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
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Mar 22, 2023 at 11:26 am
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 11:26 am
In our haste to get on board, "isn't everybody doing it?!" we are forgetting how our power is generated. If it was all affordable solar, wind, or tidal we might be doing a good thing but if it is fossil fuel then we are just increasing dirty power generation.
Registered user
Barron Park
on Mar 22, 2023 at 11:45 am
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 11:45 am
This decision by the Air Quality Management board is bad for many reasons.
First, they claim use of electricity will reduce pollution (NOx, particulates). Where do they think that electricity comes from? Because CA (and the US) has been eliminating nuclear, which is the only clean source of energy that can operate at the necessary scale, electricity will come from burning fossil fuels. The efficiency for turning coal, oil or gas energy into electricity is about 50% at best (not including transmission losses), whereas using the gas directly in your water and space heating system is 100% efficient. So this "green" idea will result in far more pollution and global warming.
Second, as Mueller points out, a January 2027 date for outlawing gas appliances is impossible to meet. The electric appliances will not be available at scale, the electrical grid (which is already threatening brown outs during the summer) will not be able to handle cold snaps with massive use of electric heating. People will freeze.
Third, also as Mueller argues, if your electric service panel doesn't have enough current, when your heating goes out it could be weeks before you can have a new panel and get new electric heaters. And if this happens during the winter, your house could be unlivable for an extended period of time. Furthermore, the replacement cost of electric water heaters is many times that of gas heaters. And a heat pump will cost about ten times the price of a gas furnace To force this on the middle class that is barely scraping through is immoral.
This entire effort is reckless in the extreme -- it has many points of failure that will cause hardship and injury. It is also anti-green, injuring the planet with more fossil fuel burning to generate the electricity. We're in for hard times, with 20 of 21 ignorant commissioners endorsing this stupid plan.
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 22, 2023 at 12:00 pm
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 12:00 pm
To force it on anyone this quickly is unfair. Even some higher income people will
Find it difficult. Some homes don’t suit these new style electric appliances.
It may be hard to find a good, available contractor and secure permits.
I agree NEW builds can have new rules but retrofitting older arrangements isn’t simple for some of us!!
And if something suddenly does give out then one will be under pressure to figure
Out what to do (not easy) and likely changes to electrical panel too.
Systematic thoughtful changes are fine: politically driven rather quick dictates are actions
I disagree with.
I heard a Bay Area politician or ABAG official say oh “the rich” will pay for “everyone
else’s equipment conversions!”
And just WHO constitutes “the rich?” - I bet more of us than you’d think….breezy and arrogant official on the radio.
Registered user
another community
on Mar 22, 2023 at 12:08 pm
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 12:08 pm
I will look forward to losing power AND hot water during all these bomb cyclones that are apparently "the new normal". The only consolation during a power outage (if there can be any such thing) is having enough hot water to make a cup of tea, so I can sit back and wait for all of the trees to come crashing through the roof. Or heat up a package of vienna sausage (or at least rinse off the slime), since I am no longer buying fresh food. I can only afford to throw away "XXX" amount of $$$ on spoiled food. This is how the Founders found this place -- no power, no running water (hot OR cold), no sewage treatment plants, no grocery stores (and, to some residents' dismay, no conveniently located liquor stores). We don't seem to have improved it any, despite hundreds of years of trying to make this place a model of convenience. We took it, we wrung it out, and we are returning it in the same condition we received it in. No measurable lasting improvements. All of those brainiacs on the foothills to the west can do everything except what we need them to learn to do -- tame mother nature. There's two kinds of smart -- book smart and street smart. We seem to lack both qualities when it comes to making sweeping mandates. Here's another bullet, with which the City can use to shoot itself in the foot. Again.
Registered user
Midtown
on Mar 22, 2023 at 1:36 pm
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 1:36 pm
I understand about not cooking with gas, but I hope they offer classes for those of us who have never cooked with electricity. I'll need to adapt to the slower response time of electricity.
Barbara Fredrick
Registered user
South of Midtown
on Mar 22, 2023 at 1:47 pm
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 1:47 pm
I opted into the program to replace our gas water heater with a heat pump/electrical heater, but that's conditional that that it won't be any significant cost, as was implied. We'll opt right out if the city won't pay for it.
