News

New rules to phase out gas appliances stoke excitement, anxiety on the Peninsula

Bay Area Air Quality Management District aims to gradually switch homes and businesses to electric water heaters, furnaces

A new all-electric heating, ventilation and air conditioning unit is lifted by a crane during its installation process on the rooftop of the Peninsula Conservation Center in Palo Alto on Jan. 25, 2023. Photo by Magali Gauthier.

When Palo Alto and Menlo Park launched their respective efforts to wean residents off natural gas appliances and promote electrification, both cities treated the switch as a valuable but risky proposition.

In each case, city officials view electrification as a key step on their road to sustainability. Both have adopted rules that require new developments to feature all-electric water heaters and space heaters. At the same time, both opted not to require residents to convert from gas to electric, citing the high costs of replacing equipment and an unreliable electric grid.

These risks took on a new sense of urgency for the region last week, when the Bay Area Air Quality Management District adopted new regulations that will make the region the first in the nation to ban sales and installation of new gas appliances. After a debate that featured hundreds of written and oral comments, the district's board of directors voted 20-0, with one abstention, to amend its regulations so that gas-fueled appliances will be phased out in the district's jurisdictions, which includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Napa counties as well as portions of southwestern Solano and southern Sonoma counties.

The new policy takes aim at oxides of nitrogen (NOx), pollutants that are a byproduct of combustion and that according to district officials cause harm to both air quality and health. They also react with other airborne chemicals to form fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) and ozone, according to air district staff. Both of these pollutants are harmful when inhaled, a report from the air district states. Staff estimate that the policy could reduce NOx emissions reductions by 3,236 tons per year.

Phil Martien, director of the district's assessment inventory and modeling division, said that reducing emissions of fine particulate matter would bring significant health benefits, particularly to areas like east San Francisco, cities in the east bay and parts of San Jose. He noted that these areas also have highest concentrations of people of color and that these populations would benefit most from the proposed policy.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

"We're talking about particles here that are smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter," Martien told the board at the March 15 meeting. "They can penetrate deeply into lungs and even cross the air-blood boundary to cause a long list of health impacts, including premature mortality."

For supporters of the new policy, the health benefits are paramount. The air district estimates that reductions in secondary PM2.5, which result from chemical reactions with other NOx, would avoid an estimated 23 to 52 deaths per year and about 71 new cases of asthma per year, according to a report from Executive Officer Philip Fine. When one includes primary PM2.5, which are directly emitted by the appliances, the policy is projected to avoid an estimated 37 to 85 premature deaths per year and about 110 new cases of asthma each year and save between $400 million and $890 million in health care costs.

Palo Alto City Council member Vicki Veenker. Embarcadero Media file photo by Magali Gauthier.

Palo Alto City Council member Vicki Veenker, who represents Santa Clara County on the air district's board, said in an interview that she was excited to vote for the new policy, citing its health and environmental benefits. She said she was particularly persuaded by the physicians and middle-school students who testified about the health impacts of pollution.

"Being able to reduce the costs on the system is huge," Veenker told this news organization. "But to also have the co-benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and aligning with our climate goals is a win-win. There are countervailing concerns, but those concerns aren't reasons not to do it. Those are reasons to make sure we do it well."

San Mateo County Supervisor Ray Mueller, a former Menlo Park City Council member, had a different outlook. As the only member of the air district board who abstained, Mueller cited the high impact that the new rules would have on consumers, particularly those who do not qualify for financial assistance when they need to replace a furnace or a water heater.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

"We're going to be first in the nation, but this agency has never done that to the consumer before," Mueller said at the hearing. "And that's something we have to go ahead and be honest about too."

San Mateo County Supervisor Ray Mueller. Embarcadero Media file photo by Magali Gauthier.

Like Veenker, Mueller said he wants to see the transition to electric appliances happen. But he argued that the proposed timeline is too ambitious and that the air district policy fails to consider the cost of the conversion, the current lack of financing and the current shortage of electric appliances.

"Candidly, what I think is missing from this discussion is the fact that there is a middle class out there right now that is really hurting. Inflation is killing them," Mueller said. "There are people who make a decent income, who are mortgaged, who are trying to figure out how to put their kids through college and I don't hear a discussion about them here."

For supporters and critics alike, a major wild card in the new policy is PG&E. Everyone agrees that without a reliable grid, any conversion to electrification would be a risky proposition, and PG&E's track record in recent months has given residents few reasons to feel confident. Mueller said he would support new laws that would require PG&E to improve reliability of its electric infrastructure.

Mueller noted that PG&E has made it clear that it will not prioritize the Bay Area for moving electric lines underground. In a region where trees topple on power lines with regular frequency, the idea of making people more reliant on electricity is "very concerning," he said.

Most Viewed Stories

Most Viewed Stories

Numerous residents also told the board that they were worried that the rule change would increase their risk of losing power and having no access to heat or hot water for extended periods of time. Los Altos resident Mabry Tyson, who lost power during last week's storms, said the new policy would make life difficult during the winter months, when power outages occur with greater frequency.

"Don't force us to jump onto a new horse unless you know that horse doesn't have brittle legs," Tyson said.

While air district staff believe that more equipment will become available by 2027, Mueller and other critics of the rule change maintained that the timeline remains too ambitious. Under the newly adopted regulations, water heaters and boilers with capacity under 75,000 British Thermal Unit (BTU)/hour, which are typical in single-family residences, will be the first to go. As of Jan. 1, 2027, they will no longer be sold in the Bay Area under the new regulations. The ban would extend to natural-gas furnaces starting on Jan. 1, 2029. And in 2031, it would encompass all water heaters and boilers with more than 75,000 BTU/hour, which are typical in multifamily complexes and commercial buildings.

For comparison, Mueller pointed to Tesla, which he noted was founded in 2002 and produced its first car in 2008.

