This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.
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:
Key projects for the Energy Department’s hydrogen hubs are dropping like flies. And it’s really not obvious why.
Three hubs DOE selected for potential federal support have lost projects that were linchpins. Industrial giant Fortescue is no longer publicly committing to a hydro-powered hydrogen production plant proposed in Washington state that was key to the Pacific Northwest hub. News of a pause at the project was previously reported, but the company notably declined to even say the project was still getting built when asked about it this week.
“While Fortescue will continue to maintain a portfolio of other projects for the future, our financial discipline always comes first. We will never do projects that are not currently economically viable,” the company said in a statement provided to me this morning.
Meanwhile CNX, a natural gas company, has indefinitely put the kibosh on a blue hydrogen ammonia plant in West Virginia crucial to the Appalachian hydrogen hub known as ARCH2. Marathon Petroleum’s midstream subsidiary MPLX also confirmed to me they’ve canceled a hydrogen storage facility planned for that hub, and Chemours is no longer involved with the hub either.
Another blue hydrogen ammonia plant in North Dakota crucial to a different hub – known as the Heartland hub – has been canceled by Marathon and TC Energy.
In other words: a year after the Biden administration made a big announcement about the seven hubs that could potentially receive billions of dollars in government funding, almost half of them are running into serious trouble.
The companies that have quietly pulled out or paused projects are laying blame on implementation of the federal hydrogen production tax credit, claiming rules enforcing the “three pillars” and carbon intensity requirements are too onerous. Meanwhile critics of the hydrogen hubs are seizing on project cancellations and delays to argue against their construction outright; the Ohio River Valley Institute, an environmental group opposed to the ARCH2 hydrogen hub, has received a lot of press in recent days for a report claiming the hub is “coming apart.”
I’m already hearing whispers from industry insiders in D.C. who are trying to spin these cancellations as evidence the credit implementation has been too favorable to climate activists and is constraining growth in the nascent hydrogen space.
But what’s really going on?
Conversations with experts and stakeholders indicate to me this could be evidence of broader macroeconomic issues hitting the hydrogen industry, from inflation pushing up the price of electrolyzers to the stubbornly low price of natural gas. We saw this with the Plug Power project in New York, which we were first to report problems with. These market issues may be overpowering the subsidies and demand-side benefits of the bipartisan infrastructure law and Inflation Reduction Act.
These hiccups may also be a calm before a storm of hydrogen investment and a reshuffling of capital that’ll become more evident after the IRA’s production tax credit is fully implemented with final regulations. Perhaps it’ll take final rules to see the companies supportive of the “three pillars” move more projects forward.
It could also be a mixture of these things and other factors, like issues with the specific sites companies had selected for their plants.
No matter the cause for these hubs stuttering, these projects falling out of the fold is a shock to no one, especially supporters of the “three pillars” approach to the tax credit. Though it may indicate flaws with a disorganized approach to the energy transition.
“I’m not surprised if at the end of the day some of the many projects supported by DOE are not viable in the end,” said Jesse Jenkins, an assistant professor at Princeton University and expert in energy systems engineering. In addition to co-hosting Heatmap’s Shift Key podcast, Jenkins leads the REPEAT Project, which produced influential policy analysis supporting the “three pillars” approach to Treasury’s implementation of the hydrogen production tax credit.
Irrespective of the reasons, it’s important to remember that on some level both industry and the Biden administration stumbled into this mess. That’s because Congress passed the bipartisan infrastructure law mandating the creation and financing of these hubs before the IRA was even introduced. The infrastructure law itself required DOE to start soliciting proposals for hub funding mere months after it was enacted. This means the hub program was crafted independent of a tax subsidy boosting supply.
The hubs may be lobbying for a specific version of the hydrogen production credit to be implemented, as many D.C. lobbyists like to point out, but the program wasn’t referenced in the tax credit’s statute either.
As Jenkins put it, any conflict between the hubs and tax credit provisions is evidence “that reflects that many of the projects [selected] are not compliant.”
