by Ari Natter (Bloomberg/MSN) The Trump administration plans to preserve billions of dollars in funding for hydrogen ventures and other projects previously earmarked for termination. An Energy Department list that includes proposals backed by oil companies, utilities and others was provided to House Appropriations Committee members Wednesday and details roughly 2,000 funding awards the agency plans to “retain or modify.”
Included on the 39-page list seen by Bloomberg is almost $5 billion previously awarded by the Biden administration for five so-called hydrogen hubs — broad networks of producers and consumers in Texas, Appalachia, the mid-Atlantic and the Midwest — and backed by companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and Exelon Corp.
The hydrogen projects, which include ventures involving Chevron Corp., EQT Corp. and Bloom Energy Corp., were included last year in a list of roughly $12 billion in energy projects that the Trump administration was considering cancelling. The Biden administration awarded $7 billion for the ventures, meant to jump start production of the clean-burning fuel in the US in 2023.
Also revived were a pair of direct-air capture projects that had been selected by the Biden administration to split $1.2 billion: one from Occidental Petroleum Corp. and another from Climeworks AG and Heirloom Carbon Technologies Inc. Those developments are intended to suck planet-warming carbon dioxide out of the air.
...
The department initiated a case-by-case review of some $15 billion in grants awarded by the previous administration in May and has since announced plans to cancel billions of projects, including $7.6 billion in Democrat-led states.
The majority of those cuts are moving forward including plans to slash billions in funding for a pair of West coast hydrogen hubs.
“Energy prices are rising,” Representative Marcy Kaptur, an Ohio Democrat, said at the appropriations hearing Wednesday. “This is the moment to invest in American innovation not throttle it.” READ MORE
Related articles
Excerpt from Carbon Herald: The reportedly 39-page-long list of preserved awards contains five major US hydrogen hubs, including ventures linked to Chevron Corp., EQT Corp., and Bloom Energy Corp., as well as the two largest DAC hubs in the United States—Project Cypress in Louisiana, a joint initiative between Heirloom, Climeworks, and Battelle; and the South Texas DAC hub in Kleberg County, Texas, developed by Occidental’s 1PointFive, with technology by Carbon Engineering.
Under the Biden administration, the two large-scale DAC hubs were selected to split a federal award of $1.2 billion. The wave of DOE awards cancellations in the fall of 2025 left the fate of this funding uncertain, raising concerns that it too might be slashed.
...
Carbon Removal Alliance Executive Director Giana Amador said that some of the DAC projects included in the list of preserved initiatives were notified in recent days of the development.
In a publication, she highlighted that “this outcome was far from guaranteed,” adding, “This is a step in the right direction, but what’s important now is that these projects get built. That means steel in the ground, agreements honored, and clarity so our companies can do what they do best: build.”
...
While the DOE has confirmed the list of preserved awards, it has not provided any additional information on how the funding awards might be modified going forward. READ MORE
Excerpt from Politico Pro Greenwire: The Department of Energy is reinstating 18 awards that were previously canceled by the Trump administration, according to a new analysis.
The findings from a bipartisan DOE alumni group provide new details on a list of more than $23 billion in "retained" and "modified" Biden-era awards sent to Congress this week. DOE has said it is advancing most grants that were under review, but the list includes at least 247 awards that were already being closed out.
The list also suggests an ongoing pattern of favoring grants in red states versus blue states with some programs, according to the network, a group launched last year.
"It is also unclear what types of ‘modifications’ may be proposed by DOE for grantees to keep existing grants," said the analysis, which was co-authored by Tarak Shah, former DOE chief of staff during the Biden administration.
DOE told Congress it reviewed 2,271 projects overall and retained 86 percent of them. In October, DOE canceled roughly $7.5 billion in projects, largely in blue states. A federal judge later ruled that DOE acted illegally in terminating projects mainly in states won by former Vice President Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential election. READ MORE
Excerpt from Latitude Media: A small number of awards — less than 1% of the list — appear to have previously received official termination notices from DOE. Those 18 projects appeared in October on the department’s official cancellation list of around 320 awards, which primarily targeted companies based in Democrat-led states. Most stemmed from Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding, though a handful were funded by the Inflation Reduction Act.