"We still haven't seen full saturation of the market and we still don't have the infrastructure to support all those cars," Mueller said at the hearing.

Others shared his concern. The Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), an industry group that represents manufacturers, took issue with the cost estimates that the air district provided for new heat pump equipment and noted the switch could be far more expensive if it requires upgrades to electric panels. The group pegged the average price for a water heater replacement in the Bay Area at $8,577 and for heat pumps at $22,745. The group recommended that the air district adopt an alternative that move the compliance date for all appliances until 2035.

'Don't force us to jump onto a new horse unless you know that horse doesn't have brittle legs.'

-Mabry Tyson, Los Altos resident, on new policy that bans sales and installation of new gas appliances

Kyle Bergeron, the group's senior regulatory engineer, noted in a letter that upgrades usually occur when an existing appliance fails. If the house needs a panel upgrade to accommodate a zero-NOx solution, it could go without space- or water heating for several days if not weeks, he wrote.

"If such an event were to happen during a cold snap, there could be significant concern for the health and safety of the occupant(s)," Bergeron wrote. "The District needs to consider solutions to the emergency replacement issue, including proactive replacement programs, such that the impact of proposed Rules 9-1 and 9-6 does not compromise safe and reliable access to services."

The district, for its part, plans to address the issue of grid uncertainty by creating an Implementation Working Group composed of 35 stakeholders, including PG&E, that will provide regular updates to the air district board about market availability and technical aspects of the transition.

Air district staff acknowledged in their report that zero-NOx space and water heating technologies are currently limited in availability and could be expensive to install in existing buildings. The district projects that availability will increase and costs will drop in the coming years, and it plans to perform interim reports before the policy kicks in to evaluate the availability of such equipment. As part of the reporting process, the district will consider "relevant market changes and ensure equitable outcomes in the implementation of the proposed standards," the report from district staff states.

Some proponents have suggested that the new rule change could boost the supply of zero-emission equipment by making it clear to manufacturers that there will be a market for the new technology. Debbie Mytels, a Palo Alto resident who serves as chair of Peninsula Interfaith Climate Action, a coalition of 35 congregations with "green teams," urged the air board last week to move ahead with the new rules.

"It would be wonderful if you give a signal to the manufacturing community that we should go ahead and start creating many more opportunities for people to change their heating system and create the clean air that we all need to breathe," Mytels said.

Even before the rule change, Peninsula cities have been carefully tracking the development of zero-emission technologies. Menlo Park already requires electric space heaters and hot water heaters in new construction, a law that took effect in January 2020. To date, however, the council has not mandated electrification in existing buildings, opting to instead rely on outreach, education and financial assistance for low-income residents.

Palo Alto has also adopted an electric-only requirement for water and space heating in new developments. The city also launched a new program this year that aims to convert 1,000 customers to heat pump water heaters this year through a streamlined approval process and on-bill financing that allows them to spread out payments for the new appliance. The program is off to a promising start, with 421 customers opting into it as of Tuesday, according to city staff.

These local efforts, Veenker said, will help local cities prepare for the air district's new rules once they start taking effect in 2027. She said in an interview that believes the air district's approach already takes into consideration the many challenges of electrification by incorporating interim reports, the implementation group and a timeline that prioritizes technologies that are more readily available and require less power.

"By the time these rules kick in regionally, our residents will be able to have a smooth transition and hopefully we'll be a model for other cities too," Veenker said.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now
Gennady Sheyner
 
Gennady Sheyner covers the City Hall beat in Palo Alto as well as regional politics, with a special focus on housing and transportation. Before joining the Palo Alto Weekly/PaloAltoOnline.com in 2008, he covered breaking news and local politics for the Waterbury Republican-American, a daily newspaper in Connecticut. Read more >>

Follow on Twitter @almanacnews, Facebook and on Instagram @almanacnews for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Stay informed on important city government news. Sign up for our FREE daily Express newsletter.

New rules to phase out gas appliances stoke excitement, anxiety on the Peninsula

Bay Area Air Quality Management District aims to gradually switch homes and businesses to electric water heaters, furnaces

When Palo Alto and Menlo Park launched their respective efforts to wean residents off natural gas appliances and promote electrification, both cities treated the switch as a valuable but risky proposition.

In each case, city officials view electrification as a key step on their road to sustainability. Both have adopted rules that require new developments to feature all-electric water heaters and space heaters. At the same time, both opted not to require residents to convert from gas to electric, citing the high costs of replacing equipment and an unreliable electric grid.

These risks took on a new sense of urgency for the region last week, when the Bay Area Air Quality Management District adopted new regulations that will make the region the first in the nation to ban sales and installation of new gas appliances. After a debate that featured hundreds of written and oral comments, the district's board of directors voted 20-0, with one abstention, to amend its regulations so that gas-fueled appliances will be phased out in the district's jurisdictions, which includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Napa counties as well as portions of southwestern Solano and southern Sonoma counties.

The new policy takes aim at oxides of nitrogen (NOx), pollutants that are a byproduct of combustion and that according to district officials cause harm to both air quality and health. They also react with other airborne chemicals to form fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) and ozone, according to air district staff. Both of these pollutants are harmful when inhaled, a report from the air district states. Staff estimate that the policy could reduce NOx emissions reductions by 3,236 tons per year.

Phil Martien, director of the district's assessment inventory and modeling division, said that reducing emissions of fine particulate matter would bring significant health benefits, particularly to areas like east San Francisco, cities in the east bay and parts of San Jose. He noted that these areas also have highest concentrations of people of color and that these populations would benefit most from the proposed policy.

"We're talking about particles here that are smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter," Martien told the board at the March 15 meeting. "They can penetrate deeply into lungs and even cross the air-blood boundary to cause a long list of health impacts, including premature mortality."

