Review - HR 9851 Introduced – Heavy Industry Hydrogen

Last month, Rep Sorensen (D,IL) introduced HR 9551, the Hydrogen for Industry Act of 2024. The bill would require DOE to establish the ‘Hydrogen Technologies for Heavy Industry Demonstration Program’ to provide grants or cooperative agreements to demonstrate industrial end-use applications of hydrogen. The bill would authorize $1.2 billion for the period of fiscal years 2025 through 2029.

The bill would amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by adding a new §969E, Hydrogen Technologies for Heavy Industry Demonstration Program.

HR 9851 is virtually identical to S 646 that was introduced in March of 2023. There has been no action in the Senate on that bill to date. The sole difference between the two bills is the funding authorization dates; 2025-2029 in the House bill and 2024-2028 in the Senate bill.

Moving Forward

Sorensen is a member of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee to which the bill was assigned for consideration. This means that there may be sufficient influence to see the bill considered in Committee. Unfortunately, the new large-spending authorization on an unconventional energy source is probably a non-starter with most Republican members of the Committee. Some lower level of funding may provide an acceptable compromise, but it is unlikely that any work will proceed on this legislation in the short time remaining in the session. A Democratically controlled House in the 119^th Congress (a possibility) would make such a compromise less necessary.

 

For more information on the provisions of the bill, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/hr-9851-introduced - subscription required.

Review - HR 6871 Introduced – Hydrogen Trucks

Last month, Rep Porter (D,CA) introduced HR 6871, the Hydrogen for Trucks Act of 2023. The bill would require DOT to establish a grant program to support “funding capital projects to purchase heavy-duty fuel cell vehicles and related equipment, including hydrogen fueling stations.” It would authorize $200 million per year through 2028 to fund the program.

This bill is very similar to S 648 (removed from paywall), which was introduced last March. No action has been taken on that legislation to date.

Moving Forward

Neither Porter, nor her sole cosponsor {Rep Bilirakis (R,FL)} are members of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, so it is unlikely that there is sufficient influence to see the bill considered in Committee. Since this legislation would increase spending and supports alternative fuel programs, it is likely to face significant Republican opposition. This bill is unlikely to be considered this session.

Commentary

While the cost of this bill is a potential political issue, the funding number is reasonable. According to one study, the cost of fuel-cell powered fright truck is between $200,000 to $600,000, so the proposed maximum funding per vehicle ($500,000) is well within that range. Assuming (for arguments sake) that the 20% cost share will go for overhead, etc., that means that if the funding were to go to just vehicles it would fund somewhere between 40 and 100 vehicles per year. Given the number of hydrogen fueling stations that will be needed to support these fleets, the number will be significantly smaller. That is not going to grow manufacturing capability very quickly.

 

For more details about this legislation, including differences from S 648, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/hr-6871-introduced - subscription required.

Review - HR 6872 Introduced – Hydrogen Port for Ports Act

Last month, Rep Porter (D,CA) introduced HR 6872, the Hydrogen for Ports Act. The bill would require DOE to “establish a grant program to support hydrogen-fueled equipment at ports”. It would also require DOT and DHS to conduct a study on “the feasibility and safety of using hydrogen-derived fuels, including ammonia, as a shipping fuel.” The bill would authorize $100 million in appropriations per year through 2028 to fund the grant program.

This bill is very similar to S 647 (removed from paywall) that was introduced last March. No actions have been taken on that bill beyond assigning it to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for consideration.

Moving Forward

While Porter is not a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration, her sole cosponsor {Rep Bilirakis (R,FL)}. This means that there may be sufficient influence for the bill to be considered in Committee. The fact that this is an alternative fuel bill and includes $100 million in new spending will draw significant opposition from Republicans. This means that the bill is unlikely to move forward.

