Indiana ratepayers spend hundreds of millions of dollars per year for power from coal plants that are operating despite the availability of cheaper sources, including wind and solar.  

The state is emblematic of a larger problem, as electricity market rules typically allow utility-owned power plants to essentially cut in line even when they are not the most economical option for customers.  

A recent report commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council examined how this phenomenon plays out in the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) regional transmission organization specifically, building on previous research by RMI, the Union of Concerned Scientists and others — all of which show that uneconomic coal plant dispatch takes a huge toll on ratepayer wallets and public health. 

The problem happens primarily with vertically integrated utilities or municipal utilities and cooperatives, which can recoup costs of fuel and operations from ratepayers even if they are operating at a loss. In most of MISO territory, energy markets have not been restructured as open markets, making such cost recapture the norm. 

The NRDC study showed that Indiana ratepayers bore the second-highest burden in MISO, paying $338 million for uneconomic coal power from 2021-2023, just behind Louisiana’s $341 million. North Dakota ratepayers spent an extra $120 million, Wisconsin $69 million, and Minnesota $54 million, the study found. 

Indiana’s R.M. Schahfer plant, run by utility NIPSCO, cost ratepayers more than $100 million in such uneconomical dispatch from 2021-2023, the NRDC study found. 

In an ongoing rate case, Duke Energy is seeking to increase reliance on its Gibson and Cayuga plants in Indiana. These plants were responsible for $29 million and $7.6 million in uneconomic dispatch costs to consumers in 2023, according to RMI’s economic dispatch dashboard. 

“This has been a problem plaguing Indiana coal plants for many years, it’s costing our consumers in Indiana millions of dollars and it’s one of the factors driving rates higher and driving clean energy off the grid,” said Ben Inskeep, program director for Citizens Action Coalition in Indiana. “It’s a tale of utilities making bad decisions as part of their profit motive and then utility regulators failing to hold them accountable as they’re supposed to. Certainly utilities should be operating their plants efficiently and economically, and when they fail to do so, they shouldn’t be getting cost recovery.” 

Duke spokesperson Angeline Protogere said the study misses important context. 

“There are a lot of considerations that go into plant dispatch decisions, and the priority is always reliability of service and economics,” Protogere said. “We weren’t able to replicate the NRDC data, but it appears it’s based on incomplete information. For example, there are times when MISO calls on a unit because of grid reliability needs. There’s a bigger picture that’s not reflected here.”

Skewed markets

The NRDC study found that over three years across MISO, about 400 MW of wind power was curtailed in favor of power from coal plants generating at higher-than-market costs. 

Power producers bid into regional energy reverse-auctions for real-time and next-day power, offering the price for which they can produce their electricity. Grid operators like MISO and PJM are supposed to dispatch the power starting with the most affordable option, until demand is met. 

Even if vertically integrated utilities are not selling their power on the open market but rather serving their own customers, they still need to be dispatched by the grid operator to send their energy onto the grid. 

But under the rules for MISO and other grid operators, coal plants can “self-commit” to run for a given time period even if they cannot produce power below the market rate. The idea is that coal plants can’t ramp up or down quickly, so they may need to keep running at a certain level to be ready to provide more power when needed.  

If this relatively expensive coal power weren’t on the grid, more wind power would be purchased and demand for new renewables would likely be created. 

“That increment of power would be filled through the market selecting the next highest bidder,” providing “an accurate picture of what electricity should cost that gives a signal that incentivizes newer generation,” explained James Gignac, Union of Concerned Scientists Midwest senior policy manager. 

The lower the energy prices at a given time and the lower the demand, the worse the coal plant dispatch problem gets. Data from RMI and a 2020 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists shows that ratepayer losses due to uneconomic coal dispatch were lower in 2022, because Russia’s invasion of Ukraine caused natural gas prices to spike, making coal more competitive by comparison. Conversely, when energy demand plummeted in 2020 because of the pandemic, uneconomic dispatch of coal plants soared. 

Since 2015, the uneconomic dispatch of coal plants has cost Indiana ratepayers $1.9 billion and ratepayers nationwide $20 billion, according to RMI’s dashboard. 

The issue has real impacts on the growth of renewables, experts note. If the practice was prevented, market prices would be higher and there would be more incentive for renewable developers to build projects to sell their power on the open market. Meanwhile if vertically-integrated utilities were not allowed to recoup their costs for uneconomic dispatch, they would be motivated not to run coal plants and might decide to invest in building renewables instead, or at least buy wind power on the open market.    

“I’ve talked with [wind] developers who say they look at where coal plants self-commit uneconomically, and they avoid those transmission lines because they know they will be curtailed,” said Joseph Daniel, principal in RMI’s Carbon Free Electricity team and lead author of the Union of Concerned Scientists report. 

That report shows that if uneconomic coal dispatch was avoided, Indiana customers would save money — but not as much money as ratepayers in other states, because there is less wind power available around Indiana. Over time, a market unfettered by uneconomic coal plants might correct this situation. 

“The greatest immediate savings for customers from stopping uneconomic coal plant operations are in areas where there are existing low-cost resources such as wind power being curtailed by that behavior,” said Gignac. “If the replacement for the uneconomic coal generation is something like a relatively higher-cost gas plant, then the market clearing price is higher and customer savings are not as significant. However, that higher clearing price is a signal and an incentive for low-cost renewables to locate projects in that area and deliver further cost savings. 

“Removing the market distortion of uneconomic coal operations helps move us toward the cleaner, lower-cost energy system we need.” 

Solutions   

Studies show that coal plants that sell their power on the open market – known as “merchant” plants – rarely decide to operate when they are not getting market prices at least equal to their cost of operating – the way vertically-integrated or publicly-owned coal plants do when they know they can recoup their costs from ratepayers, without compensation from the market. In other words, merchant plants do not ask grid operators to be uneconomically dispatched. 

These merchant plants nonetheless seem to ramp up in time to operate when their power is needed, experts note, indicating that vertically-integrated plant operators in MISO are understating their ability to ramp up and down quickly, as noted by NRDC policy analyst Dana Ammann and other experts.  

“There’s so little incentive to ramp up quickly, because the market really accommodates their inflexibility,” said Ammann, lead author of the recent NRDC study. The vertically-integrated coal plants in MISO are “much less flexible than coal plants in other markets. In PJM you see coal plants turning on much more quickly, since the merchant plant operators are reliant on the price signals to turn a profit. They don’t have the guaranteed rate recovery, so they’re very responsive to price signals.” 

