Green Hydrogen Energy Facilities

We look forward to hearing your input during the public comment period, which runs from 12:00 p.m. January 7 through 11:59 p.m. February 6, 2025. We are hosting three online public hearings on January 23, 28, and 30, where we will present findings, be available to answer your questions, and take public comment. If you would like to submit a comment online, you can do so using the online comment form.

Visit Ecology's PEIS webpage for more information on how to submit a comment or register for an online public hearing.

Green Hydrogen

The term "green hydrogen" includes the following types of hydrogen:

• Green electrolytic hydrogen is hydrogen produced through electrolysis using electricity to break apart water and create hydrogen and oxygen. This definition allows for renewables and fossil fuels to be used as a source of electricity with the amount of fossil fuels decreasing over time to meet state greenhouse gas limits.
• Renewable hydrogen is hydrogen produced using renewable resources both as the source for the hydrogen and the source for the energy input into the production process. This is produced using steam-methane reforming, pyrolysis, or bio-gasification processes.

Green hydrogen energy facilities help support the state's transition to clean energy. When green hydrogen replaces fossil fuels for uses such as transportation fuels and industrial heating it helps to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in Washington.

Close lightbox

× Close lightbox

Steam methane reforming and liquid storage facility - Air Liquide - Apex, NV

Green Hydrogen Uses

• Chemical and industrial operations, including at petroleum refineries, for industrial chemical processes, and iron and steel production where high-temperature heat is needed
• Creation of other products, including alternative jet fuel, green ammonia, and green methanol
• Fuel source for vessel aircraft, freight rail, and heavy-duty vehicles
• Power and heat generation

Currently, hydrogen is mainly used for petroleum refining and production of bulk chemicals, such as ammonia. The United States produces approximately 10 million metric tons of hydrogen annually. Most hydrogen comes from a process called steam-methane reforming where fossil fuels are used as the feedstock. This hydrogen is often called gray hydrogen.

Hydrogen Safety

Human senses cannot detect a hydrogen leak, so sensors are used. Facilities must be properly ventilated to reduce hydrogen gas accumulation in the event of a leak or spill. Using proper materials and safety equipment and implementing engineering controls and safety procedures help reduce risks.

Safety requirements include setbacks from adjacent structures and requirements for the types of material used for processing equipment and storage. New building codes and other technical standards specific to hydrogen may not be included in local codes. The PEIS describes current requirements and where there are gaps.

The geographic scope for the PEIS includes areas throughout the state of Washington where green hydrogen facilities are likely to be developed based on available transmission lines, proximity to freight highway routes, and industrial or industrial-use supporting zoning. These lands include city and county industrially zoned areas or areas zoned to support industrial uses, such as areas with major port facilities that handle freight shipments, intermodal facilities, and airports.

The PEIS considers green hydrogen facilities that may be constructed after June 30, 2025, and before January 1, 2050 and facilities are expected to have an operational life of 20 to 50 years. The study uses an approximate 75-year time period for the resource analyses.

Close lightbox

× Close lightbox

Summary

The summary provides brief, high-level information on key findings for probably significant adverse impacts.

Key findings are provided in the following slides.

Chapters

The PEIS chapters provide information on the impact analysis and findings.

Links to each chapter can be found on the following slides.

Technical Appendices

The technical appendices contain detailed methods and technical documentation for the PEIS analysis.

The Technical Appendixes can be found on the PEIS publication page.

Key Findings

Facilities could impact Tribal rights, interests, and resources. The significance of impacts to Tribal rights, interests and resources can be understood only from within the context of an affected Tribe. This will depend on the project and the federally recognized Tribes potentially affected. Accordingly, the impact assessment and determinations of significance or non-significance would be done with engagement and in consultation with potentially affected Tribes at the project level.

Key Findings

• Green hydrogen facility development could have disproportionate impacts on historic and cultural resources, Tribes, and Tribal communities. The impact assessment and determinations of significance or non-significance would be determined through engagement and consultation with potentially affected Tribes and the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation at the project level.
• Impacts associated with plants and animals that provide important subsistence and medicinal resources to Tribal communities could potentially result in disproportionate impacts on Tribal communities.
• If a facility is located near people of color populations or low-income populations, the following would potentially result in disproportionate impacts on these populations:
  • Vibration impacts from certain construction and decommissioning activities.
  • Public services and utilities and environmental health and safety risks associated with fire and explosion if activities required a large emergency response in remote locations with limited response capabilities, or if a fire or explosion during operations spreads rapidly or impacts large areas. Facilities with a battery energy storage system would also have risks from hazardous air emissions if a fire were to occur.
• There would be public services and utilities and environmental health and safety risks associated with fire and explosion if activities required a large emergency response in remote locations with limited response capabilities, or if a fire or explosion during operations spreads rapidly or impacts large areas. Facilities with a battery energy storage system would also have risks from hazardous air emissions if a fire were to occur.
• Impacts associated with public services and utilities and environmental health and safety would potentially result in significant and unavoidable disproportionate impacts on people of color populations or low-income populations. Determining if mitigation options would reduce or eliminate impacts below significance would be dependent on the specific project and site.

