California’s gas utilities are pushing to blend hydrogen into the same aging pipelines that deliver natural gas to millions of homes, framing the effort as a clean-energy win. But the technical risks and unresolved cost questions surrounding hydrogen blending suggest the real winners could be the utilities themselves, while ratepayers absorb the financial fallout. Federal research confirms that major economic and safety hurdles remain open, even as state regulators green-light pilot programs and allow utilities to begin spending money that customers will almost certainly be asked to repay through higher bills.
Federal Research Flags Unresolved Risks
The U.S. Department of Energy created the HyBlend initiative specifically to investigate whether hydrogen can safely and affordably travel through existing natural gas infrastructure. HyBlend’s focus on materials compatibility, techno-economic analysis, and lifecycle cost tools underscores that the federal government has not yet answered basic questions about whether large‑scale blending is viable. Rather than confirming that current gas systems are ready for hydrogen, the program’s existence signals that major technical and economic questions remain under active investigation, meaning utilities racing ahead of that research are essentially asking customers to fund a live experiment whose outcomes are unknown.
The technical concerns are not abstract. DOE notes that the United States has only about 1,600 miles of hydrogen pipelines, almost all serving industrial users in tightly controlled settings, not residential neighborhoods. Key challenges include embrittlement, where hydrogen weakens steel pipe walls over time, as well as higher permeation rates and the added complexity of blending and separating gas streams. These are fundamental properties of hydrogen that interact poorly with the carbon steel and legacy components used in most distribution networks. Separately, modeling by the National Institute of Standards and Technology highlights the high relative cost of hydrogen pipelines, finding that hydrogen-specific lines can be substantially more expensive than comparable natural gas infrastructure because of steel and mechanical property issues. While NIST explored changes in codes and pipe thickness to narrow that gap, the baseline cost premium remains significant and is even more complicated when utilities propose retrofitting existing systems instead of building new ones.
California’s Safety Threshold Is Narrower Than Utilities Suggest
California regulators have commissioned their own analysis, and it does not support aggressive blending targets. The California Public Utilities Commission turned to UC Riverside for an independent assessment of the impacts of injecting hydrogen into existing gas systems, including pipelines and household appliances. That study concluded that blends up to roughly 5 percent hydrogen by volume are generally compatible with current infrastructure and end-use equipment. Beyond that narrow range, however, the risks mount quickly: higher blends can affect appliance performance, increase leak rates, and change combustion characteristics in ways that raise safety concerns for homes and businesses.
The gap between that 5 percent threshold and the higher blend levels some utilities have discussed is where the cost burden shifts decisively onto consumers. Once blends rise above the low single digits, the UC Riverside findings indicate that many furnaces, water heaters, and stoves may need modifications or replacement. Utilities would also face pressure to step up leak detection and potentially replace segments of pipe that prove too vulnerable to hydrogen embrittlement or permeation. Each of those costs (new appliances, more frequent inspections, targeted pipeline upgrades) would likely be recovered through rate increases. In effect, a seemingly modest change in gas composition could trigger a system‑wide infrastructure challenge, with households paying for the transition while utilities retain control of the assets and the long‑term revenue they generate.
Pilot Programs Advance While Public Concerns Grow
Despite these open questions, California’s regulatory machinery is moving ahead with hydrogen blending experiments. The CPUC has adopted decisions that establish a feasibility memo account for the proposed Angeles Link project and direct gas utilities to pursue hydrogen-blending pilots. These actions allow companies to begin planning and early investment while deferring the question of who ultimately pays. In San Diego, the SDG&E blending pilot under Proceeding A.22‑09‑006 has already drawn significant local attention, enough that regulators scheduled public participation hearings to capture community concerns about safety, transparency, and affordability. The very need for those hearings underscores that hydrogen blending is far from a consensus solution at the neighborhood level.
The structure of these pilots raises equity and accountability issues. Memo accounts and pilot directives enable utilities to begin spending on hydrogen-related equipment, engineering, and outreach while preserving the option to seek cost recovery later, effectively socializing the financial risk of an unproven approach. If pilots point toward a scalable business model, utilities stand to gain new revenue streams tied to expanded infrastructure and potential federal incentives. If the pilots expose serious technical or economic flaws, the sunk costs do not vanish; they are likely to be folded into future rate cases. Federal tools such as DOE’s Genesis platform and the Infrastructure Exchange are designed to help developers identify funding and manage complex energy projects, but the benefits of those resources primarily accrue to project sponsors. Households, by contrast, have limited ability to avoid higher bills once costs are embedded in the rate base.
The Equity Problem Hiding in Plain Sight
Beyond engineering and economics, hydrogen blending raises fundamental questions about fairness. Proponents often describe blending as a gentle, technology-neutral pathway to decarbonize home heating without forcing anyone to give up gas appliances. Yet academic work has begun to challenge that storyline, arguing that blending can entrench gas infrastructure and delay more effective climate solutions. A recent peer‑reviewed analysis available through the federal scientific repository points out that low-percentage blends deliver relatively small emissions reductions compared with alternatives like building electrification, while still requiring new investment in pipelines and ancillary equipment. That dynamic risks locking in costs and physical assets that predominantly benefit utilities, even as cheaper and cleaner options emerge for consumers.
The equity stakes are particularly high for low‑income households and communities already burdened by air pollution and high energy bills. If blending drives up gas rates to pay for pilots, pipeline upgrades, and appliance changes, those customers will feel the impact first and hardest. Many of the same neighborhoods that have historically lived next to fossil fuel infrastructure could be asked to host new hydrogen facilities or bear the consequences of leaks and accidents. Without explicit protections (such as targeted bill relief, strict safety standards, and clear off‑ramps if blending proves uneconomic), hydrogen could become another chapter in a long history of energy transitions where the financial upside flows to utilities and project developers, while the downside is distributed across the most vulnerable ratepayers.
What a Cautious Path Forward Would Look Like
None of this means hydrogen has no role in a decarbonized energy system. Federal programs like DOE’s ARPA‑E portfolio are funding research into advanced materials, leak detection, and end uses where hydrogen may be genuinely hard to replace, such as certain industrial processes or long‑duration storage. The question for California is whether blending hydrogen into residential gas pipelines is the right near‑term application, given the unresolved technical challenges and the relatively modest climate benefits of low‑percentage blends. A cautious approach would prioritize transparent, small‑scale demonstrations with strict safety oversight, paired with clear criteria for success and failure that are communicated to the public in advance.
Such a path would also require regulators to weigh hydrogen blending against competing options on a level playing field. That means comparing not just headline emissions figures but full lifecycle costs, infrastructure needs, and consumer impacts. It also means scrutinizing who pays at each stage: from early pilot spending to large‑scale deployment. If California chooses to move forward, it should do so with binding safeguards that prevent utilities from automatically passing failed bets onto ratepayers, while ensuring that any proven benefits are shared broadly rather than captured solely as shareholder gains. Until those protections are in place, and until federal research provides clearer answers about long‑term safety and cost, hydrogen blending into aging gas pipelines looks less like a clean‑energy solution and more like a risky wager made with other people’s money.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