Commentary

With both anhydrous ammonia and hydrogen fuels being potential targets of terrorist attack, probably a higher risk than the conventional fuels they are designed to replace, security measures are going to have to be put into place to protect the storage and transfer of these fuels. This grant program should specifically include spending for those security measures as allowable uses for the grant funds. I would revise §2(b)(1) to read:

“(1) the purchase, installation, construction, facilitation, maintenance, operation of, or providing physical or cybersecurity for, as appropriate—"

 

For more details about the provisions of the bill, and its differences from the S 647, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/hr-6872-introduced - subscription required.

Bills Introduced – 12-19-23

Yesterday, with the Senate in Washington and the House meeting in pro forma session, there were 43 bills introduced. Two of those bills will receive additional attention in this blog:

HR 6871 To require the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to establish a grant program to demonstrate the performance and reliability of heavy-duty fuel cell vehicles that use hydrogen as a fuel source, and for other purposes. Porter, Katie [Rep.-D-CA-47]

HR 6872 To require the Secretary of Energy to establish a grant program to support hydrogen-fueled equipment at ports and to conduct a study with the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Homeland Security on the feasibility and safety of using hydrogen-derived fuels, including ammonia, as a shipping fuel. Porter, Katie [Rep.-D-CA-47]

Review – HR 6510 Introduced – Composite Pipes for Hydrogen Pipelines

Last month, Rep Molinaro (R,NY) introduced HR 6510, the Hydrogen Safety and Environmental Responsibility Act. This bill would require DOT to “complete a study assessing the potential and existing use of pipelines constructed with composite materials to safely transport hydrogen and hydrogen blended with natural gas.” No funding is authorized by this legislation.

Moving Forward

Both Molinaro and his sole cosponsor {Rep Allred (D,TX)} are members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to which this bill was assigned for primary consideration. This typically means that there could be sufficient influence to see this bill considered in Committee. There may be some objections to this bill from pipeline safety advocates, but I do not expect that there would be sufficient opposition to block passage in Committee. I suspect that there would be enough bipartisan support for this bill to move to the floor of the House under the suspension of the rules process.

Because there is similar language in HR 6494, there will be no action on this bill while the larger PIPES Act is pending consideration. This bill will move forward, only if HR 6494 fails (unlikely) or the composite pipe study requirement is removed from the final version of the bill.

Commentary

The interest in composite materials in this bill is due to the fact that hydrogen gas is very reactive with most metals used in pipeline construction. This results in an increase in brittleness of the metal and a decrease in the strength of the pipeline. The composite material can be either a high-strength plastic pipe or a plastic lining to a conventional metal pipe.

 

For more details about the provisions of this bill, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/hr-6510-introduced - subscription required.

Review - Remote Hydrogen Fueling and CFATS

A new reader who started following this blog when I wrote about security issues with the new hydrogen economy sent me a link to a company page on LinkedIn. The company manufactures hydrogen-fueled (both internal combustion models and fuel cell models) over-the-road trucks. Apparently realizing that the fueling infrastructure is not yet widely available, the company provides remote fueling capabilities. The thing that caught my eye on the page was a photograph showing such a refueling operation in action.

If there is 10,000-lbs of hydrogen on the trailer in that picture, the facility where the trailer is parked would be required to report that hydrogen to CISA on a Top Screen report. CISA might decide that the facility met the requirements to be covered by the security requirements of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program. If CISA determines that the facility is covered, the facility will have to develop a site security plan in accordance with the CFATS regulations to protect that periodic refueling operation from a potential terrorist attack. The cost of those additional security measures is probably going to make such local refueling impracticable.

 

For a more detailed description as to how I got to that conclusion, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/remote-hydrogen-fueling-and-cfats - subscription required.

Review - HR 3960 Introduced – Aviation Hydrogen Fuels

Last month, Rep DelBene introduced HR 3960, the Hydrogen Aviation Development Act. The bill amend existing statutes to provide administrative support for the development hydrogen as an aviation fuel. No funding is authorized in the legislation.