Biden administration officials spoke to me for a half hour this morning about the canceled projects on the condition of anonymity to candidly discuss the tax credit and hubs. To them, this can be explained as the process working as intended, and they emphasized how the credit and hub are independent programs. They also expect more capital to be unleashed after the credit is finalized, as companies who’ve supported the “three pillars” get certainty to make final investment decisions.
The administration’s view sounded akin to the optimistic vision relayed to me by Clean Air Task Force’s Conrad Schneider: “This is what progress looks like. It’s slow, it’s steady. It’s not [a] steady state though.”
My take? This is further proof we live in a disorganized energy transition. So far in The Fight, we’ve covered the struggles to get projects built because of opposing forces at a grassroots level. That same dynamic applies to the federal climate programs incentivizing a switch from carbon-intensive business practices. And sometimes, there’ll be tug-of-war competing interests between the climate programs themselves.
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 of the week’s most important conflicts around renewable energy.
1. Sussex County, Delaware – The Trump administration has confirmed it will revisit permitting decisions for the MarWin offshore wind project off the coast of Maryland, potentially putting the proposal in jeopardy unless blue states and the courts intervene.
2. Northwest Iowa – Locals fighting a wind project spanning multiple counties in northern Iowa are opposing legislation that purports to make renewable development easier in the state.
3. Pima County, Arizona – Down goes another solar-powered data center, this time in Arizona.
4. San Diego County, California – A battery storage developer has withdrawn plans to build in the southern California city of La Mesa amidst a broadening post-Moss Landing backlash over fire concerns.
5. Logan and McIntosh Counties, North Dakota – These days, it’s worth noting when a wind project even gets approved.
6. Hamilton County, Indiana – This county is now denying an Aypa battery storage facility north of Indianapolis despite growing power concerns in the region.
They don’t have much to lose, Heiko Burow, an attorney at Baker & Mackenzie, tells me.
This week, since this edition of The Fight was so heavy, I tried something a little different: I interviewed one of my readers, Heiko Burow, an attorney with Baker & Mackenzie based in Dallas, Texas. Burow doesn’t work in energy specifically – he’s an intellectual property lawyer – but he’s read many of my scoops over the past few weeks about attacks on renewable energy and had legitimate criticism! Namely, as a lawyer who is passionate about the rule of law, he wanted to send a message to any developers and energy wonks reading me to use the legal system more often as a tool against attacks on their field.
The following conversation has been abridged for clarity. Let’s dive in.
So Heiko, you reached out to me after my latest scoop about how the Trump administration is now trying to create national land use restrictions on wind projects through the Department of Transportation. In your email, you said the Trump administration “cannot invent a setback requirement by executive fiat.” What does this mean?
Something you need to understand from my point of view is, there’s all these things coming out of the White House, the executive. Like the setback requirement: If the law says they have the right to do that, then okay. But the viewpoints of the administration do not replace the law.
There’s no requirement in the law that the Secretary of Transportation can require a setback. He can’t just come in and say here’s a required setback. The government can only do what the law allows a government to do.
For example, a CEO can’t come into a company and say all the contracts are null and void. The president, in the same way, can’t say everything that’s legally binding is no longer legally binding. There are two ways that creates a problem: one is that it is a breach of contract, and the courts will say there’s a different remedy for that. But there’s also a constitutional problem with that.
Why did you reach out to me about this story, in particular?
I’m just concerned about the environment, and our country, and our democracy.
As someone who works with corporations navigating the legal system under Trump, why do you think companies – like renewable developers – aren’t suing left and right in this moment?
I think they’re timid.
It’s not just companies – it’s stakeholders in general. In 2017, there was pushback on Trump. That is missing. Look at the tech industry – and a lot of investments in renewable energy come from the tech area – and how they lined up with Trump on Inauguration Day.
That is fear. I’d say other stakeholders too are now ruled by fear.
As someone who advises companies in other areas of law, what posture do you think renewable energy companies should take?
Band together. Renewable energy companies, you don’t have much to lose. He’s persecuting you.
I know people stay under the radar, like community solar entities that he could have forgotten about. But he didn’t forget about them. So they need to band together and fight.