State utility commissions can prevent regulated utilities from recouping costs when coal plants are dispatched uneconomically. Michigan regulators did exactly this last year in a rate case for Indiana Michigan (I&M) Power, preventing the utility from passing on such costs for its share of the Rockport coal plant, located in Indiana.  

Daniel said Indiana regulators should likewise protect Indiana customers from paying for uneconomic power from the Rockport plant. The RMI dashboard shows that plant dispatched $142 million worth of such power last year. Meanwhile the Michigan ruling could be considered precedent for Michigan utilities like DTE and Consumers Energy in future rate cases. 

Ammann noted that states can also use the Integrated Resource Plan process to curb uneconomic dispatch, as Minnesota’s utility commission did when it recently decided that Otter Tail Power’s Coyote coal plant can only recoup costs during a designated power emergency.

“It’s an interesting approach for getting ratepayers basically off the hook for coal plants that aren’t retiring, that might still be economic to run for a small number of hours,” Ammann said. 

Grid operators like MISO may have the most important role to play in better managing markets, refusing to dispatch coal plants that aren’t necessary and doing deeper analysis to figure out exactly how much power is needed. Experts say multi-day markets – rather than just real-time and day-ahead ones – could better match supply with demand and avoid unnecessary coal plant dispatch. 

MISO’s Independent Market Monitor has recommended such measures, including de-committing coal power producers who sold into the day-ahead market if it turns out that others – including renewables – could sell power more efficiently in the real-time market once the time comes. 

“MISO works closely with our members, state regulators and our independent market monitor to ensure our markets are efficient,” said MISO spokesperson Brandon Morris. MISO’s June 2024 monthly operations report shows that in June, 18% of coal-fired power dispatched in the region was uneconomic self-committed dispatch. 

Experts note that fuel delivery contracts often include a minimum purchase, so utilities committed to buying a certain amount of fuel might as well burn the fuel even if they are not making a profit on the power. This might not have been an issue in years past when coal plants operated at high capacity most of the time, but as coal plants have become increasingly uncompetitive, the NRDC study notes, they are more likely to be committed to buy fuel they actually don’t need. Fuel contracts are usually of short duration, with 88% of those reviewed by the federal Energy Information Administration expiring by 2025, meaning there is ample opportunity for fuel delivery contracts to be revised, the NRDC study said. 

Such fuel contracts have meant massive stocks of unneeded coal piling up at Duke plants in Indiana, Inskeep said, forcing the company to burn it even if the power isn’t needed.

Protogere said the coal supplies are necessary, as “the goal is to ensure a reliable supply in an increasingly uncertain market. The aim is to manage volatility as well as maintain long-term supply reliability and security, so that we don’t have to resort to higher cost options in the market.”

Inskeep hopes state regulators deny requests by Duke and other utilities to increase coal-fired generation and the recouping of the costs from ratepayers. 

“The bottom line with this uneconomic dispatch situation is it means utilities are keeping their old expensive coal plants open longer than they should,” Inskeep said. “Utilities should be rapidly transitioning to a renewable energy-based portfolio of resources. Instead, utilities are feeling pressure to justify a lot of the bad economic decisions they’ve made in the past, foolish decisions to invest millions or even billions of dollars to keep these plants open.”

Indiana’s dependence on coal is costing ratepayers millions and holding back clean energy growth is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

As the federal government rolls out billions of dollars in subsidies to produce hydrogen fuel for use in vehicles, factories and power plants, a growing body of evidence is undercutting its clean credentials.

The U.S. Department of Energy recently awarded $7 billion to seven regional hydrogen production hubs, on top of a lucrative tax credit whose rules have become the subject of intense industry lobbying.

Meanwhile, scientists and advocates are warning that the government’s rush to scale hydrogen has not adequately considered the fuel’s climate risks, including the potential of leaked hydrogen to prolong the heat-trapping impact of methane and act as a greenhouse gas itself when it creates water vapor in the upper atmosphere.

Multiple studies have also found burning hydrogen in power plants increases formation of nitrogen oxides (NOx), a pollutant that causes smog, harms public health, and also contributes to warming.

Hydrogen is “an indirect global warming gas,” said David Schlissel, an analyst who has testified before the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and numerous state commissions on energy issues. “It increases the lifetime of methane in the atmosphere. And if you burn it in a power plant, you produce a lot of NOx, which leads to smog.”

A national coalition of environmental justice organizations are among those seeking to explain this science and demand more accountability for hydrogen’s complicated climate impacts. The Just Solutions coalition released a report last month by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research exploring the emissions and water use implications of increasing our reliance on hydrogen for fuel and power.

Similar concerns and findings were revealed in recent research by Cornell University scientists and by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, where Schlissel is an analyst.

Different uses, different concerns

When pure hydrogen is combined with oxygen in hydrogen fuel cells, electricity is produced and the only byproducts are water vapor and heat. Such fuel cells can be used as power plants – sending electricity to the grid – or they can power vehicles like trucks or locomotives. A hydrogen fuel cell car, for example, is essentially an electric car with a built-in charging source.

Pure hydrogen can also be burned to power electricity generation or industrial processes, similar to natural gas combustion but without directly creating pollution that causes climate change or harms public health. Hydrogen can be combined with natural gas or burned in converted natural gas power plants.

Pure hydrogen today is produced mostly from natural gas, resulting in carbon emissions. If that carbon is sequestered, it is known as blue hydrogen. If hydrogen is produced from water in a process powered by renewables, known as green hydrogen, theoretically few greenhouse gas or other emissions result.

But advocates have questioned the viability of large-scale carbon sequestration as well as the ripple effects of diverting renewable power to make hydrogen from water. 

And then there are the more complicated ways that hydrogen could increase greenhouse gas and public health-harming emissions, scientists and community leaders say.

Even if hydrogen production, combustion and fuel cell use does not directly release greenhouse gas, it could contribute to climate change because of the way it interacts with or affects other elements in the atmosphere.

If hydrogen is to be used for everything from power generation to fuel cells to industrial processes, it will need to be produced at hydrogen plants and then usually transported and stored. Similar to natural gas, there’s ample potential during this process for pure hydrogen to “leak” into the atmosphere. 

