Connect with us

Business

Contributor: Blending hydrogen into gas pipelines would enrich utilities and harm Californians

Published

on

Contributor: Blending hydrogen into gas pipelines would enrich utilities and harm Californians

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Business

Volvo to pay $197 million after hidden pollution device found in California truck engines

Published

on

Volvo to pay 7 million after hidden pollution device found in California truck engines

Volvo Group North America has agreed to pay nearly $197 million to resolve allegations from California regulators that company’s heavy-duty truck engines violated California emissions standards and certification requirements.

About 10,000 diesel truck engines manufactured by Volvo were equipped with an undisclosed device, causing them to release excessive levels of smog-forming pollution across California, according to the California Air Resources Board, the state agency that regulates air pollution and greenhouse gases.

Volvo is developing a software fix to repair many of these vehicles and extend their warranties at no cost to the owners. Eligible truck owners are expected to be notified of a non-mandatory recall on these trucks next year.

CARB found inconsistencies in the Swedish automaker’s data while testing trucks with Volvo engines from model year 2010 to 2016, which resulted in the investigation and ensuing settlement.

“This case underscores why CARB’s compliance testing and strong enforcement are essential to protecting the state’s air quality and public health,” said Lauren Sanchez, chair of the state Air Resources Board. “Our responsibility goes beyond adopting regulations — we are committed to upholding them by identifying violations and holding companies accountable for meeting emissions standards.”

Advertisement

Under the settlement, Volvo will pay $17.5 million in civil penalties to reimburse the state for the cost of the investigation and support its vehicle-testing operations. Another $179 million will go toward investing in clean-air initiatives, such as electric vehicle incentive programs, to offset air pollution that resulted from the alleged violations.

Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: A surge in Nevada data center construction threatens the electricity supply for 49,000 Californians

Published

on

Commentary: A surge in Nevada data center construction threatens the electricity supply for 49,000 Californians

Local opposition has blocked or delayed more than a dozen huge data center projects around the country. But these Californians don’t get a vote on Nevada projects that could affect their electricity supply.

Those big data centers being built for artificial intelligence firms are in bad odor nationwide.

Seven in 10 Americans oppose projects in their local communities, according to a recent Gallup poll. More than a dozen, valued at some $64 billion, have been blocked or delayed by local opposition in recent years.

But what happens when the people directly affected by these project plans don’t get a vote?

Data centers did not influence this decision.

— NV Energy, explaining its move to end service to 49,000 California customers. But is it telling the truth?

Advertisement

That’s the quandary faced by 49,000 residents living on the California side of Lake Tahoe, mostly in the city of South Lake Tahoe. The surge in construction of data centers in Nevada is prompting the Nevada utility that supplies 75% of the Californians’ electricity to cut them off next year.

The California-regulated utility that carries the electricity over the state line to their homes and businesses has assured them that it will find alternative sources to protect them from losing service — but hasn’t promised that their rates won’t increase because of the transition.

“It’s like we don’t exist,” Danielle Hughes, the head of a local energy nonprofit and an advocate for the customers, told me. The crisis facing those residents is just the latest in a long line of indignities they have suffered thanks to several unique characteristics of their energy market, Hughes says.

Advertisement

For one thing, they are permanent residents of the community — teachers, firefighters, police, and service workers at the hotels, restaurants and resorts that bring in a tidal wave of visitors every winter. The latter, as well as vacation-home owners and renters, generate seasonal electricity demands that drive up power costs year-round.

That means that the permanent residents are in effect subsizing the visitors, even though they’re lower-income ratepayers than the generally well-heeled vacationers.

Before delving deeper into the issues for the permanent residents, let’s examine the effect of the large-scale data centers being built and proposed in Nevada, and more generally coast to coast.

Nevada has emerged as a prime location for data centers, in part due to the wide open, undeveloped acreage available for construction. More than 60 data centers have sprung up around Reno and Las Vegas, with many more slated to rise in the northern part of the state, according to a survey by the Desert Research Institute, a Nevada nonprofit.

“We’re right at the epicenter for global expansion” of data centers, observed Sean McKenna, a co-author of the report.

Advertisement

The existing data centers consumed 22% of Nevada’s electric generating capacity in 2024, DRI calculated. If all those under construction and on the drawing board are completed, that figure would rise to 35% by 2030. NV Energy, the Nevada utility that provides the electricity for the California side of Lake Tahoe, estimates that the electricity demand for just the 12 projects being planned would come to 5,900 megawatts — nearly three times the generating capacity of Hoover Dam.

That construction frenzy is likely to bring some of the same drawbacks that have provoked local communities to militate against data centers — not only pressure on existing electricity capacity, but also a voracious appetite for water due to the cooling needs of the computerized equipment managing the data for AI applications. Residents in the neighborhoods of data centers have also complained of incessant noise coming from their 24/7 operations.

