GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. UH, I'D
LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR COMING TO
THE FIRST HEARING OF THE SELECT
COMMITTEE ON BUILDING A ZERO
CARBON HYDROGEN ECONOMY. UM
TODAY'S HEARING IS BOTH A
CONTINUATION AND A BEGINNING OF
A DIALOGUE ON THE ISSUES OF
HYDROGEN. UM WE'VE BEEN WORKING
ON, UH, HYDROGEN FOR, UH, I'VE
BEEN WORKING ON HYDROGEN. ALMOST
SINCE THE MOMENT I JOINED, UH,
THE ASSEMBLY IN TERMS OF TRYING
TO MOVE THIS IMPORTANT TOPIC
FORWARD FOR CALIFORNIA. HYDROGEN
HAS LOTS OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
FOR HARD TO DECARBONIZE SECTORS
OF OUR ECONOMY, UH, PARTICULARLY
CLEAN AND MEDIUM HEAVY DUTY
TRANSPORTATION SECTOR AND, OF
COURSE, THE ISSUE OF A LONG TERM
ENERGY STORAGE. UM, WE BEST
VIEWED. I MEAN, WE'RE BEST
SERVED IF HYDROGEN COMPETES WITH
BATTERY TECHNOLOGY, UH, OUT
THERE AND MANY PLACES IN SOME
PLACES, HYDROGEN IS CERTAINLY
GOING TO BE SUPERIOR IN OTHER
PLACES. BATTERY TECHNOLOGY MANY
PLACES. WILL BE ABLE TO WORK
TOGETHER. UM SO I THINK IT'S A
REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE MAKE
SURE WE REALIZE THE PROMISE OF
HYDROGEN FOR CALIFORNIA. UM AND,
UM, WE BEGAN THESE BEGINNING
STEPS OF TRYING TO IMPLEMENT A
NEW ERA OF HYDROGEN PRODUCTION.
UM WE KNOW THAT, UH, HYDROGEN
HAS CURRENTLY IS BEING PRODUCED
IN CALIFORNIA BUT WITH FAIRLY
DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNTS OF
ADMISSIONS, AND WE HOPE THAT WE
CAN POSITION CALIFORNIA SO THAT
WE GET ALL THE BENEFITS AND
MINIMIZE THE, UH, THE CHALLENGES
ASSOCIATED WITH HYDROGEN
PRODUCTION. AND WITH THAT WE'VE
GOT, UH, I THINK A VERY ROBUST
AGENDA FOR TODAY. WE HAVE A TIME
CONSTRAINT, WITH MANY MEMBERS
HAVING TO LEAVE. UH WE ARE,
UNFORTUNATELY, HAVE BEEN
CONSTRAINED TO HAVING OUR SELECT
COMMITTEE HEARINGS, EITHER
BEFORE SESSIONS ON MONDAY OR
AFTER SESSIONS ON THURSDAY. UM
WHICH REQUIRES US TO BE MORE
EFFICIENT THAN UM THAN NORMAL,
UH, IN OUR HEARING, SO WE HAVE A
15 MINUTE OVERVIEW AND WE REALLY
APPRECIATE IT. AND IF, UH UH
LUCAS, UH, WARN, UH, FROM THE
EUROPEAN UNION FELLOW WOULD COME
FORWARD AND WE ALSO HAVE DOCTOR
JESSE JENKINS OF PRINCETON
UNIVERSITY JUST TO GIVE US UH,
AN INITIAL OVERVIEW. UH AND
WE'LL GO WITH, UM UH FIVE
MINUTES FOR YOU. UM UH, LUCAS
AND THEN UH, DOCTOR, UH UH.
DOCTOR JENKINS, UH, YOU KNOW,
UH, WILL BE, UH, WILL FOLLOW YOU
, UH, ON THE SAME SO WELCOME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH HERE FOR
BEING HERE. A FELLOW SERVING AT
YEAH. YES YOU SEE DAVIES AT THIS
POINT. THANK YOU, LUCAS. I THINK
YOU'RE GONNA NEED TO, UH I. I
STILL DON'T HAVE YOU THERES
SERGEANTS. CAN YOU HELP US THERE
WITH THAT? UH HERE WE GO. LET'S
TRY THAT NOW. HELLO. THERE YOU
GO. GOOD MORNING. UH, THANK YOU
FOR HAVING ME. UM I'M LUCAS
VANNA. AND INDEED I'M A FELLOW
EUROPEAN UNION FELLOW AT UC
DAVIS FOR THIS YEAR. UM LIKE
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. I'M BORN
IN AUSTRIA AND I HAVE AN
INTEREST IN HYDROGEN. BUT
OTHERWISE MY DAY JOB IS BEING AN
OFFICIAL OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMISSION IN BRUSSELS THAT YOU
COULD COMPARE TO THE DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY IN WASHINGTON. IN MY
LAST JOB. THERE HAS BEEN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE EUROPEAN
HYDROGEN GRID. I'D LIKE TO GIVE
YOU A QUICK OVERVIEW OF EUROPEAN
HYDROGEN POLICY BEFORE DOING
THAT. MAYBE IS SOMEBODY CHANGING
THE SLIDES? THANK YOU. YOU CAN
GO TO THE NEXT PLACE. UM I'D
LIKE TO JUST TAKE A STEP BACK
AND SAY WHAT IS THE EUROPEAN
UNION? JUST A QUICK REMINDER. WE
ARE 27 MEMBER STATES TO DELEGATE
POWERS TO BRUSSELS. THE BIG
DIFFERENCE. IN TERMS OF ENERGY
POLICY TO THE U S¼. WE ARE
HIGHLY ENERGY IMPORT DEPENDENT.
I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS
DIFFERENT IN THE UNITED STATES,
WHICH ALSO MEANS FOR US.
RENEWABLE ENERGY IS EVEN MORE
IMPORTANT THAN FOR YOU FOLKS
HERE, UH, WE REALLY NEED TO BE
ABLE TO PRODUCE AS MUCH AS WE
CAN ON OUR ON OUR TERRITORY AND
THAT CANNOT BE FOSSIL. I ASK YOU
TO BRING THAT MICROPHONE AS
CLOSE AS YOU CAN. SURE I'M
SORRY. YES, OF COURSE. AND I'M
SORRY FOR MY GERMAN ACCENT. UM
NOW IN TERMS OF THIS JOURNEY WE
ARE ON YOU CAN SWITCH TO SLIDE,
PLEASE. WE ARE ON A SIMILAR
TRAJECTORY AS CALIFORNIA OR THE
U S¼. WE ARE TRANSFORMING OUR
ENERGY SYSTEM TOWARDS A 2050
DECARBONISATION AMBITION. HOW DO
WE DO THAT? WE START FROM BEING
AS ENERGY EFFICIENT AS WE CAN.
WE TRY TO ELECTRIFY WHAT MAKES
SENSE AND THEN FOR CERTAIN
SECTORS AS THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
HAS ALREADY UNDERLINED FOR HEAVY
DUTY TRANSPORT, LONG HAUL AND
CERTAIN INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS.
LOW CARBON FUELS LIKE AND CAN
PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE AND WE'RE
NOT TALKING ABOUT NICHE HERE. WE
EXPECT THAT IN 2050 15% OF OUR
ENERGY BANKS WILL COME FROM
HYDROGEN, SO THAT'S AN IMPORTANT
QUANTITY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
HOW MUCH HYDROGEN WE USE IN
EUROPE ABOUT 8 MILLION TONS
THAT'S NOT YET CLEAN. THAT'S
STILL GRAY HYDROGEN. MOSTLY NEXT
SLIDE, PLEASE. AND WHEN WE TALK
ABOUT THE POLICY CHALLENGES FOR
HYDROGEN, WE HAVE A FEW THAT WE
HAVE BEEN TRYING TO ADDRESS
SINCE 2020 WHEN WE'VE PUT OUT
OUR FIRST HYDROGEN STRATEGY,
FIRST OF ALL, TALKING ABOUT
MARKETS AND, UH, THEIR FRAMEWORK
. WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT ACTORS
KNOW WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO.
WHO CAN OPERATE? HOW
REMUNERATION TAKES PLACE AND
ALSO HOW WE PLAN INFRASTRUCTURE
JOINTLY WITH ELECTRICITY
INFRASTRUCTURE. TALKING ABOUT
DEMAND. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT HYDROGEN CONTRIBUTES IN THE
SECTORS WHERE IT HAS THE MOST
IMPACT. AND THAT ARE NOT, UH,
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE
SHOULD USE EVERYWHERE IN ALL
PARTS OF THE ECONOMY. SPEAKING
ABOUT HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
SUPPLY. THE ELECTRICITY GRID IN
EUROPE, AS IN THE US IS UNDER
HEAVY STRAIN, AND WE MUST MAKE
SURE THAT WHEN WE PRODUCE
HYDROGEN FROM RENEWABLE SOURCES,
WE DO NOT ADD STRAIN TO THE
ALREADY CHALLENGED GRID. THAT'S
WHAT WE TRY TO DO WITH OUR
RULES. INVESTMENT IS A KEY
CONCERN IN THE HYDROGEN SPHERE.
UM, WE WILL NEED A MASSIVE
AMOUNT OF PRIVATE INVESTMENTS IN
PARTICULAR. WHAT WE TRY TO DO
WITH PUBLIC POLICY IS PUT IN
PLACE THE RIGHT INCENTIVES THAT
INCENTIVIZE PRIVATE INVESTORS TO
CHIP INTO THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY,
DEVELOPMENT COSTS AND TECHNOLOGY
. WELL, THERE WILL BE A LOT OF R
AND I RESEARCH AND INNOVATION
NEEDED AND WE WILL NEED TO BRING
THE COSTS OF HYDROGEN DOWN
BECAUSE AT THE MOMENT THERE IS A
HIGH PREMIUM ON CLEAN HYDROGEN
IN THE EU, BUT EVERYWHERE IMPORT
DEPENDENCY, VERY IMPORTANT
CHALLENGE FOR US LESS IMPORTANT
FOR YOU. SO WHAT I WILL NOW
FOCUS ON ARE THE FIRST FOUR
POINTS AND I WILL LEAVE FIVE AND
SIX ASIDE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
JUST A QUICK OVERVIEW. WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT 8 MILLION METRIC
TONS OF HYDROGEN PLANNED IN THE
EU BY 2030 NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A
SIMILAR QUANTITY OF HYDROGEN
THAT SHOULD BE PRODUCED. IF THE
PROJECTS PICK UP AS WE HOPE WE
ARE MOSTLY TALKING ABOUT, UM HE
FEELS AMMONIA AND CERTAIN
INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS. THERE IS
LESS DIRECT TRANSPORT USE OF
HYDROGEN TO YOU FORECAST AT THE
MOMENT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. YOU
WILL SEE ON THIS SLIDE, A HOST
OF LEGISLATION AND POLICIES THAT
ARE IN PLACE IN THE EU AND I
WILL NOT BORE YOU WITH THE
DETAILS, BUT JUST LET ME FOCUS
ON A FEW THINGS WHEN IT COMES TO
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION. OUR MAIN
FOCUS HAS BEEN PUTTING IN PLACE
RULES THAT MAKE SURE THAT
RENEWABLE HYDROGEN IS PRODUCED
IN A WAY THAT'S MOST SUSTAINABLE
AND THE FAMOUS THREE PILLARS
THAT ARE ALSO VERY MUCH
DISCUSSED IN THE U S¼. I MEAN,
ARE ARE BASICALLY THE THAT'S
WHAT I THOUGHT. THE BLUEPRINT
THERE WE HAVE. I JUST CONTINUE.
I DON'T I DON'T KNOW WHAT SHE
MEANT. OK WE HAVE COVERED THE
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION BY THE
EUROPEAN EMISSIONS TRADING.
THAT'S A BIT LIKE THE CAP AND
TRADE IN CALIFORNIA AND ALSO
OTHER, UH, INCENTIVES. NEXT
SLIDE, PLEASE. TALKING ABOUT
HYDROGEN DEMAND, BUT I WOULD ASK
YOU TO RETAIN IS THE EU APPROACH
IS FOCUSED ON BINDING TARGETS.
THAT'S PROBABLY A BIG DIFFERENCE
COMPARED TO THE U S¼, BUT WE
REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT AN
INDUSTRY AND IN TRANSPORT MEMBER
STATES ARE OBLIGED TO HAVE A
CERTAIN SHARE OF RENEWABLE
HYDROGEN OF HYDROGEN PRODUCED,
UM, BASED ON UM UM, RENEWABLE
ELECTRICITY IN THEIR MIX, AND
THAT'S UH, THAT'S THE
CORNERSTONE OF OUR APPROACH
THERE WITH A PARTICULAR FOCUS
AND SUPPORT FOR THE MARITIME AND
AVIATION SECTORS. NEXT SLIDE,
PLEASE. WE'VE ALSO PUT IN PLACE
SOME SOME MARKET AND
INFRASTRUCTURE. UM UM, RULES AND
PLANNING NEXT NEXT. AND THERE IS
A HOST OF SUPPORT INSTRUMENTS
COMPARABLE DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT
IN THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT, AND
MOST RECENTLY, WE'VE DONE AN
AUCTION FOR A FIXED PREMIUM FOR
RENEWABLE HYDROGEN. IT WAS VERY
SUCCESSFUL NEXT SLIDE. AND
THAT'S A SLIDE. I WOULD LIKE TO
FINISH ON, UM WHAT'S IMPORTANT,
I THINK FOR YOU TO RETAIN IS
THAT IN THE EU? WE ARE THERE, OF
COURSE, LIKE HERE DIFFERENT WAYS
OF PRODUCING SUSTAINABLE
HYDROGEN. YOU CAN DO IT BASED ON
A BIOMASS YOU CAN DO IT ON BASED
ON RENEWABLE SOURCES, EXCLUDING
BIOMASS, UM, AND THAT'S MOSTLY
WIND AND SOLAR PRODUCTION, AND
THAT'S WHERE THE THREE PILLARS
KICK IN IN THE EUROPEAN UNION.
AND YOU CAN, OF COURSE, ALSO
PRODUCE THESE BASED ON LOW
CARBON FUELS. FOR THAT THE RULES
ARE STILL TO COME IN THE EU
WHAT'S IMPORTANT FOR US?
SUSTAINABLE HYDROGEN NEEDS TO
HAVE 70% LESS EMISSIONS THAN ITS
FOSSIL COMPETITORS. IF YOU WANT
AND. I THINK WITH THAT I WOULD
LIKE TO FINISH AND, UM I'M
INTERESTED IN GETTING YOUR
QUESTION. THANK YOU. GREAT.
THANK YOU. WE'RE GONNA HEAR FROM
, UH DOCTOR JENKINS, AND THEN
WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS.
UH, BY THE COMMITTEE, UH, JUST
ROUND OUT THIS FIRST PANEL, UM
AND, UH, DOCTOR JENKINS, ARE YOU
AVAILABLE? YEAH. CAN YOU HEAR ME
IN THE CHAMBER? YES, WE CAN.
WELCOME. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO JOIN YOU
TODAY. WILL YOU BE PRESENTING
WITH US THERE OR SHOULD I SHARE
A SCREEN HERE? OK, GO AHEAD, I
WILL SHARE.
ONE MOMENT. IF YOU HAVE MY
SLIDES ON HANDS THERE. I'M
ACTUALLY A BIT EASIER. IT LOOKS
LIKE THEY'RE GIVING ME A ISSUE
WITH SHARING HERE AND THEY QUIT
AND REJOIN TO DO SO. HAVING
TROUBLE. HERE. WE HAVE BUT ALL
RIGHT. I'LL BE BACK MOMENTARILY,
THEN. IF YOU CANNOT GET THOSE
UP, WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO
PROCEED WITHOUT THE SLIDES. WE
CAN'T GET THEM UP FROM THIS END
HERE. SERGEANT, CAN YOU SORRY.
APOLOGIES. GIVE ME ONE MOMENT.
IT. BUT YES. 19. TOGETHER. YOU
HAVE. YOU HAVE THIS ONE? THESE
ARE SLIDES.
WHERE ARE WE STAFF? OK IS THAT
WORKING NOW? HEY, THERE WE GO.
WE GOT YOUR SLIDES. ALL RIGHT.
SORRY FOR THE TECHNICAL
GLITCHES. I APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY REMOTELY.
THE CARBON EMISSIONS. APPRECIATE
IT, TOO. SO, THANK YOU. UM I I'M
HAPPY TO TALK TODAY ABOUT SOME
OF THE REQUIREMENTS TO ACTUALLY
BUILD A TRULY CLEAN HYDROGEN
INDUSTRY, WHICH IS, OF COURSE,
FUNDAMENTAL TO REACHING THE NET
ZERO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GOALS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OR ACROSS THE UNITED STATES.
I'LL START WITH THE PROMISE OF
HYDROGEN, WHICH IS THAT IT IS
ITSELF A CARBON FREE ENERGY
CARRIER. AND THAT MEANS THAT
LIKE ELECTRICITY, WE CAN USE IT
IN A VARIETY OF END. USE
APPLICATIONS WE USING IT DOESN'T
EMIT DIRECTLY GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS, RIGHT COMBUSTING OR
USING HYDROGEN IN A FUEL CELL
SIMPLY RELEASES WATER. UH, WATER
VAPOR. UM AND IT'S A FLEXIBLE
FUEL THAT WE CAN USE IN A
VARIETY OF DIFFERENT CONTEXTS.
BOTH THE TRANSPORT ENERGY ACROSS
THE COUNTRY AND TO USE IT AS A
FUEL OR A FEEDSTOCK FOR VARIOUS
CHEMICAL PROCESSES. NOW, OF
COURSE. HYDROGEN TODAY, HOWEVER,
IS PRODUCED IN A HIGHLY EMITTING
PROCESS LARGELY THROUGH THE
PRODUCTION OF METHANE REFORMING
FROM NATURAL GAS. WHERE WE TAKE,
UH èC HÌ FOUR OR METHANE SPLIT
APART THE HYDROGEN ATOMS AND THE
RESULT IS èC Ó TWO EMISSIONS
AS OF TODAY ARE DIRECTLY VENTED
INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. THIS
RESULTS IN A ROUGHLY 10 TO 15 KG
OF èC Ó TWO PER KILOGRAM OF
HYDROGEN PRODUCED DEPENDING ON
THE EFFICIENCY OF THE PROCESS
AND THE UPSTREAM EMISSIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH METHANE LEAKAGE
ACROSS THE OIL AND GAS SUPPLY
CHAIN. TODAY WE PRODUCE ABOUT 10
MILLION TONS OF HYDROGEN IN THE
UNITED STATES AND SO TOTAL
EMISSIONS FROM U S¼ HYDROGEN
PRODUCTION IS ON THE ORDER OF
100 TO 150 MILLION TONS. THAT'S
ABOUT 2 TO 3% OF ALL EMISSIONS
IN THE UNITED STATES AND EQUAL
TO ABOUT 4.5 MILLION U. S¼
HOUSEHOLDS AVERAGE EMISSIONS, SO
IT'S A FAIRLY SIZABLE SECTOR OF
INDUSTRIAL GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS. NOW, OF COURSE IN THE
FUTURE. UM THIS THE PROMISE OF
HYDROGEN IS A ZERO. CARBON
ENERGY CARRIER MAY MEAN
MASSIVELY INCREASED DEMAND. SO
NOT ONLY DO WE NEED TO REPLACE
THE ROUGHLY 10 MILLION TONS OF
PRODUCTION FROM FOSSIL METHANE
TODAY, WE ALSO ARE LIKELY GOING
TO NEED TO EXPAND THAT TO AT
LEAST IN ONE NET ZERO PATHWAY
FROM, UH, THE REPEAT PROJECT,
WHICH I RUN AT AT PRINCETON. WE
SEE ON THE ORDER OF EIGHT
QUADRILLION B Tð U S¼ OF DEMAND
BY 2050. A QUAD IS ROUGHLY 10
MILLION TONS, ROUNDING IT OFF AT
LEAST SO THAT'S ABOUT EIGHT
TIMES THE CURRENT DEMAND FOR
HYDROGEN AND SO AND OF COURSE,
IF WE WANT TO BE REACHING A NET
ZERO GOAL, ALL OF THAT HAS TO BE
VERY LOW, UM, LIFE CYCLE OF
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
IDEALLY, ZERO ALSO IMPORTANT TO
NOTE THAT WHILE HYDROGEN IS
FLEXIBLE, AND IT CAN DO MANY
THINGS THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S
THE BEST APPLICATION OR THE BEST
TOOL TO FOR ALL APPLICATIONS.
AND IN MANY CASES, WE HAVE
ALTERNATIVES READILY AVAILABLE,
INCLUDING DIRECT ELECTRIFICATION
, WHICH WILL ALWAYS BE MORE
ENERGY EFFICIENT USE OF CLEAN
ELECTRICITY, THEN PRODUCING
HYDROGEN, UH, WHICH INVOLVES THE
LOSS OF ENERGY THROUGH THE
ELECTRO ELECTROLYSIS PROCESS,
WHICH IS ABOUT WHERE WE LOSE
ABOUT 30% OF THE OVERALL ENERGY
INPUTS THAT'S BEFORE STORING,
TRANSPORTING AND THEN REUSING
THE HYDROGEN ON THE OTHER END,
AND SO IN AREAS WHERE WE HAVE
COST EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES THAT
RESULT IN LOWER COSTS OF CARBON
MITIGATION PER TON, OR WHERE THE
ALTERNATIVES HAVE HAVE LOWER
CARBON INTENSITY THAN THE USE OF
HYDROGEN EXAMPLES OF THAT ARE ON
ROAD VEHICLES AND TRAINS. UM
BOTH PASSENGER AND FREIGHT
TRAINS. IT'S ADVISABLE TO PURSUE
ALTERNATIVES TO HYDROGEN RATHER
THAN PURSUE THE USE OF HYDROGEN
IN THESE END USE APPLICATIONS.
THERE ARE OTHER CLEAR CASES THAT
ARE WHERE HYDROGEN IS THE BEST
ALTERNATIVE WHERE IT HAS A LOWER
COST PER TON OF èC Ó TWO,
MITIGATED IN A LOWER AND
ACHIEVES A MUCH LOWER èC Ó TWO
INTENSITY, MEANING IT REDUCES
EMISSIONS TO A GREATER EXTENT
THAN AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES.
THIS INCLUDES USE CASES LIKE
IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTION
THROUGH DIRECT PRODUCTION OF
IRON AMMONIA SYNTHESIS, WHERE
WE'RE DISPLACING EXISTING FOSSIL
METHANE, REFORMING AND AS WELL
AS OIL REFINING, WHERE A LARGE
AMOUNT OF HYDROGEN IS PRODUCED
FOR METHANE, REFORMING FOR USE
AS A CHEMICAL FEEDSTOCK FOR DES
AND OTHER PROCESSES. IN THE
MIDDLE ARE THE SOMETIMES USE
CASES WHERE IT MAY BE THAT
HYDROGEN CAN ACHIEVE A LOWER
CARBON INTENSITY BUT PROBABLY
HAS A HIGHER COST PER TON OF èC
Ó. TWO ABATED OR VICE VERSA.
HERE WE HAVE A VARIETY OF
POTENTIAL USE CASES THAT WE NEED
TO KEEP A CLOSE EYE ON EVALUATE
CAREFULLY AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND
THE STAGING OF USES IN THE NEAR
TERM VERSUS THE LONGER TERM, AND
SO THERE ARE A VARIETY OF
POTENTIAL CASES WE NEED TO BE
CAREFUL ABOUT, UM BUT BUT DO
HAVE SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOR
ANDY'S APPLICATION. NOW, OF
COURSE, UM THERE'S A VARIETY OF
DIFFERENT WAYS TO PRODUCE
HYDROGEN. AND THAT, UH, HIGHLY
DEPENDS ON THE, UM UH, THAT HAS
A HIGH SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE
OVERALL GREENHOUSE GAS INTENSITY
. THE MAIN WAY, AS I MENTIONED
TODAY IS THROUGH METHANE,
REFORMING OF WHICH COULD COULD
BE PAIRED WITH CARBON CAPTURE
AND STORAGE TO TAKE THE PROCESS.
èC Ó TWO EMISSIONS FROM THE
METHANE REFORMING PROCESS AND
STORE THEM SAFELY UNDERGROUND.
OF COURSE, AS MUCH OF THE FOCUS
IS ON WATER BASED ELECTROLYSIS,
WHICH HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE
FULLY CARBON FREE IF WE'RE ABLE
TO USE EXCLUSIVELY ZERO CARBON
ELECTRICITY TO POWER
ELECTROLYSIS, WHICH SPLITS WATER
INTO HYDROGEN, RELEASING ONLY
OXYGEN AND YOU CAN SEE THERE'S
QUITE A RANGE OF DIFFERENT
CARBON INTENSITIES FOR THESE
PROCESSES. I MENTIONED ABOUT 10
TO 15 MILLION KG OF èC Ó TWO
EQUIVALENT PER KILOGRAM OF
HYDROGEN FOR METHANE REFORMING,
BUT I WANTED AND OF COURSE, IF
WE USE PURELY ZERO CARBON POWER,
WE WOULD HAVE ZERO EMISSIONS.
BUT I WANT TO DRAW YOUR
ATTENTION TO THE LAST BAR THERE,
WHICH IS ELECTROLYSIS, USING
AVERAGE GRID POWER AND THE RANGE
OF EMISSIONS OUTCOMES. WE'VE
SHOWN THERE ARE THE RESULT OF
THE EMISSIONS INTENSITY OR THE
EMISSIONS IMPACT OF CONNECTING
ELECTROLYZERS TO THE GRID
WITHOUT ENSURING THEIR SUPPLIED
BY CARB. RESOURCES AND I JUST
WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WHILE
CALIFORNIA HAS ONE OF THE
CLEANEST EMISSION OR CAR, UH,
ELECTRICITY MIXES IN THE COUNTRY
, USING THE EPA GRID AVERAGE
EMISSIONS RATE FOR CALIFORNIA
TODAY, I WE ESTIMATE THAT IF YOU
WERE TO PLUG AN ELECTROLYZER
INTO THE AVERAGE GRID IN
CALIFORNIA THAT IT WOULD RESULT
IN ABOUT 11 KG OF CO. TWO
EMISSIONS PER KILOGRAM OF
HYDROGEN, ROUGHLY COMPARABLE TO
FOSSIL BASED METHANE, REFORMING
SO REALLY NÓ IMPROVEMENT
RELATIVE TO FOSSIL METHANE. THAT
MIGHT BE SURPRISING THAT THE
REASON FOR THAT IS THAT AGAIN.
THIS IS A VERY ENERGY INTENSIVE
PROCESS, AND SO WE HAVE TO BE
USING VERY CLEAN FUELS OR IT'S
VERY EASY, UM TO, UH, RESULT IN
SIGNIFICANT EMISSIONS IMPACTS AS
ANOTHER COMPARISON, THE 45 Dð
TAX CREDIT AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL
SPECIFIES AN EMISSIONS THRESHOLD
OF 0.45 KG OR NEARLY ZERO, IF,
UH ELECTROLYZER USES ONLY A
COUPLE PERCENTAGE POINTS OF ITS
ENERGY FROM, UH FROM COAL OR
NATURAL GAS. THAT'S ENOUGH TO
BLOW TO BLOW THROUGH THAT VERY
TIGHT EMISSIONS LIMIT, SO WE
REALLY NEED TO ENSURE THESE
RESOURCES. APPLIED BASICALLY
EXCLUSIVELY BY CLEAN
ELECTRICITY. THE ISSUE IS HOW
CAN WE BE SURE THAT AN
ELECTROLYZER CONNECTED TO THE
GRID IS TRULY CLEAN? IF YOU'RE
PLUGGED DIRECTLY INTO A NEW
CLEAN RESOURCE LIKE A NEW WIND
OR SOLAR OR NUCLEAR FACILITY.
