$8 Billion for US "Hydrogen Shot" Cut: Navigating the Collapse of the H2Hubs Industrial Strategy

I. Introduction: The Industrial Policy Pivot

The trajectory of the United States energy economy is currently defined by a profound oscillation between state-sponsored industrial strategy and market-fundamentalist retrenchment. In November 2021, the enactment of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), frequently referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), marked a decisive shift in federal energy policy.¹ This legislation authorized the appropriation of eight billion dollars for the development of Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs (H2Hubs), a program designed not merely to fund research but to actively construct a new industrial ecosystem.² The Department of Energy (DOE) was tasked with orchestrating a "Hydrogen Shot"—a targeted initiative to reduce the cost of clean hydrogen to one dollar per one kilogram in one decade ("1-1-1")—thereby bridging the "valley of death" that typically separates technological demonstration from commercial viability.⁴

However, the political transition to the second Trump administration in 2025 has introduced a period of acute uncertainty. Reports indicate a strategic revocation of funding for specific hubs, driven by a combination of fiscal austerity and ideological skepticism regarding "green" energy subsidies.⁶ This potential policy reversal threatens to strand billions in private capital and disrupt the technical maturation of critical decarbonization pathways. This report provides an exhaustive examination of the H2Hubs program, analyzing the geopolitical and legislative shifts, the bureaucratic failures identified by the Inspector General, and the immutable thermodynamic and material science realities that will ultimately dictate the success or failure of the hydrogen economy.

II. The Political Economy of Revocation

The H2Hubs program was conceived as a mechanism to demonstrate the viability of a national clean hydrogen network. The selection process, culminating in October 2023, identified seven hubs that represented a diverse portfolio of feedstocks, end-uses, and geographies, as mandated by Congress.⁸ Yet, the stability of these awards has been eroded by a shift in executive priorities.

2.1 The Strategic Targeting of "Green" Hubs

The incoming administration has signaled a clear intent to dismantle components of the Biden-era climate agenda, with the hydrogen hubs identified as a primary target for cost-cutting. A leaked list of 321 revoked grants included the H2Hubs, with the administration aiming to reclaim up to seven billion dollars in obligated but undisbursed funds.⁶ While the administration has suggested that the entire twenty-four billion dollar portfolio of clean energy awards is under review, the hydrogen hubs are particularly vulnerable due to their reliance on future appropriations and the phased nature of their funding distribution.⁶

The targeting appears to be asymmetric. Hubs that rely exclusively on renewable electrolysis—specifically the Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub (PNWH2) and the California Hydrogen Hub (ARCHES)—are viewed with greater skepticism by the new administration compared to hubs that utilize natural gas, such as the Appalachian (ARCH2) and Gulf Coast (HyVelocity) hubs.⁷ This bifurcation reflects a broader ideological preference for fossil-fuel-based energy systems over renewable-based industrial policy. The administration's rationale is often framed in terms of "energy dominance," posing the argument that subsidies for electrolysis distort market mechanisms and threaten U.S. competitiveness by inflating energy costs.⁶

2.2 Legislative Pushback and the "Impoundment" Threat

The mechanism for these cuts involves the "impoundment" of funds—the refusal of the executive branch to spend money appropriated by Congress. This has triggered a constitutional friction between the executive and legislative branches. Even Republican lawmakers, whose districts benefit from the hubs, have expressed alarm. Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, a key figure in the Appalachian region, stated publicly that the loss of funding for the ARCH2 hub would be "a big deal" for the state, highlighting the tension between national party ideology and regional economic interests.⁶

Similarly, in the Pacific Northwest, a coalition of lawmakers led by Congresswoman Suzan DelBene has denounced the proposed cancellation of the PNWH2 hub as "political retribution" against blue states.¹⁰ The letter signed by these representatives argues that the revocation is unlawful and gambles with the economic future of the region, risking thousands of jobs and ceding technological leadership to international competitors like China.¹⁰ This political maneuvering creates a "chilling effect" on the private sector. As Rachel Starr of the Clean Air Task Force noted, the mere uncertainty of funding is detrimental to private-sector investment, which was intended to leverage the federal grants by a ratio of roughly six to one.⁶