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Mar 22, 2023 at 2:17 pm
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 2:17 pm
@ZephyrVenice (Barbara Fredrick) - electric technology has moved by leaps and bounds and electric induction cooktops are at least as fast as gas. Acterra has a free induction cooktop loaner program here - Web Link and I believe that you can email them to get a loaner. I believe they also have cooking classes
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 22, 2023 at 2:33 pm
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 2:33 pm
I switched to an induction electric stove. I like it better than gas. It turns on and off fast and temperature control is much more precise. (It heats the pan, not the stove top, which enables much faster temp adjustment). It is also sooooo much easier to clean than my old gas stove. I am very happy with my induction stove. If you are cooking with gas now, you will love induction.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Mar 22, 2023 at 3:51 pm
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 3:51 pm
We had an electric range when we bought our Brown and Kaufman home in 1963. It was built in 1956. It works fine. The gas furnace for our forced air heating system is over 40 years old and is due for replacement anyway. The gas hot water heater is fairly new so I’m glad they’re not forcing me to replace it with electric. Barron Parker Too makes a good point. Most of the electricity will be generated by fossil fuel burning generators so there be pollution from them wherever they’re located…just not in my neighborhood. The cost, availability, and infrastructure are big questions that nobody has the answers to yet, but I think it’s a safe bet that cost will be higher even if the appliance manufacturers ramp up production to the scale required.
Registered user
Midtown
on Mar 22, 2023 at 4:12 pm
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 4:12 pm
We should get to vote on anything so consequential.
Registered user
another community
on Mar 22, 2023 at 5:00 pm
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 5:00 pm
There's a program up north (Tahoe) where they are offering rebates to replace ... I can't remember how they word it ... I guess they're replacing dirty woodburning fixtures with clean woodburning fixtures. They also prefer users burn local wood. Such a shame that the trees all burned up locally a year and a half ago. The point being, somebody in some city council somewhere is cooking up a scheme that will be heaped on the consumer's plate whether they are hungry for it or not. And the city will claim to be the first to think of it.
The only consultants I want to hear from in chamber meetings are Inuit natives who live in igloos and know how the weather works and how to get energy without killing everything in their desire to harness it. It's a shame their habitat is being destroyed by "progress". But yeah, let's all put in electric water heaters and stoves. That'll fix it.
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Mar 22, 2023 at 5:02 pm
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 5:02 pm
@BGordon what is considered consequential? If we voted on everything someone considered consequential, nothing would ever get done. Each of the Board members is an elected official.
Registered user
Green Acres
on Mar 22, 2023 at 6:17 pm
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 6:17 pm
The Board's claim that they are driven primarily by health considerations seems to be specious, as they did not ban the appliances that directly emit NOx into our faces -- gas stoves and internal combustion engine cars and trucks. Instead, they banned gas appliances that vent up chimneys to the outside, away from people. This seems to be more virtue signaling from politicians.
A possible loophole is that the revision seems to cover appliances by manufacturing date, not sales or installation date. Thus, it seems possible that one could buy a replacement gas water heater (say) made before 2027, and stash it in the garage or shed for installation once the current one fails. Decent ones seem to run around $1000 (uninstalled), so buying one to avoid $10k or more in electrical panel upgrades and remodels to fit a heat pump water heater may make sense.
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Mar 22, 2023 at 6:36 pm
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 6:36 pm
@Mondoman - just FYI, the revision does, in fact, include installation date and sale date, source here: Web Link
Registered user
Green Acres
on Mar 22, 2023 at 7:26 pm
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 7:26 pm
@Paly02
Your link seems to be to a PR pamphlet, which differs a bit from the actual rule. I think they are a bit behind in updating/proofreading everything. The rule adopted is:
"301.5 No person shall sell, install, or offer for sale within the District any natural gas-fired storage tank water heater that is manufactured after January 1, 2027,
with a rated heat input rating of 75,000 BTU/hour or less, that emits more than
0 nanograms of nitrogen oxides (calculated as NO2) per joule of heat output.
This subsection shall not apply to mobile home water heaters."
Web Link
The wording on manufacturing date duplicates that from the various earlier standards, and presumably was selected so that vendors and installers would not be stuck with unsold old stock.
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Mar 22, 2023 at 7:49 pm
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 7:49 pm
@Mondoman, thanks for that link, not sure what to make of it! I noticed that that is from 12/20/22 while the fact sheet I posted is from 3/16/23. Since they're going to work out implementation details in the implementation working group over time, I wouldn't be surprised if they change the wording more in line with what is said on the "fact sheet." No idea.