With global warming driving up temperatures in Nevada’s semiarid and desert zones, they add, residents will find themselves in a contest with data center owners for an already inadequate supply of power in the state. DRI warns: “Local utilities and ratepayers in data center cluster regions like Northern Nevada also risk bearing the costs of subsidizing AI and computing services as power grids expand their infrastructure.”

In many communities, the result has been a vigorous and vocal backlash, including in California. They’ve packed town halls, prompted state and local political leaders to legislate limits on their growth or even to ban them.

That brings us back to the situation around Lake Tahoe.

Advertisement

In terms of its electric utility service, the region has long been an outlier. About 25% of its power comes from two solar farms operated by Liberty Utilities, but the rest comes from NV Energy; the reason is that it’s unconnected with the California transmission grid but accessible via a line from Nevada.

As a result, it falls into the cracks among energy regulators. Because it’s not part of the California grid, the California Public Utilities Commission has only limited jurisdiction over its service, although it has the authority to approve its electricity rates. The Nevada Public Utilities Commission doesn’t oversee the customers’ service at all, because they’re not Nevada residents.

The region is also unusual because its peak energy demand comes in the winter; most of the rest of California peaks in the summer, when air conditioners are on full blast.

Hughes and other residents have maintained that because the CPUC hasn’t modeled electricity demand for their small region, they have been paying for infrastructure that doesn’t serve them.

“We’ve been paying for assets in Nevada,” Hughes says, “without it being tracked by the state of California.”

Advertisement

Liberty does charge permanent residents in the Tahoe area about 2% less than the rate for part-time residents, but the discount should be much larger, Hughes says. Liberty didn’t respond to my request for comment.

Earlier this year, NV Energy informed Liberty that it would no longer serve as its wholesale energy provider after mid-May next year, and urged Liberty to make haste to secure an alternate supplier.

Liberty promised its customers in a recent statement that they “will not be left without service” as a result of the change. “This does not mean the power is shutting off,” Eric Schwarzrock, president of Liberty Utilities, said at a South Lake Tahoe City Council meeting last month, according to the news site SFGate. “Energy companies, utilities, large customers change energy supply frequently.”

Liberty and NV Energy both attributed the change to a preexisting agreement that anticipated that NV Energy would eventually cease providing power to Liberty’s customers, although their interpretations of the deal and the impetus for the change appear to be at odds.

The “long-standing agreements and planning assumptions … date back more than a decade,” NV Energy said in a May 14 statement. That was “well before data center growth became a factor,” the utility said. “Data centers did not influence this decision.”

Advertisement

That is, to be charitable, dubious. How do we know? Liberty said so in a March 6 letter to the California Public Utilities Commission, requesting permission to take “immediate action” to find alternative providers.

The letter stated that Liberty had expected its arrangement with NV Energy to “continue indefinitely.” During their last negotiations for an extension of the deal, however, NV Energy informed Liberty that it would cease serving Liberty on May 31, 2027, with a possible extension to Dec. 31.

“This change of stance by NV Energy was a surprise to Liberty,” the letter said. Liberty ascribed NV Energy’s decision to new “market circumstances” in the latter’s home service region. Among them: “A number of entities are seeking to add large loads such as data centers into the area.”

NV Energy says it will continue serving Liberty’s customers until Liberty secures a new supplier, even if it misses the May 2027 deadline; the ultimate deadline is Dec. 31, 2027, when NV Energy expects to complete its 350-mile Greenlink West transmission line between Las Vegas and the Reno area, part of a $4.2-billion infrastructure upgrade.

Yet that still leaves an open question that should make those customers nervous: How much will they be paying for power?

Advertisement

In its recent statement to customers, Liberty made only the vaguest of promises. “While no utiulity can predict the exact future cost of energy,” it said, “affordability is a primary goal” in its search for new suppliers. “With a competitive bidding process, we aim to find a cost-effective solution for your monthly bill.”

But any new supplier would have to come from outside California, because of the region’s lack of any connection with the state’s grid. And generators in nearby states face their own rising demands from data centers, drought and global warming.

The drawbacks of these massive industrial installations are beginning to be felt by their neighbors, including higher electricity prices and dwindling water supplies. They’re only going to get worse.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Video: Jury Rejects Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Microsoft

Published

on

Video: Jury Rejects Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Microsoft

new video loaded: Jury Rejects Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Microsoft

transcript

transcript

Jury Rejects Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Microsoft

Elon Musk had accused OpenAI of “stealing a charity” by attaching a commercial company to Open AI, which was founded as a nonprofit. But a jury ruled that the statute of limitations had expired.

“The evidence that Mr. Musk’s lawsuit was an after-the-fact contrivance by a competitor was overwhelming.” “This reminds me of key moments in this country’s history. The siege of Charleston, the Battle of Bunker Hill, these were major losses for Americans. But who won the war? And this one is not over. And to sum it up, I can sum it up in one word: appeal.”

Advertisement
Elon Musk had accused OpenAI of “stealing a charity” by attaching a commercial company to Open AI, which was founded as a nonprofit. But a jury ruled that the statute of limitations had expired.

By Meg Felling

May 18, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending