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:
We chatted about U.S. Wind’s project off the coast of Ocean City, oil jobs, and the future of the IRA.

I may have met the future of conservative climate politics on Tuesday, and he was standing next to piles of dead fish.
Larry Hogan, a Republican former governor of Maryland, is campaigning for an open Senate seat in one of the bluest states in the country. He faces an uphill run against Angela Alsobrooks, an acolyte of Vice President Kamala Harris and a Black woman who runs one of the state’s most populous and diverse counties, Prince George’s. Before President Biden dropped out as the Democrats’ nominee for president, internal polls indicated that Hogan had a chance; since Biden’s exit, despite Hogan’s name ID from eight years in Annapolis, his chances for victory now appear uncertain.
So I was surprised when, out of the blue, as Democrats were convening in Chicago around Harris as their nominee, Hogan’s team invited me out to a campaign stop along the Chesapeake Bay. Hogan was going to announce new plans on how he’d fight for protecting the Bay if elected, and I’d get to ask the candidate whatever I wanted about … climate. Not the usual offer from a Republican congressional campaign.
Hogan, however, has a long track record of bucking his party on climate change, and could be regarded as one of the most aggressive Republican governors on the issue in modern American history. In 2017, he signed into law one of the nation’s few state-wide fracking bans. In 2018, after then President Trump began pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement, he joined with other states to meet the goals of the accord regardless. Three years later, he oversaw the creation of a plan to reduce Maryland’s emissions 50% by 2030 and achieving “net-zero” by 2045. Those emissions targets happen to be the same ones Alsobrooks has endorsed, too.
I went to his campaign website to see what it says about climate and found almost nothing. Nowhere on Hogan’s website is there a discussion of emissions or energy policy, and climate-related laws like the Inflation Reduction Act barely come up. The only possible reference I can find is one paragraph saying he’d “stand against unaffordable spending and mandates raising [the] cost of energy, food, and basic necessities.”
So I said yes. Not just because I’m a Marylander who deeply cares about the future of the planet, but also because of Hogan’s importance for the future of the IRA. If he somehow found a way to win, he’d be a crucial voice on the future of the landmark climate law, the fate of which will be decided next year as lawmakers look to rewrite tax policy.
That was why, on Tuesday I woke up at the crack of dawn and drove two hours to Tilghman Island, a bucolic enclave popular for fishing and tourism along the eastern shorelines of Maryland. It might’ve been a rural part of the state, but every now and then along my route I’d see an array of solar panels in front of a farm or a house. I arrived at the meeting place to find it was a seafood plant along the water. Hogan arrived right after me in a jet black SUV and exited in attire so casual you’d hardly recognize him as a two-term governor: a simple baseball cap, a dull blue shirt, and, believe it or not, shorts.
I walked alongside Hogan and people who ran the processing plant as they surveyed flats of oyster shells and the guts of catfish I was told were an invasive species in the area. Finally, Hogan and I settled down to chat in an open garage. There are “more Republicans who actually are more environmentally sensitive than you think,” he told me, “but they’re certainly not in the majority, and they’re not the ones getting all the attention. My hope is to try to be a voice to get them to do some of the things we did and focus on.”
Of the IRA himself, he told me, “It concerns me that it was rushed through in a very partisan way without a single Republican vote. I think there are some really good things in it. I think there’s some things that weren’t very well thought out.”
“Like what?” I asked.
“Things that are going to have a more harmful effect on the economy and killing jobs,” he said, adding that “we ought to at least look at how to tweak it.”
That statement puzzled me — recent analysis indicates at least 334,000 new jobs have been created since the law was enacted in 2022. But writ large, the transition to clean energy will mean people lose jobs in the oil and gas industry — was that what he was referring to?
“Yeah. I mean, we’re not ready,” Hogan replied. “It was going to shut down existing industries without any transition period when we didn’t have the ability to provide enough energy to accomplish what we wanted. We just gotta figure out a way to make the transition, but you can’t do it too rapidly or it’s going to have the opposite impact.”
The funny thing about Republicans talking about climate and the IRA is that you essentially need a translator to know their positions. Lawmakers will say one thing on the record to a reporter and then the next minute say the exact opposite thing off the record. The truth is — and I know this from many years of covering Capitol Hill — many Republican politicians support the vast majority of this law and will never admit it.