IT'S QUITE EASY TO VERIFY THAT
THE, UM THE RESOURCES THAT THE
ELECTROLYZER CONSUMING PURELY
CLEAN RESOURCES THE BROADER
CHALLENGE AND WHERE IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT WE SET EFFECTIVE
REGULATORY STANDARDS IS WHEN WE
HAVE ELECTROLYZERS CONNECTED TO
THE BROAD POWER GRID. THERE ARE
THE CHALLENGES THAT WE DON'T
ROUTE ELECTRONS TO THE GRID LIKE
WE WERE OUT STRAIGHT FROM A
WAREHOUSE TO YOUR HOME WHEN
YOU'RE DELIVERING AMAZON
PACKAGES OR SOMETHING ELSE.
INSTEAD ELECTRICITY ALL MINGLES
COMMINGLES IN THE ELECTRICITY
GRID AND FOLLOWS THE PATH OF
LEAST IMPEDANCE OR WHEREVER THE
PHYSICS DICTATES. IT GOES AND SO
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO
DIFFERENTIATE WHERE YOUR POWER
IS ACTUALLY COMING FROM. AND
THIS IS THE CHALLENGE BEFORE US
NOW IN TERMS OF TRYING TO DEFINE
STANDARDS FOR GRID CONNECTED
ELECTROLYZERS. IT'S RELEVANT IN
EUROPE. IT'S RELEVANT AT THE
FEDERAL LEVEL AND RELEVANT FOR
CALIFORNIA AS WELL. AND THIS IS
WHAT HAS LED TO THE EMERGENCE OF
THIS SO-CALLED. THREE PILLARS
THAT ARE REQUIRE, UH THREE
CONDITIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO
BUILD A TRULY CLEAN HYDROGEN
INDUSTRY. THOSE THREE
REQUIREMENTS ARE THAT AN
ELECTROLYZER CONNECTED TO THE
GRID IS SUPPLIED BY INCREMENTAL,
CLEAN SUPPLY OF NEW CLEAN
RESOURCES. SECOND THAT THE
CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY BY
THAT ELECTROLYZER IS ALIGNED
TEMPORALLY OR HOURLY, WITH THE
SUPPLY OF CLEAN ELECTRICITY. AND
THIRD THAT THE SUPPLIER CAN
ACTUALLY DELIVER TO THE LOCATION
OF THE CONSUMER ON THE GRID. AND
WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THIS, IT
MAKES PRETTY COMMON SENSE. WHAT
WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING IS THAT
IF YOU WANT TO CLAIM YOUR
POWERED PURELY BY CLEAN
ELECTRICITY, THEN YOU HAVE TO BE
SURE THAT THERE IS NEW, CLEAN
SUPPLY THAT'S GENERATING AT THE
SAME TIME YOU'RE CONSUMING AND
COULD DELIVER TO YOUR LOCATION
ON THE GRID. AND IF THOSE THREE
CRITERIA ARE MET, THEN THE
EMISSIONS IMPACTS ARE
EFFECTIVELY EQUIVALENT TO
PLUGGING PHYSICALLY IN TO A NEW
RESOURCE. THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY
ASSURANCE WE HAVE. I LOVE THAT
GRID CONNECTED. ELECTROLYZERS
CAN PRODUCE CARBON FREE POWER,
AND THAT'S WHY BOTH THE PROPOSED
RULES FOR 45 B IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE U S¼ TREASURY AND THE
EUROPEAN COMMISSION STANDARDS
FOR CLEAN HYDROGEN RELY ON ALL
THREE OF THESE CRITERIA. THANK
YOU UP THERE AND LOOK FORWARD TO
YOUR QUESTIONS IN THIS PANEL AND
LATER ON IN THE THIRD PANEL AS
WELL, THANKS. PERFECT TIMING. I
WAS JUST GETTING READY TO STOP
YOU. UM WE ARE. WE HAVE USED OUR
15 MINUTES HERE FOR THIS FIRST
SESSION, AND I'M VERY INTERESTED
IN MAKING SURE THAT WE MOVE ON,
UH TO PANEL TWO AND THREE.
SHOWING LESS SOMEBODY HAS IF YOU
HAVE AN URGENT QUESTION THAT YOU
YOU WANT TO ASK AT THIS POINT IN
TIME. UM PLEASE DO BUT TRY TO
MAKE IT AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE
TO COME BACK. WELL BOTH BOTH OF
THESE SPEAKERS ARE ARE ON AGAIN
TODAY. SHOW THAT THEY WILL BE
AVAILABLE FOR US TO ASK A
QUESTION. I DO HAVE ONE SORT OF
SUMMARY POINT. I'D LIKE TO MAKE
HERE ABOUT THIS. BUT PLEASE, IF
YOU GUYS I DON'T WANT TO CUT YOU
OFF. IF YOU I WOULD JUST SAY SO,
MR. CHAIR I'M VERY HAPPY TO WAIT
TO ASK QUESTIONS FOR LATER.
DEFINITELY HAVE A TON OF
QUESTIONS. YOU ALL HAVE PACKED A
LOT OF INFORMATION INTO 15
MINUTES. UM, BUT HAPPY TO HEAR
FROM ALL OF OUR SPEAKERS. I KNOW
YOU. I KNOW YOU HAVE. YOU'RE
GOING TO BE LEAVING IN AN HOUR,
SO I WANNA MAKE SURE DO YOU
WANNA YOU WANNA PICK ONE OR TWO
OF THOSE QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW?
I'M GOOD TO YOU. RIGHT? CAN I
JUST ASK A QUICK QUESTION? A.
YES OR NÓ ON? UH, THE SECOND
PRESENTER? UH DOCTOR REED NOW,
DOCTOR REED. DOCTOR JENKINS.
DOCTOR JENKINS? YEAH. QUEEN 10
AND 15 KG OF C 02 ARE GENERATED
TO PRODUCE 1 KG OF HYDROGEN. IS
THAT CORRECT? FROM PARCEL
METHANE REFORMING, WHICH IS THE
CONVENTIONAL APPROACH TODAY.
YES, THAT'S CORRECT FOR MY
QUESTIONS FOR THE NEXT FOUR
DAYS, ANYTHING ELSE? SO IF I IF
I COULD JUST SUMMARIZE, YOU
KNOW, ONE POINT THAT HAS COME UP
IN SORT OF OFTEN TIMES AND THAT
IS IF WE JUST PLUG IN OUR
ELECTROLYZERS INTO THE GRID
RIGHT NOW TODAY BECAUSE HYDROGEN
AS A VERY ENERGY INTENSIVE
ELECTROLYZING HYDROGEN TO CREATE
HYDROGEN, VERY ENERGY INTENSIVE,
WE ACTUALLY HAVE SOME
SIGNIFICANT EMISSIONS PROBLEMS
BECAUSE YOU YOU CAN'T JUST
IDENTIFY HEY, YOU WANT TO GRID
TO DELIVER YOU RENEWABLE
ELECTRONS. AND SO THE THREE
PILLARS WERE HAVE BEEN SORT OF
FORMED TO DEAL WITH THAT
FUNDAMENTAL FACT THAT YOU HAVE
AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF INCREASED
POTENTIAL ENERGY DEMAND, AND YOU
HEAR THEIR THAT IT'S EIGHT TIMES
THE HYDROGEN PRODUCTION TODAY.
UM AND SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO
HAVE THAT BIG OF AN INCREASE IN
DEMAND, IF YOU'RE NOT CAREFUL TO
MAKE SURE THAT IT YOU BRING
RENEWABLE RESOURCES ON AT THE
SAME TIME. WE COULD END UP
INADVERTENTLY ACTUALLY CREATING
MORE ADMISSIONS, MORE POLLUTION
AS WE BRING HYDROGEN ON AND
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET
THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS BRING
HYDROGEN ON AT THE SAME TIME
TRYING TO DO IT CLEANLY. SO WITH
THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN TO OUR
SECOND PANEL AND WE HAVE TWO
PEOPLE FOR SECOND PANEL. AND
REALLY APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT
WE HAVE A LAST MINUTE PINCH
HITTER COMING UP AND DR BRAUER
WHO I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU
BEING AVAILABLE AT THE LAST
MINUTE AND BEGGED HER DOCTOR,
BROWARD HAVE HAD SOME GREAT
CONVERSATIONS WITH DR BRAUER
ABOUT HYDROGEN, AND HE'S GOING
TO BE UM, HE SHOULD HAVE U. C.
IRVINE DIRECTOR OF THE CLEAN
ENERGY INSTITUTE AND ALSO
REPRESENTING OR SPEAKING ON
BEHALF OF ARCHES TODAY AND THEN
WE ALSO HAVE BEST TRACKS AND
SHE'S THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, AND
WE SPECIFICALLY HAVE THIS TITLED
AS THE FOCUS ON THE THREE
PILLARS OVERALL. SHOULD WE
INCORPORATE THE THREE PILLARS?
OR SHOULD WE NOT INCORPORATE THE
THREE PILLARS FROM AN OVERALL
STANDPOINT BECAUSE OUR PANEL
AFTER THIS WILL BE MORE SPECIFIC
ABOUT HOURLY, MATCHING MORE
SPECIFIC ABOUT ADDITION, AL ITTY
THOSE TWO PARTICULAR ISSUES. SO
WITH THIS, DR BRAUER, YOU GET TO
LEAD OFF AND FIVE MINUTES FOR
BOTH OF YOU IF WE CAN. ALL
RIGHTY HELLO, DISTINGUISHED
MEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BEFORE YOU
TODAY. MY NAME IS JACK BRAUER AM
A PROFESSOR OF MECHANICAL AND
AEROSPACE ENGINEERING AND
DIRECTOR OF THE CLEAN ENERGY
INSTITUTE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, IRVINE. AND I HAVE
BEEN DIRECTING TEAMS OF
ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS TO DO
HYDROGEN RELATED RESEARCH FOR
THE LAST 25 YEARS. I ALSO AM
TODAY REPRESENTING ARCHES, THE
ALLIANCE FOR RENEWABLE CLEAN
HYDROGEN ENERGY SOLUTIONS, WHICH
IS THE U. S D O E SELECTED
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL HYDROGEN HUB
. I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THAT
ORGANIZATION SINCE ITS INCEPTION
AND AM CURRENTLY ALSO AN INTERIM
BOARD MEMBER. THE POSITION OF
ARCHES HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR IN
OUR LETTER TO THE HONORABLE
JANET YELLEN, SECRETARY OF
TREASURY AND WHITE HOUSE AND THE
WHITE HOUSE SENIOR ADVISOR JOHN
PODESTA, WHICH IS BEFORE YOU
TODAY, THIS LETTER, WHICH WE
DELIVERED ON FEBRUARY 26 2024.
UM ESSENTIALLY STATES THAT WE
DESIRE AND ALTERNATIVE
COMPLIANCE PATHWAY FOR
CALIFORNIA AND OTHER STATES THAT
HAVE DATE CERTAIN
DECARBONIZATION LAWS AND
REGULATIONS IN PLACE. I DON'T
WANT TO READ THIS TO YOU, BUT I
DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE SIX
OF THIS LETTER IN WHICH WE
PROPOSE ALTERNATE LANGUAGE FOR
THIS COMPLIANCE MECHANISM.
ESSENTIALLY IT SAYS THAT THE
REQUIREMENTS OF ADDITIONAL ITTY
DELIVER ABILITY AND TIME BASED E
. A C S SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN
JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE THESE
FEATURES FIRST. DATE CERTAIN
DECARBONIZATION BY AT LEAST
DECEMBER 31 2050. AND THE
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION FACILITY CAN
BE OPERATED UP AND DOWN,
ACCORDING TO GRID REQUIREMENTS.
AND THAT HYDROGEN PRODUCTION IS
ALREADY PLANNED FOR IN STATE
PLANS LIKE THE INTEGRATED
RESOURCE PLAN. THIS IS THE CASE
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AND
IN PARTICULAR, IN RESPONSE TO
PROFESSOR JAMES COMMENTS
RECENTLY, IF YOU HAVE A DISPATCH
HERBAL HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
FACILITY, YOU COULD OPERATE
MOSTLY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY.
AND AS A RESULT HAVE WAY LOWER
CARBON EMISSIONS THAN THE
AVERAGE GRID. DO YOU SEE HOW A
DISPATCH HERBAL UNIT WOULD
OPERATE MOSTLY ON SOLAR POWER IF
YOU HAD ONLY OPERATING DURING
THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY? OKAY, IT
WOULD BE WAY LESS THAN THE 11 KG
OF SIO TWO. THAT'S THE AVERAGE
CALIFORNIA GRID. OKAY, SO THAT'S
THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT. BUT
LET ME JUST SUGGEST. THIS
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THESE
CONDITIONS APPLY. AS THEY CAN
FOR A DISPATCH HERBAL HYDROGEN
PRODUCTION FACILITY INSTALLED IN
CALIFORNIA ANY ADDITIONAL
CONSTRAINTS ON THAT FACILITY
WOULD LEAD TO HARM WHAT KIND OF
HARM COULD THAT LEAD TO FIRST?
IT WILL DELAY THE ADVANCEMENT OF
CLEAN RENEWABLE HYDROGEN
PRODUCTION IN CALIFORNIA. ONE
REASON FOR THAT IS THAT MANY OF
THE PROJECTS INCLUDED IN ARCHES
AND PROJECTS PLANNED FOR IN THE
STATE ALREADY REQUIRE ACCESS TO
THE PTC AND CERTAINTY OF THAT
ACCESS BEFORE FINANCING WILL BE
ALLOWED. SECOND, IT WILL HARM BY
ADDING COST AND BURDEN TO CLEAN
HYDROGEN, RENEWABLE, CLEAN
RENEWABLE HYDROGEN, MAKING IT
LESS COMPETITIVE WITH NATURAL
GAS AND DIESEL ALTERNATIVES. A
RECENT STUDY AND YOU KNOW, E
THREE. THEY'RE HIGHLY REGARDED
IN CALIFORNIA FOR THEIR MODELING
OF THE CARB SCOPING PLAN AND THE
INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN OF THE
CPUC. UM THEY NOTED THAT ULTRA
LOW CARBON INTENSITY HYDROGEN
CAN BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT
ADDITIONAL ITTY DELIVER ABILITY
AND TIME MATCHING AND IN 100% OF
THE SCENARIOS THEY CONSIDERED.
ADDING ANY ONE OF THESE OR JUST
THE TIME MATCHING BURDEN OR
REQUIREMENT. I WOULD ADD UP TO
$4 PER KILOGRAM, ESSENTIALLY
ERASING THE BENEFIT OF THE PTC.
THIRD HARM. IT WILL DELAY OR
ELIMINATE SOME OF THE ARCHES
PROJECTS THEMSELVES LEADING TO
INCREASED USE OF NATURAL GAS AND
DIESEL. THIS IS BECAUSE UH,
THOSE WHO WANT TO USE IT INSTEAD
OF NATURAL GAS AND DIESEL ALSO
REQUIRE A LOWER COST. THEN WE
CAN CURRENTLY PRODUCE PRODUCE IT
TODAY BY ELECTROLYSIS THEY NEED
ALSO THE PTC. PTC TO MAKE THESE
THINGS WORK. FOURTH IT WILL
ELIMINATE THE POTENTIAL FOR
CLEAN HYDROGEN SOLUTIONS TO HELP
OUR CALIFORNIA GRID WITH
CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH
NEGATIVE PRICES AND CURTAILMENT.
IF WE APPLIED THESE ADDITIONAL
CONSTRAINTS TO HYDROGEN, IT
WOULD ESSENTIALLY REMOVE
HYDROGEN FROM THE REGULAR
ELECTRIC MARKET. IT WOULD TREAT
IT SEPARATELY AND NOT ALLOW IT
TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MARKET TO
HELP WITH CURTAILMENT AND
NEGATIVE PRICES. YOU'RE AT THE
FIVE MINUTE MARK. IF YOU CAN.
OKAY I'LL WRAP IT UP SOLID.
FINALLY IT WILL DELAY THE
CERTAIN POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
REDUCTIONS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED
WITH OUR INTRODUCTION OF
RENEWABLE CLEAN HYDROGEN INTO
DIESEL FREIGHT AND PORTS
APPLICATIONS, WHICH ARE THE MOST
HARMFUL TO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF
CRITERIA, POLLUTANTS AND HEALTH
IMPACTS. EVERY OBJECTIVE
ANALYSIS OF THE FUTURE SAYS WE
NEED RENEWABLE, CLEAN HYDROGEN
AND ITS FEATURES TO DE
CARBONIZED AND DEEP LOOT
EVERYTHING THAT'S WHAT WE INTEND
TO DO WITH ARCHES. AND
ADDITIONAL CONSTRAINTS WON'T
HELP. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. NOW, MISS. UH BETH TRASK.
AND IT'S MY MIC ON. NO YOU'RE
NOT ON. DO I TURN IT ON CLOSER.
JUST BRING IT CLOSER. OKAY IS
THAT WORKING? YOU COULD BE
LOUDER. ALRIGHT HOW'S THAT
BETTER BE NICE AND CLOSE. I WILL
THANK YOU SO MUCH CHAIR. BENNETT
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
REALLY APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE. I'M BETH
TRASK. I'M A VICE PRESIDENT FOR
ENERGY TRANSITION AT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND. WE
ARE GLOBAL INTERNET, NONPARTISAN
, NOT FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATION
WHOSE MISSION IS TO STABILIZE
THE CLIMATE, AND WE'VE BEEN
ACTIVE IN CALIFORNIA SINCE THE
EARLY SEVENTIES. UM YOU'RE ALL
HERE TODAY BECAUSE HYDROGEN HAS
SO MUCH POTENTIAL AS THE CLIMATE
SOLUTION. ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE
HARDEST TO DEBATE SECTORS OF THE
ECONOMY. BUT EVEN THOUGH IT IS
CARBON FREE HYDROGEN IS NOT A
SILVER BULLET LIKE ANY COMPLEX
ENERGY SYSTEM, IT PRESENTS MANY
RISKS THAT WE HAVE TO MANAGE
CAREFULLY IF WE'RE GOING TO
ACHIEVE THOSE CLIMATE BENEFITS,
AND SHOULD DEGREE TO WHICH WE DO
ACHIEVE THE CLIMATE BENEFITS ARE
GOING TO BE BASED ON HOW
CAREFULLY WE PRODUCE IT. HOW
CAREFULLY WE MANAGE IT AND HOW
RESPONSIBLY WE DEPLOY HYDROGEN.
UM THESE IMPACTS THESE CLIMATE
IMPACTS OF HYDROGEN VERY GREATLY
, UM, BASED ON A NUMBER OF
FACTORS THAT ARE OFTEN
OVERLOOKED IN ANALYSES, UM THESE
INCLUDE THE WARMING IMPACTS OF
HYDROGEN ITSELF, UM, WHEN IT IS
LINKED TO THE ATMOSPHERE, AND
THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT PDF IS
STUDYING QUITE CLOSELY RIGHT
NOW. THE IMPACT OF UPSTREAM
METHANE EMISSIONS THAT ARE A
FACTOR WHETHER YOU'RE USING
FOSSIL BASED GAS OR A BIO GAS.
THE EFFICIENCY OF CARBON CAPTURE
IF YOU NEED TO CAPTURE CARBON
EMISSIONS IN THE CASE OF FOSSIL
HYDROGEN, AND HOW ELECTRICITY IS
SOURCED, UM WHICH, OF COURSE, IS
THE MAIN SUBJECT OF TODAY'S
PANEL? UM, PDF, HAS A PEER
REVIEWED PAPER JUST PUBLISHED
LAST MONTH. THE DETAILS ALL OF
THESE FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE
CLIMATE BENEFITS OF HYDROGEN AND
I'D BE HAPPY TO SHARE THAT WITH
THE COMMITTEE. THE BOTTOM LINE.
ALL THESE DETAILS REALLY, REALLY
MATTER, AND WE HAVE TO GET THEM
RIGHT. SO THE THREE PILLARS ARE,
OF COURSE, A BIG COMPONENT OF
GETTING HYDROGEN RIGHT AND UM,
AND HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ALREADY
IN THE PRIOR SPEAKERS. THAT'S
BECAUSE HYDROGEN IS SO ENERGY
INTENSIVE TO PRODUCE. UM JUST A
QUICK EXAMPLE TO POWER. A CAR OR
A BUS FROM HYDROGEN REQUIRES 3
TO 53 TO 4 TIMES MORE RENEWABLE
POWER THAN IF WE WERE GOING TO
POWER THAT CAR JUST WITH A
BATTERY, AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF
THE CONVERSION. YOU HAVE TO TURN
THE RENEWABLE POWER INTO
HYDROGEN AND THEN USE IT TO
POWER THE CAR INSTEAD OF JUST
DIRECTLY TAKING THAT ENERGY TO
POWER, THE CAR SO IF YOU CAN
ELECTRIFY AS THOSE ALREADY BEEN
SAID, WE HAVE TO ELECTRIFY. IT'S
OUR BEST SOLUTION. SO WHERE WE
DO NEED HYDROGEN. WE HAVE TO DO
IT REALLY CAREFULLY AND ONE WAY
IS TO ENSURE THAT THE INCREASED
DEMAND FOR RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY
DOESN'T OUTPACE OUR ABILITY TO
PRODUCE IT AND DEPLOY IT.
BECAUSE THAT WOULD INADVERTENTLY
RAMP UP MORE FOSSIL TO FILL THE
GAP. SMART POLICY DESIGN CAN
SOLVE THIS PROBLEM, AND THAT'S
WHY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
THREE PILLARS. THEY'VE ALREADY
BEEN DISCUSSED. I WON'T GO INTO
DETAIL. OBVIOUSLY NUMBER ONE IS
ABOUT ADDITIONAL OR CLEAN
RESOURCES. NUMBER TWO IS ABOUT
MATCHING CONSUMPTION AND
PRODUCTION ON AN HOURLY BASIS IN
THE THIRD IS ABOUT BEING LOCATED
IN YOUR LIVABILITY REGION. THIS
IS NOT A NEW FRAMEWORK BECAUSE
CAN SPEAK ABOUT ALL THE WAYS IN
WHICH THE EU HAS BEEN WORKING TO
IMPLEMENT THIS SINCE THEY PASSED
THREE PILLARS PROGRAM IN 2022.
AND WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN EUROPE
HAS BEEN QUITE ENCOURAGING THE
NUMBER OF HYDROGEN PROJECTS THAT
NOW THAT R THREE PILLAR
COMPLIANT HAVE INCREASED SINCE
2022 IN EUROPE. PDF HAS
RESEARCHED THE LANDSCAPE OF
LITERATURE ON THE THREE PILLARS.
WE'VE COMMISSIONED A STUDY WITH
THE CONSULTING FIRM E. R M. TO
LOOK AT 30 DIFFERENT STUDIES ON
THREE PILLARS, AND WE'D BE HAPPY
TO PROVIDE THIS STUDY TO THE
COMMITTEE AS A RESOURCE. I'M
GONNA JUST BRIEFLY HIGHLIGHT
SOME OF THE FINDINGS OF THAT
STUDY. ACROSS THE BOARD ALL
STUDIES THERE IS STRONG
CONSENSUS ACROSS THE STUDIES OF
THE THREE PILLARS THAT IT WILL
PREVENT HYDROGEN FROM INCREASING
GRID EMISSIONS. THAT'S VERY,
VERY CLEAR. UM IF WE DON'T
IMPLEMENT A STRONG THREE PILLAR
FRAMEWORK, WE WILL LEAD TO
SIGNIFICANT NET INCREASES IN
GRID EMISSIONS AND FINALLY MAKE
FUNDAMENTALLY MAKE OUR GRID
DIRTIER. THE THREE PILLARS WILL
SET UP A MORE SUCCESSFUL CLEAN
HYDROGEN ECONOMY IN CALIFORNIA.
OVER THE LONG TERM, THEY WILL
DIRECT INVESTMENTS TO THE RIGHT
LOCATIONS AND THE RIGHT
TECHNOLOGIES. UM THIS PREVENTS
THE BURST OF THE BUBBLE THAT
WE'RE ALL AFRAID OF. AT THE END
OF THE 10 YEAR FEDERAL TAX
CREDIT THAT GOES AWAY AND WHAT
ARE WE LEFT WITH? WE WANT TO BE
LEFT WITH A REALLY STRONG CLEAN
HYDROGEN ECONOMY HERE IN
CALIFORNIA AND ANOTHER PARTS OF
THE NATION. FOR EXAMPLE,
ELECTRICAL LASERS THAT ARE MORE
FLEXIBLE AND ARE ABLE TO RAMP UP
UP AND DOWN TO MATCH VARIABLE
ENERGY SUPPLY. THERE HAS THOSE
HAPPEN TO BE MANUFACTURED HERE
IN THE U. S AS OPPOSED TO THE
STEADY STATE CHEAPER
ELECTROLYZERS THAT ARE MADE IN
CHINA. WE WANT TO INCENTIVIZE
THOSE MORE FLEXIBLE.
ELECTROLYZERS HOURLY LATCHING
WILL ALLOW US TO DO THAT. THE
THREE PILLARS ALSO INCENTIVIZE
INVESTMENT IN OUR POWER SECTOR.
SOLUTIONS LIKE BATTERIES, LONG
TERM STORAGE TRANSMISSION LINES
IN GRID MANAGEMENT TOOLS THAT
PREVENT THE SPIKES AND CONSUMER
PRICES AT THE FIVE MINUTE MARK.
SO IF YOU CAN GO FAST, I AGREE.
OKAY MAYBE I JUST WRAP UP REALLY
QUICKLY WITH, UM, ZIPPING
THROUGH, UM, ONE KEY POINT. I
WANT TO GET ON THE TABLE, WHICH
IS ABOUT THE COST. OBVIOUSLY WE
WORRY ABOUT COSTS. ADVANCED GRID
MODELING ACROSS A NUMBER OF
STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT HOURLY
MATCHING WOULD ONLY INCREASE
COSTS BY 10 TO 20 CENTS PER
KILOGRAM. AND HOURLY MATCHING
SYSTEMS DO EXIST RIGHT NOW
THEY'RE FUNCTIONAL IN OTHER
PARTS OF THE COUNTRY. WE CAN
TALK MORE ABOUT THAT IN THE Q
AND A TIME. AND FINALLY, THREE
PILLARS WILL INVALUABLE
INTERNATIONAL TRADE. WE CAN WE
CAN FORM AN ALLIANCE WITH EUROPE
THAT WILL CREATE A POWERFUL
TRADING BLOC. UM THAT WILL
COUNTER A LOT OF COMPETITION
THAT IS EXPECTED FROM CHINA. AND
THE THREE PILLARS SYSTEM WILL
SET US UP TO MEET OUR CLIMATE
GOALS FROM DAY ONE INSTEAD OF
PASSING IT DOWN A NUMBER OF
YEARS, SO AND THERE AND I THANK
YOU ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WELL EXCUSE ME. I THINK WE SET
THE SET THE SCENE FOR THE FOCUS
OF OUR CONVERSATION TODAY, WHICH
IS WE HAVE ARCHES CONTENTION
THAT UM, CALIFORNIA THAT WE
SHOULD BE ESSENTIALLY EXEMPT
FROM THE THREE PILLARS BECAUSE
WE'RE CALIFORNIA AND BECAUSE OF
THE UNIQUE THINGS THAT WE HAVE
IN CALIFORNIA WE HAVE OTHER
PEOPLE E D S POSITION IS NO.
