Critics still say hydrogen gas plant would be a dealbreaker in Austin Energy Resource Generation Plan

As Austin Energy continues to iron out the details of its Resource, Generation, and Climate Protection Plan, environmentalists are keeping the pressure on, demanding the utility abandon its proposal to build a new hydrogen-capable combined cycle power plant.

Austin Energy says the plant, which would run on natural gas before transitioning to a cleaner hydrogen fuel source, could help to address increasing demand for power as sectors like transportation go electric and the city continues to grow. But critics say the move would be a risky investment that could hamstring commitments to neutralize Austin’s carbon footprint by 2040.

“While the concept of hydrogen as a clean energy carrier is intriguing, the technology is in its infancy. The reality of its production, storage and distribution render it an impractical and costly stopgap measure,” Third Act Texas member Jorge Villero said while addressing the Electric Utility Commission earlier this month. “Austin Energy should double down on energy efficiency and renewable sources, strategies that have a proven track record of reducing emissions, lowering cost and enhancing grid reliability.”

Since floating the controversial proposal late last year, Austin Energy has slowed its roll, consulting figures like University of Texas professor and author Michael Webber to facilitate deeper conversations with ratepayers. Webber joined Electric Utility Commission members this month to add to the ongoing discussion, arguing that market realities may challenge ambitions for a wholesale pivot to emissions-free renewables.

“There is an ethical imperative to decarbonize the grid, but simultaneously we need to expand it to decarbonize the broader economy,” Webber said. “What we’ve found is that getting to net-zero or carbon-neutral – meaning you allow some emissions in one part of society but then remove them elsewhere – ends up being cheaper, faster and more equitable than moving to completely carbon-free solutions.”

Webber, who sums up his energy policy as “do your best and clean up the rest,” argues that Austin needs locally generated, dispatchable power sources to weather transmission congestion and price volatility in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas market while simultaneously handling the demands posed by electric vehicles, heating and appliances. Webber says natural gas plants paired with carbon scrubbing facilities – as well as cleaner fuels made with biomethane, hydrogen or ammonia – could provide a lifeline as Austin Energy continues to invest in local solar projects and researches clean energy frontiers like geothermal power generation.

“These thermal power plants for burning natural gas, biomethane, hydrogen or whatever it is, the point isn’t to use them around the clock. The point is to use them with low-capacity factors for the times when wind or solar are not available,” Webber said. “Electric vehicles have air quality benefits that are very distinct, and by shifting from daytime ground-level tailpipe emissions to a nighttime rural smokestack hundreds of feet in the air … that pollution doesn’t lead to photochemical smog in the same way.”

Still, others feel the utility should invest in cleaner power generation methods that better align with Austin’s Climate Equity Plan.

“I hear the need for more power in our load zone, but instead of a new fossil fuel plant at Decker or Sandhill, we need banks of batteries that can import cheap wind power at night, have it prepositioned in town ready to use during evening peaks,” said Al Braden, who served on the Electric Utility Commission’s Resource Planning working group.

“If it comes down to it that fossil fuel gas cannot be avoided, then rather than investing in a new plant that would lock in a polluting resource for another 40 to 50 years, I’d prefer the unpopular decision to extend the life of existing gas assets for a limited time, with a clear commitment to how long that would be,” added former Austin Energy staff member Jen Krieger.

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.