@ 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!

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?

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!

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?

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.

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.

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)

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

@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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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?

MP Father--

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

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.

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?

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.

"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.

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

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.

Cybervoter:

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

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?

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.

"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.

" 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?

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.

...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.

Well said MP Father.

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.

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.

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.

"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

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."

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".