New research from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis found making hydrogen from natural gas, so-called "blue hydrogen," is not much better than burning fossil fuels, and will waste billions in federal government spending.

David Schlissel, director of resource planning analysis at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis and the study's co-author, said people should be paying attention to the issue because the federal government is banking on blue hydrogen technology he argued could worsen climate change instead of mitigating its effects.

"The government is planning to spend maybe upwards of $70 billion on subsidies related to hydrogen," Schlissel pointed out. "There are a lot of uncertainties with the technology, and with factors like how much natural gas, which is used in the production of blue hydrogen, how much is going to leak into the atmosphere."

In addition, the report found government agencies may be significantly understating the environmental impact of methane, the primary component of natural gas. Fossil fuel companies have said blue hydrogen produced from methane or coal can be manufactured cleanly and can be part of the solution to the climate crisis.

Schlissel contended U.S. Department of Energy models are also based on an extremely optimistic set of assumptions about future carbon-capture technology. Models currently estimate 95% or more of the carbon dioxide produced at blue hydrogen facilities will be captured.

"There is no facility in the world that captures anywhere near that much carbon dioxide," Schlissel countered. "And the testing that's gone on to date is relatively small scale."

According to the report, carbon dioxide emissions involved in fully compressing, storing and transporting the hydrogen to the site where it will be used is more than three times as much as the Department of Energy's clean hydrogen standard.

Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek has signed into law the first set of statewide policies in the country supporting community-owned microgrids.

Microgrids are local, self-contained energy systems that use renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar power.

Dylan Kruse - president of Sustainable Northwest, a nonprofit involved in drafting the legislation - said microgrids can help mitigate the uptick in power outages caused by wildfires and extreme weather, especially in rural parts of the state.

"We're seeing an increased interest from small towns, from communities, from tribes," said Kruse, "saying 'look, if the lights go out, we need to have options so we can continue to provide emergency services, we can provide communications.'"

Microgrids can power critical facilities, such as hospitals or fire stations, operating either connected to the main grid or independently during emergencies.

Joshua Basofin - clean energy program director with Climate Solutions - said that while some microgrids are being developed in Oregon alongside utility companies, they are most valuable when communities reap the economic and resiliency benefits.

"When communities own those systems themselves," said Basofin, "they actually have the ability to control those microgrids as they need for their own purposes."

Oregon's new law requires the state Public Utility Commission to establish clear rules for the operation and ownership of community microgrids, which Kruse said he believes will expedite their construction.

He said while other states have considered moving in this direction, Oregon is the first to take this step.

"This legislation," said Kruse, "is the most ambitious, comprehensive legislation in the country of its kind."




get more stories like this via email

Rural Alaska power customers are likely to pay higher electricity rates as a result of the elimination of incentives to switch away from traditional fossil fuels.

The new Trump administration budget eliminated tax credits designed to encourage investment in wind and solar projects.

More than 90% of Alaska residents rely on power cooperatives for their electricity, which have made an effort in recent years to invest in wind and solar - especially in the most remote areas.

Alaska Energy blog author Erin McKittrick said rate payers will pay higher prices as a result of fewer alternative energy options.

"Renewable energy is holding out this promise to maybe keep rates down, but the way things are going we may not get that option, or if we get it, it might be more expensive than it is otherwise," said McKittrick. "So, everybody is going to see their rates go up."

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-AK, tried to negotiate some alternative energy tax credits back into the bill for her state just prior to a final vote - but was not able to secure money for Alaska's indigenous whale hunters to buy equipment they rely on for subsistence hunting and fishing.

Beyond affecting larger power co-ops, McKittrick said the elimination of the tax incentives will also hurt small companies that install wind and solar power in Alaska's remote locations.

"They don't have this position where they have a huge portfolio of lots of things going on and they can handle uncertainty for one or another project," said McKittrick. "Whether they exist at all in the future is questionable I would think."

The League of Conservation Voters is working at the grassroots level in Alaska to find ways to keep wind and solar projects alive in the state as it tries to move away from a heavy dependence on diesel fuel and a dwindling supply of natural gas.

More than $7 billion in Colorado's GDP and 9,600 jobs are projected to be lost under President Donald Trump's signature tax and spending bill which cuts incentives for clean energy, according to a new report by the nonpartisan think tank Energy Innovation.

Solar and wind capacity is expected to drop by 340 gigawatts, raising home energy costs by an extra $170 per year.

Margaret Kran-Annexstein, director of the Colorado chapter of the Sierra Club, said the new law reverses years of work transitioning to a clean energy economy.

"We have seen how investments in clean energy programs can attract more jobs, and can help people lower their electricity costs," Kran-Annexstein pointed out.

Trump campaigned on promises to end climate mitigation efforts and to bring down energy costs by increasing the use of fossil fuels. Republicans critical of clean energy tax credits have argued they amount to the government picking industry winners and losers. According to a separate industry analysis, just 30% of U.S. solar and 57% of wind projects are expected to survive under the new GOP law.

Oil and gas companies have benefited from taxpayer subsidies for decades and currently receive $170 billion a year. Kran-Annexstein noted efforts to boost clean energy, to slow climate change and reduce air pollution, pale by comparison.

"This bill is going to be giving polluters an additional $15 billion tax break, while gutting clean energy programs," Kran-Annexstein explained. "We need to be investing in solutions, and we also need to not be giving tax breaks to the companies that are causing these problems."

The new GOP law cuts more than $1 trillion from Medicaid and SNAP to finance Trump administration priorities including extending 2017 tax cuts. Kran-Annexstein worries ramping up fossil fuel production and limiting health coverage will produce dire consequences.

"If we're revoking people's access to health care, and we're going to be seeing increases in the amount of pollution, people are going to be sick and people are going to die," Kran-Annexstein contended.