VlcMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
-rom:
>ent:
ro:
:c:
iubject:
Victor Caballero <
Monday, May 18, 2026 10:25 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Hampton, Ty ran
Agenda Item 7 May 18, 2026
ill. ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content s safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" 3n the DolT portal.
Vlay 18, 2026
Vlayor Victor M. Gordo and Pasadena City Council Members Pasadena City Hall LOO N. Garfield Avenue
3asadena,CA 91101
iUBJECT: Opposition to the Pasadena Hydrogen Bus Procurement and Infrastructure Investment Dear Mayor Gordo and City Council Members,
am writing as a Pasadena resident and property owner to strongly urge the City Council to halt its current trajectory regarding the procurement of hydrogen fuel cell electric buses (FCEBs) and the associated fueling infrastructure. The proposed $150.7 million project, including the $32 million authorization for 17 hydrogen buses and the looming construction of the Transit 3perations and Maintenance Facility and fueling station, represents a massive and ill-advised gamble with public funds.
Hydrogen for public transportation makes neither economic nor environmental sense, and continuing down this path threatens to drain city resources and lock us into an inefficient technology for decades. recognize that the Department of Transportation (DOT) has secured significant grant funding for this transition. However, allowing the fear of losing grants to drive long-term infrastructure decisions is a sunk-cost fallacy. A bad investment is a bad investment, even if heavily subsidized initially.
1. The Illusion of "Green" Hydrogen and Environmental Claims The DOT'S promises of "green" hydrogen integration are highly speculative. The current reality is that the vast majority of commercially available hydrogen is "gray" hydrogen, derived from natural gas. Investing heavily in hydrogen infrastructure right now is essentially an investment in fossil fuels, contradicting our :ity's climate goals. The recent collapse of major regional green hydrogen projects, like the stalled ARCHES hub, underscores how uncertain the future supply of affordable, truly green hydrogen is. We cannot base a ?150 million municipal project on hope. Furthermore, producing, transporting; and storing hydrogen is inherently inefficient :ompared to direct electrification. A battery-electric bus converts electricity to motion at 70-80% efficiency; a hydrogen fuel cell wastes significant amounts of that energy, with round-trip efficiency closer to 30-45%.
2. Facilities, Costs, and City Resources The financial burden of this project extends far beyond the initial bus purchase. We are looking at a $150.7 million total project cost, requiring massive new facilities like the Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility and a highly complex hydrogen fueling station (currently the subject of a $316,800 contract with Stantec). These are not one- time costs; they represent a long-term commitment to a volatile and expensive fuel source. If the promised cheap, green hydrogen fails to materialize, the city—and by extension, the taxpayers—will be left subsidizing an exorbitant operational budget.
This will inevitably drain resources that could be far better spent on other pressing municipal needs, infrastructure repair, and public utility management.
3. Safety Risks to Residents
The proposed hydrogen fueling station, to be located at 159 S. 05/18/2026
Item 7
;inneloa Avenue, introduces a highly flammable and pressurized gas into our city limits. The logistics of transporting large |uant1ties of hydrogen through residential and commercial areas, and storing it locally, present safety concerns that have not >een adequately addressed.
[. Flawed DOT Promises Regarding Battery-Electric Viability The DOT'S primary defense of hydrogen hinges on the assertion that >attery-electric buses (BEBs) lack the range for Pasadena's longer routes, claiming a need for a 2:1 replacement ratio compared o hydrogen's 1:1. However, this conclusion appears to be based on limited data from a single battery-electric bus procured inder older specifications, and fails to account for the rapid, ongoing advancements in battery technology. Other Southern :alifornia transit agencies—including LA Metro, Long Beach Transit, and Santa Monica's Big Blue Bus—have successfully mplemented robust battery-electric fleets. Are we to believe Pasadena's transit needs are so uniquely demanding that we must lursue a complex, experimental, and less efficient alternative? 'he DOT has stated that shifting to BEBs now would cost an additional >45 million and jeopardize $38 million in grants. But we must weigh that against the long-term operational and environmental ;osts of sticking with hydrogen. The DOT itself has acknowledged that a full plan update emphasizing BEB technology is ;cheduled for 2027. Why are we rushing to lock in 17 hydrogen buses and multi-million dollar fueling infrastructure before this :omprehensive update?
:all to Action:
strongly urge the City Council to:
-lalt the procurement of the 17 hydrogen FCEBs and any further contracts related to the hydrogen fueling station (including the itantec contract).
demand a transparent, ten-year lifecycle cost and emissions analysis comparing the current hydrogen strategy against a nodernized battery-electric strategy, utilizing the latest 2026/2027 battery capability projections, not outdated benchmarks. ^e-evaluate the true environmental cost of the hydrogen supply chain we will be relying on. 'asadena prides itself on forward-thinking, community-centered governance. Let us not become a cautionary tale of nisallocated resources and premature technological lock-in.
Fhank you for your time and service to our city.
Sincerely,
/ictorCaballero
t