California must operate and maintain an effective and efficient transportation infrastructure while ensuring that the health of communities and the planet are not compromised. By assessing transportation projects using a life-cycle perspective, all relevant emission sources and activities from the construction, operation, maintenance, and end-of-life phases can be analyzed and mitigated. This report presents a framework to assess the life-cycle human health and climate change impacts from six types of transportation projects: (1) Roadways; (2) Marine ports; (3) Logistical distribution centers; (4) Railyards; (5) Bridges and overpasses; and (6) Airports. The framework was applied using an integrated model to assess fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, noise impacts, and monetized damages (Value of Statistical Life, Social Cost of Carbon) from two case studies: routine resurfacing and vehicle operations on road segments within the San Francisco Bay Area using 2019 data, and annual marine, cargo, rail, trucking, and infrastructure maintenance operations at the Port of Oakland in 2020. The results suggest that emission sources in a project’s supply chain and construction (material production and deliveries, construction activities, fuel refining) can significantly contribute to the full scope of impacts from transportation systems. Equitable mitigation policies (e.g., electrification, pollution control technologies) need to be tailored to address the sources that impact communities the most.

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

California must build, operate, and maintain transportation infrastructure while ensuring that the health of communities and the planet are not compromised. In addition to vehicleemissions, supply chain inputs and energy use from constructing and maintaining transportation projects (e.g., roads, airports, bridges) result in pollution that contributes to climate change and impacts the health of local communities. Project-specific air and noise pollution can further burden vulnerable populations. By assessing transportation projects using a life-cycle perspective, all relevant emission sources and activities from raw material production, supply chain logistics, construction, operation, maintenance, and end-of-life phases of a project can be analyzed and mitigated.

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