When that happens, pure hydrogen can have a complicated effect on the concentration of the powerful greenhouse gas methane in the atmosphere, an effect that hasn’t been adequately considered in federal policy, explains nuclear engineer Arjun Makhijani, co-author of the IEER report and author of Mending the Ozone Hole, by MIT Press.

‘Cleaning up’ methane

Single-bonded hydrogen and oxygen atoms are known as hydroxyl radicals (HO) that “clean up” methane and other gases in the atmosphere by oxidizing and transforming them. Hydroxyl radicals decompose methane this way. But when pure hydrogen (H₂) is released into the atmosphere, it also is broken down by these hydroxyl radicals, meaning they are less available to break down methane. 

Hydroxyl radicals are “the main cleanser of atmospheric chemical pollution, with a lifetime of about a second — it’s that active — compared to methane which has a half-life of (about) 9 years,” said Makhijani. When hydroxyl radicals are “used up” breaking down pure hydrogen, there are fewer of them to break down methane. 

This effect is considered to account for half of the global warming potential represented by hydrogen, the IEER study says. 

“If you’re producing hydrogen and it leaks a lot, you’re going to increase methane concentrations even if methane emissions do not increase,” said Makhijani. “It’s like you’re stopping up the toilet.” 

Also, when hydrogen is released into the atmosphere, some of it ends up transforming into water vapor in the stratosphere. While water vapor in the lower troposphere does not cause warming, vapor higher up in the atmosphere creates a greenhouse effect of its own. This is thought to account for about 30% of the warming potential of hydrogen, IEER reports. 

Meanwhile when combusted to produce electricity or power industrial processes, hydrogen burns very hot. That heat drives oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere to form NOx, a pollutant that creates smog and harms public health while also contributing to global warming. This effect is considered to represent about 20% of the warming potential of hydrogen, IEER reported.

When hydrogen is blended with natural gas for use in heating or electricity generation, the formation of NOx can be significantly greater than when gas alone is burned, multiple studies have found.

“NOx emissions are not the only reason why burning hydrogen to make electricity is a bad idea — it is also wildly inefficient and hard to do,” said Lauren Piette, a senior associate attorney in the clean energy program for Earthjustice. 

“Burning green hydrogen in a gas plant to make electricity is like using a Rube Goldberg machine to strike a match. You take all this zero-carbon energy from solar and wind, use it to power an energy-hungry electrolyzer to make hydrogen, then burn that hydrogen in a gas plant to make a significantly smaller amount of electricity than you started with.”

Hydrogen can be mixed with natural gas to be burned in turbines or to fire traditional steel-making blast furnaces. Many clean energy advocates consider this to be an inefficient use of hydrogen, since the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is relatively moderate and can be dwarfed by the lifecycle greenhouse emissions related to producing and transporting hydrogen. 

“You’re spending a lot of money to make hydrogen from natural gas and then using it for the same purpose as natural gas — so why not just burn the gas,” said Makhijani.

Estimating leakage

A significant part of this equation is the rate of leakage — of both natural gas and hydrogen during transport and storage.

Natural gas typically leaks from pipelines and storage tanks at an average rate of about 2.7% of its volume, according to a 2018 paper in Science. Other peer-reviewed studies have found similar leakage rates. However the Argonne National Laboratory’s GREET model, used by the federal government to define standards for clean hydrogen, assumes a 1% natural gas leakage rate. Experts have demanded that federal models and rules be adjusted to reflect higher expected leakage rates. 

“The government is playing a shell game — they have set up their GREET model to show that blue hydrogen with carbon capture is close to being clean,” said Schlissel. “That only works if you make extremely optimistic and unrealistic assumptions about upstream methane leakage.”

Hydrogen is a lighter, less concentrated gas, so it takes up more room — proportionate to its energy value — than natural gas.

This means squeezing enough hydrogen into a pipeline or storage tank to compensate for the natural gas it is replacing will increase the pressure on the infrastructure. And increased pressure means more likelihood of leaks. 

Because of its expansive volume, hydrogen is often compressed for storage or transportation in tanks; it can also leak during this process.

“A recent analysis by Columbia University has estimated current leakage rates at around 2.9%” for hydrogen, Abbe Ramanan, project director for the Clean Energy Group, noted in a 2023 article for Utility Dive. “However, the push to produce more hydrogen — and deploy it in more leak-prone use cases, like pipelines — could push economy-wide leakage rates to 29.6 million tons or 5.6% of all hydrogen produced by 2050.”

To qualify as “clean,” the Department of Energy says “well to gate” emissions from a kilogram of hydrogen must be equal or less to the equivalent of 4 kg of carbon dioxide.

IEER estimated that producing hydrogen from natural gas, or combining hydrogen with natural gas for use in turbines or furnaces, can only meet this standard if natural gas leakage is reduced below current average rates, and hydrogen leakage is also kept extremely low. 

“If you’re producing hydrogen and it leaks a lot, you’re going to increase methane concentrations even if methane emissions do not increase,” said Makhijani. “That means we shouldn’t be doing blue hydrogen, we shouldn’t even be talking about blue hydrogen, until we eliminate two-thirds of methane leaks and keep hydrogen leaks very low and fix problems with carbon capture and sequestration. That’s going to be a long time coming.” 

Scientists have also demanded that the government consider the rate that methane causes warming over 20 years in its models. Currently the GREET model uses a 100-year methane-impact metric, which makes methane’s potency appear lower in comparison to carbon dioxide than if it is measured on a 20-year scale. Since methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas in the short-term, the impacts of hydrogen production that reduces carbon dioxide emissions but leads to methane increases must be measured on a shorter time scale, the experts say.

The IEEFA in its 2023 paper found that if a 20-year methane impact standard is used and a “realistic” 2.5% leakage rate for methane, the carbon dioxide emissions-equivalent measure for hydrogen jumps to 10.5 to 11.4 kg, far above the 4 kg standard used to define clean hydrogen.

“IEEFA is extremely concerned that the current blue hydrogen hype is going to result in the funding of projects that exacerbate climate change and lock in our reliance on fossil fuels for decades,” the report says.

In fact, experts have found that blue hydrogen can be worse for the climate than gray hydrogen, which is made from natural gas without carbon sequestration.