Moving Forward

DelBene is not a member of either the House Transportation and Infrastructure or the Science, Space, and Technology Committees to which this bill was referred for consideration. Generally, this means that there is not enough influence to see the bill considered in Committee. Were the bill to be considered, I suspect that there would be some level of bipartisan support for the bill since it contains no funding authorization and is generally permissive rather than prescriptive. I am not sure that there would be enough support for the bill for it to move to the floor of the House under the suspension of the rules process. There would not be sufficient leadership support to consider the bill under regular order.

 

For more details about the provisions of the bill, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/hr-3960-introduced - subscription required.

Review - HR 4032 Introduced – Aviation Hydrogen Strategy

Last month, Rep Johnson (D,GA) introduced HR 4032, the Hydrogen Aviation Strategy Act. The bill would require the FAA and DOE to exercise leadership in the creation of Federal and international policies relating to the safe and efficient use of hydrogen to increase aviation decarbonization. It also addresses issues related to the certification of aircraft that use hydrogen as fuel. No funding is authorized by this legislation.

Moving Forward

Johnson is a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to which this bill is assigned for consideration. This means that there may be sufficient influence to see the bill considered in Committee. There will be some level of knee-jerk reaction to this bill by some Republicans that oppose any ‘green energy’ proposal, but I suspect that there may be some level of bipartisan support for the bill, especially since no funding is authorized. I am not sure if there would be enough support for the bill to move to the floor of the House under the suspension of the rules process. There would not be enough leadership support for this bill for it to be considered under regular order.

Commentary

While I understand why, this bill does not address any of the safety and security issues related to an advanced hydrogen economy that would affect the ability of DOT and DOE to advance the use of hydrogen as a fuel for aircraft. The crafters of this bill were trying to avoid the additional jurisdictional issues that would arise from efforts to address these supporting issues. But this is the classic legislative chicken or egg problem, without an active use for hydrogen as a fuel, there will be no hydrogen infrastructure in place. But, without an existing fuel infrastructure no one is going in invest the time an money needed to develop aircraft that would use hydrogen as a fuel. This is why, if the crafters really want to advance the hydrogen fuel economy, they will need to craft a comprehensive bill that address (and provides funding for) both the supply and use sides of the equation.

 

For more details about this legislation, including additional discussion of how to address the legislative issues identified above, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/hr-4032-introduced - subscription required.

Review - Hydrogen Fuels and CFATS

Over the last two weeks I have written blog posts about four bills (S 646, S 647, S 648, and S 649) that have been introduced in the Senate addressing measures proposed to enhance and expand a hydrogen fuel economy. The bills would establish support programs in the Department of Energy and Department of Transportation ease a transition for hydrogen fuels to replace hydrocarbon fuels in heavy industry and for hydrogen fuel cells in transportation. These bills have addressed funding issues and even briefly address safety issues, but they completely overlooked the issues of security for facilities newly storing the hydrogen used in the projects.

CFATS Background

Hydrogen is a listed DHS chemical of interest (COI) for the Chemical Security Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program. It is considered a release flammable security hazard chemical with a screening threshold quantity of 10,000-lbs with a reporting concentration of 1%. This means that any facility that has at least 10,000-lbs of hydrogen must report that inventory to CISA using the CFATS program’s Top Screen tool.

CISA’s Office of Chemical Security would then analyze the reported data to determine whether the reporting facility is a high-risk facility according to their classified risk assessment process. Covered facilities then have to develop a site security plan that provides a level of protection associated with their assigned Tier and the risk-based security guidelines outlined in CFATS Risk-Based Performance Standards (RBPS) guidance document.

The way the CFATS regulations were crafted, there is no one size fits all security program for facilities. Each facility works with their assigned chemical security inspector to craft a mix of security measures that would fulfill the RBPS standards for that facility. The one thing that is certain is that the security plan will be costly.

Even for facilities that are already covered CFATS facilities, adding hydrogen storage as a new COI for the facility will inevitably increase the security costs and may even increase the tier rankings of a facility which could increase the general cost of security at the facility.

