Hydrogen has been all the rage lately as some states rush to meet their clean energy goals. Because hydrogen can be burned to generate power without creating carbon emissions, billions of dollars are being invested in hydrogen technology in California. But hydrogen is not the silver bullet solution that some think it is. The Sierra Club believes hydrogen plays a role in the clean energy future, but only supports green hydrogen for certain, limited, hard-to-electrify end uses. Unfortunately, many hydrogen advocates are not catching the nuances.
As projects to produce, transport, and burn hydrogen pop up across the country, SoCalGas has been eager to join the mix. The company’s proposed Angeles Link project would transport hydrogen across Southern California in an entirely new pipeline system to various industries in Los Angeles County. Before it can move forward, however, SoCalGas must have their application approved by the California Public Utilities Commission.
Here’s why Sierra Club, community members, and environmentalists alike are opposing this project:
1. Safety Risk
Hydrogen is a highly combustible fuel, and blending hydrogen into existing pipelines makes pipes brittle and vulnerable to cracking. Hydrogen also leaks more easily than methane gas, since it is a smaller and lighter fuel. On top of all this, burning hydrogen emits nitrogen dioxide, a dangerous pollutant that has been linked with asthma, respiratory illness, and other health impacts.
2. Huge Expense
This proposed project will be expensive because it requires the creation of a brand new hydrogen pipeline spanning hundreds of miles. Phase 2 of this project will cover only studies and planning activities— no actual construction. Despite this, SoCalGas estimates Phase 2 will cost about $266 million. The actual construction costs will likely be billions of dollars.
3. SoCalGas Wants Their Customers to Pay
Initially, SoCalGas had said that only hydrogen customers will bear the burden of these costs. However, the company has changed its tune and is now saying that all of its ratepayers will share in the costs of this hydrogen system–regardless of whether they actually buy hydrogen. Not only is this an unfair burden to customers who are not using hydrogen fuel, it violates a long-standing utility principle that only beneficiaries of utility infrastructure should pay for it. California utility law requires that rates be just and reasonable, and charging customers for a fuel and infrastructure that they don't use doesn't meet that standard.
When utilities develop a new business venture, they have to pay for those ventures themselves and cannot pass the costs on to ratepayers. The Public Utilities Commission has already stopped SoCalGas from charging its customers for hydrogen development costs because the utility failed to show that it would actually benefit customers, yet SoCalGas is still following this same misguided playbook.
4. Environmental Harms
SoCalGas has repeatedly emphasized that the Angeles Link project will transport only green hydrogen made from renewable energy. But the company’s own filings tell a different story: They say that the Angeles Link will be an open-access pipeline for all hydrogen, possibly even “grey” hydrogen produced by fossil fuels. It’s not clear that regulators can guarantee that only green hydrogen is transported via this pipeline.
But even so-called green hydrogen requires massive amounts of energy and water to produce. Producing one liter of green hydrogen requires about 9 liters of water. Green hydrogen, made through electrolysis, also requires additional renewable energy build out, on top of the renewable energy the state needs to reach its current clean energy goals. Overall, using green hydrogen for power is much less efficient than direct electrification. And although burning hydrogen itself does not generate carbon emissions, it does create other pollution like nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter. For all of these reasons, green hydrogen should only be used when direct electrification is not an option.
The completed Angles Link will also, in many cases, be inextricably dependent on fossil fuels for viability. For example, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) plans to use hydrogen from the Angeles Link to generate electricity by burning a blend of hydrogen and methane in their power plants. Although they aspire to eventually burn 100% hydrogen for power, this feat has never been done to scale.
As noted above, hydrogen gas is also prone to leaks, posing an additional environmental hazard. When hydrogen leaks directly into the atmosphere, it can prolong the warming effects of methane. Hydrogen also serves as a secondary climate pollutant, increasing the amount of ozone and water vapor in the atmosphere.
5. Environmental Justice Concerns
This proposed project not only introduces significant environmental concerns, but also will disproportionately impact LA basin communities who have already borne the brunt of impacts from the fossil fuel industry.
As discussed above, hydrogen combustion and transportation is associated with deadly risks to human safety, health, and air quality. In LADWP’s efforts to decarbonize their electric grid with hydrogen, they are inadvertently introducing these risks to already vulnerable communities. These are the same neighborhoods surrounding power plants, ports, and transportation corridors that are already suffering from extremely polluted air.
Additionally, seeking cost recovery for this project from SoCalGas’ methane customers is highly unethical and unprecedented. This presents a further injustice, as low-income customers who are still gas customers and don’t have resources to electrify their homes will be saddled with higher rates for a project they won’t benefit from.
6. SoCalGas’ Failed Community Engagement
As part of their Phase 1 process, the California Public Utilities Commission instructed SoCalGas to meet quarterly with stakeholders, including community-based organizations, disadvantaged communities, environmental and social justice groups, and others that would be impacted by the project. They have so far failed in their mandate to do so.
When stakeholders raised concerns related to high flammability, leak risks, rate impacts to customers, and exclusion of key stakeholders, SoCalGas ignored them. In a rare form of protest, a number of community groups formally withdrew from the stakeholder group, citing an "illegitimate" engagement process conducted in “bad faith”. This should be acknowledged as a huge red flag by decision makers.
Though green hydrogen may be appropriate to decarbonize some hard-to-electrify end uses, its high energy and water requirements—combined with the risks and costs associated with transporting it—mean hydrogen should be used sparingly in our future energy economy. Creating a new pipeline system that carries combustible fuel, runs through communities, and raises costs to ratepayers is completely antithetical to the green, healthy future that Angelenos want.