You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
The company has a new CEO and a new strategy — to refocus on its “core business.”

After a proxy fight, a successful shareholder revolt, and the ousting of a CEO, Air Products, the largest hydrogen company in the world, is floundering. In early May, it posted a $1.7 billion net loss for the second quarter of the fiscal year. While Air Products produces an array of industrial gases, the newly appointed CEO, Eduardo Menezes, told investors on the company’s recent Q2 earnings call that he blamed its investments in clean hydrogen projects for its recent struggles.
“Over the past few years Air Products moved away from its core business in search of growth,” Menezes said. (That core business would be traditional industrial gases such as oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen, produced sans newfangled clean technologies.) “We deployed capital to complex, higher risk projects with first-of-a-kind technologies — and, more importantly, without committed offtake agreements in place.” The company took on significant debt and increased its headcount to try and carry out its ambitious agenda, he explained. “This had a negative impact on both cost and execution quality, leading to significant project delays.”
This is, of course, in line with the overall downward trend in fortunes for clean hydrogen. Demand has long lagged behind production capacity, and projects have fallen apart left and right as uncertain economics, the Trump administration’s fossil fuel-friendly agenda, and the future of the clean hydrogen tax credit threaten to reverse what early-stage progress producers have made to date. But while these hurdles could be expected to flatten the hopes of some emergent startups or oil and gas industry tourists, it’s a more telling signal when the world’s biggest hydrogen supplier can’t make an expedient transition to clean energy work.
“I think that they’re just at the forefront of the industry pulling back,” Krzysztof Smalec, an equity analyst at Morningstar, told me. Air Products has committed $15 billion to the energy transition overall, making a more aggressive push into the low-carbon hydrogen space than its competitors such as Linde and Air Liquide. “They’re the most exposed, so it’s the most high profile, but it’s not unique to Air Products,” Smalec said.
The company has been facing investor pushback over its ostensibly risky investments in this space for some time now. In January, shareholders voted to replace three of the company’s board members, including former 81-year old CEO Seifi Ghasemi, who drove the company’s enthusiastic expansion into the clean hydrogen market. This was a major win for activist hedge fund Mantle Ridge, which holds a nearly 2% stake in Air Products. The investor spent much of last year ginning up support for the idea that Air Products needed new voices in the boardroom to scale back its clean energy projects, many of which had not yet secured buyers. (Air Products did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)
The Mantle Ridge campaign — called Refreshing Air Products — backed Menezes for CEO. On last week’s call, he was frank with investors as he echoed his supporters’ — and much of the industry’s — perspective when he emphasized “the importance of refocusing” on tried and true outputs. This refocusing means major layoffs. The company employs about 23,000 people, and Menezes told investors that 1,300 layoffs are already “in process.” Between next year and 2028, the company intends to eliminate another 2,500 to 3,000 positions.
Air Products is also scaling back its plans for a controversial blue hydrogen project in Louisiana. This means the hydrogen is made from natural gas, with the resulting CO2 emissions captured and stored underground. Initially, Air Products had planned to turn about 80% of the hydrogen from this project into ammonia; now it’s looking to sell off the ammonia portion of the business, as well as the plant’s carbon capture and sequestration operations. The goal is to reduce the project’s costs from around $8 billion to $5 billion or $6 billion. All funding will be paused while the company pursues this “derisking strategy,” and will restart only once firm offtake agreements are secured. As of now, none have been announced.
This comes on the heels of three project cancellations Air Products announced in February, two of which were hydrogen-related. One was a sustainable aviation fuels project in California that proposed using hydrogen to convert diesel into jet fuel. The company nixed it due to “challenging commercial aspects.” The other was a planned green hydrogen facility in New York that would use clean electricity to produce hydrogen. That decision followed the January release of final hydrogen tax credit rules, which mandate that projects buy energy from new renewable sources (Air Products had planned to use existing hydropower facilities), as well as slower than anticipated development of the market for hydrogen-powered vehicles.
“I think Air Products just went out on a limb and just took a bet that they’ll be able to finish these projects, be the first mover, and be able to charge a premium,” Smalec told me. “And that was a lot of additional risk.”
The difficulty of deploying new technologies is certainly not confined to the hydrogen industry. “A lot of energy transition industries are struggling at the moment,” Murray Douglas, the head of hydrogen research at Wood Mackenzie, told me. No kidding. “That’s a result of many different factors, not least higher borrowing costs, high rates of inflation across much of the world.”
