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 Department of Energy is giving the green light to Project Cypress, a cluster of facilities in southwest Louisiana that will filter carbon dioxide directly from the air and store it underground. The agency announced Wednesday that it will award the project $50 million for the next phase of its development, which will be matched by $51 million in private investment.
Before receiving any money, the Project Cypress team had to reach an agreement with the DOE regarding how they would engage with community and labor stakeholders. The result, also released Wednesday, was a series of commitments — for example, to assemble a community advisory board, to partner with local workforce development organizations, and to create a public website with project information.
The developers have yet to provide a list of more concrete, measurable benefits the project will bring to the community. This was more like a plan to make a plan that will have robust community input. That the project sits near Lake Charles, home to some of the most contested energy projects in the country, will not make the next steps easy, however.
The funding is part of a $3.5 billion program authorized by Congress in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to create four such “direct air capture hubs” around the country in an effort to help commercialize the nascent technology. This is the first award the DOE has handed out after selecting Project Cypress last August as one of two hubs it would consider supporting. A second hub under development by Occidental Petroleum in South Texas is still in negotiations with the agency and has yet to receive funding.
Once it’s fully operational, Project Cypress is designed to capture 1 million tons of carbon from the air per year, employing two different technological approaches to do so.
The first, developed by the Swiss startup Climeworks, uses fans to draw air into metal boxes containing a material called a sorbent that attracts carbon dioxide molecules. Then it heats the sorbent, which releases the CO2 so that it can be stored.
The second approach, pioneered by a California-based company called Heirloom, involves crushing and cooking limestone so that it becomes calcium oxide, a white powder that’s thirsty for CO2. Heirloom lays the powder out on trays, where it binds with carbon dioxide in the air. Then it bakes the powder in an electric kiln to remove the CO2.
Both companies say they will use renewable energy to power their respective processes. To lock the carbon away underground, they are partnering with a company called Gulf Coast Sequestration which has applied for permits to drill two CO2 storage wells on a vast, privately-owned cattle and horse ranch in West Calcasieu Parish. After the carbon is captured, it will be liquified and delivered by pipeline to a well, where it will be injected into porous sandstone about 10,000 feet below the Earth’s surface.
With this award, the project will enter the second of four implementation phases, during which the companies will finalize the project’s design, engage with area residents and stakeholders to complete a community benefits plan, and start on the permitting process.
Phase two will not be quick — it’s expected to last two to three years. Then the companies will begin negotiating with the DOE for funding for phases three — construction — and four — the ramp-up to full-scale operation. The DOE has structured the DAC Hubs program with off-ramps at the start of each phase, allowing the agency to deny additional funding to a project if it finds that it is not meeting previously agreed-upon objectives. But if all goes well, Project Cypress is eligible for up to $600 million.
The Carbon Removal Alliance, a group that lobbies for policies to support what it calls “high quality carbon removal,” sees this award as a “fresh start” for the Department of Energy in that it shows the agency moving beyond its traditional role of funding research and development to commercializing technologies.
“With official funding beginning to flow into states like Louisiana and backed by robust community benefits plans to ensure the highest standards, we’re about to see how technologies like direct air capture can provide positive benefits to our economies and environment,” said Giana Amador, the executive director of the Carbon Removal Alliance.
Members of the community, however, are skeptical that the project will benefit them.
The industrial history of Calcasieu Parish is both an asset and a curse for Project Cypress. The area is home to a high concentration of refineries, petrochemical plants, and liquified natural gas terminals. The developers chose the location because it had a local workforce with relevant skills and the right geology to trap carbon underground, but the residents’ trust will be hard-won after decades of living in one of the most polluted corridors in the country, where news of toxic spills and leaks is common. Many residents have spent the last few years furiously fighting the buildout of several new LNG plants that are expected to increase pollution even more.
One of those activists is James Hiatt, a former refinery worker based in Sulphur, Louisiana. About a year ago, Hiatt founded a group called For A Better Bayou because he wanted to build a grassroots movement to reimagine the future of Louisiana — to be for something, not just against heavy industry.