“Far from being low carbon, greenhouse gas emissions from the production of blue hydrogen are quite high, particularly due to the release of fugitive methane,” says the abstract of a 2021 paper by Cornell scientists Robert Howarth and Mark Jacobson, who used a 3.5% natural gas leakage rate in their calculations. “While carbon dioxide emissions are lower, fugitive methane emissions for blue hydrogen are higher than for gray hydrogen because of an increased use of natural gas to power the carbon capture.”

Better solutions?

The Cornell scientists note that oil and gas companies including Shell and BP have heavily promoted hydrogen as a clean fuel, including through the Hydrogen Council, which also includes automakers, mining companies and other industries.

“From the industry perspective, switching from natural gas to blue hydrogen may be viewed as economically beneficial since even more natural gas is needed to generate the same amount of heat,” the Cornell authors write. “We see no way that blue hydrogen can be considered ‘green.’”

Schlissel, like other experts and advocates, said it’s possible that hydrogen produced from water, powered by renewable energy, could be a viable and emissions-reducing way to power steel-making, heavy transportation or other hard-to-decarbonize sectors. But he’s frustrated that the federal government is investing so heavily in hydrogen when other solutions exist. 

Along with all the emissions questions around blue hydrogen, he notes that it’s not yet clear that industries and power companies are ready to buy massive amounts of hydrogen. The DOE’s hydrogen hub plan includes a billion dollars to be spent to develop markets. 

“They’re spending a huge amount of money in a short amount of time, they’re keeping the public in the dark, when we have [more established clean] technologies at our fingertips,” Schlissel said. “Renewables, energy efficiency, battery storage growth is skyrocketing.”

Scientists warn a poorly managed hydrogen rush could make climate change worse is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

State and local governments across the country are finalizing plans and preparing applications for a $5 billion federal climate grant program under the Inflation Reduction Act.

The EPA’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grant (CPRG) program has already distributed almost half a billion dollars to participating states and metropolitan areas to develop or refine local climate action plans. Now, the agency is preparing to award $4.6 billion in competitive grants to help implement big ideas contained in those local plans. 

By March 1, states and metropolitan areas must submit “priority” climate action plans, based on community input and prioritizing environmental justice. Those plans set the parameters for the competitive grants of $2 million to $500 million, with applications due April 1.  

“The CPRG program is intentionally designed to be broad,” said Rich Damberg, senior policy advisor at the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, during a January webinar. “Confronting climate change requires making progress in all sectors of the economy — electric power, transportation, industry, buildings, waste and materials management, and agriculture and natural and working lands.” 

Forty-five states and nearly 70 metro areas are participating, including Milwaukee, Indianapolis, Chicago, Des Moines, Detroit, Grand Rapids, Iowa City and Cedar Rapids. 

Iowa, Florida, South Dakota, Wyoming and Kentucky each declined $3 million in federal funding for climate planning and are not eligible to compete for the larger grants. Wyoming initially joined the program but then Gov. Mark Gordon decided in the fall to withdraw. 

The EPA expects to award 30 to 115 implementation grants of different sizes. Tribes and territories meanwhile compete in a separate sector of the program, accounting for $300 million.

“We are in for an exciting year in 2024,” said Peter Hansel, special advisor for implementation of the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, during a January webinar. “We encourage all applicants to collaborate and coordinate as they’re developing the (priority climate action plans).”

The funding can support a new stand-alone measure, like a state agency creating a new decarbonization program, or it can expand work already underway, like a tribe adding more solar and storage to tribal buildings, Damberg explained. Applications can address any sector emitting greenhouse gases or removing carbon from the atmosphere. 

Plans and proposals are also meant to reflect the Biden administration’s Justice 40 initiative, the idea that at least 40% of program benefits flow to low-income and disenfranchised communities. 

While the implementation grants are meant for relatively short-term projects, the Climate Pollution Reduction Grant program also takes a long lens. Participants are supposed to develop a “comprehensive” climate action plan by fall 2025, with a status report due in 2027.

Milwaukee: Connecting silos

The Milwaukee area had a head start on their action plan thanks to the city of Milwaukee’s own robust Climate and Equity Plan, said Jennifer Sarnecki, principal transportation planner of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission.

She called the city’s plan a “foundational document” that the regional planning commission is building on for their priority climate action plan, working with surrounding cities including Waukesha, Wauwatosa, West Allis and Mequon, and four counties. Community organizations including Common Ground, the Ethnic and Diverse Business Coalition, the Hmong American Friendship Association and the Southside Organizing Center are also involved.

“We do have decades of experience with transportation and land use planning, environmental planning,” said Sarnecki. “The strength of the program EPA created is to bring all those topics together and allow us to work between silos. I applaud it because it’s giving us an opportunity to look at short-term shovel-ready projects that have already been identified and vetted, while also looking at providing a long-term framework for transformational change. As a planner, that excites me a great deal.”

Energy efficiency is central to Milwaukee’s Climate and Equity Plan and also will likely be featured in the regional climate plan, Sarnecki said. Electrifying transportation and buildings are also priorities. Milwaukee’s plan calls for reaching net zero emissions by 2050, with 45% reductions from 2018 levels by 2030. Transportation will account for almost half of the needed emissions reductions, according to the city’s analysis, with buildings and electricity generation accounting for 17-18% each.

As part of the process, the region is cataloging its greenhouse gas emissions and doing outreach. 

“The planning grant has been extremely helpful,” Sarnecki said. “At the staff level, it means being able to attend the technical forums that EPA has developed. We’re building that capacity, and it’s allowed for expanded coordination among our local municipalities. There’s opportunity to have more in-depth conversations with environmental justice populations around this topic, they provide the lived experience. And this is just the start, we’re looking forward to what comes next” with the comprehensive climate plan.

Iowa: Metropolitan collaboration

Renewable energy and Biden administration plans more generally have faced pushback in Iowa, where Republicans control both houses of the legislature and the governorship. While the state is among the five declining to participate in the CPRG program, metropolitan leaders are emphasizing cost savings, collaboration and capacity building, including in ways that benefit rural residents. 

Iowa City and Cedar Rapids, just 25 miles apart, are separate metropolitan areas for the purposes of the grant, but they are collaborating on their applications with unified plans, both spearheaded by the East Central Iowa Council of Governments (ECICOG), according to project manager Jennifer Fencl.

“We obviously want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” Fencl said, “but from the planning side and our organization side, this is really all about learning, going through this process, getting connected with the types of resources that will be needed in the future to set our communities up for, say, pursuing a solar project or changing out lighting.” 

Fencl said they used the $2 million total in planning grants to, among other things, work with the University of Iowa in developing and using an equitable engagement process to collect input from the more than 50 different communities that make up the area. They created a website to explain the process and ask for feedback. 

The regional council has long worked with those communities on issues including water quality, solid waste management, and recycling, but they haven’t focused as much on air quality. The grant could present an opportunity to do so, she said. 

They’ve used tools developed by the federal government to identify environmental justice areas, but Iowa’s rural landscape means they sometimes overlook marginalized populations since they draw on Area Median Income metrics that become less meaningful in regions with few residents. Hence, Fencl said, the planners are making sure to adequately study and reach out to rural communities and consider projects that will increase their well-being.

“We’ll focus on homeowners, renters and residents of manufactured housing,” she said, noting that leaders can work with the well-known energy assistance program LIHEAP to increase their outreach. “Very often renters and manufactured housing fall through the cracks with these kinds of programs.”

Their climate action plans — while not yet finished — are likely to prioritize energy efficiency and access to electrification, building on new ideas submitted by communities and existing successful programs, Fencl said. Iowa City, for example, has a pilot program helping renters access electric vehicle chargers. 

“This is not about any kind of strings attached or mandates or requirements, this is capacity-building,” Fencl said. “There are smaller communities that are interested but just don’t have the resources and connections to do what they want to do. This is a great opportunity to build that capacity.” 

Indianapolis: Calls for electrification

The agency spearheading the process for the Indianapolis area released its updated priorities in January, following a series of public events and online surveys. 

The list includes repurposing industrial sites for renewable energy, creating more parks, restoring degraded land, increasing energy efficiency of industry, and electrifying government buildings. 

Such priorities have not been embraced by Indiana state lawmakers, who have in recent years proposed legislation to bar municipalities from electrification-related measures and to protect the state’s coal industry. 

The dichotomy is an example of how federal grants like CPRG can help municipalities and state leaders do work that is not supported by the state’s legislature. Wisconsin — with a Democratic governor and sustainability-focused agencies, but a Republican-dominated legislature — faces a similar situation. The federal grant program can push climate-friendly directions that the legislature has refused to fund, noted Maria Redmond, director of the Wisconsin Office of Sustainability and Clean Energy. 

The Indianapolis area’s preliminary greenhouse gas emissions inventory showed that a third of emissions came from commercial electricity generation, a third from mobile combustion (like vehicles), and almost a quarter from stationary combustion. It also showed that Marion County, which includes most of Indianapolis, accounted for 45% of the emissions among 11 counties. 

The Central Indiana Regional Development Authority, which is leading the effort, emphasized creating high-quality and high-wage jobs and attracting “high caliber talent” as priorities, as noted in a presentation. 

The regional agency has convened stakeholder working groups focused on agriculture and open space, transportation and recreation, electricity and heat, and industrial and technological advancement. In September, representatives did outreach at farmers markets, the Indiana Latino Expo and Car Free Day Indy. 

A survey of 480 residents asked what actions by the government would be most valuable in helping reduce emissions. Twenty-four percent asked for funding for increasing home energy efficiency, and 23% wanted funding for residential solar panels. Significant numbers also prioritized composting service and increasing electric vehicle charging infrastructure. 

The survey found slightly different top investment priorities among the general public and environmental justice communities. The EJ respondents ranked improving public transit first by a comfortable margin, and renewable energy third. The general public ranked renewables first and public transit second. 

Chicago: Regional environmental justice 

As in Milwaukee, the Chicago area’s climate plan will build on the city of Chicago’s 2022 Climate Action Plan as well as the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus’ 2021 Climate Action Plan for the Chicago Region, the third such regional plan in the country. The mayors caucus is leading the process for the Chicago region, which includes the cities of Naperville and Elgin; Kenosha, Wisconsin; and part of Northwest Indiana. 

The 2021 regional plan calls for decarbonizing energy generation, electrifying and increasing the efficiency of buildings, expanding electric vehicle charging infrastructure, building transit-oriented development and generating electricity from wastewater biogas, among other measures. The plan was developed in collaboration with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and with guidance from the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy, which in 2019 chose the mayors caucus’ Greenest Region Compact as a pilot program on the potential of regional collaboration.  

Mayors Caucus director of environmental initiatives Edith Makra echoed other planners in noting that there are different and sometimes contradictory ways that communities can qualify for Justice 40 credit.  

“We looked at four tools that identify environmental justice communities in Illinois, and they don’t agree with one another,” said Makra, noting one estimate counted 151 while another said 113.

By all definitions, the Chicago area is home to many neighborhoods struggling for environmental justice. Making sure the climate action plan and grant proposals reflect their needs and hopes requires significant effort and outreach. 

“You can’t just call them up and say, ‘We have funding for you, take it,’” Makra noted. “You have to do the preparatory work.” 

While environmental justice issues in Chicago are well-known, the federal climate grant program has the potential to serve areas that get less attention and funding. 

“It has to be understood to be inclusive of regions beyond the city of Chicago,” said Makra. “There are huge regions in the South suburbs, Lake County, some of our older industrial cities like Elgin and Joliet that are all qualified disadvantaged communities. We’re really excited about the opportunities for further sharpening our knowledge and engaging the environmental justice communities. It’s a huge opportunity.”

The race heats up for massive IRA state and local climate funding program is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Almost 50 environmental justice groups on Tuesday sent a letter to leaders of the federally-funded Midwestern hydrogen hub, imploring them not to try to loosen requirements for tax incentives for hydrogen produced with clean energy.  

The U.S. Treasury in December published draft rules saying that to receive lucrative 45V tax credits for producing clean hydrogen, the energy used must not be diverted from the grid, but be “additional” energy created specifically to power the electrolysis process used to produce pure hydrogen from water. 

Environmental advocates are largely pleased with Treasury’s draft rules, which also say clean energy must be generated around the same time and near where it is used for hydrogen production, to reap incentives. But organizations are worried that industry groups are lobbying to weaken the draft rules, which are open for public comment through Feb. 26. 

