I just found this from December, am reading it now (119 pgs.) to see if it sheds any light, and will add to the post as I progress, so keep checking back:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publicatio ... 17-011.pdf
Joint Agency Staff Report
on Assembly Bill 8: 2017
Annual Assessment of
Time and Cost Needed to
Attain 100 Hydrogen
Refueling Stations in
Reading the executive summary now, and found this:
Some subregions in California experience high hydrogen fuel demand already. Of the 31 open retail stations, a few require fuel deliveries two or three times a day because of high station usage. In these high usage cases, either the station is dispensing more fuel in a day than one fuel delivery truck can hold, or the demand for fuel is exceeding the storage capacity of the station.
The 2017 Annual Evaluation concludes that long-term FCEV deployment plans continue to indicate a need for larger capacity stations to be opened at a faster pace, and the current business-as-usual scenario (funding eight 300 kg/day stations per year) may allow the supply of hydrogen dispensing capacity to keep up with demand until 2021, at which point a shortfall in capacity is expected. This capacity shortfall, which could slow down FCEV deployment when the commercial ZEV market needs to expand greatly to meet environmental goals, is critical to avoid. This report presents additional analysis around this capacity shortfall issue in Chapter 5, to better understand the implications on a regional level, and provides ideas in Chapter 7 for alternative funding mechanisms that could increase the pace of station development.
Later in the report, they mention that Anaheim and Long Beach are two stations needing more than one delivery/day, of up to 100kg. There's also a new cost and timescale estimate. Assuming an increase to 10 stations/yr from IIRR 8, they figure they'll finish all 100 in 7 years, at a total cost of $201.6m or $1.6m over the original estimate, and down from the $225 million total cost estimate of the 2016 report. 65 stations are currently funded or built, costing $131.6 million, and the remaining 35 are estimated at $70m. The reduced estimate is based on the following:
The Energy Commission developed this updated business-as-usual scenario considering the findings from
stations funded under GFO-15-605. First, 12 out of 21 awarded stations under GFO-15-605 budgeted, on
average, $1.9 million or 18 percent less than the maximum available funding amount of $2.3 million. If all
stations funded in the next solicitation receive $1.9 million, then 10 stations could be funded from the $20
million annual ARFVTP allocation.
Second, the average cost per kilogram of station capacity decreased from $8,689 to $6,409 in two years.
This cost per kilogram of hydrogen capacity for stations funded under GFO-15-605 decreased with
stations that are in many cases double the size of those funded under Program Opportunity Notice (PON)-
13-607. Comparing all previous hydrogen station grant solicitations, the stations funded under GFO-15-
605 can fuel the greatest number of FCEVs per dollar invested. This is another sign that station
development costs are decreasing.
Third, the large volume of applications to GFO-15-605 may indicate that the market for developing and
operating hydrogen stations is strong enough for the Energy Commission to incrementally lower the
maximum available funding amount per station in future solicitations to fund more stations per fiscal
year. With these findings, funding 10 stations per year should be achievable and realistic.
The maps on pages 10-11 confirm all 5 new sites are 181-360kg. so presumably 300+ kg., as are all those previously awarded under this round except Santa Nella.
Figure 5 shows weekly hydrogen dispensing by the main urban regions of the state in which FCEVs are being deployed. A separate category of connector/destination includes the information from the three stations – Coalinga, Santa Barbara, and Truckee – that are outside these regions. The numbers in the figure show the average dispensed hydrogen in kilograms per day in each quarter. In the third quarter of 2017, nearly 1,300 kilograms of hydrogen were dispensed a day on average. Using the average fueling quantity of 3.1 kilograms per fill observed in the same quarter in the existing network, this amount of dispensing equates to filling nearly 420 FCEVs a day. On July 19, 2017, FirstElement Fuel’s network alone sold more than 1,000 kilograms of hydrogen in one day, or enough to fill about 320 FCEVs.
The average fill size is a bit higher than my totally unscientific noting of the typical fill at the closest station to me whenever I happened to ride by, which was around 2.6 - 2.8kg., but I haven't been by for several months. Any increase in the average fill indicates that the station density and/or reliability are increasing enough to make drivers more comfortable about using more of their range between refuelings.
According to the data collected by SOSS, the current network of 31 open retail stations in California had a 92.4 percent uptime for September 2017, on average. This means that the open retail stations were available to provide fuel to customers 92.4 percent of the time in September 2017. Of these stations, FirstElement Fuel operates 18, and it had an average station uptime of 98.5 percent during the same period. Because of the quantity of the stations that FirstElement Fuel operates at high uptime, the strong performance of these stations helps build confidence in the network among FCEV drivers.
