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:
Renewable energy isn’t the only big beneficiary of Biden’s announcement in Pennsylvania.

Seven regions of the country are about to become laboratories for a whole new system of producing and using energy. If all goes according to the Biden administration’s plans, by the end of the decade, clean hydrogen, which can be produced and used without greenhouse gas emissions, will replace fossil fuels across a variety of industries that can’t easily run on renewable energy.
President Biden announced the seven regions that will be eligible for up to $7 billion to build “hydrogen hubs” while visiting Pennsylvania on Friday. The selected hubs are made up of coalitions of governments, companies, labor groups, and universities that will use a combination of private and public funding to build new infrastructure to test the production, transport, and use of hydrogen.
The hubs have not yet been awarded any funding and will now move into a negotiation phase where they will refine their community benefits plans and other aspects of their proposals before being awarded an initial grant to move forward. In the coming weeks, the Department of Energy will begin hosting virtual community briefings with the project teams and local stakeholders in their regions, which may be used to inform the negotiation process.
Friday’s announcement included the names of the seven hubs that are eligible for funding and a few paragraphs explaining the general outline of what they plan to do. The Department of Energy provided the following map which offers a rough sense of the number of projects within each hub and where they will be located. But there’s still very little information about what these projects are.

Based on what we do know, here are three big takeaways from the announcement today.
At least some of the dots on that map will be production facilities. The main benefit of hydrogen is that it doesn’t release emissions when burned, but the challenge is that it isn’t readily available in the environment like coal or gas or renewable energy. It has to be produced. And it will only help tackle climate change if it can be produced without emissions.
Three of the hubs — in California, the Pacific Northwest, and the Mid-Atlantic — plan to make hydrogen using only renewable energy, nuclear power, or biomass. But at least three of the hubs — in the Gulf Coast, Appalachia, and the Midwest — plan to make it from natural gas and capture the carbon released in the process. (The Department of Energy did not specify what resources the Heartland hub plans to use.)
A lot of climate advocates and researchers are skeptical if not outright against schemes to make hydrogen from natural gas with carbon capture. One risk is that not all of the carbon will be captured. Another is that it takes additional natural gas to run the capture equipment, so the overall effect could be increased natural gas production. That could perpetuate pollution in communities living near wells and processing facilities. Depending on how much methane leaks from natural gas infrastructure, it could also cancel out any benefits from using hydrogen.
The scale of these risks will become clearer after the projects move to the awards phase, at which point they will have to “submit detailed risk assessments and risk management plans outlining potential risks and impacts, and how they will mitigate those impacts.”
Hydrogen has the potential to be used in basically any application that we use fossil fuels in today. But because it takes so much energy to make, it won’t necessarily make sense to use it everywhere. One of the main purposes of the hydrogen hubs program is to determine the cases where hydrogen will be an efficient, economical way to cut emissions.
The hubs outline a variety of ways they will use hydrogen, from steelmaking to fertilizer production to power generation. But there’s one area that at least six out of the seven hubs all see a future in: heavy duty transportation. All of the regions except the Heartland hub describe building networks of hydrogen fueling stations for long-haul trucks, buses, municipal waste, drayage, and other heavy duty vehicles.
Truck manufacturers are mixed on whether hydrogen will ultimately be the best solution to replace diesel. Equipping trucks with rechargeable batteries could turn out to be cheaper. But powering trucks with hydrogen fuel cells may be a lighter, space-saving option, and offer the ability to refuel more quickly. If the hubs program establishes a national network of hydrogen fueling stations, that could help tip the scales in favor of fuel cell trucks. The question is whether it will be built in time to beat the pace of battery innovation.
However, there are two other types of transport where many experts agree hydrogen will be useful: aviation and shipping. The Midwest and Pacific hubs also plan to produce aviation fuel, and the Gulf Coast aims to produce fuel for ships.
While hydrogen hubs certainly come with risks, they also have the potential to deliver big economic benefits to communities. The research firm Rhodium Group estimates that a commercial-scale hydrogen production facility that uses electricity is associated with an average of 330 jobs during the construction phase and 45 permanent jobs when the plant becomes operational.