Conclusion

If congress really wants to encourage the expansion of the use of hydrogen as a fuel, they are going to have to reduce the uncertainties associated with the planning process. The recently introduced bills would address much of the financial uncertainty, but additional legislative efforts would need to be undertaken to reduce some of the security concerns related to provisions of the Chemical Security Anti-Terrorism Standards. CISA will need to be given authority to expand the Expedited Approval Program to include a separate, all tier, authority for a hydrogen expedite approval program. It would also be helpful if CISA was required to develop a formal program for evaluating planned facility construction or expansion to see if a planned site would be covered, or a tier would be changed for a planned inventory of COI.

 

For a more detailed discussion about the CFATS program and the expansion of hydrogen fuels, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/hydrogen-fuels-and-cfats - subscription required.

Review - S 648 Introduced – Fuel Cell Vehicles

Last month, Sen Coons (D,DE) introduced S 648, the Hydrogen for Trucks Act of 2023. The bill would require DOT to establish a grant program to support “funding capital projects to purchase heavy-duty fuel cell vehicles and related equipment, including hydrogen fueling stations.” It would authorize $200 million per year through 2028 to fund the program.

Moving Forward

Coons is not a member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration, but two of his seven cosponsors {Sen Hickenlooper (D,CO) and Sen Lujan (D,NM)} are members. This means that their may be sufficient influence to see the bill considered in committee. As I have mentioned with similar bills (here and here), I do not see anything other than the cost of the program that would engender any organized support. If a solution were found for the funding issue, I think that this bill would receive bipartisan support.

Commentary

While the cost of this bill is a potential political issue, the funding number is reasonable. According to one study, the cost of fuel-cell powered fright truck is between $200,000 to $600,000, so the proposed maximum funding per vehicle ($500,000) is well within that range. Assuming (for arguments sake) that the 20% cost share will go for overhead, etc, that means that if the funding were to go to just vehicles it would fund somewhere between 40 and 100 vehicles per year. Given the number of hydrogen fueling stations that will be needed to support these fleets, the number will be significantly smaller. That is not going to grow manufacturing capability very quickly.

 

For more details about the provisions of this bill, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/s-648-introduced - subscription required.

Review - S 647 Introduced – Hydrogen for Ports

Earlier this month, Sen Cornyn (R,TX) introduced S 647, the Hydrogen for Ports Act of 2023. The bill would require the Department of Transportation to establish a grant program “to demonstrate hydrogen, ammonia, or fuel cell technologies in maritime and associated logistics application.” The bill would authorize $100 million per year through FY 2028 for the program.

Moving Forward

While Cornyn is not a member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, two of his seven cosponsors {Sen Hickenlooper (D,CO), Sen Lujan (D,NM)} are members of the Committee. This means that there may be enough influence to see the bill considered. I see nothing in this bill that would engender any organized opposition to the legislation. The problem comes down to money. While spending reduction is not as important in the Senate as it is in the House this session, it will still be on the minds of the Senate leadership, knowing that a Senate passed bill must still successfully traverse the House to get to the White House.

 

For more details about the provisions of the bill, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/s-647-introduced - subscription required.

Review - S 646 Introduced – Hydrogen Technologies

Earlier this month, Sen Coons (D,DE) introduced S 646, the Hydrogen for Industry Act of 2023. The bill would require DOE to establish the ‘Hydrogen Technologies for Heavy Industry Demonstration Program’ to provide grants or cooperative agreements to demonstrate industrial end-use applications of hydrogen. The bill would authorize $1.2 billion for the period of fiscal years 2024 through 2028.

Moving Forward

While Coons is not a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration, three of his cosponsors {Sen Hickenlooper (D,CO), Sen Cassidy (R,LA), Sen Heinrich (D,NM)} are members. This means that there should be sufficient influence to see this bill considered by the Committee. Beyond the cost of the program, I see nothing that would engender any organized opposition to this bill. I suspect that the bill would receive some level of bipartisan support if ways could be found to fund this new grant program.

 

For more details about the provisions of the bill, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/s-646-introduced - subscription required.