California’s multibillion-dollar bet on hydrogen energy comes with major downsides
Guest Commentary written by Ben Jealous Ben Jealous is the executive director of the Sierra Club. The world is rushing to adopt clean energy technologies to combat the catastrophic effects of climate change — and rightly so. The stakes are too high for us to be doing anything less. But using our most vulnerable communities as testing grounds for experimental solutions is not an acceptable cost, especially when those solutions are part of a last-ditch effort to prolong our reliance on fossil fuels. Take the small California town of Orange Cove in Fresno County. As Capital & Main recently reported, the town of mostly Latino farmworkers has become ground zero for an experimental hydrogen-blending project that aims to mix small amounts of hydrogen into existing natural gas lines. The goal is to supplement gas with a less-polluting alternative, rather than outright replacing it. Hydrogen is by no means a clean energy panacea. Blending hydrogen into existing pipelines makes pipes brittle and vulnerable to cracking. Burning it for use emits a dangerous pollutant, nitrogen dioxide, into homes. It is unconscionable that, once again, poorer communities are forced to be guinea pigs for an experiment. Not all proposed uses of hydrogen are inherently bad. Even though some of the most enthusiastic cheerleaders come from the fossil fuel industry (they see it as a way to prolong dependence on fossil fuel infrastructure), so-called “green” hydrogen could have a limited upside helping decarbonize areas that are especially hard-to-electrify, like steelmaking, ships and airplanes. I know, it’s complicated. There is a whole rainbow of types of hydrogen. Hydrogen is “green” when it is made from renewables like solar and wind, unlike the “gray” or “blue” hydrogen that comes from fossil fuels. But even green hydrogen can be harmful: Without guardrails for sourcing its renewable energy, green hydrogen can still indirectly contribute emissions by cannibalizing renewable energy from other sources that would be using it otherwise. The fact remains that, like it or not, hydrogen is coming. Last month, the federal Department of Energy agreed to invest $12.6 billion in hydrogen technologies in California. It’s critical that this money is deployed responsibly, in a way that actually reduces emissions and does not harm historically marginalized communities. Unfortunately, California is veering away from both of these core principles. Projects like the one in Orange Cove epitomize a serious environmental injustice. And the state — or to be more specific, the Newsom administration — has not done enough to ensure that projects receiving massive amounts of funding are using that money to produce non-polluting green hydrogen. Case in point: ARCHES, California’s “hydrogen hub,” which has close ties to Newsom’s office, has actively lobbied to weaken the federal Treasury’s proposed tax credits meant to incentivize clean hydrogen. The credits contain critical guardrails, known as the “three pillars,” and are widely supported by environmental groups. But ARCHES has so far remained unchecked by the Newsom administration. It has even argued for ignoring and delaying key parts of these pillars. By doing so, ARCHES hopes to secure the largest possible federal subsidies, even for hydrogen projects that increase fossil fuel generation. If ARCHES succeeds in undermining the three pillars, the result will be dirtier hydrogen and the redirection of existing renewable energy sources to hydrogen production, thereby requiring more fossil fuels. That is bad news for consumers, as this higher demand for fossil fuels could trigger an increase in wholesale electricity prices. Increasing our use of fossil fuels means more air pollution, more planet-warming emissions and higher costs. We know those impacts will be felt most acutely by poorer communities and communities of color that have already been forced to live with pollution and the associated health risks. So far, the proposed federal tax incentives have remained strong, but lobbying against the three pillars continues. Newsom must rein in ARCHES. If we are going to continue hydrogen production, it must be in alignment with California’s clean energy goals — the ones Newsom routinely champions. We must be wary of false solutions that promise progress when they really serve as a lifeline for profit-obsessed industries. Perhaps most importantly, we cannot experiment with risky projects in marginalized communities like Orange Cove.
The billions of dollars being spent on hydrogen technologies in California must be used in a way that reduces emissions and doesn't harm vulnerable communities. Unfortunately, that's not happening.
Guest Commentary written by
Ben Jealous
Ben Jealous is the executive director of the Sierra Club.
The world is rushing to adopt clean energy technologies to combat the catastrophic effects of climate change — and rightly so. The stakes are too high for us to be doing anything less.
But using our most vulnerable communities as testing grounds for experimental solutions is not an acceptable cost, especially when those solutions are part of a last-ditch effort to prolong our reliance on fossil fuels.
Take the small California town of Orange Cove in Fresno County. As Capital & Main recently reported, the town of mostly Latino farmworkers has become ground zero for an experimental hydrogen-blending project that aims to mix small amounts of hydrogen into existing natural gas lines. The goal is to supplement gas with a less-polluting alternative, rather than outright replacing it.
Hydrogen is by no means a clean energy panacea. Blending hydrogen into existing pipelines makes pipes brittle and vulnerable to cracking. Burning it for use emits a dangerous pollutant, nitrogen dioxide, into homes. It is unconscionable that, once again, poorer communities are forced to be guinea pigs for an experiment.
Not all proposed uses of hydrogen are inherently bad. Even though some of the most enthusiastic cheerleaders come from the fossil fuel industry (they see it as a way to prolong dependence on fossil fuel infrastructure), so-called “green” hydrogen could have a limited upside helping decarbonize areas that are especially hard-to-electrify, like steelmaking, ships and airplanes.
I know, it’s complicated. There is a whole rainbow of types of hydrogen. Hydrogen is “green” when it is made from renewables like solar and wind, unlike the “gray” or “blue” hydrogen that comes from fossil fuels. But even green hydrogen can be harmful: Without guardrails for sourcing its renewable energy, green hydrogen can still indirectly contribute emissions by cannibalizing renewable energy from other sources that would be using it otherwise.
The fact remains that, like it or not, hydrogen is coming. Last month, the federal Department of Energy agreed to invest $12.6 billion in hydrogen technologies in California. It’s critical that this money is deployed responsibly, in a way that actually reduces emissions and does not harm historically marginalized communities.
Unfortunately, California is veering away from both of these core principles. Projects like the one in Orange Cove epitomize a serious environmental injustice. And the state — or to be more specific, the Newsom administration — has not done enough to ensure that projects receiving massive amounts of funding are using that money to produce non-polluting green hydrogen.
Case in point: ARCHES, California’s “hydrogen hub,” which has close ties to Newsom’s office, has actively lobbied to weaken the federal Treasury’s proposed tax credits meant to incentivize clean hydrogen. The credits contain critical guardrails, known as the “three pillars,” and are widely supported by environmental groups.
But ARCHES has so far remained unchecked by the Newsom administration. It has even argued for ignoring and delaying key parts of these pillars. By doing so, ARCHES hopes to secure the largest possible federal subsidies, even for hydrogen projects that increase fossil fuel generation.
If ARCHES succeeds in undermining the three pillars, the result will be dirtier hydrogen and the redirection of existing renewable energy sources to hydrogen production, thereby requiring more fossil fuels. That is bad news for consumers, as this higher demand for fossil fuels could trigger an increase in wholesale electricity prices.
Increasing our use of fossil fuels means more air pollution, more planet-warming emissions and higher costs. We know those impacts will be felt most acutely by poorer communities and communities of color that have already been forced to live with pollution and the associated health risks.
So far, the proposed federal tax incentives have remained strong, but lobbying against the three pillars continues. Newsom must rein in ARCHES.
If we are going to continue hydrogen production, it must be in alignment with California’s clean energy goals — the ones Newsom routinely champions. We must be wary of false solutions that promise progress when they really serve as a lifeline for profit-obsessed industries.
Perhaps most importantly, we cannot experiment with risky projects in marginalized communities like Orange Cove.