In 2024, hydrogen emerged as a climate-friendly alternative to fuel as well as electricity. Promising projects sparked to life on both the production and consumption fronts. Despite Trump’s pro-oil stance, analysts are optimistic about hydrogen’s future in this new year- 2025.
According to BNEF, clean H2 supply is projected to increase 30X and could reach 16.4 million metric tons annually by 2030. This surge is mostly attributed to supportive policies and a flourishing project pipeline.
As we step into 2025, several crucial moments await the low-carbon, clean hydrogen sector. They could be a mix of challenges and opportunities. Analysts also predict an increase in the fructification of significant projects and financial investment decisions this year.
Wood Mackenzie recently released a report identifying some crucial developments in the hydrogen sector for 2025 that one needs to scrutinize. Let’s study it here.
Blue Hydrogen to Dominate the U.S. Market in 2025
- In 2025, the U.S. hydrogen market will focus heavily on blue hydrogen, with over 1.5 million tons per annum (Mtpa) of capacity reaching the final investment decision (FID).
This marks a 10X increase compared to green hydrogen. The report revealed that at least three large-scale blue hydrogen projects are expected to mature this year. With this output, the U.S. has all the potential to become the world’s leading blue hydrogen producer.
Green Hydrogen to Face Strong Headwinds in 2025?
Conversely, green hydrogen projects are likely to face major challenges in 2025. FIDs for these projects are expected to fall short of expectations. This could be due to reduced government focus on clean energy under the Trump administration.
Green hydrogen could also face stiff competition for electricity resources from data centers. On top of that, lengthy delays in connecting projects to the grid can slow down the progress.
While some demand will come from companies working toward sustainability goals, short-term growth opportunities are expected to shrink. Many green hydrogen projects, especially those targeting transportation, and heavy industries like steel, and e-fuels, may be delayed or canceled altogether.
- MUST READ: Navigating the Green Hydrogen Hype: IRENA’s Take on the “Silver Bullet” vs. “Champagne” Strategies
Nonetheless, it will Shine Through the Storm…
If not in the U.S. green hydrogen will have its niche in emerging economies like South America, the Middle East, India, and China. Eventually, these economies can launch giga-scale projects in 2025. So how can these nations properly green hydrogen progress globally?
Well, these projects leverage cheap solar and wind power and government incentives that reduce costs and ensure financial viability. For instance, India’s Kakinada project utilizes existing ammonia infrastructure and enjoys government subsidies.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia’s Neom Helios project benefits from state-led support and a 30-year offtake agreement with Air Products. These factors add a bonus point to green hydrogen.
Emergence of Chinese Electrolyzers
Most importantly regions like Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa will benefit abundantly from low-cost renewable energy and affordable electrolyzers from Chinese manufacturers.
By 2025, China can supply at least one-third of orders outside North America and Europe. Competitive pricing, shorter delivery times, and strong manufacturing capacity give Chinese electrolyzers an edge. Moreover, China is also expanding its domestic manufacturing capacity and is most likely to add over 10 GW of capacity this year. This will further strengthen their global presence, especially in areas with fewer trade barriers.
However, entering Europe and North America is more challenging. Trade restrictions and regulatory hurdles, such as the European Union’s 25% content limit for Chinese-made electrolyzers, limit their opportunities. To overcome these challenges, some Chinese companies are localizing production through partnerships and technology licensing.
Green Hydrogen’s Stance in Europe and North America
While blue hydrogen dominates the U.S., green hydrogen is making headway in Europe and North America. The European Commission (EC) also launched a nearly €2 billion hydrogen auction as part of its broader €4.6 billion initiative to accelerate net-zero technologies. This marked a significant step in the EU’s push for renewable hydrogen.
In Germany, HydrogenPro partnered with J. Heinr. Kramer Group to develop green hydrogen projects ranging from 5 MW to 50 MW. They aim to advance green hydrogen projects in Germany, Austria, and the Benelux region. These projects will power industries and the grid, and fuel hydrogen-powered vehicles.
On October 30, 2024, Avina Clean Hydrogen announced its major green hydrogen project in Vernon, California, near the Port of Long Beach. The facility with a capacity of 4 metric tons of compressed green hydrogen daily can decarbonize heavy-duty transport and advance California’s clean energy goals.
Uncontracted Hydrogen Supply to Persist in 2025
The Woodmack report emphasized another interesting scenario that would prevail in this year’s hydrogen economy. It says uncontracted low-carbon hydrogen capacity will remain a challenge due to difficulties in securing offtake agreements. This means out of the 5.5 Mtpa of low-carbon hydrogen projects that have reached FID, ~ 2.5 million tons of hydrogen remains without contracts.
This issue is most common in the U.S. blue hydrogen sector and, to a lesser extent, outside China, where securing agreements is tougher. The Chinese green hydrogen market lacks transparency in offtake contracts. So, the real value of uncontracted investment is not clear.
Moving on European policies like the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), make it a key market for blue hydrogen and its derivatives. So, developers may keep production uncontracted to benefit from higher prices in Europe.
The U.S. Treasury Simplifies Clean Hydrogen Tax Credit Rules
The U.S. Department of the Treasury and IRS released final rules for the section 45V Clean Hydrogen Production Tax Credit under the Inflation Reduction Act on January 3. These rules encourage clean hydrogen production from some nuclear power plants that are nearing retirement. The hydrogen will be used in fuel cells.
The new rules included some important changes and added flexibility for the clean hydrogen industry. These updates will propel projects ahead and ensure they comply with the emissions requirement laws to qualify for clean hydrogen.
Notably, they will also provide much-needed clarity, investment stability, and adaptability, especially for participants in the Department of Energy’s Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs program.
The final rules clarify how hydrogen producers, using electricity from diverse sources, natural gas with carbon capture, renewable natural gas (RNG), or coal mine methane, can qualify for the tax credit.
Nuclear for Clean Hydrogen
As the fresh rules enable at-risk nuclear to produce clean hydrogen, it will subsequently boost nuclear energy demand in sectors like AI. S&P Global reported market optimism surged following the announcement, and energy companies saw significant gains.
For instance, Constellation Energy’s shares rose by 3.8%, closing at $251.74, while Vistra experienced a 7% jump, reaching $160.33. NextEra Energy and its renewable energy unit also saw increases of 1.2% and 3%, respectively. Plug Power recorded a 2.6% rise, closing at $2.39. These positive market movements were witnessed after Constellation announced a $1 billion contract to supply nuclear energy to 13 government agencies.
John Podesta, Senior Advisor to President Biden for International Climate Policy mentioned something very significant that sums up all for the U.S. green hydrogen future. He said,
“The extensive revisions we’ve made in this final rule provide the certainty that hydrogen producers need to keep their projects moving forward and make the United States a global leader in truly green hydrogen.”
The post Hydrogen in 2025: The Journey through Progress, Pitfalls, and Policy Shifts appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits