(S&T)2

Carbon Intensity
of Hydrogen
Production
Methods
Supporting the BC
Hydrogen Strategy

MARCH 2023

cice.ca
cice.ca
Section header [2]

Acknowledgement
This report is the result of collaboration between the B.C. Centre for Innovation & Clean Energy, Deloitte,
(S&T)2 Consultants, and the B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. Our teams have
worked closely to obtain and validate data inputs and assumptions required to model carbon intensities of
hydrogen production pathways that are realistic and representative for British Columbia.

We would like to thank all of the stakeholders that have contributed to the development of this report
through data acquisition, result validation and verification, and stress testing of the final report. These
stakeholders, across the hydrogen production value chain, include technology developers, early-
stage production companies, natural gas utilities, clean energy think tanks and accelerators, research
organizations, safety and standard developers, and end-users.

We acknowledge that our offices reside on traditional, treaty, and unceded territories as part of Turtle Island
(North America), which are still home to many First Nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples. We acknowledge the
First Nations’ long history of land stewardship and knowledge of the land—including the shared territories of
10 local First Nations: Katzie, Kwantlen, Kwikwetlem, Matsqui, Musqueam, Qayqayt, Semiahmoo, Squamish,
Tsawwassen, and Tsleil-Waututh on whose lands Metro Vancouver is situated.

cice.ca
Section header [3]

Notice to Reader
This study has been prepared by the B.C. Centre for Innovation and Clean Energy (CICE) in collaboration
with Deloitte LLP (“Deloitte”), (S&T)2 Consultants, and the B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon
Innovation (EMLI) for the determination of carbon intensities for hydrogen production and the potential
GHG reduction from hydrogen blending into the gas grid within the context of the broader strategic and
climate objectives of British Columbia. The authors recognize that further studies and consideration of
other factors such as economic and environmental opportunity costs are required to achieve a more
holistic understanding of hydrogen development potential in the province.

This report should not be used for any other purpose or in any other context, and CICE, Deloitte, (S&T) 2,
and EMLI accept no responsibility for its use. CICE, Deloitte, (S&T)2, and EMLI do not assume any
responsibility or liability for losses incurred by any party as a result of the circulation, publication,
reproduction, or use of this analysis contrary to its intended purpose.

The analysis is provided as of January 16, 2023, and we disclaim any undertaking or obligation to advise
any person of any change in any fact or matter affecting this analysis, which may come or be brought to
our attention after that date. In the analyses, we may have made assumptions with respect to the industry
performance and other matters, many of which are beyond our control, including government and
industry regulation.

No opinion, counsel, or interpretation is intended in matters that require legal or other appropriate
professional advice. It is assumed that such opinion, counsel, or interpretations have been, or will be,
obtained from the appropriate professional sources. To the extent that there are legal issues relating to
compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies, we assume no responsibility.

cice.ca
 Table of Contents
1. Executive summary������������������������������������������������������������������6
C
 arbon intensity: Global themes for hydrogen
production pathways����������������������������������������������������������������������� 6
 C hydrogen production carbon intensity:
B
Modelling approach.������������������������������������������������������������������������� 7
Modelling results������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 7
Hydrogen blending and its impact on emissions�������������������������8
Conclusions��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 9
2. Glossary���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 10
3. Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11
4. Carbon intensity: Global themes for hydrogen production
pathways�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 13
4.1 Emerging global themes ����������������������������������������������������������� 16
4.1.1 Leveraging CI����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 16
4.1.2 Defining system boundaries ������������������������������������������������������������������� 18
4.1.3 Enabling low-carbon hydrogen��������������������������������������������������������������� 19
4.2 Other highlights from the jurisdictional scan���������������������� 21
4.2.1 Voluntary systems for low-carbon hydrogen certification����������������27
4.3 The state of hydrogen blending internationally����������������� 29
5. Modelling BC hydrogen production CI�����������������������������������34
5.1 Goal and scope�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 34
5.1.1 Product and functional unit����������������������������������������������������������������������35
5.1.2 Geographical scope����������������������������������������������������������������������������������35
5.1.3 Production pathways������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36
5.2 LCA system boundary��������������������������������������������������������������37
5.2.1 Downstream plant-gate assumptions������������������������������������������������� 39
5.3 Modelling parameters and data sources����������������������������� 39
5.4 Technology-specific assumptions���������������������������������������� 41
5.4.1 Methane reforming using CCS �������������������������������������������������������������� 41
5.4.2 Methane pyrolysis �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������43
5.4.3 Electrolysis �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������45

(S&T)2 cice.ca
 Table of Contents

5.5 Modelling with GHGenius���������������������������������������������������������� 47

5.6 CI modelling results�������������������������������������������������������������������� 48
6. Hydrogen blending and its impact on emissions ��������������������� 51
6.1 P
 otential challenges with hydrogen blending in
transmission infrastructure������������������������������������������������������� 53
6.2 Analysis approach and considerations����������������������������������� 54
6.3 Blending scenarios and analysis results��������������������������������� 55
Scenario 1: High efficiency���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 55
Scenario 2: Electrolysis only������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 56
Scenario 3: Mixed reduction������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 56
Scenario 4: Proven technology only������������������������������������������������������������������ 56
6.4 Hydrogen blending analysis: results and conclusions��������� 58
6.5 Hydrogen blending considerations����������������������������������������� 58
6.5.1 Safety ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 59
6.5.2 Scaling technology and distribution ������������������������������������������������������60
6.6 Best use of electricity���������������������������������������������������������������� 60
7. Opportunities to reduce hydrogen CI in BC���������������������������� 63
7.1 The potential for CI reductions over time��������������������������������� 63
7.2 Policy factors�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 69
7.3 Technology factors���������������������������������������������������������������������� 70
7.4 Market factors������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 71
8. Conclusion: Supporting BC’s greenhouse gas strategy and
climate ambitions����������������������������������������������������������������������72
8.1 R
 egion-specific and consistent determination of
hydrogen CI �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������73
8.2 Focusing on pathways with an ability to result in lower CI ���73
8.3 BC’s hydrogen strategy and GHG reduction targets are
ambitious and achievable�����������������������������������������������������������73
9. References���������������������������������������������������������������������������������75

(S&T)2 cice.ca
Executive summary [6]

1. Executive summary
Hydrogen plays a critical role in helping British Columbia achieve its commitment to net-zero emissions
by 2050, by enabling the province to decarbonize energy systems and facilitate transition to a low-carbon
economy. In 2021, the BC government released the BC Hydrogen Strategy, which outlined support for
low-carbon hydrogen production and how it can help meet provincial climate targets and economic goals.
Understanding the carbon intensity of different hydrogen production pathways is key to fostering the right
decisions regarding hydrogen’s role in decarbonization. Exploring potential carbon intensity thresholds
and reduction schedules will ensure BC’s hydrogen economy is clean and continually reducing the
province’s emissions.

Carbon intensity (CI) is a measure of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per unit of energy produced,
and is typically expressed in grams of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) per megajoule (MJ). Determining
the CI of hydrogen production pathways helps inform decision-making and investments towards pathways
based on their GHG emissions. In the context of BC’s Hydrogen Strategy, incorporating CI into hydrogen
production and use implementation can help build BC’s hydrogen economy to meet provincial
net-zero goals.

This report has been produced by Deloitte and (S&T)2 on behalf of the BC Centre for Innovation and
Clean Energy (CICE) and the BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation (EMLI). The report
is intended to provide data and insights that support the determination of the lifecycle CI for selected
hydrogen pathways, and to explore the highest potential for CI reductions.

We recognize that the hydrogen landscape is quickly changing. The jurisdictional data and incentives
presented in this report are current as of October 2022 and may not reflect the most recent updates.

Carbon intensity: Global themes for hydrogen production pathways

A review of the hydrogen strategies of several Canadian and global jurisdictions provided insights into
emerging themes or potential trends that may be of interest to decision-makers in BC.

» Leveraging CI thresholds to incentivize low-carbon hydrogen production. By attaching increasingly

stringent CI thresholds to increasing amounts of hydrogen production credits, jurisdictions such
as the United States and United Kingdom plan to make low-carbon hydrogen production more
economically competitive.

cice.ca
Executive summary [7]

» Defining lifecycle boundaries to provide a uniform basis for determining low-carbon hydrogen.
Accurately determining CI requires a consistent set of criteria and specifications that can be applied
uniformly across hydrogen producers. In the UK, for example, emissions must be accounted for up to the
point of production and meet stringent processing and product specifications.

» Enabling low-carbon hydrogen production through supportive regulatory policies. A number of

jurisdictions, including BC, are using regulatory policies to support and encourage low-carbon hydrogen
production, particularly around three areas: carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) hubs, zero-
emission vehicle (ZEV) policies, and electricity cost incentives.

BC hydrogen production carbon intensity: Modelling approach

There are many existing and evolving pathways to produce hydrogen. This report focuses on three families
of hydrogen production technologies that have the potential for application in British Columbia: methane
reforming with carbon capture and storage (CCS), methane pyrolysis, and electrolysis. Three variations of
each technology were considered, resulting in nine hydrogen pathways.

The CI for each of these nine pathways was modelled using GHGenius and a
consistent set of assumptions and parameters (Section 5.1, page 34).
GHGenius is a lifecycle analysis model developed by
(S&T)2 Consultants Inc. that analyzes contaminant
emissions related to the production and use of
traditional and alternative fuels. GHGenius is also the
basis for low-carbon fuel standard reporting in BC
and other LCA models within Canada.

Modelling results
The modelling shows differences in the lifecycle CI of
the three main hydrogen production technologies.
The modelling shows that downstream emissions,
such as transportation, significantly contribute
to the lifecycle CI for pathways that involve longer
distances between the point of production and the
point of use. The modelling also finds that newer

cice.ca
 Executive summary [8]

technology variants offer improved lifecycle CIs. Autothermal reforming (ATR) and electric steam methane
reforming (ESMR), for example, generate half the CI of the more mature steam methane reforming (SMR).
The differences are less stark when considering methane pyrolysis and electrolysis variants.

Carbon intensity for compressed hydrogen by technology family, pathway and transport mode
Carbon intensity for compressed hydrogen by technology family, pathway and transport mode

80
Grey hydrogen
32.1
70 (82.7 gCO2e/MJ)
Carbon intensity (gCO2e per MJ)

60
32.2
50 32.2
5.9
1.01
40

30
5.9 1.86 1.86 1.86
5.9
20 38.8 38.8 38.7 1.02 1.86 1.86
1.02 1.86
10 21.0 20.9 19.6 19.5 20.9 20.7
13.6 13.6 13.5 16.4 16.4 16.4 15.2 15.2 16.1 16.1
11.9 11.9
0
Truck Rail Pipeline Truck Rail Pipeline Truck Rail Pipeline Truck Pipeline Truck Pipeline Truck Pipeline Truck Pipeline Truck Pipeline Truck Pipeline
SMR ESMR ATR Thermal Plasma Catalytic Solid oxide PEM Alkaline
Methane reforming Methane pyrolysis Electrolysis

Plant gate, CI Downstream, CI

The assessment in this report reflects data available as of October 2022 for existing and emerging
hydrogen technology. As the market and technology matures, policy, market, and technology drivers could
potentially result in lower CIs in the future (Section 5.6, page 48). However, the assessment in this report
does not consider economic feasibility or other potential trade-offs among the production technologies
and pathways.

Hydrogen blending and its impact on emissions

The report also analyzed the GHG emissions reductions that would be possible by blending hydrogen into
BC’s natural gas network. Four scenarios were developed: a high efficiency scenario, an electrolysis-only
scenario, a mixed reduction scenario, and a scenario using proven technology alone.

Using these scenarios, analysis shows that blending hydrogen at approximately 20% by volume
(21.5 million GJ of hydrogen) into the province’s natural gas network for utility heating can achieve emission

cice.ca
Executive summary [9]

reductions of 350,000 to 815,000 tonnes/year CO₂e. This results in a 0.5% to 1.3% reduction in overall
BC GHG emissions, and a 1.7% to 4% reduction in emissions from BC’s utility natural gas system.

For the purposes of this report, blending hydrogen with natural gas is only considered in the context of the
impact on GHG emissions reductions.

Conclusions
Based on the modelling completed for this study, hydrogen produced in BC today can achieve cradle-to-
plant-gate CIs that range from 11.9 to 40.1 gCO­₂e/MJ.

By 2030, it is anticipated that plant-gate CIs for hydrogen from solid oxide electrolysis and SMR with CCS
would be 11.9 to 39.1 gCO₂e/MJ, respectively.

By 2040, and beyond to 2050, CI thresholds for hydrogen in BC could be reduced to 12.2, 8.2 and
11.9 gCO₂e/MJ for pathways in methane reforming, methane pyrolysis, and electrolysis technologies,
respectively, driven primarily by increased carbon capture rates, and for pyrolysis, market availability for
solid carbon.

The work undertaken as part of this study can be leveraged to develop policy options, identify and select
technologies, and invest in specific hydrogen pathways to produce low-CI hydrogen in BC.

cice.ca
Glossary [10]

2. Glossary
ATR Auto-thermal reforming

CCS/CCUS Carbon capture and storage / Carbon capture utilization and storage

CI Carbon intensity (using CO₂e)

CO Carbon monoxide

CO₂ Carbon dioxide

CO₂e Carbon dioxide equivalent

ESMR Electric steam methane reforming

FCEV Fuel cell electric vehicle

GHG Greenhouse gas

GJ Gigajoule

GWP Global warming potential

H₂ Hydrogen

HHV High heating value

LCA Lifecycle analysis

LHV Low heating value

MJ Megajoule

MPa Megapascal

NMHC Non-methane hydrocarbons

PEM Proton exchange membrane

PSI/psi Pounds per square inch

SMR Steam methane reforming

SOEC Solid oxide electrolyzer cells

ZEV Zero-emissions vehicle

cice.ca
Introduction [11]

3. Introduction
British Columbia is committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. Hydrogen can play a key role in
decarbonizing energy systems and the transition to a low-carbon economy, especially in sectors where
direct electrification is not practical, such as heavy-duty transportation and high-grade industrial heating.
Hydrogen can be used to produce low-carbon synthetic fuels or used in fuel cells to produce energy for
transportation and stationary power systems. Hydrogen also has the potential to provide heat to homes
and buildings in place of fossil fuels when blended into the natural gas grid. However, the thinking around
using hydrogen for heat is evolving, and this study aims to better understand the benefits and constraints
of doing so.

As part of the BC Hydrogen Strategy, carbon intensity (CI) thresholds for hydrogen production pathways
will be established to support a low-carbon hydrogen industry within British Columbia. This will be of
importance as BC moves towards achieving its emission reduction targets as established under the Climate
Change Accountability Act, including 40% emission reductions by 2030, 50% by 2040, and 80% by 2050
from 2007 levels.

To reduce emissions and decarbonize the economy, the BC Hydrogen Strategy focuses on advancing and
providing support only for renewable and low-carbon pathways, with long-term targets for declining CI
consistent with net-zero emissions by 2050.1 CI is expressed in terms of grams of CO₂ equivalent (CO₂e) per
megajoule (MJ) of energy.

This report has been produced by Deloitte and (S&T)2 on behalf of the BC Centre for Innovation & Clean
Energy (CICE) and the BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation (EMLI). CICE is an
independent non-profit organization that convenes innovators, industry, governments, and academics
to accelerate the commercialization and scale-up of BC-based clean energy technologies. It also aims to
be a catalyst for new partnerships and world-leading innovation to deliver near-term and long-term GHG
reductions. This study is underpinned by CICE’s focus on low-carbon hydrogen for clean energy solutions
and builds on the objectives of the BC Hydrogen Strategy.

Through the development and analysis of plausible scenarios, and a review of international and national
projects, pilots, and policy, this report is intended to provide determinations of lifecycle CIs, using the

cice.ca
Introduction [12]

GHGenius LCA modelling tool, for various hydrogen production pathways to support the identification of
low-carbon hydrogen opportunities in BC. In addition, this report aims to provide an overview of regional
and global hydrogen standards and initiatives. A better understanding of other jurisdictions’ activities,
including contributions of low-carbon hydrogen pathways from an emissions perspective, can offer insights
into recommended CI thresholds and reduction strategies to meet climate goals. This report focuses its
modelling on the potential emission reductions achievable by blending hydrogen into BC’s natural gas grid.
Ultimately, this report intends to provide an objectively determined CI analysis to inform decision-making
related to renewable and low-carbon hydrogen production in BC, with particular focus on establishing
declining CI thresholds out to 2050 to help meet provincial climate goals.

cice.ca
Carbon intensity: Global themes for hydrogen production pathways [13]

4. Carbon intensity: Global themes for

hydrogen production pathways
Several governments around the world have published hydrogen strategies, setting out their plans for
developing a hydrogen industry to address climate change. To gain insights into emerging themes and
best practices that could be used to further BC’s own hydrogen ambitions, reports from specific
jurisdictions were reviewed based on the International Renewable Energy Agency’s criteria for “jurisdictions
with potential to be policy front-runners and leading markets in hydrogen.”2 The jurisdictions selected,
and their relevant hydrogen strategy documents, are illustrated in Figure 1. Information about hydrogen
production and demand incentives, existing and proposed CI thresholds, hydrogen blending requirements
and policy, and other insights documented in this report are based on the identified documents.

cice.ca
Carbon intensity: Global themes for hydrogen production pathways [14]

FIGURE 1 - Jurisdictions and relevant hydrogen strategy documents reviewed

Canada
• B.C. Hydrogen Strategy EU
• Alberta Hydrogen Roadmap • European Union:
Norway Japan
• Ontario’s Low-Carbon Hydrogen A Hydrogen Strategy for a
Strategy • Norwegian Ministry of Climate-Neutral Europe • Japan METI: Japan’s
• Québec Green Hydrogen and Petroleum and Energy: The • Germany: The National Vision and Action Toward
Bioenergy Strategy Norwegian Government’s Hydrogen Strategy Hydrogen-Based Economy
• Hydrogen Strategy for Canada Hydrogen Strategy

United States
• US DOE Hydrogen Program Plan
• US DOE Hydrogen Strategy

UK Australia
• UK Hydrogen Strategy • Australia’s National
• UK Low Carbon Hydrogen Hydrogen Strategy
Standard

cice.ca
Carbon intensity: Global themes for hydrogen production pathways [15]

Jurisdictional scan reference sources

The following sources were used as references for the
jurisdictional scan completed for this report:

Canada
» B.C. Hydrogen Strategy
» Alberta Hydrogen Roadmap
» Ontario’s Low-Carbon Hydrogen Strategy
» 2030 Québec Green Hydrogen and Bioenergy Strategy
» Hydrogen Strategy for Canada

US
» Department of Energy (DOE) Hydrogen Program Plan
» DOE Hydrogen Strategy

UK
» UK Hydrogen Strategy
» UK Low Carbon Hydrogen Standard

Europe
» A Hydrogen Strategy for a Climate-Neutral Europe (EU)
» The National Hydrogen Strategy (Germany)
» The Norwegian Government’s Hydrogen Strategy

Australia
» Australia’s National Hydrogen Strategy

Japan
» Japan’s Vision and Actions Toward Hydrogen-Based Economy

cice.ca
Carbon intensity: Global themes for hydrogen production pathways [16]

4.1 Emerging global themes

The scan of Canadian and global jurisdictions’ hydrogen strategies uncovered the following three primary
themes: leveraging CI, defining system boundaries, and enabling low-carbon hydrogen.

4.1.1 Leveraging CI
Some jurisdictions are using CI values to create incentives for hydrogen production. By attaching
increasingly stringent CI thresholds to increasing amounts of hydrogen production credits, jurisdictions
increase the economic competitiveness of low-CI hydrogen production.

In the US, the Inflation Reduction Act (passed in August 2022) describes qualifying hydrogen production as
starting at a base CI of 28.2 gCO₂e/MJ (HHV). The lower the CI of the hydrogen produced, the greater the
production credit received (see Figure 2). Projects are required to promote good-paying jobs by following
prevailing wage standards and apprenticeship requirements to receive the full credit.

Hydrogen CI and production credits

FIGURE 2 - US production credits for low CI hydrogen

$US3.00

$US1.00
$US0.75
$US0.60

< 28.2 to 17.6 < 17.6 to 10.6 < 10.6 to 3.2 < 3.2

Carbon intensity (gCO2e/MJ)

cice.ca
Carbon intensity: Global themes for hydrogen production pathways [17]

The aim of the US approach is to incentivize low-CI hydrogen production by making it profitable in the
short term through the use of production credits, which are available for a guaranteed 10-year period from
production. Over time, this should spur economies of scale as hydrogen production technologies mature
and ensure the sector’s long-term, standalone profitability.

The UK’s national hydrogen strategy, unveiled in 2021, sets qualifying hydrogen production CI at
17 gCO₂e/MJ (HHV). A £240-million net-zero hydrogen fund was launched in 2022 for co-investments in
early hydrogen projects that meet this qualifying threshold. 2022 also saw the launch of a separate
£60 million for a low-CI. Projects that meet the qualifying threshold can also apply for production business
model support, which provides a subsidy to close the gap between the cost of producing low-CI hydrogen
and the price the hydrogen can be sold for.

The UK government, working with industry, is aiming to establish 10GW (~1.2 million tonnes) of low-CI
hydrogen production capacity by 2030, for use across the UK economy. The government’s intent is to
ensure that any new, government-supported low-CI hydrogen production capacity contributes to meeting
the national GHG emission reduction targets set out in the UK Climate Change Act.

Key takeaways for BC

» CI thresholds are being applied as production incentives to low-carbon
hydrogen production, rather than as mandates that limit high-carbon
hydrogen production. This approach differs from many existing global policy
mandates (including those in Canada, such as the zero-emission vehicle (ZEV)
mandates and clean fuel programs) as it does not restrict high-CI hydrogen
production, but rather creates disincentives to producing it by making
low-carbon hydrogen production more economically competitive.

» It’s important to note, however, that the effectiveness of the UK and US

policies has not been tested, as they have only recently been implemented.

cice.ca
Carbon intensity: Global themes for hydrogen production pathways [18]

4.1.2 Defining system boundaries

Accurately determining CI requires a consistent set of criteria and specifications that can be applied
uniformly across hydrogen producers and technologies, typically defined within a hydrogen standard.
Hydrogen standard development is still in the early stages across jurisdictions, and for the purposes of this
report, insights were drawn from recent efforts in the United States and United Kingdom.

In the UK, lifecycle emission boundaries and emission sources are well-defined, and a hydrogen standard
was released in 2022. While the US does not currently have a hydrogen standard or defined lifecycle
emission boundaries, these are expected to be developed as they are required by the Inflation
Reduction Act.

The UK’s approach to defining lifecycle emissions requires emissions to be accounted for up to the point
of production, commonly referred to as “cradle-to-gate.” Under this approach, emissions are accounted
for from feedstock supply and all production processes, and terminate after the point of production. As a
result, emissions “downstream” from the hydrogen production facility—e.g., final product transportation,
distribution, and use—are not included in the lifecycle boundary (see Figure 3).

Key takeaways for BC

» Implementing CI thresholds requires the
development or adoption of a standard
methodology that defines the lifecycle boundary,
emission sources, emission factors, and processing
and product specifications. The inclusion or
exclusion of emission sources and processing
and product specifications within the lifecycle
boundary has significant implications on CI values.

cice.ca
Carbon intensity: Global themes for hydrogen production pathways [19]

FIGURE 3 - UK lifecycle emissions boundary 3

Emissions included in CI boundary: Emissions not included in CI boundary:

Feedstock extraction, carbon capture and Final product transportation and distribution
sequestration, and product (hydrogen) processing

Feedstock Energy Input Processing Road Pipeline transmission &

supply supply materials transport distribution

Fugitive Carbon CO2 Compression Rail Final product

non-CO2 capture sequestration & purification transport utilization

The UK approach also includes clear specifications for lifecycle processing and product specifications.
Produced hydrogen must achieve a theoretical minimum pressure of 3 MPa (435 psi) and a theoretical
minimum purity of 99.9% by volume. As for the energy supply, the CI of the natural gas used for hydrogen
production is to be assessed daily, while the CI of the power mix used is to be assessed in 30-minute
intervals. Energy allocation of emissions is to be used for co-products.

4.1.3 Enabling low-carbon hydrogen

A number of jurisdictions, including BC, are using regulatory policies to support and encourage hydrogen
production, particularly around carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) hubs, transportation
(including ZEV policies), and electricity cost incentives.

» CCUS Hubs: In this area, regulatory policies are designed to promote the co-location of supporting carbon
capture and storage infrastructure to leverage economies of scale, creating incentives for market demand
and supply. These policies also provide an enabling regulatory framework to facilitate the permitting,
measurement, reporting, and verification associated with CCUS.

Alberta, for example, is enhancing its CCUS regulatory framework and evaluating the merits of establishing a
hydrogen trading hub to drive price transparency. The province is also launching the Alberta Petrochemicals
Incentive Program, which has the potential to support hydrogen production.

cice.ca
Carbon intensity: Global themes for hydrogen production pathways [20]

» Transportation: The BC Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) was introduced to reduce the carbon intensity
of fuels used in the province and support investment in cleaner transportation fuels and vehicles. The
BC LCFS carbon intensity target declines every year and aims to reduce fuel CI by 30% by 2030.4 Credits
are generated in proportion to decreasing fuel CI, thereby providing a financial incentive to decarbonize
transportation fuels, such as through the use of low-CI hydrogen.

» ZEV policies: Policies in this area are typically mandates that stipulate permissible supply of ZEVs and
conventional internal combustion engines by vehicle producers. While these policies do not specifically
target hydrogen, they can drive a potentially larger market share for hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles
(FCEVs), thereby increasing hydrogen demand. ZEV policies will create demand but not necessarily
incentivize low-carbon hydrogen production.

In BC, the ZEV Act stipulates targets for light-duty ZEV sales and leases: 10% by 2025, 30% by 2030, and
100% by 2050. In Norway, new cars and light vans must be ZEVs, and new urban buses must be ZEVs or
use biogas by 2025; new large vans, 75% of new long-distance buses, and 50% of new trucks must be
ZEVs by 2030.

» Electricity cost incentives: In this area, policies are designed to provide preferential electricity rates to
incentivize the economics associated with hydrogen production by large-scale industrial operators. These
incentives have taken the form of tax exemptions and preferential pricing from utility companies.

In BC, for example, the Clean Industry and Innovation Rate discounts electricity costs for hydrogen-
producing industrial customers by 20% for the first five years, 13% in the sixth year, and 7% in the seventh
year.5 In Norway, electricity used for hydrogen production is exempt from consumer tax. Ontario filed a
Gross Revenue Charge exemption for hydroelectricity to be used in Atura Power’s proposed Niagara Falls
H₂ pilot project.

Key takeaways for BC

» BC is already implementing three
supportive regulatory policies drawn
from the jurisdictional scan. Leveraging
regional synergies between jurisdictions
may present opportunities to support
further hydrogen production in BC.

cice.ca
Carbon intensity: Global themes for hydrogen production pathways [21]

4.2 Other highlights from the jurisdictional scan

In addition to the emerging themes described above, the jurisdictional scan also uncovered important
findings with respect to GHG modelling and production and demand incentives.

The UK, US, and European Union have proposed values for “low carbon hydrogen,” with other jurisdictions
considering values that are primarily aligned with CertifHy™. The UK has a hydrogen standard, and the
US will potentially have one in the near term after the recent announcement of draft guidance for a clean
hydrogen production standard.6

FIGURE 4 - CI and hydrogen standard perspectives from jurisdictional scan

HYDROGEN STANDARD
JURISDICTION CI PERSPECTIVES
PERSPECTIVES

Canada While not explicitly mentioned, reference This approach defines “low carbon
is made to the use of CertifHy CI values hydrogen” based on its end-use,
by the European Union. However, each with an associated CI threshold
the draft Clean Fuel Regulation
Quantification Methodology for Low-CI
Hydrogen defines low-CI hydrogen as:

» H 2
as fuel: less than 61 gCO2e/MJ (HHV)
(10% lower than reference
natural gas CI)

» Has feedstock: less than

2
67 gCO2e/MJ (HHV) (25% lower
than reference SMR hydrogen)

» H as fuel or feedstock: at least 50%

2
of production emissions captured
and permanently sequestered

cice.ca
Carbon intensity: Global themes for hydrogen production pathways [22]

HYDROGEN STANDARD
JURISDICTION CI PERSPECTIVES
PERSPECTIVES

UK Proposed CI is 17 gCO₂e/MJ Hydrogen Standard was recently released

in 2022
» Higher heating value basis (HHV),
equivalent to 20 gCO₂e/MJ on
LHV basis

» Emissions boundaries are well-defined

» UK is a net energy importer

EU Proposed CI is 28.2 gCO₂e/MJ The proposed carbon intensities are

a result of consultations under the
» Lower heating value basis (LHV) EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED II)
» Emission boundaries adopted from
CertifHy

» The European Union is a significant

energy importer

US » Under the Infrastructure and » Definitions of “clean hydrogen” and

Investments Job Act (2021): “Clean “qualified clean hydrogen” between the
hydrogen” is 14.1 gCO₂e/MJ (HHV) acts may differ

» Under the Inflation Reduction Act: » The IRA requires the development of a
“Qualified clean hydrogen” is hydrogen standard (and regulation)
28.2 gCO₂e/MJ (HHV) for CI determination, using the
GREET LCA model
» Proposed lifecycle (including CCS)
GHG emissions of 4.0 kgCO₂e/kg H₂ » The draft guidance expands the system
as part of the US DOE Clean Hydrogen boundary beyond the plant gate to
Production Standard (CHPS) Draft include CCS even if not at the site of
Guidance7 production but does not include other
post-hydrogen production steps such
as potential liquefaction, compression,
dispensing into vehicles, etc.

cice.ca
Carbon intensity: Global themes for hydrogen production pathways [23]

HYDROGEN STANDARD
JURISDICTION CI PERSPECTIVES
PERSPECTIVES

CertifHy Provides certificates that prove the Green hydrogen is that from renewable
production quality for a given hydrogen resources (as defined in EU RED II), while
quantity: “low-carbon” hydrogen is that from
non-renewable energy sources using
» Green hydrogen label: 31.2 gCO₂e/MJ CCS/CCU
(HHV): equivalent to 36.4 gCO₂e/MJ on
LHV basis

» Low carbon hydrogen: 31.2 gCO₂e/MJ

(HHV)

» Emission boundaries to follow ISO

14044 and 14067

While incentives are largely targeted at funding research, development, and market acceleration of
hydrogen technologies, the US provides a production credit based on CI performance in the recent Inflation
Reduction Act.

FIGURE 5 - Production and demand: Funding incentives from jurisdictional scan

JURISDICTION FUNDING INCENTIVES

BC » BC Low Carbon Fuel Standard P3A credits incentivize lower-CI hydrogen for
transportation in BC

» The CleanBC Industry Fund supports larger emitters to implement GHG emission
reduction projects, which can include deployment of proven and potentially
pre-commercial clean technologies

» The CleanBC Go Electric Vehicle Program is providing funding support for the
deployment of both charging and hydrogen fuelling infrastructure across
the province

» A $40-million partnership between British Columbia’s Innovative Clean Energy

Fund (ICE) and Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) supports the
development of precommercial clean-energy projects and technologies

cice.ca
Carbon intensity: Global themes for hydrogen production pathways [24]

JURISDICTION FUNDING INCENTIVES

Alberta
» Leverage federal funding and incentives to provide Alberta decarbonization funding for
carbon capture infrastructure

Quebec
» Has a $1-billion Natural Resources and Energy Capital Fund to support green hydrogen
production and consumption projects

» The strategy states that the Quebec government will support production projects that first
meet local demand

Ontario
» Working towards the development of reduced electricity rates to support low-carbon
hydrogen production

» Launching feasibility study to explore opportunities to leverage excess energy from the
Bruce Power Nuclear Generating Station

» Contributing $500 million to support ArcelorMittal Dofasco’s $1.8-billion coal-to-hydrogen

electric arc furnaces project

US
» The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (2021) provides US$9.5 billion to fund clean
hydrogen projects:

» US$8 billion to develop at least four regional clean hydrogen hubs

» US$1 billion for electrolysis R&D and demonstrations
» US$500 million for technology manufacturing and recycling R&D and demonstrations
» The Inflation Reduction Act will provide a base credit to qualifying projects, and a further 5x
“credit multiplier” to projects that meet wage and job stipulations; the overall credit available
for such projects is:

» US$0.60/kg H 2
for CI between 28.2 and 17.6 gCO2e/MJ (equivalent to 4–2.5 kgCO2e/kg H2)

» US$0.75/kg H 2
for CI between 17.6 and 10.6 gCO2e/MJ (equivalent to 2.5–1.5 kgCO2e/kg H2)

cice.ca
Carbon intensity: Global themes for hydrogen production pathways [25]

JURISDICTION FUNDING INCENTIVES

US » US$1.0/kg H 2
for CI between 10.6 and 3.2 gCO2e/MJ (equivalent to 1.5–0.45 kgCO2e/kg H2)

» US$3.0/kg H 2
for CI less than 3.2 gCO2e/MJ (equivalent to less than 0.45 kgCO2e/kg H2)

» The California Energy Commission (CEC) can allocate up to US$20 million per year for
building hydrogen service stations through 2023

» The California Energy Commission is initially investing in 100 public stations to

support ZEVs

» Specific funding is allocated to hydrogen hub development

UK » £60-million fund for a low-carbon hydrogen supply competition

» £315-million Industrial Energy Transformation Fund
» £55-million Industrial Fuel Switching competition
» £240-million fund for co-investment in early hydrogen projects (launched in 2022)
» Production business model support that provides a subsidy to close the gap between
the cost of producing low-CI hydrogen and the price it can be sold for

Germany » €310 million for basic research of green hydrogen

» €200 million for practice-oriented hydrogen technologies
» €600 million for speeding up technologies from lab to market
» Plans are focused on funding enabling research areas for hydrogen production
(between 2020 and 2023)

» A 2020 stimulus package contained another €7 billion for market rollout and €2 billion
for fostering international partnerships

cice.ca
Carbon intensity: Global themes for hydrogen production pathways [26]

FIGURE 6 - Production and demand: Tax and investment incentives from jurisdictional scan

JURISDICTION FUNDING INCENTIVES

Ontario » Filed a Gross Revenue Charge (GRC) exemption for hydroelectricity for proposed
Niagara Falls hydrogen pilot by Atura Power

Norway » Exempts electricity used for hydrogen production from consumer tax

Germany » Over €1 billion for investment in technologies and large industries that use hydrogen

cice.ca
Carbon intensity: Global themes for hydrogen production pathways [27]

4.2.1 Voluntary systems for low-carbon hydrogen certification

There were two voluntary systems identified that could be adopted to measure and certify
low-carbon hydrogen and its origin.

CertifHy™
CertifHy™ is a hydrogen certification scheme that was initiated at the request of the European
Commission and is financed by the Clean Hydrogen Partnership, a unique public-private
partnership supporting hydrogen technology research and innovation activities in Europe. There
are over 100 platform members, including government agencies, engine manufacturers, hydrogen
producers, oil companies, consultants, and others with an interest in hydrogen certification.

CertifHy has established a system of electronic certificates that provide proof that a given
quantity of hydrogen is produced by a registered production device with a specific quality and
method of production. The CertifHy certificates are maintained in a CertifHy Registry, a central
database that will manage the CertifHy certificates’ lifecycle for every account holder
(certificates are cancelled upon use to avoid double counting).

The CertifHy certificate includes the following information:

» CertifHy GO (Guarantee of Origin) scheme, including unique ID number, date of issuing,
cancellation date
» Information on the plant that produced the hydrogen
» Time of production of the hydrogen
» Energy source of the hydrogen (fuel or heat) and technology
» Whether the hydrogen production has received financial support
» Share of renewable energy
» CI of the hydrogen

cice.ca
Carbon intensity: Global themes for hydrogen production pathways [28]

There are also two CertifHy labels:

» Green Hydrogen originates from renewable resources as defined in the EU Renewable Energy
Directive (RED II) and has a GHG emission intensity 60% below the benchmark, which is hydrogen
production from SMR—this benchmark is 91 gCO₂e/MJ (LHV). Applying the 60% threshold to the
benchmark leads to a determination that green hydrogen would have a GHG emissions intensity
of 36.4 gCO₂e/MJ.
» Low Carbon Hydrogen originates from non-renewable nuclear or fossil energy resources using
carbon capture and storage (and potentially carbon capture and utilization, which is yet to be
defined by the European law) and meets the same 60% threshold, or 36.4 gCO₂e/MJ (LHV).

GHG emissions are to be calculated following the ISO 14044 (Environmental management – Life
cycle assessment) and 14067 (Greenhouse gases – Carbon footprint of products) standards.
The lifecycle system boundary is to include all production stages needed to reach 99.9% hydrogen
by volume at a minimum of 3 MPa pressure.

International Partnership for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells in the Economy (IPHE)

The IPHE was established in 2003 by the US Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of
Transportation to foster international cooperation on hydrogen and fuel cell R&D, common codes
and standards, and information sharing on infrastructure development.

IPHE currently has 22 partners that share information and help facilitate multinational research,
development, and deployment initiatives that advance the introduction of hydrogen and fuel cell
technologies on a global scale.

In 2021 the IPHE Hydrogen Production Analysis Task Force prepared a working paper detailing a
methodology for redeeming the GHG emissions associated with the production of hydrogen,
with references to ISO 14040, 14044, and 14067. It provides some specific guidance on how to
apply these standards to hydrogen from electrolysis, SMR hydrogen, by-product hydrogen,
and hydrogen from coal gasification. However, the document does not present any thresholds.

cice.ca
Carbon intensity: Global themes for hydrogen production pathways [29]

4.3 The state of hydrogen blending internationally

BC is not the only jurisdiction exploring hydrogen blending as a means of reducing GHG emissions. Projects
of various sizes and at various stages of implementation are underway around the world. There is a diversity
of perspectives regarding hydrogen blending at this time, on everything from blending volume percentages
to safety concerns to whether to pursue blending at all. Figure 7 lists a selection of hydrogen blending
perspectives, while Figure 8 describes a range of hydrogen blending projects that have been completed, are
in process, or are planned.

FIGURE 7 - Hydrogen blending perspectives

HYDROGEN BLENDING IMPORT/EXPORT

JURISDICTION
PERSPECTIVES PERSPECTIVES

BC » Establish regulatory framework for H 2

» Leverage existing natural gas
in natural gas and propane distribution infrastructure and proximity to top
systems export markets, such as China, Japan,
and California, which are expected to
» Partner with a utility to review account for 50% of global demand
infrastructure requirements to
accommodate up to 100% hydrogen in
distribution systems

Alberta* » Amend the Gas Utilities Act and Gas » Pursue market access through
Distribution Act to remove a key establishment of a clean energy
roadblock for H2 blending into natural corridor with connection through
gas distribution systems British Columbia and other jurisdictions

» Assess mechanisms to build demand » Pursue hydrogen export memoranda of

for hydrogen in the utility heat market, understanding
including options for cost recovery

US » Announced goal to cut cost of » Pursue Canadian market for imports

hydrogen over the next decade and and other markets in close proximity
invest in the advancement of clean
hydrogen, but is wary of the technical
challenges and risks of blending

*Alberta blending perspectives are focused on the next 5-10 years

cice.ca
Carbon intensity: Global themes for hydrogen production pathways [30]

HYDROGEN BLENDING IMPORT/EXPORT

JURISDICTION
PERSPECTIVES PERSPECTIVES

EU » Notes that the change in the quality of » Pursue green hydrogen partnerships
blended gas in Europe may affect the that promote imports from other
design of gas infrastructure, end-user countries
applications, and cross-border system
interoperability. This risks fragmenting
the internal market if neighbouring
member states accept different levels
of blending and cross-border flows
are hindered

Australia » Agrees not to support the blending of » Support exports to Japan through
hydrogen in existing gas transmission Australian Clean Hydrogen Trade
networks until further evidence Program
emerges that hydrogen embrittlement
issues can be safely addressed
» Partner with countries for research to
build international partnerships and
supply chains

cice.ca
Carbon intensity: Global themes for hydrogen production pathways [31]

FIGURE 8 - Hydrogen blending perspectives

JURISDICTION FUNDING INCENTIVES

Canada » The Cummins Enbridge project in Ontario, which uses electrolysis to produce
hydrogen that is blended into the gas grid at 2% by volume, began operations in
January 2022. It serves 3,600 residential customers.

» In October 2022, ATCO launched a project in Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta to blend

hydrogen into the city’s gas grid at 5% by volume; the hydrogen-blended natural
gas is used by 2,000 gas customers. Appliance and gas piping inspections have also
begun for all homes and businesses within the project zone to ensure they are in
proper working order. It is expected that the hydrogen being blended for this project
will ultimately be produced nearby through electrolysis.

US » The first phase of the SoCalGas project was originally scheduled to begin in early
2021, but is now planned to begin in 2024 with a focus on the University of California,
Irvine, campus. In this phase, the impact of hydrogen blending (1%–20%) on
polyethylene (PE) pipe distribution systems will be the focus. The next stage of the
project will move to the service area of San Diego Gas and Electric and test blending’s
impact on mixed PE and steel distribution networks.

