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:
Having a true green hydrogen industry depends on that not happening.
In late December, the Treasury Department proposed draft regulations to implement the Inflation Reduction Act’s generous hydrogen production tax credit. Under Section 45V of the tax code, eligible projects must show that their life cycle greenhouse gas emissions fall below exacting benchmarks. Treasury’s final rules will determine how hydrogen projects are allowed to calculate their emissions and direct the flow of tens of billions of tax dollars — or more.
Most of the discussion that followed focused on the draft rule’s proposed guardrails for green hydrogen, which is produced from water using clean electricity. The climate policy community in particular largely approved of Treasury’s approach, in part because it lays the groundwork for hourly emissions accounting in the electricity sector — essentially, making sure that clean energy is being made and used in real time, a foundational shift needed for deep decarbonization.
But when it comes to producing hydrogen from methane — which is how nearly all hydrogen is made today — Treasury’s draft was incomplete. In place of a concrete proposal, the draft regulations raised detailed technical questions about what should be allowed in the final rule. Among these was the suggestion that hydrogen production from fossil fuels might qualify for tax credits by using methane offsets. This, quite simply, would undermine the tax credit’s entire purpose.
If the final regulations authorize methane offsets, then the 45V tax credit could end up subsidizing fossil fuel projects, stifling the nascent green hydrogen industry and locking in emissions-intensive infrastructure for decades to come. Just as concerning, authorizing offsets for the hydrogen production tax credit would also pave the way for similar treatment in the upcoming implementation of technology-neutral clean energy production ( Section 45Y) and investment tax credits (Section 48E).
To understand how offsets could affect the strategic outlook for the hydrogen industry, we looked at how the Treasury Department calculates the life cycle emissions of hydrogen production from natural gas, which is essentially just methane. Treasury’s draft regulations propose to use a bespoke life cycle analysis model to determine whether hydrogen projects qualify for the tax credit, and if so, what level of support they will receive.
This model has several important features: It accounts for CO2 emitted in the process of producing hydrogen from methane, which is straightforward, as well as methane emissions from upstream gas production, processing, and pipeline transportation, which is not. (Unfortunately, it doesn’t include impacts from hydrogen, which itself is an indirect greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming.)
The model’s treatment of methane emissions is particularly important. Although the academic literature suggests a national average above 2% and finds impacts above 9% in some cases, the model assumes that gas supply chains emit only 0.9% of the methane they deliver. Differences in methane emissions matter a lot, even when they look small. That’s because methane traps about 30 times as much heat as CO2 over a 100-year period, so its calculated CO2-equivalence is that much larger.
As a result, Treasury’s proposed approach undercounts the true climate impacts of hydrogen production, particularly hydrogen made from methane. Even so, fossil hydrogen production faces a narrow path to qualifying for the tax credit. For example, a fossil hydrogen project would have to capture more than 70% of its CO2 emissions and buy enough clean electricity to power all its operations — either directly as energy or indirectly as energy credits — even to qualify for the lower tiers of the tax credit. And even though projects’ actual methane emissions are likely to be undercounted, the model’s assumptions are enough to disqualify fossil projects from the highest tax credit tier, which is substantially more lucrative than any of the others.
Because of the difficulty of achieving high CO2 capture rates, some analysts have argued that fossil hydrogen projects will instead wind up applying for tax credits under Section 45Q of the IRA, which provides incentives for sequestering CO2 underground without the hydrogen tax credit’s exacting emissions standards.
But a fossil hydrogen project can claim totally different outcomes if it’s allowed to buy environmental certificates that claim to avoid methane emissions in the first place, a.k.a. methane offsets. The logic goes like this: If someone else was going to emit methane to the atmosphere, but agrees instead to capture and inject it into a gas pipeline network, then a hydrogen producer can buy a certificate from that other methane producer representing that same captured gas and potentially treat their own fossil gas as negative emissions.