There is one hydrogen project that the new leadership appears to be relatively happy with, though perhaps predictably, it’s not domestic. That’s a green hydrogen complex in Saudi Arabia, expected to come online in 2027. On its website, Air Products boasts that the facility is “based on proven technologies,” running counter to the new leadership’s narrative that this novel tech might be too risky a bet. While Menezes told investors that from the outside he was “very concerned with this project” he’s been pleasantly surprised that it appears poised to produce low-cost green ammonia from hydrogen. As for the upfront costs, he told investors that Air Products has “successfully limited our spend on this project through partnership and project financing.”
The fact that a green hydrogen project — said to be the world’s largest — is taking root in a fossil fuel-rich nation like Saudi Arabia could be seen as a ray of hope. But on the whole, Douglas isn’t surprised that Air Products is pulling back. So many companies — be they industrial gas behemoths or oil majors — are winnowing down their once robust clean energy project pipeline now that political and economic realities have shifted. BP, for example. stopped work on 18 early-stage hydrogen projects last year and shut down its hydrogen-focused low carbon transportation team. Similarly Shell is scaling back its hydrogen ambitions, scrapping its hydrogen vehicles division.
“They’ve had to probably accelerate the narrowing of that portfolio a bit quicker than what we were expecting because the market just isn’t maturing quickly enough,” Douglas told me. “Maybe the rules are a bit more difficult, cost escalation, inflation has really got in the way.”
But while the tide is certainly out for clean hydrogen, Smalec reads Air Products’ pullback as more of a push towards prudency than a companywide disavowal of the category. Under the right conditions, including manageable costs and secure offtake agreements, “my sense is that they would definitely be willing to invest,” Smalec said. That’s how the company’s competitors are approaching things, he added.
For the near future, though, expect the drama around Air Products to simmer down. “For the next three years or so, I would not expect any major announcements,” Smalec told me. “I think that they have a pretty straightforward path to really improve their performance.”
Unfortunately for the clean hydrogen industry, the path to profitability has changed significantly in recent months, and green and blue hydrogen might be more of a side quest these days.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
What happens when one of energy’s oldest bottlenecks meets its newest demand driver?
Often the biggest impediment to building renewable energy projects or data center infrastructure isn’t getting government approvals, it’s overcoming local opposition. When it comes to the transmission that connects energy to the grid, however, companies and politicians of all stripes are used to being most concerned about those at the top – the politicians and regulators at every level who can’t seem to get their acts together.
What will happen when the fiery fights on each end of the wire meet the broken, unplanned spaghetti monster of grid development our country struggles with today? Nothing great.
The transmission fights of the data center boom have only just begun. Utilities will have to spend lots of money on getting energy from Point A to Point B – at least $500 billion over the next five years, to be precise. That’s according to a survey of earnings information published by think tank Power Lines on Tuesday, which found roughly half of all utility infrastructure spending will go toward the grid.
But big wires aren’t very popular. When Heatmap polled various types of energy projects last September, we found that self-identified Democrats and Republicans were mostly neutral on large-scale power lines. Independent voters, though? Transmission was their second least preferred technology, ranking below only coal power.
Making matters far more complex, grid planning is spread out across decision-makers. At the regional level, governance is split into 10 areas overseen by regional transmission organizations, known as RTOs, or independent system operators, known as ISOs. RTOs and ISOs plan transmission projects, often proposing infrastructure to keep the grid resilient and functional. These bodies are also tasked with planning the future of their own grids, or at least they are supposed to – many observers have decried RTOs and ISOs as outmoded and slow to respond. Utilities and electricity co-ops also do this planning at various scales. And each of these bodies must navigate federal regulators and permitting processes, utility commissions for each state they touch, on top of the usual raft of local authorities.
The mid-Atlantic region is overseen by PJM Interconnection, a body now under pressure from state governors in the territory to ensure the data center boom doesn’t unnecessarily drive up costs for consumers. The irony, though, is that these governors are going to be under incredible pressure to have their states act against individual transmission projects in ways that will eventually undercut affordability.
Virginia, for instance – known now as Data Center Alley – is flanked by states that are politically diverse. West Virginia is now a Republican stronghold, but was long a Democratic bastion. Maryland had a Republican governor only a few years ago. Virginia and Pennsylvania regularly change party control. These dynamics are among the many drivers behind the opposition against the Piedmont Reliability Project, which would run from a nuclear plant in Pennsylvania to northern Virginia, cutting across spans of Maryland farmland ripe for land use conflict. The timeline for this project is currently unclear due to administrative delays.
