01
02
03
04Sections
A FOAK project is fundable when some investor or funder will put money in on today's risk. It is financeable when the asset itself can support the debt or project finance structure the developer needs, on terms the lender can defend to its own credit committee. Many climate companies raise equity, strategic, grant or catalytic capital for years while their first commercial plant still lacks the contracted cash flow, precedent and risk allocation a lender requires.
The words are used loosely across markets and neither is a formal category. The distinction is practical, and it changes what you say to each capital provider. This is a communication guide, and financial structuring belongs with your advisers.
Company capital and project capital answer different questions
A venture investor backs a company before any asset produces stable cash flow. It accepts technology, market and execution risk in exchange for equity upside across the whole enterprise. A project lender evaluates a much narrower proposition. It asks whether this asset will generate enough dependable cash to service the debt, and what happens when it does not.
Those questions need different stories. A founder who pitches a lender with the venture deck tends to hear polite interest, followed by requests for signed offtake, a fixed-price construction contract and a completion guarantee.
A strong cap table improves confidence in the company. Project underwriting still depends on the asset. Lenders look at construction and completion, operating performance, contracted revenue, feedstock supply, price exposure, counterparty credit, permitting, insurance, security and who carries cost overruns. The project may need equity precisely because debt cannot yet take those exposures. That is a normal position for a first-of-a-kind plant, and it becomes a problem only when the pitch hides it and the lender discovers it in diligence.
FOAK sits in the missing middle
A first commercial plant is often too capital-intensive for a venture round and too novel for standard infrastructure finance. MaRS set up its First-of-a-Kind Lab in 2026 and describes this gap directly, noting that complex first commercial projects can fall outside traditional investor and programme mandates. That gap, and the missing reference class behind it, is the subject of our piece on why FOAK projects are hard to finance.
The gap is why FOAK capital stacks combine company equity, project equity, public funding, strategic capital, equipment finance, guarantees, catalytic capital and debt in different proportions. There is no universal stack. Catalytic capital accepts risk or terms that conventional investors decline, in order to move a market forward, and Prime Coalition has built its work around catalytic investing in climate innovation. In the United States, the Department of Energy's Title 17 loan programme offers loan guarantees for innovative energy projects.
Each source of capital has a mandate, so explain which job you are asking it to do. Equity might fund engineering and absorb first-build overruns. A grant might cover the cost of being first. A guarantee might let a lender take technology exposure it would otherwise refuse. Naming the job makes the stack easy to follow.
How LanzaJet's first plant was funded as well as financed
LanzaJet's Freedom Pines Fuels plant shows how grant money can sit in a first-of-a-kind stack. Breakthrough Energy's first Catalyst project funding was a $50 million grant to LanzaJet for the world's first alcohol-to-jet sustainable aviation fuel plant. LanzaJet later celebrated the grand opening of Freedom Pines Fuels, which it described as the world's first ethanol to sustainable aviation fuel production facility.
A grant carries no repayment obligation, so it absorbs exposure that debt could not price. It made the project more fundable. Whether the next plant becomes financeable depends on the operating record this one produces, which is the subject of our piece on FOAK to NOAK. A grant-backed first plant can tell a clear story to funders who want to see a category exist. The lenders who fund later plants want a story built on uptime, yield, delivered cost and contracted revenue, and the first plant's reporting should serve them from the start.
Name who you need to be financeable for
"Bankable" is a vague ambition. Name the lender or capital market you are aiming at, the project stage, the contracts it will lend against, the level of technology exposure it can accept and the security or guarantee structure it expects. A project can be financeable for one provider and outside the mandate of another. A development bank, a commercial lender and an equipment financier will each read the same project through a different mandate, and each deserves a version of the case written for that mandate.
Then build the capital case around risk allocation. Explain what equity absorbs, what debt could reasonably support, which risk public or catalytic capital is addressing, which milestone changes the risk profile and which contract creates revenue visibility. The clearer those answers, the less the funding plan reads as a search for money that likes climate. Our guide to presenting FOAK risk covers how to label each exposure.
Say what public support is for
Public support can be entirely legitimate. FOAK projects produce learning, industrial capacity, climate value and spillovers that private capital does not fully capture. The story should still say what the support is for. It might cover a first-mover cost, bridge a cost gap expected to fall with scale, pay for a public benefit, support shared infrastructure or reduce one specific risk. Investors separate a project that stays uneconomic without permanent support from one using temporary FOAK support on the way to repeat deployment. They will ask which you are, so answer first.
Stage the ask to the evidence
A lender need not commit construction debt while front-end engineering is incomplete. An equity investor should not be asked to underwrite every future stage before the project has the evidence for the next one. A staged capital plan makes the sequence visible.
- Development
- Engineering
- Commercial commitments
- Final investment decision
- Construction
- Operation
- Refinance or repeat deployment
The gates vary by project. Each one should name the evidence that unlocks the next form of capital.
Find the condition that blocks financing
Communication cannot make an unfinanceable project financeable. Weak economics, thin offtake, missing permits or unacceptable completion risk stay true after a better deck. Good communication does expose which condition is blocking the project, and that directs the team to the right repair.
Start by listing every capital provider you plan to approach, and write one line for each on the exposure it will take and the evidence it needs. Where a provider's line demands evidence you lack, you have found the next milestone. Where no provider on the list will take a given exposure, you have found the gap that catalytic or public capital must fill. A first commercial project needs a project structure the relevant capital can actually hold.
For help shaping a capital story that each provider can hold, see our pitch work.
Sources and further reading
Tell us what needs to move.
Bring the brief if it is clear. If it is unclear, tell us where the work is stuck.
Bring us the problem