California first state to regulate GHGs of ridesharing companies
Volkswagen Group expands production in China; four new factories opened; SUVs and electromobility

CARB preliminarily awards Port of Los Angeles $41M to launch zero-emissions hydrogen-fuel-cell-electric freight project; total cost $83M

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has preliminarily awarded $41 million to the Port of Los Angeles (POLA) for the Zero-Emission and Near Zero-Emission Freight Facilities (ZANZEFF) project. The total project cost for this initial phase is $82,568,872, with partners providing 50.2%, or $41,446,612 in match funding.

CARB issued its solicitation for ZANZEFF projects earlier this year.

The Zero and Near Zero-Emission Freight Facilities project—proposed with support from Toyota, Kenworth, and Shell—provides a large-scale “shore-to-store” plan and a hydrogen fuel-cell-electric technology framework for freight facilities to structure operations for future goods movement.

The initiative will help reduce emissions by 465 metric tons of greenhouse gas and 0.72 weighted tons of NOx, Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) and PM10.

The Zero-Emission and Near Zero-Emission Freight Facilities project is part of California Climate Investments, a statewide initiative that puts billions of Cap-and-Trade dollars to work reducing greenhouse gas emissions, strengthening the economy and improving public health and the environment—particularly in disadvantaged communities.

The Port of Los Angeles will develop the project in several phases, ultimately encompassing initiatives in Southern California, the Central Coast Area, and Merced County. The initial phase is designed to kick-start the leap to a new class of goods movement vehicles, while reducing emissions in designated disadvantaged communities.

The project phases will include:

  • Ten new zero-emissions hydrogen fuel-cell-electric Class 8 on-road trucks on the Kenworth T680 platform will be developed through a collaboration between Kenworth and Toyota to move cargo from the Los Angeles ports throughout the Los Angeles basin, as well as ultimately to inland locations such as Riverside County, the Port of Hueneme, and eventually to Merced. The trucks will be operated by Toyota Logistics Services (4), United Parcel Services (3), Total Transportation Services Inc. (2), and Southern Counties Express (1).

  • Two new large capacity heavy-duty hydrogen fueling stations will be developed by Shell in Wilmington and Ontario, California. The new stations will join three additional stations located at Toyota facilities around Los Angeles to form an integrated, five-station heavy-duty hydrogen fueling network. Together, they will provide multiple sources of hydrogen throughout the region, including over 1 ton of 100% renewable hydrogen per day at the heavy-duty station to be operated by Shell, enabling zero-emissions freight transport. Stations supplied by Air Liquide at Toyota Logistics Services in Long Beach and Toyota Technical Center in Gardena will serve as important research and development locations.

  • Expanded use of zero-emissions technology in off-road and warehouse equipment, including the first two zero-emissions yard tractors to be operated at the Port of Hueneme, as well as the expanded use of zero-emissions forklifts at Toyota’s port warehouse.

The “Shore to Store” project complements the extensive zero-emissions technology that is already under development for testing at Los Angeles terminals through partnership with the California Energy Commission. These investments showcase a clear, at-scale vision of the zero-emissions supply chain of the future and provide a model for a zero-emissions movement of goods.

Review and input on project implementation will be provided by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the South Coast Air Quality Management District.



CARB was criticized because they only had $5 million for EV buses and needed ten times that amount. Here they have more than $80 million for this.


This is a waste of resources and will not reduce greenhouse gases as much as going battery electric. Maybe, fuel cell technology makes sense in the near future for long haul trucking but battery electric is more than sufficient for drainage and local deliveries . Also, as long as California is buying coal fired power, it is hard to argue that fuel cells are cleaner than diesel except that Utah and Nevada have the emissions and not California.



There is not one solution fits all, and batteries are not the answer to everything no matter what the question.
They simply have not got the performance envelope to do the job required here, as they can't mess around charging for hours and even with the CF tanks the system is a lot more energy dense than can be done with batteries.

I don't know what the coal fired plants have to do with it, as these don't use power from them.


Davemart: The hell they do not use coal fired power. As long as they are tied into the grid, they are using power that could be used more efficiently elsewhere and some of this power is coal fired.

For most drayage and other short haul freight, battery electric is more efficient and cheaper and may be cheaper than diesel after all costs are included.



The electricity is not coming from the grid.
There were earlier articles here about Toyota and Toshiba? Building a new biogas facility, from memory for the supply of hydrogen

I am not at home at the moment so do not have the reference to hand, but you can easily look it up.


Toyota and Shell.

See Toyota newsroom


And here is the link to their biogas generation on this website:

sd - you commented on it!
It ain't coal fired


So I was wrong last year.  They're not gasifying the waste stream, they're fermenting it.  This means they have another waste stream from the fermenter which has to be treated somehow.  Drying it will be both stinky and expen$ive while wet aerobic treatment will take energy for pumps, especially air pumps.

Nothing mentions how much feedstock the system requires.  I found this piece on ResearchGate which goes into the biogas yield of kitchen waste, but the applicability to farm waste is not obvious.