THERE STILL ARE SIGNIFICANT
CHALLENGES WITH WITH THIS AS WE
MOVE FORWARD, SO I WOULD
CERTAINLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE USE NOW THE NEXT 15 MINUTES
FOR OUR COMMITTED TO BE ABLE TO
ASK QUESTIONS. I HAVE SORT OF
THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION THAT I
HAVE FOR BOTH OF YOU IS THAT, UM
, CURRENTLY REFERENCE WAS WE
COULD PRODUCE ENERGY DURING THE
DAY. AND YOU TALKED ABOUT THAT
THAT POSSIBILITY, BUT EVEN
SOMETIMES, DURING THE DAY WE ARE
PUTTING. WE'RE USING FOSSIL FUEL
TO PRODUCE OUR ENERGY DURING THE
DAY. SO IN TERMS OF MEETING THE
GOALS OF THE THREE PILLARS. I
SEE TWO ISSUES THAT I'VE WOULD
LIKE TO KEEP COMING BACK TO WITH
ALL OF THE SPEAKERS, AND THAT IS
IF WE DON'T IF WE HAVE THE
EXEMPTION. ON ADDITION, AL ITTY
THAT ARCHES IS ASKING FOR HOW DO
WE MAKE SURE THAT WE SEND THE
RIGHT PRICING SIGNALS TO DEVELOP
ENOUGH RENEWABLE ENERGY OUT
THERE? THAT'S ONE AND THE OTHER
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IS IF WE
DON'T HAVE HOURLY MATCHING HOW
DO WE SEND THE RIGHT SIGNALS AND
THE EXAMPLE I USE IS THIS AND
THAT IS RIGHT NOW WE HAVE ANNUAL
MATCHING IN CALIFORNIA. IF YOU
HAVE ANNUAL MATCHING, YOU COULD
BUY ELECTRICITY FROM ARIZONA AT
TWO O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON ON
JULY 15TH. AND YOU CAN THEN TURN
AROUND AND USE THAT CREDIT TO
USE. UH LESS CLEAN, FUEL DIRTIER
FUEL ON DECEMBER 15TH AT TWO
O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. AND IF
WE DON'T HAVE HOURLY MATCHING
THE QUESTION I HAVE IS HOW DO WE
SEND THE PRICE SIGNAL THAT SAYS
AT TWO O'CLOCK ON DECEMBER 15TH.
WE OUGHT TO BE TRYING TO SEND
THE BEST PRICE SIGNALS WE CAN TO
DEVELOP RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES
AT TWO O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING
LIKE WIND OR GEOTHERMAL, IF WE
DON'T HAVE HOURLY MATCHING I
HAVE NOT SEEN HOW WE SEND THE
RIGHT SIGNALS SO THAT WE END UP
FOR CALIFORNIA. SO WE HAVE TWO
CHALLENGES IN FRONT OF US. GET
THIS INFANT INDUSTRY OFF THE
GROUND AND TRY NOT TO PUT
UNNECESSARY HURDLES IN FRONT OF
IT. AND AT THE SAME TIME
INCENTIVIZED SO THAT IN THE LONG
RUN, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE
CREDITS ARE GONE, 45 CREDITS ARE
GONE. WE HAVE THE MOST ROBUST
AND DIVERSE, RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO
OUT THERE FOR CALIFORNIA. SO
THAT'S MY FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION.
I'D LIKE TO GIVE BOTH OF YOU A
QUICK MINUTE FOR THAT. AND THEN
I'M GOING TO TURN. I WON'T ASK
ANYMORE QUESTIONS. DON'T TURN IT
OVER TO MY COLLEAGUES. RIGHT SO
GO AHEAD. ONE MINUTE FROM EACH
OF YOU OKAY, THANK YOU, UM,
CALIFORNIA HAS FOR A COUPLE OF
DECADES ALREADY PASSED LAWS. AND
ESTABLISHED REGULATIONS THAT
TRUE UP AH, RENEWABLE PRODUCTION
WITH RENEWABLE CONSUMPTION FOR
THE RPS PROGRAM, FOR EXAMPLE, ON
AN ANNUAL BASIS FOR THE L. C F S
PROGRAM ON A QUARTERLY BASIS,
AND THEY HAVE MARKET MECHANISMS
WHICH ACTUALLY ARE VERIFIABLE,
OKAY FOR MAKING THOSE CERTAIN UM
AND OVER TIME, THOSE MUST
INCREASE TO SHORTER TIME PERIODS
. THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY
ALL CFS IS SHORTER THAN RPS. IT
WAS PASSED LATER. UM AND THEY'RE
ALREADY OUR REGULATORY BARRIERS
AGAINST THINGS LIKE RESOURCE
SHUFFLING RIGHT. WE CANNOT TAKE
AN EXISTING RESOURCE THAT'S USED
FOR RPS AND GIVE IT TO SOMEONE
ELSE. NO, NO, WE HAVE TO HAVE AN
ADDITIONAL RESOURCE. IF YOU WANT
TO USE IT FOR MEETING YOUR RPS.
OKAY SO THERE ARE ALREADY LAWS
AND REGULATIONS IN PLACE IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT ARE
BETTER THAN ANY OTHER STATE IN
THE WORLD, RIGHT? FOR MAKING
SURE THAT OVER TIME WE REACH THE
GOAL THAT YOU HAVE GREAT. OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH EVERY TIME
EVERY HOUR MATCHED. WE'RE GONNA
FIGHT TIME THE WHOLE TIME. YEAH.
YEAH SO ONE MINUTE ALSO FOR YOU.
OKAY I GUESS I WOULD SIMPLY SAY
THAT THE THREE PILLARS REALLY
BENEFIT CALIFORNIA. I MEAN, IF
WE'RE LOOKING ACROSS THE SEVEN
HUBS THAT THE DEAL WE HAS
SELECTED ACROSS THE COUNTRY,
CALIFORNIA HAS A BETTER
OPPORTUNITY THAN ANY OF THEM. TO
MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
THREE PILLARS AND TO REALLY
THRIVE BY DOING SO. CALIFORNIA
HAS OBVIOUSLY ABUNDANT RESOURCES
FOR PRODUCING DURABLE POWER AND
AS WELL AS AGGRESSIVE, AMBITIOUS
GOALS UNDER THE RPS TO GET TO
HIGHER AND HIGHER LEVELS OVER
THE COMING YEARS. YOU KNOW, BY
MOST ANALYSES, IT DOES NOT LOOK
LIKE CALIFORNIA IS GOING TO HAVE
ANY TROUBLE. COMPLYING WITH THE
THREE PILLARS, WHICH GIVES IT AN
ADVANTAGE OVER OTHER PARTS OF
THE COUNTRY. IF SOME
FLEXIBILITIES ARE ABSOLUTELY
NEEDED IT, THEY REALLY ARE
ESSENTIAL. THERE ARE SOME VERY,
UM A FEW WAYS THAT COULD BE
LOOKED AT VERY CAREFULLY MAKING
SURE THAT THEY ARE AIRTIGHT. UH
FLEXIBILITIES, FOR EXAMPLE,
CURTAILMENT IS ONE THAT IS, YOU
KNOW, BEEN CONSIDERATE ON THE
TABLE. IF YOU'RE PRODUCING
EXCESS WIND OR SOLAR, YOU COULD
USE THAT. CURTAILED POWER AS THE
SOURCE OF YOUR ADDITION. AL ITTY
OR INSTRUMENTALITY? THAT'S A
POSSIBILITY SOMETHING THEY EU
HAS LOOKED AT. THERE ALSO IS A
POTENTIAL FORCE AND FLEXIBILITY
AROUND THE STATE ADMISSIONS CAP,
WHICH IS A BINDING CAP. UM THAT
MIGHT ALLOW SOME FLEXIBILITY,
AND THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT
THE EU HAS LOOKED AT. SO I THINK
THERE'S SOME THINGS TO EXPLORE.
BUT BOTTOM LINE. CALIFORNIA
DOESN'T NEED A LOT OF
FLEXIBILITY. IT SORT OF HAS WHAT
IT NEEDS TO BE COMPLIANT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. SEMI MEMBER
COUNTY NORTH. OKAY,
PETRIE-NORRIS, RIGHT? THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR. I'LL JUST FIRST SAY
THANK YOU FOR CONVENING US FOR
THIS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT
CONVERSATION. I THINK THAT WE
ARE ALL COMMITTED TO ENSURE THAT
HYDROGEN IN CALIFORNIA IS CLEAN.
I THINK FOR ME, I ALSO WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE ESTABLISH A
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK FOR CLEAN
HYDROGEN. UM THAT KIND OF PUTS
IT IN THE CONTEXT OF
CALIFORNIA'S EXISTING ENERGY
POLICY. UM SO AND I THINK THAT
THAT KIND OF GETS AT THE HEART,
MR BROWER, WHAT YOU OR TALKING
ABOUT IN YOUR COMMENTS, AND YOU
POINTED TO THE THAT YOUR LETTER.
WHERE UM, YOU HAVE CALLED FOR AN
ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE PATHWAY.
OH, YOU KNOW, BUT I DON'T KNOW
IF MY COLLEAGUES KNOW THE
GOVERNOR, UH, ACTUALLY SENT A
LETTER ALONGSIDE GOVERNOR CO.
TECH AND INSLEE. THAT'S OREGON
AND WASHINGTON, RIGHT? YES ALL
OF THE WESTERN GOVERNORS KIND OF
ECHOING THAT SAME REQUEST FOR AN
ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE PATHWAY,
I THINK, ESSENTIALLY SAYING, IF
I UNDERSTAND. HEY WE'VE ALREADY
GOT LAWS ON THE BOOKS THAT
ACCOMPLISHED THIS STUFF. SO
THERE'S A YOU KNOW, SMARTER WAY
FOR US TO GET THERE, SO I GUESS
CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN TO US IN
NON DOCTOR TERMS, NON SCIENCE
TERMS. WHY A THREE PILLARS
FRAMEWORK MIGHT MAKE SENSE IN,
YOU KNOW, DIRTY STATES. ACROSS
THE COUNTRY. BUT DOESN'T MAKE
SENSE HERE. YES UM, I AGREE THAT
, UM, WHEN A FEDERAL LAW IS
PASSED, AND YOU HAVE DIFFERENT
JURISDICTIONS, DIFFERENT STATES,
DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS THAT
DON'T HAVE A DATE CERTAIN
DECARBONIZATION STRATEGY IN
PLACE. THAT WE NEED, UM,
SAFEGUARDS FOR LIKE THE THREE
PILLARS FOR ACHIEVING WHAT THE
US DEAL WE REQUIRES FOR PTC.
OKAY BECAUSE THERE WILL BE, UM
OVER TIME. CONSEQUENTIAL
EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH
CONNECTING TO GRID POWER MAKING
ELECTROLYTIC HYDROGEN AND THOSE
CONSEQUENTIAL EMISSIONS WILL
ALWAYS BE HIGHER. IN THE CASE OF
CALIFORNIA, THOUGH THOSE
CONSEQUENTIAL EMISSIONS ARE
GOING TO BE HIGHER AT CERTAIN
HOURS, LOWER AT OTHER HOURS, AND
ON A TREND OF GOING DOWN, SO
IT'S THIS POLICY FRAMEWORK THAT
WE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE FOR
DATE CERTAIN DECARBONIZATION
THAT OVER TIME ALWAYS ASSURES
EMISSIONS ARE GOING DOWN DOWN
DOWN TO ZERO BY DATE, CERTAIN
AND THEN SOMETIMES, UP AND DOWN
ALONG THE WAY. GREAT THAT'S YOUR
ONE MINUTE IN TERMS OF RESPONSE.
IF YOU HAVE ANY I GUESS AND WHY
IN 60 SECONDS. UM I WHY DO YOU
DISAGREE WITH THE ASSERTION THAT
GIVEN ALL OF THE VERY ROBUST
PROTECTIONS ALL THE VERY BEST
LAWS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE ON THE
BOOKS, THE VERY WELL ESTABLISHED
CLEAN ENERGY FRAMEWORK THAT
EXISTS FOR CALIFORNIA. AN
ALTERNATIVE DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
WELL, YOU KNOW AGAIN, I
CALIFORNIA CAN MEET. THE THREE
PILLARS REALLY IS THERE'S VERY
LITTLE QUESTION ABOUT THAT, UM
AND I THINK MOST STUDIES SHOW
THAT SO I THINK IT'S A IT'S A
QUESTION. WHY DO WE NEED
FLEXIBILITIES FOR CALIFORNIA AND
THAT? I REALLY I THINK I'M STILL
NOT QUITE UNDERSTANDING FROM THE
ARGUMENT. UM I WILL SAY THAT IN
THE CASE OF THE HYDROGEN
PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT, THE 45 V
FEDERAL CREDIT. I MEAN, IT'S A
SUBSIDY FOR A VERY, VERY, VERY
GENEROUS SUBSIDY $3 PER KILOGRAM
AT THE HIGHEST TIER, AND IT'S
YOU KNOW. YOU YOU GET THAT IF
YOU REALLY DESERVE IT. IF YOU
REALLY, REALLY ARE CLEAN, IT
DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T PRODUCE
HYDROGEN. OTHERWISE IT JUST
MEANS YOU'RE NOT ENTITLED TO
THAT VERY GENEROUS TAX CREDIT.
EVERY HUB IS GOING TO BE EVERY
PRODUCER AND EVERY HUB IS GOING
TO BE COMPETING TO GET TO THAT
$3 LEVEL. AND SO IT'S REALLY A
RACE TO THE TOP. SO WHY WOULDN'T
WE WANT TO INCENTIVIZE A RACE TO
THE TOP IS MY QUESTION AND IT'S
IN EFFECTIVELY. IT'S A LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD BECAUSE EVERYONE'S
GOING TO BE TRYING TO GET THERE.
I'M JUST GOING TO OFFER A QUICK
OBSERVATION AND THAT IS, I THINK
TWO FUNDAMENTAL POINTS. ONE IS
THAT I THINK SOME PEOPLE WOULD
DISAGREE THAT THE GOVERNOR'S
LETTER IS ASKED FOR THE SAME
KIND OF ALTERNATIVE APPROACH
THAT ARCHES HAS ASKING FOR, AND
THAT ARTIST IS ASKING FOR
BASICALLY COMPLETE WAIVER OF THE
OF THE 45 V RATHER THAN AN
ALTERNATIVE. THE WAIVER BEING WE
DON'T NEED IT, YOU KNOW, AND
THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD CALL THE
ALTERNATIVE APPROACH. BUT THE
OTHER IS THE FUN. TO MENTAL
QUESTION. OF WHETHER CALIFORNIA
IS CURRENT SYSTEM WILL ACTUALLY
GET US GREEN ENOUGH, AND I THINK
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF
FRUSTRATION AS PEOPLE SAYING
WE'RE NOT GOING TO HIT OUR 2030
GOALS WERE NOT GOING TO HIT. SO
THE FACT THAT WE'RE NOT HITTING
OUR COALS IS ONE OF THE PIECES
OF EVIDENCE THAT'S OUT THERE.
BUT SHE SAID, YOU HAD ONE MORE
QUESTION AND I DO HAVE A
QUESTION. UM, AND THAT'S WHAT
I'M WHAT? I'M TRYING TO GET MY
HEAD AROUND IN, YOU KNOW, SORT
OF ALL OF THESE CONVERSATIONS,
BUT AS WE'RE LOOKING AT, I THINK
WE RECOGNIZE THAT, UM, ARE CLEAN
ENERGY PUZZLE HAS GOT A LOT OF
PIECES RIGHT? AND THERE ARE
DIFFERENT RESOURCES THAT MAKE
SENSE TO SOLVE DIFFERENT PARTS
OF THAT THAT PUZZLE AND I'M A
BIG BELIEVER THAT WE'VE GOT TO
TAKE, YOU KNOW, AND ALL OF THE
ABOVE APPROACH AND YOU WANT THE
CLEANEST ENERGY SOURCE. TO FIT
THE MISSION, RIGHT? UM AND SO I
GUESS I'M WONDERING, AND I KNOW
I DON'T KNOW IF I GENTLEMAN ON
THE ZOOM SCREEN IS THERE BUT ITS
COMPARISON TO THE AVERAGE THE
RELEVANT QUESTION. OR IS IT A
QUESTION OF COMPARING IT TO THE
REAL WORLD ALTERNATIVE, WHICH IS
ACTUALLY YOU KNOW, AS YOU SAID,
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HYDROGEN. AS
BEING UTILIZED IN OUR HARDEST TO
ABATE SECTORS, SO THAT IS MUCH
DIRTIER THAN THE AVERAGE AND I
GUESS I ASKED THAT BECAUSE I
THINK SOMETIMES YOU KNOW, WE ALL
WANT 100% CLEAN SOLUTION, BUT
FOR CERTAIN SECTORS THAT'S
ACTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE. AND SO IN
SOME CASES YOU ARE WAY BETTER
OFF TAKING. LET'S TAKE THE 80%
CLEAN SOLUTION AS OPPOSED TO THE
YOU KNOW, 10% CLEAN SOLUTION
THAT WE HAVE TODAY. AND I THINK
I ASKED THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THIS
CONVERSATION, AND I THINK IT'S
REALLY, REALLY FOUNDATIONAL AS
WE CHART A PATH FORWARD, UM AND
ENSURE THAT WE'RE NOT MAKING
PERFECT THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD
AND MOVING AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE IN PRAGMATIC AND REAL
WAYS TO DELIVER ON OUR CLEAN
ENERGY OBJECTIVES. IT'S QUICK AS
WE CAN, WITH THE TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS. YEAH IT'S A GREAT
QUESTION, AND I THINK IT
WARRANTS A LOT OF INVESTIGATION.
I GUESS YOU KNOW, MY ANSWER TO
THAT IS, YOU KNOW, LET'S PUT ALL
OF THESE ALTERNATIVES ON THE
TABLE AND TRULY DO THE LIFECYCLE
AND ANALYSIS THAT'S NECESSARY.
IT'S NOT JUST, UM, LOOKING AT
HYDROGEN IN VERSUS DIESEL OR
HYDROGEN VERSUS WHATEVER YOUR
STATUS, QUOTE, FUEL IS OR
HYDROGEN VERSUS, YOU KNOW,
LOOKING AT THE AVERAGE GRID
EMISSIONS. IT'S ALSO LOOKING AT
OTHER ALTERNATIVES,
ELECTRIFICATION IS A VIABLE
ALTERNATIVE. EVEN IN THE HEART
ADDICT CARBONIZED SECTORS FOR
VARIOUS INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS.
WE COULD BE REALLY PUSHING THE
BOUNDS OF ELECTRIFICATION. WE
COULD BE PUSHING THE BOUNDS OF
EFFICIENCY ALTERNATIVE
TECHNOLOGIES. OTHER APPROACHES.
UM I JUST THINK IT NEEDS TO BE.
YOU KNOW, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY
RIGHT. AND WE NEED TO JUST THROW
ALL OF THESE OPPORTUNITIES ON
THE TABLE AND ASSESS THEM USING
THE SAME PARAMETERS. WE MAY FIND
IT. IT'S JUST IT'S A MORE
COMPLICATED EQUATION. BUT I
THINK ULTIMATELY WE CAN GET TO
THE RIGHT ANSWER ABOUT WHERE
HYDROGEN IS THE RIGHT SOLUTION
TO MEET OUR CLIMATE OBJECTIVES.
DR BROWN. YES I AGREE. WE NEED
TO IMPROVE CARBON ACCOUNTING SO
THAT WE CAN ACCOUNT FOR THE
CALIFORNIA SITUATION. WE HAVE A
CALIFORNIA GREEK MODEL ALREADY,
BUT IT NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED AND
IT CAN BE IMPROVED TO INCLUDE
THESE IDEAS OF ADDITIONAL ITTY,
UM DELIVER ABILITY AND TIME
BASED. LET ME LET ME JUST
SUGGEST, THOUGH, THAT UM, WE
NEED ALL OF THESE SOLUTIONS TO
SUCCEED. WE NEED ELECTRIFICATION
OF EVERYTHING WE CAN POSSIBLY
ELECTRIFY. WE NEED BATTERIES
WHEREVER WE CAN USE THEM, AND WE
SHOULD USE EFFICIENCY AND THOSE
SOURCES FIRST IN THESE
APPLICATIONS, AND ONLY WHEN YOU
CAN'T BE CARBONIZED IT WITH
SOMETHING LIKE BATTERIES OR
DIRECT ELECTRIFICATION. THEN YOU
USE THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OF
HYDROGEN. SO WE'RE IN. AGREEMENT
WITH REGARD TO THAT. AND THERE
ARE CURRENT MARKET MECHANISMS IN
PLACE. OKAY, THAT CAN GUARANTEE
TO CALIFORNIA STANDARDS THAT
IT'S GREEN ELECTRICITY YOU ARE
PURCHASING OKAY. WE CURRENTLY
HAVE STANDARDS FOR THAT. AND IF
AN ELECTROLYZER CAN QUALIFY FOR
THAT, SO COULD A BATTERY
ELECTRIC VEHICLES. SO COULD A
BUILDING. SO COULD ANY OF THESE,
UM, RESOURCES THAT ARE USING
RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY? FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE, WE SHOULD TREAT
THEM ALL EQUALLY THE SAME. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
BRIAN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
THIS INCREDIBLY ROBUST
CONVERSATION. I THINK THAT THIS
IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. I MEAN,
OBVIOUSLY, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS MAKING A
TREMENDOUS INVESTMENT AND I'M
GLAD THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE ONE
OF THE NODES THAT, UH, IS
RECEIVING THAT INVESTMENT TO
PROP UP THIS EMERGING IN NEW
INDUSTRY. UM, I THINK THAT THE
PROPOSITION THAT WAS MADE BY MY
COLLEAGUE THAT WE CAN GET 80%
THERE. I THINK THAT'S GOOD. UM,
YOU KNOW, I HEAR THAT IN SOME OF
THE THINGS THAT I'VE SEEN GIVEN
OUR EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE THAT
THE BLEND IS MORE LIKE 20. THERE
TO KEEP THE EXISTING
INFRASTRUCTURE IN SOME CASES
WITHOUT KIND OF TALKING ABOUT
FREIGHT FOR TALKING ABOUT DIESEL
TRUCKS. YEAH, WE'RE NOT EVEN 20,
SO WE'VE DEFINITELY GOT SOME
WORK TO DO IN REGARDS TO THE
PILLARS, THOUGH. THE ALTERNATIVE
COMPLIANCE. IT'S INTERESTING
THAT WE BROUGHT THIS UP. TODAY
BECAUSE I WAS I WAS ASKED IF I
WOULD JOIN ONTO LEGISLATION THAT
WOULD PUSH THE RETROFIT DATE FOR
SOME OF OUR HOSPITALS. BILL THAT
WAS SIGNED IN 1994. I BELIEVE TO
RETROFIT BY 2030. THAT IS THE
TARGET WE SET AND THAT'S A
TARGET. WE'RE NOT GOING TO MEET,
AND THAT'S A TARGET THAT WE'RE
GONNA HAVE TO PROVIDE SOME
SUPPORT AND RELIEF. SO ARE WE
NOT JUST TRYING TO ESCAPE THE
FEDERAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS
THAT WE CAN REGULATE OURSELVES
AND GIVE OURSELVES OUT WHICH I
THINK IS COUNTER. TO
CALIFORNIA'S KIND OF GOALS OF
BEING THE CLIMATE LEADER THAT WE
ARE, BUT WE WANT LESS CLEAN
STATES TO HAVE A MORE STRINGENT
AND CLEANER FRAMEWORK FOR HOW
THEY DEVELOP HYDROGEN AND GIVE
OURSELVES KIND OF THE WIGGLE
ROOM TO NOT MEET OUR OVERALL
TARGETS. AND ONE OF THOSE
REASONS BEING THAT WE SET UP A
HYDROGEN INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS
NOT AS CLEAN AS OTHER STATES
THAT WERE COMPLIANT WITH THE
THREE PILLARS. IS THAT NOT? IS
THAT NOT PART OF THE
CONVERSATION HERE. I THINK IT'S
ACTUALLY JUST THE OPPOSITE. I
THINK CALIFORNIA ALREADY HAS IN
PLACE THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK TO
MAKE SURE THAT IT IS GREEN
TODAY. AND OVER TIME CONTINUES
TO GET CLEANER AND SUPPORT THE
WHOLE GRID AND ALL OF SOCIETY IN
THAT DIRECTION. WE ALREADY HAVE
THOSE POLICIES IN PLACE. WE'VE
BEEN ARGUING ABOUT THIS FOR 20
YEARS IN THIS STATE. THIS IS
THIS IS WHY I'M PROUD TO BE A
CALIFORNIA BECAUSE WE HAVE THE
BEST ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES
AND MAYBE BEST IN THE WORLD. SO
ALREADY. SO YOU WOULD CONTEND
THAT IF WE DON'T ADOPT THE 31
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUT I
HAVE TO WAVE US FROM THE THREE
PILLARS TO BEGIN WITH, RIGHT
GIVEN THE CURRENT FRAMEWORK
WHERE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE
GOING TO IMPLEMENT. BUT IF THEY
DON'T, FOR EXAMPLE, WE WOULD
THEN JUST STILL BE COMPLIANT AND
BUILD UP OUR FRAMEWORK BASED ON
THE THREE PILLARS BECAUSE THIS
IS A MASSIVE INVESTMENT THAT
THEY'RE OFFERING. IS THAT RIGHT?
WE WOULD BE COMPLIANT WITH THE
GOALS OF THE THREE PILLARS,
WHICH ARE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
HAVE ADDITIONAL ELECTRICITY THAT
RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY OR ZERO
EMISSIONS, ELECTRICITY THAT GOES
IN THAT THAT WE CAN DELIVER THAT
ELECTRICITY AND THAT IF WE USE
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTE THAT
IT'S ON AN HOURLY BASIS THAT
WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED IN
CALIFORNIA, BY DATE, CERTAIN
2045 SO WITH WITHOUT THE THREE
PILLAR REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
COMING FROM WITHOUT AN
ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE
MECHANISM, WE WOULD STILL ACCEPT
THIS MASSIVE FEDERAL INVESTMENT
AND MEET THE GOALS AS CURRENTLY
ARTICULATED BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. IS THAT RIGHT? THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE
REQUIREMENTS FOR ARCHES. IT'S
JUST THAT THE PROJECTS THAT ARE
IN ARCHES REQUIRE THE PTC TO
MAKE THEM MAKE FINANCIAL SENSE.
SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT. IT'S A
LITTLE BIT. I GUESS WHAT I'M
SAYING IS, IF THIS IS THESE ARE
LETTERS PENDING TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. IF THEY SAY NO. WE
ARE STILL GOING TO DEVELOP CLEAN
AND GREEN HYDROGEN EXCEPT THIS
INVESTMENT AND CONTINUE TO MOVE
FORWARD. IS THAT RIGHT? I DON'T
OKAY, WE COULD, BUT WE COULD
FAIL IN ACHIEVING AND HAVE TO
RETURN THE MONEY. BECAUSE
PROJECTS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO
PROCEED UNLESS THEY CAN QUALIFY
FOR THE PTC. HMM OKAY. I DON'T
KNOW FOR SURE IF I'M ANSWERING
YOUR QUESTION. ARE WE SUGGESTING
THAT OTHER HUBS AND OTHER STATES
THAT DON'T HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE
COMPLIANCE FRAMEWORK LIKE US
WITH A CERTAINTY? THEY THEN HAVE
NO SHOT IN THIS GAME TO BEGIN
WITH BECAUSE OF THEIR PROJECTS
CAN'T GET OFF THE GROUND FOR THE
SAME REASONS. OURS CAN'T GET OFF
THE GROUND. THEN THIS IS ALL.
JUST A WASH BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS THAT WE'RE
SUGGESTING NO, NO, OKAY. LET ME
SUGGEST THAT APPLICATION OF THE
THREE PILLARS IN JURISDICTIONS
THAT DON'T HAVE A DATE CERTAIN
DECARBONIZATION, OR ESPECIALLY
ALL THE REGULATIONS AND LAWS IN
PLACE TO ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH
THAT, BY DATE, CERTAIN THEY
SHOULD ABIDE BY THE THREE
PILLARS. AND IN THIS WAY, I
AGREE WITH THE D F IN SUGGESTING
THAT CALIFORNIA HAS AN
ADVANTAGE. WE ALREADY HAVE LAWS
IN PLACE THAT MOVE US IN THAT
EXACT SAME DIRECTION. AND SO
THEY WILL HAVE A MORE DIFFICULT
TIME COMPLYING WITH AND
RECEIVING THE PTC THAN
CALIFORNIA. OKAY CALIFORNIA IS
JUST NOT NEEDED BECAUSE WE HAVE
EXISTING LAW THAT GETS US AND
GETS US TO THE SAME PLACE. I
DEFINITELY HEAR THAT ARGUMENT,
AND THAT'S THAT'S MY LAST KIND
OF COMMENT ABOUT IT. IS THAT
THAT THAT'S WHAT'S CONFUSING ME
IS, IF IT IF WE'RE ALREADY MUCH
CLOSER TO THE GOALS OF THE THREE
PILLARS THAN ANYBODY ELSE IN OUR
COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE IS
ESTABLISHED BY THE FACT THAT
WE'VE BEEN MOVING THIS DIRECTION
ALREADY CORRECT. AND IF THE IF
THIS FRAMEWORK BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT NEGATES THE ABILITY
TO BUILD THIS OUT CORRECTLY,
THEN NOBODY BUT US IS EVEN CLOSE
TO BEING ABLE TO DO THIS, AND
THIS IS THIS IS KIND OF A
WORTHLESS INVESTMENT BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BASED ON THE
IDEA THAT WE CAN'T GET OUR
PROJECTS OFF THE GROUND AND WERE
FURTHER AHEAD. THAT'S WHAT I'M
CONFUSED ON. AND I DON'T KNOW
THAT YOU'VE KIND OF CLEARED THAT
UP FOR ME. I'M JUST TRYING TO
BETTER UNDERSTAND WHY, WITH ALL
OF THE FRAMEWORK THAT WE PUT IN
PLACE THAT IS ACTUALLY CLOSER TO
THOSE GOALS THAN OTHERS. WHY
WE'RE NOT ALREADY COMPETITIVELY.
YEAH FURTHER AHEAD THAN SOME OF
THESE OTHER PLACES FURTHER
AHEAD, OKAY, BUT WE ARE NOT
TODAY. THERE ARE NO MECHANISMS
TODAY IN CALIFORNIA TO
ACCOMPLISH HOURLY MATCHING NOR
HAS THERE BEEN ANY, UM,
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK IN WHICH
THIS HAS BEEN ACHIEVED YET, OKAY
? AND SO, UM, WHAT IT WILL FAVOR
ARE THOSE HUBS THAT MAKE FOSSIL
HYDROGEN THAT'S WHAT WILL BE
FAVORED. THOSE WILL STILL
SUCCEED BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY
ARGUING ABOUT ELECTROLYTIC
HYDROGEN, SO THE FOSSIL HYDROGEN
HUBS WILL PROCEED, NO MATTER
WHAT THEY'RE NOT EVEN INVOLVED
IN THIS DISCUSSION. UM IT'S
THOSE THAT ARE DEPENDING UPON
ELECTROLYTIC HYDROGEN, AND
THAT'S WHY THE WESTERN STATES
GOVERNORS HAVE GOTTEN TOGETHER
BOTH IN WASHINGTON STATE WHERE
THEY PLAN TO MOSTLY USE HYDRO.
OKAY AND IN CALIFORNIA, WHERE WE
PLAN TO MOSTLY USE SUN AND WIND
POWER. DO WE WANT THERE TO BE A
DATE? CERTAIN? DECARBONIZATION
ALTERNATE, UM, COMPLIANCE
PATHWAY. I'M JUST A QUICK
SUMMARY BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA TO
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S REST. BUT I
POSED THE QUESTION A LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENTLY. AND THAT IS IF
CALIFORNIA IS GOING TO GET THERE
ANYWAY. WHY WOULD IT HURT US TO
ADOPT THE THREE PILLARS? BECAUSE
CALIFORNIA IS GOING TO GET THERE
ANYWAY, AND NOBODY IS ASKING FOR
US TO DO HOURLY MATCHING
IMMEDIATELY. HE SAID. NOBODY CAN
DO HOURLY MATCHING, BUT YES,
THERE ARE ADJUSTMENTS WE HAVE TO
MAKE. EVEN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT DOESN'T SAY HOURLY
MATCHING RIGHT AWAY. BUT IF, ON
THE ONE HAND WE'RE SAYING
CALIFORNIA'S GONNA DO ALL OF
THIS STUFF, THEN HOW DOES IT
HURT US TO ASSURE OURSELVES THAT
WE'RE GOING TO DO ALL THIS STUFF
BY PUTTING IT INTO LEGISLATION
BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD
CONTEND THAT OUR PATCHWORK OF
LAWS OUT THERE RPS STANDARDS LCF
STANDARDS QUARTERLY MATCHING OUR
ANNUAL MAGIC? ARE NOT ACTUALLY
GOING TO GET US THERE OR GIVE US
THE ASSURANCE WE'RE GOING TO GET
THEIR PROPERLY BUT
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S REST THANK YOU.
I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU THAT IT WAS
FRUSTRATING HEARING THE ANSWERS
FROM MY CULTURE THAT WERE GIVEN
TO MY COLLEAGUE BECAUSE IF WE
ARE POISED TO MEET THE THREE
PILLARS. THEN AS WAS MENTIONED,
THEN THIS IS THE RACE TO THE TOP
SAYING WE'RE GOING TO MEET THE
THREE PILLARS. WE'RE GETTING ALL
THIS FEDERAL MONEY. WE ARE GOING
TO BE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO
RECEIVE THIS AND MOVE FORWARD
RATHER THAN TRYING TO SAY.
YOU'RE GIVING US TOO MUCH TO
HAVE TO DO. WE CAN DO IT, BUT WE
ARE GIVING US TOO MUCH TO DO SO.
NOW IT'S THE RACE TO THE BOTTOM.
AND I THINK, CALIFORNIA BECAUSE
WE HAVE DONE SO MUCH WE ARE
POISED TO RECEIVE THIS MONEY.
WAIT I JUST LAST YEAR WE WORKED
ON A B 126 THE CLEAN
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM, AND
THERE WAS LOTS OF DISCUSSION
ABOUT HYDROGEN. AND THEN PART OF
THE ISSUE WAS THAT MONEY HAD
ALREADY BEEN ALLOCATED FOR
HYDROGEN INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WAS
NEVER DONE. AND THE BIGGEST
COMPLAINT WAS THAT THERE HAD NOT
BEEN PRIVATE INVESTMENT. AND IF
THERE ISN'T PRIVATE INVESTMENT,
THEN WE THE MONEY THAT COULD BE
GOING TO DO THIS WORK COULDN'T
GO ANYWHERE BECAUSE PRIVATE
INVESTMENT VESTMENT WAS MISSING.
IT NOW WE HAVE ARCHES. WE HAVE
ALL THIS FEDERAL MONEY THAT IS
COMING OUR WAY TO HELP US USE
HYDROGEN AS AN ALTERNATIVE, AND
I THINK THERE ARE SOME PLACES
WHERE HYDROGEN CAN BE USED AS AN
ALTERNATIVE. MY COLLEAGUE WAS
SAYING THAT MOST 80. UM CAN CAN
CAN GET TO ELECTRIFICATION AND
DO THAT SUCCESSFULLY. WE'RE JUST
TALKING ABOUT 20% THAT NEEDS
SOMETHING MORE. SO IF WE'RE
GOING TO LIMIT IT TO THAT AREA
THAT IS HARD TO ELECTRIFY, THEN.
THAT IS WHERE THAT THAT THOSE
ARE THE AREAS THEN THAT WOULD
SEEM TO ME LOGICALLY ARE THE
ONES THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE THE
GREATEST INVESTMENT. BECAUSE WE
CAN'T ELECTRIFY ARE WE IS PART
OF WHAT WE'RE SAYING THEN THAT
HYDROGEN SHOULD ONLY BE USED IN
LIMITED HARD TO ELECTRIFY
SECTORS, NOT THE SECTORS THAT
CAN DE CARBONIZED MORE
EFFICIENTLY THROUGH
ELECTRIFICATION. IS THAT WHAT
WE'RE SAYING OR WE TRY TO USE
HYDROGEN EVEN IN THE PLACES
WHERE WE CAN ELECTRIFY SO I
BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD ALWAYS
TRY TO MAKE RENEWABLE
ELECTRICITY FIRST AND USE IT
IMMEDIATELY WHEN IT'S MADE AND
NOT STORE IT OR DO ANYTHING, AND
WE SHOULD ELECTRIFY AS MANY AND
USES AS IS PHYSICALLY AND
HUMANLY POSSIBLE, AND WE SHOULD
THEN USE THE MOST EFFICIENT
STORAGE MEANS WHEREVER POSSIBLE.
THIS IS WHY WE ALWAYS DO
RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY,
ELECTRIFICATION AND BATTERIES
FIRST. ALWAYS AND HYDROGEN IS
THE SOLUTION THAT COMES NEXT.
THIS IS WHY, FOR EXAMPLE, WE'VE
INVESTED IN SOLAR AND BATTERIES
AND WIND IN THIS STATE. I THINK
IT'S THE RIGHT POLICY AND THEN
BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE. IT WAS
THE NEXT THING AFTER THAT, WE
HAVE DIFFICULT TO ABATE SECTORS
AND THEY INCLUDE THINGS THAT ARE
IMPOSSIBLE TO ABATE LIKE STEEL
OR CEMENT WITHOUT HYDROGEN OR
PLASTICS OR AMMONIA. IMPOSSIBLE
WITHOUT HYDROGEN. SO WE
ABSOLUTELY NEEDED FOR THAT. AND
THEN COMES THE ONES THAT ARE
KIND OF IN BETWEEN WHERE 20%
COULD BE BATTERIES. 80% CAN BE
BATTERIES OR 20% COULD BE
HYDROGEN AND 80% THANK YOU.
HYDROGEN. OKAY SO, YES, WE AIM
THINGS AT THOSE MOST DIFFICULT
TO ABATE SECTORS WHEN WE WHEN WE
APPLIED HYDROGEN, THAT'S EXACTLY
WHAT OUR THIS IS DOING IS
PUTTING IT IN FREIGHT. AND PORTS
. THAT'S WHERE IT'S GOING AND
BUST KIDS. YEAH IN ANY ROOM. OH
YEAH, I COMPLETELY AGREE IN
AGREEMENT ON THIS POINT, AND
JUST TO ADD THAT I THINK THERE
IS A LOT OF TENSION RIGHT NOW IN
VARIOUS SECTORS WHO SEE HYDROGEN
AS A WAY TO MEET TO PROVE THEIR
VIABILITY IN A NET ZERO WORLD
LIKE GAS UTILITIES, SO THERE'S A
LOT OF CONVERSATION HAPPENING AT
THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
LEVEL ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
HYDROGEN BLENDING INTO GAS
UTILITY SYSTEMS MAKE SENSE AT
ALL, KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW NOW
ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR
ELECTRIFICATION, SO IT'S AN OPEN
QUESTION THAT'S BEING DEBATED
RIGHT NOW. SO FOR ME HYDROGEN IS
ONE OF THE OPTIONS AND IT SHOULD
BE LEFT OPEN FOR IN IN MY AREA,
MEDIUM AND HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES
THAT'S NOT LIKE DUTY VEHICLES,
BUT MEDIUM AND HEAVY DUTY
VEHICLES ABSOLUTELY SOMETHING
THAT THAT HYDROGEN NEEDS TO BE
EXPLORED SO WE CAN USE IT MORE
EFFICIENTLY. BUT I'M JUST
CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT
WE'RE RECEIVING ALL OF THIS
FEDERAL MONEY. THAT CALIFORNIA
HAS LOTS OF LAWS IN PLACE AS YOU
MENTIONED WE WANT TO WITH WE
ACCEPT THAT THERE IS A GREAT
INVESTMENT BEING PUT INTO
HYDROGEN. BUT MY QUESTION IS WHY
FIGHT IT? SO I FIGHTING YOU'RE
AND I'M SORRY, BUT SEVEN
INVESTMENT, SO HERE'S THE OTHER.
THE OTHER QUESTION. SHOULD
CALIFORNIA ONLY USE HYDROGEN
PRODUCED THE LOOK ELECTRON
TRELLISES. THROUGH RENEWABLE
RESOURCES. IT SHOULD BE THE MAIN
WAY WE PRODUCE HYDROGEN AROUND
THE WORLD GLOBALLY IN THE FUTURE
. ABSOLUTELY IT SHOULD BE THE
MAIN WAY. THANK YOU. OKAY AND
LET ME SEE. I DISAGREE WITH THE
CHARACTERIZATION OF RACE TO THE
BOTTOM. I ACTUALLY THINK
CALIFORNIA POLICIES ARE ALREADY
AT THE TOP. AND IF WE JUST KEEP
FOCUSED ON OUR MEETING OUR OWN
POLICY GOALS AND USING OUR OWN
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK, WHICH USES
SOME MARKET MECHANISMS, OKAY, IF
WE FOCUS ON MAKING THAT SUCCEED,
WE WILL BE AT THE TOP, AND THAT
IS ONE OF OUR DEBATABLE POINTS.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S CAREER, MR
CHAIR. UM, THE QUESTION THAT I
POSED FIRST ON MR JENKINS
COMMENT ON THE 10 TO 15 KG OF C
02 PER KILOGRAM OF HYDROGEN. AH
MR BRODY. YOU THINK THAT THAT'S
AN ACCURATE APPROXIMATION OF
WHAT IT COSTS? THAT'S A GOOD
NUMBER. YEAH FOR VERY SMR. AND
UH, WHEN MR WHERE NERD WAS
PRESENTING, I BELIEVE I HEARD
HIM SAY THAT THE E U'S THREE
PILLARS MODEL. THE GOAL. THERE
WAS TO USE LESS CARBON FUELS,
AND I BELIEVE THAT HE MENTIONED
THAT ABOUT 70% OF THAT IS THAT
THERE IS PRODUCED THROUGH THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUELS IS PART
OF THE THREE PILLARS. IS THAT
ABOUT RIGHT? YOU MAYBE? YES.
MAYBE NO. SORRY. WHAT I MEANT TO
SAY WAS THAT YOU CAN HAVE A
SEAT. YEAH. WE HAVE AN EU LAW
THE REQUIREMENT THAT SUSTAINABLE
HYDROGEN NEEDS TO ENSURE 70%
EMISSIONS WITH ACTION COMPARED
TO FORESIGHT, FUEL COMPARE IT SO
THAT'S THE CURRENT MODEL IN THE
U IN PRODUCING HYDROGEN. IN THE
U. WE PRODUCE AT THE MOMENT AS
IN THE U. S MOSTLY FOSSIL, FUEL
BASED HYDROGEN, BUT IT IS THE
EXPIRATION AND IT IS THE LAW
THAT WE NOW NEED TO IMPLEMENT.
OVER TIME. MY POINT IN ASKING
THAT QUESTION, IT SEEMS LIKE
WE'RE TRYING TO MOTOR LAUGHTER.
THE USE THREE PILLARS, WHICH
OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE NOT DOING 100.
UM, SO IN THE DEBATE ABOUT THE
QUESTIONS HERE ABOUT SHOULD
CALIFORNIA GOING TO THE THREE
MODEL PEELERS? UM THE OTHER
THING IS THAT, UM MISTRUST QUÊ
IN YOUR COMMENTS. YOU SAID THAT
IF WE CAN ELECTRIFY WE SHOULD
BUT I THINK THAT WE CAN AGREE
THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE
TO ELECTRIFY THE WHOLE STATE.
NOT EVEN PUT IN THE HYDROGEN
EQUATION HAS BEEN PART OF THAT
SOLUTION BECAUSE WITHOUT
HYDROGEN WE'RE NOT GOING TO MEET
THOSE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE
WITCHES DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY
TO ELECTRIFY THE STATE UNLESS WE
USE MORE NUCLEAR POWER TO
PRODUCE ELECTRICITY. THAT'S WHAT
I THINK BECAUSE ALONG THE
DEBATES THAT WE'VE BEEN GOING
THROUGH 2045 THE WAY THAT IT'S
GOING, WHICH IS NOT GOING TO
GIVE THEIR CHEERS BYE,
ELECTRIFYING THE STATE WITHOUT
MORE NUCLEAR POWER, POSSIBLY
WHICH IS NOT THE CLEANEST WAY TO
DO IT EITHER. UM SO I SEE THE
DEBATE GOING IN THE HOLE. IT
SEEMS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO RUN
AROUND TRYING TO SAY THAT WE
DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO FOLLOW
THE THREE PILLARS MODEL. TO BE
100% AS HAS BEEN PRESENTED OR
PROPOSED BECAUSE THEY WERE
TRYING TO MODEL AFTER THE USE
THREE PILLARS. THEY'RE NOT USING
100% YET EITHER. RIGHT? SO DO WE
REALLY NEED TO DO THE THREE
MODEL THE THREE PILLARS MORE
LIKE THEY USE FOLLOWING? THANK
YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR THAT. I
THINK IT'S TIME FOR US TO MAKE
THE TRANSITION AS WE MAKE THE
TRANSITION. I THINK WE'VE SET
THINGS UP. IF EVERYBODY WILL
HOLD FOR A SECOND. I THINK WE'VE
SET THINGS UP. FOR UM, THE
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION THAT I
THINK CAPTURES SHARE, WHICH IS
OUR CALIFORNIA'S POLICIES. GOOD
ENOUGH THAT WE DON'T NEED THE
THREE PILLARS TO GET THERE. UM
OR NOT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL
QUESTIONS. WE'D LIKE TO HEAR
THAT FROM THE OTHER PANELISTS
WHEN YOU'RE ON, BUT AT THE SAME
TIME, I WOULD OFFER THAT THE
EUROPEAN UNION'S CERTAINLY HAS
ROBUST ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
ALSO AND THEY'VE DECIDED TO
ADOPT THE THREE PILLARS IN SPITE
OF THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE OTHER
ROBUST ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES.
SO FOR ME, THE FUNDAMENTAL
QUESTION IS, ARE OUR POLICIES
ROBUST ENOUGH TO GET US THERE?
UM AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S
GOING TO GET TO PERFECTION WITH
OR WITHOUT THE THREE PILLARS.
BUT THAT'S THE FUNDAMENTAL
QUESTION AND I THINK A PERFECT
SEGWAY WE HAVE NOW SEVEN
PANELISTS. TO TALK SPECIFICALLY,
AND WE'D LIKE YOU. THIS PANELIST
IS TALK ABOUT HOW HOW EARLY
MATCHING IS OUR CALIFORNIA
POLICY IS GOOD ENOUGH OR NOT
GOOD ENOUGH TO GET US THERE
WITHOUT THE THREE PILLARS, HOW
WITH ADDITION, AL ITTY OR
CALIFORNIA'S POLICY IS GOOD
ENOUGH OR NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO GET
US THERE AND WE REALLY
APPRECIATE HAVING THE THREE OF
YOU HERE AND YOU'RE GOING TO
STAY UP, LUCAS BUT THE TWO OF
YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT'S
VERY ROBUST. I WISH WE HAD MORE
TIME. I WISH THEY WOULD LET US
SCHEDULE THIS IN BETWEEN OUR
SESSIONS RATHER THAN BEFORE OR
AFTER WHEN WE WOULD HAVE MORE
TIME. BUT WE'LL MAKE THE
TRANSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IF WE HAVE THE OTHER FIVE
PANELISTS IN THE ROOM COME UP,
AND WE'LL HAVE TWO PANELISTS
THAT WILL BE ON THE SCREEN. SO
WE APPRECIATE YOUR DOCTOR
JENKINS WAITING UP THERE. AND
PAUL WELCOMES IS GOING TO BE ON
THE SCREEN. ALSO I'M ALSO GOING
TO ASK THAT WE DO THIS WHEN WE
HAVE YOU ON FOR YOUR WE ASKED
FOR FOUR MINUTES FROM YOU, FOLKS
. IF WE CAN. WE'RE GONNA ASK
THESE TWO GENTLEMEN TO SPEAK,
AND THEN WE'RE GONNA ASK THE TWO
OF YOU TO SWITCH SEATS. WE'LL
ASK YOU TO SWITCH SEATS AS WE
MOVE FORWARD. ACTUALLY, I WISH I
WOULD HAVE DONE THIS IN THE
FIRST PLACE. BUT MATTHEW
FRIEDMAN, STAFF ATTORNEY. THAT
YOU THAT'S PERFECT. YOU'RE IN
THE RIGHT SEAT, AND THEN DR
JEFFREY REED. GOOD YOU GUYS ARE
IN THE IN THE RIGHT SEAT. THEN
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE NEXT TO
PEOPLE SO THAT OTHERWISE YOU'RE
GOING TO BE SPEAKING WITH YOUR
BACK TO THE TO THE PANELIST
HERE, AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO
HONOR THE PANELISTS BEHIND. YOU
KNOW YOU KNEW YOUR OKAY, BUT I'M
GOING TO FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE
AS THEY DO A QUICK SWITCH IN
TERMS OF DOING THAT. SO THIS IS
THE MATTHEW FRIEDMAN. HE'S A
STAFF ATTORNEY FOR THE UTILITY
REFORM NETWORK. AND WE HAVE THE
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION. AND IF YOU
CAN HELP US WITH YOUR INSIGHTS
ON OUR CALIFORNIA'S POLICY IS
GOOD ENOUGH WHEN IT COMES
HOURLY, MATCHING AN ADDITION AL
ITTY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OR DO
WE NEED THE THREE PILLARS TO
MOVE FORWARD AND YOUR THOUGHTS?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING
HERE, MR FRIEDMAN. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
MY NAME IS MATT FRIEDMAN. I'M A
STAFF ATTORNEY WITH THE UTILITY
REFORM NETWORK. TURN AS A
NONPROFIT RATEPAYER ADVOCACY
ORGANIZATION, FIGHTING FOR LOWER
BILLS AND RATES TO HOLD
UTILITIES ACCOUNTABLE IN THE
STATE AND IN FAVOR OF AGGRESSIVE
CLEAN ENERGY AND DECARBONIZATION
POLICY, AND I'VE PERSONALLY
WORKED ON HYDROGEN ISSUES FOR A
NUMBER OF YEARS HERE IN THE
LEGISLATURE AND ON CLEAN ENERGY
POLICY FOR ABOUT 25 YEARS IN
CALIFORNIA TO ANSWER THE
QUESTION ARE CALIFORNIA'S POLICY
IS GOOD ENOUGH? THE SHORT ANSWER
IS NO. CALIFORNIA LACKS AN
ADEQUATE STATUTORY DEFINITION
TODAY OF CLEAN OR RENEWABLE
HYDROGEN. THE ONLY DEFINITION WE
HAVE TODAY IS FOR GREEN
ELECTROLYTIC HYDROGEN, WHICH IS
IN PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTION
400.2, WHICH ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS
HYDROGEN PRODUCED THE ELECT
ELECTROLYSIS TO BE CONSIDERED
GREEN. EVEN IF THE SOLE SOURCE
OF ELECTRICITY IS A COAL FIRED
POWER PLANT. THAT'S NOT
ACCEPTABLE. WE DO HAVE
PROVISIONS IN SB 100 THE
LANDMARK LEGISLATION THAT
ESTABLISHES OUR ULTIMATE GOAL OF
TOTAL DECARBONIZATION THAT
PROHIBITS THE USE OF A RESOURCE
SHUFFLING TO ACHIEVE OUR CARBON
REDUCTION GOALS, SO IT IS
EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED UNDER STATE
LAW TO SIMPLY RESHUFFLE THE
EXISTING DECK. IN ORDER TO CLAIM
PROGRESS, BUT THE AGENCY'S
REALLY HAVE DONE VERY LITTLE TO
NOTHING TO IMPLEMENT THIS
PARTICULAR PROVISION, BUT IT'S
THERE. IN FAITH IN LIGHT OF
CALIFORNIA'S FAILURE TO ENACT A
MEANINGFUL DEFINITION OF CLEAN
HYDROGEN. WE SUPPORT THE THREE
PILLARS. WE THINK THEY'RE
ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL AND WE
THINK THE EXISTING POLICIES
DON'T GET US THERE. AND WHEN I
READ THE LETTER FROM THE
CALIFORNIA AGENCY HEADS TO THE
TREASURY DEPARTMENT AND THE
WHITE HOUSE, ASKING FOR
ESSENTIALLY AN EXEMPTION FOR
CALIFORNIA FROM THE PROPOSED TAX
CREDIT RULES. I WAS STUNNED.
FRANKLY THE LETTER IS AN
EMBARRASSMENT TO THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AND IT'S AN EXERCISE
IN MAGICAL THINKING THE CLAIM
THAT DUE TO OUR EXISTING
POLICIES, ALL INCREMENTAL
CUSTOMER LOAD IS AUTOMATICALLY
SERVED BY ZERO. CARBON
ELECTRICITY IS AN ABSOLUTE
FICTION, AND IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY
AT ODDS WITH ALL OF THE STATES.