The hubs are expected to create more than 200,000 jobs during the construction phase, and more than 100,000 permanent jobs. The question, as always, is whether these will be “good” jobs. But at least three of the hubs — in California, the Mid-Atlantic, and the Pacific Northwest — say they will require labor agreements for all projects connected to their hubs. If the job estimates provided by the hubs are accurate, some 86% of the permanent positions created by the hubs will be in these three regions.
By definition, these kinds of deals are hashed out between developers and local unions prior to any hiring and establish wages and benefits for the workers involved in a project. They don’t guarantee that union workers will be hired, but they do level the playing field for union contractors to compete with non-union shops — and set clear standards for whoever is ultimately hired.
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 Treasury Department released partial guidance for the new “foreign entities of concern” restrictions on clean energy tax credits.
The Treasury Department published long-awaited guidance for claiming the clean energy tax credits on Thursday, ending the state of limbo in which project developers have languished since the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed last summer. Well, sort of.
Trump’s tax law put new restrictions on many of the clean energy tax credits, limiting eligibility to projects that could prove they had minimal material inputs or oversight from a handful of countries labeled “foreign entities of concern,” i.e. Russia, North Korea, Iran, and, most problematically, China. The problem was that it was hard to suss out exactly how to follow these rules. The Treasury Department would have to provide clarification, or in the parlance of federal tax law, “guidance.” Without this, developers might unintentionally break the rules, get audited, and then owe the government a bunch of money — a risk that financiers are not keen to take.
Now, developers have, shall we say, partial guidance. The FEOC rules have two main components, and a notice published by the IRS Thursday covers one of them.
The guidance clarifies how to calculate the material assistance limits, which ask for proof that a certain percentage of the material inputs to the project did not come from a FEOC-owned or -influenced company. For a solar farm, for example, that includes the photovoltaic cells, the frame, the glass, the sealant, the circuit boards, etc. These limits apply to the clean electricity investment and production tax credits (48E and 45Y), as well as the clean manufacturing credit (45X), and went into effect on January 1 of this year.
The notice the Trump administration published this week demystifies the material assistance math for some project types, but not others. It says the Treasury will be publishing more on this by the end of the year.
Then there are foreign influence and “effective control” restrictions that have to do with the ownership structure of the project. Those apply to any project attempting to claim a tax credit, including carbon capture (45X), nuclear, (45X), and clean fuels (45Z), that started construction as of January 1, 2025. Even though these rules have been in effect for longer, the Treasury has yet to clarify how to follow them. The notice suggests the department will publish this along with the additional information on material assistance.
To be clear, development did not halt or even really slow as a result of this missing guidance, although that may have been starting to change. Many companies were able to avoid the arduous material assistance calculations by starting construction on their projects last year, before the new restrictions went into effect. They were also allowed to use past IRS guidance, including tables breaking out the various components of a project and their relative weights for determining the amount of domestic content in a project, which they could then apply to determine the amount of non-FEOC-produced materials as a temporary solution.
As for the ownership restrictions, “you just err on the side of caution,” David Burton, a partner at the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, told me.
I spoke to Burton late last night right after he had gotten through reading the new 95-page IRS notice, and he walked me through some of his initial takeaways.
What are the questions that companies had about FEOC prior to this that this document clears up?
It’s pretty specific on how to calculate whether or not you meet the material assistance percentage restriction. So for instance, if you have a repowered project, there was a question of, do you have to apply material assistance to the new stuff you’re adding? Or do you also have to apply it to the old stuff? And the rules clarify, it’s just the new stuff. If you have a solar project that you’re repowering by replacing the modules but you keep the old inverters, the new modules are subject to material assistance, the old inverters are not. So it clarifies that type of thing.
I think there’s going to be a lot of accountants doing spreadsheet work based on these calculations in the notice and the various elections and choices, trying to find the most advantageous path. I think it’s too early to tell if there’s some opportunities that the industry might benefit from, or some landmines that we weren’t anticipating, because there’s just … the calculations, there’s too many of them, they kind of link together, and it’s very complicated. So we need a little more than a couple hours to go through all that.
What do you mean by elections and choices?
You can use the domestic content safe harbor tables, or you can get a certification from a supplier. The notice says that if a supplier gives you a certification that says it’s not a prohibited foreign entity, and it’s not aware of any prohibited foreign entities in its supply chain, you can rely upon that. Or if it gives you a certification that says, I’m not a prohibited foreign entity, but 20% of the supply chain that feeds into my product is, you can rely upon that.