2.3 The Inspector General’s Report: A Technocratic Justification

Compounding the political vulnerability is a critical failure in administrative oversight. A report released by the Department of Energy’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) in June 2025 revealed significant deficiencies in the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED), the body responsible for managing the hubs.¹¹ The audit found that OCED failed to conduct necessary programmatic risk assessments or develop a comprehensive workforce plan. Specifically, the office lacked adequate staffing resources with the requisite skills to manage complex industrial demonstration projects.¹²

The OIG report details that the OCED prioritized the selection and awarding of projects over the establishment of internal controls.¹³ This administrative weakness provides the Trump administration with a technocratic justification for cancellation. Rather than framing the cuts solely as a rejection of climate science, the administration can point to the OIG’s findings of mismanagement to justify the termination of the hubs as a "good governance" measure.¹⁴ This aligns with the administration’s broader narrative of government efficiency.

III. Deep Dive: The Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub (PNWH2)

The Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub (PNWH2) represents the purest test case for "green" hydrogen at scale. Located across Washington, Oregon, and Montana, it was designed to leverage the region's historical investment in hydroelectric power to produce hydrogen exclusively via electrolysis.¹⁵

3.1 Technical Architecture and Project Portfolio

The PNWH2 hub is not a single facility but a distributed network of electrolyzers and end-use applications. The hub aims to deploy both Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) and Alkaline electrolyzers, using the vast procurement volume to drive down the capital cost of these units.¹⁵

Key Projects and End-Uses:

• Bellingham, WA: A facility focused on producing hydrogen for heavy-duty transportation, refining, and power generation. This site is strategically located near existing refinery infrastructure, allowing for the potential displacement of grey hydrogen.¹⁶

• Port of Morrow, OR: A project dedicated to heavy-duty transportation and agricultural applications. The region is a major agricultural hub, and the hydrogen produced here is intended for the production of green ammonia (fertilizer), decarbonizing a sector that is traditionally heavily reliant on natural gas.¹⁶

• Richland, WA: Focused on agriculture, specifically the synthesis of fertilizers using electrolytic hydrogen.¹⁶

• Baker City, OR & St. Regis, MT: Nodes focused on heavy-duty trucking corridors, aiming to create a continuous refueling network along key interstate highways (I-5 and I-90).¹⁶

• Centralia/Chehalis, WA: A project focused on public transit and fueling, leveraging the proximity to the I-5 corridor to support hydrogen fuel cell buses.¹⁶

3.2 The Consortium and Economic Exposure

The hub is managed by the Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Association, a public-private partnership. The corporate partner list reveals the depth of the ecosystem at risk. Major players include Amazon and Microsoft, companies with aggressive internal decarbonization goals that require hydrogen for backup power (data centers) and logistics (forklifts and heavy trucking).¹⁷ Other critical partners include Air Liquide (liquefaction and distribution), Atlas Agro (fertilizer production), and the Northwest Seaport Alliance (port operations).¹⁸

The economic model of PNWH2 is heavily dependent on the federal cost share of up to one billion dollars. The revocation of these funds threatens to unravel the "anchor tenant" model. Without the subsidy to buy down the cost of the electrolyzers, the Levelized Cost of Hydrogen (LCOH) from these facilities would likely exceed the willingness to pay of the end-users, particularly in the low-margin agricultural sector.¹⁹ The hub was projected to create 13,600 jobs, but crucially, only about 1,500 of these were expected to be permanent operational roles, with the vast majority being temporary construction jobs.²⁰

3.3 The "Additionality" Debate and Grid Constraints

A central technical challenge for PNWH2 is the source of its electricity. While the region is rich in hydro, the grid is increasingly constrained. Environmental critics and energy analysts have raised concerns about "additionality"—the principle that hydrogen production must be powered by new renewable generation rather than existing grid capacity. If the electrolyzers simply draw from the existing hydro baseload, they could force utilities to purchase fossil-fuel-based power to meet the remaining demand, effectively increasing the region's total carbon footprint.¹⁷ The hub’s management has stated they are working with renewable developers to ensure a growing supply of clean energy, but the explicit requirement for new wind and solar projects to match the hydrogen load adds a layer of complexity and cost that the funding cuts would make insurmountable.¹⁷