Apparently reinstated awards include 13 previously-cancelled projects under the Grid Resilience and Innovation Program, which DOE recently rebranded as the SPARK program, and reopened for another round of funding.
Most projects on the list sent to Congress today had not received any termination notice from DOE, nor had they appeared on any of the lists of “threatened” projects that circulated last year. Some projects on the list have already been completed and are in the midst of closing out their awards.
More notable is what’s not on the list. The vast majority of the projects that lost their funding last year have not been reinstated. Most are still in limbo, waiting for DOE to process and respond to their informal disputes.
Several of DOE’s largest projects awarded to Democrat-led states remain terminated, including the Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub and the Arches Hydrogen Hub in California. The five remaining Hubs, located in Delaware, Ohio, North Dakota, Maryland, and the Gulf Coast, are tagged for retention or modification. Both the Delaware and Maryland Hubs had been recommended for termination last spring, alongside the Pacific Northwest and California Hubs.
Uncertainty continues
There’s still a lot of uncertainty about this new list. For example, it’s not clear which projects are being “modified,” and what those modifications might entail. Meanwhile, though DOE reinstated several projects after losing a federal lawsuit led by the City of St. Paul, most of those are not on the list sent to Congress. (Those seven projects did receive official notices of reinstatement this spring.)
The list itself comes after 15 months of delay and disruption for most DOE grantees, which has created deep uncertainty among private sector and academic partners alike around the federal government’s future role in U.S. energy innovation.
It’s also unclear whether the stalled or canceled projects on this new list will be able to move forward as planned. Widespread layoffs and departures of career staff across the agency have left questions about whether offices have the bandwidth to manage remaining projects. The year-long pause on funding has already had serious ramifications for many projects, with some awardees choosing to abandon their grants altogether, make layoffs, and even file for bankruptcy.
The cancellations themselves are part of a broader pattern of slowed and abandoned energy innovation funding at DOE, according to an analysis by the agency’s Alumni Network. That includes a significant drop in the number of new funding opportunities made available to applicants in the last year — the administration opened just eight in 2025 compared to the prior average of 50 — as well as in new obligations. The agency also appears to have abandoned a number of open funding opportunities, without selecting awardees or identifying applicants that the program was being shuttered. READ MORE
Excerpt from E&E News: The list also includes funding for some priorities that President Donald Trump has railed against, including hundreds of millions of dollars for automakers like General Motors and Fiat Chrysler Automotive to convert at-risk auto plants in Michigan into EV manufacturing hubs. The compendium also includes air capture and carbon capture and storage projects. READ MORE
by John May (Ethanol Producer Magazine) Executive Summary: The global maritime industry stands at an inflection point. Responsible for approximately 3% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions — equivalent to the total annual output of Japan — international shipping faces unprecedented regulatory, commercial, and reputational pressure to decarbonize. The International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Net-Zero Framework, approved in April 2025 and targeted for entry into force in 2027-2028, will for the first time impose binding, well-to-wake GHG fuel intensity reductions on ocean-going ships above 5,000 gross tonnage, a fleet segment representing 85% of sectoral emissions.
Into this landscape, the United States biofuels industry — encompassing corn and cellulosic ethanol, soy and waste-based biodiesel, renewable diesel, and bio-LNG — brings unmatched scale, established infrastructure, and competitive cost structures. Simultaneously, a new generation of US companies in green hydrogen, low-carbon ammonia, e-methanol, e-ammonia, and carbon capture are positioning to serve the longer-term needs of a zero-emission fleet.
