Transit bus operations in California are experiencing new challenges due to economic conditions and the ongoing global pandemic. A confluence of factors has created a focus on this critical public-needs serving industry, due to state and local efforts to reduce emissions of pollutants and climate-changing gases. Transit bus operations in California provide essential and additional useful services that offer critical mobility to needy populations (elderly and handicapped) as well as many other groups for whom transit buses provide the most economical, convenient, and low-emission options. To address the role of transit bus operations in meeting California’s aggressive greenhouse gas (GHG) and emissions, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) has implemented an ambitious Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) regulation that requires all public transit agencies to gradually transition to a 100 percent zero-emission bus (ZEB) fleet.1 Beginning in 2029, 100% of new purchases by transit agencies must be ZEBs, with a goal for a full transition by 2040. Prior to that 25% of purchases of new buses must be ZEBs in 2023-2025 for large transit agencies, rising to 50% in 2026-2028. For smaller transit agencies, defined as those with less than 100 buses in annual maximum service, there is no requirement for 2023-2025 and the requirement for 2026-2028 is 25%, but the 100% ZEB purchase requirement starting in 2029 applies to all agencies.

To better understand inequities in EV charging costs, we compared charging costs at public EV DCFC stations to the cost for single-family housing (SFH) residents charging at home for three California electric utility service areas, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), and for three specific urban areas - Sacramento, San Diego, and San Jose. We used a combination of observed pricing data from PlugShare, a crowd-sourced database of public EV charging, and public DCFC pricing data from electric vehicle service provider (EVSP) websites, as well as electric utility tariff information from their respective websites.

As interest in hydrogen as an energy carrier has increased, the various ways that hydrogen is made are being categorized as “green,” “blue,” “gray,” and other colors in relation to their environmental impact. While these categorizations are somewhat useful to indicate the environmental and climate change impacts of different production pathways, they are not especially useful for policy making or industry decisionmaking purposes because they are subjective. For example, most definitions of green pathways for hydrogen production only include electrolysis from renewable electricity sources; however, Figure 1 indicates additional production pathways with some of these having near-zero or even negative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as well as low or no other emissions of concern. To help clarify the role of hydrogen in decarbonizing California, this brief summarizes the latest scientific findings from recent and in-progress research across the University of California Institute of Transportation Studies (UC ITS) concerning the relative carbon intensity (CI) of hydrogen production pathways. It also briefly covers the availability of biomass and biogas in California that could be applied to the production of low-CI hydrogen.

There is growing interest in the use of hydrogen as a transportation fuel but the environmental benefits of using hydrogen depend critically on how it is produced and distributed. Leading alternatives to using fossil natural gas to make hydrogen through the conventional method of steam methane reforming include using electrolyzers to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, and the use of biogas as an alternative feedstock to fossil natural gas. This report examines the latest carbon intensity (CI) estimates for these and various other hydrogen production processes, adding important nuances to the general “colors of hydrogen” scheme that has been used in recent years. CI values for hydrogen production can vary widely both within and across hydrogen production pathways. The lowest CI pathways use biomass or biogas as a feedstock, and solar or wind power. The report also analyses jobs creation from new hydrogen production facilities and shows that these benefits can be significant for large-scale facilities based on either future biomass/biogas-to-hydrogen or solar-hydrogen production technologies. Recommendations include setting stricter goals for the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program to continue to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s transportation fuels.