None of the articles or press releases mention either the specific source(s) of the biomass, the distance it must be transported or the transport method.  How much of this "renewable" energy product is either powered by diesel trucks, or will be consumed in running the system?  This issue is crucial, but not mentioned.

Given these blatant omissions, I repeat my earlier conclusion:  greenwash.


Biogas may not be the cleanest feedstock to produce clean H2.

New highly efficient electrolysers fed with clean REs could be superior but wastes would still have to be treated? Using wastes to create bio fuels is even worst.



You almost need to be a lawyer to read the fine print but upon careful rereading the article, I found this line:

"Together, they will provide multiple sources of hydrogen throughout the region, including over 1 ton of 100% renewable hydrogen per day at the heavy-duty station to be operated by Shell..."

My interpretation of this is that not all of the hydrogen is 100% renewable (whatever that might mean). If any electric power is being used and it almost certainly is being used, it is tied to the grid. From the other previous article your referenced, I did indeed make several comments. One was to comment on how little the total amount of power was and the other was to state that it is not easy to transport hydrogen as it must either be compressed to very high pressures or liquified, both of which require considerable energy input. And from the previous article, if they are using biogas, they would be easier to use it as methane or CNG in an internal combustion engine or just add it to the natural gas pipeline.

I think that our goals are the same but the problem with fuel cells is that there is no easy source of hydrogen. Somehow you have to make it and the overall efficiency of making hydrogen and converting it back to electricity is less that using batteries as an energy storage mechanism (something like 25% to 40% compared to 80%). And if you really had a lot of excess renewable energy, pumped storage hydro will get you about 80% round trip efficiency. In addition, battery electric is less complicated and cost less.

Anyway, I will stand with EP and agree that this is just Toyota "greenwash".


Good catch, sd.



That is a weird accusation to make against Toyota, who are one of the very few companies which do carbon and energy impact calculations for all of their production, including that of all of their suppliers.

And the grants they have got are on the basis that the hydrogen is to be 100% renewably supplied.

It is from their Tri-Gen facility which they are constructing:

'Toyota Motor North America Inc. said it plans to build a large power generating facility that will convert agricultural waste from California's farms to water, electricity and hydrogen to support its operations at the Port of Long Beach.

Toyota (NYSE: TM) said the Tri-Gen facility will be the world's first megawatt-scale carbonate fuel cell power generation plant and hydrogen fueling station. When it comes online in 2020, it will generate roughly 2.35 megawatts of electricity and 1.2 tons of hydrogen per day, enough to power the equivalent of about 2,350 average-sized homes and meet the daily driving needs of nearly 1,500 vehicles.

In addition, the power generation facility will be 100 percent renewable, supplying Toyota Logistics Services' operations at the port and making it the first Toyota facility in North America to use 100 percent renewable power.
"For more than 20 years, Toyota has been leading the development of fuel cell technology because we understand the tremendous potential to reduce emissions and improve society," Doug Murtha, group vice president for strategic planning, said in a statement.

Murtha said Tri-Gen is a major step forward for sustainable mobility and the company’s goal to achieve net zero CO2 emissions from its operations by 2050.

The facility will supply all Toyota fuel cell vehicles moving through the port, including new deliveries of the Mirai sedan and Toyota's heavy duty hydrogen fuel cell class 8 truck, known as Project Portal.

To support these refueling operations, Toyota said it also built one of the largest hydrogen fueling stations in the world on-site with the help of Air Liquide.'

Note that it is a 'Tri-Gen' facility, so produces its own electricity to power operations.

It is not Toyota which has a reputation for greenwashing and overstating its capabilities.


Flow diagram and video here:

They state in the video quite clearly and categorically that the hydrogen produced will be more than 100% of what Toyota need at the port facility.

And the electricity is clearly also generated renewably on site.

Reasonable skepticism is one thing, but Sheesh!


Anti clean H2 economy/technology posters don't want to admit that batteries are not yet performant enough (too heavy, too large, limited storage, very slow charge etc) for many all weather extended range vehicles, such as, VUS, large pick-ups, trucks, buses, trains, ships etc.

Affordable batteries with 5X to 10X performance and very quick recharge (5 minutes) with clean e-energy are required to compete with FCs. They may not be around for another 10-15-20 years.


Here is the Toyota strategic framework for emissions reduction, GHG and sustainability:

For years they are their suppliers have worked to a quantified and measured structure, and have consistently and demonstrably reduced inputs and cleaned output.

The only other company I am aware of with a comparable structure is BMW

Perhaps critics would clarify and be specific about where in this program Toyota have acted fraudulently or presented false figures, as I am not aware of such actions.

It is easy to sling mud, but inappropriate when it is the company which spent years and huge amounts of money developing hybrids and electrification in transport, and are now attempting the same through FCEVs.

Now maybe they are mistaken in their approach.
That is not the same as the allegation that they are fraudulently misrepresenting what they are doing.

If they are wrong, they are sincere in it, and are backing it up with massive effort and substantial resources.

