South Coast Air Quality Management District

Status Report on Staff Evaluation of Hydrogen - Compatibility of Natural Gas Fueling Stations and Recommendations for Potential Funding

SYNOPSIS:

On July 20, 2001 the Board directed staff to conduct a field evaluation and assessment of possible enhancements that could enable natural gas fueling stations to be compatible for future hydrogen refueling. Site visits were conducted at 20 different sites by a study team of experts in the fields of hydrogen production; natural gas, hydrogen and Hythane fueling and equipment; codes and standards; and fuel cells. The study team’s preliminary findings were presented at the Technology Committee on July 27, 2001 and the staff was directed to present their findings at the August 17, 2001 Governing Board meeting.

COMMITTEE:

Technology, July 27, 2001, Receive and File Preliminary Findings

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Based on findings of an ad hoc hydrogen compatibility study team, as well as intensive staff and expert analysis, the following enabling actions are recommended by staff:

1. Authorize the Executive Officer to issue a Request for Proposals for development of a hydrogen fueling station template with equipment specifications, layout, construction guidance with respect to both present and future codes and standards, and an optimization study for siting a future hydrogen fueling network in the South Coast Air Basin at a cost not to exceed $50,000.
   
   
2. Option A. Authorize the Chairman to:
   • Modify five contracts previously approved by the Board at its July 27, 2001, meeting with $110,000 from the Clean Fuels Fund for generic electric and mechanical upgrade ($25,000 to Pinnacle CNG Company; $35,000 to Valley Vista Services; $17,500 to City of Placentia; $32,500 to Pickens Fuel Corporation for two sites). and,
   
   • Modify two contracts previously approved by the Board at its July 27, 2001, meeting with $170,000 from the Clean Fuels Fund for the acquisition of hydrogen-CNG compatible compressors ($65,000 to City of Placentia and $105,000 to Pickens Fuel Corporation).
   
   OR
   
   Option B. Authorize the Executive Officer to:
   • Issue a Request for Proposals for installation of a small-scale hydrogen fueling facility at a site to be determined, which is conducive to fuel cell/hydrogen vehicle use and helpful to establishing the future hydrogen network in Southern California at a cost not to exceed $280,000.

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.
Executive Officer

Background

At its July 2001 meeting, the Board approved 19 contracts (20 stations) totaling $4.6 million for natural gas refueling station infrastructure projects using funds from the AES settlement. At the July meeting, the Board also directed staff to conduct a field evaluation and assessment of possible enhancements that could enable these natural gas fueling stations to be compatible for future hydrogen refueling. In addition, the Board requested that a status report be provided to the Board’s Technology Committee, as well as a final report to the full Board by the August 17 meeting. On July 28, AQMD staff briefed the Board's Technology Committee on the progress made and initial findings of a study team composed of outside experts. Thereafter, the team’s report was given a peer review, and staff’s resulting recommendations are presented in this report.

Definition of Hydrogen Compatible Natural Gas Fueling

The term "hydrogen compatibility" relative to natural fueling stations can be defined in several ways. Compatibility can mean ability for the co-existence of separate natural gas and hydrogen fueling at the same location; future conversion of natural gas equipment to hydrogen fueling; alternating use of select fueling components for natural gas and hydrogen fueling, or some combination of the aforementioned configurations.

Foresight into hydrogen-fueled vehicle specification, future codes and standards, spacing and set-backs, the effect of equipment degradation on hydrogen fuel quality, and site operation characteristics will all have an effect on the design of a compatible system. Additional consideration has to be given in areas related to multiple options for hydrogen fuel generation and storage, future advancement of hydrogen fueling technology, difference in fuel volume demand for hydrogen and natural gas, and difference in operational requirements.

Study Team Efforts and Recommendations

In response to the Board's request the staff organized a Hydrogen Compatibility Study Team to examine each of the 20 project sites to determine the potential feasibility, of steps which would make these stations more hydrogen compatible. The study team is made of experts from groups that have been responsible for the construction of hydrogen fueling stations in California and/or have strong experience in the construction or operation of both CNG and LNG stations in our Basin. The study team members (Exhibit 1) included Herbert Burnett (Principal, Burnett & Burnette), Dr. Peter Lehman (Director, Schatz Energy Research Center, and Professor of Environmental Resources Engineering at Humboldt State University), Mark Pedersen (Manager, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.), Gary Pope (Principal, USA PRO), Polo del Toro (Field Engineer, SunLine Transit), and Jim Zoellick (Environmental Engineer, Schatz Energy Research Center). Larry Watkins of the Technology Advancement Office serves as AQMD liaison to the team.

The Hydrogen Compatibility Study Team developed criteria based on site specifics, including accessibility, fueling scenarios, types of vehicles, codes and standards, operations, maintenance and current project status. A site-by-site review was then conducted, with the exception of those sites using Fuel Maker technology (which were not considered a high priority for hydrogen fueling compatibility). The sites were inspected, all available equipment specifications, drawings, plot plans and Piping and Instrument Diagrams were reviewed, and estimates of hydrogen siting nuances were made. Each of the site visits conducted by the team members was documented and appears in the Study Team report. In each case, a determination was made as to the technical feasibility of upgrading for hydrogen compatibility.

After completing the evaluation, the Hydrogen Compatibility Study Team developed an overall report (Attachment A), including a series of recommendations. In addition, a spreadsheet summarizing each of the site parameters, possible incremental costs and comments appears in the report.

The team's recommendations are summarized in Table 1and include the following:

1. To provide generic provisions to five stations, including electric upgrades, mechanical upgrades, site preparation, fire and gas protection, and plan preparation at a cost of no more than $110,000. The five stations are:
   
   --Pinnacle/Ware Disposal Co. in Santa Ana
   --Valley Vista Services at City of Industry
   --City of Placentia
   --PFC/Administrative Services co-op in Gardena
   --PFC/Waste Management of Inland Empire in Moreno Valley
   
   
2. That a hydrogen-CNG compressor can be installed at the following four stations at a cost of no more than $515,000:
   
   --Pinnacle/Ware Disposal Co. in Santa Ana
   --Valley Vista Services at City of Industry
   --City of Placentia
   --PFC/Administrative Services co-op in Gardena
   
   However the study team recommends that only two compressors be funded (City of Placentia and Pickens Fuel Co-Op stations). The upgraded compressors at the other two stations are not recommended for funding at this time because of high costs and capacity issues related to future hydrogen fueling needs. The study team made this recommendation based on the following assumptions:
   

• Hydrogen-CNG compressors will be used for CNG service only in the near future.
• Should the need for fueling a small number of hydrogen vehicles become necessary, additional hydrogen dispenser, tube trailer/storage tank, and a purging system will be needed.
• When hydrogen vehicle/fueling technology becomes commercially available and larger CNG compressors are needed, the original hydrogen-CNG compressor will be used exclusively for hydrogen service. The hydrogen tube trailer will be removed and a permanent hydrogen fuel source (e.g., electrolyzer, reformer, fuel cell, or bulk liquid tank) will be installed.

3. AQMD should provide consulting services to assist the above stations in becoming hydrogen compatible.

Table 1
Hydrogen Compatibility Study Team
Recommended Site Specific Upgrades
 

* The study team believes that these two stations are technically feasible to have hydrogen-CNG compressors but do not recommend funding at this time.

Expert Panel Review

The Hydrogen Compatibility Study Team's draft report and recommendations were also reviewed by a panel of recognized experts in the fields of fuel cell technology, hydrogen fueling technology, and related codes and standards. The review panel members (Exhibit 2) included Dr. Sigmund Gronich (Hydrogen Program Team Leader, DOE), Dr. Marshall Miller (Director of the Hydrogen Bus Technology Validation Program and Hybrid Vehicle Propulsion Systems Laboratory, Institute for Transportation Studies, U.C. Davis), Alan P. Niedzwiecki (Executive Director Business Development, QUANTUM Technologies, a subsidiary of IMPCO Technologies), Dr. Venki Raman (Program Director, Hydrogen Energy & Fuel Cells, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.), and Dr. Sandy Thomas (Principal, H2Gen Innovations). The review panel's comments appear in Attachment B. A brief summary is presented below.

The Expert Panel strongly supports the introduction of hydrogen fueling stations for fuel cell vehicles. In general, they believe that low cost generic upgrades may be of some economic benefit but have reservations about the cost-effectiveness of making natural gas compressors compatible with hydrogen at this time, and that such action may not be the most cost-effective approach to expediting hydrogen fueling systems in the District. Some of the experts believe that, while fuel cell vehicles will be commercialized within the next 6-10 years, CNG compressor upgrades to be hydrogen compatible may be premature at this time. From a technical standpoint, compressors can be built to handle both hydrogen and natural gas but the panel believes there is a low probability that a large, hydrogen-capable natural gas compressor would ever be used economically for a hydrogen dispensing station.