OTHER EXISTING PROGRAMS, WHICH
IS WHY THAT STATEMENT IS SO
SHOCKING. THERE'S NOT A SINGLE
PROGRAM IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA THAT AUTOMATICALLY
ASSUMES THAT WHEN A CUSTOMER
PUTS THEIR LOAD ONTO THE
ELECTRIC GRID, IT IS ZERO CARBON
THAT ALL OF OUR PROGRAMS HAVE
ESSENTIALLY SOLVED FOR THAT
LOAD. AND ADOPTING THE PRINCIPLE
IN THOSE LETTERS WOULD
EVISCERATE EXISTING STATE
PROGRAMS. WE'VE MADE GREAT
PROGRESS IN OUR EMISSIONS
ACCOUNTING, BUT OUR EMISSIONS
ACCOUNTING IN CALIFORNIA STARTS
WITH THE CORE PROPOSITION THAT A
NEW ELECTRICITY LOAD ON THE
SYSTEM STARTS OUT AS DIRTY AND
HAS TO PROVE ITSELF TO BE CLEAN
THROUGH THE ACQUISITION OF
DEDICATED RENEWABLE RESOURCES TO
SERVE THAT LOAD. AND THAT
INCLUDES THE POWER SOURCE
DISCLOSURE PROGRAM RUN BY THE
ENERGY COMMISSION. IT INCLUDES
THE INTEGRATED RESOURCES PROGRAM
AT THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION AND THE ENERGY
COMMISSION. AND ALTHOUGH WE DO
HAVE VERY AMBITIOUS REQUIREMENTS
FOR CLEAN ENERGY UNDER THE
RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO, STANDARD
PROGRAM AND INTEGRATED RESOURCES
PLANNING, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
REASONS WHY THESE PROGRAMS JUST
DON'T GET US TO THE PLACE THAT
THE PROPONENTS WOULD HAVE US.
THINK THEY GO, UM, CHANGES IN
INCREMENTAL PROCUREMENT OF NEW
CLEAN RESOURCES ARE SLOW, AND
THERE'S A HUGE LAG TIME.
RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD HAS
3 TO 4 YEAR COMPLIANCE PERIODS.
THERE'S ONLY A 60% TARGET BY
2030. THERE'S A TON OF EXCESS
COMPLIANCE IN THE SYSTEM TODAY
WERE A LOT OF LOAD SERVING
ENTITIES HAVE OVER, COMPLIED AND
CAN CAN USE THAT OVER COMPLIANCE
TO MEET FUTURE OBLIGATIONS
WITHOUT PURCHASING A SINGLE
ADDITIONAL MEGAWATT HOUR OF
CLEAN ELECTRICITY. THE
INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNING
PROGRAM. UM BASICALLY DOES NOT
HAVE SPECIFIC COMPLIANCE
OBLIGATIONS THAT ARE TIED TO
CHANGES IN RETAIL LOADS. IT'S A
ROLLING SET OF FUTURE
PROCUREMENT OBLIGATIONS.
ALLOCATED BASED ON OVERALL
SYSTEM NEEDS. IT'S A MUCH MORE
NUANCED AND COMPLEX PROCESS THAT
REALLY DOESN'T TIE TO RETAIL
LOADS THE SAME WAY THAT
PROPONENTS WOULD HAVE YOU
BELIEVE AND FOR THE PUBLICLY
OWNED UTILITIES THAT ARE NOT
REGULATED BY THE PUC. THEY HAVE
A VERY LIGHT TOUCH OVERSIGHT BY
THE ENERGY COMMISSION. THERE'S
ALMOST NO ENFORCEMENT POWER.
THEY SUBMIT PLANS. THE PLANS SIT
THERE, WHETHER THEY MEET THEM OR
NOT. IS NOT A FACTOR IN
DETERMINING WHETHER THERE'S ANY
ENFORCEMENT. ALL WE HAVE LEFT
ARE THE SB 100 0 CARBON
EMISSIONS TARGETS, WHICH ARE
SECTOR WIDE. WHICH A LOT WHICH
REQUIRED 90% BY 2035 NOT 95% BY
20 4100% BY 2045. AND WE'RE AT
THE FOUR MINUTE MARK FOR YOU, SO
I KNOW THIS IS FRUSTRATING FOR
EVERYBODY RIGHT? I'LL JUST I'LL
JUST CLOSE BY SAYING THAT I
REALLY WANT TO ECHO THE
STATEMENTS MADE BY SEVERAL
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE TODAY
THAT THERE SHOULD BE A RACE TO
THE TOP AND NOT TO THE BOTTOM.
WE SHOULD BE SETTING THE HIGHEST
STANDARDS AND CALIFORNIA AS A
LEADER IN THIS SECTOR. SHOULD BE
PUSHING THE BAR, NOT ASKING FOR
A SPECIAL DEAL FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
, DR REED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WOW IRVINE CLEAN ENERGY
INSTITUTE. WHAT TIME THE
CALIFORNIA HYDROGEN BUSINESS
COUNCIL TODAY? I'M SORRY. TIME
IS QUITE A PRESSURE HERE. BUT
THANK YOU. IT'S PRIVILEGED TO BE
HERE. AS YOU MENTIONED. I AM
CHIEF SCIENTIST AT THE CLEAN
ENERGY INSTITUTE AT UC IRVINE.
MY RESEARCH FOCUSES ON FRIDAY OF
THINGS, BUT MOSTLY ON OPTIMAL
USES OF HYDROGEN IN THE FUTURE,
DE CARBONIZED AND DEEP POLLUTED
ECONOMY AND FINDING OPTIMAL WAYS
FOR THAT. SO I'LL START WITH. UM
I'M SURE WE'RE ALL COMMON IN OUR
GOAL HERE TO ENSURE THAT
CALIFORNIA ACHIEVES REAL
VERIFIABLE AND PERMANENT
REDUCTIONS IN GREENHOUSE GAS,
AND THIS IS REALLY ABOUT HOW TO
OPTIMIZE POLICY TO GET THERE IN
A WAY THAT BALANCES FEASIBILITY
WITH WITH RAPID REDUCTION OF
EMISSIONS. SO I'D LIKE TO START
BY SOMETHING THAT'S VERY
FUNDAMENTAL HERE AND DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN IMPROVING OUR METHODS
FOR DOING CARBON INTENSITY,
CALCULATION AND CARBON
ATTRIBUTION TO PROJECTS AND THE
SPECIFICATION OF SPECIFIC
RESTRICTIONS ON USE CASES,
WHICH, IN THE CASE OF THE THREE
PILLARS, ACTUALLY WHAT THEY ARE
RESTRICTIONS ON HOW RENEWABLE
POWER CAN BE PROCURED FOR
ELECTROLYZERS. THERE'S SOME
IMPLICATIONS IN SOME VENUES THAT
PILLARS ARE A METHOD OF
CALCULATING CARBON INTENSITY.
THEY ARE NOT. THEY'RE SAYING YOU
HAVE TO DO CERTAIN THINGS IN
ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE ONE USE
CASE THAT IS UNDEBATABLE E ZERO
CARBON HOWEVER, THAT DOESN'T
ADDRESS THE MANY, MANY, MANY
OTHER WAYS THAT THAT CAN BE
DONE. THIS IS WHAT WE MEAN BY
FLEXIBLE COMPLIANCE. AND TRADE
PROGRAM ITSELF IS THE BANNER
EXAMPLE OF THAT IF WE HAVE A
BINDING CAP ON GREENHOUSE GAS
THAT CAN'T BE VIOLATED. WE
DIDN'T 2006 AND SEVEN DECIDE
THAT TO ACHIEVE LEAST COST
REDUCTION OF CARBON. WE LET
PEOPLE REDUCE MORE EMISSIONS AT
ONE POINT IN TIME. AND THEN SELL
THAT. TO SOMEONE ELSE WHO HAS A
COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION, CREATING
A NET ZERO. BUT REALLOCATING WHO
ACTUALLY HAS TO ACHIEVE THAT A
DUTCH REDUCTION. AND THAT'S
EXACTLY WHAT RENEWABLE ENERGY
CREDITS ARE DESIGNED TO DO,
EXCEPT THEY DON'T REPRESENT A
TON OF CARBON OR ANY CARBON
METRIC. THEY REPRESENTED
MEGAWATT HOUR RENEWABLE
ELECTRICITY, AND SO IT TAKES A
LITTLE BIT OF ADDITIONAL MATH TO
SAY, HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO A
CARBON INTENSITY CALCULATION? ON
A DIRECT EMISSIONS POINT OF VIEW
THESE RECENT RESOURCES OR ZERO
CARBON, BUT WHEN WE PLACE THEM
ON THE GRID, LET'S SAY ON A
GIVEN DAY. THOSE CHANGED THE WAY
THE GRID DISPATCHES, AND SO THAT
HAS WHAT'S CALLED A
CONSEQUENTIAL EMISSION ON THE
GRID. I'LL POINT OUT THAT CAN BE
NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE. WHEN YOU
GENERATE OVER GENERATES SOLAR IN
THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY THAT
CREATES AN EMISSIONS REDUCTION
BECAUSE YOU'RE USUALLY BACKING
OUT OF COMBINED CYCLE. IF YOU
THEN USE POWER AT NIGHT IN OUR
STATE, YOU'RE USUALLY USING
COMBINED CYCLE ALSO, SO THAT
NETS OUT AND YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A
ZERO UM CARBON. HOWEVER LET'S
SAY IF THE DAYTIME COMBINED
CYCLE WAS MORE EFFICIENT THAN
THE NIGHTTIME, THE WAY WE DEAL
WITH THAT IS BY ATTRIBUTING THE
CARBON TO THAT USER, AND THEY
MAY HAVE TO RETIRE. MORE CREDIT.
SO THE FUNDAMENTAL POINT IS, WE
SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON CARBON
INTENSITY, CALCULATION
METHODOLOGIES AND EVOLVING THOSE
, AND THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT THE
STATUTE UM DICTATES FOR THE 45
CREDITS, IT SAYS. IF THE GREEK
MODEL AS IT EXISTED AT THAT TIME
ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH. CREATE A
SUCCESSOR MODEL THAT HASN'T BEEN
DONE INSTEAD. E P. A GUIDING
TREASURY HAVE SUGGESTED THESE
UM, PROCUREMENT RESTRICTIONS. SO
BEFORE I RUN OUT OF TIME, LET ME
UH, READ THE RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM THE C H. B. C AND THEN WE
CAN SAY MORE IF THERE'S ANY LEFT
IN THE FOUR MINUTES. C H. B. C
RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDS TO THE
COMMITTEE. CALIFORNIA'S BEST
POLICY CHOICE IS TO LET THE
EXISTING CALIFORNIA LAWS AND
REGULATIONS DO THEIR WORK TO
ENSURE REAL VERIFIABLE AND
PERMANENT GHG REDUCTIONS. 0.1
IMPROVE THE CALIFORNIA GREEK
CARBON ACCOUNTING MODEL TO
ACCOUNT FOR CONSEQUENTIAL
EMISSIONS AND IMPLEMENT THOSE
CHANGES AND APPROPRIATE POINT IN
TIME. APPLY THEM UNIFORMLY DO
ALL ELECTRIC LOADS. ALLOW MARKET
DEMAND AND CALIFORNIA'S MULTI
AGENCY INTEGRATED PLANNING
PROCESSES DETERMINE WHAT
RESOURCES ARE ADDED TO SERVE NEW
LOAD. THE DATA SHOW THAT AS THE
DEMAND FOR RENEWABLE POWER GROWS
EITHER FROM OBLIGATED ENTITIES
UNDER THE RPS, OR VOLUNTARY
BUYERS, SUCH AS CORPORATES THAT
WANT TO IMPROVE THEIR
ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT, LEADS 1
TO 12 ADDITIONS AND RENEWABLE
CAPACITY. THIS DOESN'T NEED TO
BE ORDERED, BUT BY NOT ORDERING
IT, WE RETAIN SOME PROCUREMENT
VERY MUCH. YOU'RE AT FOUR
MINUTES. COULD YOU WRAP UP,
PLEASE? OKAY, I WILL WRAP UP. I
HAVE ONE MORE POINT. UM THAT
CALIFORNIA AND THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SHOULD CREATE
REGULATORY CERTAINTY AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE. AND PAINT MAINTAIN
GREENHOUSE GAS ACCOUNTING
ACCOUNTING PROTOCOLS CONSTANT
FOR THE LIFE. OF EACH PROJECT
ONCE IN SERVICE, BECAUSE THERE'S
A VERY STRONG STATEMENT MADE BY
THE DEVELOPERS AND INVESTORS IN
THE SECTOR THAT THAT IS CLOSE TO
PRIORITY ONE FOR THEM. THEY NEED
TO KNOW WHAT THE RULES ARE AT
THE TIME THEY MAKE AN INVESTMENT
DECISION, AND THOSE HAVE TO
STICK FOR THE LIFE OF THE
PROJECT. WHICH IS ONE OF THE
REASONS WHY WE'RE TRYING TO WORK
HARD TO GET TO STEP. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH WE HAVE NOW DR
JENKINS, WHO'S ON THE SCREEN
WHILE THE TWO OF YOU WILL SWITCH
OUT. IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND. WE'D
LIKE YOU TO STAY UP HERE FOR
QUESTIONS, JUST SWITCH OUT AND
MOVING INTO THOSE SPOTS WOULD BE
JEREMY SMITH AND LUCAS WHITE
HART, RIGHT, SO AND THEN WE'RE
ONTO YOU FOR FOUR MINUTES. DR
JENKINS. FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION
YOU'VE DONE RESEARCH ON
CALIFORNIA ARE FUNDAMENTAL
QUESTION AS OUR CURRENT POLICIES
OF STRONG ENOUGH THAT WE DON'T
NEED THE THREE PILLARS AND YOU
HAVE FOUR MINUTES FOR THAT AND
ANY THOUGHTS YOU HAVE ON HOURLY
MATCHING. IN ADDITION, AL ITTY
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DR JAMES
VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY. UM AGAIN. MY ANSWER
TO THE QUESTION IS NO. PROFESSOR
BRAUER NOTED EARLIER AND AS
ARTISTS ARGUED CALIFORNIA SHOULD
BE EXEMPTED FROM THREE PILLARS
RULES BECAUSE IT'S TRYING TO GET
TO ZERO EMISSIONS BY A DATE
CERTAIN AS IN 2050 UNDER THE
STATE'S LAW, IT'S IMPORTANT
NOTE. THE EUROPEAN UNION ALSO
HAS A BINDING EMISSIONS CAP AND
REQUIREMENT TO REACH NET ZERO BY
2050. YET THE EUROPEAN UNION
REQUIRED THESE IMPORTANT THREE
PILLARS REQUIREMENTS AS WELL.
AND OF COURSE THAT'S IN THE
CONTEXT OF A BINDING EMISSIONS
CAP THAT COVERS ALL MAJOR
EMITTING SECTORS AND ALL MEMBER
COUNTRIES IN THE EU. CALIFORNIA
DOES REACH ZERO EMISSIONS. IT
WILL BE TRIVIAL TO MEET THE
THREE PILLARS. THERE'LL BE AN
ABUNDANCE OF CLEAN HYDROGEN OR
CLEAN SUPPLY 24 BY SEVEN, BUT
THAT FUTURE WILL NOT BE REALITY
UNTIL 2050 QUESTION THIS
COMMITTEE NEEDS TO CONSIDER NOW
IS HOW TO DEFINE CLEAN HYDROGEN
TODAY, AND UNTIL THAT PROMISED
FUTURES REACHED, THAT'S THE
QUESTION BEFORE US, AND THERE IS
NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT
CALIFORNIA'S REQUIREMENTS UNDER
CURRENT LAW JUSTIFYING EXEMPTION
FROM THE THREE PILLARS.
CALIFORNIANS REQUIREMENTS SHOULD
BE NO LESS STRINGENT THAN THE
YOU SHOULDN'T IT. CALIFORNIA
ITSELF HAS AN ECONOMY WIDE
EMISSIONS CAP, BUT IT'S
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IS PART OF A
MUCH LARGER ELECTRICITY GRID
THAT IMPORTS AND EXPORTS
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS FROM ITS
NEIGHBORS, INCLUDING THOSE
WITHOUT ANY EMISSIONS CAP OR
BINDING RPS POLICIES. IN FACT,
THIS POINT HAS BEEN STUDIED
PRETTY EXTENSIVELY IN MULTIPLE,
PURE REVIEWED STUDIES, WHICH
CONCLUDE THAT CALIFORNIA'S
CURRENT CARBON BORDER ADJUSTMENT
OR PROHIBITION ON RESHUFFLING
ARE INSUFFICIENT TO PREVENT
CARBON LEAKAGE. HAPPY TO PROVIDE
THOSE STUDIES TO THE COMMITTEE.
LATER MY PRINCETON RESEARCH
GROUP EXPLICITLY MODELED
ELECTROLYSIS IN THE CONTEXT OF
CALIFORNIA, WASHINGTON, OREGON
AND THE BROADER WESTERN
INTERCONNECTION. AND WE FOUND
THAT ELECTROLYZERS IN CALIFORNIA
THAT DO NOT MEET THE THREE
PILLARS REQUIREMENTS RESULT IN
SUBSTANTIAL INDIRECT EMISSIONS
OF ABOUT 10 TO 40 KG OF C 02 PER
KILOGRAM OF HYDROGEN THAT'S
EQUAL TO OR WORSE THAN FOSSIL
METHANE. REFORMING IN RECENT IN
RECENT ADDENDUM. WE ALSO MODELED
SPECIFICALLY THIS QUESTION
WHETHER A STATE WITH A BINDING
EMISSIONS PATH AND HIGH SHARES
OF RENEWABLES CAN BE EXEMPTED
FROM INSTRUMENTALITY
REQUIREMENTS. WE FOUND THAT EVEN
IN THESE STATES, UM WAIVING THE
REQUIREMENT RESULTS IN
SIGNIFICANT CONSEQUENTIAL
EMISSIONS. THE MAIN EFFECT IS
THAT MORE EXISTING RENEWABLES
AND HYDRO ARE CONSUMED IN THE
STATES UNDER THE EMISSIONS CAP,
BUT THAT REDUCES THOSE STATES
EXPORTS. AS A RESULT, COAL AND
GAS FIRED GENERATORS ELSEWHERE
IN THE WESTERN INTERCONNECTION
WITHOUT EMISSIONS CAPS SUCH AS
UTAH, MONTANA, NEVADA, ARIZONA,
ETCETERA INCREASE THEIR
PRODUCTION, INCLUDING A FOSSIL
GENERATORS TO COMPENSATE FOR THE
REDUCED IMPORTS. THIS FORM OF
LEAKAGE IS NOT ADDRESSED AT ALL
BY ANY OF CALIFORNIA'S CURRENT
POLICY THAT CALIFORNIA CARBON
BORDER ADJUSTMENT APPLIES ONLY
TO IMPORTS AND NOT AWARE OF ANY
MECHANISM THAT COULD CONCEIVABLY
ADDRESS THAT OTHER THAN TO
EFFECTIVELY REQUIRE INCREMENTAL
SUPPLY FOR ALL OF NEW CALIFORNIA
LOADS. FURTHERMORE WELL, THE SP
100 STATUTE WILL REQUIRE THE
STATE TO MEET 100% OF RETAIL
SUPPLY BY 2045 AGAIN. THAT'S
OVER A DECADE FROM NOW. AND AS
INTERPRETED BY THE CPUC. THE
STATUTE DOESN'T ACTUALLY REQUIRE
100% OF HOURLY DEMAND TO BE MET
BY CLEAN RESOURCES, AS THE
PROPOSED RULES REQUIRE 100% OF
RETAIL SALES THE MATCH ON AN
ANNUAL BASIS AND RETAIL SALES
ARE ALWAYS LESS THAN TOTAL
GENERATION DUE TO LOSSES IN
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION
AND ENERGY STORAGE, SO WE HAVE
TO GENERATE MORE THAN WE CONSUME
ON THE RETAIL SIDE. NPR
REVIEWED. STUDIES HAVE ALSO
DEMONSTRATED THAT THE
PROHIBITION ON RESOURCE WE
SHUFFLING IS NOT ACTUALLY
EFFECTIVE IN PREVENTING LEAKAGE.
FINALLY, I NOTE THAT HE AND THE
PROFESSOR BRAUER MENTIONED THE
THREE STUDY. I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS
CONSULTING REPORT IS FATALLY
FLAWED BECAUSE THE METHODS IT
USES ARE INCAPABLE OF ESTIMATING
THE FULL EMISSIONS IMPACT FROM
ADDING GIGAWATTS OF ELECTROLYSIS
TO THE GRID. THAT'S BECAUSE IT
DOESN'T CONSIDER CHANGES IN
GENERATION AND STORAGE CAPACITY
RESULTING FROM THIS NEW
ELECTROLYSIS DEMAND. IF WE WANT
TO CAPTURE THIS SIGNIFICANT,
INDIRECT EMISSIONS, WE HAVE TO
CAPTURE BOTH OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
AND IMPACTS. AN INSTALLED
CAPACITY ON THE GRID. THESE ARE
ARE CALLED, ALSO CALLED
STRUCTURAL CHANGES. IT'S NOTABLE
THAT EVERY STUDY THAT HAS
EMPLOYED A CAPACITY EXPANSION
PLANNING FRAMEWORK NECESSARY TO
ADDRESS THE STRUCTURAL, UH,
EFFECTS HAS CONFIRMED MY GROUP'S
FINDING THAT ALL THREE PILLARS
INSTRUMENTALITY, TEMPORAL
MATCHING AND DELIVER ABILITY ARE
NECESSARY. THANK YOU. THAT'S
THAT'S WHERE MUCH FOUR MINUTES
AGO COULD YOU WRAP UP, PLEASE?
YEAH, OF COURSE. THERE. THANK
YOU. HE SAID. FINALLY YOU WANT
TO NOTE WE'LL LET YOU WE'LL LET
YOU WRAP UP THERE. ALRIGHT,
GREAT. ALL RIGHT. AND VOTE WILL
NOW MOVE TO, UM JEREMY SMITH,
CALIFORNIA STATE BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES, MR SMITH.
THANK YOU, MR. THANK YOU. MR
CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE. THANK
YOU FOR THE PRODUCTION, AS MOST
OF YOU LIKELY KNOW, THE STATE
BUILDING TRADES AS A FOUNDING
PARTNER IN THE LARGEST HYDROGEN
HUB $1.2 BILLION AWARD IS THE
LARGEST IN THE COUNTRY AND AS A
RESULT OF AN INCREDIBLE
PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE BUILDING
TRADES THE U. C SYSTEM THE
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE IN OUR
NATIONAL LABS. THE $1.2 BILLION
AWARD IS ONLY THE BEGINNING OF
THE STORY. HOWEVER, THIS HUB
WILL MEAN BILLIONS OF ADDITIONAL
DOLLARS IN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
FUNDING AS WE MOVE FORWARD, BUT
WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO MOVE
FORWARD. ARCHES IS CURRENTLY
WORKING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY TO FINALIZE THE TERMS OF
THIS INCREDIBLE GRANT. TWO
CALIFORNIANS CALIFORNIA'S
HYDROGEN INFRASTRUCTURE WHEN YOU
ENSURE THAT AS WE MOVE OUR OWN
IN STATE POLICY ALONG, WE REMAIN
MINDFUL THAT THIS FEDERAL
INVESTMENT HANGS IN THE BALANCE.
WE ALSO NEED TO ENSURE THAT WE
DO NOT MOVE IN A WAY THAT IS
PREMATURE AND LEAPS AHEAD OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR
INADVERTENTLY STYMIES OUR
ABILITY TO RECEIVE THIS ONCE IN
A GENERATION FUNDING. THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS CURRENTLY
WORKING ON THE TAX STRUCTURE
THAT WILL SUPPORT AND
INCENTIVIZE HYDROGEN. WE HAVE
BEEN THRILLED WITH MUCH OF THE
FEDERAL POLICY DOES DRIVING
HYDROGEN FORWARD, INCLUDING THE
INFLATION REDUCTION ACT, THE
WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS HAVE
PRIORITIZED SKILLED CONSTRUCTION
WORKERS IN AN HISTORICAL WAY,
AND WE ARE GRATEFUL THAT FOR
ONCE THE WORKERS WHO ARE GOING
TO BUILD THESE PROJECTS ARE
THOUGHT OF PROPOSAL OF 45 YEARS
UNDOUBTEDLY DESIGNED TO
INCENTIVIZE UTILITY SCALE
DEPLOYMENT OF A NATIONWIDE
HYDROGEN INFRASTRUCTURE. AND WE
AGREE THAT MOST OF WHAT IS IN
THE DRAFT THAT HAVE BEEN PART OF
MANY OF JUST MANY DISCUSSIONS IN
CALIFORNIA AND WASHINGTON, DC,
ABOUT APPLICABILITY IN
CALIFORNIA. WE HAVE WEST
CONCERNS ABOUT SPECIFIC PORTIONS
OF 45 YEARS CURRENTLY PROPOSED
AND HOW IT COULD AFFECT
CALIFORNIA, SPECIFICALLY
INCLUDING HOURLY MATCHING AND
THEN PRAGMATIC EFFECT OF THE
THREE PILLARS IN OUR STATE. WE
DO NOT THINK THE CALIFORNIA
NEEDS TO ADHERE TO THE THREE
PILLARS. CALIFORNIA IS DIFFERENT
FROM THE OTHER HUBS. WE WERE
EARLY ADOPTERS TO RENEWABLE
ENERGY GENERATION. IT WAS AND
CONTINUES TO BE THE BUILDING
TRADES. WHO FIGHT AND FOUGHT FOR
BOTH THE POLICIES AND
ENTITLEMENTS TO BUILD UTILITY
SCALE SOLAR ONSHORE WIND,
GEOTHERMAL AND PUMP STORES THAT
ALREADY EXISTS IN CALIFORNIA
OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF SOME
FOLKS WHO BELONG TO ENTITIES WHO
ARE IN THIS ROOM TODAY. REMEMBER
IS GOING TO BUILD ANY FORM OF
ENERGY GENERATION AND WE WORK
HARD TO BUILD NEW RENEWABLE
PROJECTS ARE PIVOTAL ROLE IN
MAKING CALIFORNIA A GLOBAL
LEADER IN RURAL POWER GENERATION
MAKES US UNIQUELY POSITIONED TO
FURTHER HELP DIRECT CALIFORNIA
ENERGY POLICY. AND THE
CALIFORNIA HYDROGEN HUB IS
DIFFERENT IN ANOTHER WAY. IT'S
THE ONLY HUB THAT HAS A SYSTEM
WIDE PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT,
MEANING THAT AS THE HUB MOVES
FORWARD, IT WILL NOT ONLY PUT
THOUSANDS OF JOURNEY PEOPLE THAT
WORK, BUT IT WILL CHURN THE
APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING SYSTEM
AND CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE
NEXT GENERATION OF CONSTRUCTION
WORKERS TO LEARN A TRADE AND
EARN A PATH OF THE MIDDLE CLASS.
CALIFORNIA'S ALREADY ROBUST
RENEWABLE GENERATION IS MUCH
DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IS FOUND IN
OTHER STATES AS AS CALIFORNIA'S
UNIQUE POWER NEEDS, AS WE'VE
HEARD TODAY. SO THAT'S GOING TO
REQUIRE AN EYE TOWARDS A
UNIQUELY CALIFORNIA APPROACH TO
THREAD THE NEEDLE IN SUCH A WAY
TO PROPEL CALIFORNIA'S HYDROGEN
INFRASTRUCTURE FORWARD. THERE
ARE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND THOUSANDS
OF JOBS THAT CAN BE CREATED
WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ALLOWING
CALIFORNIA TO TAKE A GIANT STEP
FORWARD TOWARDS MANY OF THE
CLIMATE CRISIS AND THE
AGGRESSIVE CARBON REDUCTION
GOALS THAT WE HAVE ALL SET FOR
OURSELVES IN THE CALIFORNIA AND
WE CAN KEEP THE LIGHTS ON IN
CALIFORNIA IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T
PRICE OUT BLUE COLLAR
CALIFORNIANS, INCLUDING THE
NEARLY 450,000 THAT WE HAVE THE
GREAT PRIVILEGE TO REPRESENT. WE
HAVE A LOT TO GET DONE IN
CALIFORNIA TO MEET ALL OF THESE
GOALS, AND WE DON'T HAVE THE
BENEFIT OF A WIDE MARGIN OF
ERROR. AS THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY FUNDS ARE ON THE LINE.