Flow diagram and video here:

Still nothing about quantities required or effluent produced (and how treated), and "dairy waste" (presumably manure) and waste water are not exactly cheap to transport in bulk.  At least the MSW fraction and waste water have the potential to be sourced locally from Long Beach.

If they are wrong, they are sincere in it

I think you underestimate the grants and tax credits available for hydrogen stuff, and as this piece proves there is a lot of PR value with the credulous public.

Reasonable skepticism is one thing, but Sheesh!

Given the long history of greenwashing, we have to hold everyone's feet to the fire.  They've been playing us for 40 years and it's time to force them to stop.  I do have to give Toyota credit for pushing on with hybrids after Washington killed the PNGV, but I have to wonder how much of that was driven by Japanese government policy.


'Still nothing about quantities required or effluent produced (and how treated), and "dairy waste" (presumably manure) and waste water are not exactly cheap to transport in bulk. '

The flow diagram is perfectly explicit.

The biogas is generated at the point of use, and presumably piped to the Tri-Gen plant, so there is no bulk transport of materials involved.

And it is hardly to be expected that they would in this press release describe in detail all the arrangements for effluents at the dairy farms, waste water treatment plants and so on, as this is an overview, not a full technical paper.

What it apparent and Toyota are utterly explicit about in their sustainability publications is that ALL the inputs and outputs from their systems are evaluated.

That they have not gone into that level of detail in the PR release is entirely to be expected, but the environmental impact statements of for instance, waste handling from dairy farms have to be filed and so most certainly have been considered.

The biogas is generated at the point of use, and presumably piped to the Tri-Gen plant, so there is no bulk transport of materials involved.

The point of use is the POLA.  That's definitely a long way from the dairy farm.  Do you think the cows are going to stroll over to the port to do their business, and then stroll back to be milked?  Having toured a dairy barn once, that idea is pretty funny to me.

this is an overview, not a full technical paper.

I looked for links to technical papers or any other information at all.  I didn't see any.

environmental impact statements of for instance, waste handling from dairy farms have to be filed and so most certainly have been considered.

Why should I have to dig those things up?  If Toyota is so proud of its eco-work, it would have them as copies or hyperlinks in a list of references somewhere prominent.  The press release DOES have a link to a high-res picture of the truck, though.

What it apparent and Toyota are utterly explicit about in their sustainability publications is that ALL the inputs and outputs from their systems are evaluated.

It would be nice if I could depend on that being true, but I've lost my credulity for things that have the smell of greenwash on them and don't come with the technical data to show me that they're anything more than that.


The American system of vast feed lots for cattle is likely to mean that they will be in closer proximity to towns than would otherwise be the case,

But of course without the names and addresses of the farms some will apply 100% discount to the likelihood of anything they don't fancy.


The meat-packing plants are mostly in rural states like Nebraska, Kansas and Texas.  It's closer to the grazing lands, it's cheaper to house a low-wage workforce, and shipping carcasses or packaged cuts of meat is easier and cheaper than moving live cattle.

The page specifies a dairy as one of the sources of biomass so it's definitely not a meat-packing operation.

That still leaves open the questions of (a) how far this dairy waste has to travel, and (b) how the transportation energy is accounted for.  Wet manure doesn't exactly get shipped long distances for its fuel value under normal circumstances.


Our family has been driving a mix of Toyota ICEVs and HEVs and PHEVs for the last 35+ years and have never been disappointed. Our last Big-3 huge ICEV was bought 28 years ago and changed for a Toyota Camry 2 years latter.

Those Toyotas last 15 to 20 years and are passed from one generation to the next.

We will try their FCEVs (or FCPHEVs) as soon as enough local H2 stations are installed.

Account Deleted

I really don't have a dog in this hunt, but here is what I know.
. . . .
Yes, the BioGas is from Dairy waste btw Dairy is CA’s #1 crop. It comes from the San Joaquin Valley over 100 miles north of the Port of Los Angeles .
Reference: and
. . . .
The Heavy-Duty Hydrogen Vehicle Fueling Station to be built by Shell Oil will use pipeline gas.
"Leveraging previous experience in demonstrating and operating a Tri-Generation (Tri Gen) fuel cell technology for three years at the Orange County Sanitation District in
Fountain Valley, FuelCell Energy will, under a separate project, construct and operate a new Tri-Gen system using bio-waste gas sourced from California agricultural waste to generate water, electricity and hydrogen. The renewable biogas produced from the instate resource will be injected into the natural gas infrastructure. The same amount of gas injected into the pipeline will then be extracted from the pipeline onsite at the
Toyota facility at the POLB."
Reference: and
. . . .
Finally, BYD has delivered a battery-electric Class 8 truck was grant-funded by the California Air Resources Board to the Port of Oakland.


Yeah, gryf, it just occurred to me that some kind of gas-exchange scheme was probably in use here.  It's all backed by fossil fuels and the fossil infrastructure.  In other words, greenwash.

The comments to this entry are closed.