Will Charging Stations Change Connecticut’s Car Culture?

6 05 2009
vetter-61

© Daniel Fitzgerald, 2008

When I think of Connecticut and automobiles, I think of cruise nights on the Berlin Turnpike; Mark’s Cruise Night car show in Granby; Wayne Carini’s televsion show “Chasing Classic Cars” ; and the Concourse d’Elegance in Greenwich.  I think of 1960′s muscle cars, classic Corvettes, import tuners and the occasional long-hooded, wire-wheeled Jaguar.  I do not, however, think of electric cars.  I associate those green machines with California and the left coast.

But Connecticut may be a player in the electric car movement.  Last month Berlin-based Northeast Utilities (NU) announced plans to build New England’s first network of electric vehicle charging stations.  NU envisions New England as a leader in the green motoring movement.

Chevrolet VoltMy unscientific research method (i.e. Google) reveals little information regarding charging stations outside of California, Nevada, Oregon and Georgia.  However, Oregon appears to be taking an aggressive approach, including offering tax credits.

It would appear that Connecticut has an opportunity to be a significant player in electric vehicles.  The construction of charging stations is a good start.  It will be interesting to see if auto dealers jump on the bandwagon, and perhaps more importantly, if the General Assembly supports the electric motoring movement.

-Dan Fitzgerald





CT Innovations Funding (continued)

5 05 2009

The Hartford Business Journal has picked up on the story regarding the Connecticut legislature’s proposal to transfer $9.5 million from the Connecticut Innovations fund to help offset the 2009 budget deficit (see story HBJ story here).  As I posted yesterday (see “Connecticut’s Shortsighted Proposal to Transfer $9.5MM from CT Innovations”), this shortsighted quick fix to Connecticut’s budget problems will have a serious negative impact on the start-up tech sector in Connecticut. 

It’s important to note what Peter Longo, President and Executive Director of Connecticut Innovations, means when he writes that such transfer of funds will result in CI being unable to fund any of the 22 companies currently in its pipeline.  It means that 22 promising Connecticut or Connecticut-bound companies (because CI only invests in Connecticut-based companies) will lose a potential investor, in an already scarce venture capital market.  As a result, the state runs the risk of such companies going out of business because of undercapitalization or moving out of Connecticut to places with lower overhead and greater venture opportunities.  Furthermore, such non-funding by CI may result in lost revenue opportunities for the state if any of these companies become a valuable target when the merger/acquisition/IPO market re-invigorates.

-Gregg J. Lallier





Connecticut’s Green Gold?

5 05 2009

Check out an article in today’s Courant regarding research being conducted by the University of New Haven over whether biodiesel can be created from algae in Long Island Sound (“Biofuel Squeezed From Algae Could Be New Cash Crop”).  According to the article, Cleantech Group (which collects data on the cleantech industry) has reported that biodiesel firms using algae raised $195 million in investments last year.

This is a pretty interesting opportunity for the expansion and diversification of cleantech in Connecticut, especially when one looks at the success of biodiesel firms in the midwest with corn and soybeans.  The added benefit of diversifying biodiesel sources from something other than food heightens this opportunity in Connecticut (although I wouldn’t be surprised if harvesting algae for this purpose has some type of adverse environmental impact about which I don’t know).

- Gregg J. Lallier





Connecticut’s Shortsighted Proposal to Transfer $9.5MM from CT Innovations

4 05 2009

The Appropriations Committee of the Connecticut state legislature recently released a proposal to mitigate the 2009 state budget deficit, which includes the transfer of $9.5 million from Connecticut Innovations to the state budget (see WNPR – Connecticut report here).  As ConnTIP has discussed in numerous previous posts, investment in innovative technologies and entrepreneurs provide not only Connecticut, but the nation at large, the best opportunity to turn this economy around.  CI is one of the greatest (if not the greatest) supporters of such innovative technologies and entrepreneurs in the state, continually providing the much needed seed and working capital that such local companies desperately need to get off the ground and flourish.  Taking funds away from CI would be a shortsighted attempt to solve Connecticut’s fiscal crisis.  As Peter Longo, President and Executive Director of Connecticut Innovations, posted at the CI blog earlier this week:

If approved, this transfer would have negative consequences for the state.  CI would have to curtail all investing in new technology companies and preserve its capital for follow-on investments in current portfolio companies.  CI would not be able to invest in any of the 22 promising technology companies currently in our pipeline. 

Technology-based economic development must continue during this downturn so that Connecticut will be well-positioned for growth when the economy does turn around. 

 - Gregg J. Lallier





Good Patent Advice from IPWatchdog…Bad Patent Advice from WSJ

4 05 2009

Any start-up tech company, entrepreneur or inventor who or which believes that he/she/it has a patentable invention should go check out a recent entry at the IPWatchdog blog  published by Gene Quinn (“Bad Patent Advice from the Wall Street Journal“).  In the article, Quinn critiques some “patent” advice given by Alexandra Levit in a recent column published in the Wall Street Journal (See column here).  More than just critiquing, Quinn provides some very valuable insight to those with the next “great” idea:

If I had a dollar for every time I received an e-mail from someone saying that they have a life-changing invention, or world-saving invention, I would be able to retire.  The story goes, as in this case, my invention is critical, essential, life-altering and I know without a doubt that it will succeed.  These messages then ALWAYS go on to say, I just don’t have the money, but those with money would get a great deal if they would partner with me and fund my invention.  Sometimes it even goes further and implies that anyone who is wealthy would be lucky to get such a great opportunity.  I try and preach to inventors that if they want to be taken seriously they need to keep it real, and this is an enormous red-flag and serious people will flee from you with this story.  The truth is ideas and inventions are everywhere, and if you are not willing to put up your own money that says you don’t believe in your own invention enough, so why should I?  Finally, inventors without “skin in the game” invariably walk away because they have nothing invested.  This story is not taken seriously by anyone in the industry and if you are serious and have an invention you cannot lead with this type of pitch.

Even though I’m not a patent attorney, I do practice in the “soft” IP fields (e.g. copyrights, trademarks, etc.), and, given the focus of my practice (technology, and, in particular, tech start-ups), I need to be familiar with patent principles.  Given that, I would say that Mr. Quinn’s insights are spot-on…more often than not the “inventor” wants all the riches without any of the sacrifices.  In a sense, the reason why an inventor/entrepreneur/start-up gets off the ground and is successful is the fact that they have their heads in the clouds.  They’re creative people with innovative solutions.  However, at some point, it’s necessary to have some reality checks, which is why having competent legal/financial/business counsel is so important.  I often tell my clients that a good lawyer may sometimes be perceived as the ultimate kill-joy….but in the long run, they’ll be thankful for such pessimism.

-Gregg J. Lallier





Start-Ups with Revenues More Attractive to VCs

4 05 2009

Cheng Wu, co-founder and chairman of Azuki Systems Inc., has an article at Mass High Tech explaining how, in today’s market, those start-ups which can show low burn-rates and higher revenues are more attractive to venture capital investment (“Entrepreneurs need more than great ideas to land VC funds“).  As ConnTIP has highlighted in the past, the recent downward trends in VC activity (see 1Q VC activity here) makes those start-ups with low overhead have an inside track to VC funding (See “Lowdown on LILO’s“).  This is in large part due to the concurrent downward trends in “exit” opportunities, whether that exit is  in the form of a merger/acquisition or IPO (See 1Q M&A activity here). 

It’s always important for tech start-ups to know of VC/exit market trends in order to be in a position to fully take advantage of VC paradigms.

- Gregg J. Lallier








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.