IV. Deep Dive: The California Hydrogen Hub (ARCHES)

The Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems (ARCHES) is perhaps the most politically and technically ambitious of the seven hubs. Covering the entire state of California, it aims to establish a renewable hydrogen ecosystem to decarbonize the world's fifth-largest economy.²¹

4.1 The Port Decarbonization Imperative

The centerpiece of the ARCHES strategy is the decarbonization of the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland. These ports are the primary entry points for goods into the United States and are significant sources of local air pollution (NOx and particulate matter).²¹

Project Specifics:

The hub plans to replace diesel-powered cargo-handling equipment (gantry cranes, forklifts) and drayage trucks with hydrogen fuel cell equivalents. This is a material science and engineering challenge of the first order; fuel cells for heavy-duty applications must withstand constant vibration, saline environments, and high-duty cycles.22 The project involves the construction of large-scale heavy-duty fueling stations, infrastructure that is currently virtually non-existent.

4.2 Biomass Gasification: The "Gold" Standard?

Unlike PNWH2, which focuses on electrolysis, ARCHES incorporates biomass gasification as a key production pathway. California has vast resources of agricultural waste and forest biomass (from fire mitigation thinning).

• The Process: Biomass is heated in a low-oxygen environment (gasification) to produce syngas (a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide). The hydrogen is then separated.

• The Advantage: This pathway can be carbon-negative if the biomass waste would otherwise decay or burn, releasing methane or CO2. By capturing the carbon during gasification, the process effectively removes CO2 from the atmosphere.²³

• The Controversy: Environmental justice groups often oppose biomass facilities due to concerns about local air pollution from the gasification plants. The ARCHES hub has faced significant scrutiny regarding where these facilities will be sited, with commitments to avoid overburdening disadvantaged communities.²¹

4.3 The Partner Ecosystem and Political Fallout

ARCHES boasts the most extensive partner network, with over 400 organizations. This includes the University of California system, the State Building and Construction Trades Council (labor unions), and major technology providers like Plug Power and Air Liquide.²²

The revocation of the 1.2 billion dollar award is viewed as a direct attack on California’s autonomy. Governor Newsom’s administration has invested heavily in the state’s own hydrogen strategy, and the loss of federal funds would force the state to either backfill the funding from its own budget or scale back the ambition of the port projects.²⁵ The reliance on the 45V tax credit is also acute here; without the federal subsidy, the cost of renewable hydrogen in California (where electricity prices are high) would remain uncompetitive against diesel.²⁶

V. Deep Dive: The Appalachian Hydrogen Hub (ARCH2)

The Appalachian Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub (ARCH2) represents the "Blue" hydrogen pathway. Situated over the Marcellus and Utica shale basins in West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, this hub is designed to leverage the region's massive natural gas reserves.²⁷

5.1 The Geology of the Marcellus and Blue Hydrogen

The core premise of ARCH2 is that the lowest-cost route to hydrogen is reforming natural gas while capturing the carbon dioxide. The region's geology is uniquely suited for this; the depleted oil and gas reservoirs and deep saline aquifers offer ample capacity for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).²⁷

Technical Configuration:

The hub proposes to utilize Autothermal Reforming (ATR) rather than traditional Steam Methane Reforming (SMR).

• Why ATR? In SMR, the heat is supplied by an external furnace, creating a dilute CO2 stream that is expensive to capture. In ATR, oxygen is injected directly into the reactor, generating heat internally. This results in a high-pressure, high-concentration CO2 stream that can be captured with efficiencies exceeding 95%.²⁸

• Corporate Partners: The hub is led by Battelle and includes EQT Corporation (the largest natural gas producer in the U.S.), CNX Resources, Air Liquide, Plug Power, and TC Energy.³⁰

5.2 The Methane Leakage Controversy

The environmental integrity of ARCH2 hinges entirely on the upstream methane leakage rate. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, with a warming potential more than 80 times that of CO2 over a 20-year period.³²

• The Math: Studies suggest that if the leakage rate of the natural gas supply chain exceeds roughly 3%, the climate benefits of blue hydrogen (even with perfect carbon capture) are negated compared to simply burning natural gas directly.³³

• The Critique: Critics like the Ohio River Valley Institute and the Sierra Club argue that the hub will prolong the extraction of fossil fuels and that the monitoring technologies for methane leaks are currently insufficient to guarantee the "cleanliness" of the hydrogen produced.³⁴

5.3 Political Insulation?

Despite the Trump administration’s skepticism of climate spending, ARCH2 has more political cover than its coastal counterparts. It is supported by powerful Republican senators and the fossil fuel industry. The fact that it appeared on the preliminary "cut list" suggests that the administration’s cost-cutting zeal may be overriding traditional alliances, or that the specific inclusion of CCS (which adds cost) is viewed as an unnecessary concession to climate alarmism.⁶

VI. Deep Dive: The Mid-Atlantic Hydrogen Hub (MACH2)

The Mid-Atlantic Clean Hydrogen Hub (MACH2), covering Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey, offers a unique hybrid technical approach involving nuclear power and wastewater biogas.³⁶

6.1 "Pink" Hydrogen: The Nuclear Option

MACH2 leverages the existing nuclear generation assets in the region, specifically the Salem and Hope Creek nuclear generating stations in New Jersey.³⁷

• The Advantage: Nuclear power provides firm, baseload carbon-free electricity. Unlike solar or wind, which require the electrolyzers to ramp up and down (reducing efficiency and equipment life), nuclear allows the electrolyzers to run at steady-state, maximizing hydrogen production per unit of capital invested.³⁶

• The Constraint: The primary challenge is the diversion of clean electrons. If the nuclear plants are diverted to make hydrogen, the grid may need to rely more on natural gas power plants to meet regional electricity demand, raising the additionality concern again.³⁸

6.2 "Orange" Hydrogen: The Waste-to-Value Pathway

MACH2 proposes a novel pathway utilizing biomethane from municipal wastewater treatment plants, specifically in Philadelphia.

• The Process: Wastewater treatment produces methane (biogas) as a byproduct of anaerobic digestion. Currently, much of this is flared (burned). MACH2 proposes to capture this biogas and reform it into hydrogen.³⁸

• The Classification: This is termed "Orange" hydrogen. Since the methane would have been flared anyway, utilizing it for hydrogen production prevents those emissions and creates a useful fuel, offering a potentially carbon-negative lifecycle.⁴⁰

6.3 Infrastructure Reuse: The Polymer Sleeve Solution

One of MACH2's most aggressive technical proposals is the reuse of existing oil pipelines and rights-of-way. To transport hydrogen, which embrittles steel, the hub proposes to "re-sleeve" these pipelines with hydrogen-impermeable polymer liners.⁴¹

• The Material Science: This avoids the massive capital cost and permitting delays of laying new steel pipe. However, the long-term durability of polymer liners in high-pressure hydrogen service is a developing field of study. Issues such as blistering (rapid gas decompression) and permeation remain technical risks that the hub must validate.⁴¹

VII. Deep Dive: The Gulf Coast Hydrogen Hub (HyVelocity)

The HyVelocity Hub, centered in Texas, is the self-proclaimed "energy capital of the world." It aims to build the largest hydrogen network by volume, leveraging the massive existing industrial demand for hydrogen in refining and petrochemicals.⁴²

7.1 The Salt Cavern Advantage

The defining geological feature of the Gulf Coast hub is the presence of salt domes.

• The Physics of Storage: Storing hydrogen is notoriously difficult due to its low volumetric energy density. Above-ground tanks are expensive and small. Salt caverns—created by solution mining deep underground salt deposits—offer massive, gas-tight storage volumes.

• Strategic Value: This allows HyVelocity to act as a battery for the energy system, storing hydrogen produced during periods of low demand (or high renewable generation) and releasing it during peaks. This geological advantage is unmatched by the Pacific Northwest or Mid-Atlantic hubs.⁴³

7.2 The Export Ambition

HyVelocity is explicitly designed with exports in mind. The partners, including Chevron, ExxonMobil, and AES, view hydrogen (and its derivative, ammonia) as a global commodity to be shipped to Europe and Asia.⁴² The hub plans to produce 9 million metric tons per annum (Mtpa) for export by 2050.⁴⁴

• The Conflict: This export focus draws criticism from those who argue that federal subsidies should support domestic decarbonization, not the creation of a new fossil-fuel-derived export commodity for multinational corporations.⁴⁴

VIII. Comparative Thermodynamics: The Science of Production

To fully appreciate the divergence between the hubs, one must understand the underlying thermodynamics that dictate cost and efficiency.

8.1 Electrolysis: The Energy Penalty

Electrolysis is the non-spontaneous splitting of water.

2H2O(I) → 2H2(gas) + O2(gas) 

The thermodynamic barrier is defined by the Gibbs Free Energy change (ΔG), which represents the minimum electrical work required. At standard conditions, ΔG is 237 kJ/mol.45 However, the process also requires heat input (entropy, TΔS). The total energy required (Enthalpy, ΔH) is 285.8 kJ/mol.

• Efficiency: Commercial electrolyzers typically operate at 60-70% efficiency (LHV basis). This means that for every 50 kWh of electricity put in, roughly 35-40 kWh of hydrogen energy is produced. The remainder is lost as waste heat. This "energy penalty" is the fundamental physical constraint that makes green hydrogen expensive.⁴⁶

• PEM vs. Alkaline: PEM electrolyzers (used by ARCHES/PNWH2) use a solid polymer electrolyte (Nafion) and precious metal catalysts (Platinum/Iridium). This allows for high current density and rapid response to wind/solar fluctuations. Alkaline electrolyzers use a liquid KOH electrolyte and nickel catalysts; they are cheaper but less dynamic.⁴⁷

8.2 Reforming: SMR vs. ATR

The blue hubs (ARCH2, HyVelocity) rely on reforming methane.

• Steam Methane Reforming (SMR): Highly endothermic (ΔH = +206 kJ/mol). Heat is supplied externally. Capturing CO2 from the dilute flue gas is energetically expensive.⁴⁹

• Autothermal Reforming (ATR): Combines partial oxidation (exothermic) with reforming (endothermic).

• CH4 + 1/2O2 → CO + 2H2(Exothermic)

• CH4 + H2O → CO + 3H2(Endothermic)

• The net reaction is thermally neutral or slightly exothermic. The key advantage is that all CO2 is contained in the high-pressure process stream, allowing for easier removal via amine scrubbing or cryogenic separation.29

• The ASU Penalty: ATR requires pure oxygen. Air Separation Units (ASUs) operate at cryogenic temperatures (-183°C) to distill air. This consumes massive amounts of electricity, creating a significant parasitic load on the plant.⁵¹

IX. The Material Science of Infrastructure: Hydrogen Embrittlement

A critical, often overlooked aspect of the hubs is the challenge of moving hydrogen through steel pipes. The atomic radius of hydrogen is so small that it can diffuse into the crystal lattice of steel pipelines.⁵²

9.1 Mechanisms of Failure

• Hydrogen Enhanced Decohesion (HEDE): Hydrogen atoms accumulate at the grain boundaries of the steel, effectively lowering the cohesive energy that holds the metal grains together. This reduces the fracture toughness of the steel.⁵³

• Hydrogen Enhanced Local Plasticity (HELP): Hydrogen accumulates around dislocations (defects) in the steel lattice, making them more mobile. This causes the steel to deform plastically at lower stress levels than normal, leading to unexpected failure.⁵⁴

9.2 The Pipeline Grade Paradox

Modern natural gas pipelines are often built with "High Strength Low Alloy" (HSLA) steels like API 5L X70 or X80. Paradoxically, these high-strength steels are more susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement than older, lower-strength steels like X42 or X52. The higher the strength, the more vulnerable the microstructure is to hydrogen-induced cracking.⁵⁵ This means that the newer pipeline infrastructure in the Gulf Coast might be less suitable for hydrogen repurposing than older lines, necessitating the "re-sleeving" strategies proposed by MACH2 or the construction of entirely new, dedicated hydrogen pipelines using specific chemistries (e.g., lower carbon, specific heat treatments).⁴¹

X. Economic Modeling and Employment Realities

10.1 Levelized Cost of Hydrogen (LCOH)

The economic viability of the hubs is entirely dependent on the Levelized Cost of Hydrogen (LCOH).

• Grey Hydrogen: $1.00 - $1.50/kg.

• Blue Hydrogen: $2.00 - $3.50/kg.⁵⁶

• Green Hydrogen: $3.50 - $6.00/kg.⁵⁶

The "Hydrogen Shot" goal of $1/kg is not currently met by any clean technology without subsidy. The 45V tax credit (up to $3/kg) was the bridge. If the Trump administration repeals or restricts 45V, the LCOH for green hubs (ARCHES, PNWH2) will double, rendering them insolvent immediately.¹⁹ Blue hubs are less dependent on the credit but still require the 45Q (carbon capture) credit to be viable against grey hydrogen.

10.2 The Jobs Mirage?

The employment numbers touted by the hubs are staggering but require nuance.

• ARCHES: Claims 220,000 direct jobs.²⁰

• ARCH2: Claims 21,000 direct jobs.²⁰

• PNWH2: Claims 13,600 jobs, but crucially, only 1,500 are permanent. The remaining 12,100 are temporary construction jobs.²⁰

This reliance on temporary construction jobs creates a "boom-bust" employment cycle. Furthermore, the manufacturing of electrolyzers is currently dominated by China and Europe. Unless the hubs enforce strict domestic content requirements (which raise costs), the "manufacturing" jobs may largely accrue overseas.⁴⁸

XI. Conclusion: The Fork in the Road

The United States Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs program stands at a precipice. The vision of a unified, national hydrogen economy is fracturing under the pressure of political oscillation.

The Trump administration’s potential revocation of funding represents a fundamental divergence in energy strategy. By targeting "Green" hubs while potentially sparing "Blue" ones, the policy reinforces a path dependency on fossil fuels. While this aligns with the administration's "energy dominance" narrative, it risks stranding the United States in a technological dead-end. The global market—particularly Europe and Asia—is moving aggressively toward green hydrogen. If the U.S. abandons the development of large-scale electrolysis (as tested in PNWH2 and ARCHES), it cedes the commanding heights of this future industry to competitors.

The thermodynamic and material realities described in this report—the energy penalties of electrolysis, the capture efficiencies of ATR, the embrittlement of steel—are immutable constraints. The H2Hubs program was the first serious attempt to engineer around these constraints at a continental scale. Its dismantling would not merely be a budgetary saving; it would be the termination of a grand experiment in industrial transition, leaving the "valley of death" unbridged and the future of American energy innovation uncertain.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Key Hydrogen Hubs

⁶

Works cited

1. Hydrogen Hub Projects Awarded $7 Billion by US Department of Energy | White & Case LLP, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/hydrogen-hub-projects-awarded-7-billion-us-department-energy

2. Introduction: Federal Hydrogen Hub Community Guide - Earthjustice, accessed January 19, 2026, https://earthjustice.org/feature/hydrogen-hub-community-guide-introduction

3. The Consortium for Hydrogen and Renewably Generated E-Fuels (CHARGE) | Support and Operations | Washington State University, accessed January 19, 2026, https://orso.wsu.edu/charge/

4. U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen Activities and Hydrogen Shot Overview, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/fc-expo-2022-doe-h2-overview-h2-shot-update.pdf

5. HYDROGEN SHOT TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, accessed January 19, 2026, https://netl.doe.gov/projects/files/HydrogenShotTechnologyAssessmentThermalConversionApproaches_120523.pdf

6. Trump's cuts to billion-dollar hydrogen hubs rattle… | Canary Media, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/hydrogen/hydrogen-hub-cuts-trump-doe-list

7. Hydrogen hubs on Trump's chopping block - Canary Media, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.canarymedia.com/newsletters/hydrogen-hubs-on-trumps-chopping-block

8. Hydrogen Hubs and Demonstrating the Hydrogen Energy Value Chain - Congress.gov, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47289

9. New energy cuts may hit hydrogen hubs - Canary Media, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.canarymedia.com/newsletters/new-energy-cuts-may-hit-hydrogen-hubs

10. DelBene, Schrier Demand Energy Department Reverse Harmful Decision to Terminate Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub | U.S. House of Representatives, accessed January 19, 2026, https://delbene.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=4212

11. Audit: DOE-OIG-25-23 | Department of Energy, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.energy.gov/ig/articles/audit-doe-oig-25-23

12. DOE hydrogen hub program lacks adequate staff, risk controls — IG - POLITICO Pro, accessed January 19, 2026, https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2025/06/27/doe-hydrogen-hub-program-lacks-adequate-staff-risk-controls-ig-00428356

13. Office of Inspector General - Department of Energy, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/DOE-OIG-25-23.pdf

14. What DOE's watchdog got wrong about the hydrogen hubs | Latitude Media, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.latitudemedia.com/news/what-does-watchdog-got-wrong-about-the-hydrogen-hubs/

15. Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub (PNWH2) - Department of Energy, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.energy.gov/oced/pacific-northwest-hydrogen-hub-pnwh2

16. Projects - Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Association, accessed January 19, 2026, https://pnwh2.com/projects/

17. Resources & References - Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Association, accessed January 19, 2026, https://pnwh2.com/news-resources/

18. Partners - Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Association, accessed January 19, 2026, https://pnwh2.com/partners/

19. The billion-dollar US green hydrogen boom ended before it ever began - Canary Media, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/hydrogen/green-industry-trump-tax-credits

20. Hydrogen hubs are key to domestic energy production and regional economies across the U.S., accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.catf.us/2025/05/hydrogen-hubs-key-domestic-energy-production-regional-economies-across-us/

21. CALIFORNIA HYDROGEN HUB (ARCHES) AWARDEE FACT SHEET - Department of Energy, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-07/H2Hubs%20ARCHES_Award%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

22. California's renewable hydrogen hub officially launches. - Arches H2, accessed January 19, 2026, https://archesh2.org/arches-officially-launches/

23. DOE - California Hydrogen Hub (ARCHES) -Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, accessed January 19, 2026, https://h2fcp.org/content/doe-california-hydrogen-hub-arches-office-clean-energy-demonstrations

24. ARCHES Network: Founding Members and Partners Driving Hydrogen Innovation, accessed January 19, 2026, https://archesh2.org/network/

25. Governor Newsom statement on Trump administration's decision to cut hydrogen hub funding - Arches H2, accessed January 19, 2026, https://archesh2.org/governor-newsom-statement-on-trump-administrations-decision-to-cut-hydrogen-hub-funding/

26. Year In Review - Arches H2, accessed January 19, 2026, https://archesh2.org/year-in-review/

27. Appalachian Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub: ARCH2, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.arch2hub.com/

28. Autothermal Reforming Hydrogen - Johnson Matthey, accessed January 19, 2026, https://matthey.com/hydrogen-autothermal-reforming-atr-ghr

29. accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.rystadenergy.com/insights/production-of-blue-hydrogen-using-ccs#:~:text=The%20ATR%20process%20combines%20hydrogen,rate%20to%2090%25%20and%20above.

30. Frequently Asked Questions | ARCH2 - Appalachian Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.arch2hub.com/resources/frequently-asked-questions/

31. accessed January 19, 2026, https://hlaggregates.com/arch2-department-of-energy-hydrogen-hub-funding/#:~:text=Key%20project%20development%20partners%20under,Plug%20Power%2C%20and%20TC%20Energy.

32. Blue Hydrogen: Not Clean, Not Low Carbon, Not a Solution - Department of Energy, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-02/090.%20David%20Schlissel%20and%20Anika%20Juhn%2C%20IEEFA%2C%20Blue%20Hydrogen%20Not%20Clean%20Not%20Low%20Carbon.pdf

33. STUDY: Emissions of Hydrogen Could Undermine Its Climate Benefits; Warming Effects Are Two to Six Times Higher Than Previously Thought - Environmental Defense Fund, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.edf.org/media/study-emissions-hydrogen-could-undermine-its-climate-benefits-warming-effects-are-two-six

34. Appalachian Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub (ARCH2): An Impact Analysis - National Wildlife Federation, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.nwf.org/-/media/Documents/PDFs/NWF-Reports/2024/Appalachian-Region-Clean-Hydrogen-Hub-Impact-Analysis.pdf

35. Blue Hydrogen: Not clean, not low carbon, not a solution | IEEFA, accessed January 19, 2026, https://ieefa.org/articles/blue-hydrogen-not-clean-not-low-carbon-not-solution

36. Mid-Atlantic Clean Hydrogen Hub, Inc., accessed January 19, 2026, https://mach-2.com/

37. DOE Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs Program (H2Hubs) | The Brattle Group, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.brattle.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/DOE-Regional-Clean-Hydrogen-Hubs-Program-H2Hubs.pdf

38. MACH2 Testimony PA House Environmental Resources & Energy Committee - Google Docs, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.palegis.us/house/committees/committee-archives/archive-file?file=2024_0755_0004_tstmny.pdf

39. MACh2 Original Technical Volume - Mid-Atlantic Clean Hydrogen Hub, accessed January 19, 2026, https://mach-2.com/important-information

40. accessed January 19, 2026, https://mach-2.com/important-information#:~:text=Orange%20hydrogen%2C%20in%20the%20case,some%20portion%20must%20be%20flared.

41. Will Hydrogen Hubs Be a Clean Energy Boom or Boondoggle? - Yale E360, accessed January 19, 2026, https://e360.yale.edu/features/east-coast-hydrogen-hub

42. HyVelocity Hub: About, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.hyvelocityhub.com/

43. Hydrogen Blending into Natural Gas Pipeline Infrastructure: Review of the State of Technology - Publications, accessed January 19, 2026, https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/81704.pdf

44. The Gulf Coast Hydrogen Ecosystem: Opportunities and Solutions - University of Houston, accessed January 19, 2026, https://uh.edu/uh-energy-innovation/uh-energy/energy-symposium-series/2023-2024/hydrogen-ecosystem/_files/gulf-coast-hydrogen-ecosystem.pdf

45. Electrolysis of Water and Fuel Cell Operation - HyperPhysics, accessed January 19, 2026, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/electrol.html

46. Difference between green and blue hydrogen - Iberdrola, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.iberdrola.com/about-us/what-we-do/green-hydrogen/difference-hydrogen-green-blue

47. PEM Electrolysers vs. Alkaline Electrolysers. - Stargate Hydrogen, accessed January 19, 2026, https://stargatehydrogen.com/blog/pem-electrolysers/

48. PEM vs. Alkaline Re-examining market perceptions of electrolyzer technologies in an evolving landscape - Electric Hydrogen, accessed January 19, 2026, https://eh2.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Final_PEM_vs_Alkaline_December_2024_Whitepaper.pdf

49. Steam reforming - Wikipedia, accessed January 19, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming

50. To produce low-carbon hydrogen at scale - Autothermal Reforming (ATR) - Air Liquide Engineering & Construction, accessed January 19, 2026, https://engineering.airliquide.com/sites/engineering/files/2025-02/air-liquide-brief-atr-produce-low-carbon-hydrogen-scale_63bd17312b8a5.pdf

51. Comparing the Costs of Industrial Hydrogen Technologies | ICF, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.icf.com/insights/energy/comparing-costs-of-industrial-hydrogen-technologies

52. Can we use the pipelines and power plants we have now to transport and burn hydrogen, or do we need new infrastructure? | MIT Climate Portal, accessed January 19, 2026, https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/can-we-use-pipelines-and-power-plants-we-have-now-transport-and-burn-hydrogen-or-do-we-need

53. Understanding and mitigating hydrogen embrittlement of steels: a review of experimental, modelling and design progress from atomistic to continuum - PMC - NIH, accessed January 19, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6560796/

54. Investigation of the Hydrogen Embrittlement of API 5L Natural Gas Pipeline Steels - National Energy Technology Laboratory, accessed January 19, 2026, https://netl.doe.gov/projects/files/InvestigationoftheHydrogenEmbrittlementofAPI5LNaturalGasPipelineSteels_030323.pdf

55. Hydrogen Embrittlement In Pipeline Steels: Microstructure Control, Weld Zones And Sour Media - Patsnap Eureka, accessed January 19, 2026, https://eureka.patsnap.com/report-hydrogen-embrittlement-in-pipeline-steels-microstructure-control-weld-zones-and-sour-media

56. Techno-Economic Analysis of Hydrogen Production: Costs, Policies, and Scalability in the Transition to Net-Zero Eliseo Curcio1,* - arXiv, accessed January 19, 2026, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2502.12211