The Midwest Alliance for Clean Hydrogen (MachH2), a coalition of industry and research groups that won up to $1 billion in Department of Energy hydrogen hub funding, has proposed to produce much “pink hydrogen” powered by nuclear energy from Illinois. Critics say this, as well as “green hydrogen” produced with solar and wind, could divert zero-emissions power from other users and hence prolong the lives of fossil-fuel-fired generators that fill the gaps. 

“If MachH2 imperils the achievement of our states’ climate goals, harms the health of our communities, and causes electricity price spikes that disproportionality impact low- and moderate-income households, it will face stiff opposition from our coalition and from communities that will bear the brunt of harmful, and avoidable, pollution,” says the letter from 47 organizations, including We the People of Detroit, Interfaith Power & Light, North Dakota Native Vote, StraightUp Solar, the Sierra Club, Eco-Justice Collaborative and Illinois People’s Action. 

MachH2 declined to comment for this story. 

Three pillars 

The environmental and justice groups praised the draft 45V rules for including “three pillars” the groups see as crucial to making sure “clean hydrogen” is truly clean. Those pillars mean clean hydrogen production tax credits will only be awarded if new clean energy is used to power the projects, and the clean energy can actually be delivered to the site of the electrolysis around the time it is needed. The draft rules say that to be considered “additional,” the energy source must have been built within 36 months before the hydrogen production goes online. 

Accounting known as hourly matching, which can be verified with Environmental Attribute Certificates, ensures that hydrogen production isn’t removing clean energy from the grid that could be used by consumers at times of high demand.

A 2023 study by researchers at Princeton University’s Center for Energy and the Environment modeled the emissions impact that hydrogen production by electrolysis would have in the western U.S., and found that all three “pillars” would be necessary to ensure overall emissions don’t exceed fossil fuel generation. 

The environmental justice organizations’ letter notes that the EPA has supported the Treasury department’s decision that induced emissions on the grid — caused by replacing electricity diverted for hydrogen production — should be counted as indirect emissions of hydrogen.  

“Backsliding on Treasury’s proposed rule… would lead to significant emissions increases from hydrogen production, in violation of 45V’s statutory requirements,” said the organizations’ letter. “It would also directly harm communities that are home to some of our states’ dirtiest power plants, which would run more to replace the zero-carbon energy diverted to hydrogen production.” 

Lauren Piette, a senior associate attorney in the clean energy program for Earthjustice, said, “The important thing now is to make sure Treasury holds the line against pressure to weaken the rules.” 

Treasury asked for comment on possible exemptions to the additionality requirement, including the possibility that existing nuclear and hydroelectric plants could receive the tax credit, or that existing plants could get the tax credit if it helps them avoid retirement. Advocates have called these possible changes in the rules “loopholes.” An analysis by the Rhodium Group found these exemptions would generally increase greenhouse gas emissions, compared to modeling under the rules without exemptions. 

“Treasury needs to reject the loopholes industry is demanding, which would create enormous subsidies for dirty hydrogen, lock in more fossil fuel production and use, and increase dangerous health and climate-harming pollution,” Piette said. “Especially damaging would be any loopholes to the incrementality requirement, which are based on industry’s speculative claims about retirement risk, curtailment, and modeling. Such loopholes would reward the hydrogen industry for siphoning critical zero-carbon energy from the grid, creating a massive power demand that would be filled by our dirtiest power plants – the ones that should be retiring, not ramping up.”

The letter charges that if the three pillars aren’t mandates for receiving tax incentives, the electricity diverted from the grid to hydrogen production will cause consumers’ energy bills to spike. They point to cryptocurrency mining as an example of how this phenomenon has played out. 

“Cryptomining, which is subject to minimal constraints and requirements, has increased utility bills by tens to hundreds of millions of dollars for households and businesses in upstate New York and led to costly grid strains in Texas,” the letter says. 

Industry arguments 

BP’s Whiting oil refinery in Northwest Indiana is a focal point of the proposed Midwest hydrogen hub, as the company plans to ramp up hydrogen production at the site and provide it to regional users. BP asked the Treasury department to allow hydrogen made from existing generation to receive tax credits. 

“We encourage the IRS and Treasury to adopt flexible criteria on ‘additionality’ especially at this nascent stage,” said BP America’s comment to the IRS. “Strict additionality rules requiring electrolytic hydrogen to be powered by new renewable energy is not practical, especially in the early years, and will severely limit development of hydrogen projects.” 

BP and other members also argued against the requirement for hourly matching of renewable energy generation to use in hydrogen production, arguing instead for yearly matching. The draft rules currently allow for yearly matching until 2028, then hourly matching becomes mandatory. 

“Stringent requirements such as hourly zero-emission matching have the potential to devastate the economics of clean hydrogen production,” said BP’s comment. “Moreover, such restrictive requirements are likely not practical or feasible in these early stages. If a green hydrogen production facility can only produce during hours when wind and solar are available, the low utilization rate will dramatically increase the price of the hydrogen produced.” 

Bloom Energy Corporation, which manufactures electrolyzers, also said that adequate technology does not exist to timestamp energy generation and use in order to ensure that clean energy is generated when it is needed for hydrogen production. 

“Since electrolyzers will comprise a very small percentage of the overall EAC-qualifying energy produced for many years to come, there is ample time for those state, regional and voluntary bodies to work through their stakeholder processes and make any changes as needed to adjust those systems so as to avoid unintended outcomes,” said Bloom Energy in its comment, referring to Environmental Attribute Certificates.

The Princeton study noted that hourly matching can add considerable costs to hydrogen production, but said the 45V tax credit would be lucrative enough to compensate for those costs while driving the market development of better hourly matching mechanisms.  

Constellation Energy, owner of Illinois’s nuclear plants, also supported a mandate for hourly matching.  

“Setting an expectation of hourly matched clean energy will provide a market signal for the clean energy investments needed to further drive decarbonization in the power sector,” said the nuclear company’s comment. 

But Constellation is asking for exemptions to additionality, asking the government to decide that hydrogen made with behind-the-meter generation from existing plants qualifies for tax credits. The MachH2 hydrogen hub proposal calls for an electrolyzer on the site of Constellation’s LaSalle nuclear plant in Illinois, which could provide behind-the-meter electricity. But this electricity would still represent clean power that otherwise could have been sent to the grid, critics say. 

Constellation also argued against adding carbon emissions related to the nuclear supply chain when calculating hydrogen’s lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. 

