Raising the Red Flag: Impacts of an Unregulated Hydrogen Industry on Environmental Justice Communities
The national conversation on clean hydrogen has exploded in California in the last two years, spurred by an outpouring of federal funding. As pollution-driven climate change wreaks havoc, hitting communities of color and low-income communities hardest, we indisputably need cleaner energy solutions, and fast. But as decision-makers consider potential hydrogen solutions, the conversation is moving so quickly that simple questions like “What is hydrogen” and more complex ones like “What is the electric load addition expected from the state’s anticipated hydrogen electrolyzer capacity” are being asked in the same venue. This means we run the risk of moving too quickly, without a comprehensive understanding of the impacts of deploying hydrogen, particularly on low-income communities and communities of color on the frontlines of environmental injustice. These communities, already disproportionately burdened by pollution and unaffordable energy systems, are at risk of further harm if hydrogen projects proceed without appropriate safeguards. And due to its novelty, organizations, local governments, state agencies, and the legislature are all coming to the hydrogen conversations at different levels of understanding.
In my role as Senior Program Manager of Energy Equity at Greenlining, I polled a room of climate professionals at this year’s California Climate and Energy Collaborative (CCEC) forum on their familiarity with hydrogen impacts. Results showed that the majority of climate professionals were not up to speed. This is highly alarming and shows that the frenzy of states working to capture available funding has so far trumped the need to do due diligence on the environmental and equity impacts of producing and deploying hydrogen at scale. We need guardrails on hydrogen now, especially as the majority of proposed projects are planned in the most pollution-burdened, environmental justice (EJ) communities.
The conversation around hydrogen has mostly focused on technical aspects, but we must recenter it on the concerns from environmental justice communities around the unintended consequences of an industry unleashed in their neighborhoods without the appropriate research, guardrails, or community consent.
Three main concerns that California policymakers, regulatory agencies, and local stakeholders must consider include:
- How can hydrogen increase the state’s affordability crisis?
- How can hydrogen impact water access concerns?
- How can hydrogen increase pollution in environmental justice communities?
Hydrogen Can Increase Energy Affordability Concerns
With billions in hydrogen funding made available by the federal government, the focus has rapidly moved from “should we deploy hydrogen” to “how should we deploy hydrogen.” Between these considerations are several unanswered questions on how hydrogen can be used efficiently and innovatively to decarbonize hard-to-electrify industries, while avoiding an “all-of-the-above investment strategy” that further burdens communities and wastes critical resources to address the climate crisis.
One of the biggest topics discussed in hydrogen right now is around guardrails needed for producing electrolytic hydrogen, also known as the three pillars. These pillars of additionality, deliverability, and hourly matching, have been supported overwhelmingly by academics, environmental, and environmental groups as necessary rules for the effective and equitable large-scale buildout of electrolytic or “green” hydrogen. The three pillars are common sense requirements, and they are also vital rules to protect consumers from significant bill increases. Electrolyzers require vast amounts of energy (comparable to cryptocurrency mining) and new renewable resources must be built to support production or the increased energy demand from electrolyzers will drive the need to fire up expensive fossil fuel peaker plants. A Princeton University study found that power prices could increase by 8% in California if the three pillars are not implemented.
Considering the state’s energy affordability crisis is already severely impacting low-income communities and communities of color, California policymakers must mandate baseline requirements for hydrogen production, including the three pillars, in state policy to protect against further bill increases. Furthermore, the state’s buildout of expensive hydrogen infrastructure must be documented and made transparent in regulatory proceedings to ensure utilities are not passing costs on to ratepayers.
Hydrogen Can Impact Water Availability and Access
One often overlooked impact of hydrogen is the large amount of water required for its production. At a time when communities face droughts, water scarcity, and water rights concerns, this can pose a critical threat to already overburdened communities.