Everybody’s just lying low and being afraid. But how much more can renewable energy companies lose? Right now they’re still surviving, because the business case for renewable energy works and states are supporting it. But they’re quiet about it on the national level.
If people start believing what Trump says is the force of law, then it’ll just be that way. And I don’t see a coordinated response to that.
Nevada's Greenlink North is hit with a short, but ominous delay.
I can now confirm the Trump administration’s recent attacks on renewables permitting appear to be impacting transmission projects, too.
Over the past two weeks, the Interior Department has laid forth secretarial orders implementing a new regime for renewables permitting on federal lands. This has appeared to essentially kill the odds of utility-scale solar or wind projects on federal land getting approved any time soon. Public timetables for large solar projects across the American West have suddenly slipped back by years-long intervals, and other mega-projects – like Esmeralda 7 – appear now to be trapped in limbo.
Amidst this flurry of secretarial orders, Nevada’s Republican Governor Joe Lombardo has signaled that transmission lines attached to renewable energy are also being trapped in the political thicket, even if the energy they would connect to is on private land. In a letter first reported by E&E News, Lombardo told Interior that his office has heard the recent orders have “not only stopped solar development on federal lands in Nevada, but also on private land where federal approvals such as transmission line rights of way are required.” Lombardo pleaded with Interior to “empower career staff to continue issuing approvals for projects sited on private lands where there is a federal nexus, such as transmission line rights of way.”
John Hensley, the senior vice president for markets and policy analysis for the American Clean Power Association, confirmed to me that, at a minimum, the newly anti-renewable Interior has also been hyper-focused on transmission lines connected to solar and wind. “I do believe that when considering transmission projects that are principally designed to enable wind and solar, those are certainly getting increased scrutiny and being brought into focus,” he told me this week.
As of today, I can report at least one major transmission line in Nevada that would connect to solar appears to be delayed: NV Energy’s Greenlink North, the second part of a sprawling transmission project that could, according to its permitting documents, cross areas with upwards of at least two dozen pending solar project applications, according to its environmental impact statement. The other major arm of the project, known as Greenlink West, was approved by the Biden administration but then met with litigation from environmental groups who are opposed to it over the possibility that it will harm endangered wildlife.
This spring, it looked like Greenlink North – which NV Energy has claimed is not tied to the completion of any individual solar project – would be an example of Trump embracing transmission and a neutral “all of the above” approach to power lines. The Bureau of Land Management released the environmental impact statement for the project and said it would deliver its final ruling on Sept. 12. In a press release, the agency said the line was “designed to increase transmission capacity and reliability across the state in support of American Energy Dominance.”
However, that was before far-right members of Congress asked the administration last month to attack renewable energy in exchange for passing Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill.
Quietly, as of today, the Bureau of Land Management’s updated public project timetable for Greenlink North now says its record of decision will be released by Sept. 30. An 18-day slippage might seem benign, but agencies, including BLM, often use the end of a month marker as boilerplate when they’re unsure of when they’ll actually finish something. One can easily imagine this date slipping far beyond September, unless something changes.
It is altogether unclear what led BLM to slide the timetable back for Greenlink North to an end-of-month date like this. Yesterday, the agency uploaded appendixes to the permitting documents for the project, indicating things were moving smoothly. The agency did not release a public explanation for the deadline change.
Patrick Donnelly, an organizer with Center for Biological Diversity, told me last week that he’s split on how to feel about the Trump administration’s attacks on solar and related transmission projects in Nevada. On the one hand, in his view, stopping Greenlink North “will be beneficial for the environment.” I have no doubt he’s probably celebrating the delay that I am reporting today.
But Donnelly sees the obvious downsides. “If we’re looking at killing renewable energy, that is extremely harmful and we do not support that. We’ve always said there is a right place to put renewable energy on public lands,” he said. “I don’t want my home destroyed by solar panels. But I also don’t want no solar energy.”
I asked BLM to confirm that transmission projects linked to renewable energy are also subject to the ongoing permitting freeze, as well as for an explanation of the Greenlink North delay. BLM confirmed receipt of my request but was unable to provide comment by press time. We will update our story accordingly if and when we receive a statement from them.