“I want people to really imagine and embrace an alternative future for ourselves,” he told me. But to him, direct air capture is not it. “I wish I was so sold on it, like this is the way forward and I could get behind it and we could be like oh yeah, let's do this,” he told me. “But it just does not add up for me.”
When the project developers and the DOE held a meeting for stakeholders last November, Hiatt said, even attendees who worked in the oil and gas and petrochemical industries expressed doubts about the plan.
Hiatt shared a few videos from the meeting with me. One speaker questioned whether the jobs created would truly go to people from the area. This is not the first time a company has come in promising jobs and economic growth, only to hire workers from Alabama or Texas. Another speaker called the idea of a community benefits plan a way to “distract the community” from the risks of the project, which the companies have yet to define. (A preliminary list published Wednesday included things like increased traffic and noise during construction, risk of leakage during the transport or storage of the CO2, and energy and water use.) Others implored the companies not to seek property tax breaks, which divert revenue away from schools and social services.
When Project Cypress was first announced, the developers said it would create “approximately 2,300 quality jobs and generate a billion-dollar economic stimulus in the region, with increased opportunities for local contractors, suppliers, and small businesses.” The project also has a stated goal of hiring at least 10% of its workforce from the local fossil fuel and plastics industries.
But beyond that, its intentions are vague. The list of commitments published on Wednesday included lots of plans — i.e., a plan to create a “Site Labor and Workforce Development plan” which will “describe plans to provide equal access to jobs for local residents for construction and operations” — but few concrete actions or outcomes, yet.
Hiatt is especially skeptical that the carbon will stay underground and is worried about leaks. But perhaps more than that, the math of it all doesn’t make sense to him. Project Cypress might capture a million tons of CO2 from the air per year, but Louisiana alone releases more than 200 million tons annually, and is still approving new emissions-intensive facilities like those LNG plants. “Even if we scale this up, we'd have to scale it up orders of magnitude higher than will ever be possible,” he told me. “It doesn't seem like it's worth the time or the money to be doing this when we should be reducing the emissions to start with.”
There are many hurdles to scaling up direct air capture, but overcoming this cognitive dissonance is one of the trickiest. Ultimately, the goal of the project is not to offset Louisiana’s emissions. It’s to demonstrate a technology that could eventually, if we develop the right incentives to support it, clean up carbon that’s already in the atmosphere. But believing in that vision demands that people also see a world where emissions will start to decline — one that’s perhaps not yet apparent in Lake Charles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more on the week’s most important fights around renewable energy projects.
1. Ocean County, New Jersey – A Trump administration official said in a legal filing that the government is preparing to conduct a rulemaking that could restrict future offshore wind development and codify a view that could tie the hands of future presidential administrations.
2. Prince William County, Virginia – The large liberal city of Manassas rejected a battery project over fire fears, indicating that post-Moss Landing, anxieties continue to pervade in communities across the country.
3. Oklahoma County, Oklahoma – The Sooner state legislature on Monday held a joint committee meeting on solar and wind setbacks featuring prominent anti-wind advocates.
4. Tippacanoe County, Indiana – The developers of a large-scale solar project are suing the county over being rejected.
5. Dane County, Wisconsin – The Wisconsin Public Service Commission approved Invenergy’s Badger Hollow wind project – the state’s first new fully-permitted wind energy project in more than a decade.
A conversation with Courtney Brady of Evergreen Action.
This week I chatted with Courtney Brady, Midwest region deputy director for climate advocacy group Evergreen Action. Brady recently helped put together a report on rural support for renewables development, for which Evergreen Action partnered with the Private Property Rights Institute, a right-leaning advocacy group. Together, these two organizations conducted a series of interviews with self-identifying conservatives in Pennsylvania and Michigan focused on how and why GOP-leaning communities may be hesitant, reluctant, or outright hostile to solar or wind power.