While the amount of water needed varies depending on the method of production, I’ll talk specifically about the high-purity water needed for green hydrogen, one of the main methods of producing hydrogen planned for California. To produce one kilogram of green hydrogen, you need nine liters of water, but this commonly touted ratio doesn’t include all water used throughout the entire production process. For instance, constructing renewable energy sources to power the electrolysis also uses water: wind power adds 11 liters and solar power adds 124 liters per kilogram of hydrogen produced. Additionally, depending on the quality of the source water, 30-40% of the water may go to waste.
Michael Rincon, an expert from Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles studying water requirements for hydrogen explains:
“Green hydrogen is the most water-efficient method for producing H2, but it has challenges. Water quality is crucial; lower quality reduces efficiency and increases water use. The source of ultrapure water for electrolysis matters; impurities increase energy and water intensity. In California, where water sources are vulnerable to climate change, we cannot risk endangering the water sources that provide us our drinking water. With droughts and shrinking wells, understanding hydrogen projects’ true water costs is essential. Despite recent wet winters, we must prepare for the very likely future of severe droughts and conserve water responsibly.”
Another consideration for California is projects like Angeles Link, a developing SoCalGas hydrogen pipelines project that many advocates oppose, run the risk of increasing existing tensions around water rights within the Colorado River basin. To avoid exacerbating water justice issues in the state, policymakers must explicitly consider local water supply availability, competing water rights, and water-efficient production methods during the siting and design of clean hydrogen production projects to be discussed in local public forums.
Hydrogen Can Exacerbate Air Pollution and Climate Emissions
A key concern for many communities when it comes to hydrogen is its emissions—the impact of its production and use on air pollution as well as hydrogen’s potential to exacerbate climate change if improperly deployed. I break down these layers in this fact sheet.
As Jay Parepally from the community-based group Communities for a Better Environment highlights, there is a pressing need in the state for more transparency on the health and climate impacts of negligent hydrogen deployment:
“Although hydrogen combustion itself doesn’t produce carbon dioxide, burning hydrogen or hydrogen/methane blends exacerbates air pollution in other ways. Hydrogen combustion produces nitrogen oxides (NOx), which are ground level ozone precursors. So, in a place with high ozone pollution like Los Angeles, all else being equal, increased use of hydrogen (through leakage and combustion) leads to more ozone pollution. And in terms of human health, greater concentration of NOx leads to more respiratory problems, including aggravating asthma. People should know about the true impacts of hydrogen, so that any transition to ‘clean’ or ‘green’ hydrogen is not greenwashing.”
Next Steps: Uplifting the Equity Principles for Hydrogen
The consequences of an unregulated hydrogen industry could be devastating for communities of color and low-income communities in California if decision-makers fail to swiftly establish parameters for where and how hydrogen should be deployed. In addition to the impacts of hydrogen we are aware of, there are still unanswered questions on how hydrogen may exacerbate racial inequities in the state without effective policy safeguards.
We can already see how legacy fossil fuel companies are moving quickly, backed by substantial resources, to co-opt the hydrogen industry as a means for continuing to drive profits at the expense of our climate and communities. As Nile Malloy, from the California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA) explains:
“Fossil fuel executives have played a deceptive shuffle game for decades, hiding the devastating health, climate, and environmental impacts of fossil fuels to protect their profits while sticking taxpayers with the bill. The state of California has sued big fossil fuel polluters for over 50 years of cover-ups and billions in damages, the truth about hydrogen will eventually be exposed. The hydrogen hype is just another scheme from fossil fuel companies, designed to weaken climate policy, postpone a clean energy transition. and divert resources from climate solutions. We should oppose all fossil fuel hydrogen and continue to work with our elected officials and government leaders to not get manipulated again by the fossil fuel hype. We must raise the climate solutions bar and continue to invest in climate solutions that benefit all Californians.“
Greenlining joins a group of California environmental justice and community groups in the state to urge policymakers to consider the Equity Principles for Hydrogen as hydrogen projects move into local communities. As of now, communities’ concerns have not been highlighted in the hydrogen conversation, as noted in multiple cases of poor community engagement processes with states’ hydrogen hubs and DOE. However, California policymakers still have a chance to build a path forward for hydrogen that centers community consent, prioritizes climate and people, and rewrites the script for how energy industries interact with EJ communities.