» The HyBlend project comprises three main elements and an aggressive timeline.
Sandia National Laboratories and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory are
leading research on the impact of hydrogen exposure (at blending volumes of 1% to
30%) on the life expectancy of metal and polymer pipeline materials when exposed
to hydrogen. These two national labs will also be cooperating with the Hydrogen
Materials Compatibility Consortium (H-Mat), which has over 20 partners in industry
and academia researching hydrogen compatibility with metals and polymers. Argonne
National Laboratory is analyzing the lifecycle emissions of hydrogen-natural gas
blends. The last task, a techno-economic analysis of hydrogen blending, will be
quantified by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). However, the project
includes no field trials.

cice.ca
Carbon intensity: Global themes for hydrogen production pathways [32]

JURISDICTION FUNDING INCENTIVES

UK » Four hydrogen blending projects have launched in the UK since 2019: HyDeploy (20%
blending by volume, serving 1,500 residential customers); East Neuk Power (20%
blending by volume, producing 15 Gwh/year); Aberdeen Vision (2% to 20% blending by
volume, serving 300 residential customers); and HyNTS Hydrogen Loop (30% blending
by volume).

» The UK government is scheduled to decide in 2023 whether to proceed with the use
of hydrogen in the country’s natural gas distribution networks. In the meantime,
industry is focused on hydrogen blending preparedness: the UK’s five gas distribution
companies have announced that their networks will be compatible with 20% blended
hydrogen by volume by that time. However, the UK’s gas transmission company is not
part of this commitment.

Europe » France's GRHYD project, which ran from 2014 until 2020, involved delivering blended
hydrogen (20% by volume) to 200 residential customers.

» Germany has run two demonstration projects—WindGas Falkenburg and WindGas

Hamburg. Both involved hydrogen blending at very low levels: 2% by volume. The
Falkenburg project began with hydrogen produced by electrolysis, but subsequently
added a methanation plant where hydrogen was combined with CO2 to make
synthetic methane.

» EU countries launched the THyGA (Testing Hydrogen Admixture for Gas Appliances)
project in 2019 to test the impact of blending hydrogen into natural gas on commercial
end use applications at concentrations of 10% to 100% by volume. In addition, THyGA
was also designed to verify the safety of different hydrogen concentrations in natural
gas. While experimental studies were developed to test the impact of hydrogen
blending impact on about 100 commercial and residential appliances, and develop
standards, safety parameters, and other protocols, no actual blending took place.

cice.ca
Carbon intensity: Global themes for hydrogen production pathways [33]

JURISDICTION FUNDING INCENTIVES

Australia » Australia’s HyP Murray Valley project, if completed, will be the largest hydrogen
blending project in the world: 40,000 residential and commercial customers will use
hydrogen blended with natural gas at 10% by volume. While the project has been
funded, hydrogen injection is not scheduled to begin until later in 2023.

» Other projects include HyP SA (5% blending by volume, serving 700 residential
customers), HyP Gladstone (10% blending by volume, serving 800 residential and
commercial customers), and Jemena Western Sydney (2% blending by volume,
serving 259 residential customers).

cice.ca
Modelling BC hydrogen production CI [34]

5. Modelling BC hydrogen production CI

The BC Hydrogen Strategy highlights pathways to produce hydrogen that use fossil fuel and renewable
feedstocks.8 These pathways are often represented by colours to depict the production process, using
terms such as “green hydrogen,” “blue hydrogen,” and “grey hydrogen.” However, the use of colours does
not follow a defined terminology and can often lead to confusion around the environmental benefits of
the different hydrogen production pathways, which vary across geographies and technology-specific
implementations.

In this section, in-depth modelling is presented for hydrogen production pathways, with an emphasis on
parameters and characteristics that are unique to BC. The pathways considered build on three technologies
identified in the BC Hydrogen Strategy: methane reforming, methane pyrolysis, and electrolysis. Within
each technology, three variations of technology implementations are considered, for a total of nine
hydrogen production pathways. These nine pathways can be compared uniformly based on the lifecycle
approach used and the resulting carbon intensities (CIs).

The technologies and production pathways considered are not exhaustive of all pathways that have the
potential to produce low-carbon hydrogen in BC. Other pathways exist, such as biomass gasification and
the use of renewable natural gas (RNG) in reforming or pyrolysis systems. However, pathways that leverage
BC’s natural gas (as a feedstock) and renewable electricity were prioritized for this study.

5.1 Goal and scope

The goal of the lifecycle assessment is to quantify the total GHG emissions associated with hydrogen
production from the selected pathways, specific to implementation in BC. The resulting CIs provide a basis
to assess and support hydrogen production and planning in the province.

Emissions are accounted for primary greenhouse gases and criteria pollutants from combustion sources.
These include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), chlorofluorocarbons (CFC-12), and
hydrofluorocarbons (HFC-134a). These also include the CO2-equivalent of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen
oxides (NOx), and non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs) weighted by their ozone forming potential

cice.ca
Modelling BC hydrogen production CI [35]

(i.e., the total emissions including emissions from chemical reactivity), sulphur dioxide (SO2), and total
particulate matter.

The potential for warming due to hydrogen leakage is not considered. Currently, the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not have a global warming potential (GWP) for
hydrogen, but emerging research in the UK indicates it might have a GWP of about 11.9 There is also work on
potential leakage rates for hydrogen systems (Frazer Nash, 2022), and initial results indicate rates around
5% for some production activities. However, further investigation is required.

5.1.1 Product and functional unit

The product is defined as gaseous hydrogen, compressed to a pressure of three megapascals (3 MPa) at
the production facility gate (plant gate). Therefore, the functional unit is defined as one megajoule (1 MJ) of
hydrogen at 3 MPa, with a purity of 99.9%, at the plant gate.

The product is defined based on the HHV of hydrogen, which is taken as 141.2 MJ per kg H2. It is worth noting
that many hydrogen methodology development efforts, such as those by CertifHy,10 the IPHE11 and the
National Research Council of Canada,12 use an LHV basis. However, the HHV is chosen for this work for
the following reasons:

» Federal and provincial regulations in Canada related to the CI of fuels, such as LCFS, use HHV
» Federal and provincial GHG reporting programs in Canada use HHV
» HHV is used for commerce in Canada

5.1.2 Geographical scope

The production pathways are considered under the context of BC. Therefore, hydrogen production and all
associated activities, such as carbon capture and geological storage, are modelled to occur within BC.

cice.ca
Opportunities to reduce hydrogen CI in BC [36]

5.1.3 Production pathways

Figure 9 describes characteristics of the three hydrogen production technologies explored in this report
and their variations, for a total of nine pathways.

FIGURE 9 - Hydrogen production technologies and variants assessed in this report

METHANE REFORMING
PYROLYSIS ELECTROLYSIS
WITH CCS
“TURQUOISE HYDROGEN” “GREEN HYDROGEN”
“BLUE HYDROGEN”

Overview Reacts methane with water, Decomposition of methane Splits water with electricity,
resulting in the primary in the absence of air/ resulting in the formation of
formation of hydrogen and oxygen, resulting in the hydrogen and oxygen
gaseous CO₂ primary formation of
hydrogen and solid carbon

Handling of Requires CO₂ generated by Produces “carbon black,” a Does not produce any CO₂
carbon/CO₂ the process to be captured form of solid carbon or solid carbon

Variants » Steam methane reforming » Thermal decomposition: » Alkaline electrolysis:

(SMR): Methane Methane decomposition Uses alkaline material for
combustion with air at over 1000°C (TRL 5) electrolysis (TRL 9)
(TRL 9)13
» Plasma decomposition: » Proton exchange
» Auto-thermal reforming Plasma torch membrane (PEM): Uses
(ATR): Methane decomposition up to polymer material for
combustion with pure 2000°C (TRL 9) electrolysis (TRL 9)
oxygen and a catalyst
(TRL 8)14
» Catalytic decomposition: » Solid oxide electrolyzer
Catalyst decomposition cell (SOEC): Uses
» Electric steam methane under 1000°C (TRL 5) solid oxide material for
reforming (ESMR): electrolysis (TRL 8)
Methane heated with
electricity (TRL 6)15

cice.ca
Modelling BC hydrogen production CI [37]

5.2 LCA system boundary

The primary system boundary of interest in this study accounts for the CI impacts associated with all
material and energy flows from feedstock extraction through to hydrogen production, commonly referred to
as a “cradle to plant gate” lifecycle assessment. This is consistent with the approach proposed by hydrogen
certification schemes such as the IPHE and CertifHy, as well as the UK low-carbon hydrogen standard and
the draft clean hydrogen production standard in the US.16

To provide further insight on the CI impact of the distance between hydrogen production locations and
hydrogen end-use, processes downstream of hydrogen production are also presented in this study. These
downstream processes typically include all associated material and energy processes required to transport
the product to its end use. This insight provides a more holistic basis with which to consider the relationship
between hydrogen production siting and overall environmental benefit within BC. An overview of the system
boundary is presented in Figure 10, and emissions within each stage of the system boundary are described
in Figure 11.

FIGURE 10 - System boundary overview

Feedstock Hydrogen Hydrogen

Feedstock Hydrogen
extraction and compression/ transport and
transmission production
processing liquefaction distribution

Cradle to plant gate boundary Downstream boundary

cice.ca
Modelling BC hydrogen production CI [38]

FIGURE 11 - Emission in each system boundary stage

Feedstock extraction Production Transportation

& processing & processing & distribution

Feedstock recovery Hydrogen production Fuel dispensing at the retail level

Emissions from recovery and (from raw materials) Emissions associated with the
processing of the raw feedstock, Emissions associated with transfer of the fuel at service
including fugitive emissions from conversion of feedstock to a stations from storage into the
storage, handling, and upstream saleable product. Includes process vehicles. Includes electricity for
processing prior to transmission emissions, combustion emissions pumping, fugitive emissions,
Feedstock transmission for process heat/steam, electricity and spills
generation, fugitive emissions, Fuel storage and distribution
Emissions from transporting
and emissions from the lifecycle at all stages
feedstock, including pumping,
of chemicals used for fuel
compression, leaks, fugitive Emissions associated with storage
production cycles
emissions, and transportation and handling of fuel products at
from point of origin to the fuel Carbon capture and sequestration terminals, bulk plants, and service
refining plant Emissions associated with CO2 stations. Includes storage
capture, during hydrogen emissions, electricity for pumping,
production, and the subsequent space heating, and lighting
transport and geological storage of
the captured CO2
Emissions displaced by
co-products of alternative fuels
Emissions displaced by co-products
generated through the various
pathways

A key energy flow into the system boundary is electricity imported from the BC grid. The electricity grid CI
used is 42.1 gCO2e/kWh, which includes an estimate of methane emissions from hydroelectricity reservoirs
as is now required by the IPCC.17

The lifecycle impact of water is also considered, especially for electrolysis pathways where demineralized
water is required. Studies show that water treatment emissions are primarily due to electricity for
operations such as desalination, membrane treatment, and ozone production.18 It has also been shown that
the electricity required for water treatment is in the range of 0.05 to 0.72 kWh per tonne of produced water.19
The high end of this range translates to an electricity requirement of 0.0063 kWh per kg of hydrogen, which
is insignificant to the overall electricity requirements of about 55 kWh per kg of hydrogen. As a result, the
water load is excluded from the LCA analysis.

cice.ca
Modelling BC hydrogen production CI [39]

5.2.1 Downstream plant-gate assumptions

As shown in Figure 10, the downstream CI impacts begin after hydrogen production (compressed hydrogen
at 3 MPa). The two main assumptions in this section are associated with the distance the hydrogen is
transported to the end use, and the mode of transportation of the hydrogen.

For this study, it is assumed that methane reforming pathways occur in northeast BC, given the proximity
to natural gas production, while pyrolysis and electrolysis pathways occur in BC’s Lower Mainland;
hydrogen end-use is also assumed to occur in the Lower Mainland. Therefore, hydrogen produced from
methane reforming is assumed to be transported 1200 km from the province’s northeast to the Lower
Mainland; hydrogen produced from pyrolysis and electrolysis is assumed to be transported 80 km within the
Lower Mainland.

Three transportation modes are considered: pipeline transport, truck transport, and rail transport.
Transportation states of gaseous compressed hydrogen and liquefied hydrogen are considered for
each transport mode, with the exception of pipeline transport, for which only compressed hydrogen is
considered.

As pipeline transportation occurs at 3 MPa, further compression from the plant gate is negligible. For truck
and rail transportation, compressed, liquefied hydrogen transport occurs at 35 MPa, and liquefaction
requires an additional 0.26 joules of electricity per joule of hydrogen (see further details in Section 7.3.)
Additionally, hydrogen losses within downstream transportation are considered, including transfers at the
plant, during transportation and storage, and at end use.

5.3 Modelling parameters and data sources

A range of technical and variable parameters were used in modelling the lifecycle CI of the nine hydrogen
production pathways (see Figure 12).

cice.ca
Modelling BC hydrogen production CI [40]

FIGURE 12 - CI modelling parameters

Model parameters

Technology process parameters Variable parameters

Carbon capture rate Carbon Product Product

sequestration specification transportation

Energy input/output Transportation

Transmission Compression
mode (Rail, truck,
energy energy
pipeline)
Material feedstock
Distance from
Energy input Liquefaction energy production to
end use
Product yield

Technology process parameters are based on production technology characteristics, such as carbon
capture rate, energy input/output, material feedstock, and product yield. These parameters change due to
advances in technology and as technology implementations move from pilot to commercialization.

Variable parameters used include:

» Carbon sequestration parameters associated with the transportation and sequestration of captured
CO2 emissions in methane reforming technologies. While sequestration typically occurs outside the
production facility, associated emissions are captured in the calculation of hydrogen CI.

» Product specification parameters associated with the final state of the hydrogen produced, whether
compressed or liquefied, and the energy required for compression to a specific pressure or for
liquefaction.

