Bloom Energy Has a Pattern of Downplaying Toxic Waste

In 2013, Bloom Energy hired a Texas waste contractor called Unicat Catalyst Technologies to service its fuel cell canisters. Bloom told Unicat the contents were "nonhazardous and could be dumped at any public landfill." Before taking a shipment to the landfill, Unicat tested the canisters. They contained benzene.

Unicat Services LLC v. Bloom Energy Corporation, Case No. 3:16-cv-00032, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas. Settled confidentially, November 2017.

LANSING, Mich. — If the Deep Green data center is approved, Bloom Energy (NYSE: BE) would supply and operate the 16 MW solid oxide fuel cell facility that provides two-thirds of the project's power. The company was not named publicly until January 2026, three months after the project was announced. BWL General Manager Dick Peffley declined to identify the fuel cell company at the November 6, 2025 Committee of the Whole, citing an NDA. Bloom's role as the facility's operator was not disclosed until approximately March 2026.

On March 22, one day before the Deep Green public hearing, Bloom Vice President Marisa Blackshire emailed the full City Council a two-page letter responding to concerns raised by Council Member Deyanira Nevarez Martinez on a local podcast. Blackshire wrote that fuel cells "do not contain, require the storage of, or generate any toxic chemicals." On March 23, she flew in from Bloom's San Jose headquarters to testify in person. In 2013, Bloom told a waste contractor the same thing. The contractor tested the canisters and found benzene. The EPA later fined Bloom $1.16 million for hazardous waste violations covering 2015 through 2019.

Who Is Marisa Blackshire

Blackshire is an environmental attorney (University of California Santa Barbara, Southwestern Law School) who previously practiced at Alston & Bird LLP in Los Angeles and served as general counsel at BNSF Railway before joining Bloom Energy. She leads Bloom's environmental compliance and health and safety programs and sits on the board of directors of the Environmental Law Institute. She is active in California regulatory proceedings before the CPUC and CARB on behalf of Bloom, and was named among the 100 Women of Influence by Silicon Valley Business Journal.

A California Bar complaint alleged Blackshire submitted understated emissions figures to Delaware regulators on behalf of Bloom, making the fuel cells appear cleaner than they are. The Bar declined to investigate. The pattern is broader than one complaint: NBC Bay Area found that Bloom quietly revised its emissions numbers on its own website after investigators documented a gap between what Bloom claimed and what the fuel cells actually produced, and a University of Delaware study concluded Bloom overstated fuel cell efficiency by up to 20%.

A History of False Claims

Before evaluating what Blackshire told Lansing, it is worth understanding who the council is dealing with. Bloom Energy's environmental and financial record, compiled from EPA enforcement actions, federal court filings, SEC disclosures, state regulatory proceedings, and independent research:

Bloom also lobbied to exempt fuel cells from San Jose's natural gas ban, with exemption language written by Bloom added "almost verbatim" to the ordinance. A University of Delaware study concluded Bloom overstated fuel cell efficiency by up to 20%. Bloom's fuel cells emit 90 times more volatile organic compounds per day than a combined-cycle natural gas plant.

What Blackshire Told Lansing

False "Fuel cells do not contain, require the storage of, or generate any toxic chemicals."

Blackshire, written letter to Council, March 22, 2026

The EPA has designated Bloom Energy as a Large Quantity Generator of hazardous waste, a classification that requires generating more than 2,200 pounds of hazardous waste per month. The waste includes benzene (EPA code D018), chromium (D007), lead (D008), and ignitable waste (D001), per Bloom's own EPA filings documented in Hindenburg Research's 2019 report. The EPA fined Bloom $1.16 million in December 2020 for failing to prepare hazardous waste manifests for hundreds of shipments from its Newark, Delaware facility, covering 258 shipments from 2015 through 2019, including 225 to a non-permitted receiving facility.

This is not the first time Bloom has characterized its waste as safe. In 2013, Bloom told Unicat Catalyst Technologies that canister contents were "nonhazardous and could be dumped at any public landfill." Unicat tested the canisters and found benzene. Bloom employees were photographed wearing respirators while handling 55-gallon drums during canister emptying. Unicat sued in federal court (S.D. Tex., Case No. 3:16-cv-00032) for fraud and deceptive trade practices. The case settled confidentially in November 2017.

Misleading Desulfurization canisters are "Excluded Recyclable Material" and "not hazardous waste."