“Measuring carbon content for nuclear fuel is not typically done by the mining, enrichment, fabrication and transport vendors in the nuclear fuel supply chain, and it would be extremely cumbersome, costly, and labor intensive to impose these requirements on said vendors,” Constellation said.

An EJ platform for hydrogen 

The letter to MachH2 comes as grassroots groups and environmental organizations are increasingly organizing around still murky but well-funded plans for hydrogen to be used in everything from power generation to steelmaking to transportation, including as part of the seven federally-funded hubs. 

On February 1, the national collaborative Just Solutions Collective released an Environmental Justice Platform on hydrogen, demanding strict limits on the type of hydrogen production and use that is incentivized as part of a clean energy shift. 

The organization says hydrogen production from natural gas, and hydrogen produced with power from the grid, should be “ruled out” since “fossil fuel-based hydrogen fails to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” by many estimates. They also demanded strict safety protocols around new hydrogen development, strident protections for water resources, protections around chemicals added to hydrogen fuels, and transparency in all hydrogen-related projects. 

Just Solutions leaders hope their platform influences policymakers and also helps community groups more effectively weigh in on plans for expanding hydrogen, including as the U.S. Department of Energy invests $7 billion in the seven hydrogen hubs nationwide. 

“The framework is meant to be a resource for climate and environmental justice advocates so they can advance clean energy technology that meaningfully addresses the climate crisis and to stop false solutions from taking root in our communities,” Just Solutions senior fellow and strategist Sylvia Chi said in a January webinar. 

Environmental justice organizations in other parts of the country have also opposed hydrogen hub plans. Last summer Indigenous, environmental justice, and youth groups urged the Biden administration not to fund a hydrogen hub based in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, and that proposal was not among the seven selected.   

“DOE is saying a lot of the right things, but there is widespread concern that environmental justice is going to be set off to the side and figured out later, after contracts are signed and projects are approved,” said Piette. “We have yet to hear a clear answer on whether communities will be able to say no to a Hub project. DOE needs to give its own guidance teeth and hold Hubs accountable to local communities, especially those already experiencing cumulative burdens of decades of fossil fuel pollution.”

Excess energy

The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) produced a report released in January commissioned by the Just Solutions Collective.

The report points to a pilot program in New York state where the Nine Mile nuclear plant is powering hydrogen production. While the nuclear power is zero emissions, it displaces energy from the grid that, when replaced by New York’s natural gas-heavy energy mix, increases overall greenhouse gas emissions. 

IEER argues that the ideal place for zero-emissions-produced hydrogen is in areas like California and Texas where there’s often much more wind or solar power available than the grid can handle. These renewables are regularly curtailed, or kept off the grid, simply going to waste. A possible exemption to the additionality requirement for tax credits that Treasury has floated includes existing generation during times that renewables would be curtailed. 

The IEER report estimates that curtailed renewables at current levels could produce 34,000 tons of hydrogen annually in California, and 150,000 tons in Texas. And the availability of renewables in those and other states is only expected to increase. 

The environmental justice organizations’ letter similarly says that in the Midwest, MachH2 could successfully procure new renewables to power green hydrogen production. 

“The MachH2 hub is one of the best situated in the country, able to take advantage of excellent wind and solar resources in the Midwest,” the letter says. “With the anticipated buildout of new renewable energy in this region, the projects funded by the hub will have no difficulty procuring cost-competitive, new, hourly-matched power from the proposed deliverability zone to claim the 45V tax credit.”

Environmental justice groups ask feds to resist weakening rules on clean hydrogen tax credit  is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Indiana environmental and citizen groups say a lack of transparency for a planned regional hydrogen fuel hub is stoking fears that the project will primarily benefit polluting heavy industries – though the federally funded program is meant to be part of a clean energy transition.

“If we don’t get this right, if this hydrogen hub program doesn’t unfold in a way that’s equitable and different from the extractive energy programs of the past, this will just be another handout for fossil fuels that harms communities,” said Lauren Piette, senior associate attorney for the environmental law firm Earthjustice.

The U.S. Department of Energy last year awarded $1 billion to the Midwest Alliance for Clean Hydrogen’s “MachH2,” a consortium of companies, universities, and other entities in Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan, to ramp up hydrogen fuel production in the region. The funding is part of a broader effort to scale up and bring down the cost of the clean-burning gas, with the DOE spending $7 billion to fund seven hydrogen hubs nationwide. 

Since that announcement, though, environmental and citizen groups say they have received little information or outreach from MachH2 organizers. In that vacuum, based on what little information is publicly available, concerns are growing that the hub will perpetuate polluting heavy industry in Northwest Indiana and help drive construction of controversial carbon dioxide pipelines.

“Transparency is a demand,” said Chris Chyung, executive director of Indiana Conservation Voters. “To listen to farmers and environmental justice communities is also a demand of Hoosiers who are so frustrated and tired of being the Midwest’s dumping ground and Chicago’s dumping ground.” 

Backers say the large-scale production of hydrogen in the Midwest could mean revolutionary decarbonization for regional industry and transportation, and create more than 13,000 jobs. 

“We’re looking at some heavy industry — steel, glass, concrete,” said Neil Banwart, chief integration officer for MachH2. “From the transportation perspective, we’re looking at heavy-duty long-haul trucking, and in the longer term certain marine applications, maybe rail — fuel cells on locomotives, agricultural production of fertilizer.”

Environmental and citizens groups agree that hydrogen will have an important role in the clean energy economy, offering a clean-burning substitute for fossil fuels in certain industrial and transportation applications where electrification isn’t feasible. But they worry a focus on “blue hydrogen” — made with natural gas and carbon sequestration — will only keep polluters in business longer and distract from cleaner, cheaper climate solutions. 

“It’s at the point now where everything is going to be hydrogen. We’re going to be using hydrogen to make electricity and melt metals and fly planes and make concrete and run boats. It’s a bit of a gold rush,” said Kerwin Olson, executive director of Citizens Action Coalition. “We need to figure out what are the best uses of hydrogen, and what are the environmental impacts going to be of those choices.”

Community engagement 

Banwart said MachH2 is developing a community engagement plan, as required by the Energy Department, and will launch the process once negotiations with the DOE are complete and the hub’s first phase begins later this year. MachH2 has said their process will include community advisory councils, town halls and an online dashboard. Already, Banwart said, the hub organizers have held three state-specific community meetings and the DOE hosted a community meeting shortly after the announcement that MachH2 was chosen to receive funds. 