You’re unlikely to get top-to-bottom certifications that totally answer the question, but it is helpful.
We’ve talked in the past about how far up their supply chain companies will need to look to calculate material assistance. Does it answer those questions?
It does provide guidance on those questions, but really only for the technologies that are covered in the domestic content notices. So for instance, fuel cells or combined heat and power: If you’re not wind, solar, storage or some other technology, it doesn’t provide that much help. But it does clarify for wind, solar, and storage how to do the calculation. It provides some guidance for technologies other than wind, solar, and storage, but it’s still going to be pretty hard, I think.
What is still missing from the guidance? What are the open questions that certain projects might still face?
Foreign influence and foreign control, the notice doesn’t cover. For instance, there’s a rule that if 15% of your debt is held by Chinese banks, you don’t get tax credits. The notice doesn’t tell us how to apply that rule — how that applies if one lender transfers to another lender and syndications of debt, all that kind of stuff. It doesn’t even tell us at what level to apply that test. Do you apply it at the project company? Or at the ultimate parent company at the top of the ownership chain? So it gives us none of that.
How often are you running into that with clients?
Every deal where the project began construction after 2024 has that question. Most of the time it really shouldn’t be an issue, but you have to ask, who owns this entity? Who’s on your board? Who has the right to appoint people to your board? We’re starting to write a lot of memos about this stuff, but there’s not a lot of guidance.
How do you deal with that without guidance?
We have a statutory language, so it’s not like no guidance at all. You just err on the side of caution, and you err on the side of it being overbroad, and then you end up asking the parties involved a lot of due diligence questions. And they’re like, really? We have to answer your 1,000 questions here?
Do you think that, based on this guidance, this is workable for companies? This doesn’t seem to be the sort of backdoor way to kill the tax credits that some people initially feared.
I think it’s workable. I think it’s relatively even-handed. I think they are trying to make them administrable. Not easy, not simple — again, full employment for accountants. But at least you can spreadsheet it. It’s better to have to build a complicated spreadsheet than just be like, well, we don’t really know what the rule is, we’re not sure what the path is here.
Representatives Jake Auchincloss and Mark Amodei want to boost “superhot” exploration.
Geothermal is about the only energy topic that Republicans and Democrats can agree on.
“Democrats like clean energy. Republicans like drilling. And everyone likes baseload power that is generated with less than 1% of the land and materials of other renewables,” Massachusetts Representative Jake Auchincloss, a Democrat, told me.
Along with Republican Representative Mark Amodei of Nevada, Auchincloss is introducing the Hot Rock Act on Friday, focusing specifically on “superhot” or “supercritical” geothermal resources, i.e. heat deposits 300 degrees Celsius or above. (Temperatures in large traditional geothermal resources are closer to 240 degrees.)
The bill — of which Heatmap got an exclusive early peek — takes a broad approach to supporting research in the sector, which is currently being explored by startups such as Quaise Energy and Mazama Energy, which in October announced a well at 331 degrees.
There’s superhot rock energy potential in around 13% of North America, modeling by the Clean Air Task Force has found — though that’s mostly around 8 miles below ground. The largest traditional geothermal facility in the U.S. is only about 2.5 miles at its deepest.
But the potential is enormous. “Just 1% of North America’s superhot rock resource has the potential to provide 7.5 terawatts of energy capacity,” CATF said. That’s compared to a little over a terawatt of current capacity.
Auchincloss and Amodei’s bill would direct the Department of Energy to establish “milestone-based research grant programs,” under which organizations that hit goals such as drilling to a specific depth, pressure, or temperature would then earn rewards. It would also instruct the DOE to create a facility “to test, experiment with, and demonstrate hot dry rock geothermal projects,” plus start a workforce training program for the geothermal industry.
Finally, it would grant a categorical exclusion from the National Environmental Policy Act for drilling to explore or confirm geothermal resources, which could turn a process that takes over a year into one that takes just a couple of months.