For example, consider a large dairy that sends cow manure to uncovered manure lagoons, which produce significant methane emissions. Suppose the dairy installs a methane capture system and sells credits to a hydrogen producer, which then claims to have avoided the dairy’s methane emissions — even if these emissions could be avoided in other ways, like alternative manure management or flaring. Because methane is considered almost 30 times more impactful than CO2 over a 100-year period, the CO2-equivalence of avoiding methane emissions is larger than the project’s direct CO2 emissions, and therefore the resulting hydrogen production process gets a negative carbon intensity score.
If your head is spinning at this point, welcome to the world of offsets. Outcomes depend on counterfactual scenarios that can’t be measured or observed, burning fossil fuels can supposedly reduce pollution, and even the verb tenses are hard to parse.
Vertigo aside, the practical implications of methane offsets for the hydrogen production tax credit are enormous. Without methane offsets, fossil hydrogen projects couldn’t benefit much from the hydrogen tax credit; even with strict carbon capture and storage pollution controls, they can't meet the life cycle requirements for the top tier and would likely prefer to claim a smaller carbon storage tax credit instead. But if projects can use methane offsets, they can easily reduce their calculated emissions to qualify for the top tier of the hydrogen production tax credit.
This would also mean these fossil projects could undercut truly clean hydrogen projects. Green hydrogen projects that comply with the draft guardrails will have to invest in novel electrolyzer technologies and new clean power sources. The top tier of the tax credit provides enough money to make clean hydrogen projects competitive, but methane offsets are a lot less expensive than electrolyzers. If fossil producers can qualify with cheap offsets, they can pocket the difference and outcompete clean producers who have to invest in costly infrastructure.
We set out to estimate the amount of methane offsetting needed to qualify fossil projects for the top production tax credit tier. You can review our calculations here; for the carbon intensity of putatively negative emissions feedstocks, we used a conservative estimate that is about half the level of what other researchers use.
Remarkably, a fossil hydrogen project without carbon capture could qualify for the top production tax credit by offsetting just 25% of its fuel use. And a fossil hydrogen project that abates 90% of its CO2 emissions could earn the top tier of the tax credit if it bought offsets for just 4% of its fuel use.
So far a lot of the discussion about negative carbon intensity scores has focused on methane captured from livestock manure, but Treasury’s draft regulations also make reference to the possibility of capturing “fugitive emissions,” which could include methane emitted from the oil and gas sector or even from coal mines. If methane offsets are made eligible across a wide range of fugitive emissions, the hydrogen tax credit — which was designed as a generous incentive to promote innovation in new technologies — could end up subsidizing incumbent emitters.
Treasury’s hydrogen regulations will also set an important precedent for how offsets are treated in other government policies. The last set of tax credits in the IRA, a pair of technology-neutral investment and production tax credits for clean electricity generation, are under development this year. It’s great news that soon the U.S. federal government will support a full range of clean technologies, not just solar and wind — but not if those policies encourage higher-emitting activities that claim to be clean through the use of offsets. There are a few existing markets for methane offsets already, and certain segments of the economy — particularly the dairy industry — are hungry for more.
At the end of the day, the Biden administration faces a similar set of issues when it comes to producing hydrogen from methane that it did with clean hydrogen produced from electricity and water. If the tax credits encourage green hydrogen projects in places where it is difficult to supply cheap and clean electricity, then those projects risk becoming stranded assets when the tax credits expire. Similarly, if the tax credits encourage hydrogen production from chemical feedstocks and methane offsets, they will prop up fossil fuel infrastructure that could keep operating long after the requirement to buy offsets expires.
For all the complexity, though, one thing is clear: We won’t get a true green hydrogen industry if the Treasury Department decides to subsidize methane offsets — which, when you put it like that, doesn’t make much sense in the first place.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The Environmental Protection Agency just unveiled its argument against regulating greenhouse emissions from power plants.
In federal policymaking, the weight of the law can rest on a single word. When it comes to reducing planet-warming emissions from the power sector, that word is “significantly.” The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate any stationary source of emissions that “causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”
The EPA has considered power plants a significant source of dangerous greenhouse gases since 2015. But today, Trump’s EPA said, actually, never mind.
