SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California environmental groups are contesting a proposed hydrogen project at the Port of Stockton, citing concerns over potentially harmful environmental impacts in an already heavily polluted area.

Their lawsuit filed Wednesday, which calls for a more thorough environmental review, highlights growing criticism from activists who argue that fossil-fuel based hydrogen projects are in conflict with the state’s climate goals despite receiving government support.

The groups argue that the planned hydrogen facility would lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions, release air pollutants and threaten imperiled species. Unlike “green hydrogen” produced by renewable energy sources, the project relies on methane, a fossil fuel.

“This is dirty hydrogen, delivered by dirty trucks, for potentially dirty uses. If the port wants to build this project, it must do a better job explaining how it will clean up all of this pollution,” said Earthjustice attorney Katrina Tomas in a written statement.

“At a time when the climate crisis is devastating our state with wildfires, the port approved a project that will increase greenhouse gas emissions and keep us hooked on fossil fuels.”

The Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity filed the lawsuit in San Joaquin County state court, claiming that the Port of Stockton did not adequately assess the environmental impact of the project when it was approved in March.

Backed by Governor Gavin Newsom’s office, the Stockton port hydrogen project is slated for development by hydrogen company BayoTech. It plans to produce hydrogen using methane, a process that emits carbon despite a state push for cleaner alternatives.

Designed to meet local demand for hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, the plant is expected to produce a relatively minimal amount of hydrogen — two tons per day. The company claims its modular approach minimizes transportation-related emissions.

The plant will release an estimated 12,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually.

After its approval, the project drew immediate criticism from environmental advocates who called the project a missed an opportunity for clean hydrogen. The New Mexico-based company did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit.

In the complaint, environmental advocates argue that the project was approved using an abbreviated, insufficient environmental review and questioned the plant’s long-term sustainability. It demanded a full analysis that considers alternatives to dirty hydrogen and analyzes community impacts.

“The Port of Stockton’s history of approving projects without adequate environmental analyses and mitigation cannot be repeated,” said Mary Elizabeth, who comes from a family that has lived in Stockton for many generations and is involved in activism through the Sierra Club.

Critics are also concerned about BayoTech’s use of renewable natural gas (RNG) credits, which can lower the reported carbon intensity of the hydrogen produced. While these credits are permitted under California’s low-carbon fuel standards, their environmental benefits are frequently debated.

Like all California ports, the Port of Stockton faces pressure from the state to transition to zero-emission operations. Roughly 40% of its equipment is now electric, but the port still relies heavily on diesel.

Hydrogen has been heralded as a means to decarbonize industries such as transportation and steel production, emitting no carbon when used as fuel. Yet extracting hydrogen can be expensive, and if done using fossil fuels such as methane, it can exacerbate pollution.

The U.S. government is investing heavily in hydrogen development, with an $8 billion fund for regional hubs and $100 billion in tax credits to encourage hydrogen production.

One such hub is ARCHES in California, a public-private partnership focused on clean hydrogen. As part of the partnership, the state recently received $1.2 billion from the Biden administration for clean hydrogen development.

However, ARCHES has rejected federal rules designed to prevent pollution, arguing that they would slow progress and undermine the state’s existing clean energy efforts. This stance has sparked criticism from experts who argue that proper regulation is essential to avoid the risk of worsening air pollution.

____

©2024 The Sacramento Bee. Visit at sacbee.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.