Geothermal policy is typically a bipartisan activity pursued by senators and House members from the Intermountain West. Auchincloss, however, is a New Englander. He told me that he was introduced to geothermal when he hosted an event in 2022 attended by executives from Quaise, which was born out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
It turned out the company’s pilot project was in Nevada, and “I saw it was in Mark Amodei’s district. And I saw that Mark is on Natural Resources, which is the other committee of jurisdiction. And so I went up to him on the floor, and I was like, Hey there, you know, there's this company announcing this pilot,” Auchincloss told me.
In a statement, Amodei said that “Nevada has the potential to unlock this resource and lead the nation in reliable, clean energy. From powering rural communities and strengthening critical mineral production to meeting the growing demands of data centers, geothermal energy delivers dependable 24/7 power.”
Auchincloss told me that the bill “started from the simple premise of, How do we promote this technology?” They consulted climate and technology experts before reaching consensus on the milestone-based payments, workforce development, and regulatory relief components.
“I didn't have an ideological bent about the right way to do it,” Auchincloss said.
The bill has won plaudits from a range of industry groups, including the Clean Energy Buyers Association and Quaise itself, as well as environmental and policy organizations focused on technological development, like the Institute for Progress, Third Way, and the Breakthrough Institute.
“Our grassroots volunteers nationwide are eager to see more clean energy options in the United States, and many of them are excited by the promise of reliable, around-the-clock clean power from next-generation geothermal energy,” Jennifer Tyler, VP government affairs at the Citizens' Climate Lobby, said in a statement the lawmakers provided to Heatmap. “The Hot Rock Act takes a positive step toward realizing that promise by making critical investments in research, demonstration, and workforce development that can unlock superhot geothermal resources safely and responsibly.”
With even the Trump administration generally pro-geothermal, Auchincloss told me he’s optimistic about the bill’s prospects. “I expect this could command broad bipartisan support,” he said.
Plus a pre-seed round for a moon tech company from Latvia.
The nuclear headlines just keep stacking up. This week, Inertial Enterprises landed one of the largest Series A rounds I’ve ever seen, making it an instant contender in the race to commercialize fusion energy. Meanwhile, there was a smaller raise for a company aiming to squeeze more juice out of the reactors we already have.
Elsewhere over in Latvia, investors are backing an early stage bid to bring power infrastructure to the moon, while in France, yet another ultra-long-duration battery energy storage company has successfully piloted their tech.
Inertia Enterprises, yet another fusion energy startup, raised an eye-popping $450 million Series A round this week, led by Bessemer Venture Partners with participation from Alphabet’s venture arm GV, among others. Founded in 2024 and officially launched last summer, the company aims to develop a commercial fusion reactor based on the only experiment yet to achieve scientific breakeven, the point at which a fusion reaction generates more energy than it took to initiate it.
This milestone was first reached in 2022 at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s National Ignition Facility, using an approach known as inertial confinement fusion. In this method, powerful lasers fire at a small pellet of fusion fuel, compressing it until the extremely high temperature and pressure cause the atoms inside to fuse and release energy. Annie Kritcher, who leads LLNL’s inertial confinement fusion program, is one of the cofounders of Inertia, alongside Twilio co-founder Jeff Lawson and Stanford professor Mike Dunne, who formerly led a program at the lab to design a power plant based on its approach to fusion.
The Inertia team plans to commercialize LLNL’s breakthrough by developing a new fusion laser system it’s calling Thunderwall, which it says will be 50 times more powerful than any laser of its type to date. Inertia isn’t the only player trying to commercialize laser-driven fusion energy — Xcimer Energy, for example, raised a $100 million Series A in 2024 — but with its recent financing, it’s now by far the best capitalized of the bunch.
As Lawson, the CEO of the new endeavor said in the company’s press release, “Our plan is clear: build on proven science to develop the technology and supply chain required to deliver the world’s highest average power laser, the first fusion target assembly plant, and the first gigawatt, utility-scale fusion power plant to the grid.” Great, but how soon can they do it? The goal, he says, is to “make this real within the next decade.”
In more nuclear news, the startup Alva Energy launched from stealth on Thursday with $33 million in funding and a proposal to squeeze more capacity out of the existing nuclear fleet by retrofitting pressurized-water reactors. The round was led by the venture firm Playground Global.