What they found, Brady told me, was that politics mattered a lot less than an individual’s information diet. The conversation was incredibly informative, so I felt like it was worth sharing with all of you.
The following chat was edited lightly for clarity. Let’s dive in:
Okay, so tell me first why you did this report.
Clean energy deployment is getting increasingly challenging for a variety of reasons. What’s happening on the federal level is one thing, but something we don’t talk about much in the climate movement is what’s happening locally, what actually determines the odds of a project being successful and incorporated into the grid.
The side of the story we often hear that’s the loudest is from people at the local level who are opposed to these projects, and it limits our ability to understand the nuances. It’s not always that everyone opposes these projects in their community — that’s often not the case. We talked to several farmers in this report who are using these projects as a lifeline to keep farms in their families’ hands, generate income, preserve their farms. These projects can provide an income lifeline for these farms.
Something we tried to accomplish with this report was to understand the different perspectives, what was driving them. The only way we could do that was by going out and talking to these people in their own communities, on their own land.
The group we worked with has a very conservative background. They work on Republican campaigns. They’re very involved in local government relations. And they were the ones who were able to go out and interview these folks about what this means for their communities.
A few weeks ago, I interviewed the head of the League of Conservation Voters about the way that renewables are perceived as culturally left wing. Are there any takeaways in your research about how to deal with that?
You know, I expected to hear a little bit more of that political ideological leanings than what we actually got in these interviews. Our partners went out and interviewed seven folks; four of the case studies were in Pennsylvania, and three of them were in Michigan. It was a mix of local government officials and landowners themselves, most of whom were farmers. And they asked them, What are you hearing in your community? Where’s the opposition coming from?
I’d assumed this would be a left-versus-right, red-versus-blue issue, but this is not what we heard. We heard a lot about a lack of information or misinformation in these communities and the crucial incomes these projects can provide to landowners themselves. Again, everyone in this report that was interviewed identified as a conservative or said they were Trump supporters. It’s interesting to hear that hasn’t impacted their views of clean energy at large. They were either really happy with the projects they’d sited or still trying to get projects sited years and years later.
When you talked about misinformation, what came up?
The sizing of these leases. We heard about fears in communities that land was going to be completely overtaken over by solar or wind.
Some of these farmers said one of the biggest things they heard from their neighbors was that we’re giving away hundreds and thousands of acres to solar projects and wind projects and taking away land that should go towards crops and food. We’re hearing from these farmers that a lot of this land is no longer fertile, so providing a temporary solar lease allows that farmer to continue generating revenue while letting that land breathe.
People really had this fear of farmland being completely converted to energy production. I don’t know where a lot of that came from. We asked if that was something spread on the internet and we heard, Neighbors talk and there are Facebook groups. So there’s this overblown fear about the size of projects.
When it comes to these interviews, it does seem like you spoke to a lot of people who believe what you say. But did you speak to people who don’t believe this stuff? Because right now we’re seeing cases where opposition is either winning over county commissioners or voting out of office local officials who believe exactly what you heard from some folks.
We’ve heard so much of the opposition. It’s trending, really growing across the country. And understanding the root of why opposition is there is important. But so often we don’t hear the other side of it, these really nuanced perspectives.
There are these folks in the middle who are really thematic in these interviews — this is not about energy but a core American property rights issue. That resonates with people regardless of party.
The other piece is, there’s fear in communities of being the person to speak out against groups that are loud, the ones who want to kick people out of office over energy things. So it was really important to elevate these voices and in the interviews just made a lot of common sense. This was about elevating voices that don’t always get a seat at the table in discussions around these issues.
A list of terminated grants obtained by Heatmap contains a number of grants that will cost jobs and revenue in Republican-led states.
The Trump administration terminated billions in climate and clean energy grants on Wednesday, in what appears to be yet another act of retribution against Democrats over the government shutdown. White House budget director Russell Vought announced on X that “nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left's climate agenda is being cancelled,” noting that the projects were in 16 states, all but two of which — Vermont and New Hampshire — have Democrats in their governor’s mansion. A Department of Energy release published late last night further clarified that it was terminating 321 awards supporting 223 projects, with a total closer to $7.5 billion.
