Rethinking green hydrogen certification: Why Australia’s debate matters globally

As the world races to decarbonise hard-to-abate sectors such as steel, fertilisers and eventually aviation through e-fuels, green hydrogen has emerged as a critical solution. 

Backed by billions in public investment and ambitious national strategies – from the EU’s REPowerEU plan to the United States’ Inflation Reduction Act – hydrogen made from renewable electricity is now seen as a cornerstone of the global clean energy transition.

But there’s one pressing problem – we still can’t agree on what makes hydrogen truly “green”.

What defines truly green hydrogen?

A new study published in the Journal of Cleaner Production examines this issue in detail. While grounded in Australian conditions, its findings speak directly to the global debate on certification standards, emissions accounting, and the future credibility of clean hydrogen. 

It uses a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach to evaluate the carbon intensity of renewable hydrogen produced within Australia’s National Electricity Market (NEM). 

At the heart of the discussion are three pillars of most emerging certification frameworks, designed to ensure that certified green hydrogen delivers genuine emissions reductions. To qualify as low-carbon, hydrogen production must satisfy these criteria:

• Time-matching – ensuring hydrogen is made when renewable electricity is actually available

• Geographic correlation – sourcing power from the same region where hydrogen is produced

• Additionality – proving that the renewables used are “new” and wouldn’t have existed otherwise.

These pillars are designed to ensure that hydrogen is genuinely powered by new renewable electricity, rather than simply drawing from a grid still reliant on fossil fuels.

The study focuses on the first two principles – time-matching and geographic correlation. It found they can deliver emissions reductions, but not without trade-offs. The third pillar, additionality, was excluded from the scope, as its evaluation lies more in the realm of policy and market design than LCA.

Real-time matching of hydrogen production with renewable generation can essentially eliminate grid (Scope 2) emissions. However, achieving time-based matching requires flexible operation and significantly oversized plant capacity, leading to higher capital costs, as well as increased embodied emissions in infrastructure – a factor not yet regulated under any certification scheme. 

Likewise, strict geographic correlation can limit access to cleaner electricity and hinder opportunities for grid-wide optimisation, particularly in large, spatially-diverse grids such as the NEM.

Trade-offs in certification scheme design

These findings point to a broader global tension – the conflict between regulatory rigour and practical feasibility. 

Designing certification schemes involves several trade-offs: balancing environmental integrity with the need to scale industry; ensuring measurement accuracy without imposing excessive administrative burden; and enabling system-wide optimisation rather than incentivising site-level strategies that maximise returns or minimise emissions in isolation.

Read more: Resolving the hydrogen measurement challenge

In the Australian context, the study exposes a critical gap in green hydrogen certification – the failure to account for embodied emissions in infrastructure. As grid emissions decline with the growing share of renewables, upstream emissions, much of them embedded in global supply chains, will become increasingly significant. 

This oversight isn’t unique to Australia – similar gaps exist in European, Asian and North American schemes, underscoring the need to incorporate life cycle-based certification frameworks.

Risk of misaligned hydrogen certification schemes

This divergence raises concerns about market alignment. Prospective hydrogen exporters such as Australia, Chile, and the Gulf states must navigate a patchwork of certification standards imposed by major importers. 

If our certification schemes diverge too far from those of key trading partners, or fail to reflect the realities of our grid and geography, Australia’s projects risk being locked out of premium export markets. 

Worse, we risk setting standards that are either too weak to inspire confidence – or too rigid to be workable.

Ultimately, hydrogen and its derivatives will be essential to replacing fossil fuels across certain “hard-to-electrify” sectors. If that hydrogen is to be genuinely green, certification schemes must strike a delicate balance – rigorous enough to avoid greenwashing and uphold credibility, yet flexible enough to enable practical deployment. 

Opportunity to shape global hydrogen norms

As the Australian research makes clear, this is not just a domestic design challenge – it’s a global imperative.

What the Australian study reminds us is that hydrogen certification is not just a box-ticking exercise. It’s a design challenge with far-reaching climate, trade and investment consequences. 

And Australia – home to vast renewable potential and some of the world’s most ambitious hydrogen plans – has a chance to help shape global norms.