This monograph provides a comprehensive analysis of each fuel pathway's technological profile, GHG reduction potential, infrastructure readiness, and cost competitiveness. It profiles the leading US companies that could supply the global marine industry. It argues that the near-to-medium term opportunity — through at least 2038 — belongs principally to biofuels, which offer proven emission reductions of 60-90%, drop-in compatibility with existing engines and infrastructure, and commercially competitive pricing. The longer-term, post-2035 transition will require massive scaling of e-fuels and green ammonia, for which US producers are investing now. Carbon capture serves as a bridge and accelerant across all time horizons.
1. The Maritime Decarbonization Imperative
1.1 Scale of the Challenge
...
1.2 The IMO Regulatory Architecture
...
1.3 The Commercial Opportunity for US Industry
...
2. Conventional and Advanced Biofuels
2.1 Corn Ethanol
...
Leading marine engine manufacturers including MAN Energy Solutions and Wartsila have developed commercially deployed dual-fuel and ethanol-capable marine engines.
...
2.2 Biodiesel
...
2.3 Cellulosic Ethanol
Technology Profile
Cellulosic ethanol is produced from lignocellulosic biomass — agricultural residues such as corn stover, wheat straw, and sugarcane bagasse, as well as dedicated energy crops and forestry residues. It avoids the food-versus-fuel tension of corn ethanol and offers substantially improved lifecycle GHG performance from waste-stream feedstocks. Production costs have fallen significantly, and several US facilities are at commercial or near-commercial scale, with ongoing investment.
GHG Performance
Cellulosic ethanol achieves lifecycle GHG reductions of 70-100% versus fossil fuels depending on feedstock, process energy, and CCS integration. When produced with biogenic CO2 capture, cellulosic ethanol can achieve negative carbon intensity — uniquely valuable under any progressive carbon pricing regime including the IMO NZF.
...
2.4 Renewable Diesel (Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil — HVO)
...
3. Green and Low-Carbon Hydrogen
3.1 Technology Overview and Marine Application
...
3.2 Green vs. Blue Hydrogen
...
4. Green and Low-Carbon Ammonia
4.1 Why Ammonia for Shipping
...
4.2 Current State of Development
...
4.3 Cost Profile and US Competitive Position
...
5. Methanol, Bio-Methanol, and E-Methanol
5.1 Methanol's Lead Position in Alternative Marine Fuels
...
5.2 Bio-Methanol
...
5.3 E-Methanol
...
6. Bio-LNG and Biomethane
6.1 The LNG Fleet as Bio-LNG Ready Infrastructure
...
6.2 Bio-LNG: Drop-in Zero-Carbon Fuel for the LNG Fleet
...
7. E-Ammonia
7.1 E-Ammonia as the Long-Run Scale Solution
...
7.2 US Infrastructure Advantage
...
8. Carbon Capture in the Marine Sector
8.1 Three Roles for Carbon Capture
...
8.2 Carbon Capture at Biofuel Plants
...
8.3 Onboard Carbon Capture and Storage (OCCS)
...
8.4 Direct Air Capture for E-Fuel Feedstock
...
9. Comparative Analysis: Fuel Pathways for Marine Decarbonization
The following table provides a side-by-side comparison of each fuel pathway across six dimensions critical to marine deployment: lifecycle GHG reduction potential, technology readiness level (TRL 1-9), drop-in infrastructure compatibility, cost relative to conventional HFO/VLSFO, US production capacity, and projected role in the marine transition timeline.