» Product transportation parameters associated with the transportation and distribution of the final
hydrogen product, downstream from the production facility. The parameters change depending on the
transportation mode used and the distance to reach end users.

cice.ca
Modelling BC hydrogen production CI [41]

For each of the nine pathways listed in Figure 9, a literature review was conducted to identify sources of
reference data, using publicly available data and prioritizing recent data from credible organizations. After
an extensive review, the following reports were identified as the best sources currently available, and their
data, assumptions, and inputs have been incorporated into the work:

» Methane reforming: The IEAGHG Technical Report 2022, Low-Carbon Hydrogen from
Natural Gas: Global Roadmap.20

» Methane pyrolysis: Research papers published by Sebastian Timmerberg et al.21 and

Florian Kerscher et al.22

» Electrolysis: The IEA Hydrogen Projects Database,23 the IEA Hydrogen TCP Report,24
and a 2022 presentation to the US DOE by Brian D. James.25

5.4 Technology-specific assumptions

While technology-agnostic assumptions used in the carbon modelling are described, it is also important to
note the technology-specific assumptions that factor into the modelling.

5.4.1 Methane reforming using CCS

Methane reforming is a mature technology. In 2020, 60% of global hydrogen production was generated
using steam methane reforming and was almost exclusively produced without the use of carbon capture
technology,26 which is essential to produce low-carbon hydrogen from natural gas.

For methane reforming with CCS, a significant determinant of production CI is the CO ₂ capture rate. How-
ever, while SMR is a mature (TRL 9) and widely deployed technology, SMR with CCS is much more limited. 27
Two mature hydrogen production systems that use methane reforming with CCS are Shell Quest (Alberta)
and Valero Port Arthur (Texas); each of these facilities uses different CCS technologies, but they do not
have very high rates of CO₂ capture. Shell Quest, for example, captures approximately 80% of CO­₂ from
process streams, but it does not capture CO₂ from combustion streams that provide energy to run the
process;28 the portion of overall facility CO₂ emissions targeted for capture has been estimated to be
around 60%.29

cice.ca
Modelling BC hydrogen production CI [42]

The technologies used in ATR and ESMR should enable hydrogen production facilities to achieve higher CO ₂
capture rates. However, neither has been demonstrated at a commercial scale for hydrogen production.

ATR uses the same process material and energy flows as SMR, though the material and energy values differ.
ESMR uses the same process material flows, but uses electricity—not natural gas—as the energy source for
production, processing, and CCS. The technology-specific parameters used for SMR, ATR, and ESMR are
shown in Figure 13. The process involved in SMR with CCS is illustrated in Figure 14.

FIGURE 13 - Methane reforming parameters summary

STEAM METHANE AUTOTRHERMAL ELECTRIC STEAM

REFORMING REFORMING METHANE
(SMR) (ATR) REFORMING (ESMR)

Hydrogen produced (GJ) 1 1 1

Electrical energy (kWh) -7.75 19.0 61.2

Natural gas (MJ) 1,235 1,207 1,008

CO2 capture rate (%) 60 94 98.6

CCS electrical energy (kWh) 5.3 3.2 7.8

CCS natural gas (MJ) 104 0 0

cice.ca
Modelling BC hydrogen production CI [43]

FIGURE 14 - Steam methane reforming process

Steam methane reforming (SMR) with CCS
Natural gas Grid electricity Grid electricity

CH4
Natural gas
Natural gas CO2 capture Transmission Sequestration

Grid electricity Natural gas (pipeline) Natural gas

Diesel (rail) (pipeline)
Stream Diesel (truck) Diesel (truck)
reformer H2
H2 O Compression
(35 MPa*)

Water Hydrogen Liquefaction Transmission Distribution

production
unit (3 MPa) Legend
(Subject to mode of transportation ) Material flow
*35 MPa required for truck and rail only Energy flow

5.4.2 Methane pyrolysis

Methane pyrolysis technologies are at an earlier stage of development than methane reforming systems.
A well-known company using methane pyrolysis at what could be considered a commercial level is the
US-based company Monolith. The majority of methane pyrolysis projects are at a lab or pilot scale; FortisBC
and Suncor, for example, are planning to use the Hazer process, which involves catalytic decomposition
pyrolysis, in a project in BC.30

Methane pyrolysis uses 35% more natural gas than methane reforming. It also produces solid carbon—
carbon black—as a by-product. The literature review indicates that all methods of methane pyrolysis claim
to produce approximately three tonnes of solid carbon black per tonne of hydrogen.31 Current CI modelling
assumes the carbon black is landfilled (a waste product). However, a market for the solid carbon black
may be required to reduce production costs; this would also lead to lower hydrogen CI, because pyrolysis
emissions would be allocated between the hydrogen product and the useful solid carbon by-product
(this allocation does not occur if the solid carbon is a considered a waste).

Figure 15 illustrates the process used for thermal decomposition, a variant of methane pyrolysis. Other
variants—plasma decomposition and catalytic decomposition—use the same process material and energy
flows, but the materials used and energy values differ. Figure 16 outlines the relevant parameters used.

cice.ca
Modelling BC hydrogen production CI [44]

FIGURE 15 - Thermal decomposition process

Thermal decomposition

C Solid carbon
sequestration
Sequestration or sale/utilization
Solid carbon (subject to market availability)
Grid electricity Solid carbon sale/utilization
black
CH4

Grid electricity
Natural gas Natural gas
Natural gas (pipeline) (pipeline)
Pyrolyzer Diesel (truck) Diesel (truck)
H2
Compression
(35 MPa*)

Hydrogen Liquefaction Transmission Distribution

production
unit (3 MPa) Legend
Material flow
(Subject to mode of transportation) Energy flow
*35 MPa required for truck and rail only

FIGURE 16 - Pyrolysis parmeters summary

THERMAL PLASMA CATALYTIC

DECOMPOSITION DECOMPOSITION DECOMPOSITION

Hydrogen produced (GJ) 1 1 1

Electricity (kWh) 141.0 105.8 17.6

Natural gas (MJ) 1,586.3 1,586.3 2,115.0

Solid carbon produced (kg) 21.2 21.2 21.2

cice.ca
 Modelling BC hydrogen production CI [45]

5.4.3 Electrolysis
In 2020, the IEA reported that electrolysis technologies produced just 0.03% of the world’s hydrogen for
energy and chemical feedstock.32 However, hydrogen production using electrolysis is expected to grow,
since the technology can achieve very low CI when powered by low-carbon electricity.

Alkaline electrolysis is a mature technology, but it has demonstrated few efficiency gains over the past
20 years. Proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis typically operates at lower temperatures and
is slightly more efficient, but it can incur higher capital costs due to the use of precious metals such as
palladium and platinum. Solid oxide electrolyzer cells (SOECs) are at an early stage of development and
operate at temperatures much higher than either alkaline electrolysis or PEM; they also have the potential
to achieve much higher efficiency that other methods of electrolysis. Indeed, increased market penetration
by SOEC systems is likely to be the key driver of efficiency gains and CI reductions from electrolysis-based
hydrogen production pathways. Danish company Topsoe recently announced its intention to build a factory
to produce 500 MW of SOEC systems annually.33

Figure 17 illustrates the process material and energy flows associated with alkaline electrolysis. PEM and
SOEC systems use the same process material and energy flows, though actual energy consumption values
differ. The technology parameters are shown in Figure 18.

Alkaline electrolysis
FIGURE 17 - Electrolysis process material and energy flows

Grid electricity
Natural gas Natural gas
(pipeline) (pipeline)
Grid electricity Diesel (truck) Diesel (truck)
H2
Compression
H2 O (35 MPa *)

Hydrogen
Electrolyzer production Liquefaction Transmission Distribution
Water
unit (3 MPa)

(Subject to mode of transportation)

*35 MPa required for truck and rail only
Legend
Material flow
Energy flow

cice.ca
Modelling BC hydrogen production CI [46]

FIGURE 18 - Electrolysis parameters summary

ALKALINE SOEC
PEM ELECTROLYSIS
ELECTROLYSIS ELECTROLYSIS

Hydrogen produced (GJ) 1 1 1

Electricity (kWh) 381 360 282

cice.ca
Modelling BC hydrogen production CI [47]

With electrolysis systems, lifecycle CI is significantly dependent on the CI of the electricity used to perform
electrolysis. The CI of the water supply is excluded, but it is assumed that power requirements from
manufacturing generally suffice for any water purification energy requirements.

5.5 Modelling with GHGenius

The lifecycle CI for each hydrogen production technology was modelled using GHGenius (ghgenius.ca),
a lifecycle analysis (LCA) model developed by (S&T)2 Consultants Inc. that can analyze contaminant
emissions related to the production and use of traditional and alternative transportation fuels. 34 GHGenius
version 5.02 uses the 100-year GWP figures—without feedback—as set out in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment
Report, completed in 2014. It has been assumed that carbon monoxide (CO) and non-methane hydrocarbons
(NMHC) emissions ultimately oxidize to CO2.

About GHGenius
» The GHGenius model has been developed by (S&T)2 Consultants Inc. over the past 20 years;
early versions of the model were supported by Natural Resources Canada. GHGenius uses an
attributional LCA approach, which considers process material and energy flows within a defined
system boundary, and the associated impacts of production, consumption, and disposal to
determine the emissions directly associated with the lifecycle of a specified product.

» GHGenius can predict emissions for past, present, and future years (through to 2050), using
historical data or correlations for energy and process parameters that change over time. Within
each segment of the life cycle analysis, GHGenius determines the impact of co-products on the
lifecycle emissions using the energy allocation approach. It is used in low-carbon fuel programs in
BC, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec.35

cice.ca
Modelling BC hydrogen production CI [48]

5.6 CI modelling results

The modelling shows clear differences in the lifecycle CI of the three main hydrogen production
technologies—methane reforming with CCS, methane pyrolysis, and electrolysis. The modelling also
shows that transportation and newer technologies have a significant impact on lifecycle CIs within each
technology pathway.

Transportation is a significant contributor to the lifecycle CI for hydrogen production pathways that involve
greater distances between the point of production and the point of use. This is especially clear with
respect to the SMR plus CCS pathway, which assumes that hydrogen is produced in northeastern BC and
transported 1,200 km to the Lower Mainland. The modelling also shows that truck transportation makes
a far larger contribution to lifecycle CI than transport by either rail or pipeline. Pipeline transportation is
the least carbon intensive, but building a dedicated hydrogen pipeline from the production source to the
demand centre is cost-prohibitive. Another option would be to blend hydrogen into the existing natural
gas pipeline from the production source, but this would require significant blending of hydrogen at the
transmission pressure. This would introduce several challenges, including the potential for catastrophic
failure due to hydrogen embrittlement. See Section 6.1 for additional challenges and issues for blending into
the transmission infrastructure.

Regardless of the technology “family,” newer technology variants offer improved lifecycle CIs. This
is particularly obvious in methane reforming variants: ATR and ESMR have less than half the CI of the
more common and mature SMR. The differences are less stark when considering methane pyrolysis and
electrolysis variants; however, these technology families are themselves comparatively newer than SMR.

To facilitate comparison of the modelled production pathways against current practices, a baseline was
used that represents the currently more widespread method of hydrogen production: hydrogen produced
from natural gas without the use of CCUS technologies, commonly referred to as “grey hydrogen.” The
lifecycle CI for this baseline is determined from GHGenius as 82.7 gCO₂e/MJ (HHV). This is within a similar
range to the value used in the 2022 IEAGHG low-CI report,36 which is 10.13 kgCO₂e/kg H₂ (equivalent to
71.74 gCO₂e/MJ on HHV basis), and represents grey hydrogen produced in the Netherlands. It should
be noted that these CI values are cradle-to-plant gate, and thus do not account for any product
transportation/distribution emissions.

cice.ca
 Modelling BC hydrogen production CI [49]

Figures 19 and 20 illustrate the comparative lifecycle carbon intensities for each main hydrogen production
pathway and their variants for both compressed and liquefied hydrogen. The charts distinguish between
plant gate CI and downstream CI, which have differences primarily due to the different transportation
modes for compressed and liquefied hydrogen.

Carbon intensity for compressed hydrogen by technology family, pathway and transport mode
FIGURE 19 - CI for compressed hydrogen (plant gate and downstream CI separated)

80
Leakage32.1
allocations Grey hydrogen
70 (82.7 gCO2e/MJ)
Carbon intensity (gCO2e per MJ)

Plant-gate CIs for the same pathways differ between compressed and liquefied hydrogen; this accounts for
60
losses
50
associated with32.2
all gaseous and
32.2cryogenic fuels when they are transferred from one tank to another
5.9
1.01
and includes
40 boil-off losses for cryogenic fuels. This means that to deliver one MJ of hydrogen to the user,
more30than one MJ of hydrogen must be produced at the plant, which causes higher plant-gate emissions.
5.9 1.86 1.86 1.86
5.9
20 38.8 38.8 38.7 1.02 1.86 1.86
1.02
For compressed hydrogen, the losses are a function of the number of transfers; for liquefied hydrogen, they
1.86
10 21.0 20.9 19.6 19.5 20.9 20.7
13.6 13.6 13.5 16.4 16.4 16.4 15.2 15.2 16.1 16.1
are function of the number of transfers as well as the number of days in transport
11.9 or storage. Figure 21 lists
11.9
0
the assumptions
Truck
SMR
considered
Rail Pipeline Truck
in this study.Rail
Rail Pipeline Truck
ESMR ATR
Pipeline Truck Pipeline Truck Pipeline Truck Pipeline Truck Pipeline Truck Pipeline Truck Pipeline
Thermal Plasma Catalytic Solid oxide PEM Alkaline
Methane reforming Methane pyrolysis Electrolysis
FIGURE 21 - Leakage allocation assumptions Plant gate, CI Downstream, CI

Carbon intensity for liquefied hydrogen by technology family, pathway and transport mode
FIGURE 20 - CI for liquefied hydrogen (plant gate and downstream CI separated)

50
Grey hydrogen
9.4 (82.7 gCO2e/MJ)
4.7
Carbon intensity (gCO2e per MJ)

40

30

3.8 3.8
9.0 3.8
20 40.1 40.1 4.7
9.0 3.8
4.7 3.8
3.8
10 21.8 20.3 21.8
17.0 17.1 15.3 16.2
14.0 14.1 12.0

0
Truck Rail Truck Rail Truck Rail Truck Truck Truck Truck Truck Truck
SMR ESMR ATR Thermal Plasma Catalytic Solid oxide PEM Alkaline
Methane reforming Methane pyrolysis Electrolysis

Plant gate, CI Downstream, CI

cice.ca
Modelling BC hydrogen production CI [50]

Leakage allocations
Plant-gate CIs for the same pathways differ between compressed and liquefied hydrogen; this is due to
accounting for losses associated with all gaseous and cryogenic fuels when they are transferred from
one tank to another and includes boil-off losses for cryogenic fuels. This means that to deliver one MJ of
hydrogen to the user, more than one MJ of hydrogen must be produced at the plant, which causes higher
plant-gate emissions.