Most voters today still do not know much about the IRA, or even what the Biden administration has done on climate change. That’s unlikely to change soon as Democrats have so far eschewed mentioning the topic much at all, including during their convention in Chicago this week. Congressional Democrats put a lot of time and effort over the last year into messaging the law and their other signature industrial policy achievements. But for now, it seems it’ll be largely absent from the campaign trail.
Should Republicans take full control of Congress and the presidency, the IRA is in legitimate danger from influential coalitions on the furthest flanks of the right-wing. Think the Heritage Foundation. The Freedom Caucus. The Marjorie Taylor Greenes and Jim Jordans and Lauren Boeberts roaming the halls of the Capitol. These power-brokers have proven through fights over the debt ceiling and government funding that they appear willing to put their votes where their mouths are to satisfy a political base of support that cares less about corporations and climate change than sticking it to liberals and the left. Hogan is correct that the IRA was passed entirely by Democrats without a single Republican vote, making it a ripe target for partisan pummeling.
And yet there’s so much in the IRA that Republicans typically should like. Climate policy that’s heavy on carrots for big business and light on penalties for corporate pollution has long been Republicans’ preferred route. Why does the most moderate Republican candidate for Senate in one of the nation’s bluest states have to bash the climate law at all, let alone claim its killing jobs? I’ll be honest, when I went out to the Bay to meet Hogan, I thought I was about to hear the first major Republican endorsement of the IRA.
I asked John Hart, a fellow Marylander who helps run the conservative climate group C3 Solutions, about why Hogan would claim the IRA is killing jobs when there’s no evidence to back that up. Hart authored a campaign messaging book for Republicans trying to talk about climate change and energy policy without denying the existence of the problem, on the one hand, or alienating their own voters on the other.
“It’s an American cultural and political problem,” Hart told me. “You have to be very cognizant of those head-scratching moments, and you have to address that very clearly.”
There’s two reasons why Republicans like Hogan have to bash the IRA even if they might support a lot of the underlying climate provisions, he said: GOP voters instinctually see such ideas as “picking winners and losers,” and the climate law has been lumped in with other policies like auto regulations that Republicans largely oppose.
“Candidates are viewing it not through the narrow lens of what that legislation alone does, but how it fits into a broader agenda,” Hart added. “With the IRA, [it becomes] part of a broader effort. A lot of Republicans do believe that the Biden administration wants to ban trucks.”
Hogan did not develop his approach to climate action overnight. While as governor, he pushed for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50% through 2030, he also opposed going any faster than that. (The legislature ultimately enacted the more aggressive plans without Hogan's signature.) The Alsobrooks campaign has attacked him on this, and in a statement to me said that if elected, “Larry Hogan would give [S]enate Republicans the majority they need to gut the IRA and roll back efforts to protect our environment.”
Blake Kernen, a spokesperson for the Hogan campaign, told me Hogan is “glad the [IRA] created clean energy jobs like he did as Governor in Maryland.” His concerns with the law have to do with “some of the new taxes and overspending in the bill [that] has and will contribute to inflation and job loss, and is disappointed that the bill was forced through a party line vote.”
Governor Hogan also loudly backed wind development off the Maryland coast, which is now a contentious issue along the eastern shore.
Ocean City, a popular vacation destination, is now considering legal action against the federal government if it approves efforts by U.S. Wind, a subsidiary of an Italian wind energy company, to actually build turbines off the state’s coastline. It’s a conflict that mirrors other fights waged by beach communities, resort areas, and fishing hubs against offshore wind. These parts of the country are far removed from cities and often Republican-leaning, and the loudest champions of these grievances have also been prominent GOP politicians. Most notable, of course, has been former President Donald Trump, who’s pledged to halt new permits, but Republican policymakers at all levels from New Jersey, New York, and Virginia, among others, have all been making political hay from wind farm projects in their states.
Hogan has made a name for himself in recent years as a bulwark against Trump and his brand of politics. But when I brought up Ocean City’s legal threat, his passionate support of the town led him to interrupt my question.
“They probably will and probably should [sue]. That’s an example where I was very supportive of wind energy and creating a market for that in our state to create jobs and further the production of wind energy. But on that project, there was not very much transparency. They didn’t work with the local community very much. That’s impacting the fishing industry, the tourism industry, and they’re concerned that their entire livelihoods are going to be ruined.”