A proposed rule published in the Federal Register on Wednesday argues that U.S. fossil fuel-fired power plants make up “a small and decreasing part of global emissions” and therefore are not significant, and do not require regulation under the law. The rule would repeal all greenhouse gas emission standards for new and existing power plants — both the standards the Biden administration finalized last year, which have been tied up in court, as well as the standards that preceded them, which were enacted by Obama in 2015.
In a separate proposal, the EPA also took steps to repeal limits on mercury and hazardous air pollutants from coal plants that were enacted last year, reverting the standard back to one set in 2012.
The argument that U.S. power plants make up a small sliver of global emissions and thus aren’t worth addressing is like having “a five-alarm fire that could be put out if you send out all the trucks, and you don’t send any of the trucks because no one truck could put the fire out by itself,” David Doniger, a senior attorney and strategist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told me. “We just think that is a wacky reversal and a wacky interpretation of the Clean Air Act.”
When you add up every plug, power button, and light switch across the country, electricity usage produces 25% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions each year. Over the past 30 years, American power plants have contributed about 5% of the total climate pollution spewed into the atmosphere worldwide.
In the global context, that may sound small. But in a recent report titled “The Scale of Significance," New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity estimated that if U.S. power plants were a country, it would be the sixth biggest emitter in the world, behind China, the European Union, India, Russia, and the remainder of U.S. emissions. The report also notes that U.S. actions on emissions make other countries more likely to follow, due to technological spillovers that reduce the cost of decarbonization globally.
In addition to the significance finding, the EPA gave two other reasons for repealing the power plant rules. It argued that “cost-effective control measures are not reasonably available,” meaning there’s no economic way to reduce emissions at the source. It also said the new administration’s priority “is to promote the public health or welfare through energy dominance and independence secured by using fossil fuels to generate power.”
The first argument is an attempt to say that Biden’s standards flouted the law. In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA could not simply tell states to reduce emissions from the power sector, which is what the Obama administration had initially tried to do. Instead, the agency would have to develop standards that could be applied on a plant-by-plant basis — so long as those rules were “cost-reasonable” and “adequately demonstrated.”
To comply with that ruling, Biden’s EPA based its standards on the potential to install carbon capture technology that can reduce flue gas emissions by 90%. The regulations would have required existing coal plants to install carbon capture by 2039, or else shut down. (To the chagrin of many energy system observers, the administration chose not to apply limits to existing gas-fired power plants.) But while fossil fuel companies and utilities had, in the past, asserted that carbon capture was viable, they deemed the standards impossible to meet.
Trump’s EPA is now agreeing. “In 2024,” Zeldin said on Wednesday, “rules were enacted seeking to suffocate our economy in order to protect the environment, to make all sorts of industries including coal and more disappear, regulate them out of existence.”
When Trump moved to overturn Obama’s power plant regulations during his first term, his EPA did not contest the significance of the sector’s emissions, and simply enacted a weaker standard. A week before he left office, the agency also finalized a rule that set the threshold for “significance” at 3% of U.S. emissions — which exempted major polluters like refineries, but still applied to power plants.
This time, Trump has a new apparent game plan: Strip the Clean Air Act of its jurisdiction over greenhouse gases altogether. Today’s action was the first step; EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has said the agency will similarly “reconsider” emissions rules for cars and oil and gas drilling. But the cornerstone of the plan is to reverse what’s known as the “endangerment finding” — the 2009 conclusion that greenhouse gases present a threat to public health and welfare, and therefore are one of the pollutants EPA must address under the Clean Air Act.
“The Trump administration is trying to say, don’t worry about the Clean Air Act. It will never apply, so you can go back to your old ways,” said Doniger. But if the argument that power plant emissions are insignificant is a stretch, appraising greenhouse gas emissions as benign is inconceivable, he said. “The endangerment finding was based, in 2009, on a Denali-sized mountain of evidence. Since then, it’s grown to Everest-size, so there’s no way that they would be able to put together a rational record saying the science is wrong.”
These highly technical questions of whether emissions are “significant” or whether carbon capture is “adequately demonstrated” could soon be determined by a group of people who lack both the expertise to answer them and the inclination to wade through thousands of pages of atmospheric science and chemical engineering documents: judges.
Last year, the Supreme Court overturned a long-held precedent known as Chevron deference. That ruling means that the courts are no longer required to defer to an agency’s interpretation of statute — judges must make their own determinations of whether agencies are following the intent of the law.
When environmental groups begin challenging the EPA’s repeals in court, judges are “going to be bombarded with the need to make these highly technical, nuanced decisions,” Michael Wara, a lawyer and scholar focused on climate and energy policy at Stanford University, told me. He said the reason Chevron deference was established in the first place is that judges didn’t want to be making engineering decisions about power plants. “They felt extremely uncomfortable having to make these calls.”
The conservative Supreme Court overturned the precedent because of a sense that political decisions were being dressed up in scientific reasoning. But Wara doesn’t think the courts are going to like being put back into the role of weighing technical minutia and making engineering decisions.
“It’s a past that the courts didn’t like and they tried to engineer a way out of via the Chevron doctrine,” he said. “I would expect that we’re going to see a drift back toward a doctrine that looks a little bit more Chevron-like, maybe less deference to agencies. But it’s hard to predict in the current environment what’s going to happen.”
Look more closely at today’s inflation figures and you’ll see it.
Inflation is slowing, but electricity bills are rising. While the below-expectations inflation figure reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Wednesday morning — the consumer price index rose by just 0.1% in May, and 2.4% on the year — has been eagerly claimed by the Trump administration as a victory over inflation, a looming increase in electricity costs could complicate that story.
Consumer electricity prices rose 0.9% in May, and are up 4.5% in the past year. And it’s quite likely price increases will accelerate through the summer, thanks to America’s largest electricity market, PJM Interconnection. Significant hikes are expected or are already happening in many PJM states, including Maryland,New Jersey,Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Ohio with some utilities having said they would raise rates as soon as this month.
This has led to scrambling by state governments, with New Jersey announcing hundreds of millions of dollars of relief to alleviate rate increases as high as 20%. Maryland convinced one utility to spread out the increase over a few months.
While the dysfunctions of PJM are distinct and well known — new capacity additions have not matched fossil fuel retirements, leading to skyrocketing payments for those generators that can promise to be on in time of need — the overall supply and demand dynamics of the electricity industry could lead to a broader price squeeze.
“Trump and JD Vance can get off tweets about how there’s no inflation, but I don’t think they’ll feel that way in a week or two,” Skanda Amarnath, executive director of Employ America, told me.
And while the consumer price index is made up of, well, almost everything people buy, electricity price increases can have a broad effect on prices in general. “Everyone relies on energy,” Amarnath said. “Businesses that have higher costs can’t just eat it.” That means higher electricity prices may be translated into higher costs throughout the economy, a phenomenon known as “cost-push inflation.”
Aside from the particular dynamics of any one electricity market, there’s likely to be pressure on electricity prices across the country from the increased demand for energy from computing and factories. “There’s a big supply adjustment that’s going to have to happen, the data center demand dynamic is coming to roost,” Amarnath said.
Jefferies Chief U.S. Economist Thomas Simons said as much in a note to clients Wednesday. “Increased stress on the electrical grid from AI data centers, electric vehicle charging, and obligations to fund infrastructure and greenification projects have forced utilities to increase prices,” he wrote.
Of course, there’s also great uncertainty about the future path of electricity policy — namely, what happens to the Inflation Reduction Act — and what that means for prices.
The research group Energy Innovation has modeled the House reconciliation bill’s impact on the economy and the energy industry. The report finds that the bill “would dramatically slow deployment of new electricity generating capacity at a time of rapidly growing electricity demand.” That would result in higher electricity and energy prices across the board, with increases in household energy spending of around $150 per year in 2030, and more than $260 per year in 2035, due in part to a 6% increase in electricity prices by 2035.
