The Department of Energy’s $7 billion investment in hydrogen hubs represents one of the most significant energy bets in recent history. Yet this massive allocation of taxpayer funds deserves intense scrutiny rather than celebration. The hydrogen hub initiative, while cloaked in the language of innovation and climate action, reveals itself as a deeply flawed strategy that lacks transparency, ignores community concerns, and diverts resources from proven energy solutions.
A Shroud of Secrecy
From the outset, the DOE’s hydrogen hub selection process has operated behind a veil of secrecy that should alarm any advocate of good governance. Application materials from states and the DOE are being treated as trade secrets, preventing proper public scrutiny of these massive expenditures1. This lack of transparency raises serious questions: How were these particular hubs selected? What metrics were used? And most importantly, how can the public be confident that $7 billion in taxpayer money is being allocated efficiently and responsibly?
This opacity creates perfect conditions for misallocation of resources to projects that may be environmentally harmful or economically unsound. When billions in public funds are at stake, transparency isn’t optional—it’s essential.
Communities Left in the Dark
The hydrogen hub development process has repeatedly sidelined the very communities that would be most affected by these massive industrial projects. In Indiana, community groups have been forced to send coalition letters and make repeated inquiries just to secure basic meetings with MachH2 Hydrogen Hub developers2. These communities have raised legitimate concerns about air and water pollution that could result from proposed projects3.
In February 2024, environmental, environmental justice, consumer advocate, public health, and community groups from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan expressed “extreme concern” about MachH2’s efforts to eliminate common-sense rules for hydrogen production tax credits4. These federally funded initiatives are proceeding without adequate consideration of local environmental impacts and community needs, contradicting the DOE’s own stated commitment to community engagement5.
Infrastructure Challenges and Better Alternatives
The hydrogen hub model faces severe infrastructure and coordination challenges. It requires the simultaneous development of production facilities, storage solutions, and transportation systems across multiple industries and regions6. This complexity increases costs and risks while delaying implementation.
Meanwhile, more proven alternatives like battery storage are available now and have already demonstrated reliability in support of existing energy infrastructure. Stanford University research indicates these alternatives can help us achieve our energy goals more efficiently and at lower cost than the hydrogen hub approach7.
Conclusion
The $7 billion hydrogen hub investment represents a costly bet on an unproven strategy with serious downsides. Rather than doubling down on this approach, we should redirect these resources toward proven energy solutions that operate with transparency, respect community input, and that avoid creating new environmental problems while trying to solve existing ones.
The hydrogen hub initiative deserves not expansion but a clean break—a fundamental reassessment of whether these massive public investments truly serve our climate goals and the public interest. The evidence strongly suggests they do not.