Another major fight is brewing with NextEra’s Mid-Atlantic Resiliency Link, or MARL project. Spanning four states – and therefore four utility commissions – the MARL was approved by PJM Interconnection to meet rising electricity demand across West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania. It still requires approval from each state utility commission, however. Potentially affected residents in West Virginia are hopping mad about the project, and state Democratic lawmakers are urging the utility commission to reject it.
In West Virginia, as well as Virginia and Maryland, NextEra has applied for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to build the MARL project, a permit that opponents have claimed would grant it the authority to exercise eminent domain. (NextEra has said it will do what it can to work well with landowners. The company did not respond to a request for comment.)
“The biggest problem facing transmission is that there’s so many problems facing transmission,” said Liza Reed, director of climate and energy at the Niskanen Center, a policy think tank. “You have multiple layers of approval you have to go through for a line that is going to provide broader benefits in reliability and resilience across the system.”
Hyperlocal fracases certainly do matter. Reed explained to me that “often folks who are approving the line at the state or local level are looking at the benefits they’re receiving – and that’s one of the barriers transmission can have.” That is, when one state utility commission looks at a power line project, they’re essentially forced to evaluate the costs and benefits from just a portion of it.
She pointed to the example of a Transource line proposed by PJM almost 10 years ago to send excess capacity from Pennsylvania to Maryland. It wasn’t delayed by protests over the line itself – the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission opposed the project because it thought the result would be net higher electricity bills for folks in the Keystone State. That’s despite whatever benefits would come from selling the electricity to Maryland and consumer benefits for their southern neighbors. The lesson: Whoever feels they’re getting the raw end of the line will likely try to stop it, and there’s little to nothing anyone else can do to stop them.
These hyperlocal fears about projects with broader regional benefits can be easy targets for conservation-focused environmental advocates. Not only could they take your land, the argument goes, they’re also branching out to states with dirtier forms of energy that could pollute your air.
“We do need more energy infrastructure to move renewable energy,” said Julie Bolthouse, director of land use for the Virginia conservation group Piedmont Environmental Council, after I asked her why she’s opposing lots of the transmission in Virginia. “This is pulling away from that investment. This is eating up all of our utility funding. All of our money is going to these massive transmission lines to give this incredible amount of power to data centers in Virginia when it could be used to invest in solar, to invest in transmission for renewables we can use. Instead it’s delivering gas and coal from West Virginia and the Ohio River Valley.”
Daniel Palken of Arnold Ventures, who previously worked on major pieces of transmission reform legislation in the U.S. Senate, said when asked if local opposition was a bigger problem than macro permitting issues: “I do not think local opposition is the main thing holding up transmission.”
But then he texted me to clarify. “What’s unique about transmission is that in order for local opposition to even matter, there has to be a functional planning process that gets transmission lines to the starting line. And right now, only about half the country has functional regional planning, and none of the country has functional interregional planning.”
It’s challenging to fathom a solution to such a fragmented, nauseating puzzle. One solution could be in Congress, where climate hawks and transmission reform champions want to empower the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to have primacy over transmission line approvals, as it has over gas pipelines. This would at the very least contain any conflicts over transmission lines to one deciding body.
“It’s an old saw: Depending on the issue, I’ll tell you that I’m supportive of states’ rights,” Representative Sean Casten told me last December. “[I]t makes no sense that if you want to build a gas pipeline across multiple states in the U.S., you go to FERC and they are the sole permitting authority and they decide whether or not you get a permit. If you go to the same corridor and build an electric transmission that has less to worry about because there’s no chance of leaks, you have a different permitting body every time you cross a state line.”
Another solution could come from the tech sector thinking fast on its feet. Google for example is investing in “advanced” transmission projects like reconductoring, which the company says will allow it to increase the capacity of existing power lines. Microsoft is also experimenting with smaller superconductor lines they claim deliver the same amount of power than traditional wires.
But this space is evolving and in its infancy. “Getting into the business of transmission development is very complicated and takes a lot of time. That’s why we’ve seen data centers trying a lot of different tactics,” Reed said. “I think there’s a lot of interest, but turning that into specific projects and solutions is still to come. I think it’s also made harder by how highly local these decisions are.”
Plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.
1. Franklin County, Maine – The fate of the first statewide data center ban hinges on whether a governor running for a Democratic Senate nomination is willing to veto over a single town’s project.
2. Jerome County, Idaho – The county home to the now-defunct Lava Ridge wind farm just restricted solar energy, too.
3. Shelby County, Tennessee - The NAACP has joined with environmentalists to sue one of Elon Musk’s data centers in Memphis, claiming it is illegally operating more than two dozen gas turbines.