Heatmap’s own polling shows the political vulnerability renewable energy faces from the environmental impacts of development. Yet earlier in our interview, Hogan had boasted about the jobs wind has brought to the transportation and logistics hub Tradepoint Atlantic in the Port of Baltimore. He spoke effusively about the jobs in industries like welding that wind development creates. (One tidbit: His campaign released an ad a few days ago featuring a Democrat-registered welder in Baltimore who says they’re voting for Hogan, with no mention of the wind industry.)
In my mind, at least, failing to build those turbines could present a bigger risk to Ocean City in the long run than building them. If we didn’t construct them, it would take away an opportunity to dramatically increase the amount of renewable energy available for Maryland to wean off of carbon-based power. Failing to do so would pose a longer-term threat to the town of Ocean City from sea level rise and intensifying extreme weather.
So I told Hogan that while, as a Marylander, I couldn’t imagine wind turbines at Ocean City, I also couldn’t stop thinking about the trade-offs. I asked him, how does he view those tradeoffs?
Hogan stood firm. “I think you can accomplish the goals without putting them on the beach. I think you move them further out. It’s a pretty simple process. The federal government required them to put them in a place that no one wants. There’s no reason for it.”
This began to sound like some sort of Republican party line, trying to sell voters on a vision of the future that derails the energy transition along the way. But as one of my personal favorite Republican-splainers on energy, Sarah Hunt of the Rainey Center, explained to me, this kind of misconstrues how politics ordinarily works.
The normal thing is that constituents go to their representatives and voice their concerns, and a lot of these beach towns and fishing areas just happen to be Republican. In other parts of the country like Louisiana, where the politicians are more open to offshore oil, they’re similarly supportive of offshore wind.
“I think that is individual to Maryland and specific areas of Maryland,” Hunt told me. “I think offshore wind is a wonderful thing. I think it’s legitimate to say it doesn’t belong everywhere, and I think it’s reasonable to have a process for communities to provide input into the placement of such projects.”
After Hogan and I concluded our interview, I drove home in the gas-powered car I inherited from my late grandparents and passed more solar paneling in front of rural homes. Driving over the Chesapeake Bay, I tried to imagine seeing wind turbines on the horizon one day, and a world where Republicans support tax credits for renewables while fighting to make sure those projects adhere to the Clean Water Act. May we live in interesting times, I guess.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect that Maryland was already a member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative when Hogan became governor.
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 tension between the two GOP energy philosophies — one admitting renewables, the other firmly rejecting — could tank a permitting reform deal.
The fate of a House GOP permitting deal stands on a knife’s edge.
During a dramatic vote on the House floor Tuesday, far-right Republicans and opponents of the offshore wind industry joined with Democrats in a nearly-successful attempt to defeat a procedural vote on the SPEED Act, a bill to streamline implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act.
Speaking with reporters off the House floor, GOP lawmakers said that the bill — which has the backing of both the oil and gas sector and some large trade groups that represent renewables companies — faced opposition from a handful of Republicans over language that would block the federal government from rescinding previously-issued permits for energy projects. The tactic is one Trump has used repeatedly to stymie offshore wind projects. Republican hardliners feared that a future version of the deal would take that language further, restricting the president’s power to stall solar and wind permit applications through extralegal bureaucratic delays.
The vote to consider SPEED ultimately passed with a margin of 215 to 209 votes, with two Republicans — Representatives Anna Paulina Luna and Christopher Smith — voting no. Though the bill is alive for now, the outcome casts a pall over the prospects for any permitting deal this Congress because, as Heatmap’s reporting has made clear, there is little shot of a grand deal on NEPA reform without exactly the sort of executive power restrictions Republican objectors feared.
That the bill nearly came up short also illustrates a shift in the GOP’s thinking on energy policy that has gone largely unnoticed. Vestiges of the party remain committed to the philosophy of “all of the above,” but the new generation of lawmakers is more likely to be anti-renewables at all costs. Combined with today’s hyper-partisan environment and narrow majorities in both chambers, that tension makes legislating on energy almost impossible.
Republicans used to approach energy policy in a laissez faire, let-a-thousand-flowers bloom fashion. This fuel-type agnosticism characterized Republicans’ approach to energy policy under the first Trump administration, as well as during the Biden era. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy repeated the “all of the above” mantra to nudge his party closer to anything resembling a climate policy, and subscribed to the idea that any permitting deal would have to benefit all types of energy projects.
