The Missing Institution Inside India's Innovation Push
The biggest risk to India’s clean-tech ambitions may not be technology or capital — but the absence of institutions capable of commercialising both.
Australia’s largest green hydrogen project — the $12.5 billion Central Queensland Hydrogen Project — was quietly scrapped in June 2025. The collapse was not simply about hydrogen economics. It exposed a deeper issue increasingly visible across clean technology sectors globally: the absence of institutional mechanisms capable of carrying first-of-a-kind deployment risk.
Watching from Australia, this may be one of the most important architectural lessons India’s clean technology push will need to absorb before it scales.
The development
India has built the hub layer of its clean technology architecture at speed. The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy has formally recognised three major ports — Deendayal in Gujarat, V.O. Chidambaranar in Tamil Nadu, and Paradip in Odisha — as Green Hydrogen Hubs under the National Green Hydrogen Mission. Budget 2026 announced a ₹20,000 crore Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage scheme targeting five high-emitting sectors — power, steel, cement, refineries, chemicals — and dedicated rare-earth corridors across four coastal states. The Technology Development Board launched the first Open Call under the RDI Fund on 4 February 2026, funding projects beyond TRL 4.
On paper, the architecture is comprehensive. Geography, money, sectoral focus, all aligned.
The surface implication
Over 90 per cent of announced Australian green hydrogen capacity has not progressed beyond concept or approval stage, according to Rystad Energy, reported in The Australian. More than sixty of around one hundred proposed projects have been quietly archived. The technology alone was not the decisive problem. The institutional form carrying the commercialisation risk proved equally critical.
The instinctive reading is that India is now building everything required to commercialise clean technologies at scale. More hubs, more money, more institutions, more announcements — the assumption is that more equals more commercialisation. This is the logic Indian innovation policy currently runs on.
It is the same logic Australia ran on five years ago.
The strategic question
Hubs are geography. Money is fuel. Neither is an intermediary.
The technologies India is now positioning to commercialise — green hydrogen at industrial scale, CCUS demonstrators, advanced batteries, late stage agritech deployments — sit at Technology Readiness Levels 6 to 8. This is the Missing Middle band. The science largely works. The commercial model usually does not – yet. Venture capital has exited. Project finance has not yet entered. The expertise required to convert demonstrated TRL 7 performance into a bankable TRL 8 project is held by a specialised institutional form — what the literature on boundary-spanning intermediaries calls a First-of-a-Kind (FOAK) de-risking intermediary. It is not an incubator. It is not a research grant body. It is not a state-owned developer carrying public risk on a single balance sheet. It is a specialised intermediary designed to carry first-of-a-kind deployment risk.
The Central Queensland Hydrogen Project ultimately stalled because Stanwell, a Queensland state-owned utility, was the institutional vehicle structuring TRL 6–8 risk. When the new state government refused $1.6 billion in funding in February 2025, Stanwell could not find a replacement funding partner. Kansai Electric had already withdrawn in November 2024. Iwatani closed its Queensland offices in March. The cascade ran from policy reversal to capital exit to project termination in under five months. The solar farm had been built. The electrolyser scale-up was the bridge that did not get crossed.
State ownership is not the same institutional form as a FOAK de-risking intermediary. State ownership concentrates risk on the public balance sheet and leaves projects exposed to political shifts within a single jurisdiction. A FOAK intermediary structures blended capital, absorbs the risk premium that keeps institutional capital out of early deployment, and converts demonstrated performance into bankable projects across multiple investors. The two are not interchangeable.
The United Kingdom recognised this architecturally early and has experimented institutionally. The UKRI Industrial Decarbonisation Challenge committed £210 million in co-investment across six industrial clusters — Scotland, Teesside, Humber, South Wales, and two in the North West — contributing 1.5 million jobs and £320 billion in economic output, while emitting 40 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. The hubs are real. But the UK has also built Earthscale — a £5 million translational capability initiative led by Imperial College and five partner universities, designed explicitly to move start-ups from TRL 5–6 to commercial deployment. Earthscale is not a hub. It is the institution that operates inside the hub system, at the TRL band where commercialisation routinely stalls.
India has built the hubs. The Earthscale equivalent is one part of what comes next. The FOAK de-risking equivalent is the bigger one.
The strategic question for India is not whether to keep announcing hubs. It is which institutions, in which institutional form, at which TRL band, will perform the work that hubs themselves cannot do.
Read The Boardroom Brief below.