The people of Orange Cove in Fresno County could soon be an unwilling part of an experiment in dangerous, expensive utility boondoggles. And if California’s gas companies get their way, families statewide will be forced to pay higher energy bills, breathe more indoor air pollution and bear greater safety risks.
Southern California Gas Co. wants to use Orange Cove to test blending hydrogen with natural gas in its pipeline network. This might sound futuristic and clean because it would reduce fossil fuel use, but it would waste $64 million in SoCalGas customer money and threaten this community’s health and safety — without actually fighting climate change.
Worse yet, SoCalGas and two other utilities just petitioned state regulators to skip pilot projects altogether. If approved, they could then request to pump a 5% hydrogen blend across California without demonstrating safety.
The problem is blending hydrogen into pipelines and appliances designed for gas. Hydrogen is leakier and more flammable, and it burns hotter and faster than gas. It can’t be smelled or seen, and burning it increases asthma-causing air pollution in homes and risks damaging appliances. Forcing consumers to burn hydrogen worsens fire, explosion and health risks in our homes, where we should feel most safe
The truth is gas utilities’ hydrogen blending proposals intend to keep customers hooked on pipelines. Utilities earn huge profits on infrastructure investment — over 10% for SoCalGas. The wiser approach for Californians would be to switch from gas to electric appliances, protecting customers from volatile gas prices and toxic indoor air. But that would hurt gas utility profits.
In my state of Colorado, our largest utility, Xcel Energy, proposed mixing hydrogen into the natural gas system serving a Denver suburb. When the community learned Xcel was forcing residents into a dangerous, expensive gas alternative disguised as climate action, they pushed back with enough time to force Xcel to pause its effort.
This story is playing out across the country and the world. In Eugene, Ore., backlash from residents made NW Natural cancel its hydrogen blending pilot. In Massachusetts, state regulators prevented utilities from pursuing similar plans. In the United Kingdom, residents of Whitby and Redcar protected themselves from even larger proposals.
Orange Cove is the next flare-up. SoCalGas began campaigning to blend hydrogen in 2022, but residents recently uncovered the truth and are speaking out accordingly. State regulators are expected to act by June, and their decision will have far-reaching consequences.
SoCalGas’ proposal stems from state policy to slash climate pollution from gas utility systems — a good idea, but a threat to utility profits. In theory, replacing natural gas with hydrogen can help gas utilities cut emissions while still investing in pipelines, because hydrogen can be produced and burned without emitting greenhouse gases.
But that’s where hydrogen’s advantages end.
Let’s air out the proposal’s dirty laundry: SoCalGas’ proposal to blend less than 5% hydrogen into Orange Cove’s system — which serves about 2,000 customer gas meters — would cost $64 million over 18 months. That’s comparable to removing the tailpipe pollution of 100 cars for one year.
That same $64 million could permanently remove the pollution of 12 times as many gasoline cars if used to purchase new electric vehicles. It’s also worth around $32,000 per customer gas meter in Orange Cove — more than enough for the community to install electric heat pumps, heat pump water heaters and induction stoves, zeroing out gas use.
Using that $64 million to fund incentives for cleaner, efficient electric appliances could help tens of thousands of Californians eliminate indoor air pollution and climate emissions.
This price tag is ludicrous for an 18-month experiment. Clean hydrogen is an extremely expensive way to heat homes. Current prices are 10 to 25 times higher than that of natural gas, and even the most optimistic forecasts expect it to remain much more expensive for decades.
Gas utilities claim Orange Cove will “inform the feasibility of developing a hydrogen injection standard” to decarbonize their broader systems, but that hides the truth: Hydrogen blending is a dead end that at best would reduce gas utility climate emissions by less than 7%. California’s gas system was not designed to safely handle more than a small share of hydrogen, so this pilot project couldn’t meaningfully scale up without the wholesale replacement of all gas pipelines and appliances.
Pilot projects seem small in the grand scheme of things, but they lend legitimacy to a bad idea debunked as a climate solution and wisely rejected by other communities time and time again. It would be even worse to ditch pilot tests and skip right to harming Californians with statewide blending.
Hydrogen is not categorically a “false solution” for climate. We need it to clean up things like fertilizer, chemicals and aviation fuel — products without cheaper clean alternatives that are made in specialized industrial complexes overseen by trained technicians.
But California doesn’t need hydrogen to clean up its buildings. Families are already choosing electric appliances for higher-quality, fully clean service. Hydrogen can’t save our gas networks; it can only waste money and delay California’s work to stop climate change.
Forcing communities to use hydrogen also reduces consumer choice. People have the freedom to install electric appliances when they’re ready, using government and utility incentives. With hydrogen blending, homes and businesses would have to use a lower-quality gas whether they want it or not, safety and health risks be damned.
The California Public Utilities Commission plays a critical role protecting customers from utility investments that lock in unjustifiable rate increases. Ultimately, the Orange Cove pilot is nothing more than an expensive waste of customer money with no near-term benefit and minuscule contribution toward California’s climate efforts.
The mountain of scientific literature against hydrogen blending, lessons learned by other regulators and communities rejecting similar pilots, and the voices of Orange Cove residents should be enough to slam the door on this would-be boondoggle.
Dan Esposito is a manager in the nonpartisan think tank Energy Innovation’s fuels and chemicals program.