The SPEED Act closely resembles a McCarthy-era approach to energy policy: just make everything go faster.
It is true that the bill would bind the hands of the executive in some ways, requiring them to get consent from the project developer in order to voluntarily vacate a previously-issued NEPA approval. If someone sued the government because they believed a NEPA approval was invalid and got a federal court to agree, the judge overseeing the case would be barred from immediately vacating the approval or issuing an injunction on construction. This is a big reason why the oil and gas industry supports the bill, as it’s a way to shield the sector from environmentalists filing lawsuits against fossil-based extraction and fuel transportation projects (e.g. pipelines).
But there’s a small irony in the SPEED Act spinning out over offshore wind concerns, which is that if it were enacted today, not even its supporters think it would actually stop the administration from messing with wind projects. As pro-fossil pundit Alex Epstein noted on X, the bill would only limit the president’s authority to revoke approvals under NEPA. It would do nothing to erode presidential power under any other statute, including another one of the administration’s favorite tools against offshore wind, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
I spoke with two separate energy industry attorneys who confirmed this interpretation. “It would be welcome for whatever the next administration would look like,” Peter Whitfield, a partner at Sidley Austin who works on energy projects, told me of the SPEED Act. “It might not be helpful now.” The bill’s clean energy backers are looking at the legislation as a “long range” play, he said: “They’re not looking at year one, two, three — they’re looking at years eight and after. I think that’s why there is so much enthusiasm in the renewable energy space for reform.”
Another attorney, who requested anonymity because they did not have permission from their firm, confirmed that the bill would stop the Trump administration from exploiting NEPA in the future, but said that nothing in the legislation requires agencies to move forward on energy projects.
It’s that eight-years-from-now future that seems to have the anti-renewables conservative wing in Congress worried. The House is expected to vote on the SPEED Act as soon as tomorrow, but lawmakers will first consider amendments offered by the Republicans who nearly killed the bill, including one that would explicitly bar offshore wind projects from benefiting under any of its NEPA changes.
If those amendments fail, the odds of final House passage are uncertain, although some Democrats who voted against the procedural motion may wind up voting for the final bill. If they succeed and the bill moves to the Senate, Democrats aim to add new ideas on transmission and the renewables permitting freeze that may upset frazzled Republicans even more.
“We would expect that senators wouldn’t endorse a House product,” Frank Macchiarola, chief advocacy officer for American Clean Power, told me in an interview last week. Macchiarola said the language in the House bill “goes a long way towards addressing the problem” of Trump’s war on renewables permits, but that it is “not a perfect product,” though he declined to speak on the record about what would get it closer to ideal. If I had to guess, I’d say that senators will try to provide new avenues for companies to compel an end to the review process, whether through legal challenges or other means of protest.
In other words, grab your popcorn — more drama is coming.
On EU’s EV reversal, ‘historic’ mineral deals, and India’s nuclear opening
Current conditions: Yet another powerful atmospheric river, this one dubbed Pineapple Express, is on track to throttle the Pacific Northwest this week • Bolivia is facing landslides • Western Australia is under severe risk of bushfire.
The Ford Motor Company expects to pay roughly $19.5 billion in charges, primarily from its electric vehicle business. In a press release, the automaker said it would refocus on hybrids and “efficient gas engines,” ramp up manufacturing of batteries for a standalone business, and boost truck production. The battery business aims to churn out 20 gigawatts of capacity every year starting in 2027. But the charges the company faces stem from its decision to abandon multibillion-dollar investments the carmaker made in new assembly lines for electric vehicles, demand for which slowed last year and dipped at the end of this year after the Trump administration phased out federal tax credits in September. “This is a customer-driven shift to create a stronger, more resilient and more profitable Ford,” Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a press release. “The operating reality has changed, and we are redeploying capital into higher-return growth opportunities: Ford Pro, our market-leading trucks and vans, hybrids and high margin opportunities like our new battery energy storage business.”