Registered user
Green Acres
on Mar 22, 2023 at 8:50 pm
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 8:50 pm
@Paly02 The wording I posted is indeed from a document dated 12/22 - that was the proposal sent out for public comment and discussed at the meeting. My understanding is that no amendments were made to that paragraph, but I suppose I could be wrong. It was just last week that they voted, so not surprising everything is not fully up to date. I'm sure the person who prepared the brochure didn't actually look at the legal wording, and the general gist of the brochure is roughly right.
The three or four previous NOx standards for water heaters all have the same manufacture date wording, and it's hard to imagine how they could avoid stranding old stock as unusable otherwise.
Many/most houses will do fine with heat pump water heaters, but for older ones like ours that won't, it's nice to know there's a way to stick with the existing natural gas version when replacement time comes in a decade or so.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 22, 2023 at 9:42 pm
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2023 at 9:42 pm
We should definitely get to vote on this.
We also need officials who recognize that only 8% of the bad effects of gas come from residential use and who can explain what they're doing about the other 92% and what they're doing to curt demand on the grid.
Extra credit for explaining what type of power / fuel all the new honme generators use that people are buying so they don't sit and freeze in the darks for days without even being able to make coffee! It sure ain't electric power!
So foir utilities, we're now paying:
$1,000 a month = $12,000
forced conversion $20,000 at the very least
Home generator $10,000
virtue signalling priceledss
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Mar 23, 2023 at 11:53 am
Registered user
on Mar 23, 2023 at 11:53 am
Perhaps these atmospheric rivers are God's way of telling us we're not ready to go 100% electric.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Mar 23, 2023 at 1:14 pm
Registered user
on Mar 23, 2023 at 1:14 pm
What we have is a government designated focus group which is trying to prove itself and exert pressure and power that has not been voted on by the residents of this state. They do not seem to recognize the state of the state as it is today 2023. The state of CA today is not good - the infrastructure is falling apart and state budget will have to be allocated to fix the infrastructure - including transportation.
The local papers and local news shows are following the problems on BART, the problems on the roads, and lack of budget to fix these items. We have to stop being driven by cable news and New York Times "Opinions" and get our state fixed up. That includes making decisions on Water.
Focus groups seem to be answering to some other entity at a federal level that is just working the politics that is consuming the east coast. Even Opinion writers for the LA Times are mouthing New York political ventures.
And we have people who want to make national news and get attention for creating an example for the rest of the US. That fixation is corrupting their common snese in fixing the problems that are reported on our local news. i think they are group of political want-a be's who are itching for recognition despite that their program is unrealistic and the majority of people are not in agreement with the added expense that the residents have to pay.
Registered user
another community
on Mar 23, 2023 at 8:35 pm
Registered user
on Mar 23, 2023 at 8:35 pm
@Online Name, I was outraged at my last utility bill. I was hardly ever home and when I was used no heat. CPAU bill was $120. Sounds cheap but had I been home living above troglodyte era, probably would have been at least $500.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 23, 2023 at 10:15 pm
Registered user
on Mar 23, 2023 at 10:15 pm
@MyFeelz, yup. I'd estimate that at between 1/3 to 1/2 of each bill has nothing to do with usage and is all the varieties of fees, surcharges, taxes etc. that our leading lights have dreamed up. This has been happening for a long time and has only gotten worse since I first noticed it when paying the CPAU bill when we'd been away for 3 weeks that month.
It makes we wonder why we need a "retail consultant" since so much our ":disposable" income goes to CPAU, not the struggling retailers and restaurants.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Mar 25, 2023 at 10:31 am
Registered user
on Mar 25, 2023 at 10:31 am
Reading First Magazine dated April 10 = "I am enjoying life again". The topic is MOLD. Mold in the house causes Asthma and other debilitating body changes. It can be detected by a blood test. Given that we are continually pelted with water and never really dry out I am sure that MOLD is being created.
At my house I just had the pipes under the sink replaced, along with the disposal which I know had mold that I was always cleaning. My pipes were cleaned out in the sewer line to the street. The street tree has caused some damage to the sewer line.
There are a number of causes of Asthma - Mold being one of them. Part of the argument for no gas is that it is the creater of Asthma. A child called in the CC Meeting on this topic about a child with asthma and it was attributed to gas utilities. Time for evryone to check their house in the areas that get water. Apply some energy now to those areas. We are expecting more storms next week. You all could change to gas and still get Asthma if you are not working the MOLD problem. That is your roof line, sewer from bathroom/kitchen to main sewer to street. All sections of the base of the house getting damaged from rain. We have not dried out and still have to deal with the snow melt so more to come.