One developer awarded under the GFO-15-605 is developing stations with two dispensers and two independent compressor/cooling chains to provide redundancy to its stations in addition to the ability to provide fuel to multiple drivers at the same time. Another set of stations awarded under GFO-15-605 will offer two fueling positions, each with an independent H70 hose allowing simultaneous fueling, in addition to one H35 hose.
Capital Costs of Hydrogen Refueling Stations
According to the budgets for the 21 awarded stations under GFO-15-605, the equipment, design,
engineering, construction, project management, and overhead costs (“all-in costs” include match funding)
for hydrogen refueling stations with delivered gas are nearly $2.5 million for 310 kg/day stations (for
main stations), nearly $4.0 million for 360 kg/day stations (for main stations), and nearly $2.4 million for
a 180/day station (a connector station), as summarized in Figure 17.
The 360 kg/day stations funded under GFO-15-605 provide two independent, redundant compressors,
storage systems, and dispenser systems. This design allows FCEV drivers to refuel even if one dispenser
goes off-line, meaning the station provides redundancy and backup to itself. Although the total cost for
the 360 kg/day stations funded under GFO-15-605 is $4 million, each of these stations is analogous to two
180 kg/day stations for $2 million each, which is a savings compared to the cost of one 180 kg/day station
at $2.4 million. The decreases in station costs are also reflected in the Energy Commission cost per
kilogram of nameplate capacity, as shown in Figure 18.
The Energy Commission plans to release a competitive grant solicitation (GFO-17-602) to fund the
installation of a cost-effective facility in California that will produce 100 percent renewable hydrogen from
in-state renewable resources dedicated for distribution and delivery to public hydrogen refueling stations
that serve light-duty FCEVs. Development of the solicitation included input from stakeholders received at
staff workshops held January 30, 2017, and July 31, 2017, and is targeted for new renewable hydrogen
production with a nameplate capacity of at least 1,000 kilograms per day of 100 percent renewable
hydrogen from feedstocks sourced in California. Electricity costs to operate hydrogen production systems
will comprise a significant portion of the facilities costs, which, in turn, affect the price of hydrogen
charged to FCEV drivers.
Based on the projected fueling capacity of open and planned stations, 5,500 kg/day of renewable
hydrogen will be needed by 2022. This includes the need to meet the 33.3 percent renewable content
intended by SB 1505 for the hydrogen produced for or dispensed by fueling stations that receive state
funds. Some station developers have informed Energy Commission staff that their mission is to dispense
more than the required minimum renewable hydrogen content. Higher hydrogen demand implies there
will be increasing opportunities to produce renewable hydrogen at larger scales, bringing down costs.
Most of the rest is appendices. Appendix B shows cost estimates for various sizes (180, 350, nd 600kg./day of stations experiencing slow or fast growth, and with gaseous (180) or liquid (350, 600) delivery.
Appendix D discusses fueling trends. Page D-1:
The average utilization has increased from just 8.8 percent in Q3 2016 to more than 25.4 percent in Q3
2017. Core markets were also evaluated by excluding connector station data (Coalinga, Truckee, and Santa
Barbara). In these core markets, utilization grew from 9.8 percent in Q3 2016 to 27.7 percent in Q3 2017.
This growth is a key indicator for infrastructure utilization growth and related financial performance. As
more invested capital is used, fixed operating expenses can be spread among greater numbers of
The average fueling quantity has steadily increased from 2.8 kg/fueling in Q3 2016 to 3.1 kg/fueling in Q3
2017. This increase implies that drivers are becoming more comfortable with vehicle range and are able to
better use the available infrastructure coverage.
Max. utilisation is assumed to be 80%, which I imagine conforms to gas station practice. It appears my unscientific local station survey was fairly indicative of the average. Re H2 pricing, page D-2:
The overall price of hydrogen has increased by nearly 7 percent since Q3 2016 – increasing from
$14.93/kg to $15.92/kg. This increase is still not felt by most customers as vehicles on the road still
benefit from “free” fueling provided through auto manufacturer incentives. As such, competition among
stations has yet to materialize in terms of pulling demand from competitors by offering lower hydrogen
prices. The density of hydrogen stations is also relatively sparse, and as such, customers would fuel at the
most convenient location rather than the one offering the most competitive price. As the density of
stations increases and customers begin to pay for fuel out of pocket, competition will increase. This price
pressure will translate throughout the supply chain for hydrogen, yielding opportunities for new producer
market entries as well as for increased volume and competition among existing producers.