CALIFORNIA
FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2012, OR THEREAFTER
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2012, OR THEREAFTER
BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“NEW HYRDOGEN FUEL PLAN STILL TILTS TOWARD HUGE CORPORATIONS”
Just a few months
after pulling back about $12 million in grants to help build fueling stations
for the new generation of hydrogen fuel cell cars due to debut by 2017, the
California Energy Commission is back with a new grant-issuing proposal that
still appears to favor huge international corporations over smaller companies
and a modicum of pollution over completely clean air.
There is even the
possibility that grants under the new plan could wind up going mostly to the
same two multi-billion-dollar companies that had been due to receive last
spring's grants.
Those awards were rescinded last spring after this column exposed
how executives of one set of billion-dollar corporations steered the state
money toward cronies in other giant companies. Both the old grants and the ones
to come involve vehicle license tax money earmarked to help make driving the
new, totally non-polluting H2-fueled cars practical when they hit showrooms and
roads.
Grants to be
awarded before next June 30 could total more than $29 million, a combination of
funds coming in during the fiscal year that started July 1 and the money not
used last spring.
The problem with
the cancelled grants was that the Energy Commission required approval from at
least one of the eight automakers that will build H2 cars before any station
could be approved for a grant. This was also how tens of millions in previous
grants were made under ex-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The two companies that at first won all those grants –
German-based Linde Group and Pennsylvania-based Air Products & Chemicals
Co. – are members of the semi-private California Fuel Cell Partnership, along
with all eight car companies. Those include Toyota, Honda, Nissan, GM,
Chrysler, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen and Hyundai.
With corporate
executives from all these firms and commission staffers attending the same
meetings and seminars several times yearly, the cronyism and collusion was
obvious. The Energy Commission and all companies involved denied there was any,
but service station locations proposed by companies other than Linde or Air
Products could not get car company approvals for the grants, which in some
cases will pay more than half the cost of adding hydrogen pumps to existing gas
stations.
The tentative new
proposal cuts carmakers out of the process, allowing Energy Commission staff
alone to evaluate which station locations are most likely to encourage H2 car
sales. It also lists 12 areas around the state as preferred locations, all
places that posted significant sales of very early model gas-electric hybrids
like the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic.
Those two changes
make the new Energy Commission plan far cleaner than the old one scrapped last
spring.
“The intent is to
fund the best…stations in each of the identified areas,” the commission said in
a statement.
But there are still
potential problems. The new proposal commits just 10 percent of grant money to
refueling stations that would produce hydrogen by electrolysis, and be powered
by totally renewable sources like wind, geothermal or solar energy.
Hydrogen made this way
on site would not have to be trucked to stations like compressed H2 produced
using natural gas. Although natural gas emits far fewer greenhouse gases than
oil or gasoline, it’s still dirty compared to wind energy and other pure
renewables.
So this plan lets
the Energy Commission claim it is promoting pollution-free fuel while still
giving H2 produced with polluting fossil fuels a large role. Setting aside more
of the grant money for hydrogen produced purely from renewables could fix this
problem.
The new plan also
sets just a 50 kilogram per day minimum for sales by stations the grants might
fund. If on-site electrolysis systems produce that little hydrogen, chances are
the stations will often run out and have to get supplies shipped in by industrial
gas providers. Read: Linde and Air Products.
The new plan also
calls for separate 50-page grant applications for each new station considered.
That creates a lot of duplicate paperwork for companies aiming to set up
multiple stations with identical equipment and business plans. It favors big
companies with large staffs over small outfits that hope to grow through
supplying the new fuel.
Then there’s the
matter of who evaluates applications for the tens of millions of state tax
dollars. The commission says only that its staff will do that, but this would
be the same staff which wrote the old, cronyistic plan and still hobnobs with
car and industrial gas company bigshots at Fuel Cell Partnership functions.
This one could be
fixed by putting into the evaluation process a technical committee of academic
experts not tied to any company seeking grants.
The bottom line:
The new plan is a big improvement over the old one, but unless it is tweaked
some more before anyone starts applying for grants, it could end up favoring
the same big companies as the old, discredited system.
-30-
Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The
Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the
Government’s Campaign to Squelch It" is now available in a soft cover
fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net
No comments:
Post a Comment