NOW IF CALIFORNIA MISSTEPS
POLICY WISE, IT COULD COST US
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF
INVESTMENT AND BILLIONS MORE IN
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AS WE SPEAK
OUR PARTNERS AND ARCHES AND THE
PRESIDENT OF THE STATE BUILDING
AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL
CHRIS HANEN ARE ACROSS THE TABLE
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
AND WE SHOULD BE DOING
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO SUPPORT
THESE EFFORTS, AND A BIG PART OF
THAT IS CREATING A STABLE
POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT IN THIS
AREA. FINALLY, THIS PROCESS IS A
REGULATORY PROCESS AND NOT GOING
TO BE DECIDED BY POLITICAL
RHETORIC. AND WE URGE THIS
LEGISLATURE AND EVERYONE WHO CAN
JOIN US IN REALIZING THE
INCREDIBLE POTENTIAL CLEAN
HYDROGEN CAN PROVIDE OUR STATE
TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FEDERAL
PROCESS FIRST, IF AFTER THAT
PROCESS IS COMPLETE, WE NEED TO
ACT FURTHER IN CALIFORNIA. WE
STILL CAN. WE HAVE NOT FORFEITED
THAT OPPORTUNITY. BUT WHAT WE
WILL HAVE DONE IS ALLOW THE
FEDERAL PROCESS TO PROCEED. I'M
ALMOST DONE. AND TO GIVE ARCHES
THE BEST POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENT TO
BE SUCCESSFUL. THANK YOU. VERY
IMPRESSIVE ON YOUR TIMING. I
PRACTICED, UM, NOW WILL TURN TO
LUCAS. FOR YOUR SECOND
PRESENTATION HERE. THANK YOU.
AND GIVEN THAT I SPOKE ALREADY
ENOUGH TODAY, I'LL KEEP IT VERY
SHORT AND FOCUSED JUST ON THREE
POINTS. FIRSTLY COMPARING THE EU
AND THE US APPROACH OR THE
CALIFORNIAN APPROACH. IF YOU CAN
STAY REALLY CLOSE TO THAT
MICROPHONE. YES, I CAN SURE UM,
DIFFICULT PERIOD. SURE I'D LIKE
TO MAKE THREE POINTS. FIRSTLY I
MEAN, WE'VE SPOKEN ABOUT THE
COMPARISON BETWEEN I THINK I'LL
DO IT WITHOUT SLIDES. THANK YOU.
UM WE SPOKE ABOUT THE COMPARISON
BETWEEN THE EU AND THE US
APPROACH AND WHAT WE HAVE IN THE
YOU TODAY IS THE BEST WE COULD
COME UP AFTER THREE YEARS OF
INTENSE DISCUSSIONS AND AS DR
JENKINS AND THE CHAIR SAID
DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT CORE CORPUS OF
FLANKING LEGISLATION THAT
TACKLES DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF
CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
TRANSITION. SECONDLY I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT TO STRESS THAT
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF USEFUL
FLEXIBILITIES OR COMPROMISES
THAT WE FOUND IN THE EU APPLIED
TO THE THREE PILLARS THAT ARE
MAYBE AN INSPIRATION FOR THE
DISCUSSION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL
OR ALSO IN CALIFORNIA. I'M
TALKING THERE ABOUT ESPECIALLY
ABOVE, WHICH INSTRUMENTALITY
LIKE WHEN THE GREATEST
SUFFICIENTLY THE CARBONIZED OR
RENEWABLE INCOME MENTALITY WOULD
NO LONGER APPLY THE POSSIBILITY
TO USE CURTAILED ELECTRICITY.
THE POSSIBILITY TO PHASE IN
REQUIREMENTS LATER THAN IS
CURRENTLY BEING DISCUSSED IN THE
U. S. I THINK THAT THESE ARE
FLEXIBILITIES THAT 11 COULD
CONSIDER THEN MAYBE THE LAST AND
MOST IMPORTANT POINT AFTER ALL
THESE LONG DISCUSSIONS. AND
PASSIONATE DISCUSSIONS LIKE THE
ONE HERE TODAY, THE EU HYDROGEN
INDUSTRY ACCEPTED THE ROLES THAT
WERE APPLIED. AND THEY EVEN
WELCOMED THEM. THE BEST PROOF OF
THAT IS THAT WE HAVE 20. WE HAD
20% MORE HYDROGEN PROJECTS
PLANNED. AFTER ADOPTION OF THE
RULES THAN BEFORE SO OUR
INDUSTRY HAS NOT BROKEN DOWN AND
WE HAVE JUST WE'RE JUST IN THE
PROCESS OF ASSESSING SUBMISSIONS
TO AN AUCTION FOR FIXED PREMIUM.
TWO HYDROGEN PRODUCERS, THESE
PRODUCERS NEED TO DEMONSTRATE
THAT THEY ARE RESPECTING THE EU
RULES. THEY NEED TO DEMONSTRATE
THAT THEY HAVE BEEN OFF TAKER
AND WE BUDGETED $800 MILLION OR
EUROS. IT'S ALMOST THE SAME FOR
THAT, AND IT WAS 20 TIMES
OVERSUBSCRIBED JUST TO SHOW YOU
THAT THERE IS A HIGH INTEREST
AND WE WILL DO MORE OF THAT. SO
THEY USE SYSTEM WORKS. IT'S THE
BEST COMPROMISE THAT WE COULD
FIND. THANK YOU. GREAT THANK YOU
VERY MUCH AND VERY EFFICIENT
WITH YOUR PRESENTATION THERE,
RIGHT? UM AND WE WILL NOW GREAT.
MOVE OVER TO SARAH GRAYSON,
SENIOR ATTORNEY AT EARTH
JUSTICE. GOOD AFTERNOON AND
THANK YOU TO ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
BENNETT FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
JOIN YOU. AND THANK YOU TO THE
ENTIRE COMMITTEE FOR TAKING A
CLOSE LOOK AT HYDROGEN
PRODUCTION BECAUSE TODAY,
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION IS A MAJOR
CLIMATE THREAT. AND THERE'S ALSO
AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRANSFORM
HYDROGEN INTO A TOOL FOR MOVING
OUR CLIMATE GOALS. SPECIFICALLY
HYDROGEN PRODUCED WITH THE THREE
PILLARS CAN CARRY RENEWABLE
ENERGY INTO SECTORS OF OUR
ECONOMY THAT LACK OTHER
DECARBONIZATION OPTIONS. AND
THANKFULLY, THE TECHNOLOGY
EXISTS TODAY AND IS READY TO
SCALE AS WE HEARD FROM MR
WERNER. UM TO PRODUCE HYDROGEN
WITH ZERO EMISSIONS. SO THE
LEGISLATURE DOESN'T NEED TO
CHOOSE BETWEEN SUPPORTING A
MODERN HYDROGEN INDUSTRY. AND
ALIGNING HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
WITH CALIFORNIA'S CLIMATE AND
PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS. UM ZERO
EMISSION HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
USES NEW RENEWABLE RESOURCES
DELIVERED IN REAL TIME TO SPLIT
WATER MOLECULES. BUT RUNNING THE
EXACT SAME HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
EQUIPMENT ON GRID ELECTRICITY
WITHOUT THE THREE PILLARS WILL
LEAD TO SIGNIFICANT SPIKES IN
POLLUTION BECAUSE THE NEW LOAD
WOULD DRIVE UP GENERATION AT
FOSSIL FUEL POWER PLANS. IN
FACT, EVEN WITH CALIFORNIA'S
RELATIVELY CLEAN GRID HYDROGEN
PRODUCED WITH CRITICAL LECTURES
OF THE IS FAR WORSE FOR THE
CLIMATE, THEN THE HYDROGEN THAT
INDUSTRY IS PRODUCING TODAY FROM
FOSSIL FUELS. UM WE HAVE HEARD
THE QUESTION ARE CALIFORNIA'S
POLICIES ENOUGH? TO MAKE THE
HYDROGEN PRODUCED BY PLUGGING
INTO THE GRID. ZERO EMISSION OR
YOU KNOW, LOGICALLY ELIGIBLE FOR
THESE TAX CREDITS THAT SET VERY
AMBITIOUS CARBON INTENSITY
THRESHOLDS. THE ANSWER TO THAT
QUESTION IS AND FATTY, CLEAN Ó.
AND I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT TOO
MUCH OF WHAT MY OTHER FELLOW
SPEAKERS HAVE ALREADY SAID. BUT
IF THERE WERE ANY EVIDENCE OR
DATA TO BACK UP THAT NOTION
ARCHES COULD HAVE ASKED THE
TREASURY DEPARTMENT TO JUST LET
IT USE THE DATA ON THE
CONSEQUENTIAL MISSIONS OF
PLUGGING INTO THE GRID TO
ESTABLISH THE CARBON INTENSITY
SCORES FOR HYDROGEN FOR PURPOSES
OF THE TAX CREDIT. UM BUT THEY
DIDN'T DO THAT, BECAUSE, AS
PROFESSOR JENKINS EXPLAINED,
WHEN YOU RUN THE MODELS, WHEN
YOU RELY ON THE DATA AND SEE
WHAT THERE WAS A MISSION IMPACTS
ARE THERE ARE REALLY SCARY STORY
FOR THE CLIMATE. UM AND THE
THREE PILLARS AREN'T JUST
IMPORTANT FOR PROTECTING THE
CLIMATE. THEY'RE ALSO IMPORTANT
FOR PUBLIC HEALTH. CALIFORNIA'S
FOSSIL FUEL POWER PLANTS ARE
DISPROPORTIONATELY LOCATED AND
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES AND
CARB HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE
STATE'S MOST POLLUTED REGIONS
CANNOT ACHIEVE HEALTH BASED AIR
QUALITY GOALS WITHOUT A
WIDESPREAD TRANSITION TO ZERO
EMISSIONS FOR LARGE AND SMALL
POLLUTERS ALIKE. I COMMEND
ASSEMBLY LEADERSHIP FOR
ESTABLISHING THE SELECT
COMMITTEE. AND BUILDING A ZERO
CARBON HYDROGEN ECONOMY. BECAUSE
ZERO CARBON IS EXACTLY WHAT IT
TAKES TO ALIGN WITH THIS CALVARY
WITH CALIFORNIA'S COMMITMENT TO
A CARBON NEUTRALITY BY NEW
LEADER THAN 2045. THE THREE
PILLARS MAKE THIS POSSIBLE. THIS
COMMITTEE'S WORK IS VERY TIMELY.
BECAUSE AS THE LEGISLATURE
EXPLORERS WAYS TO SUPPORT THIS
NEW INDUSTRY IT NEEDS TO BE
CAREFUL TO ONLY ENCOURAGE
BUSINESS MODELS THAT ALIGN WITH
CALIFORNIA'S LONG TERM GOALS.
REALIZING IT WOULD BE SO MUCH
MORE DIFFICULT TO TRY THE
CORRECT COURSE IN FIVE YEARS
THAN TO JUST GET IT RIGHT FROM
THE START, AND WE'RE AT THE FOUR
MINUTE MARK. OKAY? THANK YOU.
CLOSE UP. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
UM WE NOW HAVE OUR FINAL SPEAKER
AND HE'S GOING TO BE ON THE
SCREEN. AND WE WELCOME DR PAUL.
I MEAN, WE WELCOME PAUL WILKINS,
WHO'S THE VICE PRESIDENT, POLICY
AND GOVERNMENT ENGAGEMENT FOR
ELECTRIC HYDROGEN. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BENNETT. CAN
YOU HEAR ME? ALL RIGHT, YES, WE
CAN JOB. TERRIFIC AND I ALSO
APPRECIATE THE ACADEMIC
PROMOTION TO DOCTOR YES.
CHAIRMAN BEN IT MEMBERS OF THE
SELECT COMMITTEE. THANK YOU FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY. TO TESTIFY.
ELECTRIC HYDROGEN IS A
MANUFACTURER OF ADVANCED
ELECTROLYZERS COST GREEN
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION. SINCE OUR
FOUNDING THREE YEARS AGO, WE
HAVE GROWN TO OVER 150 EMPLOYEES
AT OUR OFFICES IN R AND D
FACILITIES IN SAN CARLOS AND SAN
JOSE. IN THE FALL, WE WILL BEGIN
INSTALLING OUR 1ST 100 MEGAWATT
COMMERCIAL SYSTEM AT A CUSTOMER
SITE IN BEAUMONT, TEXAS.
ELECTRIC HYDROGEN MISSION IS
MAKING MOLECULES TO DE
CARBONIZED OUR WORLD. WE DO THAT
BY MAKING THE WORLD'S MOST
POWERFUL ELECTROLYZERS TO HELP
OUR CUSTOMERS AND HARD TO DE
CARBONIZED SECTORS REDUCE THEIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY
REPLACING GRAY HYDROGEN OR OTHER
FOSSIL FUELS WITH GREEN
HYDROGEN. OUR GOAL IS TO MAKE
GREEN HYDROGEN COST COMPETITIVE
WITH GRAY HYDROGEN ON AN
UNSUBSIDIZED BASIS BY 2030. CARM
SCOPING PLAN NOTES THE GREEN
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION WILL HAVE TO
INCREASE 1700 FOLD TO MEET THE
STATE'S 2045 NET ZERO GOAL. TO
ACHIEVE CARBS. GOAL POLICIES
MUST BE PUT IN PLACE TO ENSURE
TWO THINGS. FIRST GUARDRAILS
MUST BE PUT IN PLACE TO ENSURE
THAT GRID CONNECTED GREEN
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION REDUCES
EMISSIONS. SECOND ALL SEASON
MUST BE PUT IN PLACE TO HELP THE
INDUSTRY SCALE AND REDUCE COST
ADDRESS THE LATTER POINT FIRST.
WHAT ENABLED THE WIND AND SOLAR
INDUSTRY TO SCALE OVER THE LAST
TWO DECADES IS THE COMBINATION
OF FEDERAL TAX INCENTIVES ON THE
SUPPLY SIDE AND STATE RENEWABLE
PORTFOLIO STANDARDS ON THE
DEMAND SIDE. THE GREEN HYDROGEN
INDUSTRY CAN SCALE OF
POLICYMAKERS FOLLOW THE SAME
MODEL. THE EU IS DOING EXACTLY
THIS PAIRING SUBSIDIES FROM THE
EUROPEAN HYDROGEN BANK ON THE
SUPPLY SIDE WITH A MANDATE THAT
BY 2030, NO LESS THAN 42% OF THE
HYDROGEN USED BY INDUSTRY MUST
BE GREEN HYDROGEN. WHEN THE
TREASURY DEPARTMENT FINALIZES
RULES FOR THE 45 V HYDROGEN
PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT, A
SIGNIFICANT FEDERAL INCENTIVE
WILL BE IN PLACE. HOWEVER NO
MEANINGFUL GREEN HYDROGEN
MANDATES YET EXIST IN CALIFORNIA
OR ANY OTHER STATE. THIS IS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR CALIFORNIA TO BE
A LEADER AS IT HAS SO MANY OTHER
CLIMATE AND CLEAN ENERGY ISSUES.
CALIFORNIA CURRENTLY ACCOUNTS
FOR ABOUT 18% OF THE HYDROGEN
PRODUCTION CAPACITY IN THE U. S.
99.9% OF CALIFORNIA'S EXISTING
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION IS GRAY
HYDROGEN PRODUCED FROM NATURAL
GAS. MANDATING THE REPLACEMENT
OF EVEN A PORTION OF THIS
PRODUCTION BY 2030 WITH GREEN
HYDROGEN WOULD DRIVE SIGNIFICANT
SCALE AND SEND A STRONG MARKET
SIGNAL. AS CALIFORNIA SCALES
GREEN HYDROGEN, THE STATE SHOULD
PUT GUARD RAILS IN PLACE TO
ENSURE THE EMISSIONS INTEGRITY
OF GRID CONNECTED GREEN HYDROGEN
PRODUCTION. SEVERAL OTHER
PANELISTS HAVE ADDRESSED THE
IMPORTANCE OF REQUIRING THE
THREE PILLARS TO ENSURE GRID
CONNECTED ELECTROLYSIS PROJECTS.
REDUCE EMISSIONS, SO I WON'T
RESTATE THOSE POINTS. INSTEAD
I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON THE CO
BENEFITS OF HOURLY MATCHING
TARGET JUST AS IT DID WITH SOLAR
PANELS. CHINA CURRENTLY HAS OVER
13 GIGAWATTS OF ANNUAL ELECTORAL
EYES OR PRODUCTION CAPACITY,
COMPARED TO LESS THAN THREE
GIGAWATTS OF PRODUCTION CAPACITY
IN THE U. S. THIS ADVANTAGE IN
SCALE ALLOWS CHINA TO
MANUFACTURE ELECTROLYZERS AT A
THIRD TO A QUARTER OF THE COST
OF INCUMBENT MANUFACTURERS IN
THE U. S. HOWEVER 90% OF CHINA'S
PRODUCTION IS LOW TECH ALKALINE
SYSTEMS WITH LIMITED RAMPING
CAPABILITY. THE US HAS A
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IN THE
MANUFACTURING OF HIGH TECH
RAMBLE SYSTEMS THAT CAN LOAD
FOLLOW VARIABLE, RENEWABLE
GENERATION REQUIRING HOURLY
MATCHING DRIVES THE MARKET
TOWARDS THE U. S PRODUCED
ELECTROLYZERS, ALLOWING ANNUAL
MATCHING FOR TOO LONG OR NOT,
REQUIRING MATCHING AT ALL OPENS
THE DOOR TO CHINESE MANUFACTURED
SYSTEMS. ELECTRIC HYDROGEN
ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT MAY MAKE
SENSE TO PHASE IN GUARDRAILS TO
ALLOW REGIS TIME TO IMPLEMENT
HOURLY, MATCHING WELL ALLOWING
INDUSTRY TO BEGIN TO SCALE.
HOWEVER THIS PERIOD SHOULD BE
SHORT TO BALANCE AGAINST THE
EMISSIONS AND MANUFACTURING
BENEFITS OF HOURLY MATCHING
MEMBERS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE
IS YOU CONSIDER WHAT POLICIES
WILL BE NECESSARY TO SCALE
HYDROGEN HYDROGEN INDUSTRY WITH
EMISSIONS INTEGRITY? I ENCOURAGE
YOU TO KEEP IN MIND THREE
THINGS. FIRST THE INDUSTRY NEEDS
CALIFORNIA'S LEADERSHIP IN
DRIVING DOMESTIC DEMAND FOR
GREEN HYDROGEN. SECOND ANY
POLICY CALIFORNIA ADOPTS CAN
SIMPLY ALIGN WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS IN THE FINAL 45 V
RULE THE FEDERAL INSTEAD OF HIS
INCREDIBLY LUCRATIVE AND ONCE IT
IS FINALIZED, DEVELOPERS WILL
BUILD PROJECTS BASED ON THAT
STANDARD. HAVING A SEPARATE
STANDARD FOR CALIFORNIA WILL
ONLY MAKE IT HARDER TO BUILD
PROJECTS. THIRD WE SHOULD LEARN
FROM THE MISTAKES OF THE SOLAR
INDUSTRY AND ENSURE A ROBUST
DOMESTIC ELECTROLYZER
MANUFACTURING BASE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TESTIFY, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE TIME. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND WE WILL
NOW OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS. UM
AND APPRECIATE ALL THE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S HAVE BEEN ABLE
TO STAY AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN BE
EFFICIENT WITH THESE QUESTIONS,
IF ANY OF THE PANELISTS HAVE A
HARD DEADLINE. PLEASE LET US
KNOW. UM BUT WITH THAT I'M GOING
TO TRY TO RIP THROUGH A FEW
QUICK QUESTIONS. AND, YES, SIR.
THROUGH A FEW QUICK QUICK
QUESTIONS AND THEN TURN TO MY
COLLEAGUES. AND THEN MR
FRIEDMAN. UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
. THE UH UM WILL RATES GO UP IF
WE DON'T HAVE THE THREE PILLAR
EDITION AL ITTY REQUIREMENTS AS
MORE AND MORE DEMAND FOR THE
RENEWABLE ENERGY THAT'S OUT
THERE TODAY INCREASES I THINK
THAT THERE'S THE POTENTIAL TO
SEE UPWARD PRICING FOR EXISTING
RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES IF
THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO DO
INCREMENTAL PROCUREMENT TO SERVE
NEW HYDROGEN ELECTROLYZER LOADS.
THERE'S ALREADY A LOT OF
COMPETITION FOR EXISTING
RESOURCES AND MOST, IF NOT ALL,
LOAD SERVING ENTITIES IN THE
STATE UTILITIES, COMMUNITY
CHOICE AGGREGATORS. DIRECT
ACCESS PROVIDERS RELY HEAVILY ON
EXISTING RENEWABLE ENERGY
RESOURCES TO MEET THEIR
COMPLIANCE OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE
RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD.
AND FOR INTEGRATED RESOURCE
PLANNING PURPOSES, SO ADDING
MORE COMPETITION FOR A FIXED
SUPPLY OF EXISTING RESOURCES IS
LIKELY TO YIELD HIGHER COSTS.
HIGHER PRICING THOSE HIGHER
PRICES WILL FLOW THROUGH TO
CUSTOMERS ACROSS THE BOARD, SO
CREATING MORE SUPPLY IS REALLY
THE KEY. IN THE SHORT RUN.
THERE'S A POTENTIAL FOR
INCREASED RATES AS A RESULT OF
THAT INCREASED DEMAND. UM I
BELIEVE SO. THERE'S OTHER
DIMENSIONS OF INCREASED COSTS
FOR THE SYSTEM ITSELF THAT ARE
THAT ARE SORT OF SECOND ORDER
THAT I THINK ARE SIGNIFICANT AS
WELL. DR REID, IT IS. DO YOU
BELIEVE THAT CAP AND TRADE IS
WORKING FOR CALIFORNIA TODAY? IS
IT? IS IT THE EFFECTIVE POLICY
THAT WE NEED TO GET TO WHERE WE
NEED TO BE. WELL, I THINK LIKE
LIKE MANY POLICIES, IT'S NOT
PERFECT, BUT THERE WAS A GREAT
GREAT DEAL OF DISCUSSION ABOUT
CARBON TAX JUST FROM CAP ON
EVERYBODY CAP AND TRADE AND I
THINK IN IN THIS JURISDICTION
AND OTHERS, IT'S THE MOST
ECONOMICALLY EFFICIENT AND SO
IT'S WHAT WHAT I THINK IS A GOOD
MODEL. WE'RE NOT SAYING
ELECTROLYZERS SHOULD BE POWERED
BY GREAT ENERGY AND CALL THAT
GREEN. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW
WE MAY OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO USE
RENEWABLE ATTRIBUTE CREDITS
WHICH ARE PROPERTY RIGHTS TO
CLAIM RENEWABLES. AT VARIOUS
TIMES, SO IT'S NOT ABOUT SAYING
GRID ELECTRICITY. ZERO CARBON,
UM AND MR SMITH WITH WITH THE
ADDITION AL ITTY REQUIREMENTS
WOULD, UM, ENCOURAGE OR REQUIRE
MORE RENEWABLE RESOURCES TO BE
PRODUCED. POTENTIALLY QUICKER TO
MEET, ADDITIONALLY, REQUIREMENTS
THOSE RENEWABLE RESOURCES SOLAR
WIND, THOSE PRIMARILY BE SKILLED
, SKILLED LABOR JOBS. IS THAT
CORRECT? I WOULD SAY THAT'S
CORRECT. YES. SO JUST LIKE
BEFORE, WHEN YOU WERE LEADERS IN
TERMS OF DOING THAT ADDITION, AL
ITTY IF, IF IT IS STRICTLY
ENFORCED, COULD INCREASE THE
AMOUNT OF THOSE JOBS THAT ARE
OUT THERE. YES BUT IF I MAY JUST
ADD A CAVEAT TO THAT. I NOTED IN
MY COMMENTS WHAT HAPPENS HERE?
IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HAPPENS
AT A COUNTY BOARD. OR A CITY
COUNCIL, WHERE A SOLAR PROJECT,
FOR EXAMPLE, MIGHT BE ULTIMATELY
APPROVED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. AND
WHAT WE SEE IS THAT ENTITIES.
YOU ARE UP HERE. WE HAVE
ADVOCATES UP HERE WHO ARE IN IN
ROOMS LIKE THIS WITH US,
ADVOCATING FOR MORE SOLAR MORE
WIND. THOSE SAME ENTITIES. HAVE
LOCAL FOLKS LIKE WE HAVE LOCAL
FOLKS SHOWING UP THE COUNTY
BOARDS OPPOSING THE PERMITTING.
OF THOSE PROJECTS. AND SO THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE SEEING BETWEEN HERE
AND DOWN THERE, AND THAT'S A
CONCERN. SO YES. IF WE CAN GET
THOSE THINGS PERMITTED THE LOCAL
LEVEL TO BE ON ON BOARD ALSO, UM
AND PARDON MY INFORMALITY. I'M
GOING WITH FIRST NAMES HERE TO
SPEED THINGS ALONG. BUT LUCAS,
UM, COULD YOU ELABORATE? A
LITTLE BIT MORE? YOU SAID AFTER
YOU ADOPTED THE THREE PILLARS
20% MORE PROJECTS CAME ONLINE
AND IN THE EUROPEAN UNION. HMM.
I SURE CAN. I'M QUOTING
STATISTICS OF THE EUROPEAN
HYDROGEN LOBBY, SO CERTAINLY
BODY THAT WILL BE SYMPATHETIC TO
BUSINESS INTERESTS. AND IN THEIR
YEARLY REPORT ON THE STATE OF
THE EUROPEAN HYDROGEN MARKET,
THEY COUNTED AND EXPECTED, UM,
491 PROJECT. 4 2030 BEFORE THE
INTRODUCTION OF THE RULES, AND
AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF THE
RULES, THAT NUMBER WENT UP TO
586. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
PRODUCTION PROJECTS OF RENEWABLE
HYDROGEN IN THE EUROPEAN UNION.
WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THE
EUROPEAN UNION'S RULES? BEFORE
THE THREE PILLARS. AS BEING MORE
ROBUST AND CALIFORNIA'S RULES
LESS ROBUST IN CALIFORNIA'S
RULES OR EQUIVALENT TO
CALIFORNIA'S OVERALL
ENVIRONMENTAL RULES AND GOALS TO
GET TO CLEAN ENERGY. I WOULD SAY
THAT IN TERMS OF THE AMBITION
CALIFORNIA AND THE YOU ARE
EQUIVALENT IN TERMS OF THE TOOLS
THAT WE ARE APPLYING. I THINK
THAT IF YOU WOULD, IF YOU WOULD,
UM, YOU COULD QUOTE YOU COULD
SAY THAT WE HAVE PROBABLY A
LITTLE BIT MORE REGULATION. THEN
CALIFORNIA HAS SO I THINK THAT
MAYBE YES. WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT
MORE INSTRUMENTED OUR DISPOSAL,
ESPECIALLY ESPECIALLY WHEN IT
COMES TO TARGETS BINDING TARGETS
FOR DEMANDS THAT CALIFORNIA
DOESN'T HAVE. IN THE SAME WAY I
WOULD SAY WHAT WAS THEIR SIMILAR
SIGNIFICANT ARGUMENT MADE THAT
THE EUROPEAN UNION DOESN'T NEED
THE THREE PILLARS BECAUSE YOU
ALREADY HAVE STRICT, FAIRLY
STRICT RULES IN TERMS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. OF COURSE
, PLENTY OF THOSE ARGUMENTS WERE
MADE, AND I THINK THEY'RE ALSO
MARRIED, BEING BEING VERY
CLOSELY EXAMINED VERY CLOSELY,
BECAUSE I MEAN THE SITUATIONS
ARE DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT
JURISDICTIONS. BUT I THINK AN
ESSENTIAL QUESTION HERE IS HOW
FAST WILL THESE EXISTING RULES
THE CARBONIZED OUR ELECTRICITY
GRID, AND I THINK I MEAN, IF
CALIFORNIA SPEAKS ABOUT 2050, OR
ALSO IN THE U 2050 THAT COMES
RELATIVELY LATE COMPARED TO THE
NEXT YEARS WHERE WE ACTUALLY
REALLY NEED TO UPSCALE,
SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRY. GREAT
THANK YOU MY FINAL QUESTION AND
APPRECIATE THE PATIENCE OF MY
COLLEAGUES HERE, SARAH, I
THOUGHT YOU MADE A REALLY
INTERESTING POINT. AND THAT WAS
IF CALIFORNIA IS DOING SO WELL,
THEN WHY WOULD IT BE A DIFFICULT
TO LIVE WITH THE THREE PILLARS?
UM AND COULD YOU JUST ELABORATE
ON THAT A LITTLE BIT? DO YOU
FEEL LIKE I MEAN, WHAT IS IT?
THAT IS CALIFORNIA IS NOT DOING
WELL ENOUGH IN AND WHY WE WOULD
NEED THREE PILLARS. YEAH. PAUL
IN ALMOST EVERY HOUR OF THE
YEAR. THE MARGINAL AH! UNIT OF
ELECTRICITY GENERATION. THAT'S
ON OUR GRID THAT RAMPS UP AND
RESPONSE TO AN ELECTROLYZER OR A
DATA CENTER OR WHATEVER PLUGGING
IN NEW LOAD. IS A FOSSIL GAS
FIRED POWER PLANT. AND THE THREE
PILLARS IS THE TOOL THAT STOPS
THOSE CONSEQUENTIAL EMISSIONS
FROM HAPPENING WHEN THIS NEW
INDUSTRY COMES ONLINE WITH AN
ENORMOUS NEW ELECTRICAL DEMAND
THAT COULD BE THE RESULT OF
POLICY IS THAT THIS LEGISLATURE
IS PUTTING IN PLACE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. MY COLLEAGUES. MR
BRIAN, YOU START TO HAVE A
QUESTION. YEAH FIRST, I J I'M
JUST REALLY GRATEFUL TO THE
CHAIR FOR THIS CONVERSATION AND
MANY MORE THAT WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE. I MEAN, THIS IS AN
INCREDIBLE OPPORTUNITY TO DO
SOMETHING TRANSFORMATIVE. NO
MATTER WHAT SIDE OF THE
CONVERSATION TODAY WE ARE ALL A
PART OF THAT. UM AND IT TAKES
LEADERSHIP, THE FEDERAL LEVEL AS
WELL. ALSO GOOD TO SEE FRIENDS
OF THE TRADES HERE. I THINK ANY
TIME WE GET TO BUILD NEW
INDUSTRY AND INVEST IN THAT KIND
OF TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE, YOU'VE
GOT TO THINK ABOUT THE PEOPLE
THE SKILLED AND TRAINED FOLKS.
WE'RE GONNA BE WORKING IN IT AND
PROTECT THOSE ISSUE. THIS IS
WHAT WE TALK ABOUT WITH THE WITH
JUST TRANSITIONS AND OTHER PARTS
OF THE LANGUAGE. WE'VE GOT TO
GET THIS RIGHT. BUT I'M STILL
JUST KIND OF DEEPLY CONFUSED
ABOUT KIND OF THE ASSERTION THAT
WILL LOSE THE MONEY. RIGHT IF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS
PROPOSING THESE KINDS OF THIS
KIND OF A REGULATORY FRAMEWORK,
AND WE'RE ASKING, TOO FOR BUT
GREATER DEGREE OF SELF
REGULATION THROUGH OUR OWN STATE
POLICIES. WHY WOULD THAT
JEOPARDIZE OUR FUNDING? WOULD
THEY NOT HAVE TO WAVE US FROM
WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING AND THEN
PROHIBIT US FROM GOING ANY
FURTHER, UM OR ADOPTING THE VERY
SAME REGULATIONS. THEY'RE
CURRENTLY PROPOSING THAT THAT'S
WHAT I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WITH
WITH THIS SUGGESTION THAT IF WE
IF WE ADOPT THE THREE PILLARS
ROUTE THAT IS AT A STATE LEVEL,
UM IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
FEDERAL GUIDELINES, UM OR
WHATEVER TIMELINE WE ARE UNDER.
WHY WOULD THAT JEOPARDIZE THE
FUNDING? WHAT I THINK THERE'S A
CONCERN. I THINK THERE'S A
CONCERN IF I MADE THROUGH THE
CHAIR SURE THAT THAT FEDERAL
FUNDING ISN'T GOING TO COVER THE
COSTS OF THESE PROJECTS
COMPLETELY. WE NEED TO ATTRACT
PRIVATE INVESTMENT AS WELL. AND
SO ANY UNCERTAINTY THAT IS
SIGNALED FROM CALIFORNIA BACK TO
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DURING
THIS SORT OF NASCENT PERIOD IS A
CONCERN FOR US. YOU KNOW, WE
DON'T WANT TO JEOPARDIZE THE
FEDERAL MONEY AND WE DON'T WANT
TO SEND MIXED SIGNALS OF THE
PRIVATE INDUSTRY WHO IS GONNA
HAVE TO INVEST IN THIS STUFF,
TOO. AND SO OUR FEAR IS THAT IF
WE IF WE ARE ALLOWED TO USE KIND
OF OUR OWN THE CURRENT
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK THAT IS
VERY ATTRACTIVE FOR PRIVATE
INDUSTRY TO COME IN, ESPECIALLY
COMPARATIVE TO THE OTHER HUBS
AROUND THE COUNTRY WHO DON'T
HAVE THAT FRAMEWORK AND IF WE
ARE TO ADOPT THE SAME RULES.
THEY WON'T SHOW UP OR THEY WILL
BE LESS EXCITED TO SHOW UP
BECAUSE WE'VE WE'VE INCREASED
THE REGULATORY BURDEN. IS THIS
INVESTMENT FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT NOT ENOUGH TO DRAW A
PRIVATE INDUSTRY TO BEGIN WITH,
IF WE CAN'T HIT THE PRICE POINT?
FOR THE BUYER. BECAUSE IN THE U
IS MENTIONED THEY HAVE A
PROCUREMENT PROGRAM IN PLACE
THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. PEOPLE
GLADLY SELL THREE PILLARS.
PROJECTS TO A BUYER WHO AGREES
TO BUY THEM AT WHATEVER THEY
COST. AND THE ARCHES FRAMEWORK
TO BUYERS HAVE COST POINTS THEY
NEED TO REACH AND IT WAS ASSUMED
IN THE DESIGN THAT THE 3 KG
WOULD ACCRUE TO THEM. THE MAIN
ISSUE IS CALIFORNIA'S SOLAR
DOMINANT. AND SO IF WE PRODUCE
ALL OF OUR ENERGY FROM SOLAR IN
THE DAY, ALL OF OUR COMBINED
POWER FROM COMBINED CYCLE AT
NIGHT WE'VE CUT OUR CARBON
EMISSIONS BY HALF. AND YOU CAN
DO THAT UP UNTIL ABOUT A 50% RPS
, AFTER WHICH THESE THREE
PILLARS ISSUES MUST OCCUR BY
NATURAL EFFECT TO STAY WITHIN
YOUR CAP. THE SIMPLE ANSWER.
YOUR QUESTION IS, IF WE PRICE
THE PROJECTS OUT OF THE MARKET,
WHERE THE PORCH THE FREIGHTS AND
THE TRANSITS WON'T BUY THE
HYDROGEN, THEN THE PROJECTS
WON'T GO FORWARD. UM I THINK THE
ARGUMENT THAT CALIFORNIA CAN'T
AFFORD TO ADOPT THE THREE
PILLARS REQUIREMENTS IS VERY
SELF DEFEATING. IT REALLY
STANDS. IN CONTRAST TO THE
ARGUMENT WE'VE HEARD TODAY FROM
FROM FOLKS SAYING CALIFORNIA'S
GOT EXCEPTIONAL LEADERSHIP IN
THIS AREA. UM AND I APPRECIATE
WHAT YOU SAID ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S.
IF WE CAN'T DO IT HERE, THEN
WHO'S GOING TO DO IT AROUND THE
COUNTRY? I THINK OUR GOAL SHOULD
BE TO FIGHT FOR A TOUGH FEDERAL
STANDARD. BECAUSE IF THERE IS A
WEEK FEDERAL STANDARD, UM THE
MONEY IS GOING TO BE DISPERSED
WIDELY TO THE LOWEST COST
PRODUCERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY IF
IT'S EASY TO MEET A WEEK
STANDARD THEY'LL BE PLENTY OF
COMPETITION FOR THE MONEY. IF WE
HAVE A TIGHTER STANDARD, IT'S
GOING TO BE HARDER TO GET THAT
MONEY AND WE ARE WELL POSITIONED
TO MEET THE THREE PILLARS. WE
HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO DO HOURLY
MATCHING CONTRARY TO WHAT SOME
SPEAKERS SAID PREVIOUSLY WE
ACTUALLY DO HAVE AN HOURLY
ACCOUNTING SYSTEM UNDER
DEVELOPMENT AT THE ENERGY
COMMISSION UNDER THE POWER
SOURCE DISCLOSURE PROGRAM, THE
INTEGRATED RESOURCES PLANNING
PROGRAM AT THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION REQUIRES FORECASTS OF
OUR HOURLY LOADING SUPPLIES.
WE'VE GOT THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE
INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY TO DO
THIS. IN TERMS OF ADDITIONAL
ITTY. WE KNOW HOW TO REQUIRE NEW
RESOURCES TO BE DEVELOPED. IT'S
NOT THAT COMPLICATED, SO I'M
REALLY KIND OF STUNNED BY THE
ARGUMENT THAT CALIFORNIA IS
INCAPABLE OF MAKING THIS WORK OR
THAT IT'S SO PROHIBITIVELY
COSTLY THAT NO ONE WILL EVER
BUILD AND JUST TO CLOSE IF WE
DEVELOP A WEEK STANDARD WE'RE
GOING TO END UP WITH A LOT OF
PROJECTS, LOCKING INTO A WEEK
STANDARD AND INSISTING THAT THAT
STANDARD CAN NEVER CHANGE ONCE
THEY'VE MADE AN INVESTMENT. SO
NOW IS THE TIME TO BE THINKING
LONG AND HARD ABOUT HOW TO GET
AHEAD OF THE CURVE. I DO
APPRECIATE THE ARGUMENT ABOUT
ONCE WE LOCK INTO A STANDARD WE
THE ARGUMENT WILL BE MADE, WHICH
IS PART OF WHY I PERSONALLY HAVE
BEEN INVESTED IN TRYING TO MOVE.
THIS ISSUE. IS THAT BEFORE THE
INVESTMENTS GET MADE, WE MAKE IT
CLEAR WHAT THE INVESTMENT RULES
ARE SO PEOPLE DON'T COME AND SAY
WE JUST INVESTED $2 BILLION.
WE'VE GOT 2000 SKILLED WORKERS
WORKING ON THIS JOB, AND NOW YOU
CAN'T CHANGE THE RULES. THAT'S
WHY WE SHOULD GET IT RIGHT AT
THE BEGINNING. SARAH, WOULD YOU
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE AND THEN
JUST ADD THAT CALIFORNIA HAS
EARNED ITS REPUTATION FOR
CLIMATE LEADERSHIP. BY SETTING
SCIENCE BASED STANDARDS EVEN
WHEN INDUSTRY HAS COMPLAINED
THAT IMPLEMENTATION WOULD BE
PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE. BUT
ONCE THE POLICY SIGNALS ARE IN
PLACE, TIME AND TIME AGAIN,
INDUSTRY HAS RESPONDED WITH
INNOVATION AND ON TIME
COMPLIANCE. SO JUST THE SAME
HERE. STATE LEADER CONTINUES TO
SET STANDARDS BASED ON THE
SCIENCE AND SET THE STAGE FOR
INNOVATORS TO THRIVE. THANK YOU
BRAINY. REMEMBER CARILLO? UH
MISS SARAH GERSON. YOU MENTIONED
HOW THE THREE PILLARS ARE
ESSENTIAL. I YOU KNOW, I
UNDERSTAND THAT AND, UH, THE
IDEA THAT IN CALIFORNIA WILL BE
ABLE TO PRODUCE THE ENERGY THAT
IS NEEDED, NOT ONLY FOR HOW DO
YOU KNOW AGAIN, BUT ACROSS THE
BOARD. AND I BELIEVE THAT WE IN
CALIFORNIA ARE RELYING ON OUT OF
STATE ENERGY SO THAT WE ARE ABLE
TO PROVIDE WHAT WE NEED. THOSE
IN MARRIED INTO YOU WERE THAT
ENERGY COMES FROM THAT ENERGY
WERE TO BE PROCURED FROM OUT OF
STATE TO BE ABLE TO PRODUCE THE
TRIPLE A REQUIREMENT JUST LIKE
IN THE OIL INDUSTRY IN
CALIFORNIA, WHERE IN IRELAND
DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN OIL UM TO
ME, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M
LOOKING AT THIS WHERE ABLE TO
BRING THE ENERGY OF REQUIRED TO
IMPLEMENT THE THREE PILLARS
BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE
ABLE TO PROVIDE IT. THAT'S WHAT
I BELIEVE. DOES IT MATTER TO
YOU? IF IT COMES FROM ARAB STATE
? UM BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED ALSO
THAT THE HADRIAN PRODUCTION WILL
VERY, VERY DETRIMENTAL TO THE
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY THAT
WE'VE BEEN CREATING. SO THE
QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU. IS IT
IMPORTANT WHERE THAT COMES FROM?
IS IT OKAY IF HE COMES FROM
ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO? OTHER
PLACES. WELL SO ONE OF THE THREE
PILLARS IS A DELIVERY ABILITY
REQUIREMENT. UM AND BECAUSE OF
THE WAY THE GRID WORKS, UM IT'S
A LOT EASIER TO DELIVER ENERGY
TO HYDROGEN PRODUCERS IN
CALIFORNIA. IF THAT RENEWABLE
RESOURCE IS IN CALIFORNIA
ATTACHED TO OUR GRID. UM IT IS
POSSIBLE TO HAVE RENEWABLES
DELIVERED FROM ARIZONA OR NEW
MEXICO. WHAT WOULD BE REALLY, UH
, ALARMING AND UNACCEPTABLE
WOULD BE IF THERE WERE PROJECT
DEVELOPERS WHO ARE CLAIMING THAT
THEY'RE USING RENEWABLES.
OFFICER WINDED MASSACHUSETTS OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THAT YOU
KNOW HAS THAT'S THAT'S NOT
DELIVERED TO THE HYDROGEN
PRODUCER IN CALIFORNIA IN REAL
TIME. OKAY THANK YOU. MR FREEMAN
IN YOUR OPENING REMARKS AND JUST
A FEW MINUTES AGO. YOU MENTIONED
THAT THE TECHNOLOGY IS THERE FOR
US TO BE ABLE TO GET TO THE
ELECTRIC NEEDS THAT WE HAVE
THROUGH NEW TECHNOLOGIES COMING
ON BOARD. UM THE CONCERN THAT I
HAVE IF WE DON'T ADD ANY OTHER
SOURCE OF FUEL TO MEET THE STATE
CALLS BY 2045. IS THE EFFICIENCY
OR REQUIREMENTS ALSO. THE
CHALLENGES OF THE TRUCKING
INDUSTRY, FOR INSTANCE, TO BE
ABLE TO MOVE THE GOODS THAT WE
NEED THROUGHOUT THE STATE FROM
THE PORTS GOING EVEN OUT OF
STATE. UM THE BATTERY SYSTEMS IS
ONE WAY YES, BUT AGAIN, THE
EFFICIENCY IS THE CONCERN THAT I
HAVE, BECAUSE THEN HOW ARE WE
GOING TO GET OUR GOODS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE? IF
TRUCKERS HAVE TO STOP? I DON'T
KNOW. 24 HOURS, SIX HOURS.
WHATEVER THAT LONG AS AND AS
TECHNOLOGY IMPROVES, UH, HAVING
TO RECHARGE STRUCTURE IS ALSO
GOING TO TAKE. I DON'T THINK IT
WOULD BE FIVE MINUTES, SO THAT'S
GOING TO BE IMPACTING US GREATLY
BY HAVING THE COST OF OUR GIRLS
THAT WE NEED TO BE MORE
EXPENSIVE AS WELL. AND I'M NOT
SAYING THAT WE SHOULD SACRIFICE
THE ENVIRONMENT TO BE ABLE TO
GET OUR GOODS IN A TIMELY
MANNER, NOT ONLY THE TRUCKING
INDUSTRY BUT THE AGGREGATE
INDUSTRY, OTHER INDUSTRIES THAT
REQUIRE A LOT OF ELECTRICITY TO
BE ABLE TO FUNCTION AND BE ABLE
TO SURVIVE IN CALIFORNIA IN THE
WORLD. UH AND MR SMITH BRICK
BRINGS A GOOD POINT ON THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS WHEN WE LOOK AT
SOLAR PROJECTS OR WIND FARMS
WITH ALL OF THOSE RENEWABLE
ENERGY SYSTEMS THAT WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT. IT IS THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS THAT HAVE TO FACE
THE OPPOSITION FROM THE
RESIDENTS. SO WHATEVER WE CREATE
HERE TO BE ABLE TO MEET THOSE
GOALS GOES BACK TO THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, AND THEY ARE THE
ONES THAT ARE NOT ABLE TO HAVE
THOSE JOBS BECAUSE OF THE
OPPOSITION THAT OUR RESIDENTS
THAT WE REPRESENT SERVED. I JUST
WANTED TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN
BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO AFFECT US
ALL. WE WERE NOT ABLE TO FIND A
BALANCE BETWEEN YES, PROTECTING
THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT ALSO THE
JOB PRODUCTION THAT WE NEED,
PARTICULARLY IN AREAS WHERE THE
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION COULD BE A
CATALYST SOVIET ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT. I JUST WANTED TO
EXPRESS MY CONCERNS. AND I
BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD KEEP IN
MIND ALSO THAT LOCAL ECONOMIES
ACROSS THE STATE EVERYWHERE IN
THE STATE, NOT ONLY IN THOSE
SELECTED AREAS AND KEEPING IN
MIND THOSE AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN,
UM, FORGOTTEN FOR SEVERAL
SEVERAL YEARS DECADES AT THE
SAME TIME, NO QUESTION AT ALL. I
JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS MY
CONCERNS, AND I BELIEVE THAT WE
SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND THAT
MEDIUM. THANK YOU, DR JENKINS.
AND I'D LIKE TO HAVE DR JENKINS
TO WEIGH IN. I KNOW WE ALLOW
EVERYBODY TO SORT OF ROTATE
THROUGH AND ANSWER THE ONE
QUESTION. DR JENKINS AND THEN,
UM, MR WILKINS, I HAVE ONE MORE
QUESTION FOR YOU AFTER DR
JENKINS. THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN.
AND UNFORTUNATELY A LOT TO
DEPART AFTER THIS, UM, ANSWERS
TO HALF PAST THE HOUR HERE. I
JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO THE
FIRST QUESTION. YOU ASKED ABOUT
THE IMPACTS ON CONSUMER
ELECTRICITY PRICES IN THE STATE.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE
MODELED AND LOOKED AT IN OUR
PEER REVIEWED STUDY ON THE
IMPACT OF ELECTROLYZERS IN
CALIFORNIA. WE ESTIMATED THAT IF
FIVE GIGAWATTS OF ELECTROLYSIS
CAPACITY WERE ADDED IN
CALIFORNIA, AND WAS NOT SUBJECT
TO THE THREE PILLARS
REQUIREMENTS, THEREFORE DIDN'T
BRING NEW CLEAN SUPPLY ON TO
MATCH THAT INCREASE IN DEMAND,
AND THEY WOULD EFFECTIVELY TO
SOCIALIZE. MUCH OF THE COST OF
THAT INCREASED DEMAND ON TO
OTHER CUSTOMERS IN THE
CALIFORNIA GRID, AND THAT WOULD
THAT INCREASE IN DEMAND WITHOUT
INCREASING SUPPLY BECAUSE LOCAL
WHOLESALE ELECTRICITY PRICES TO
RISE IN CALIFORNIA BY ABOUT 8%
THIS IS PRETTY BASIC, YOU KNOW,
ECONOMIC THEORY, YOU ADD DEMAND
WITHOUT ADDING SUPPLY. THAT'S
GOING TO PUSH UP PRICES AND WITH
THE THREE PILLARS REQUIREMENTS
DO IS REQUIRE ANYONE WHO'S
ADDING NEW DEMAND FOR
ELECTROLYSIS AND CLAIMING TO BE
CLEAN, ALSO ADD NEW CLEAN
SUPPLY, AND THAT KEEPS
ELECTRICITY PRICES LOW FOR THE
REST OF THE SYSTEM, AND IT
AVOIDS PASSING ON COSTS TO OTHER
CONSUMERS. AND IN FACT, I WOULD
BELIEVE THIS IS ONE OF THE
CENTRAL REASONS WHY THE EUROPEAN
UNION DESPITE EVEN HAVING A
BINDING EMISSIONS CAP. IT'S
FOCUSED ON THE THREE PILLARS SO
THAT ELECTROLYZERS THAT ARE
CLAIMING TO BE CLEAN, CLAIMING
TO USE CLEAN ELECTRICITY ARE NOT
PUSHING THE COST OF DEVELOPING
NEW SUPPLY ONTO OTHER CONSUMERS
IN THE REGION, SO IT'S A REALLY
IMPORTANT CONSUMER PROTECTION AS
WELL. TO HAVE THE THREE PILLARS
RULES IN PLACE, THE LAST POINT
ON THE FEASIBILITY OF
IMPLEMENTING THE THREE PILLARS.
I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT EVEN IF
YOU DON'T HAVE A REGISTRY THAT
RECORDS HOURLY TRACKING WHICH
CAN BE BROUGHT ONLINE VERY
QUICKLY. THE PJM INTERCONNECTION
ALREADY HAS IT. THERE'S SOME
CAPABILITY TO DO THIS ALREADY IN
CALIFORNIA. ALL YOU NEED IS
HOURLY METER DATA FROM YOUR
GENERATOR AND FROM THE HYDROGEN
ELECTORAL, ISAR AND INN. THOSE
NEED TO BE AUDITABLE. AND YOU
JUST NEED TO SHOW THAT THOSE ARE
BOTH EQUAL, UM AND THEN TO AVOID
DOUBLE COUNTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL
ATTRIBUTES, WE CAN USE OUR
EXISTING REGISTRY SYSTEMS TO
RETIRE CORRESPONDING NUMBER OF
CONVENTIONAL QUEEN ENERGY
ATTRIBUTE CREDITS AND THIS IS
EXACTLY WHAT COMPANIES LIKE
GOOGLE WHO ARE DOING 24 7 HOURLY
PROCUREMENT TODAY ARE DOING IN
THE ABSENCE OF SOME OF THESE
LOCKS. HOURLY TRACKING
REGISTRIES THAT ARE COMING
ONLINE SOON. SO AGAIN, WE'RE
NOT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO REQUIRE
THIS TODAY. YOU COULD GIVE A
COUPLE OF YEARS THAT'S THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS PROPOSED
WITH THE TREASURY RULES, BUT
EVEN TODAY, IT'S TECHNICALLY
POSSIBLE FOR COMPANIES TO DO
HOURLY MATCHING RIGHT NOW FROM
THE GET GO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
NUMBER ONE DID YOU SAY AND 8%
INCREASE FROM 58 8% THAT'S RIGHT
. AND IF YOU MAKE SURE THAT WE
HAVE THOSE THAT THAT STUDY IN
PARTICULAR, UM HAVE YOU YOU ARE
RESUBMITTED. GREAT AND THEN
FINALLY, SINCE YOU'RE GOING TO
HAVE TO LEAVE, WE JUST WANT TO
LET YOU KNOW HOW MUCH WE
APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR TIME AND
EXPERTISE THAT YOU SHARED WITH
US TODAY AND WE WILL CONTINUE ON
HERE. MR WILKINS. I HAVE A
QUESTION, BUT I DON'T WANT TO
WANT ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S ALANA'S.
YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, RIGHT?
OKAY SO, MR WILKINS AND YOU WE
MAY BE COMING CLOSE TO THE END
OF THE QUESTIONS HERE FOR THIS,
BUT, UM, YOU YOU MADE REFERENCE
TO THE VALUE OF THE HOURLY
MATCHING IN TERMS OF AH, MOVING
PRODUCTION OF ELECTROLYZERS TO
AMERICAN ELECTROLYZERS STEP
WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE GREATER
VARIABILITY IN TERMS OF THEIR
USE THE CHINESE ABOUT WANT TO BE
CLEAR THE CHINESE ELECTROLYZERS
TO BE EFFICIENT WITH HAVE A
GREATER REQUIREMENT TO BE ON 24
7. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, THE
ISSUE. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BENNETT
IS THAT PRIMARILY WOULD CHINA
PRODUCES TODAY AT A LARGE SCALE
AND LOW COST? IS LOW TECH
ALKALINE ELECTROLYZERS THAT HAVE
A LIMITED TURNED DOWN ABILITY,
SO THEY HAVE A LIMITED ABILITY
TO RAMP AND LOAD FOLLOW VARIABLE
, RENEWABLE PRODUCTION. AND SO
THERE'S A REAL RISK THAT IF
TEMPORAL MATCHING IS NOT
REQUIRED, HOURLY MATCHING IS NOT
REQUIRED OR REQUIRED IT TOO LATE
A DATE AND OPENS THE DOOR FOR,
UH, DOMESTIC DEVELOPERS TO
PURCHASE CHINESE MADE SYSTEMS
RATHER THAN RAMBLE SYSTEMS,
WHERE THE UNITED STATES HAS A
COMPARATIVE MANUFACTURING
ADVANTAGE. ONE MORE ARGUMENT FOR
US TO BE CLEAR ABOUT ULTIMATELY
WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH. HOURLY
MATCHING TO SEND THE RIGHT
SIGNAL SO THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE
LESS LIKELY TO PURCHASE THAT
KIND OF ELECTORAL WISER AND MORE
LIKELY TO PURCHASE AN
ELECTROLYZER THAT COULD RAMP UP
AND DOWN AND FOLLOW RENEWABLE
RESOURCES. THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.