4. Richland County, Ohio - This Ohio county is going to vote in a few weeks on a ballot initiative that would overturn its solar and wind ban. I am less optimistic about it than many other energy nerds I’ve seen chattering the past week.
5. Racine County, Wisconsin – I close this week’s Hotspots with a bonus request: Please listen to this data center noise.
A chat with Scott Blalock of Australian energy company Wärtsilä.
This week’s conversation is with Scott Blalock of Australian energy company Wärtsilä. I spoke with Blalock this week amidst my reporting on transmission after getting an email asking whether I understood that data centers don’t really know how much battery storage they need. Upon hearing this, I realized I didn’t even really understand how data centers – still a novel phenomenon to me – were incorporating large-scale battery storage at all. How does that work when AI power demand can be so dynamic?
Blalock helped me realize that in some ways, it’s more of the same, and in others, it’s a whole new ballgame.
The following chat was lightly edited for clarity.
So help me understand how the battery storage side of your business is changing due to the rise in data center development.
We’re really in the early stages for energy storage. The boom is really in generation – batteries aren’t generators. They store, they shift, they smooth power, but they don’t generate the power from fuel. In this boom right now, everyone is trying to find either grid connections or on-site power generation. Those are the longest lead time items ± they take a while — so we’re still in the early stages of those types of projects coming back and saying, we need to start procuring batteries. We need to start looking at the controls and how everything’s going to work together. That’s still a little bit in the future.
Are you seeing people deploy batteries responsibly, in an integrated way, or is it people unsure what they need?
There’s definitely uncertainty as to what they need. The requirements are still hard to nail down. A lot of the requirements come from the load curve of the AI workloads they’re doing, and that’s still a bit of a moving target. It’s the importance of knowing the whole system and planning that out in the modeling space.
The biggest space of all this is the load profile. Without a load profile, there’s uncertainty about what you’re going to need –
When you say load profile, what do you mean?
The AI workload. The GPUs. The volatility. In a synchronized training load, all of the GPUs are generally doing the same thing at the same time. They all reach a pause state at the same time, and you’re close to full power on the data center, and then they say, okay now we go idle. It has a little bit of a wait and then starts back up again.
It’s that square wave, very sharp changes in power – that’s the new challenge of an AI data center. That’s one of the new uses of BESS that’s being added compared to the traditional data center doing data storage. They’re more stable which use less power and are more stable.
The volatility is where some of the friction comes in, and that has to be handled by some technology.
So what you’re telling me is that data center developers do not know how much they need in terms of battery storage? Simply put, they don’t know how much power they need?
Traditionally, utility-scale batteries – the projects we’ve been doing – come from a PPA, an interconnect agreement. There’s something in place where they know exactly how many batteries they can install. They know how many megawatts they’re allowed to install. Then they come to us and they say, I need a 4-megawatt battery for two hours. Tell me how many batteries you’re going to give me.
In a data center, they don’t know that first number. They don’t know how many megawatts they need. So that’s the first question: well, how big of a battery do you need?
If you have a 1-gigawatt data center that means the load change is 60% of that – 600 megawatts is the step up-and-down. The starting point is 600 megawatts for two hours. That’s the starting point that’ll cover being able to take care of that volatility. The duration is a part of it, too. From there you get into more detailed studies.
When it comes to transmission, how much of a factor is it in how much storage a data center needs?
The first thing is whether it’s connected at all. The battery is a shock absorber for the whole system. If you are grid-connected, the BESS is still a stability asset – it’s still improving the power quality and stability at an interconnect. If you’re doing on-site generation, it becomes vital because you have only one system being controlled.
As far as when you talk about permitting and transmission, the details of that don’t really play that much into the BESS, but it’s tangentially related. The BESS is an important part of how you handle that situation. Whether you get to interconnect or not, it’s an extremely important asset in that mix.
With respect to the overall social license conversation, how does battery storage fit into the conversations around energy bills and strain on the grid?
Bias aside, I think it’s the most important piece.
If you look at the macro scale, it’s like transitioning to renewables where they’re intermittent; batteries turn intermittent generation from renewables into firm, dispatchable power. It’s still not going to be available all the time – you’re not going to turn a solar plant into a 24-hour baseload plant – but a battery allows you to shift the energy. It greatly alleviates the problem.
The other aspect is it’s a stability asset. The short version of that is you have big thermal plants – rotating metal masses that have momentum to them that stabilize everything on the grid. As you take those offline, the coal plants and the gas plants, the grid itself loses that inertia so it is more susceptible to spikes and failures because of small events. Batteries are able to synthesize that inertia.