Pasadena’s $32 Million Hydrogen Gamble: A Clean Future or a Risky Boondoggle?
On August 25, 2025, the Pasadena City Council approved a $32 million contract to purchase 17 hydrogen fuel cell buses, a move championed by city staff as a major step toward a zero-emission transit fleet. The decision, however, has ignited a sharp debate, pitting the city’s green ambitions against pressing concerns over staggering costs, unproven technology, and the potential dangers of placing high-pressure hydrogen infrastructure near residential communities.
While the city celebrates the move, critics, including one dissenting council member, have labeled the venture a high-risk gamble with taxpayer-guaranteed funds.
The Decision-Makers and the “Pro-Hydrogen” Case
The push for hydrogen was led by Pasadena’s Department of Transportation (DOT), directed by Joaquin Siques. Siques and his team presented the plan to the City Council, arguing that hydrogen buses are essential for meeting the city’s service demands. They claim hydrogen offers a longer range and faster refueling time than battery-electric buses, which staff said would require “doubling the fleet” to provide the same level of service.
The $32 million contract was approved by the council, with Mayor Victor Gordo and councilmembers like Gene Masuda and Steve Madison voicing support. Their argument rests on two key points:
- It’s “Free Money”: The vast majority of the contract (approximately $29 million) is funded by state and regional air quality grants, with only about $3 million coming from local transit funds. Proponents argued it was crucial to seize this external funding.
- Meeting Mandates: The purchase accelerates Pasadena’s compliance with California’s Innovative Clean Transit regulation, transitioning 46% of the city’s fleet to zero-emission by 2027.
The “Con” Case: A “Massive Boondoggle”
The approval was not unanimous. Councilmember Rick Cole cast the sole dissenting vote, raising serious concerns about the project’s financial risk and environmental efficacy.
Cole’s dissent reflects a growing body of criticism against hydrogen fuel cell technology, which many experts and environmental critics have called a “massive boondoggle.” The key arguments against the venture include:
- Exorbitant Fueling Costs: While the buses themselves are paid for by grants, critics point to the astronomical long-term operational costs. Studies and data from other transit agencies show that fueling a hydrogen bus can be eight to ten times more expensive than charging a battery-electric equivalent. One analysis suggests a hydrogen bus could cost $200,000 per year in fuel, compared to just $24,000 for an electric bus.
- The “Green” Hydrogen Myth: Councilmember Cole argued that hydrogen is “not zero emission.” This is because the vast majority of commercially available hydrogen is “gray hydrogen,” produced from natural gas (methane) in a process that releases significant carbon dioxide. “Green” hydrogen, made using renewable energy, is not yet viable at scale, leading critics to claim the city is simply swapping one fossil fuel for another, less efficient one.
- Reliability and Maintenance: Data from other transit agencies operating hydrogen buses has shown them to be less reliable and have maintenance costs 50% higher than their internal combustion counterparts, leading to more service disruptions.
Danger in the Community?
Perhaps the most immediate concern for residents is the infrastructure required. The project includes a new hydrogen fueling station planned for 159 S. Kinneloa Avenue in East Pasadena.
This plan brings the “danger” element of hydrogen technology into a dense, urban setting. Safety experts note that hydrogen poses unique risks:
- Extreme Flammability: Hydrogen is highly flammable, with a much wider range of explosive concentrations in the air (4% to 75%) than gasoline.
- Low Ignition Energy: It requires very little energy to ignite—a simple static spark can be enough.
- High-Pressure Storage: The fuel is stored on buses and at the station in tanks under immense pressure (5,000 to 10,000 psi). While tanks are built to stringent safety standards, the risk of a catastrophic failure, whether from a manufacturing defect, collision, or fire, is a significant concern.
- Invisible Flame: Hydrogen fires are nearly invisible to the naked eye, complicating emergency response.
Critics argue that placing this high-pressure, explosive infrastructure in a residential and commercial corridor is an unnecessary risk, especially when a safer, cheaper, and more efficient alternative—battery-electric charging—is readily available.
As Pasadena moves forward with its $32 million venture, the city finds itself at the center of a national debate. Is it a pioneer of a clean hydrogen future, or has it locked itself into a costly and potentially dangerous technological dead end, all while being urged on by the council majority and DOT Director Joaquin Siques?