The startup plans to boost capacity by building new steam turbines and electricity generators adjacent to existing facilities, such that plants can stay online during the upgrade. Then when a plant shuts down for scheduled maintenance, Alva will upgrade its steam generator within the nuclear containment dome. That will allow the system to make 20% to 30% more steam, to be handled by the newly built turbine-generator system.
The company estimates that these retrofits will boost each reactor’s output by 200 megawatts to 300 megawatts. Applied across the dozens of existing facilities that could be similarly upgraded, Alva says this strategy could yield roughly 10 new gigawatts of additional nuclear capacity through the 2030s — the equivalent of building about 10 new large reactors.
Biden’s Department of Energy identified this strategy, known as “uprating”, as capable of adding 2 gigawatts to 8 gigawatts of new capacity to the grid. Alva thinks it can go further. The company promises to manage the entire uprate process from ensuring regulatory compliance to the procurement and installation of new reactor components. The company says its upgrades could be deployed as quickly as gas turbines are today — a five- to six-year timeline — at a comparable cost of around $1 billion per gigawatt.
Deep Space Energy, a Latvian space tech startup, has closed a pre-seed funding round to advance its goal of becoming a commercial supplier of electricity for space missions on the moon, Mars, or even deeper into space where sunlight is scarce. The company is developing power systems that convert heat from the natural decay of radioisotopes — unstable atoms that emit radiation as they decay — into electricity.
While it’s still very early-stage, this tech’s first application will likely be backup power for defense satellites. Long term, Deep Space Energy says it “aims to focus on the moon economy” by powering rovers and other lunar installations, supporting Europe’s goal of increasing its space sovereignty by reducing its reliance on U.S. defense assets such as satellites. While radioisotope generators are already used in some space missions, the company says its system requires five times less fuel than existing designs.
Roughly $400,000 of the funding came from equity investments from the Baltic-focused VC Outlast Fund and a Lithuanian angel investor. The company also secured nearly $700,000 from public contracts and grants from the European Space Agency, the Latvian Government, and a NATO program to accelerate innovation with dual-use potential for both defense and commercial applications.
As I wrote a few weeks ago, Form Energy’s iron-air battery isn’t the only player targeting 100-plus hours of low-cost energy storage. In that piece, I highlighted Noon Energy, a startup that recently demoed its solid-oxide fuel cell system. But there’s another company aiming to compete even more directly with Form by bringing its own iron-air battery to the European market: Ore Energy. And it just completed a grid-connected pilot, something Form has yet to do.
Ore piloted its 100-hour battery at an R&D center in France run by EDF, the state-owned electric utility company. While the company didn’t disclose the battery’s size, it said the pilot demonstrated its ability to discharge energy continuously for about four days while integrating with real-world grid operations. The test was supported by the European Union’s Storage Research Infrastructure Eco-System, which aims to accelerate the development of innovative storage solutions, and builds on the startup’s earlier grid-connected installation at a climate tech testbed in the Netherlands last summer.
Founded in 2023, Ore plans to scale quickly. As Bas Kil, the company’s business development lead, told Latitude Media after its first pilot went live, “We’re not planning to do years and years of pilot-scale [projects]; we believe that our system is now ready for commercial deployment.” According to Latitude, Ore aims to reach 50 gigawatt-hours of storage per year by 2030, an ambitious goal considering its initial grid-connected battery had less than one megawatt-hour of capacity. So far, the company has raised just shy of $30 million to date, compared to Form’s $1.2 billion.
Battery storage manufacturer and virtual power plant operator Sonnen, together with the clean energy financing company Solrite, have launched a Texas-based VPP composed exclusively of home batteries. They’re offering customers a Solrite-owned 60-kilowatt-hour battery for a $20 monthly fee, in exchange for a fixed retail electricity rate of 12 cents per kilowatt-hour — a few cents lower than the market’s average — and the backup power capability inherent to the system. Over 3,000 customers have already enrolled, and the companies are expecting up to 10,000 customers to join by year’s end.
The program is targeting Texans with residential solar who previously sold their excess electricity back to the grid. But now that there’s so much cheap, utility-scale solar available in Texas, electricity retailers simply aren’t as incentivized to offer homeowners favorable rates. This has left many residents with “stranded” solar assets, turning them into what the companies call “solar orphans” in need of a new way to make money on their solar investment. Customers without rooftop solar can participate in the program as well, though they don’t get a catchy moniker.