Key Findings

• Through compliance with laws and permits, and with implementation of actions that could avoid and reduce impacts, the construction, operation, and decommissioning of green hydrogen facilities would likely result in less than significant adverse impacts on earth resources (soil and geologic hazards).
• No significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to earth resources would occur.

Close lightbox

× Close lightbox

Pyrolysis facility - Monolith Olive Creek - Hallam, NE

Key Findings

• Through compliance with laws and permits, and with implementation of actions that could avoid and reduce impacts, the construction, operation, and decommissioning of facilities would likely result in less than significant impacts on air quality.
• In general, per kg of hydrogen produced, electrolysis using all renewable energy sources for electricity would have the lowest amount of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. Impacts from electrolysis, steam methane reforming, pyrolysis, bio-gasification production and storage would range from less than significant impacts to potentially significant adverse impacts on life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions.
• Electrolysis using fossil fuel as a source of electricity, steam methane reforming, pyrolysis, and bio-gasification production may have significant unavoidable adverse impacts on life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. Determining if mitigation options would reduce or eliminate impacts below significance would be dependent on the specific project and site.

When choosing a site, developers will consider if resources needed for their project are available. The amount of water available will vary based on a project and its location and this study does not evaluate specific sites. If the water needed for a project to be built and operated is not available, the project would not be feasible.

Key Findings

• Through compliance with laws and permits, and with implementation of actions that could avoid and reduce impacts, the construction, operation, and decommissioning of facilities would likely result in less than significant impacts on water resources (surface water, groundwater, wetlands, floodplains, and water rights).
• No significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to water resources would occur.

Key Findings - Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitats and Species

• Some facilities would result in less than significant impacts.
• Facilities may result in potentially significant adverse impacts if activities cause or affect:
  • Permanent degradation, loss, or conversion of suitable habitat that is crucial to species viability or disrupt habitat continuity along migration routes.
  • Species viability, the mortality of any individual species, or disturbance that disrupts successful breeding and rearing behaviors.
• There may be potentially significant and unavoidable adverse impacts on terrestrial and aquatic special-status habitats and species.
• Determining if mitigation options would reduce or eliminate impacts below significance would be dependent on the specific project and site. Mitigation to reduce impacts below significance for terrestrial and aquatic special-status habitats or species may not be feasible.

Key Findings - Wetlands

Through compliance with laws and permits, and with implementation of actions that could avoid and reduce impacts, construction, operation, and decommission of green hydrogen production facilities would result in less than significant impacts to wetlands.

The energy and natural resources evaluated include the following:

• Electricity that is generated from renewable and non-renewable sources
• Renewable natural gas
• Biomass
• Transportation fuels including gasoline and diesel fuel
• Construction aggregate (the collective term for sand, gravel, and crushed stone)

Key Findings

• The PEIS assumes that a developer has contracted for sufficient electricity, renewable natural gas, and biomass. With this assumption, through compliance with laws and permits, and with implementation of actions that could avoid and reduce impacts, the construction, operation, and decommissioning of green hydrogen facilities would likely result in less than significant impacts on electricity supply and the availability of renewable natural gas or biomass fuels.
• There would also be less than significant impacts on fuels and construction aggregate.
• Electrolysis and bio-gasification facilities would have no impact on the availability of renewable natural gas fuels.
• Electrolysis, steam methane reforming, and pyrolysis facilities would have no impact on the availability of biomass fuels.
• No significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to energy and natural resources would occur.

The impact analysis addressed the following types of impacts:

• Risks from use of hazardous materials for green hydrogen production
• Fire and explosion risks from green hydrogen facility operations
• Worker health and safety risks

Key Findings

• Through compliance with laws and permits, and with implementation of actions that could avoid and reduce impacts, most construction, operations, and decommissioning activities would likely result in less than significant impacts related to hazardous materials and health and safety.
• Depending on the specific location, severity, and emergency response capacity, operation activities would likely have less than significant to potentially significant adverse impacts from fires and explosions. The severity of risks would need to be assessed for each facility based on the project location, production method, and quantities of flammable materials produced or stored on-site.
• A thermal runaway event due to damage or battery management system failure at a facility with a co-located lithium-ion battery energy storage system (BESS) would likely have potentially significant adverse impacts related to hazardous air emissions.
• A facility may result in potentially significant and unavoidable adverse impacts if new ignition sources are in remote locations with limited response capabilities, or if a fire or explosion during operations spreads rapidly or impacts large areas. Determining if mitigation options would reduce or eliminate impacts below significance would be dependent on the specific project and site.

Key Findings

• Through compliance with laws and permits and with implementation of actions that could avoid and reduce impacts, most construction, operation, and decommissioning activities would likely result in less than significant impacts related to noise and vibration.
• Potentially significant adverse impacts related to vibration would occur if:
  • Vibration from specific construction activities occurs at distances closer than 350 feet from residential land uses, or in close proximity to conventional or historic structures.
  • If some types of blasting during construction are conducted within 2,000 feet of historic structures.
• No significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to noise or vibration would occur.