In the near term, there’s likely not much policymakers can do about electricity prices, and therefore utility bills going up. Renewables are almost certainly the fastest way to get new electrons on the grid, but the completion of even existing projects could be thrown into doubt by the House bill’s strict “foreign entity of concern” rules, which try to extricate the renewables industry from its relationship with China.
“We’re running into a set of cost-push dynamics. It’s a hairy problem that no one is really wrapping their heads around,” Amarnath said. “It’s not really mainstream yet. It’s going to be.”
In some relief to American consumers, if not the planet, while it may be more expensive for them to cool their homes, it will be less expensive to get out of them: Gasoline prices fell 2.5% in May, according to the BLS, and are down 12% on the year.
Six months in, federal agencies are still refusing to grant crucial permits to wind developers.
Federal agencies are still refusing to process permit applications for onshore wind energy facilities nearly six months into the Trump administration, putting billions in energy infrastructure investments at risk.
On Trump’s first day in office, he issued two executive orders threatening the wind energy industry – one halting solar and wind approvals for 60 days and another commanding agencies to “not issue new or renewed approvals, rights of way, permits, leases or loans” for all wind projects until the completion of a new governmental review of the entire industry. As we were first to report, the solar pause was lifted in March and multiple solar projects have since been approved by the Bureau of Land Management. In addition, I learned in March that at least some transmission for wind farms sited on private lands may have a shot at getting federal permits, so it was unclear if some arms of the government might let wind projects proceed.
However, I have learned that the wind industry’s worst fears are indeed coming to pass. The Fish and Wildlife Service, which is responsible for approving any activity impacting endangered birds, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with greenlighting construction in federal wetlands, have simply stopped processing wind project permit applications after Trump’s orders – and the freeze appears immovable, unless something changes.
According to filings submitted to federal court Monday under penalty of perjury by Alliance for Clean Energy New York, at least three wind projects in the Empire State – Terra-Gen’s Prattsburgh Wind, Invenergy’s Canisteo Wind, and Apex’s Heritage Wind – have been unable to get the Army Corps or Fish and Wildlife Service to continue processing their permitting applications. In the filings, ACE NY states that land-based wind projects “cannot simply be put on a shelf for a few years until such time as the federal government may choose to resume permit review and issuance,” because “land leases expire, local permits and agreements expire, and as a result, the project must be terminated.”
While ACE NY’s filings discuss only these projects in New York, they describe the impacts as indicative of the national industry’s experience, and ACE NY’s executive director Marguerite Wells told me it is her understanding “that this is happening nationwide.”
“I can confirm that developers have conveyed to me that [the] Army Corps has stopped processing their applications specifically citing the wind ban,” Wells wrote in an email. “As I have understood it, the initial freeze covered both wind and solar projects, but the freeze was lifted for solar projects and not for wind projects.”
Lots of attention has been paid to Trump’s attacks on offshore wind, because those projects are sited entirely in federal waters. But while wind projects sited on private lands can hypothetically escape a federal review and keep sailing on through to operation, wind turbines are just so large in size that it’s hard to imagine that bird protection laws can’t apply to most of them. And that doesn’t account for wetlands, which seem to be now bedeviling multiple wind developers.
This means there’s an enormous economic risk in a six-month permitting pause, beyond impacts to future energy generation. The ACE NY filings state the impacts to New York alone represent more than $2 billion in capital investments, just in the land-based wind project pipeline, and there’s significant reason to believe other states are also experiencing similar risks. In a legal filing submitted by Democratic states challenging the executive order targeting wind, attorneys general listed at least three wind projects in Arizona – RWE’s Forged Ethic, AES’s West Camp, and Repsol’s Lava Run – as examples that may require approval from the federal government under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. As I’ve previously written, this is the same law that bird conservation advocates in Wyoming want Trump to use to reject wind proposals in their state, too.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and Army Corps of Engineers declined to comment after this story’s publication due to litigation on the matter. I also reached out to the developers involved in these projects to inquire about their commitments to these projects in light of the permitting pause. We’ll let you know if we hear back from them.