This article is part of California Voices, a platform exploring the state's diverse perspectives and highlighting the impact of policy on Californians.
By Ben Jealous, Executive Director of the Sierra Club
The world is racing to embrace clean energy technologies to combat the devastating consequences of climate change â and rightly so. The urgency of the situation demands decisive action. However, using our most vulnerable communities as guinea pigs for experimental solutions is unacceptable, particularly when these solutions aim to prolong our reliance on fossil fuels.
Take the small town of Orange Cove in Fresno County, California. As recently reported by Capital & Main, this predominantly Latino farmworker community has become the focus of an experimental hydrogen-blending project. The aim is to introduce small amounts of hydrogen into existing natural gas pipelines, aiming to supplement, not replace, gas with a supposedly less polluting alternative.
However, hydrogen is far from a clean energy miracle cure. Blending it into existing pipelines can make them brittle and prone to cracking. Moreover, burning hydrogen releases nitrogen dioxide, a dangerous pollutant, into homes. The fact that, once again, poorer communities are being forced to bear the brunt of an untested experiment is deeply concerning.
While not all proposed uses of hydrogen are inherently negative, it's crucial to remember that some of the most fervent proponents come from the fossil fuel industry, who see it as a way to extend their grip on existing infrastructure. So-called "green" hydrogen, produced from renewable sources like solar and wind energy, might offer limited advantages in decarbonizing sectors that are difficult to electrify, such as steelmaking, shipping, and aviation.
However, even "green" hydrogen can have unforeseen drawbacks. Without strict controls on the sourcing of its renewable energy, green hydrogen can indirectly contribute to emissions by cannibalizing renewable energy intended for other purposes.
The complexities of hydrogen are undeniable. There is a whole spectrum of hydrogen types, ranging from "gray" and "blue" hydrogen derived from fossil fuels to "green" hydrogen generated from renewables. It's essential to ensure that any investment in hydrogen technology prioritizes "green" production and prioritizes the creation of renewable energy sources that are not already dedicated to other uses.
Despite its challenges, hydrogen is poised to play a role in the energy transition. Last month, the US Department of Energy committed £950 million to hydrogen technologies in California. This substantial investment underscores the importance of deploying these technologies responsibly, ensuring emissions reduction while safeguarding historically marginalized communities.
Unfortunately, California appears to be drifting away from both these principles. Projects like the one in Orange Cove epitomize a serious environmental injustice. Moreover, the state, or more specifically the Newsom administration, has not done enough to ensure that projects receiving significant funding are utilizing those funds for the production of truly non-polluting "green" hydrogen.
One prime example is ARCHES, California's "hydrogen hub," which has close ties to Newsom's office. ARCHES has actively lobbied to weaken proposed federal tax credits intended to incentivize clean hydrogen. These credits include crucial safeguards known as the "three pillars" and enjoy widespread support from environmental groups.
Despite this, the Newsom administration has yet to hold ARCHES accountable. ARCHES has even argued for ignoring and delaying key aspects of these pillars, aiming to secure the maximum federal subsidies even for hydrogen projects that increase fossil fuel generation.
Should ARCHES succeed in undermining these essential safeguards, the consequence would be dirtier hydrogen and the diversion of existing renewable energy sources to hydrogen production, leading to an increased reliance on fossil fuels. This scenario would negatively impact consumers, potentially driving up wholesale electricity prices.
Increasing our dependence on fossil fuels means more air pollution, heightened planet-warming emissions, and escalating costs. We know that these impacts will disproportionately affect poorer communities and communities of colour, who are already burdened by pollution and associated health risks.
While the proposed federal tax incentives remain robust, lobbying against the "three pillars" continues. Newsom must take action to rein in ARCHES.
If we are to proceed with hydrogen production, it must be aligned with California's clean energy aspirations, which Newsom routinely champions. We must be vigilant against false solutions that promise progress while serving as lifelines for profit-driven industries.
Most importantly, we cannot experiment with risky projects in vulnerable communities like Orange Cove.
Note: This article has been updated to reflect the correct amount of federal investment in the state's hydrogen hub.