Blackshire, written letter, March 22

Blackshire wrote that spent desulfurization canisters are "labeled as Excluded Recyclable Material and shipped on a Bill of Lading to our recycler in Indiana. The canisters are not hazardous waste and, as such, no EPA ID number or permitting is required." The canisters contain copper catalyst material that captures sulfur compounds including mercaptans from the natural gas feed and require replacement every 15 to 36 months. Whether this classification applies to the Lansing installation depends on the specific chemicals and quantities generated at this site. No site-specific waste characterization has been presented to the council. Bloom ships hazardous waste from its Delaware facility to Indiana for disposal (Hindenburg Research, 2019).

Misleading Fuel cells have "virtually no impact on the local environment."

Blackshire, written letter, March 22

Bloom was sued for dumping benzene into community wastewater in Sunnyvale, California (California DTSC records). Santa Clara restricted new Bloom natural gas installations. Bloom's fuel cells emit 90 times more volatile organic compounds per day than a combined-cycle natural gas plant. A University of Delaware climatology professor wrote that "Delaware pretends that Bloom's fuel cells are green, renewable energy, when, in reality, they emit more carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour than a combined cycle natural gas plant" (A Better Delaware, January 2025).

Unverified "Bloom systems powered New York City Hall for 10 years."

Blackshire, written letter, March 22

A Hill International project page for the NYC City Hall renovation (2011-2014) confirms "Bloom Boxes" were part of the building's sustainable upgrades. However, no Bloom Energy press release, case study, customer page, SEC filing, or independent news source confirms 10 years of continuous operation. Bloom prominently markets its installations at Morgan Stanley, SUNY Downstate, and Fordham University in New York, but makes no mention of City Hall. Given that Hindenburg Research documented a median fuel cell stack lifespan of 34 months, 10 continuous years would require multiple full server replacements. Blackshire used past tense ("powered"), suggesting the system is no longer active.

Misleading Fuel cells "reduce carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 50%."

Matt Craggs, Deep Green CTO, March 23 testimony

Craggs said this comparison was "calculated based on the EPA's eGrid database comparing fuel, solid oxide fuel cells to the MISO non-baseload marginal generation unit," which is the dirtiest power on the regional grid. Ninety-one percent of Bloom fuel cells worldwide run on natural gas. After degradation, they emit over 825 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour, compared to 896 for a conventional gas plant. The actual gap is less than 8%. Engineer Jerry Norris testified at the same meeting that methane fuel cells still produce 60 to 70 percent of the CO2 that direct combustion would.

Misleading The fuel cell facility would operate reliably for a 20-year BWL contract.

Implied by Deep Green and Bloom presentations

Hindenburg Research documented in 2019 that post-2017 Bloom fuel cell stacks had a median lifespan of 34 months. Bloom's Delaware installation was decommissioned after approximately seven years, against an expected lifespan of 15 to 21 years. At an estimated capital cost of $7,000 to $8,000 per kilowatt, 16 MW of fuel cells cost $112 million to $128 million. Under the proposed contract, BWL would own the fuel cells. If cells require replacement every three to seven years rather than every 15 to 21, the replacement cost over a 20-year contract would be borne by BWL, funded by Lansing ratepayers. Bloom restated its financials for the 18-month period surrounding its IPO, acknowledging "material misstatements" in its SEC filings.

What the Council Has Not Been Given

• The Bloom service contract with BWL (defines performance guarantees, waste handling, replacement triggers, and cost allocation)
• A site-specific waste characterization for the Lansing installation
• An independent assessment of fuel cell lifespan or replacement costs over the 20-year contract
• Any acknowledgment of the $1.16 million EPA fine, the benzene lawsuit, or the Large Quantity Generator designation

Three States, Three Reversals

Delaware State Rep. John Kowalko, who voted for the original Bloom subsidy package, called it his "most regrettable vote": "I am partially responsible for putting us there. And I don't feel very comfortable acknowledging that, but I have to, it's my responsibility." Bloom received over $580 million in public subsidies in Delaware, promised 1,500 jobs and delivered under 800, and restated 18 months of financials surrounding its IPO, acknowledging "material misstatements" in its SEC filings.

The person responsible for Bloom's environmental compliance wrote to the Lansing City Council that fuel cells generate no toxic chemicals, while the EPA classifies Bloom as generating more than 2,200 pounds of hazardous waste per month. If this is what Bloom is willing to put in writing, what are they leaving out?