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:
Green hydrogen may yet descend the cost curve, and expect lots more fusion research.

While some of our most promising decarbonization technologies were born in one of the Department of Energy’s National Labs or in Silicon Valley, China is where so many of them — from solar panels to electric vehicles and battery energy storage — have achieved critical commercial scale. That makes the country’s latest Five-Year Plan an essential document for understanding the future of climate tech.
With a U.S. administration that has eschewed its own climate commitments, many have hoped that China would take on a global leadership role. On that front, many experts have been left wanting. The document makes no promises on phasing out coal, which accounts for over half of China’s energy consumption, and doesn’t set a target for the expansion of solar.
“It’s a green tech addition plan as opposed to a decarbonization plan,” Jeremy Wallace, a Professor of China Studies at Johns Hopkins University, told me. Over the past five years, the country has deployed nearly a terawatt of new solar, far exceeding even its own ambitions. “So the buildout rapidly exceeded expectations, but has not seemingly led to a systematic rethinking about the system,” Wallace said.
The plan does lean into climate tech, however, even if it stops short of positioning new forms of clean energy generation as direct coal replacements. And that interest extends far beyond already commercialized sectors like solar, wind, battery storage, and electric vehicles. The list of “future industries” that the party is prioritizing includes “hydrogen energy and nuclear fusion energy,” alongside quantum science, biological manufacturing, brain-computer interfaces, and 6G wireless networks.
“I don’t think China is creating these technologies as a niche climate experiment anymore. They’re being folded into a broader industrial strategy,” Qi Qin, a China analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, told me of the emergent tech that the plan mentions. “I think that the more important question is which of them are moving into real deployment now, and which are still at the stage of strategic signaling.”
Much of that should come into sharper focus in the coming months. Now that the national direction has been set, local officials will begin translating the state’s broad agenda into concrete targets and on-the-ground projects. It is not too much to say that how they choose to do so will largely determine how quickly the world decarbonizes.
The plan’s repeated mention of green hydrogen and hydrogen-derived fuels is particularly notable given these industries' struggles in the U.S. to reach economic viability and secure offtakers, as the Trump administration has dialed back the clean hydrogen tax credits and canceled grants for planned green hydrogen hubs.
And while China also can’t ignore the underlying economics of green hydrogen — which is useful for decarbonizing heavy industry and transport by truck, ship, or air, but still expensive to produce and not so helpful outside those specific use cases — the party appears much more open to bringing it down the cost curve. As Qin put it, “hydrogen has clearly moved up in political visibility.” The plan promises to “expand applications of hydrogen energy in transportation, electricity, industrial, and other domains,” according to an unofficial translation, while improving “renewable energy hydrogen production equipment” such as electrolyzers, advancing “the hydrogen energy industry chain toward green ammonia, methanol, and sustainable aviation fuels,” and accelerating technological breakthroughs in hydrogen storage and transportation. (China has not released an official translation of the plan.)
The Five-Year Plan also comes amidst a slew of recently announced policies supporting the industry’s development, Yuki Yu, an independent researcher with a deep knowledge of China’s hydrogen economy, told me.
The week before the plan was finalized, Premier Li Qiang delivered China’s annual policy statement to the National People’s Congress, which included a pledge to “establish the National Low‑Carbon Transition Fund, and cultivate hydrogen energy, green fuels and other new growth points.” By rhetorically linking the fund — which Yu described to me as functioning “a little bit like a national private equity company to invest directly into frontier technology” — specifically to hydrogen and clean fuels, it signals that the country views these technologies as core pillars of its energy transition, Yu said.
Then just days after the plan was adopted, the country launched a green hydrogen pilot program, offering performance-based government funding to five regions for projects spanning sectors such as fuel cell vehicles, green ammonia and methanol production, low-carbon steelmaking, and industrial heating. The four-year program aims to cut the end-use price of hydrogen to below 25 Chinese yuan (approximately $3.50) per kilogram, and double the national fleet of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles nationwide to 100,000.
Taken together, all of this sends a “very, very clear financial signal” to the industry, Yu told me. While government funding for hydrogen had previously focused primarily on fuel-cell vehicles like trucks and buses, Yu said China now appears to be placing a far greater emphasis on commercializing other hydrogen use-cases.