There were also questions regarding the design criteria for CNG compressors when OEMs currently require 5,000 psi storage even in prototype direct hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, with storage up to 10,000 psi likely to come sooner rather than later. They suggested that funding inexpensive upgrades should be considered for those CNG stations that may be able to support a hydrogen-fueled fleet in the future.

Some of the members of the Expert Panel also recommended allocating funds to identify specific sites for future hydrogen stations and to allocate funds for the construction of stand-alone, complete, integrated hydrogen fueling systems to support fleets of fuel cell vehicles. It was also recommended that a study be performed to determine the practicality of compressors that dispense both CNG and hydrogen.

Other Information Received

AQMD staff has received both solicited and unsolicited information on this issue from equipment vendors, fuel cell and infrastructure experts and consultants, various government agencies, and other interested parties. This information is contained in Attachment C. Staff has also solicited technical assessment of the codes and standards for siting hydrogen fueling station for vehicle application from DCH and USAPro, firms with strong experience and capability in this area. Their brief reports are included in Attachment D.

Staff Analysis and Recommendations

AQMD staff has completed a review of the Hydrogen Compatibility Study Team report (Attachment A), the comments made by the Review Panel (Attachment B), and other information received from various sources including equipment vendors and other interested parties (Attachments C and D). The consideration before the Board entails the trade-off between making a significant expenditure at this time in support of hydrogen fueling compatibility to further signal AQMD’s continuing support for hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles vs. waiting until more specific information is available regarding hydrogen fueling and/or associated vehicles prior to allocating such funding. Other policy issues include other optional uses for the funding (e.g., installation/operation of a small-scale hydrogen fueling station(s); further natural gas fueling infrastructure; or other TAO R&D/commercialization projects).

After careful review of available information, staff offers the following recommendations:

OPTION ONE
Support the Study Team's recommendation for the five stations relative to the installation of the generic electrical and mechanical upgrades at a cost not to exceed $110,000 and the acquisition of hydrogen-CNG compressors at two stations--the City of Placentia and Pickens Fuel at Gardena at a cost not to exceed $170,000 (including $125,000 incremental costs for the acquisition of compressors and $45,000 consulting resources for design, engineering and permitting).

OPTION TWO
Installation of a small-scale hydrogen fueling facility at a site to be determined, which is conducive to fuel cell/hydrogen vehicle use and helpful to establishing the future hydrogen network in Southern California. The cost for design, procurement and construction shall not exceed $280,000.

In addition to Option One or Two above, staff proposes to conduct a consultant study to scope out the basic layout, equipment, and costs of a hydrogen fueling network consisting of four additional fueling facilities at Riverside, Diamond Bar, Downtown Los Angeles, and San Fernando Valley. This consultant study can be completed within six months and staff will return with the consultant report as well as a staff recommendation for implementation action. Funding request for this activity is estimated at $50,000.

Benefits to AQMD

The Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin recognizes that motor vehicles are the most significant source of air toxic and criteria pollutant emissions in the region. Therefore, a key clean air strategy for southern California is the promotion of less polluting fuels and technologies for motor vehicle applications (passenger cars, small trucks and heavy-duty vehicles). The use of hydrogen fuel or mixtures of hydrogen and natural gas (hythane) provides a viable clean air option for the future, especially as relates to hydrogen use in fuel cells. Thus, efforts to facilitate hydrogen fueling infrastructure can provide significant long-term benefit to achieving the overall air quality goals set forth in the federal and state Clean Air Acts.

Resource Impacts

The total amount of AQMD funding needed to implement the recommendations will not exceed $330,000. Sufficient funds are available from the Clean Fuels Program Fund. The Technology Advancement Plan: 2001 Update has an allocation of $1,500,000 for the development and demonstration of distributed hydrogen production and refueling stations (2001 CFM 4-2). The proposed SCAQMD contribution to the Sunline and LAX electrolyzer-hydrogen fueling stations which are under development totals $760,000. The Technology Advancement Office has a number of other proposals currently under evaluation in this area, including the potential addition of hydrogen fueling at the SCAQMD. The Clean Fuels Program, under Health and Safety Code Sections 40448.5 and 40512 and Vehicle Code Section 9250.11, establishes mechanisms to collect revenues from mobile sources to support projects to increase the utilization of clean fuels, including the development of the necessary advanced enabling technologies. Funds collected from motor vehicles are restricted, by statute, to be used for projects and program activities related to mobile sources that support the objectives of the Clean Fuels Program. The proposed level of funding is consistent with program plans contained in the Technology Advancement Office annual project proposal report.