For compressed hydrogen, the losses are a function of the number of transfers; for liquefied hydrogen, they
are function of the number of transfers as well as the number of days in transport or storage. Figure 21 lists
the assumptions considered in this study.

FIGURE 21 - Leakage allocation assumptions

METHANE REFORMING PATHWAYS

SMR ESMR ATR

Truck Rail Pipeline Truck Rail Pipeline Truck Rail Pipeline

CCS rate (%) 60% 60% 60% 98.6% 98.6% 98.6% 94% 94% 94%

Transport fuel,
diesel, 93 93 - 93 93 - 93 93 -
CI (gCO2e/MJ)

Transport
1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200
distance (km)

PYROLYSIS PATHWAYS ELECTROLYSIS PATHWAYS

Thermal Plasma Catalytic SOEC PEM Alkaline

pyrolysis

Truck Rail Truck Rail Truck Rail Truck Rail Truck Rail Truck Rail

Market for
No No No No No No - - - - - -
carbon black

Transport fuel,
diesel, 93 - 93 - 93 - 93 - 93 - 93 -
CI (gCO2e/MJ)

Transport
80 - 80 - 80 - 80 - 80 - 80 -
distance (km)

cice.ca
Hydrogen blending and its impact on emissions [51]

6. Hydrogen blending and its impact

on emissions
This study explores the reduction in GHG emissions that would be possible by blending hydrogen into BC’s
natural gas network. BC is a major producer and exporter of natural gas. The province produced an average
of 2,264 GJ of natural gas between 2016 and 2021, according to Statistics Canada,37 only 15% of which
was used for domestic, industrial, residential, or commercial consumption. BC’s natural gas is produced
in the northeast of the province, in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin, and transported across the
province through a combination of three networks:

» The Westcoast pipeline, operated by Enbridge, which transports natural gas to consumers in BC, other
Canadian provinces and territories, and the Canada-US border for export to the US.

» The PNG West pipeline, operated by Pacific Northern Gas, which connects to the Westcoast pipeline north
of Prince George and runs west to Prince Rupert.

» The FortisBC natural gas distribution network, which extends across the Lower Mainland, the southern
portion of the BC interior, and Vancouver Island.

This extensive transmission and distribution gas infrastructure could facilitate the use of hydrogen
blending as a potential pathway to decarbonization of gas utility heating and other end uses.
Figure 22 shows BC’s grid and gas transmission lines (green and yellow) and distribution lines (orange).
The transmission system infrastructure distributes natural gas at high pressure to the regional grid
distribution network, which distributes the gas in a safe and reliable manner to residential, commercial,
and industrial end users.

cice.ca
Hydrogen blending and its impact on emissions [52]

FIGURE 22 - BC pipeline system38

cice.ca
Hydrogen blending and its impact on emissions [53]

6.1 Potential challenges with hydrogen blending in

transmission infrastructure
Hydrogen blending offers a low-CI method of transporting hydrogen along existing natural gas
infrastructure to demand centres in metropolitan areas. This is particularly true for hydrogen produced
using methane reforming with CCS in northeast BC, which is home to the province’s natural gas resources
and potential carbon sequestration locations. However, hydrogen blended into the Westcoast pipeline
would have to be extracted from the system before any natural gas was exported to the US market.
Furthermore, an analysis of the natural gas infrastructure’s technical capability would be required because
of the potential technical challenges associated with blending.

One of these challenges is hydrogen embrittlement, a phenomenon that causes catastrophic failures in
metal and non-metallic materials that are constantly exposed to hydrogen and is often a limiting factor to
the quantity of hydrogen that can be accommodated in natural gas infrastructure. Embrittlement is also
specific to the pressures and materials under exposure, which means that its impact on transmission
and distribution pipelines varies. Furthermore, embrittlement considerations apply to key infrastructure
components, such as compressors, that play an important role in natural gas transportation.

Another challenge involves the separation of blended hydrogen in transmission lines prior to US export—
specifically, limitations in the applicability of separation technologies at scale and increased energy
requirements. These limitations are typically associated with the levels of selectivity (i.e., how much
hydrogen can be separated) and purity (i.e., how pure the separated hydrogen is) achievable from
separation technologies. This separation would likely require processing large volumes of natural gas,
up to the entire export volume; which would result in significant energy and cost implications due to
pressure losses from depressurization during separation, and subsequent post-separation repressurization
for export.

In the early 2010s, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimated the cost of hydrogen
extraction using PSA units to be between $3.3 and $8.3 per kg of hydrogen, not including the cost of natural
gas recompression for subsequent export. The NREL’s estimate was based on extracting hydrogen from a
300-psi pipeline at 10% concentration.

cice.ca
Hydrogen blending and its impact on emissions [54]

6.2 Analysis approach and considerations

Data available from Statistics Canada and BC’s three natural gas utilities differ in terms of the quantity of
utility natural gas consumed in BC (see Figure 23); this difference is due to end users of gas that bypass
local utilities and take natural gas directly from the gas transmission line.

Using Statistics Canada data, it was estimated that the lifecycle GHG emissions from BC domestic natural
gas consumption are 20.76 million tonnes of CO2e—or roughly 32% of the total 2020 GHG emissions
reported in BC’s GHG emissions inventory. This is calculated using a CI of 60 gCO2e/MJ for conventional
utility gas heating, which is obtained from modelling in GHGenius.

FIGURE 23 - BC natural gas consumption summary (in million GJ)

PNG WEST PNG NE FORTIS STATSCAN DIFFERENCE

Residential 1.27 1.85 81.6 100 15.3

Commercial 1.61 1.69 57.9 66 4.8

Industrial 3.84 1.85 89.5 181 85.1

Transportation - - 2.5 - -2.5

fuel

LNG - - 0.2 - -0.2

Total 6.7 5.4 231.7 347 103

cice.ca
 Hydrogen blending and its impact on emissions [55]

It should be noted that given the relatively high energy density of natural gas in BC (40.9 MJ/m 3)i and
hydrogen’s energy density of 12.7 MJ/m3, a 20% by volume hydrogen blend translates to a 6.2% blend by
energy content. This implies that the maximum emissions reduction achievable from utility gas hydrogen
blending is 6.2% (assuming the lifecycle CI of the hydrogen is zero). With BC’s total gas consumption
of 325 million GJ annually,ii this would result in a demand of 21.5 million GJ of hydrogen to achieve
20% blending by volume.

The analysis completed for this study assumes that hydrogen blending occurs in the natural gas
distribution network due to the potential challenges associated with blending hydrogen into existing
natural gas transmission networks described in Section 6.1. This is consistent with the hydrogen blending
projects currently being considered internationally, as described in detail in Section 4.3.

Hydrogen produced from methane reforming with CCS is assumed to occur in northeast BC with
subsequent liquefaction and rail transport to the Lower Mainland for blending into the existing natural
gas distribution infrastructure (to avoid problems identified with hydrogen blending in the natural gas
transmission system). Hydrogen produced from pyrolysis and electrolysis is assumed to occur in the Lower
Mainland with potential to be blended into the distribution network.

6.3 Blending scenarios and analysis results

Four hydrogen blending scenarios were developed using the most likely scenarios in BC based on the
jurisdictional scan and stakeholder discussions held during the development of this report. These scenarios
are based on permutations of hydrogen production technologies and their technology assumptions.

Scenario 1: High efficiency

In this scenario, BC’s discounted electricity is assumed to be maximized, at the highest electrolysis
efficiency, and hydrogen is produced from a mix of electrolysis, methane reforming, and pyrolysis
technologies. Hydrogen from electrolysis is produced using the highest efficiency electrolysis pathway,
solid oxide fuel cell technology, using 1,500 GWh of electricity, which is the maximum quantity of discounted
electricity available in BC.iii The balance of the hydrogen is produced from very low-CI SMR and pyrolysis

i
As measured at Huntingdon, the Lower Mainland delivery point, over the past 12 months.
ii
The maximum number that could be generated based on incremental power that will be available when Site C is active.
iii
Introduced under the Clean Industry and Innovation Rate, electricity cost is discounted for industrial customers involved in
hydrogen production from electrolysis and synthetic fuel production from hydrogen cice.ca
Hydrogen blending and its impact on emissions [56]

technologies, which results in hydrogen blending at 20% by volume. Solid oxide has the highest electrolysis
efficiency, but as it is not yet proven in commercial operations, it is not used in subsequent scenarios.

Scenario 2: Electrolysis only

In this scenario, it is assumed that hydrogen is produced exclusively from electrolysis, using the PEM
electrolysis pathway. Here, it is assumed that the entire 5,100 GWh of energy from BC Hydro’s expansion
(Site C) is used to produce hydrogen. This electricity quantity produces 18.1 million GJ of hydrogen, which
results in hydrogen blending at 16.9% by volume; this is the maximum that could be generated from the
incremental power provided when Site C comes on stream.

Scenario 3: Mixed reduction

In this scenario, it is assumed that hydrogen is produced from a mix of electrolysis, methane reforming,
and pyrolysis technologies. Hydrogen from electrolysis is produced using the PEM pathway, using
1,500 GWh, the current maximum quantity of discounted electricity in BC. The balance of the hydrogen is
produced from very low CI steam methane reforming; this results in hydrogen blending at 20% by volume.

Scenario 4: Proven technology only

In this scenario, it is assumed that hydrogen is produced using pathways with parameters that are more
reflective of current levels of technology. Hydrogen is produced using the PEM and steam methane
reforming pathways. Pyrolysis is excluded in this scenario, as it is not considered a proven technology at
scale today; this results in hydrogen blending at 20% by volume.

cice.ca
Hydrogen blending and its impact on emissions [57]

FIGURE 24 - Hydrogen blending analysis production technologies and key parameter assumptions

SCENARIO 1: SCENARIO 2: SCENARIO 3: SCENARIO 4:

HIGH ELECTROLYSIS MIXED PROVEN
EFFICIENCY ONLY REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY

Hydrogen 21.5 million GJ of 18.1 million GJ of 21.5 million GJ of 21.5 million GJ of

production hydrogen: hydrogen: hydrogen: hydrogen:
technologies
» Electrolysis: » Electrolysis: » Electrolysis: » Electrolysis:
5.4 million GJ 18.1 million GJ 3.9 million GJ 3.9 million GJ

» Reforming: » Reforming: » Reforming:

12.9 million GJ 16.5 million GJ 17.6 million GJ

» Pyrolysis: » Pyrolysis:
3.2 million GJ 1.1 million GJ

Key technology Electrolysis: solid Electrolysis: PEM, Electrolysis: PEM, Electrolysis: PEM,
parameter oxide fuel cell, CI: 15 gCO2e/MJ CI: 15 gCO2e/MJ CI: 15gCO2e/MJ
assumptions CI: 12 gCO2e/MJ
Reforming: SMR, Reforming: SMR,
Reforming: SMR, 89% CO2 capture, 60% CO2 capture,
89% CO2 capture, CI: 27 gCO2e/MJ CI: 50 gCO2e/MJ
CI: 27 gCO2e/MJ
Pyrolysis: plasma
Pyrolysis: plasma pyrolysis, no
pyrolysis, market market for
for carbon black, carbon black,
CI: 12 gCO2e/MJ CI: 20 gCO2e/MJ

cice.ca
Hydrogen blending and its impact on emissions [58]

6.4 Hydrogen blending analysis: results and conclusions

From the scenarios considered, the analysis shows that blending hydrogen into the province’s natural gas
network for utility heating can achieve emission reductions of 350,000 to 815,000 tonnes of CO₂e per year.
This results in a 0.5% to 1.3% reduction in overall BC GHG emissions, and a 1.7% to 4% reduction in emissions
from BC’s utility natural gas system (see Figure 25).

FIGURE 25 - Emissions reductions from utility heating for blending scenarios considered

Emission reductions from utility heating for blending scenarios considered

% Reduction from current natural gas utility heating

4.0%
800 4.00%
Emission reduction (1,000 tonnes CO2e)

3.90%
700 3.5%
3.70%
600

500 3.0%

400 839 815

762
2.5%
300 1.70%
200
350 2.0%
100

0 1.5%
High efficiency Electrolysis only Mixed reduction Proven technology
Scenario
Emission reduction (1,000 CO2e) % Natural gas emissions

6.5 Hydrogen blending considerations

The BC Hydrogen Strategy mentions blending hydrogen with natural gas as a potential means to
decarbonize utility heating. The CleanBC Roadmap to 2030 commits to implementing a GHG emissions cap
for natural gas utilities, allowing utilities to determine how best to meet the target. Renewable gases, such
as hydrogen, can support utilities in meeting this commitment, as described in Section 6.0 of this report.
However, maximum emission reductions from hydrogen blending in the most aggressive scenario amounts
to a decrease of 839,000 tonnes of CO2e, or a 4% per year reduction from current utility heating emissions.

cice.ca
Hydrogen blending and its impact on emissions [59]

The objectives and deployment of hydrogen production require careful consideration for successful
implementation. Although low-carbon hydrogen production is possible, as shown in this study, the
subsequent use of hydrogen in utility blending does not result in the highest emission reduction benefit.
However, hydrogen blending could be considered to serve other objectives, such as creating scaled
offtake to incentivize production while demand develops for end-uses that provide more effective emission
reductions (e.g., transportation and industrial applications).