Ford isn’t the only one accelerating in reverse away from electric vehicles. Last week I told you about the deal the European Union struck between its center-right and far-right lawmakers to curb environmental regulations. Now the bloc has moved to scrap its 2035 target to ban sales of new combustion-engine vehicles. The move would have marked a dramatic sea change in the West’s transportation policy, all but eliminating sales of traditional gasoline-powered cars in favor of battery-propelled alternatives. It’s a sign of Brussels’ broader effort to pull back from green mandates that European President Ursula von der Leyen blames for the continent’s economic malaise.

It could have been worse. The Treasury guidance issued Friday dictating what wind and solar projects will be eligible for federal tax credits could have effectively banned developers from tapping the write-offs set to start phasing out next July. In the weeks before the Internal Revenue Service released its rules, GOP lawmakers from states with thriving wind and solar industries, including Senators John Curtis of Utah and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, publicly lobbied for laxer rules as part of what they pitched as the all-of-the-above “energy dominance” strategy on which Trump campaigned. Grassley went so far as to block two of Trump’s Treasury nominees “until I can be certain that such rules and regulations adhere to the law and congressional intent,” as Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin covered earlier in August.
Since the guidance came out on Friday, both Grassley and Curtis have put out positive statements backing the plan. “I appreciate the work of Secretary [Scott] Bessent and his staff in balancing various concerns and perspectives to address the President’s executive order on wind and solar projects,” Curtis said, according to E&E News. Calling renewables “an essential part of the ‘all of the above’ energy equation,” Grassley’s statement said the guidance “seems to offer a viable path forward for the wind and solar industries to continue to meet increased energy demand” and “reflects some of the concerns Congress and industry leaders have raised.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Virginia’s outgoing Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed more energy bills than he signed last year, killing legislation designed to increase rooftop solar and energy storage, boost utility planning requirements, and make efficiency improvements more available to low-income residents. Now that Democrat Abigail Spanberger is coming in to replace Youngkin as the next governor, those bills are coming back, the Virginia Mercury reported. In a column, lawyer and environmentalist Ivy Main called on Democrats to dream bigger. “Data center development is so far outstripping supply side solutions that if legislators aren’t more aggressive this year, next year they will find themselves further behind than ever,” Main wrote. “As more bills are filed over the coming weeks, we are likely to see plenty of bold proposals. Hopefully, legislators now understand the urgency, and will be ready to act.”
Data centers are now “swallowing American politics,” Heatmap’s Jael Holzman wrote recently. Just 44% of Americans would welcome a data center nearby, according to a poll from September by Heatmap Pro.
The 1984 Bhopal chemical disaster in India never resulted in any serious ramifications for Union Carbide, the Dow Chemical subsidiary responsible for the accident that left more than 3,700 dead from exposure to toxic gases. In 2010, India passed a law that threatened to impose full civil penalties on any private nuclear company that suffered an accident somehow. That legislation has prevented all but Russia’s state-owned nuclear company from entering the Indian market. Hoping to lure American small modular reactor companies to India, the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has vowed all year to overhaul the civil liability law. On Monday, Modi-aligned lawmakers proposed legislation to reform the nuclear sector and free foreign vendors from financial responsibility for anything that could potentially happen with their equipment.
The renewables industry, meanwhile, is continuing to boom on the subcontinent. The Japanese industrial giant agreed to invest $1.3 billion into renewable power in India in its latest push into green energy in South Asia, Bloomberg reported.
There’s green hydrogen, made from blasting freshwater with electricity made by renewables. There’s blue hydrogen, the version of the fuel that comes from natural gas mitigated with carbon capture equipment. Gray hydrogen is the traditional kind made with natural gas that spews pollution into the atmosphere. And then there’s pink hydrogen, made like the green kind with clean electricity except generated by a nuclear reactor. Orange is the latest color in the hydrogen rainbow, referring to the version of the gas that comes from a chemical process that accelerates production of the gas in natural formations underground. The startup Vema has announced a 10-year conditional offtake agreement with the off-grid data center power provider Verne to supply over 36,000 metric tons per year of “orange” hydrogen for server farms, Heatmap’s Katie Brigham reported.
The startup Vema just signed a new offtake agreement to provide 36,000 tons of orange hydrogen per year for data centers.
Love it or hate it, it’s looking like there may be a good reason to add yet another color to the hydrogen rainbow. In 2022, Florian Osselin, co-founder and CSO of the startup Vema Hydrogen, published a paper in Nature called “Orange hydrogen is the new green,” in which he outlines how to expedite the natural process of hydrogen formation in certain underground geologies, laying the foundation for what the company now calls Engineered Mineral Hydrogen.