| Fuel |
GHG Red. |
TRL |
Drop-in? |
Cost vs HFO |
US Capacity |
Role in Marine Transition |
| Corn Ethanol |
61% |
9 |
Blend/Dual |
~1.0-1.3x |
High (15B+ gal/yr) |
Near-term compliance 2028-2038; drop-in scale |
| Biodiesel (FAME) |
66-90% |
9 |
Blend (B30) |
~1.1-1.5x |
High (5-7B gal/yr) |
Near-term; waste feedstocks key for EU FuelEU |
| Cellulosic Ethanol |
70-100% |
7-8 |
Blend/Dual |
~1.3-1.7x |
Growing |
Medium-term with CCS; negative CI potential |
| Renewable Diesel |
60-85% |
9 |
Full drop-in |
~1.2-1.6x |
High & expanding |
Near-medium; best drop-in profile for any vessel |
| Bio-LNG |
80-100% |
8-9 |
Drop-in (LNG fleet) |
~1.2-1.6x |
Large resource |
LNG fleet decarbonization — immediate opportunity |
| Green Hydrogen |
~100% |
5-7 |
No |
~2.5-4x |
Nascent |
Coastal/short-sea vessels; longer-term scale-up |
| Blue Hydrogen |
55-70% |
7-8 |
No |
~1.5-2.5x |
Strong (NG + CCS) |
Bridge fuel; medium-term port/auxiliary power |
| Bio-Methanol |
60-95% |
7-8 |
Methanol vessels |
~2-3x |
Moderate |
Methanol-fueled fleet; near-medium term |
| E-Methanol |
~100% |
6-7 |
Yes |
~5-7x now |
Early stage |
Long-term zero-emission; scale with green H2 |
| Green Ammonia |
~100% |
6-7 |
No (new eng) |
~2-4x |
Gulf infra ready |
Deep-sea backbone post-2035; key IMO 2050 fuel |
| E-Ammonia |
~100% |
5-6 |
No |
~3-5x |
Gulf Coast potential |
Post-2035 scalable zero-emission backbone |
| Onboard CCS (OCCS) |
70-90% |
5-6 |
Yes (retrofit) |
~1.3-1.8x |
US tech leaders |
Fleet retrofit bridge technology through 2040+ |
10. Strategic Outlook and Policy Considerations
10.1 The Three Horizons Framework
A three-horizon framework usefully organizes the US opportunity:
Horizon 1 (2025-2035) — Biofuels Dominate:
...
Horizon 2 (2035-2045) — Methanol and Ammonia Ramp:
...
Horizon 3 (2045-2050) — E-Fuels and Full Decarbonization:
...
10.2 Competitive Threats
...
10.3 Infrastructure and Bunkering Investment
...
10.4 Lifecycle Accounting and Certification
...
11. Key US Companies: Consolidated Directory
...
12. Conclusion
The global maritime industry's transition away from heavy fuel oil is no longer a question of if but of when — and with what fuels. The IMO Net-Zero Framework establishes the regulatory architecture for mandatory emissions reduction, making shipping the first global industry sector with binding GHG pricing. The EU's FuelEU Maritime regulation creates an immediate, premium-price commercial demand signal on European and transatlantic routes. And a growing cohort of cargo owners, financial institutions, and shipping lines is committing to green supply chains ahead of regulatory mandates.
The United States biofuels industry is exceptionally well-positioned to serve this transition in the near to medium term. US corn ethanol, soy biodiesel, renewable diesel, and bio-LNG are commercially available, cost-competitive, infrastructure-compatible, and demonstrably low-carbon. The DOE's own analysis confirms GHG reductions of 60-66% for these fuels versus conventional marine fuels — reductions that generate Surplus Units and competitive advantage for shipowners that adopt them under the IMO NZF.
Looking further ahead, the US is also home to the industrial infrastructure, engineering talent, agricultural biomass base, renewable energy resources, and entrepreneurial capital needed to scale the next generation of zero-emission marine fuels. Green ammonia from Gulf Coast export hubs, e-methanol from renewable electricity and captured CO2, bio-methanol from agricultural and municipal wastes, and onboard carbon capture systems that can retrofit the existing global fleet — all are within the US industry's grasp.
The window is open, but competition from Brazil, Indonesia, China, and Europe is intensifying. The United States must engage actively with IMO lifecycle accounting standard-setting, defend its biofuel methodologies in international certification schemes, maintain stable domestic policy support for biofuel economics, and invest in the port bunkering infrastructure that will make US fuels commercially accessible to the global fleet.
For US biofuels and alternative fuels companies, the decarbonization of global maritime shipping is not a distant abstraction. It is a large, near-term, commercially credible export market — one that rewards early movers with long-term supply contracts, premium prices, and enduring strategic positioning in the clean energy economy of the coming decades. READ MORE