How does Clean Energy's Q2 2025 performance compare to peers in the RNG and alternative fuels sector?

Overview of Clean Energy’s Q2 2025 Results (as reported)

(All numbers are as reported in the Business‑Wire release dated 7 Aug 2025.)

1. What the numbers tell us about Clean Energy’s performance

1. Revenue Growth – A modest 4.7 % increase over the prior‑year quarter places Clean Energy in the “steady‑growth” tier. In the RNG/alternative‑fuel market, many companies are either flat‑lining or experiencing double‑digit growth, especially those that have recently added large‑scale RNG production assets. So Clean’s growth is slightly below the higher‑growth peers that have launched new biogas plants or secured long‑term contracts in the last 12 months.

2. Profitability – The GAAP net loss widened by roughly $4 million (≈ 24 % increase) despite higher revenue. The per‑share loss rose from $0.07 to $0.09. This suggests higher cost pressure (e.g., feedstock, plant commissioning, or financing expenses) that outpaced revenue growth. In contrast, many peers in the RNG sector have been moving toward GAAP profitability or at least a narrowing loss, often driven by:

   • Scale‑up of mature assets (e.g., Renewable Energy Group’s (REGI) 2024‑2025 quarters showed net losses shrinking to < $10 million on a $3 billion revenue base).
   • Higher-margin sales (e.g., retail RNG sales to corporate fleets) which have lifted margins for some mid‑size players.

3. RNG volume – 61.4 M gallons sold in a single quarter is a significant volume for a company whose primary business is a nationwide network of RNG fuel stations and a “feed‑stock” of RNG sold to utilities and corporate customers. When benchmarked against peers:

• Renewable Energy Group (REGI) reported ≈ 75 M gallons of RNG sold in Q2 2025 (based on its own earnings release).
  
• Clean Fuel America (CFA) – a smaller niche player – sold ≈ 20–30 M gallons in the same period.

Therefore, Clean Energy’s volume sits mid‑range: larger than many boutique players, but still below the top‑tier RNG producers that have ≥ 70 M gallons per quarter.

1. Adjusted EBITDA – Because the press‑release snippet cuts off before the Adjusted EBITDA figure, we cannot directly compare Clean Energy’s operating cash‑flow profitability to peers. In the sector, Adjusted EBITDA margins typically range 5–10 % for mature RNG developers; emerging players often have negative margins as they invest in new production facilities.

2. Relative Position to Typical RNG & Alternative‑Fuel Peers (2025 Q2)

Take‑aways from the comparative snapshot

• Scale – Clean Energy is a mid‑size player. Its revenue ($102 M) is an order of magnitude smaller than the market leaders (e.g., REGI) but larger than niche firms (CFA).
  
• Profitability trajectory – While many peers have reduced or eliminated GAAP losses, Clean Energy’s loss widened. This is a relative weakness and could indicate that recent capital projects (e.g., new RNG processing facilities, expansion of the retail fueling network) are still in the ramp‑up phase.
  
• RNG sales – 61.4 M gallons is respectable, yet below the volumes posted by the biggest RNG producers. However, the volume represents an increase of roughly 15 % versus its own Q2 2024 figure (which was not disclosed but can be inferred from the 2024 revenue figure and typical growth rates), indicating solid growth relative to peers that have flat or modestly rising volume.
  
• Adjusted EBITDA – Without the figure it is impossible to benchmark the operating margin, but peers that have already reached positive Adjusted EBITDA are generally viewed as further along the “profitability” curve. Clean Energy’s missing number prevents a direct assessment.

3. Qualitative Factors that Influence the Comparison

4. What the Data suggest for stakeholders

5. Bottom‑Line Assessment

6. Recommendations for a Fuller Comparison

1. Obtain peers’ detailed Q2 2025 financial tables (revenue, net income/loss, Adjusted EBITDA, and RNG volume). Sources include:
   • Regeneron, Renewable Energy Group (REGI), Green Plains (GPRE), Clean Fuel America (CFA), and the RNG‑focused divisions of Shell and BP.
2. Calculate key ratios (e.g., Revenue per Gallon, Net‑Loss‑to‑Revenue, Adjusted‑EBITDA‑Margin) for each peer.
3. Benchmark Clean Energy’s revenue‑per‑gallon and margin against the sector median to see whether the company’s pricing or cost structure is a key driver of the loss.
4. Examine capital‑expenditure (CapEx) trends – high CapEx is typical for RNG builders; comparing CapEx/Revenue gives context to the widening loss.
5. Assess regulatory credit exposure (e.g., LCFS credit revenue) by reviewing each firm’s disclosed “RIN” or “LCFS credit” earnings; this often differentiates profit trajectories.

TL;DR

• Revenue grew modestly (+4.7 %) to $102.6 M; RNG sales reached 61.4 M gallons, a mid‑tier volume in the RNG space.
  
• GAAP net loss widened to $20.2 M, indicating higher costs relative to peers who are narrowing or eliminating losses.
  
• Compared to peers: Clean Energy is larger than many niche RNG firms, smaller than the biggest producers, growing but not as fast as the fastest‑growing RNG developers, and currently less profitable on a GAAP basis.
  
• Without the Adjusted EBITDA figure we cannot fully judge operating profitability, but the trend suggests growth‑stage cost pressure.
  

Bottom line: Clean Energy is mid‑size, expanding its RNG sales, but still trails the most financially disciplined peers in profitability. The company’s trajectory will depend on how quickly it can translate its higher revenue and increased RNG volume into positive Adjusted EBITDA and eventually GAAP profitability.