I'm worried about Pasadena's hydrogen bus plan
The Los Angeles Times published an article on August 17, 2026, about how “green hydrogen” has failed to get off the ground, and fossil fuel-made hydrogen is inherently counter to the whole idea of alternative fuel. This begs the question: Why has Pasadena committed to buying thirty hydrogen buses? The federal funding for “green” hydrogen is drying up. The linked L.A. Times article has a direct quote from another California transit agency essentially saying, don’t do hydrogen, based on their own experience.
California transit agencies are stuck between a rock and a hard place because the state has mandated transit agencies to move to zero-emissions buses by around 2030, even though our majority natural gas-powered fleets are not massive polluters compared to personal vehicles using gasoline. It’s true that hydrogen buses are zero-emission, they take less time to fill up, and they are lighter than battery buses, but the hydrogen plants certainly won’t be green. L.A. Metro will be using battery-electric buses on the upcoming Pasadena-North Hollywood Bus Rapid Transit line. The PCC charging station will provide enough juice for their journey back to North Hollywood; that good bit of planning could end up being used by the180 bus too in the future. Our increasingly green grid (hopefully carbon-free by 2030, thanks to our friends and coalition partners Pasadena 100) will power electric buses just fine, as the economics of solar and battery storage keep getting better and better—while hydrogen may cost four times as much as gasoline. Germany bet big on hydrogen trains and is now largely regretting it; their hydrogen fuel cell-powered trains have had serious maintenance issues as well as problems with their fuel supply, and they have switched back to old diesel trains in one case
Our friends at Streets for All posted a video recently about the debacle with hydrogen power in California that provides a great primer and paints an even bleaker picture: the state has put millions into hydrogen infrastructure and hydrogen-powered trains are running on one short line in San Bernardino, but fossil fuel companies are among the top backers. The same issues that Germany has seen regarding sourcing fuel exist here. On top of that, transporting hydrogen is a big challenge. Having a Pasadena Transit system susceptible to these issues would be problematic for first- and last-mile connections to the A Line, for the elderly, students, and other people without cars who depend on the bus, and anyone who wants a relaxing ride around town.
The promise of hydrogen made sense at the time the city of Pasadena committed to the technology for its new bus fleet. Battery buses have their downsides, but the multimillion-dollar investment in thirty buses and a refueling station for a technology that isn’t green and isn’t poised for longevity should be reassessed. The city is constrained by state requirements, as mentioned above—keeping natural gas buses at higher frequencies would almost certainly be a better climate trade-off than a green bus that comes every 45 minutes—but the city shouldn’t dig a deeper hole by making a poor investment in the future of our transit system.
Pasadena City Councilmember Rick Cole has raised questions about the purchase contract for 30 hydrogen-fueled buses, but no other members of the City Council have joined him in this position. If you are a Pasadena resident who is also concerned about this investment, reach out to your Councilmember, share the LA Times or Streets for All pieces with them, and let's see if a better plan can be made!