Osselin’s startup, Vema, is now announcing a 10-year conditional offtake agreement with the off-grid data center power startup Verne to supply over 36,000 metric tons per year of so-called “orange” hydrogen for data centers. The announcement comes on the heels of Vema’s $13 million seed round earlier this year, which supports the company’s efforts to take its engineered hydrogen experiments out of the lab and into the field.
Vema’s ultimate goal is to produce low-carbon hydrogen at less than $1 per kilogram, making it cost competitive with petroleum-derived hydrogen and magnitudes cheaper than clean hydrogen produced via electrolysis.
“The Earth is generating hydrogen all the time,” Colin McCulley, the startup’s senior vice president of operations, told me. “So those reactions, when they’re close to the surface, are very, very slow and not fast enough to create enough hydrogen to capture.” To expedite natural hydrogen production — which occurs when water interacts with iron-rich rocks underground — Vema will inject water and its proprietary catalyst into suitable formations. The catalyst is designed to increase both the speed and the scale of the reaction, rapidly forming large, commercially relevant quantities of hydrogen.
The company has done extensive exploration and testing, McCulley told me, with the team running over 100 experiments per week for over a year. But though the lab results have been promising, scaling up will be the true test. If the tech is a success, the plan is to begin selling hydrogen in 2028.
“We’re going to start small, in which case we will likely sell truckloads of hydrogen — think 10 tons a day-type scale,” McCulley told me. “The eventual goal is to have on-site — or basically next door — consumption of the hydrogen.” This would eliminate the need to build expensive hydrogen pipelines or transport the fuel via truck. That’s a valuable cost-cutting proposition for producers of clean fuels such as methanol and ammonia, which face steep green premiums and use hydrogen as a feedstock. McCulley also envisions co-locating with data centers.
Right now, the company is starting a pilot project in Canada, and planning for others atr undisclosed locations, where McCulley says there are well-studied deposits of iron-rich rocks that sit relatively close to the surface, ripe for producing engineered hydrogen. West Coast states including Oregon, Washington, California, and Alaska have particularly well-suited subsurface geologies that lie decently close to major metropolitan areas, he explained.
Low exploration risk is a key reason why Vema thinks it’s a better bet than geologic hydrogen companies such as Koloma, which focus on locating and extracting naturally occurring underground hydrogen deposits — no additional stimulation required. But these natural formations typically lie far deeper than Vema is targeting and there’s much less certainty about where they’re located, Vema’s CEO Pierre Levin told me in an email.
“Natural geologic hydrogen depends on complex underground systems with multiple interdependent variables,” Levin, who previously served as CEO of the geologic hydrogen company Hethos, wrote. “With natural hydrogen, you’re at nature’s mercy. [Engineered Mineral Hydrogen] changes the game because we control the subsurface production process, which means predictable, manageable flow rates.”
At the moment, however, investors appear to be lining up behind the geologic hydrogen approach. Koloma alone has raised over $350 million since its founding in 2021 — though it also has yet to produce commercial hydrogen.
McCulley estimates that its hydrogen won’t be cost competitive with fossil fuels until Vema has already completed several large-scale projects, which isn’t likely to happen until 2035 or 2040. “So we need to be able to get through some of these first projects where we’re going to have to sell at a premium price,” he told me. It’s never a guarantee that emerging technologies like this will find patient backers willing to bet on the promise that economies of scale are just over the horizon. The startup is currently raising its Series A, though, and McCulley said he’s seen strong interest from the tech industry in supporting Vema at the price point it’s targeting
The company wouldn’t reveal what price this is, though, and the numbers for its contract with Verne are also under wraps. That deal depends on both Vema and Verne advancing their tech to the point where it’s well-proven and bankable. For Verne, that means demonstrating the viability of its next-generation data center power systems, which include more efficient, off-grid generators capable of running on clean hydrogen. For Vema, it requires completing pilot testing and building a successful demo project. Both sides also have to secure additional funding.
If Vema can pull that together, the payoff looks huge. “If you start producing this stuff at less than $1 per kilogram, the sky’s the limit,” McCulley told me. “The current industrial [hydrogen] gas plants, the biggest ones are, say, around 200 tons per day,” he explained. “We can be five times that from one location.”