Yet as Qin sees it, producing hydrogen with renewable energy — which powers the process of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen — is, in some sense, simply a diversion from leveraging renewables to replace coal on the grid.
“I think that part of the reason that green fuels has become a hot topic, has become a new focus in China is because nobody wants to touch that 55% of coal power,” Qin told me, referencing coal’s approximate share of primary energy. Hydrogen, she said, offers an attractive way to decarbonize certain hard-to-abate sectors without having to overturn the coal economy.
Wallace also noted that electrolyzers — the devices used to split hydrogen from water — made in China are generally viewed as “second rate” compared with Western systems, which are typically more powerful and better able to ramp up and down in tandem with solar and wind resources. Perhaps, he suggested, the country is betting that its lower-cost electrolyzers will go the way of lithium iron phosphate batteries, a cheaper alternative to the traditional lithium-ion chemistry involving nickel and cobalt, which are much more expensive and supply constrained than iron. LFP batteries “approximate the first rate tech, but at a much cheaper price point,” Wallace told me, which could be the arc its electrolyzer industry attempts to follow.
None of the other frontier tech gets quite as enthusiastic a shoutout in the Five-Year Plan as green hydrogen. Fusion, however, seems to be an area of keen interest, at least on the research front.
In a section on key technological breakthroughs the country aims to achieve, the document lists “key fusion technologies such as tritium fuel preparation and circulation, material radiation testing, high-performance lasers, and superconducting magnet manufacturing,” with the ultimate goal being to “advance fusion research and development.”
And yet the plan does not set a timeline or explicit goal related to fusion commercialization, even as well-capitalized American startups such as Commonwealth Fusion Systems, Thea Energy, and Pacific Fusion aim to put electrons on the grid in the 2030s. “I think the government sees, okay, this is a very strategic and very interesting direction that we should also pursue,” Yu told me. And yet, it “seems to have a conservative look, or a cautious look on how commercialized these technologies truly are.”
Similarly, while Qin sees the inclusion of fusion in the plan as “politically meaningful” in and of itself, she said it “should be read as a signal about ambition” and not as a “near-term climate solution.”
Last year, China launched a state-owned fusion company, the aptly named China Fusion Energy Co., with $2.1 billion in capital, as well as a 10-nation alliance to promote collaborative fusion energy research and knowledge sharing. Yet the government has largely steered clear of talking about fusion as a commercial possibility, and when it has, the timeline is far longer than what the U.S. upstarts are promising. As Zhang Libo, the General Manager of China Fusion Energy Co. has stated, the company wants to build a demonstration reactor by 2045, while the China National Nuclear Corporation said it expects to produce commercial power around 2050.
This type of circumspection is par for the course with the Chinese Communist Party, which tends to underpromise and overdeliver when it comes to its clean energy targets. “In general, a lot of this seemingly moderate change can really kick off ripple effects and have long term impacts,” Yu told me. For instance, while China previously set a target to deploy 1,200 gigawatts of combined wind and solar capacity by 2030, it ended up achieving that goal a full six years early. “So even though sometimes the policy could come across as mild or more conservative, the effect does not necessarily mean the same.”
That may provide little comfort to those longing to see a disavowal of coal in writing. But if the past has taught us anything, it could also mean that five years from now China will have changed the game for hydrogen, clean fuels, fusion, and a host of other emerging industries.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A new front opens in the data center wars.
A series of lawsuits filed in federal court asks a big question – are data center moratoria constitutional?
In early August, data center developer DC Blox sued the city of Nashville in federal court to overturn a zoning moratorium stopping them from building a hyperscale facility adjacent to the city zoo. “The Data Center Moratorium, moreover, is a targeted attack against DC BLOX, in violation of federal constitutional protections,” the suit argued, claiming that it defied the corporation’s due process and equal protection rights.
Around the same time, another developer – Wixom Industrial One – filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Wixom, Michigan, to try and “invalidate the city’s illegal police power moratorium” blocking their data center.