It is unclear if there will be public comment periods or other chances for stakeholder review of specific hydrogen hub proposals. But most projects would need to get operating permits and other approvals from state, local and federal agencies.

“It’s extremely secretive,” Citizens Action Coalition program director Ben Inskeep said, “We’re really in the dark on a lot of the details.” 

MachH2’s slide deck says the program will include $30 million in funding for startup companies, with a focus on inclusivity. Diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility will be prioritized in hiring, and $15 million will fund wraparound services and a workforce training program, MachH2 has promised.

But critics say environmental justice can only be achieved through a much deeper look at the plans for the hydrogen hub, which could expand to neighboring states beyond Indiana, Illinois and Michigan.

“We were very disturbed to hear DOE say the majority of hub projects would be located in disadvantaged communities, as if that was a good thing,” said Piette. “Based on the very limited information we have, MachH2 could be environmentally disastrous. It could increase carbon dioxide emissions, on top of that it could add pollution in already overburdened communities.”

Blue hydrogen

Already, the BP Whiting oil refinery in Northwest Indiana produces large amounts of hydrogen from natural gas, known as gray hydrogen. If the carbon emissions from such hydrogen production are captured and sequestered, it is known as blue hydrogen. (Hydrogen produced from water through an electrolysis process, powered by renewable energy, is known as green hydrogen.) 

BP is making major investments worldwide in both blue and green hydrogen. The company has announced its plans to produce hydrogen from natural gas in Northwest Indiana and capture the carbon, piping it to proposed sequestration sites in the state. The hydrogen could be used for local industry as well as sustainable aviation fuel, company officials have said.

A focal point of the hub will likely be BP’s refinery. MachH2’s slide deck notes a “Northern Indiana clean H2 node” spearheaded by BP among nine proposed projects.  

Multiple groups oppose BP’s plans, and the organization Just Transition Northwest Indiana has a campaign called “No False Solutions,” opposing the BP project and urging supporters to “stop the hydrogen hub rush.”  

Many Indiana citizens are also deeply opposed to carbon dioxide pipelines and sequestration, fearing impacts on farmland and danger if carbon dioxide leaks. The demand for those types of projects could rise thanks to new federal incentives. 

The Inflation Reduction Act offers lucrative subsidies for carbon dioxide capture and sequestration, under tax code section 45Q. This could incentivize blue hydrogen production that involves carbon sequestration, with the 45Q tax incentives potentially dwarfing funds received through the hydrogen hub. 

The company Wabash Valley Resources has faced massive community outrage for its plans to use hydrogen in fertilizer production and sequester carbon in Indiana. Wabash Valley Resources has a federal grant for hydrogen technology demonstration.

“It’s all a messy web of hydrogen and carbon dioxide at this point,” said Piette. 

Clean energy advocates generally support green hydrogen, but they and lawmakers have called for clarity and regulations around how renewables used to power hydrogen production are obtained and classified. Ideally, they say, hydrogen production leads to new renewable development. If hydrogen production uses renewable energy that otherwise would flow onto the grid for consumers or power other industries, it is not leading to overall carbon reductions.

The U.S. Treasury Department is currently developing rules governing how hydrogen production receives tax credits for using renewable energy under tax code section 45V. Treasury draft rules require that the production must lead to “incremental” increases in renewable generation to receive tax credits.

“Without safeguards, 45V risks creating a shell game in power markets, where existing clean generation gets nominally claimed by hydrogen electrolyzers but the resulting gap in grid capacity is backfilled by fossil fuel generation,” says an October 2023 letter from U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and seven other senators to the Treasury Department. “In such a scenario, the program would undermine climate progress and lead to the production of hydrogen with a true emissions intensity higher than even its conventional fossil fuel-derived counterpart.”

Banwart said that MachH2 will include blue, green and “pink” hydrogen production. Pink hydrogen, powered by nuclear energy, would likely be located in Illinois near one of the state’s nuclear plants. It is not yet determined where and exactly how green hydrogen would be produced in MachH2’s area, Banwart said.

Green steel

There’s widespread agreement that one of the most promising uses of hydrogen is to power heavy industrial processes like those used in steel production. 

Cleveland Cliffs’ Northwest Indiana steel mill near the BP refinery has announced plans to inject hydrogen in its blast furnaces, combined with fossil fuels, and the company is building a hydrogen pipeline to its fence-line. Cleveland Cliffs has said it will procure hydrogen from MachH2 projects. 

Environmental advocates have widely embraced the concept of “green steel,” but usually referring to a specific steel-making process known as Direct Reduced Iron (DRI) that uses hydrogen produced with clean energy. Injecting hydrogen along with fossil fuels in traditional blast furnaces does relatively little to reduce carbon emissions, critics argue, especially if that hydrogen is produced with natural gas. 

“Even in the best-case scenario this is not coming close to the scale of emissions reductions we need to decarbonize steel,” said Inskeep. “Their continued investments in keeping these facilities open are not signaling the pivot they need to make” to DRI steelmaking.

DRI technology is still in its infancy worldwide, but industry sources have pegged it as the most promising way to decarbonize the sector.  Conversion to DRI could be extremely costly but not hard to imagine, said Hilary Lewis, steel director at Industrious Labs, an organization devoted to decarbonizing heavy industry. Cleveland Cliffs has a DRI plant in Toledo, which it bills as “the most modern and efficient direct reduction plant in the world.” 

“Steel technology has changed over time,” said Lewis. “We’ve gone through different types of steelmaking. A hundred years ago it was open hearth steelmaking, the precursor to blast furnaces. That was a big technology transition. The steel industry would point to electric arc furnaces (as another innovation). The steel industry goes through technology changes.”

A report by Citizens Action Coalition and American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy notes that automakers are increasingly demanding low-carbon metals in pursuit of their own sustainability goals, and Indiana — home to a quarter of U.S. steel production — risks losing market share if steel mills don’t decarbonize.

“The main application [of hydrogen] we want to see is cleaner steel production, and that depends on cleaner hydrogen as well,” said Chyung. 

Advocates worry hydrogen hub will fuel environmental injustice in Northwest Indiana is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.