(The Middle Sq.) – The opportunity of constructing a hydrogen hub in Pennsylvania, and the federal funds that may observe, has attracted curiosity from each Republicans and Democrats.
A latest Home Democratic Coverage Committee listening to highlighted the stress between a hub’s financial potential and environmental safety.
“I wished to listen to from quite a few consultants on what the event of the hydrogen hub would imply for western Pennsylvania,” Rep. Nick Pisciottano, D-Dravosburg, stated in a press release. “Our state has lengthy been a pacesetter in vitality manufacturing and trade, and I wished to assemble leaders with considerations and vested pursuits on this undertaking beneath one roof to listen to about what this might imply for PA’s financial system, companies and atmosphere.”
As The Middle Sq. beforehand reported, Pennsylvania’s state and federal representatives have expressed help for making a hydrogen hub within the commonwealth. The Division of Power plans to supply $8 billion to fund 4 regional hubs in the USA, which will likely be used for vitality manufacturing and carbon seize.
The Pittsburgh area may “be a pacesetter in local weather resiliency whereas on the similar time remaining economically aggressive” with a hydrogen hub, stated Matt Smith, president of the Larger Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce in his testimony.
“That is an space the place enterprise leaders and labor leaders can and can come collectively for our area’s future,” Smith stated. “We are able to anticipate that DOE funding will prime the pump for equal and even bigger personal funding within the growth of hydrogen hubs. Areas that develop the primary hubs will dominate the market and develop into magnets for inhabitants development and financial exercise.”
Environmental advocates, nevertheless, warned that the financial potential of a hub isn’t so nice, even with the inflow of federal funds. The extra urgent concern, as Rob Altenburg, senior director for vitality and local weather at PennFuture argued, is the discount of carbon emissions.
“Whereas electrical energy from clear sources like photo voltaic or wind can be utilized to provide hydrogen, fundamental physics tells us that utilizing the clear vitality instantly in our houses, automobiles, and trade, is way extra environment friendly – and can all the time be cheaper – than including an additional step to transform it to hydrogen,” Altenburg stated.
“Diverting some clear vitality from the grid to hydrogen manufacturing doesn’t clear up the issue,” he famous.
Joanne Kilgour, government director on the Ohio River Valley Institute, additionally criticized the hub plan.
“Even the place federal investments could also be accessible, it is very important observe that entry to federal funds doesn’t make a undertaking free – residents find yourself paying by way of our tax payments, our utility payments, or a mix of each,” she stated.
For carbon seize and storage, Kilgour argued the answer to its financial issues can be “100%+ taxpayer subsidization of carbon seize, use, and sequestration.”
“We heard divergent viewpoints right this moment,” Coverage Committee Chairman Ryan Bizzarro, D-Erie, stated in a press release. “Members of trade and labor, understandably, see huge potential for our commonwealth’s financial system and job development, whereas environmentalists questioned whether or not that is an precise pathway to scrub vitality or a detour away from embracing renewable vitality. Nonetheless, that’s among the best attributes of our committee: We wish to be taught the info and know the powerful inquiries to ask earlier than the Basic Meeting strikes to go measures and enact change.”