These two cases were far from novel or the first of their kind, and they’re now a fresh front in the battle over hyperscale data centers. At least that’s what some who work on these cases say: In April, attorneys with the law firm Vorys published a “client alert” asserting “many moratoria may be vulnerable to statutory, procedural, and constitutional challenges.” The attorneys advised that constitutional arguments against moratoria “may be stronger where a government singles out data centers without a sound factual basis, treats similar land uses differently without a reasonable basis, or adopts a restriction driven more by political pressure than by defensible planning or regulatory objectives.”
Months later, according to court documents, the Vorys attorneys who authored the alert now represent real estate firm Thor Equities in a federal case against the Ohio city of Urbana, arguing the city’s decision to reject their data center project broke “fundamental protections” under the U.S. Constitution. (Vorys and Thor Equities did not respond to requests for comment.)
It’s unclear how many of these kinds of cases have been filed to date. Data on federal court cases is quite opaque. But legal experts and industry attorneys tell me we should expect them to be on the rise as developers seek whatever tools they can find to get projects built.
“Bringing a lawsuit like this is fairly cheap, something they can do at a relatively low cost, and imposes a real cost on local governments to defend themselves,” said Daniel Metzger, director of the Cities Climate Law Initiative at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center. “The cases out there will be bellwethers. And if successful, there’ll be a lot more of them.”
What developers probably want looks a lot like Hill County, Texas, where an LLC proposing an $80 million data center project was stymied in May by the state’s first countywide moratorium. (It predated Governor Greg Abbott’s temporary freeze of data center development in Texas by three months.) Within a period of only a few weeks, the LLC sued and the county rescinded the pause on approvals. The case was dropped a month later. Local reports state the county had to afterwards pay the corporation $100,000 in legal fees – a drop in the bucket compared to what a drawn-out court battle would have cost the rural county.
Metzger said whether the companies will win these cases is ultimately not the point – their goal is to win a finished data center, not a judicial ruling. By filing expansive litigation in the national court system, a hypothetical developer can exhaust the coffers of a city or county with legal expenses that are chump change compared to would-be billions in private financing for compute infrastructure.
“These lawsuits may deter some local governments from taking steps to oppose data center development, just because of the cost it would impose on them to defend a lawsuit, even if they know they have a strong legal basis for the action they want to take.”
Those I spoke to in private practice about data center developers’ constitutional arguments agreed with Metzger’s assessment that it’s too early to tell whether the companies will win. Generally, they said, a city or county will win this kind of case if it demonstrates a rational basis for its decision-making and courts typically want to defer to governmental autonomy. The onus will be on the developers to prove a moratorium was meritless – that’s the due process challenge – or unfairly targeted their industry in a way other sectors don’t face, which is the basis of the equal protection claim.
“What they’re saying is in essence that these actions the municipality is taking are arbitrary and capricious, which is one of the sort of catch-all standards,” Thomas Allen, a partner at K&L Gates, told me. “They say the laws lack a rational basis. And then they make equal protection claims, saying data centers are being singled out because of political concerns as opposed to actual things relevant to the legislature’s directive. They’re not basing their decisions on the underlying merits of the project but reacting to political pressure.”
“It’s a reliance question and it’s about the treatment of their projects,” added Laura Morton, an attorney with Ashurst Perkins Coie. “It’s always been important to talk about and engage with communities where your infrastructure is planned. Here, I think this is the developers going in, maybe having conversations, and then suddenly they’re getting a reversal after already receiving these approvals and making investments based off of what the conversations and rules were.”
The likelihood of these constitutional challenges reaching higher courts anytime soon is quite low. It’ll be a long time before we see one of these cases reach a verdict, let alone some kind of appeals process come to fruition. Nevertheless, the new legal ambiguity around these local restrictions is an important new facet of the data center wars, including for developers.
“Companies want to act within the law to get [things] done, so whatever tactics they can do to help get the project over the line that are legal and ethical, they may try those,” Allen told me. “And if that includes the pressure of a lawsuit, that’s a judgment they’ll have to make.”
And more on this week’s conflicts around project development.
1. Montgomery County, Pennsylvania – We reached a new normal in the data center backlash, and it all seems to have started in King of Prussia.
2. Columbia County, Wisconsin – The gubernatorial race in this state is transforming local fights over wind projects into must-watch popcorn fodder for anyone obsessed with the state of the energy transition, or national politics for that matter.
3. Shelby County, Alabama – One quick update on the intervention of John Rich, the country star turned Trump’s “special envoy for American landowners,” in an Alabama Power transmission project: it’s getting a lot more elected officials involved.
4. New Jersey – We try to conclude every Hotspots on a positive note. So this week’s silver lining comes to you from the Garden State, where state regulators have approved more than a dozen agrivoltaics projects.
A conversation with Ella Nilsen — formerly of CNN, now with Echo Communications — about where we stand in the fight over the energy transition.
This week’s conversation is with Ella Nilsen, who recently left CNN as a climate reporter and is now a new vice president at energy and cleantech PR firm Echo Communications. Having worked on Capitol Hill alongside Nilsen, I knew her to be an exceptional reporter who asked hard questions of those in power on all sides. So when I found out she was taking her journalism hat off and putting the comms cap on, I wanted to do something you rarely get to do with one of your reporting peers: ask for her own opinion about where we stand in the fight over the energy transition.
Our chat was lightly edited for clarity.
What’s it like going from CNN and climate journalism to advising on communications in the energy sector, especially when it comes to clean tech in this fraught moment?
So before I covered climate and clean energy, I was a political reporter who covered campaign cycles and Capitol Hill for a while, and I was always interested in the nexus of politics and politics. I tried to make as much of my coverage about that. Politics is policy, and the other way around.
Being on the other side of it is, well, I know from my experience as a reporter what interests them. I’m trying to figure out ways to make sure when I’m bugging you all that the pitch lands, because hopefully it’ll be something people are interested in. Things are changing so fast. It’s a really fascinating time to be a reporter and be in the clean energy comms space.
Okay, but now that you’re in clean energy comms, how do you handicap the fight over developing these technologies? Who is winning, who is losing, and why?
I think it’s tough to call exact winners and losers right now because over the last few months, there have been so many new and interesting developments.
Look at the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition, which has been getting involved in Republican primaries for Freedom Caucus members. There’s been this perception for a long time that the clean energy industry didn’t fare well in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act fight. They had important wins while losing pretty key stuff. But there’s been this interesting reckoning within the industry, and even this last summer, where people are moving the ball forward in interesting ways. They’re trying to get involved in political fights with direct results.
What messages do these primaries send? On the one hand I can see there being political consequences but also, now, more solar energy money going into Republican politics has the anti-renewable folks saying they need to go harder at them. I’m curious how you see the energy fight landscape changing in light of these election results.
I think it shows the industry has some fight in it. What the Coalition would probably say is, they want to be lethal and this is political warfare. They’re trying to be taken seriously.
There is sort of this two-pronged strategy happening right now. Obviously Invest in Tomorrow has gotten a lot of press attention for their track record. There’s also within the industry an attempt to shape a public narrative around wind, solar, battery storage to combat misinformation, both through conventional media and social media. They’re happening in tandem and it's a reflection of the results.
How is the backlash over data center development affecting the work you’re now doing?
Well, I’m still early, but I think the data center question is a fascinating one. Conversations around policy and where we go from here really seem to me to be happening in the state realm. Not a lot of policy happening at the federal level. There’s New York State’s data center pause, which is leading to lawmakers trying to get more leverage.
It’s in the backdrop, where projects are being announced with massive power plants to supply new data center demand, and at the same time there’s a conversation around virtual power plants, DERs. Another phrase emerging for it is “community power.”
It’s starting to be a fascinating conversation around community benefits. There are tax benefits when a data center comes to town but when it comes to energy use, what can communities actually leverage out of this? I know former Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has been arguing for strong community benefit agreements, getting big tech companies to pay for solar and EVs and then using all of that to create a virtual power plant. Getting that to be flexible for data centers. That’s only one part of the pie but it’s fascinating to have this conversation about what forms of energy we need for all this demand happening.
What do you foresee about the impact of the backlash, given that land use, visuals, air, and water – its all being swept up in the same conversation?
I don’t have a crystal ball and have the same questions.
It’s all happening so quickly and it’s all playing out in so many different states. There are really important questions here and there are people smarter than I am on this, talking about how we meet this demand in the short term and long term or whether this is an opportunity for getting clean energy onto the grid. But it’s a delicate dance.