For supporters of the new policy, the health benefits are paramount. The air district estimates that reductions in secondary PM2.5, which result from chemical reactions with other NOx, would avoid an estimated 23 to 52 deaths per year and about 71 new cases of asthma per year, according to a report from Executive Officer Philip Fine. When one includes primary PM2.5, which are directly emitted by the appliances, the policy is projected to avoid an estimated 37 to 85 premature deaths per year and about 110 new cases of asthma each year and save between $400 million and $890 million in health care costs.

Palo Alto City Council member Vicki Veenker, who represents Santa Clara County on the air district's board, said in an interview that she was excited to vote for the new policy, citing its health and environmental benefits. She said she was particularly persuaded by the physicians and middle-school students who testified about the health impacts of pollution.

"Being able to reduce the costs on the system is huge," Veenker told this news organization. "But to also have the co-benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and aligning with our climate goals is a win-win. There are countervailing concerns, but those concerns aren't reasons not to do it. Those are reasons to make sure we do it well."

San Mateo County Supervisor Ray Mueller, a former Menlo Park City Council member, had a different outlook. As the only member of the air district board who abstained, Mueller cited the high impact that the new rules would have on consumers, particularly those who do not qualify for financial assistance when they need to replace a furnace or a water heater.

"We're going to be first in the nation, but this agency has never done that to the consumer before," Mueller said at the hearing. "And that's something we have to go ahead and be honest about too."

Like Veenker, Mueller said he wants to see the transition to electric appliances happen. But he argued that the proposed timeline is too ambitious and that the air district policy fails to consider the cost of the conversion, the current lack of financing and the current shortage of electric appliances.

"Candidly, what I think is missing from this discussion is the fact that there is a middle class out there right now that is really hurting. Inflation is killing them," Mueller said. "There are people who make a decent income, who are mortgaged, who are trying to figure out how to put their kids through college and I don't hear a discussion about them here."

For supporters and critics alike, a major wild card in the new policy is PG&E. Everyone agrees that without a reliable grid, any conversion to electrification would be a risky proposition, and PG&E's track record in recent months has given residents few reasons to feel confident. Mueller said he would support new laws that would require PG&E to improve reliability of its electric infrastructure.

Mueller noted that PG&E has made it clear that it will not prioritize the Bay Area for moving electric lines underground. In a region where trees topple on power lines with regular frequency, the idea of making people more reliant on electricity is "very concerning," he said.

Numerous residents also told the board that they were worried that the rule change would increase their risk of losing power and having no access to heat or hot water for extended periods of time. Los Altos resident Mabry Tyson, who lost power during last week's storms, said the new policy would make life difficult during the winter months, when power outages occur with greater frequency.

"Don't force us to jump onto a new horse unless you know that horse doesn't have brittle legs," Tyson said.

While air district staff believe that more equipment will become available by 2027, Mueller and other critics of the rule change maintained that the timeline remains too ambitious. Under the newly adopted regulations, water heaters and boilers with capacity under 75,000 British Thermal Unit (BTU)/hour, which are typical in single-family residences, will be the first to go. As of Jan. 1, 2027, they will no longer be sold in the Bay Area under the new regulations. The ban would extend to natural-gas furnaces starting on Jan. 1, 2029. And in 2031, it would encompass all water heaters and boilers with more than 75,000 BTU/hour, which are typical in multifamily complexes and commercial buildings.

For comparison, Mueller pointed to Tesla, which he noted was founded in 2002 and produced its first car in 2008.

"We still haven't seen full saturation of the market and we still don't have the infrastructure to support all those cars," Mueller said at the hearing.

Others shared his concern. The Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), an industry group that represents manufacturers, took issue with the cost estimates that the air district provided for new heat pump equipment and noted the switch could be far more expensive if it requires upgrades to electric panels. The group pegged the average price for a water heater replacement in the Bay Area at $8,577 and for heat pumps at $22,745. The group recommended that the air district adopt an alternative that move the compliance date for all appliances until 2035.

Kyle Bergeron, the group's senior regulatory engineer, noted in a letter that upgrades usually occur when an existing appliance fails. If the house needs a panel upgrade to accommodate a zero-NOx solution, it could go without space- or water heating for several days if not weeks, he wrote.

"If such an event were to happen during a cold snap, there could be significant concern for the health and safety of the occupant(s)," Bergeron wrote. "The District needs to consider solutions to the emergency replacement issue, including proactive replacement programs, such that the impact of proposed Rules 9-1 and 9-6 does not compromise safe and reliable access to services."

The district, for its part, plans to address the issue of grid uncertainty by creating an Implementation Working Group composed of 35 stakeholders, including PG&E, that will provide regular updates to the air district board about market availability and technical aspects of the transition.

Air district staff acknowledged in their report that zero-NOx space and water heating technologies are currently limited in availability and could be expensive to install in existing buildings. The district projects that availability will increase and costs will drop in the coming years, and it plans to perform interim reports before the policy kicks in to evaluate the availability of such equipment. As part of the reporting process, the district will consider "relevant market changes and ensure equitable outcomes in the implementation of the proposed standards," the report from district staff states.

Some proponents have suggested that the new rule change could boost the supply of zero-emission equipment by making it clear to manufacturers that there will be a market for the new technology. Debbie Mytels, a Palo Alto resident who serves as chair of Peninsula Interfaith Climate Action, a coalition of 35 congregations with "green teams," urged the air board last week to move ahead with the new rules.

"It would be wonderful if you give a signal to the manufacturing community that we should go ahead and start creating many more opportunities for people to change their heating system and create the clean air that we all need to breathe," Mytels said.

Even before the rule change, Peninsula cities have been carefully tracking the development of zero-emission technologies. Menlo Park already requires electric space heaters and hot water heaters in new construction, a law that took effect in January 2020. To date, however, the council has not mandated electrification in existing buildings, opting to instead rely on outreach, education and financial assistance for low-income residents.