Key Findings

• Through compliance with laws and permits, and with implementation of actions that could avoid and reduce impacts, construction, operation, and decommissioning activities would result in less than significant impacts on land use.
• No significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to land use would occur.

Close lightbox

× Close lightbox

Electrolysis facility - H2B2 SoHyCal - Fresno, CA

The PEIS evaluates the long-term change or reduction in visual quality and creation of new sources of light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Key Findings

• Through compliance with laws and permits, and with implementation of actions that could avoid and reduce impacts, construction, operations, and decommissioning activities would likely result in less than significant impacts related to visual quality and light or glare.
• No significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to aesthetics and visual quality would occur.

Close lightbox

× Close lightbox

Pyrolysis facility - Monolith Olive Creek - Hallam, NE

Key Findings

• Through compliance with laws and permits and with implementation of actions that could avoid and reduce impacts, construction, operations, and decommissioning activities would likely result in less than significant impacts on recreation.
• No significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to recreation would occur.

Key Findings

Facilities could impact historic and cultural resources. Each historic or cultural resource's significance is unique to that resource; therefore, the impact analysis will also be unique and would need to be conducted during future project-level review for facilities. The significance of impacts to Tribal cultural resources can be understood only from within the cultural context of an affected Tribe. Accordingly, impact assessment and determinations of significance or non-significance to Tribal cultural resources would be done with engagement and in consultation with Tribes and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation at the project level.

This PEIS considers the transportation system; traffic, public transit, and non-motorized or other transportation system conflicts; and the movement of trucks, trains, or vessels to transport equipment for construction, operation, or decommissioning of green hydrogen facilities. Freight transportation modes are the focus of the PEIS. The PEIS does not evaluate the transportation or distribution of green hydrogen, or transportation related to the end uses of green hydrogen. This would be evaluated during project-level review.

Key Findings

• Through compliance with laws and permits and with implementation of actions that could avoid and reduce impacts, the construction, operation, and decommissioning of facilities would likely result in less than significant impacts on transportation.
• No significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to transportation resources would occur.

A green hydrogen facility developer would need to ensure that there are sufficient utilities for a project available by establishing agreements with utility providers. A green hydrogen facility developer would also need to ensure that there is sufficient water available for a project, both physically and legally. The PEIS assumes that a project developer has contracted for sufficient electricity and renewable natural gas and obtained a water right as needed.

Key Findings

• Through compliance with laws and permits, and with implementation of actions that could avoid and reduce impacts, most construction, operation, and decommissioning activities would likely result in less than significant impacts on public services and utilities.
• A facility would result in potentially significant adverse impacts on emergency response if activities required a large emergency response in remote locations with limited response capabilities, a fire or explosion during operations spreads rapidly or impacts large areas, or if there are other unique aspects of a facility site.
• Potentially significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to emergency response may occur. Determining if mitigation options would reduce or eliminate impacts below significance would be dependent on the specific project and site.

Trends considered for cumulative impacts:

The impact analysis addressed the following types of impacts:

• Energy projects, including clean energy developers and changes to existing systems
• Urban, commercial, and industrial activities and development
• Rural and agricultural activities and development
• Federal, state, and local wildlife and habitat projects
• Transportation infrastructure development and modification
• Contaminated site cleanup and remediation
• Mining operations expansion, development, and reclamation activities
• Military use development and changes
• Water supply development and withdrawals for municipal, agricultural, industrial, and conservation uses

Key Findings

• Due to the large geographic study area and broad trends of RFFAs that are considered, cumulative impacts would range from less than significant to potentially significant. Future projects would need to conduct cumulative analyses relative to their proposal.

The extent and magnitude of impacts on resources would vary depending on the geographical region and size of the facility relative to other and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the area. In general, when considering the contribution of future effects, the larger the facility the greater the potential for cumulative impacts because of the larger footprint, the increased need for construction materials, and the increased scale of the supporting infrastructure. Conversely, smaller facilities are likely to result in fewer cumulative impacts on resources because they have a smaller footprint and require less supporting infrastructure.

Cumulative impacts would also vary depending on the production and storage method of green hydrogen and the inputs and outputs required of the facility. There is also increased potential for multiple green hydrogen and other clean energy generation facilities to be located proximate to one another for access to common infrastructure and users. An example of this is the nodes being proposed as part of the green hydrogen hub process. As a result, the combined impacts from construction, operation, and decommissioning of one or more of these facilities could result in cumulative impacts on the natural and built environment.

How will comments be used for the PEIS?

• All comments are valued equally. They help us determine if additional analysis or information is needed.
• Comments which talk about specific impacts or issues are most useful. Please look at our focus sheet about providing effective public comments.
• The final PEIS will include responses to comments and be issued by the legislative deadline of June 30, 2025.

Public Hearing Times and Dates

Public Hearing 1

• Thursday, January 23, 2025, at 9:00 AM
• Zoom - registration required

Public Hearing 2

• Tuesday, January 28, 2025, at 12:30 PM
• Zoom - registration required

Public Hearing 3

• Thursday, January 30, 2025, at 5:30 PM
• Zoom - registration required