Critics say Austin Energy’s proposal to pivot toward hydrogen could do more harm than good

As Austin Energy drafts an update to its Resource, Generation and Climate Protection Plan, industry watchdogs are doing their homework, investigating a controversial proposal to construct a brand-new gas plant designed to burn carbon-neutral green hydrogen.

Among those asking questions is the city’s Electric Utility Commission, who hosted a panel of experts last week to weigh in on the proposed investment. The roundtable of researchers, environmentalists and policy experts brought a range of issues to the floor, highlighting green hydrogen’s technological constraints while acknowledging its emerging role in the pivot from fossil fuels.

Since announcing its goal for carbon neutrality by 2035, Austin Energy has embraced resources like wind and solar to power larger shares of its energy mix, while also scaling up infrastructure to meet the demand posed by electric vehicles. While its efforts have had a measurable effect on greenhouse gas emissions, leaders continue to look for creative solutions to meet the growing pressures of rising environmental standards, population growth and increasingly erratic weather trends.

One such solution could be green hydrogen, a hypothetically clean fuel sourced through a process called electrolysis, which runs electric currents through water to split its molecules into hydrogen and oxygen gas. New federal incentives could soon sweeten the deal, with the U.S. Department of Energy recently announcing plans to roll out a tax credit of up to $3 per kilogram produced.

In step with these potential kickbacks, Austin Energy has proposed its own hydrogen-capable combined cycle power plant, a “bridge solution” designed to burn both natural gas and green hydrogen before transitioning to fully clean hydrogen sometime in the next decade. But with the technology still nascent, environmentalists are skeptical of this promise, voicing concerns that prohibitive costs, harmful byproducts and logistical challenges all make for a questionable investment.

One such challenge is electrolysis’ immense demand for water. Clean Energy Group project manager Abbe Ramanan estimates the plant proposed by Austin Energy would require nearly 1,127,699 gallons of water per day, a figure that reads as particularly staggering as the city enters its second year of Stage 2 drought.

Another issue is transmission, as hydrogen gas’ smaller size makes it unfit to travel through existing pipelines. Between the projected cost of infrastructure, equipment and necessary resources, Ramanan says the proposed plant would be orders of magnitude more expensive than renewable energy sources like wind and solar. 

Lastly, critics are concerned about air pollutant byproducts like nitrous oxide, particularly as Austin flirts with failing national ambient air quality standards.

“That’s actually why Clean Energy Group initially got involved in hydrogen combustion in the first place, because studies have shown hydrogen produces nearly six times as much nitrogen oxide as methane when combusted,” Ramanan said. “A big part of our mission has been helping communities impacted by decades of these pollutants near natural gas plants, so anytime someone is suggesting replacing one source of (nitrogen oxide) emissions with another, that’s going to be concerning to us.”

While panelists acknowledged that green hydrogen could be helpful in more particular use cases, several argued that the scale of Austin Energy’s proposal was unwise.

“At Sierra Club, we think that hydrogen can potentially play a role in our economy’s decarbonization efforts, particularly in sectors like aviation and shipping where electrification isn’t currently an option, but the devil is really in the details,” said director of climate policy and advocacy Patrick Drupp. “We feel that base load power really is not a good use for green hydrogen.”

Commissioners will deliberate and return with a formal recommendation on Austin Energy’s proposal sometime next month. In the meantime, those curious can watch the full discussion here.

Photo made available through a Creative Commons license.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.