Palo Alto has also adopted an electric-only requirement for water and space heating in new developments. The city also launched a new program this year that aims to convert 1,000 customers to heat pump water heaters this year through a streamlined approval process and on-bill financing that allows them to spread out payments for the new appliance. The program is off to a promising start, with 421 customers opting into it as of Tuesday, according to city staff.

These local efforts, Veenker said, will help local cities prepare for the air district's new rules once they start taking effect in 2027. She said in an interview that believes the air district's approach already takes into consideration the many challenges of electrification by incorporating interim reports, the implementation group and a timeline that prioritizes technologies that are more readily available and require less power.

"By the time these rules kick in regionally, our residents will be able to have a smooth transition and hopefully we'll be a model for other cities too," Veenker said.

Comments

Stuart
Registered user
Woodside: Mountain Home Road
on Mar 22, 2023 at 12:26 pm
Stuart, Woodside: Mountain Home Road
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 12:26 pm

@ Vicky Veenker:

Wow Vicky! Thanks for your enthusiastic endorsement and sunny optimism that "By the time these rules kick in regionally, our residents will be able to have a smooth transition..." Perhaps you can assure us that PG&E will have a 'smooth transition' to a reliable grid BEFORE YOU VOTE to cram an all-electric utopia upon the greater Bay Area.

Your giddiness belies the truth that your actions (along with others) is making the region look more like a third-world country and less like the world's 7th largest economy. But as you say "hopefully we'll be a model for other cities too".

The best part is that once again, here we sit without electricity!


Brian
Registered user
Menlo Park: The Willows
on Mar 22, 2023 at 12:43 pm
Brian, Menlo Park: The Willows
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 12:43 pm

I have had two multi day electrical outages in the last month. Luckily I have natural gas to heat and cook with so my family was able to take hot showers and cook food. No plans to get rid of gas any time in the future, it is good to have choices. Everyone says Electricity is healthier than natural gas. Well look at the fires that have destroyed millions of acres of forest, thousands of home and killed hundreds of people in the past decade started by electrical transmissions lines. I am sure that is doing more to harm our environment that using Natural gas. How about the cities, counties and state agencies spend their time and money (of course it is our money) to fix that?


CyberVoter
Registered user
Atherton: other
on Mar 22, 2023 at 1:07 pm
CyberVoter, Atherton: other
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 1:07 pm

Banning ball natural gas is "literally" the Road to Hell! It is well intended, but the "unintended" consequences are tremendously economically, environmentally & medically damaging. Our longer & more frequent power outages are a direct result of an overloaded & inadequate electricity grid & distribution system. The current system is so overladed that a small incident takes hundreds/thousands of home dark!

When the zealots finally ban all natural gas usage & build massive solar panel farms in the central valley (killing the local plant & animal life) & creating massive environmental damage by building High Voltage transmission lines to the peninsula the local grid will "crash" and the cost of electricity will increase even more. Just imagine what will happen when all stoves, hot water heaters, furnaces, pool heaters, fireplaces, etc. are 100% electric? Even wore, without access to natural gas, the prudent that can afford it will have to invest in a home emergency generator system to live during the many & long black-outs. This is a particular "Life & Death" issue for those using electrical medical equipment at home!

The absolute best option for home emergency generators is natural gas. With out access, homeowners will have to use Propane, diesel or gasoline to power the generator & they only last so long before needing a refill. If you think that a "Solar Panel/Tesla Power" back-up is the solution, you had better have an extra $50,000 -> $100,000 to invest & hope that no damage is done to your solar panels.

In short, If the peninsular towns drive 100% electrification even faster than the State & Federal governments, they are doing GREAT economic, environmental damage & creating a serious threat to the health & welfare of their residents!

PS: In addition, perhaps PG&E should spend more $$ on service technicians & less on advertisements & Marketing Programs!


Thomas J. Buckholtz
Registered user
Portola Valley: Westridge
on Mar 22, 2023 at 1:10 pm
Thomas J. Buckholtz, Portola Valley: Westridge
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 1:10 pm

Relevant to various aspects that the article discusses, here is most of an email that I sent to Supervisor Mueller on March 18:

Thanks for not voting in favor of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District amendments – adopted March 15 – to Regulation 9.

Perhaps, there can be better ways to achieve hoped-for improvements regarding air pollution. Perhaps, such better ways can involve setting standards regarding outputs from devices (such as heaters) and not proscribing types of devices or inputs to devices.

While I offer here no specific personal knowledge regarding “solutions,” the following article suggests that technological improvements regarding devices (including already installed devices) might prove useful and perhaps even adequate.
• “Affordable Device Makes Home Furnaces Cleaner, Safer and Longer-Lasting;” Oak Ridge National Laboratory; March 16, 2023; Web Link .

I would encourage you to explore re-opening the issue of those amendments. Exploration of “standards regarding outputs” and “possibilities for technological advances” might underlie the creation of amendments that would be more appropriate (from many perspectives) than amendments that proscribe types of devices or inputs to devices.

Regarding the notion of “more appropriate (from many perspectives),” let me add the notions that ...
• Existing devices can have essential functions that replacement devices might not have. For example, a water heater is also a storage device for water that can be essential after an earthquake.
• Replacing existing devices with new technology might lead to harmful delays (and significant costs) regarding, for example, permitting, engineering design, and installation. For example, what is a family supposed to do regarding their home not having a functioning air heater or air cooler?


MA parent
Registered user
Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Mar 22, 2023 at 1:14 pm
MA parent, Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 1:14 pm

PG&E is providing us with 3rd world reliability and service. Its time to end their monopoly, allow completion, including alliwing homeowners with sufficient energy generation and storage to opt out and hold them accountable.


kbehroozi
Registered user
Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Mar 22, 2023 at 1:17 pm
kbehroozi, Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 1:17 pm

We have natural gas heating appliances that don't work in a power outage, and my sense is that this is the norm in our community (I heard somewhere that only 17% of residences in Menlo Park are currently equipped with gas wall furnaces, for example). I'm also guessing that those in our community who DO have gas appliances with accessible pilot lights won't necessarily be able to replace them with similarly accessible non-electricity-dependent gas heaters when they stop working and are past the point of repair.

Not here to debate the bigger points that you've made – just clarifying that owning gas appliances doesn't ipso facto mean we are functional in a power outage.


CyberVoter
Registered user
Atherton: other
on Mar 22, 2023 at 5:22 pm
CyberVoter, Atherton: other
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 5:22 pm

To kbehroozi - As you point out, replacing your current natural gas appliances at the end of their life may be an issue regardless of using gas or electric as the replacement. Fitting newer, higher energy rated water heaters is the nest example.

However, even with all the electricity off, almost every item below will work & provide the required function (although you may have to use a BBQ igniter for the stoves & gas logs)
- Hot Water heaters
- Gas log fireplaces
- Sealed gas log inserts (very efficient & only use batteries)
- Gas BBQ's
- Natural gas for emergency generators (unlike propane, diesel & battery back-ups, the source of power lasts forever)




Ole Agesen
Registered user
Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Mar 22, 2023 at 5:39 pm
Ole Agesen, Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 5:39 pm

Clearly, times are challenging with repeated storms, extreme weather, and power outages this year -- more than ever. But this year is also the year when CO2 levels in the atmosphere are the highest ever in human history; and last year was the year when levels were 2nd highest... repeat all the way back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 18'th century when CO2 levels started rising.

This year's extreme weather is not a coincidence.

Climate pollution drives more extremes. Fossil fuels drive more climate change.
We need fewer and smaller extremes and for that we must address the root cause: burning fossil fuels.

Fortunately, we have all the technologies needed for this to happen.

On a further positive note, I want to share that we disconnected our house from methane last year and have not missed it one iota. The disconnection process, was easy and PG&E was super helpful in closing our gas account, removing the meter and capping the line at the street: no charge.

Yes, we have had too many power failures in 2023 (and before), and PG&E should be held to a higher standard of electricity delivery reliability. We can all ask for this and help make it happen.

One way to make it happen is to concentrate capital investment into the electricity distribution system to build the system of the future rather than continue to divert capital towards maintaining a gas distribution network that has a limited life ahead of it. Let us invest in future and avoid sinking money into technologies of the past.

Right at home, today, we don't need to perpetuate air-polluting climate-harming habits of burning methane. When we dropped methane from our kitchen, our clothes dryer, our water heater and our furnace, life didn't just continue. It got better, more comfortable and healthier.

In the long run, dropping methane will be cheaper, too. Heat pumps are very efficient.

Hope to welcome others to experience this positive step for themselves.

Humbly submitted,
Ole


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Mar 22, 2023 at 6:12 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 6:12 pm

I have two gas furnaces, a gas water heater, a gas stove and a gas BBQ. The only thing that was an issue during these power outages were the furnaces. I have a gas powered portable generator which I used to power my refrigerator and one furnace. We had heat, we kept our food from spoiling, we had hot water and we could cook. I powered what I needed power for off a 2200 watt generator. If we were all electric as the save the world folks would like, I would need a gas powered generator of at least 15000 watts. That is something pulled on a trailer or is a fixed, permanent installation. The permanent installation runs off natural gas, by the way.

The point is we are way far away from having an electric grid large enough and reliable enough fir everything to go electric. Not to mention that no one wants to talk about the clean power source that will be needed for all electric and it isn't solar or wind.

The save the world folks need to stop trying to shove this down everyone's throats.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Mar 22, 2023 at 7:06 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park: Park Forest
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 7:06 pm

When the electrical power failed we automatically switched to our solar powered battery system. And when the battery pack got down to 50% capacity we started up our natural gas powered generator.

And throughout we provided electrical power to our immediate neighbors and a USB charging station for our neighborhood.

Until PG&E can provided a 99% guarantee of uninterrupted power it makes no sense to remove the natural gas safety net.


ln
Registered user
Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Mar 22, 2023 at 7:41 pm
ln, Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 7:41 pm

In the middle of a continuing series of storms which have resulted in multiple day power outages in the area, the geniuses on the Air Quality Control Board vote for total reliance on the electrical power grid for heat and hot water. Could they be any more tone deaf (or virtue signaling)? PG&E's record for keeping the power on is abysmal and has been getting worse instead of better. What makes these people think that, suddenly, PG&E is going to keep the power on all winter long for our cold winters, and all summer long, for our warm summers? Maybe the Air Quality folks believe it, but it would be interesting to see how many of them are in some way beholden to PG&E...

If this is such a great idea, then the market should be deciding to move in the direction of electricity instead of gas. But, as it turns out, the market thinks that this is a terrible idea, hence the result of being forced by government agencies to convert appliances to electricity. Why would any sane person choose to buy a $22,000 heat pump when a $5000 gas furnace works just as well (or even better)? And why buy an $8000 electric water heater when I can get a gas one for under $2000. And, tax subsidies aren't the answer---it isn't free money, folks. WE pay for those in our exorbitantly high CA taxes.

My plan is to purchase a new gas furnace and water heater right before the jackbooted government agents from the Air District force me to do otherwise. I figure the appliances should last another 20 or so years, and, I can guarantee you one thing: no one at Air District HQ will be able to tell one bit of difference in the quality of the air in the Bay Area.

My plea is for the AQ District to rethink their mandate. Let the market decide the best time to convert to electricity. Our power grid will tell us when that time is here---not a bunch of virtue signaling government officials.


CyberVoter
Registered user
Atherton: other
on Mar 23, 2023 at 8:34 am
CyberVoter, Atherton: other
Registered user
on Mar 23, 2023 at 8:34 am

Note to In:

Your points & those of Peter & the rest are well taken. We are all Environmentalists! No one want to harm the planet of our future generations. However, many of those making the laws (more often administrative rules!) are often ignorant of the very harmful "unintended consequences" of the restrictive actions.