But a list of the 321 canceled grants that the Department of Energy sent to Congress, obtained by Heatmap, tells a different story. While much of the funding was awarded to blue state-based companies, the intended projects would have benefitted communities elsewhere, including in Texas, Florida, and Louisiana.
The list identifies the grants by their award numbers, and includes information on the DOE office overseeing the grant, the recipient name, and state. The document does not specify the project names, the programs under which they were awarded, or the amounts awarded.
That leaves a lot of open questions about the true impact of the terminations. It’s unclear, for instance, whether the $7.5 billion price tag the Department of Energy assigned to the cancellations is an estimate of the total amount awarded or the unspent remainder still in the agency’s coffers. Five of the listed projects, worth nearly $900 million, were already announced as terminated in an earlier round of cuts back in May.
Many of the projects listed have signed contracts with the government, are already well underway, and have spent at least some of their award. For example, the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships has already published copious educational materials related to its community-driven transportation plan for the Northeast, a project supported by one of the terminated grants.
The list does seem to confirm that blue state grants were the hardest hit, with 79 award cancellations in California, 41 in New York, 34 in Colorado (Secretary of Energy Chris Wright’s home state), 33 in Illinois, and 31 in Massachusetts.
But when I began looking up projects by their award number, I found that many would actually have benefitted Republican strongholds. Take, for example, Moment Energy, a Delaware-based company that was awarded $20 million by the Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains to build the first certified manufacturing facility in the United States producing battery energy storage systems from repurposed electric vehicle batteries. The plant was set to be built in Taylor, Texas, creating 50 construction jobs and 200 new permanent positions. After receiving the Energy Department’s stamp of approval, the company raised a $15 million Series A funding round in January to help finance the plant.
Also listed are a $10 million grant for Carbon Capture Inc, a California-based company, to conduct an engineering study for a direct air capture plant in Northwest Louisiana, and a $37 million grant to New York-based Urban Mining Industries to build one of its low-carbon concrete manufacturing plants in Florida. Linde, the global industrial gas company based in Connecticut, had $10 million to build hydrogen fueling stations for heavy duty trucks in La Porte, Texas, clawed back. BKV, a Colorado-based natural gas company set to study the transportation of captured CO2 by barge throughout the Gulf Coast region, also had its $2.5 million grant canceled.
In addition to hurting investments and jobs in Republican states, the Department of Energy’s cancellations also target some unlikely victims. The list names 16 grants for General Electric, including 11 for GE Vernova, the company’s manufacturing arm, which produces natural gas turbines and components for wind energy generation; many of those awards were for wind technology research projects. The agency also canceled 24 grants for the Institute for Gas Technology and the Electric Power Research Institute, the research arms of gas and electric companies’ two biggest trade groups, respectively. Several of these awards funded research projects into carbon capture and storage.
Also on the list was a more than $6.5 million grant for a controversial study to retrofit the Four Corners coal plant in New Mexico with carbon capture equipment. The plant is currently scheduled to close in 2031.
Back in May, Wright promised Congress his agency’s review of Biden-era climate funding would be over by the end of the summer. “Certainly in the next few months, by the end of this summer — hopefully before the end of this summer — we will have run through all of the four or 500 large projects that are currently in the pipeline at the DOE,” he said during a House Appropriations Committee hearing.
As reported yesterday by Bloomberg, two regional Hydrogen Hubs in California and the Pacific Northwest — projects awarded funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to develop full hydrogen production and consumption ecosystems — are on the list. That leaves the agency’s intentions for the remaining five hubs scattered throughout the Midwest, Midatlantic, Appalachia, the Great Plains, and Texas unclear. And while the list includes a few smaller grants for early-stage Direct Air Capture Hubs, it is still a mystery whether the Department of Energy plans to support the two more advanced direct air capture projects in Louisiana and Texas that were selected for $1.2 billion under the Biden administration.