Attachment (15,346 KB)

1. Hydrogen Study Team Report with Supporting Documents Produced by Study Team
2. Expert Panel Review/Comments
3. Other Information Received from Various Sources
4. Codes and Standards Assessment

Mr. Herbert Burnett, principal of Burnett & Burnette. Mr. Burnett is a registered Civil Engineer with over 35 years in the oil/gas, utility and energy industries, and has installed / operated 70 CNG stations for Southern California Gas Company. Mr. Burnett is an expert in CNG fueling station design and operation.

Dr. Peter Lehman, Director of the Schatz Energy Research Center and professor of Environmental Resources Engineering at Humboldt State University, in Arcata, CA. Dr. Lehman’s research activities include development of solar hydrogen generation systems and design and production of proton exchange membrane fuel cells. Schatz Energy was responsible for the design and construction of the hydrogen fueling facility and the fuel cell vehicles at SunLine Transit.

Mr. Mark Pedersen, Manager, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Mr. Pedersen is responsible for project execution, management and technical support of industrial gas installations in the Western Region, including the California Fuel Cell Partnership hydrogen dispensing unit.

Mr. Gary Pope, principal of USA PRO. Mr. Pope has 30 years of cryogenic experience, holds patents in the automotive and electrical fields, and is Chairman of several SAE committees, including SAE J2406-Onboard fuel Systems-Alternate Fuels (gaseous and liquid). Mr. Pope is an expert in LNG station design and construction in California.

Mr. Polo del Toro, Field Engineer, SunLine Transit. Mr. del Toro maintains seven natural gas fueling stations in the desert valley area and is responsible for the operation of the electrolyzer and natural gas to hydrogen reformer at SunLine Transit.

Mr. Jim Zoellick, Environmental Engineer at Schatz Energy Research Center. Mr. Zoellick has six years experience in the design, development and installation of electrolytic hydrogen generation systems and hydrogen fuel cell power systems.

Dr. Sigmund Gronich, Hydrogen Program Team Leader, DOE. His educational background is in heat and mass transfer. He has 18 years experience in the aerospace industry, and 25 years with the DOE's renewable energy program. He is responsible for the RD&D efforts of establishing hydrogen fueling infrastructure.

Dr. Marshall Miller, Director of the Hydrogen Bus Technology Validation Program and Hybrid Vehicle Propulsion Systems Laboratory, Institute for Transportation Studies, U. C. Davis. He is responsible for the hydrogen/natural gas mixture bus program in Davis, CA

Mr. Alan P. Niedzwiecki, Executive Director Business Development, QUANTUM Technologies, a subsidiary of IMPCO Technologies. He is responsible of the development and commercialization of QUANTUM's enabling fuel system technologies for manufacturers of fuel cells including mobile, stationary, portable and infrastructure application. Mr. Niedzwiecki was President and CEO of NGV Corporation. He served on the Canadian Safety Codes Council and was instrumental in developing regulatory codes and standards relating to gaseous fuel applications.

Dr. Venki Raman, Program Director, Hydrogen Energy & Fuel Cells for Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. based in Allentown, Pennsylvania. He leads his company's global efforts in developing business opportunities based on hydrogen energy applications in transportation and clean power production. He participated in the development of a hydrogen fuel station for the CTA buses in Chicago, the Ford Motor Company, the Las Vegas fuel station/ fuel cell power project, and the California Fuel Cell Partnership.

Dr. Sandy Thomas, principal, H2Gen Innovations. Dr. Thomas founded H2Gen to mass-produce small-scale hydrogen fueling appliances for fuel cell vehicles and stationary fuel cell systems. Prior to founding H2Gen, Dr. Thomas was Vice President for Energy and Environment at Directed Technologies, Inc., where he led the joint project with the Ford Motor Company and the U.S. Department of Energy to evaluate hydrogen infrastructure options and hydrogen safety issues.

/ / /