If I had not had access to my natural gas appliances during the two recent 48+ hours of PG&E outages I would have had to move in with a friend, or find an expensive hotel. With one of the very highest kwh & therm rates in the USA, we deserve better.

How do we gain the attention of our local & state politicians to address these issues & not just provide more promises?


CyberVoter
Registered user
Atherton: other
on Mar 23, 2023 at 8:36 am
CyberVoter, Atherton: other
Registered user
on Mar 23, 2023 at 8:36 am

Note to In:

Your points & those of Peter & the rest are well taken. We are all Environmentalists! No one wants to harm the planet, or our future generations. However, many of those making the laws (more often administrative rules!) are often ignorant of the very harmful "unintended consequences" of the restrictive actions.

If I had not had access to my natural gas appliances during the two recent 48+ hours of PG&E outages I would have had to move in with a friend, or find an expensive hotel. With one of the very highest kwh & therm rates in the USA, we deserve better.

How do we gain the attention of our local & state politicians to address these issues & not just provide more promises?


ln
Registered user
Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Mar 23, 2023 at 9:00 am
ln, Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
Registered user
on Mar 23, 2023 at 9:00 am

@CyberVoter:
Well, we could probably start by voting in some different people. We continue to vote in the same people with the same ideology and somehow expect different results. In some sad way, we are getting what we deserve (or at least voted for). But, it looks like, based on where we live, and the predominant desire to lead not only the nation, but the world in getting rid of any and all carbon emissions, the future looks pretty dismal. And expecting common sense from our political appointees is certainly beyond their grasp.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Mar 23, 2023 at 9:44 am
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park: Park Forest
Registered user
on Mar 23, 2023 at 9:44 am

I disagree about voting in new people. In my opinion we have well qualified council members BUT we, as citizens, have not done a good enough job of convincing them that they need to find balanced solutions. All too often the only voices the council hears are the advocates for extreme positions and the vast middle ground is silent.

We need to make clear that yes we want less environmentally harmful solutions but we also need to make sure that the path to those solutions is carefully planned. For example, until we have a fully reliable electrical supply system mandating all electric NOW is an unwise policy.


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Mar 23, 2023 at 11:35 am
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Mar 23, 2023 at 11:35 am

Peter:

You're right, and mandating all electric anytime in the near future is a bad idea as well. It is going to take decades to get the grid to the point it will be 99% reliable. And 99%, as you've mentioned before is what is necessary. That isn't going to happen until ALL electrical lines are underground. That is a huge expense and a very time consuming one. And, there needs to be a sufficient source of CLEAN power for all electric to make any sense at all.

Currently 45 to 55 percent of our power is generated by burning natural gas. It hardly makes any sense to increase the demand for electricity produced by "dirty" means when you're trying to reduce emissions. The only source of clean energy that will supply an all electric California is nuclear power. I don't care how many solar panels you put in the central valley, they won't produce enough power and they will take very productive farmland out of production. But, no one wants to even consider nuclear power. It's been 45 years since Three Mile Island. They don't build nuclear power plants that way anymore. Nuclear is the only viable option.

So, the save the world folks need to stop pushing this all electric nonsense so we're not sitting in the dark during the winter and suffering rolling blackouts in the summer. The fact is, Menlo Park, or even the state mandating all electric is not going to move the needle on world CO2 levels one iota. Until China and India start doing something about their emissions, anything we do is just spitting into the wind.


MP Father
Registered user
Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 23, 2023 at 2:10 pm
MP Father, Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
Registered user
on Mar 23, 2023 at 2:10 pm

I wish I shared the optimism above that the current City Council is open to balanced solutions rather than driving personal agendas. With the exception of Council Member Combs and Vice Mayer Taylor, the Council seems to be relatively deaf to requests for balance. Losing Ray Mueller was a significant loss. No doubt we citizens can and should do more but I believe some members need to go, as qualified as they may be.


ln
Registered user
Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Mar 23, 2023 at 4:08 pm
ln, Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
Registered user
on Mar 23, 2023 at 4:08 pm

@MP Father
Maybe you think Mueller is OK, but it seems the best he was able to do was to abstain. He couldn't even get himself to vote against this crazy dictate (maybe because he thought the climate warriors would eventually hold it against him??). No, I'm not nearly as forgiving of the council and Mueller as you all are. I say replace them the first chance we get and get people in who actually think we have gone too far, not that have to be convinced of it by others.


MP Resident
Registered user
Menlo Park: Downtown
on Mar 23, 2023 at 4:26 pm
MP Resident, Menlo Park: Downtown
Registered user
on Mar 23, 2023 at 4:26 pm

Agree with others that MP Council majority and BAAQMD are putting our communities at risk, and forcing people to spend money they don't want to with their aggressive drive to move away from natural gas.

For those who understand how local political systems work, what steps can be taken? For MP, can a proposition be put on the ballot? For the AQMD, is there a way to stop this? Referendum? Courts?


ln
Registered user
Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Mar 23, 2023 at 4:55 pm
ln, Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
Registered user
on Mar 23, 2023 at 4:55 pm

MP Father--

Great questions. Maybe Peter C can help enlighten us about a possible way forward.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Mar 23, 2023 at 5:06 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park: Park Forest
Registered user
on Mar 23, 2023 at 5:06 pm

The way to deal with this is to email your city council and to appear before them during any meeting's public comment period.

A ballot measure is expensive, a blunt tool and an over reaction.


Menlo Lifestyle
Registered user
Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Mar 24, 2023 at 3:36 pm
Menlo Lifestyle, Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
Registered user
on Mar 24, 2023 at 3:36 pm

Quoting Menlo Voter.

"The fact is, Menlo Park, or even the state mandating all electric is not going to move the needle on world CO2 levels one iota."

But our City Council will feel better. And isn't that what count with them?


Iris
Registered user
Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Mar 25, 2023 at 8:11 am
Iris, Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
Registered user
on Mar 25, 2023 at 8:11 am

I wonder if my neighbors' noisy backup generators during the recent multiple-day power outages produced far more pollutants in a short period than the potential savings of emissions by converting to electric central heating, cooking, water heating in a longer period.

Will PG&E be ready to provide the amount of fully renewable electricity needed?

Any analysis of rapid conversion has to take into consideration the bigger picture of what happens in our changing climate (power outages!) and PG&E's capacity to provide fully renewable energy.


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Mar 25, 2023 at 8:36 am
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Mar 25, 2023 at 8:36 am

"Will PG&E be ready to provide the amount of fully renewable electricity needed?"

The simple answer is NO. They don't have the grid capacity to handle the additional load and at this point and far into the future they won't have the capability of producing enough power without burning even more natural gas to provide it.

This whole thing is stupid, feel good, virtue signaling. It is full of unintended consequences and won't actually achieve it's goals because, as above, more power will be coming from dirty sources. But, hey, the politicians and BAAQMD can say they're "doing something" and pat themselves on the back. Meanwhile we get to pay for their stupidity.


CyberVoter
Registered user
Atherton: other
on Mar 25, 2023 at 11:07 am
CyberVoter, Atherton: other
Registered user
on Mar 25, 2023 at 11:07 am

The root cause of our dilemma is that we are electing the wrong people to “public” office at all levels. It starts with the local level. I have been attending as many local Gov’t meetings as possible in Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton & Redwood City. I believe that we have three types of people in our local Gov’t. They are those that are:

1) Zealots:
- 100% dedicated to a particular belief that they want you to follow – regardless of your desires or even knowledge of the full impact & unintended consequences
- They know what is best for you!

2) Politically Driven:
- Want to move up in the political establishment & depend on the party in power for their next opportunity
- After “term limits”, or just time in their positions, they need/want to find the next position
- Voting against the policies of the current Democratic super majority is the end of your career!

3) Citizens wanting to serve their residents:
- They listen to the residents & find appropriate ways to meet their desires & needs
- It takes an open mind & a focus outside the appointed staff & fellow politicians

# 1 & #2 dominate our current Local, State & Federal Gov’t office holders. Our only long-term hope is to find & elect better representatives that fit category #3.

It will be hard, but we must be more proactive

PS: Mueller is a good example of Category #2


Tommy Boy
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Mar 25, 2023 at 1:31 pm
Tommy Boy, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Mar 25, 2023 at 1:31 pm

Classic local politics.

20 other Bay Area electeds from nine bay area counties vote to ban gas appliances in 2027. Mueller is the only person not to vote for it. His dissent speech is carried in national and state publications. And yet, still, hometown anonymous posters attack him for being a Democrat because he did the "polite no" in abstaining, instead of full on going to war.

Classic.


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Mar 26, 2023 at 8:19 am
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Mar 26, 2023 at 8:19 am

Cybervoter:

The problem in MP is we have three of Category 1 sitting on the council. They need to go.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Mar 26, 2023 at 8:52 am
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park: Park Forest
Registered user
on Mar 26, 2023 at 8:52 am

Given the way that the city has chosen to try to force everyone to have their own green bin I would not be surprised if the city starts monitoring everyone's use of natural gas and threatens to fine us if we use "too much".

Does the city have an arrangement with PG&E to access our natural gas usage as it apparently does with Recology to spy on our refuse bins?


CyberVoter
Registered user
Atherton: other
on Mar 26, 2023 at 9:42 am
CyberVoter, Atherton: other
Registered user
on Mar 26, 2023 at 9:42 am

Peter:

I believe that PG&E is run (via the PUC direction) by "Electricity Only" zealots that are purposely killing their natural gas business. Compare PGE to SoCalGas in Southern CA that is a 100% natural gas utility that is focused on providing natural gas service to all as an alternative & back-up to electricity. They are focused on providing "greener" natural gas through using H2, Renewable Natural Gas and minimizing methane leak sources. This is the natural gas equivalent of using Solar to add green to their electricity generation.

As a contrast, PG&E is "demonizing" natural gas in to focus to move everyone to all electric. An obvious solution is to separate PG&E into two utilities & let the focus accordingly.

BUT, that would not meet the goals of the Zealots that currently run our Gov't.


PH
Registered user
Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Mar 26, 2023 at 9:55 am
PH, Woodside: Emerald Hills
Registered user
on Mar 26, 2023 at 9:55 am

"The new policy takes aim at oxides of nitrogen (NOx), pollutants that are a byproduct of combustion and that according to district officials cause harm to both air quality and health. "

I am concerned that the alleged justification for the policy was to reduce health risks from NOx emissions, while the actual justification seems to be reducing CO2 emissions.

It raises the question of whether or not the Board could legally cite reducing CO2 emissions in any findings needed to exercise this sweeping regulatory power, and, if it could not, did it act illegally ( or democratically) citing NOx reduction as a cover story?

It also raises the question as to whether or not the CO2 emissions reduction policy of eliminating gas devices could be or actually was justified in any of the Staff Reports (which I have not read.) Is and will the grid really be clean enough that this policy will produce net CO2 reductions?

My deepest worry is that today's "progressives" are not empiricists. I've seen lots of evidence that they wish to and need to congratulate themselves, but I see little evidence that any of their policies actually work to produce the advertised outputs -- reduced traffic, reduced housing prices, income integration, reduced emissions(?) etc. These usually rely on markets doing the right thing, which they often do not do.

So, I worry that abusing the air quality powers to reduce CO2 emissions, might not, but will set the precedent for expanding regulatory powers beyond their legal authority, and worse, ineffectively, in ways that cannot be proven or dis-proven.

Someone talk me down. Make a good hard empirical case that this will actually do something valuable to legally reduce CO2 emissions beyond what would normally happen as cheaper, cleaner devices emerge from markets.






Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Mar 26, 2023 at 9:59 am
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park: Park Forest
Registered user
on Mar 26, 2023 at 9:59 am

" providing natural gas service to all as an alternative & back-up to electricity. "

What a great approach. The gas line infrastructure is ALL underground and has a much higher reliability rate than does the electricity infrastructure. Why abandon that infrastructure if it can be so easily transitioned to ""greener" natural gas through using H2, Renewable Natural Gas and minimizing methane leak sources."?

Banning "gas" appliances is a perfect example of shortsighted and simplistic regulations that focus on a intermediate element (natural gas) rather than encoraging innovation to create alternative means of reaching the same positive result. For example, don't ban ALL internal combustion engines but rather focus on their emissions so that you encourage the development of hydrogen or other zero emission internal combustion engines?


MP Father
Registered user
Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 27, 2023 at 4:12 pm
MP Father, Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
Registered user
on Mar 27, 2023 at 4:12 pm

Well said, @PH. The issue you describe is my main problem with the current Council Members I keep complaining about in my posts. With the major exception of the Housing Element, I generally agree with their direction but take significant offense with their tactics. I would personally like to see gas phased out, a world without gas leaf blowers, a much higher percentage of BEV's on the roads, and a network of bike lanes throughout the city. I just don't agree with the Council's current approach of ramrodding simplistic solutions (as @PeterCarpenter describes) that don't properly address or account for the consequences.

At the risk of being too naive, if anyone from the City Council is reading, please, please start discussions with data and explain with quantifiable data exactly what problem we are exactly trying to solve. When looking at solutions, please include the fully loaded costs, so that data-based decisions can be made. We need to get away from the practice of misleading, emotional, and didactic rhetoric at the Council meetings and move to an environment of educated, fact-based discussions. Peace.


MP Father
Registered user
Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 27, 2023 at 4:40 pm
MP Father, Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
Registered user
on Mar 27, 2023 at 4:40 pm

...one adder to my post above, I find it highly refreshing when city managers are present at Council meetings as the managers are, in general, well educated on the topics at hand, speak with data, and most often offer pragmatic comments and suggestions. I sometimes feel sorry for them having to deal with the forcefulness and lack of knowledge displayed by some of the Council members.


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Mar 27, 2023 at 6:24 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Mar 27, 2023 at 6:24 pm

Well said MP Father.


Eddie O
Registered user
Portola Valley: Portola Valley Ranch
on Mar 29, 2023 at 12:51 pm
Eddie O, Portola Valley: Portola Valley Ranch
Registered user
on Mar 29, 2023 at 12:51 pm

One more point; use of natural gas for heating, water heating, and clothes drying is about half the price of using electricity for those same functions. And the appliances are generally cheaper as well, compared to say, a heat pump.

So the all electricity mandate is yet another tax on the middle class and poor.

And with our "time of day" usage metering, there is an additional tax on those who work outside theme: the most expensive electricity is between 4 and 9PM: just when workers and students return home, and need to cook, heat the house for the night, probably do laundry, and more. So once again, the middle class and working poor foot the bill for feel good regulations and pricing policies.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Mar 29, 2023 at 2:36 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park: Park Forest
Registered user
on Mar 29, 2023 at 2:36 pm

I enquired about converting our natural gas powered domestic hot water and radiant heating system to a heat pump - $25,000 !!! And it would triple our electricity usage.

With our solar panels we produce almost twice as much electricity as we use so I am comfortable that we are doing our part for the environment.


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Mar 29, 2023 at 6:12 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Mar 29, 2023 at 6:12 pm

Peter:

And heat pump water heaters recovery rates in heat pump mode is abysmal. And if one doesn't have solar they will pay more to heat that water than with gas. For any house that has more than two people in it an 80 gallon heat pump water heater is needed to get anywhere close to having sufficient hot water. On top of that, unless one can locate their heat pump water heater in a garage or outside, intake and exhaust air need to be ducted to the closet it is located in. If you don't that closet turns into a refrigerated space and has to switch on heating elements and that draws a huge amount of power. A high efficiency gas water heater costs less to purchase and install, doesn't require electrical changes and has a much better recovery rate than a heat pump water heater.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Apr 18, 2023 at 7:15 am
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park: Park Forest
Registered user
on Apr 18, 2023 at 7:15 am

"A federal appeals court overturned Berkeley’s first-in-the-nation ban on natural gas lines in new buildings Monday, agreeing with restaurant owners that the ordinance conflicts with federal laws on energy efficiency"

SF Chronicle


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Apr 18, 2023 at 7:23 am
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park: Park Forest
Registered user
on Apr 18, 2023 at 7:23 am

AP:
"But Judge Patrick Bumatay wrote in the 3-0 Ninth Circuit ruling that a local ordinance that bans appliances such as gas stoves “impacts the quantity of energy” they consume, which is regulated by the federal government.

Jot Condie, president of the restaurant association, hailed the decision. Berkeley’s ban was “an overreaching measure beyond the scope of any city,” he said in a statement.

“Cities and states are not equipped to regulate the energy use or energy efficiency of appliances that businesses and homeowners have chosen; energy policy and conservation is an issue with national scope and national security implications,” Condie said."


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Apr 18, 2023 at 8:05 am
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Apr 18, 2023 at 8:05 am

Peter:

That is good news. Perhaps MP will get off their banning gas kick. Unfortunately, I think they will probably have to be sued to make it happen. After all, they're "saving the world".


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

On Wednesday, we'll be launching a new website. To prepare and make sure all our content is available on the new platform, commenting on stories and in TownSquare has been disabled. When the new site is online, past comments will be available to be seen and we'll reinstate the ability to comment. We appreciate your patience while we make this transition.