The Fight

Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Spotlight

Hydrogen Hubs Are Struggling. Why?

Explanations abound.

Hydrogen plant.
Shutterstock / Heatmap

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.

This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.

Go deeper inside the politics, projects, and personalities
shaping the energy transition.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Spotlight

Data Centers Collide with Local Restrictions on Renewables

A review of Heatmap Pro data reveals a troubling new trend in data center development.

A data center and a backyard.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Data centers are being built in places that restrict renewable energy. There are significant implications for our future energy grid – but it’s unclear if this behavior will lead to tech companies eschewing renewables or finding novel ways to still meet their clean energy commitments.

In the previous edition of The Fight, I began chronicling the data center boom and a nascent backlash to it by talking about Google and what would’ve been its second data center in southern Indianapolis, if the city had not rejected it last Monday. As I learned about Google’s practices in Indiana, I focused on the company’s first project – a $2 billion facility in Fort Wayne, because it is being built in a county where officials have instituted a cumbersome restrictive ordinance on large-scale solar energy. The county commission recently voted to make the ordinance more restrictive, unanimously agreeing to institute a 1,000-foot setback to take effect in early November, pending final approval from the county’s planning commission.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Feds Preparing Rule Likely Restricting Offshore Wind, Court Filing Says

And more on the week’s most important fights around renewable energy projects.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

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.

  • In a court filing last Friday, Matthew Giacona – Trump’s principal deputy director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management – laid out the federal government’s thoughts about re-doing the entire review process that went into approving the Atlantic Shores project. The filing was related to the agency’s effort to stay a lawsuit brought by anti-wind advocates that officials say is unnecessary because, well … Atlantic Shores is already kind of dead.
  • But the Giacona declaration went beyond this specific project. He laid out how in the Trump administration’s view, the Biden administration improperly weighed the impacts of the offshore wind industry when considering the government’s responsibilities for governing use of the Outer Continental Shelf, which is the range of oceanfront off the coastline that qualifies as U.S. waters. Giacona cited an Interior Department legal memo issued earlier this year that revoked Biden officials’ understanding of those legal responsibilities and, instead, put forward an interpretation of the agency’s role that results in a higher bar for approving offshore wind projects.
  • Per Giacona, not only will BOEM be reviewing past approvals under this new legal opinion, but it will also try and take some sort of action changing its responsibilities under federal regulation for approving projects in the Outer Continental Shelf. Enshrining this sort of legal interpretation into BOEM’s regulations would in theory have lasting implications for the agency even after the Trump 2.0 comes to a close.
  • “BOEM is currently beginning preparations for a rulemaking that will amend that provision of the regulations, consistent with M-37086 [the legal opinion],” Giacona stated. He did not elaborate on the timetable for this regulatory effort in the filing.

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.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Q&A

What Rural Republicans Say About Renewables

A conversation with Courtney Brady of Evergreen Action.

Courtney Brady.
Heatmap Illustration

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.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow