Committee discusses renewable backup for water treatment and hydrogen storage options

Speaker 2 and Speaker 1 met to review design priorities for a proposed water and wastewater treatment project and to consider options for renewable backup power and hydrogen storage. Speaker 2 pushed for integrating renewable backup into the treatment design, saying the committee should "fold in" backup generation as part of the build. Speaker 1 said the city is applying for technical-assistance support and that "there's money in the budget for the design, so they know that," but progress depends on whether the council will authorize the city to take on debt in a May ballot measure so it can use DEQ SRF loan programs with principal forgiveness.

Why it matters: committee members said backup generation and hydrogen storage could let municipal facilities keep running during extended outages and possibly produce excess energy or hydrogen to sell. The discussion covered funding constraints, vendor options, safety and storage sizing, and whether the city should operate hydrogen production as a utility, a limited municipal service, or leave it to private firms.

Key facts: the committee discussed using a mix of wind and solar to produce hydrogen, storing supply in high-pressure tanks, and sizing generation to match anticipated demand. Speaker 2 noted example system sizing: a 20-kilowatt generation capacity tied to an electrolyzer in a single container could serve as a replenishing source for backup, while larger arrays (e.g., two 20-kW units) would generate more hydrogen. On storage, Speaker 2 identified Steelhead as a tank vendor and described tanks roughly 3–7 feet tall and 14 inches in diameter, with working pressures noted "over 3,000" psi in the discussion.

Technical and policy tradeoffs: committee members flagged technical constraints such as pump startup current for wastewater facilities, which requires high inrush current and affects backup generation design. They debated planning horizons for emergency supply, with Speaker 2 saying the group is "looking at 2 weeks supply" as a baseline favored by emergency-preparedness guidance but acknowledging that 4–6 weeks would increase costs and security needs. Members also raised market and regulatory concerns about the city selling hydrogen or electricity into local markets and the possibility of competing with incumbent utilities.

Quotes from the meeting: Speaker 1 said, "There's money in the budget for the design, so they know that." Speaker 2 argued the committee could "do a 20 kilowatt instead of a 10 or 2 twenties and have 40 kilowatts and generate more ... hydrogen." On planning for emergencies, Speaker 2 stated, "Well, we're looking at 2 weeks supply." The meeting included technical detail about storage (Steelhead tanks) and generation sizing driven by capacity-factor assumptions.

Next steps and context: Speaker 1 said they are closing out current planning and quarterly reporting for an earlier grant round and that consulting work will be needed for detailed engineering when the design advances. The committee discussed sharing training links for state workshops and coordinating with the city engineer for input. No formal vote on a project plan occurred at this meeting; the group approved the prior meeting minutes and agreed to continue developing technical calculations and grant strategies.