Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
Courtesy Oleksandr Todorov / iStock / Getty Images Plus.

by Robert Hogue

Use of fossil fuels like natural gas in buildings contributes significantly to carbon emissions. In fact, emissions from California’s buildings are greater than from our in-state power plants. That’s why one of the most effective ways you can reduce your own carbon footprint is by replacing your home space and water heaters with electric appliances when they wear out.

Technical advances for electric heat pumps have made them more affordable for space and water heating. Electric induction ranges for cooking cost about the same as open flame gas ranges but are gaining preference over gas ranges. At the same time, people are becoming aware that electrification of buildings is a good opportunity to reduce carbon emissions. There is an electrification “buzz” in discussions and publications among the many community-minded folks in our region. Local city councils are considering changes to building codes to encourage electrification of appliances for both new and existing building construction. 

However, many know about the recent court ruling over a building code change in Berkeley to phase out natural gas appliances in homes and buildings. Restaurants in California want to keep the option of open flame cooking for their kitchens. The California Restaurant Association sued the city of Berkeley and won their case in court. This court decision has resulted in hesitation on the part of other cities to put similar building code changes into effect. The ruling is good for restaurants but unfortunately has stopped climate action electrification reforms indefinitely for all other buildings and homes. And it establishes a precedent that is hard to undo.

Meanwhile, cities are looking to air pollution restrictions as a way of eventually limiting natural gas usage in buildings. The California Air Resources Board and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District are considering requirements for zero-NOx water heaters and space heaters. And some municipalities already have requirements for zero-NOx appliances in their building codes.

Although electrification of our homes and buildings is one of the simplest and least costly changes that can be made to reduce carbon emissions, such a movement is mostly a volunteer effort at present. Even with compelling justification and broad relative support, state laws, local building codes, and air pollution restrictions take time to be implemented.  We are therefore dependent on volunteer actions to get the ball rolling.

There is a counter movement to electrification. Some organizations like the California Restaurant Association feel that it will impact their business negatively. Some homeowners may hesitate to electrify because of perceived hassle or costs. As a result, electrification may be seen as a sacrifice to be made in the cause of reducing climate change.

No, electrifying one’s home as appliances wear out and need to be replaced is not just a charitable gesture. It’s moving from old, outdated technologies to new, cleaner, more reliable, more energy efficient, more cost-effective technologies. This move will happen anyway over time, but doing it now accelerates our replacement of old for new, and at the same time moves faster to lower carbon emissions.

Such moves keep America from being backward. The U.S. always has led the world in technology advancement. But now even China is moving more progressively than the U.S. in adopting some new technologies. Let’s not let the resistance and slowness to change foisted on us by vested interests to keep us from leading the advancement of mature technologies as a model for the rest of the world to follow. We start by making prudent decisions for our own homes.

Rob Hogue is a Menlo Park resident, retired mechanical engineer and active member of the Citizen’s Climate Lobby and the Peninsula Interfaith Climate Action group.

Most Popular

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

  1. Thanks go to Mr. Hogue for submitting this well-reasoned guest opinion.

    While not well publicized it’s worth adding that the lawyers for the Calif. Restaurant Association (CRA), the plaintiffs in the Berkeley natural gas ban lawsuit, received $1.14 million from the nation’s largest natural gas utility, SoCalGas, in 2021. SoCalGas claims the donation wasn’t related to the lawsuit.

    Yet one may notice how convenient the SoCalGas legal payment to the CRA’s law firm was, given its timing. SoCalGas can claim no influence in the CRA’s lawsuit but it looks like they offer no proof of this claim.

    For more on this, including a link to written statements from SoCalGas, see a related article by KQED in April explaining the connection and the money:
    https://www.kqed.org/news/11947150/socalgas-helped-bankroll-law-firms-fight-against-berkeley-natural-gas-ban

Leave a comment