 million construction and term package for three Texas batteries.
- First Citizens Bank appears as a lender on 11 of the 37 US battery debt financings Enerdatics records between July 2023 and December 2024, including the Apex loan and the Plus Power and Jupiter Power Texas packages.
What exactly did Apex finance?
Two standalone batteries in different parts of Texas, financed as one package.
The lenders are First Citizens Bank and United Bank. McDermott Will & Schulte advised Apex on the legal side. Leap records the money as funding both the construction and the operation of the two projects. That phrase turns out to be the key to the whole comparison, because a loan that stays in place once a battery is earning is a different instrument from one that only carries it to completion.
Leap's record carries one total, with no split into construction, term or letter of credit tranches, so any per MWh comparison is a range rather than a precise league table.
What does two hours of storage mean for a Texas battery?
A battery's duration is its energy capacity divided by its power rating. It tells you how long the battery can discharge at full output before it runs empty. Both Apex projects store 200 MWh behind 100 MW of power, so each can run flat out for two hours.
Two hours is a common size in ERCOT, the grid operator for most of Texas. ERCOT runs an energy-only market, which means there is no separate payment for simply being available. Batteries there earn by charging when power is cheap, discharging when it is expensive, and selling grid stability services. That merchant revenue is harder for lenders to underwrite than a fixed contract.
How does $150 million compare with other Texas battery loans?
It sits in the middle, and the projects either side of it explain why.
Below Apex is Jupiter Power's Callisto I Energy Center in Houston, a single battery of 200 MW and 400 MWh, the same total size as Great Kiskadee and Angelo. First Citizens Bank financed its construction with $65.2 million in December 2023, roughly $163,000 per MWh.
Above Apex is Plus Power. Its $674.3 million package from October 2023 included $202.3 million of construction and term financing for Anemoi, a 200 MW, 400 MWh battery that is also in Hidalgo County. That is about $506,000 per MWh. The same package put $196 million into the 200 MW Ebony project and $276 million into the 300 MW, 600 MWh Rodeo Ranch project, with First Citizens as a coordinating lead arranger.
So three Texas batteries of 400 MWh were financed at $65.2 million, $150 million and $202.3 million. The cheapest was construction only. The two larger figures both run beyond construction, and Apex is the lower of the two.
Enerdatics' data shows nine Texas battery debt packages between July 2023 and October 2024 that state a storage capacity, spread from about $158,000 per MWh to about $951,000 per MWh. The low end is Spearmint Energy's $47.5 million term loan on its operating 150 MW, 300 MWh Revolution battery. The high end is a $146.5 million loan for six small Cameron County batteries totalling 154 MWh, where fixed costs weigh heavily. Apex's $375,000 per MWh ranks fourth, behind that Cameron County loan, On.Energy's $40 million construction and permanent debt for an 80 MWh portfolio, and Plus Power's package at about $482,000 per MWh overall.
Why would the same capacity attract such different debt?
Leap's records point to three things that change what a battery loan covers. None of them settles the question alone.
The first is scope. Construction-only loans are meant to be repaid or refinanced at completion, so they can be smaller. Callisto's $65.2 million fits that pattern. Packages described as construction and term, or construction and operation, stay with the project and can be larger. Plus Power, On.Energy and Apex all fall in that group and sit at the top of the per MWh range. Scope is not the whole story, though. Jupiter Power's $70.4 million construction and term facility for two Texas batteries of 160 MW and 320 MWh came in at about $220,000 per MWh.
The second is what else sits in the capital stack. Spearmint's Revolution battery had already raised a credit facility and $92 million of tax equity before its $47.5 million term loan, so the bank debt is only one layer. When tax equity or transferable credits fund part of the build, the loan shrinks. Leap's Apex record lists no tax equity alongside the $150 million.
The third is contracted revenue, which Leap does not record for either Apex project. A battery with a hedge or a tolling agreement can usually support more debt than a fully merchant one. Without that detail, the cleanest reading is that Apex borrowed for construction and operation, but at a lower ratio to storage capacity than Plus Power did on a comparable battery in the same county.
What does the deal signal for ERCOT battery finance?
It shows how concentrated the lender base is. First Citizens Bank sits on 11 of the 37 US battery debt financings in Leap over eighteen months, including both Jupiter Power deals, Plus Power's package, the UBS Asset Management loan for four Texas batteries and now Apex. That repeat exposure helps explain how a two-project package closed with just two lenders.
It also shows that headline loan size is a poor guide to leverage. As with Strata's Scatter Wash ranking among single-battery financings, the per MWh figure is where the analysis starts. Three Texas batteries of identical size sit at opposite ends of the range for reasons that have nothing to do with the hardware.
Frequently asked questions
How much did Apex Clean Energy raise for Great Kiskadee and Angelo? Apex Clean Energy secured $150 million from First Citizens Bank and United Bank, announced on 14 May 2024, for the construction and operation of the two Texas battery storage projects.
How big are the Great Kiskadee and Angelo batteries? Each project is 100 MW with 200 MWh of storage, giving two hours of duration. Great Kiskadee is in Hidalgo County and Angelo is in Tom Green County, Texas.
How does the Apex loan compare with other Texas battery financings? At about $375,000 per MWh it ranks fourth of nine Texas battery debt packages in Leap, above Jupiter Power's $65.2 million construction loan for Callisto I and below Plus Power's construction and term financing for Anemoi.
Ready to get deal-ready answers in seconds? Try Enerdatics Leap AI and access verified intelligence across M&A, financings, PPAs, projects, and energy market developments through natural language.
.jpeg)