THANK YOU. AND THEN MY FINAL
QUESTION FOR MR FRIEDMAN. ARE
YOU AWARE OF ANY PROJECTS THAT
ARE PLANNING ON USING
ELECTROLYTIC HYDROGEN, BUT MAY
USE OTHER RESOURCES TODAY? UH I
AM AWARE OF A PARTICULAR PROJECT
THAT HAS THAT WE'VE BEEN
LITIGATING AT THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION BEING
PROPOSED BY SEMPRA ENERGY AND
ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND DIEGO GAS
AND ELECTRIC. THEY ARE PROPOSING
TO PUT AN ELECTORAL ISAR AT THE
PALOMAR GENERATING STATION,
WHICH IS A COMBINED CYCLE. GAS
FIRE TURBAN LOCATED IN
ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA. UM THEY
PITCHED IT AS A GREEN HYDROGEN
PROJECT BECAUSE THEY ARE ALSO
INSTALLING SOME SOLAR PANELS AT
THE SITE. UM BUT UPON FURTHER
ENQUIRY, IT BECAME CLEAR THAT
THE SOLAR PANELS WOULD ONLY
PRODUCE A SMALL FRACTION OF THE
ENERGY CONSUMED BY THE ELECTORAL
ISAR. AND WHEN WE ASKED THE
UTILITY WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO
GET THE REST OF THE ELECTRICITY
TO RUN THE ELECTORAL ISAR? THEY
SAID, WE WOULD GET IT FROM THE
GAS POWER PLANT ITSELF, SO THEIR
PROPOSAL IS TO RUN THE GAS POWER
PLANT. USE IT USE SOME OF THE
ELECTRICITY TO RUN THE ELECTORAL
ISAR CREATE HYDROGEN, WHICH THEY
WOULD THEN FEED BACK INTO THE
POWER PLANT TO CREATE MORE
HYDROGEN. THIS IS PITCHED AS A
GREEN HYDROGEN PROJECT. AND I
KNOW SARAH AND I ARE BOTH IN
THAT PROCEEDING. WE'VE BOTH
URGED THE PUC TO REJECT IT. THE
UTILITY WANTS $16 MILLION IN
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR THAT
PARTICULAR PROJECT, AND IT'S AN
EXAMPLE OF THE DISCONNECT
BETWEEN THE PROMISE OF GREEN
HYDROGEN AND A LOT OF THE
ADVERTISING AND THE SLICK
MATERIALS THAT GET CIRCULATED
AND THE REALITY OF SOME OF THESE
PROJECTS ON THE GROUND, SO
GETTING IT RIGHT. UM THE DETAILS
MATTER, SO CALIFORNIA'S EXISTING
RULES WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY
STOP THAT. NO THE UTILITY IS
ASKING FOR APPROVAL OF THESE
COSTS TO BE RECOVERED FROM ITS
CUSTOMERS IN THE COMING YEARS,
AND THE PC IS GOING TO DECIDE,
BUT THERE IS NO STATUTORY
PROHIBITION ON THEM BUILDING
THIS PROJECT, AND IF WE HAD THE
THREE PILLARS WOULD THERE BE THE
APPROPRIATE SAFEGUARDS, THEN FOR
A PROJECT LIKE THAT IF WE HAD A
THREE PILLARS REQUIREMENT FOR
ALL HYDROGEN THAT WAS USED IN
POWER PLANTS IN CALIFORNIA. IT
WOULD ABSOLUTELY REQUIRE THIS
PROJECT TO BE DESIGNED
DIFFERENTLY OR TO NOT HAPPEN AT
ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DOES
WITH MY COLLEAGUES. YOU'VE BEEN
GREAT WITH THE PANELISTS. YOU'VE
ALL BEEN GREAT FOR THE PEOPLE
THAT HAVE WAITED PATIENTLY TO
MAKE COMMENTS. WELL, WE'RE GOING
TO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS ONE
MINUTE, BUT I CAN'T SAY ENOUGH
TO THE PANELISTS. HOW MUCH WE
APPRECIATE YOUR EXPERTISE AND
THE CALM, PROFESSIONAL SORT OF
DIALOGUE THAT WE'VE HAD HERE
TODAY. I THINK THIS WAS
EXTREMELY HEALTHY FOR US OVERALL
IN CALIFORNIA, SO THANK YOU ALL
VERY MUCH REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
FEEL FREE TO STAY AND LISTEN TO
TWO QUESTIONS OR I MEAN, LISTEN
TO COMMENTS AND MAKE ANY
OBSERVATIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE
AFTER THAT AND STUFF, BUT, UM,
THERE WE GO ONE MINUTE AND
WELCOME AND WE BEFORE WE START
ON THIS. WE DID INVITE PEOPLE TO
OFFER ANY CREATIVE IDEAS THAT
THEY MIGHT HAVE FOR HOW WE CAN
COME UP WITH ALTERNATIVE WAYS TO
ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS OF ADDITION
, AL, ITTY AND TEMPORAL MATCHING
ETCETERA. SO UM, OUR FIRST FEEL
IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND THEN GIVE
US YOUR THERESA COOK ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA HYDROGEN
COALITION, VERY PLEASED TO
REPRESENT MEMBERS ACTUALLY
DELIVERING CLEAN HYDROGEN
MOLECULES TO END USERS IN
CALIFORNIA. AS FAR AS CREATIVE
ALTERNATIVES GO, I WOULD
ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT US
BEFORE THINE 20 BY SENATOR
SKINNER. ASSEMBLYMAN BRIAN IN
RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION, THERE
IS A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE AS
YOU'RE WELL AWARE BETWEEN AN
INCENTIVE VERSUS A STANDARD,
WHICH IS WHAT'S BEING DEBATED AS
BEING PUT INTO PLACE IN
CALIFORNIA. IT IS OUR INABILITY
TO PRODUCE A RENEWABLE HYDROGEN
ELECTRON THAT CAN COMPETE WITH
DIESEL FUEL, THUS REPLACING
THESE INTERNAL COMBUSTION
ENGINES AND GETTING SEVERAL TURN
IT ON THE ROAD, PARTICULARLY IN
YOUR BACKYARD, REPRESENTING A
PORT ADJACENT DISTRICT. THAT IS
CONCERNING TO US, AND WHETHER IT
IS THE ARCHES, INCENTIVE OR A
STANDARD IN CALIFORNIA. IT
ENCOURAGES PRIVATE SECTOR TO
WALK AWAY FROM THE TECHNOLOGY,
WHICH IS ACTUALLY CONTRARY TO
WHAT IT IS THAT WE ALL WANT TO
DO HERE TODAY. NO ONE IS SAYING
THAT GRID POWER IN CALIFORNIA IS
100% THE POINT IS NOT ASSUMING
THAT INCREDIBLE BURDEN OF THE
THREE PILLARS WHEN WE'RE ON THE
PATH VERY MUCH 100% SURE. THANK
YOU. LET'S TRY TO GET THAT MIXED
OVERLY HERE ON BEHALF OF LINDY
PLC WERE THE LARGEST
MANUFACTURER OF LIQUID HYDROGEN
IN THE WORLD, ALSO LARGEST
MANUFACTURER OF ELECTROLYZERS IN
THE WORLD. WHY TO THE POINT. WHY
WOULD EXISTING POLICY VERSUS
THREE PILLARS WHEN THEY CAN
ACHIEVE THE SAME GOAL? WE COULD
BUY A BENTLEY AND WE CAN DRIVE
FROM OHIO TO LONG BEACH TO GET A
COST US A LOT LESS TO DO WITH
THE HONDA CIVIC AND THEY HAVE
CERTAIN SAME ROLE, WE CAN
ACHIEVE THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL
OUTCOME AT A LOWER COST WITHIN
THE FRAMEWORK OF CALIFORNIA'S
ENERGY POLICY THAN APPLYING
THREE PILLARS, WHICH HAS NOT
BEEN SUCCESSFUL. DEPLOYED UH, IN
THE WORLD, THE EUROPEAN UNION
FROM, UH, PROJECT ANNOUNCEMENT
TO FINAL INVESTMENT DECISION HAS
ONE OF THE LOWEST RATES IN THE
WORLD FOR GREEN HYDROGEN
PROJECTS, AND WE'RE NOT SEEING A
ROBUST DEVELOPMENT THERE IS
ACTUALLY DISINCENTIVIZE IS GOING
WITH ELECTROLYTIC HYDROGEN AND
PUTS MORE INCENTIVE ONGOING WITH
OTHER VERSIONS OF HYDROGEN.
ADDITIONALLY EUROPEAN UNION DOES
NOT BAN FOSSIL HYDROGEN IN
THERE. IN THEIR MANDATES IT
ALLOWS TO CONTINUE POPULATION OR
DEBATING HERE IS A MINIMUM
MANDATE AGAIN. WE'VE GOT TO
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN AN INCENTIVE
OF PROCUREMENT MANDATE. THANK
YOU VERY STANDARD. THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR HOSTING THIS. THIS IS A
REALLY IMPORTANT CONVERSATION,
AND I JUST WANT TO START OFF BY
SAYING THAT WE'VE ALREADY
LEARNED THE LESSON OF WHAT IT
LOOKS LIKE TO DO CLIMATE POLICY
IN A WAY THAT ACTUALLY CAUSES
HARM TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
COMMUNITIES. WE'VE LEARNED THOSE
LESSONS AND WE SHOULD APPLY
THOSE HERE IN THE CONVERSATION
ABOUT HOW DO WE DEFINE GREEN
HYDROGEN. THE THREE PILLARS ARE
JUST THE START. THAT'S LIKE THE
BASELINE AND THE FACT THAT WE'RE
HEARING PUSHBACK ON THOSE IS
REALLY CONCERNING FRANKLY AND
WHAT WE SHOULD BE ALSO DOING IS
LOOKING AT MAKING SURE THAT WHEN
WE DO HYDROGEN PROJECTS WERE NOT
ALSO INCREASING AIR POLLUTION.
WE'RE NOT ALSO INCREASING WATER
POLLUTION LOCALLY. IF WE GET
THIS WRONG, WE'RE NOT GOING TO
MEET OUR SCOPING PLAN. GOALS
WERE AT THE RISK OF INCREASING
EMISSIONS IF WE DON'T HAVE A
STRONG GREEN HYDROGEN STANDARD,
SO REALLY APPRECIATE THE
DISCUSSION TODAY AND JUST WANT
TO ENCOURAGE ENVIRONMENTAL,
JUSTICE AND ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS
BE PART OF THE CONVERSATION
CONTINUING FORWARD. THANKS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS KEITH DONE HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE DISTRICT
COUNCIL OF IRONWORKERS. I WANNA
ALIGN MYSELF WITH JEREMY SMITH'S
COMMENTS FROM THE BUILDING TRADE
. IT'S NICE TO KNOW THAT WE'RE
STILL TALKING ABOUT THE WORKERS
AND HOW THESE IMPACTS ARE GOING
TO AFFECT THEIR LIVES DIRECTLY
ALSO LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT THIS
LEGISLATURE AND THE
ADMINISTRATION START HAVING SOME
SERIOUS TALKS ABOUT THE
EXTENSION OF THE CAP AND TRADE
PROGRAM, NOT JUST FOR 10 YEARS
LIKE WE DID LAST TIME, BUT FOR
30 YEARS OR MAYBE EVEN A LITTLE
BIT LONGER, BECAUSE THOSE ARE
THE TYPE OF RESOURCES WE'RE
GOING TO NEED. TO START BUILDING
THESE PROJECTS OUT. I ALSO WOULD
SUGGEST THAT WE HAVE TO
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE GOING TO BE
RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, ONE OF THE
CURRENT PRESIDENT, AND THEN
THERE'S ANOTHER 11 IS SET A
PRETTY AGGRESSIVE GOAL ON
CLIMATE CHANGE. AND I THINK THAT
WE KNOW WHAT THE OTHER 1 MAY DO.
WE MAY WANT TO START LOOKING AT
SUPPORTING THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND THEIR EFFORTS
RATHER THAN TRYING TO FIGHT THEM
AND PUSH BACK. SO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR KEEPING
COMMENTS BRIEF NEXT SPEAKER. HI
THANK YOU. TELL ME SOME OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ALLIANCE. GOOD TO BE HERE TODAY.
WE REALLY APPRECIATED
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S THE
CONVERSATIONS YOU'VE INCLUDED US
IN ON A B 1550 THE AND THE
CONVERSATION TODAY BUT DO WANT A
NAME THAT MISSING FROM THIS
PANEL, AND THE OTHER
INFORMATIONAL HEARINGS WE'VE HAD
ON HYDROGEN ARE THE VOICES OF
IMPACTED COMMUNITIES, AND THAT'S
A KEY PART. OF THE CONVERSATION
THAT WE NEED TO HAVE JUST TO
NAME BROADLY. ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE COMMUNITIES REJECT ANY
DIRTY HYDROGEN PRODUCTION METHOD
THAT INCREASES POLLUTION IN
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
COMMUNITIES OR CREATE CREATES
ADVERSE HEALTH, CLIMATE IMPACTS,
HYDROGEN DELIVERY AND STORAGE
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS ON
ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH AND SAFETY
REQUIRE SPECIAL ATTENTION AND
PRECAUTIONS AND WE CAN ONLY
SUPPORT HYDROGEN THAT DOES NOT
KEEP POSSIBLE FUEL
INFRASTRUCTURE ONLINE. AND WE
URGE THE LEGISLATURE TO TAKE A
FULL LOOK AT THE WATER IMPACTS
THAT COULD HAVE FROM HYDROGEN,
ESPECIALLY IN A STATE THAT HAS
SUCH WATER CHALLENGES LIKE WE DO
OUR ABILITY TO CLAIM THAT
CALIFORNIA HAS CREATED A JUST
AND TRULY ZERO CARBON HYDROGEN
ECONOMY DEMANDS WILL
CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE COMMUNITIES. SO WE LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING
CONVERSATIONS. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON CHAIRMAN MEMBERS MATT
CLUBBING SCENE ON BEHALF OF THE
BIOENERGY ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA REPRESENT OVER 100,
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, PUBLIC
AGENCIES, BUSINESSES, TRIBES,
NONPROFITS, THEY'RE ALL WORKING
TO TURN ORGANIC WASTE IN THE
STATE INTO USEFUL ENERGY. ONE OF
THE RECENT MOVES IS TO CONVERT A
LOT OF THAT INTO HYDROGEN. UM
WHILE I KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE
A PROBABLY LATER PANEL THAT CAN
DIVE INTO MORE OF THE BIOGENIC
SOURCES OF HYDROGEN ISSUES.
THREE PILLARS DO IMPACT SOME
FORMS OF BIOENERGY HYDROGEN
PROJECTS. AND SO I THINK I WANT
TO JUST FLAG TO ENSURE THAT THAT
IS CONSIDERED MAKING ADD SOME
UNNECESSARY COMPLEXITY. ALSO WE
HAVE LARGELY ALIGNED OUR
COMMENTS TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT WITH ARCHES. I WANT
TO ECHO THOSE HERE TODAY AND
ALSO FLAG A COUPLE OF REALLY
GOOD COMMENTS TODAY BY OTHER
SPEAKERS. THAT WANTED TO KIND OF
REFERENCE THE RPS. WE THINK
THAT'S ACTUALLY REALLY
INTERESTING FRAMEWORK TO FOLLOW
HERE THE YOU KNOW, THE STATE HAS
GIVEN THE ENERGY SECTOR A LONG
TIME TO FIGURE OUT AND DO THIS
IN THE RIGHT WAY. AND WE WOULD
ENCOURAGE THAT KIND OF PRACTICE
HERE WITH HYDROGEN. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
CHRISTINA'S KAREN TO THE CENTER
FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY. WITH
THANKS TO THE CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE. EVERY TECHNOLOGY MUST
COMPETE AGAINST ALTERNATIVES AND
ALMOST ALL USE CASES. OTHER
SOLUTIONS OUTPERFORM HYDROGEN IS
CHEAPER, SIMPLER, SAFER OR MORE
CONVENIENT. HYDROGEN SHOULD BE
LIMITED TO SECTORS WITHOUT A
VIABLE PRESENT DAY ALTERNATIVE
AND WHEREVER DIRECT
ELECTRIFICATION CAN BE USED AS
THE DEMONSTRABLE E BETTER
CHOICE. CLEAN PRODUCTION DEMANDS
ADHERENCE TO THE THREE PILLARS
USING ONLY CLEAN RENEWABLE
ENERGY WITHOUT DIVERSION FROM
MORE EFFICIENT USES. BIOGAS AND
BIOMASS AREN'T CLEAN. THEY CAUSE
SIGNIFICANT CLIMATE HARMS
POLLUTING COMMUNITIES AND
ECOSYSTEMS. THEY ALSO DELAY IN
DIVERT FUNDS AND ATTENTION FROM
MEANINGFUL ACTION. THIS CRITICAL
DECADE HYDROGEN HYPE HAS
BALLOONED FAR BEYOND PCC'S
FORECAST AS A TARGETED SOLUTION
PLAYED BY ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY
AND TECHNICAL ISSUES, AND I EAT
A CAUTIONS THAT WE RECOGNIZE
IT'S LIMITED. THE FUTURE AND
POTENTIAL TO BE OVERSOLD BY
INDUSTRY. WARNING AND ADVISING
TO SCALE PUBLIC INVESTMENT TO
THE NARROW MARKET REALITY VERY
MUCH TIME'S UP. MR CHAIR
MEMBERS. JOHN WINGER ON BEHALF
OF THE COALITION FOR RENEWABLE
NATURAL GAS IN THE INTEREST OF
TIME WOULD MOSTLY ALIGN OUR
COMMENTS WITH ARCHES ON THE
HOURLY MATCHING, I THINK, UM,
YOU KNOW, THERE IS PROBABLY A
FUTURE FOR THAT. BUT WE STRONGLY
BELIEVE THAT SHOULD APPLY TO
EVERYTHING, NOT JUST HYDROGEN.
WE CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT
ADDITION AL ITTY IS NOT NEEDED
WHEN YOU HAVE A BINDING RPS, UM
AND WE DO CONTINUE TO HAVE
CONCERNS THAT ANY ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS OR BURDENS PLACED
ON THIS. COULD HAVE ISSUES WITH
GETTING THE PROJECT OFF THE
GROUND, WHICH WILL ACTUALLY GET
THE MONEY IN AND SO WE LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING THE
CONVERSATIONS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKER. GOOD
AFTERNOON ERIN LAHANE HERE TODAY
ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS. I
DO APPRECIATE THE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT WORKERS
WILL BE A BIG PART OF THE
TRANSITION THAT IS HAPPENING
HERE. WE DO. IN FACT, REPRESENT
THE COMMUNITIES ARE MEMBERS ARE
BLUE COLLAR WORKERS ACROSS THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WE ALIGN
OURSELVES WITH THE STATE
BUILDING TRADES IN THE COMMENTS
THAT WERE MADE TODAY BY JEREMY
SMITH. WE ALSO IN LINE WITH THE
COMMENTS OF ARCHES, WE ARE
HOPEFUL THAT THERE WILL BE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR ARTISTS TO COME
BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE, UM AND
TALK ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THEIR
LETTER ON 45 FT. ARE WE ALSO THE
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
BOILERMAKERS HAVE A LETTER IN
AND WE ALSO ALIGN OURSELVES WITH
THE COMMENTS INCLUDED WITHIN THE
LETTER ON 45 FT FROM THE STATE
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES
COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA A LOT OF
IT'S STAKE HERE. TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF INDUSTRIAL JOBS
ACROSS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
UM AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
WITH THE CURRENT DEFICIT, UM
WITH THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING
IN CALIFORNIA WITH THE POWER
CRISIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD
ALL BE PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION TO
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I DO WANT
TO POINT OUT ARTIST WAS
SPECIFICALLY INVITED AND DECIDED
TO SEND DR BRAUER AS THEIR
ARTIST REPRESENTATIVE. GOOD
AFTERNOON. SHARON MEMBERS
REBECCA MARCUS, REPRESENTING THE
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS,
UCS STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE THREE
PILLARS AS THEY ARE ESSENTIAL TO
ENSURING THAT GREAT HEIGHT GREEN
HYDROGEN IS TRULY A CLIMATE
SOLUTION AND GUARD AGAINST THE
REAL POSSIBILITY OF IT, BECOMING
A NET EMITTER. UCS HAS BEEN
ADVOCATING FOR THESE GUARDRAILS
TO BE INCLUDED IN THE 45 FT TAX
CREDIT AND WHEN WE BELIEVE THAT
THERE ARE ALSO ESSENTIAL HERE,
AS WE HEARD TODAY, WITHOUT THESE
PILLARS, GREEN HYDROGEN COULD
PERPETUATE TO EVEN INCREASE
FOSSIL FUEL USE DURING CERTAIN
TIMES OF THE DAY AND ALREADY
OVERBURDENED COMMUNITIES FURTHER
AS THE STATE PURSUES NON
ELECTROLYTIC HYDROGEN. IT MUST
BE EXTREMELY CAREFUL AND HOW IT
QUANTIFIES THE BENEFITS ON
FEEDSTOCKS LIKE DAIRY, BIO
METHANE. WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT
METHANE THAT IS NOT CONVERTED TO
HYDROGEN WOULD OTHERWISE BE
VENTED. THIS WILL RESULT RESULTS
AND OVER COUNTING THE BENEFITS
OF THIS TECHNOLOGY THAT HAS REAL
PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS FURTHER,
THE STATE SHOULD ENSURE THAT
HYDROGEN PRODUCED FROM THE SPEED
STOCK IS ACTUALLY DELIVERED TO
AND BENEFITING CALIFORNIANS
RATHER THAN SUPPORTING DIGESTERS
OUT OF STATE. THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR THIS HEARING. THANK YOU NEXT
SPEAKER. MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS
GREGG COOK, REPRESENTING THE
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY
. THE EXPEDITIOUS DEVELOPMENT
AND PRODUCTION OF HYDROGEN IS
CRITICAL IF YOU'RE GOING TO MEET
CALIFORNIA'S CLIMATE GOALS, THE
DISCUSSION TODAY HAS BEEN VERY
IMPORTANT AS YOU CONSIDER THESE
ISSUES GOING FORWARD. PLEASE
TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT IS HAPPENING
TODAY WITH REGARD TO DEVELOPING
ACCESSING DEVELOPING A NEW,
RELIABLE, RELIABLE ELECTRICITY,
NEW, RENEW, RENEWABLE AND
RELIABLE. ELECTRICITY FACILITIES
TAKES A LONG TIME WITH
PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS.
DEVELOPING EMPHASIZING NEW
TRANSMISSION FACILITIES IN
TODAY'S ENVIRONMENT TAKES MORE
THAN 10 YEARS. IF YOU WANT TO
EXPEDITE HYDROGEN IN CALIFORNIA,
WE THINK YOU NEED TO MOVE VERY
QUICKLY, AND I WE WOULD
ASSOCIATE OURSELVES WITH THE
COMMENTS THAT ARCHES MADE
EARLIER TODAY. LISTENING TO THE
DISCUSSION TODAY, DR JENKINS
PRESENTED WHAT HE PERCEIVED
PRESENTED AS A PREFERRED PROJECT
. N C P A. HAS THAT PROJECT
READY TO GO LOCATED IN LODI? WE
WOULD URGE YOU URGED THE
COMMITTEE TO COME DOWN AND VISIT
THAT PROJECT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THE NEXT SPEAKER. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS
JAMES THURWACHTER WITH THE
CALIFORNIA STATE COUNCIL
LABORER'S FOR RESPECT WITH TIME.
I WOULD LIKE TO ALIGN OUR
COMMENTS WITH THE STATE BUILDING
TRADES AND ALSO LIKE YOU JUST
BRIEFLY ADD THAT WHEN IT COMES
TO HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS AND HIGH
POWERED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT,
WE HAVE VERY LIMITED OPTIONS
TODAY. SO WE CALIFORNIA'S
CHOICES. WE NEED THEM NOW, SO WE
STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THE SUPPORT.
UM, OF MORE HYDROGEN PRODUCTION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
HAD JAIME KATZ LEADERSHIP
COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE AND
ACCOUNTABILITY. WE WORK
ALONGSIDE SAN JOAQUIN IN EASTERN
COACHELLA VALLEY COMMUNITIES
ALONG THE MOST IMPACTED
COMMUNITIES IN THE STATE. MANY
OF THESE COMMUNITIES ARE SLATED
TO BE THE TESTING GROUND FOR
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION, STORAGE,
TRANSPORTATION AND USE. WE
UNDERSCORE THAT ALL HYDROGEN
PRODUCTION MUST COMPLY WITH THE
THREE PILLARS, NO POLLUTING
FEEDSTOCKS THAT HARM NEARBY
COMMUNITIES SHOULD BE USED FOR
HYDROGEN, INCLUDING DAIRY BIO
METHANE, BETTER KNOWN AS FACTORY
FARM GAS. HYDROGEN ELECTROLYSIS
MUST NOT INTERFERE WITH OR
COMPETE WITH COMMUNITIES ACCESS
TO CLEAN AND AFFORDABLE DRINKING
WATER. THIS MEANS AMONG OTHER
THINGS, THAT IT CANNOT USE WATER
FROM AN OVER DRAFTED GROUNDWATER
BASIN. ALL PROJECTS MUST PROVIDE
NEARBY COMMUNITIES WITH ALL
INFORMATION AND TIME NECESSARY
TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT AND CONSENT
. LAST WEEK, RESIDENTS IN PIXLEY
FILED SUIT AGAINST HILLARY
COUNTY FOR UNLAWFULLY ATTEMPTING
TO AVOID CONDUCTING ANY
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ON
CONVERTING FARMLAND INTO AN
ETHANOL TO HYDROGEN PLANT THE
FULL SECRET PROCESS WITHOUT SO
CALLED STREAMLINING MUCH
NECESSARY TO PROVIDE RESIDENTS
WITH VITAL INFORMATION. THANK
YOU, SIR. YOUR TIME YOURSELF.
HELLO KAYLA KARIMI, STAFF
ATTORNEY WITH THE CENTER ON RACE
, POVERTY, THE ENVIRONMENT.
HYDROGEN IS A CLIMATE THREAT AND
PUBLIC HEALTH THREAT IF IT IS
NOT DONE WITH STRONG PRECAUTIONS
, LIMITATIONS AND EQUITY
PRINCIPLES, INCLUDING THE THREE
PILLARS, I WOULD LIKE TO
EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE AND
NECESSITY OF THE THREE PILLARS
IN CALIFORNIA AND TO SET THAT
PRECEDENT AND STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE AS OTHER SPEAKERS HAVE
HAVE STATED. I WOULD LIKE TO
BRING ATTENTION TO THE PUBLIC
HEALTH HARMS OF HYDROGEN AND
YOUTUBE THAT UTILIZES FOSSIL
FUELS BIOMASS OR BIOGAS ARE
CENTRAL VALLEY COMMUNITIES HAVE
LONG SUFFERED THE HARMS OF OIL
AND GAS. WE CANNOT CONTINUE
RELIANCE ON FOSSIL FUELS THAT
HARM COMMUNITIES AND BRING IN
NEW INDUSTRY THAT WILL DO EVEN
MORE HARM IN THE NAME OF
ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS
CONCLUDES OUR TESTIMONY, AND
THIS IS NOW ADJOURNED.
APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S
ATTENDANT.