As hydrogen is a nascent industry, one of its challenges is in incentivizing demand. The benefits accruing
from increased demand include promoting the scaling up of production and decreasing the production
cost, which translates to more affordable costs for consumer adoption. The initial demand for hydrogen
production could be driven by hydrogen blending.

Challenges to hydrogen blending in utility gas infrastructure have been noted in this report. However, an
alternative perspective may be to consider 100% hydrogen conversions or sector or hub approaches where
hydrogen blending is targeted at specific applications such as co-location with industrial hubs and large
natural gas consumption sites. In this implementation, large customers would drive hydrogen production
through their usage.

While blending hydrogen with natural gas is a consideration, alternative uses for hydrogen would have
a greater impact on carbon emissions reductions in BC. The following sections describe additional
considerations for hydrogen blending.

6.5.1 Safety
Hydrogen blending into existing natural gas infrastructure will require consideration of its impacts on
end-use appliances. Safety and regulatory organizations are at varying stages of research and
trials/testing that are required to develop safety regulations and codes. However, the vast amount of
natural gas appliances in industrial and residential use suggests that it would take some time for safety
codes and standards to be harmonized. In addition, hydrogen blending is tested at different percentages,
thus adding further complexity to the process. A minimum “safe” blending percentage may be established
after preliminary research has been conducted, prior to further work on establishing safety at higher
blending percentages.

cice.ca
Hydrogen blending and its impact on emissions [60]

6.5.2 Scaling technology and distribution

There is the potential that in the future, efficiency gains through scaling of existing hydrogen production
technologies could ultimately match the CIs that are being observed at pilot and demonstration scales.
Improvements may also apply to separation technologies, which would be required for hydrogen blended
within the existing natural gas transmission infrastructure.

6.6 Best use of electricity

There are minimal limitations for hydrogen production pathways that use natural gas as a feedstock as BC is
a significant producer and exporter of natural gas—the province’s natural gas consumption represents only
15% of total production. However, this energy surplus is not necessarily the case with respect to electricity.
At different times, BC may be a net exporter or importer of electricity, primarily due to fluctuations in
precipitation levels and the varying quantities of hydroelectricity that can be generated as a result
(Figure 26).

FIGURE 26 - BC electricity supply and demand, 2019-2021 39

BC Electricity Supply and Demand for 2019, 2020 and 2021

80

70
73M 72M
68M
60 66M 66M
64M
Electricity (MWh)

50

40

30

20

10 14M 14M
12M
8M 8M 8M
0
2019 2020 2021
Year
Generation Consumption Import Export

cice.ca
Hydrogen blending and its impact on emissions [61]

Given that clean electricity in BC is a strategic, valuable, and limited resource, the opportunity cost of
using electricity for hydrogen production was compared to other potential alternative uses for electricity
and the associated impact on emissions reduction. For illustration purposes, these options are compared
on a 1 MWh basis of base load energy, and are compared to hydrogen blending produced via electrolysis
technology, the least carbon intensive hydrogen production technology considered in this report. The
alternative electricity-use options and the emission sources they displace are illustrated in
Figures 27 and 28.

FIGURE 27 - Alternative electricity uses: Emission sources displaced and avoided emissions

AVOIDED EMISSION
ELECTRICITY-USE OPTIONS FUEL DISPLACED
(kg CO₂e)

1 MWh for battery electric vehicle 10.8 GJ gasoline 955

1 MWh for heat pump 10.8 GJ NG 579

1 MWh for fuel cell electric vehicle 5.1 GJ of gasoline 431

1 MWh for direct utility heating 4.5 GJ NG 224

1 MWh for H2 for diesel co-combustion 2.3 GJ of diesel 173

1 MWh for hydrogen for utility gas blending 3.2 GJ NG 148

cice.ca
 Hydrogen blending and its impact on emissions [62]

FIGURE 28 - Avoided emissionsAvoided emissions

by electricity (kgCO2e) by electricity use option
use option

1,200

1,000
Avoided emissions (kgCO2 e)

800 955

600
579
400
431

200
224
173 148
0
Battery electric Heat pump Fuel cell electric Direct Hydrogen-diesel Hydrogen
vehicle vehicle (gasoline) heating co-combustion blending
vehicle

Electricity use option

The results of the analysis show that while hydrogen produced using electrolysis may result in lower CIs
in utility heating, it may not be the most effective use of clean electricity resources from an emissions
perspective. This is especially apparent when compared to electricity-use options such as battery
electric vehicles and heat pumps. However, blending has strategic uses that indirectly support emissions
reductions for other hydrogen applications. Using the existing gas infrastructure to blend hydrogen serves
as a storage buffer for early-stage hydrogen production when connections to end-use demand applications
are not yet developed at scale. Utilities can also use the pooled commodity cost of gas for all customers to
include hydrogen, and offer a lower blended rate to kick-start the hydrogen economy in BC.

cice.ca
Opportunities to reduce hydrogen CI in BC [63]

7. Opportunities to reduce hydrogen CI in BC

BC’s Hydrogen Strategy commits to working with other jurisdictions to develop a common methodology
for measuring and verifying the CI of hydrogen. Furthermore, BC will consider establishing a CI threshold
and reduction schedule out to 2050 to ensure BC's hydrogen economy helps decarbonize energy systems
in support of provincial climate goals. The analysis contained in this report shares a regional perspective
and understanding of the CI of the identified hydrogen production technologies and the emissions impact
from subsequent hydrogen blending in utility gas infrastructure, along with other considerations for CI
reductions out to 2050.

7.1 The potential for CI reductions over time

There are many uncertainties that may affect the potential reduction of hydrogen CI over time beyond
advances in technology maturation and innovation. Factors associated with current/potential policy,
technology maturity, and market availability have been identified as having the potential to reduce the
lifecycle CI associated with the hydrogen production technologies considered in this report.

A summary of the factors affecting carbon intensity and the resulting reductions, depending on production
pathway and quantified in GHGenius, is provided in Figures 29 and 30. The potential reduction factors are
described in further detail in Sections 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4.

cice.ca
Opportunities to reduce hydrogen CI in BC [64]

FIGURE 29 - Policy, technology, and market factors that could impact hydrogen CI reduction over
time, by pathway

DEPENDENT LIFECYCLE
FACTOR ACTION FOR CATEGORY IMPACT TIMELINE
IMPLEMENTATION (gCO₂e/MJ

50% reduction Fugitive emission Policy 1–1.4 2030

in natural gas limit
fugitive emissions
Electrification of
production fields

Increase in CO₂ Technological Technology 1–18 Long-term

capture rate from improvement in CO₂ (beyond 2040)
60% to 89% capture rate

Energy reduction Technological Technology 1.7 Long-term

from 0.26 to 0.15 improvement (beyond 2040)
joules electricity in hydrogen
per joule liquefaction energy
hydrogen

Emission Market availability Market 7–10 2050

allocation for for solid carbon
useful by-product by-product

Diesel CI of BC LCFS Policy 0.2–7* 2030

75.81 gCO₂e/MJ implementation
by 2030

Values identified are potential reductions beyond the values provided in Figure 19
*Would only be applicable post-plant gate

cice.ca
Opportunities to reduce hydrogen CI in BC [65]

FIGURE 30 - Policy, technology, and market factors mapped to relevant hydrogen production technology

Methane reforming Electrolysis

Lifecycle impact Pyrolysis technologies
technologies technologies

Cradle-to- Downstream SMR ATR ESMR Thermal Plasma Catalytic Alkaline PEM SOEC
gate

Carbon intensity
of natural gas ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Policy
factors Carbon intensity
of transportation ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
fuels

Market
Market
factors
availability for ● ● ● ●
solid carbon

CO2 carbon
capture rate ● ● ● ●
Technology
factors Hydrogen
liquefaction ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
energy

Figures 31, 32, and 33 illustrate achievable CIs for hydrogen production pathways over the medium term
(2030 to 2040) and long term (2040 to 2050). These CIs result from the application of the potential reduction
factors (excluding downstream factors) described in Figures 29 and 30, to the current-day CI modelling
results computed in this study (Figures 19 and 20); thereby, projecting a hydrogen reduction schedule over
time from a cradle-to-plant gate perspective.

The reduction schedules are directional, as they are subject to assumed timing/implementation of the
reduction factors. Factors identified as downstream impacts have not been calculated in the plant gate CI
calculations and reductions in this report. Furthermore, the presented schedules are exclusive of hydrogen
compression and liquefaction, which are attributed to downstream carbon intensity beyond plate gate.
The potential reduction of CI of electricity has not been modelled based on the regulated nature of BC's
power market.

cice.ca
Opportunities to reduce hydrogen CI in BC [66]

FIGURE 31 - Incremental CI reduction schedule summary—methane reforming tech

Short term Medium term Long term

2020 2023 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
50

SMR 40.1
40 SMR 39.1
SMR 38.1
SMR 38.8
SMR 37.4
Carbon intensity gCO e/MJ

30

20
SMR 19.4
ATR 17.1
ATR 16.1 ATR 16.1
ATR 16.4
ESMR 14.1 ATR 15 ATR 15
ESMR 13.1 ESMR 13.1
ESMR 13.6

ESMR 12.2 ESMR 12.2

10

*only reduction factors up to the plant gate (within cradle-to-plant gate boundary) are considered in this reduction schedule cice.ca
Opportunities to reduce hydrogen CI in BC [67]

FIGURE 32 - Incremental CI reduction schedule summary—methane pyrolysis

Short term Medium term Long term

2020 2023 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
30

Thermal 21.8
Catalytic 21.8 Thermal 20.8
Thermal 21 Catalytic 20.8
Catalytic 20.0
Plasma 20.3
20 Thermal 19.6
Plasma 19.6
Plasma 19.3 Catalytic 19.5
Carbon intensity gCO e/MJ

Plasma 18.2

Thermal 13.8
Catalytic 13.8

Plasma 12.3

10 Thermal 9.6
Catalytic 9.5

Plasma 8.2

*only reduction factors up to the plant gate (within cradle-to-plant gate boundary) are considered in this reduction schedule cice.ca
Opportunities to reduce hydrogen CI in BC [68]

FIGURE 33 - Incremental CI reduction schedule summary—electrolysis

Short term Medium term Long term

2020 2023 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
20

Alkaline 16.2
Alkaline 16.1

PEM 15.3
PEM 15.2
Carbon intensity gCO e/MJ

Oxide 12
Oxide 11.9

10

*only reduction factors up to the plant gate (within cradle-to-plant gate boundary) are considered in this reduction schedule cice.ca
Opportunities to reduce hydrogen CI in BC [69]

7.2 Policy factors

» Natural gas fugitive emission reductions: Reductions in emissions associated with natural gas
production would lead to lower CI values for hydrogen production pathways that use methane as a
feedstock. Potential policy drivers include the electrification of upstream oil and gas fields or mandated
fugitive emissions limits.

While the nature of fugitive emissions makes accurate quantification challenging, improved monitoring
coupled with actions such as fugitive limits and electrification of natural gas fields provide credible
reduction pathways. Fugitive emission rates in GHGenius, based on historical data from Statistics Canada
and the Alberta Energy Regulator,40 are shown in Figure 34.

FIGURE 34 - Fugitive emission rates

STAGE IMPORT/EXPORT PERSPECTIVES

Natural gas production 0.288%

Natural gas processing 0.002%

Natural gas transmission 0.05%

Natural gas distribution 0.06%

A 50% reduction in natural gas production translates to an impact on hydrogen CIs that ranges from
1.0 to 1.4 gCO2e/MJ, depending on the natural gas quantity used in the hydrogen production process.

» BC Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS): Further reductions could be possible beyond the plant gate.
The LCFS is a provincial emission reduction policy aimed at decarbonizing the transportation sector by
requiring annual reductions in the CI of diesel and gasoline class fuels. The LCFS has a CI target of
75.81 gCO2e/MJ in 2030.41

The LCFS target, if achieved, could translate to reduced emissions from truck- and rail-based supply of
produced hydrogen. GHGenius uses a diesel CI of 93 gCO2e/MJ; therefore, a reduction of approximately
20% is achievable, resulting in a range of 0.2–7 gCO2e/MJ by 2030. Since hydrogen is a substitute for either

cice.ca
Opportunities to reduce hydrogen CI in BC [70]

gasoline or diesel, reductions in its CI can help fuel suppliers reach their mandated reductions in each of
these categories when supplied for transportation.

7.3 Technology factors

» CO 2
capture rate: This is an area that can significantly reduce lifecycle emissions for methane reforming-
based hydrogen production technologies. These reductions can be driven by improvements in the
reliability of nominal capture rates over a project’s lifetime and the scope of total facility emissions
targeted; these are anticipated to develop with maturity of carbon capture projects and technologies. 42

A 2022 review by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) notes that a 90%
CO2 capture rate, commonly considered the prime target for blue hydrogen, is being projected for future
projects, such as Air Products’ planned hydrogen facility in Ascension Parish, Louisiana (2025-2026). 43
However, it cautions that current projects, such as Alberta’s Quest and Texas’s Port Arthur, that have
shown CO2 capture rates of 75% and 80%, respectively, on process streams (but do not capture CO2 from
fuel/combustion sources) target only around 60% of the total facility CO2 emissions. Furthermore, due to
process constraints, Alberta Quest's CO2 capture rate has fallen well below 60% in some years, with rates
reported as low as 30-40%. This has created uncertainty around the reliability of the CO 2 capture rates
and potential for decline over time.

GHGenius modelling has used a CO2 capture rate of 60% for SMR, 94% for ATR, and 98.6% for ESMR. ATR
and ESMR are newer technologies with higher projected CO2 capture rates, but these high rates have not
yet been demonstrated at a commercial scale. For SMR, an improvement in the CO2 capture rate from 60%
to 89% translates to an impact on hydrogen CIs of around 17-18 gCO2e/MJ.

» Hydrogen liquefaction energy: Possible technology reductions beyond the plant gate could include
the reduction of hydrogen liquefaction energy requirements. Current practical liquefaction energy
requirements are around 0.26 joules electricity/joule of hydrogen, which is the value in GHGenius.
Research on liquid hydrogen reports that some recent plants used as much as 0.35 joules electricity/joule
of hydrogen.44 However, the US DOE has set a goal of 0.15 joules electricity/joule of hydrogen. 45 If this is
achieved, it would reduce the CI of liquid hydrogen pathways by 1.7 gCO2e/MJ.

cice.ca
Opportunities to reduce hydrogen CI in BC [71]

7.4 Market factors

» Market availability for solid carbon: Potential use of the solid carbon by-product of the pyrolysis process
has significant implications for lifecycle accounting. If an end use is available for the by-product (solid
carbon), a portion of the emissions associated with hydrogen production emissions is allocated to this
by-product. This does not occur when the by-product is landfilled or otherwise unused. This translates to
an impact on hydrogen CIs that ranges from 7 to 10 gCO2e/MJ, depending on the natural gas quantity used
in the hydrogen production process.

cice.ca
Conclusion [72]

8. Conclusion: Supporting BC’s greenhouse

gas strategy and climate ambitions
The objective of this study has been to identify, model and establish a CI threshold for hydrogen production
pathways most relevant to BC today. This study supports the goals of BC’s Hydrogen Strategy, which
focuses on defining and providing support for low-carbon hydrogen pathways, with an “ultimate objective
of identifying long-term targets for declining carbon intensity consistent with net-zero emissions by 2050.”
This objective is mirrored by Canada-wide objectives to focus on the production of lower-CI hydrogen over
time, as the hydrogen market matures.

Based on the modelling completed for this study, hydrogen produced in BC today can achieve cradle-to-
plant-gate CIs that range from 11.9 gCO2e/MJ to 40.1 gCO2e/MJ, as set out in Figure 35 below.

FIGURE 35 - Achievable cradle-to-plant-gate CI ranges in BC today

LOW END CI: SOLID OXIDE HIGH END CI: SMR + CCS
ELECTROLYSIS (60% CO₂ Capture)

Compressed hydrogen 11.9 gCO2e/MJ 38.8 gCO2e/MJ

Liquefied hydrogen 12.0 gCO2e/MJ 40.1 gCO2e/MJ

By 2030, it is anticipated that plant-gate CIs for hydrogen from solid oxide electrolysis and SMR with CCS
would be in the range of 11.9 to 39.1 gCO2e/MJ, respectively, driven primarily by reductions in natural gas
fugitive emissions, improved CO2 capture rate, and solid carbon market availability for reforming and
pyrolysis-based pathways. For electrolysis, the potential reduction factors identified are post-plant gate,
which means that this study has not predicted the potential to reduce CI up to plant gate for this pathway,
largely due to the regulated nature of BC's power market.

By 2040, and beyond to 2050, CI thresholds for hydrogen in BC could be reduced to 12.2, 8.2, and
11.9 gCO2e/MJ for pathways in methane reforming, methane pyrolysis, and electrolysis technologies,
respectively, driven primarily by increased carbon capture rates, and for pyrolysis, market availability for
solid carbon.

The work undertaken as part of this study can be leveraged to develop policy options, identify and select
technologies, and invest in specific hydrogen pathways to produce low-CI hydrogen in BC.
cice.ca
Conclusion [73]

8.1 Region-specific and consistent determination of hydrogen CI

As documented in this study, there has been a need to create a consistent understanding of potential CIs
across different hydrogen production pathways in BC. The data parameters and assumptions used in this
study are based on BC-specific material and energy characteristics and reflect current (as of October
2022) technology capabilities from both literature and stakeholders. The data in this report can be used to
identify parameters for future low-CI hydrogen quantification and to help quantify current CI as required by
the BC LCFS program.46

Policy makers can implement policy and other frameworks to regulate and incentivize the lowering of CI in
BC’s hydrogen supply. The CI of natural gas pathways can be effectively reduced by decreasing fugitive
emissions, as well as by increasing CCS rates and solid carbon uses. Identifying and setting CI thresholds
for low carbon hydrogen, coupled with realistic yet stringent reduction schedules, can help the province
balance its economic and climate goals, and ensure the growth of BC's low carbon hydrogen economy that
contributes to net-zero by 2050.

8.2 Focusing on pathways with an ability to result in lower CI

This study identifies parameters that are determining factors in helping to achieve the potential low-carbon
performance of hydrogen pathways, including nascent pathways (ATR, ESMR, SOEC, and pyrolysis), and the
technology, policy, and market factors described in Section 7. Monitoring these drivers for lower CI can also
help guide expected decarbonization plans and inform future decision-making for all stakeholders.

Technology developers can also continuously improve the capture rates of SMR technologies, explore
hydrogen and CO₂ liquefaction improvements, and advance pyrolysis, electrolysis, and other emerging
technologies to lower the CI of hydrogen production (as described in Section 7).

8.3 BC’s hydrogen strategy and GHG reduction targets

are ambitious—and achievable
The GHGenius modelling undertaken as part of this study can provide inputs to model new options
to achieve BC’s provincial 2030 GHG reduction target (40% below 2007 levels). Current modelling
methodology to achieve this ambition considers reductions from the oil and gas sector, 47 which uses

cice.ca
Conclusion [74]

hydrogen in upstream upgrading and refining, and the transportation and building sectors, where there is
potential for hydrogen use in vehicles and heating.

This study suggests that there are minimal emissions reduction benefits associated with hydrogen
blending into the natural gas system. However, as hydrogen production and demand develop in BC,
hydrogen blending could be used as a stepping stone while transportation and industrial applications
are maturing.

In setting carbon intensity thresholds for use in BC’s hydrogen production in the short, medium, and long
term, policymakers and stakeholders will need to balance several considerations: emissions reductions
goals, technological feasibility, available funding, electricity supply, available markets for hydrogen exports
and hydrogen by-products such as carbon black, and more. Understanding the interplay between these
factors—and how they change in the years to come—will be important to keep BC’s hydrogen economy
growing efficiently and effectively.

BC’s hydrogen strategy is ambitious—and achievable. By working together, policymakers, industry

participants, investors, and other stakeholders can make BC’s vision of a hydrogen economy a reality and
make progress towards achieving the emission reduction targets established under the Climate Change
Accountability Act.

cice.ca
 References [75]

9. References
1
BC Hydrogen Office, B.C. hydrogen strategy: A sustainable pathway for B.C.’s energy transition, 2021.
2
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Geopolitics of the energy transformation: The hydrogen factor, 2022.
3
UK Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, UK low-carbon hydrogen standard: Guidance on the
greenhouse gas emissions and sustainability criteria, 2022.
4
Government of British Columbia, “Renewable & low carbon fuels: LCFS requirements,” accessed July 24, 2022.
5
BC Hydro, “Industrial electrification rates: Clean industry and innovation rate,” accessed July 22, 2022.
6
U.S. Department of Energy, Clean hydrogen production standard (CHPS) draft guidance, 2022.
7
Ibid.
8
BC Hydrogen Office, B.C. hydrogen strategy, 2021.
9
Nicola Warwick, Paul Griffiths, James Keeble, Alexander Archibald, John Pyle, and Keith Shine, Atmospheric
implications of increased hydrogen use, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, 2022, 75.
10
CertifHy, “About us,” accessed July 19, 2022.
11
International Partnership for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells in the Economy (IPHE), Methodology for determining the
greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of hydrogen, 2021.
12
Giovanna Gonzales-Calienes, Miyuru Kannangara, Jianjun Yang, Jalil Shadbahr, Cyrille Deces-Petit, and Farid
Bensebaa, Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production pathways in Canada, National Research Council Canada,
2022.
13
BlueH2Inc, “What is blue hydrogen: What is steam methane reforming (SMR),” accessed November 1, 2022.
14
Jacob Lamb, Magne Hillestad, Erling Rytter, Robert Bock, Anna Nordgård, Kristian Lien, Odne Burheim, and Bruno
Pollete, “Traditional routes for hydrogen production and carbon conversion,” Hydrogen, Biomass and Bioenergy,
(2020): 21-53.
15
Sebastian Wismann, Jakob Engbæk, Søren Vendelbo, Flemming Bendixen, Winnie Eriksen, Kim Aasberg-Petersen,
Cathrine Frandsen, Ib Chorkendorff, and Peter Mortensen, “Electric methane reforming: A compact approach to
greener industrial hydrogen production,” Science 364, no. 6442 (2019): 756-759.
16
UK Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, UK low-carbon hydrogen standard, 2022; U.S. Department
of Energy, Clean hydrogen production standard (CHPS) draft guidance, 2022.
17
Calvo Buendia, K. Tanabe, A. Kranjc, J. Baasansuren , M. Fukuda, S. Ngarize, A. Osako A, Y. Pyrozhenko, P. Shermanau,
and S. Federici, 2019 refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories,
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, vol 4, chapter 7.
18
Francois Vince, Emmanuelle Aoustin, Phillipe Breant, and Francois Marechal, “LCA tool for the environmental
evaluation of potable water production,” Desalination 220, no. 1-3 (2008): 37-56.
19
Alina Racoviceanu, Bryan Karney, Christopher Kennedy, and Andrew Colombo, “Life-cycle energy use and greenhouse
gas emissions inventory for water treatment systems,” Journal of Infrastructure Systems 13, no. 4 (2007); Vince et al.,
“LCA tool for the environmental evaluation of potable water production,” 37-56.
20
IEAGHG, Low-carbon hydrogen from natural gas: Global roadmap, 2022.
21
Sebastian Timmerberg, Martin Kaltschmitt, and Matthias Finkbeiner, “Hydrogen and hydrogen-derived fuels through
methane decomposition of natural gas – GHG emissions and costs,” Energy Conversion and Management.

cice.ca
 References [76]

22
Florian Kerscher, Alexander Stary, Stephan Gleis, Andreas Ulrich, Harald Klein, and Hartmut Spliethoff, “Low-carbon
hydrogen production via electron beam plasma methane pyrolysis: Techno-economic analysis and carbon footprint
assessment,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 46, no. 38 (2021): 19897-19912.
23
International Energy Agency IEA, “Hydrogen projects database”, accessed August 15, 2022.
24
Hydrogen Technology Collaboration Programme Hydrogen TCP, Task 38 final report: Power-to-hydrogen and
hydrogen-to-X: System analysis of the techno-economic, legal and regulatory conditions, 2020.
25
Brian James, Jennie Huya-Kouadio, Cassidy Houchins, Yaset Acevedo, Kevin McNamara, and Genevieve Saur,
“Hydrogen production cost and performance analysis: DOE hydrogen program,” presented at 2022 Annual
Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting, June 2022.
26
International Energy Agency IEA, Global hydrogen review, 2021.
27
Ibid.
28
Alberta Department of Energy, Quest carbon capture and storage project: Annual summary report, 2021.
29
David Schlissel, Dennis Wamsted, Suzanne Mattei, and Omar Mawji, Reality check on CO 2 emissions capture at
hydrogen-from-gas plants, Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, 2022.
30
“Hydrogen partnership to advance new pilot facility with CleanBC support,” Canada Newswire, July 4, 2022.
31
Timmerberg et al., “Hydrogen and hydrogen-derived fuels through methane decomposition of natural gas,” 100043.
32
International Energy Agency IEA, Global hydrogen review, 2021.
33
Topsoe, “Topsoe to build world's largest electrolyzer manufacturing facility to accelerate power-to-X capacity,”
accessed October 11, 2022.
34
GHGenius, “About GHGenius,” accessed July 29, 2022.
35 
Government of Alberta, “Renewable fuels standard resources,” accessed November 6, 2022; Government of
British Columbia “Renewable & low carbon fuels,” accessed November 6, 2022; Government of Ontario,
“Ontario’s low-carbon hydrogen strategy,” accessed November 6, 2022.
36
IEAGHG, Low-carbon hydrogen from natural gas: Global roadmap, 2022.
37
Statistics Canada, Table 25-10-0055-01: Supply and disposition of natural gas, monthly, 2022.
38
Fortis BC, “FortisBC pipeline system (BC),” accessed September 15, 2022.
39
Statistics Canada, Table 25-10-0016-01: Electric power generation, monthly receipts, deliveries and availability, 2022.
40
Statistics Canada, Table 25-10-0047-01: Natural gas, monthly supply and disposition, 2016; Alberta Energy Regulator,
“ST3: Alberta energy resource industries monthly statistics”, accessed September 15, 2022; Alberta Energy Regulator,
“ST13: Alberta gas plant/gas gathering system statistics,” accessed September 15, 2022.
41
Government of British Columbia “Renewable & low carbon fuels,” accessed November 6, 2022.
42
International Energy Agency IEA, Global hydrogen review, 2021.
43
Schlissel et al., Reality check on CO2 emissions capture at hydrogen-from-gas plants, Institute for Energy Economics
and Financial Analysis, 2022.
44
Muhammad Aziz, “Liquid hydrogen: A review on liquefaction, storage, transportation, and safety,” Energies 14, no. 18
(2021): 5917.
45
James et al., “Hydrogen production cost and performance analysis,” June 2022.
46
Government of British Columbia “Renewable & low carbon fuels”; BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum
Resources, Renewable and low carbon fuel requirements regulation: Using GHGenius in BC, 2017.
47
Government of British Columbia, CleanBC: Sectoral GHG targets modelling methodology, 2021.

cice.ca
We acknowledge with respect and gratitude that this report was produced on many traditional and unceded territories, covering all
regions of British Columbia whose deep connections with this land continue to this day.

(S&T)2

cice.ca

©2022-2023 CICE and affiliated entities. All Rights Reserved. All trademarks, registered trademarks, trade names, service marks and logos referenced herein are owned by CICE,
used under license or used under permission.