|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In a bid to be even more green than California at large, the Menlo Park City Council voted on July 16 to forge ahead with plans to require new buildings to be electrically heated and require some solar production on new nonresidential buildings, not including restaurants open to the public.
Starting with the next three-year state building code cycle in 2020, new large-scale nonresidential buildings would also be required to use only electricity, not natural gas, for cooking.
During a series of discussions, the Environmental Quality Commission explored different options before making its recommendation to require new buildings to be electrically heated, though occupants would still be permitted to use natural gas for fireplaces, cooking or other uses.
It also recommended that the city require a minimum amount of solar panels to be placed on new nonresidential buildings: at least 3-kilowatt systems for a building under 10,000 square feet, and at least 5-kilowatt systems for a building greater than or equal to 10,000 square feet, according to Joanna Chen, sustainability specialist for the city. The commission recommended that the council not ban natural gas for cooking, however, because of traditional cooking norms.
“Culturally, it doesn’t seem that cooks are ready to make the transition,” explained Rebecca Lucky, Menlo Park sustainability manager. “There seems to be a strong consumer preference to cook with fire.”
Enivronmental Quality Commission Chair Ryann Price, speaking for the commission, added, “We felt like this found a nice balance between community acceptance and greenhouse gas reduction.”
Others said the city should go farther, and in fact, across the Bay, the city of Berkeley on the same night became the first city in the U.S. to ban the installation of natural gas lines in new homes, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
“This city is in a big building boom,” said Joanna Falla, a Palo Alto resident and member of Menlo Spark, an environmental advocacy nonprofit in Menlo Park. “And if these edifices continue to rely on natural gas, an estimated 212,876 tons of greenhouse gas emissions would result over the life of these buildings.”
Mayor Ray Mueller said he’d like to see large nonresidential buildings with private kitchens – specifically, tech company cafeterias – required to use electric stoves. Other council members agreed: the council voted 5-0 to incorporate Mueller’s suggestion into the group of recommendations it reviewed that night.
In addition, the council agreed to the commission’s recommendations to require a minimum amount of solar power on nonresidential buildings. Beginning in 2020, the state will require low-rise residential developments – those of three or fewer stories, including single-family homes – to install rooftop solar panels, based on state requirements.
Adopting these more environmentally sustainable measures, called “reach” codes because they go beyond the state’s standards, would support the city in the plans laid out in its “Climate Action Plan” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions citywide, said Lucky.
Peninsula Clean Energy, the joint powers authority that operates a community choice energy program to provide cleaner power throughout the county than PG&E provides, is also providing technical support and a $10,000 grant to the city to support it in its efforts to develop reach codes.
Combined with the commitment of Peninsula Clean Energy to make the electricity it provides customers 100% renewable by 2025, switching away from using natural gas to electricity could translate into a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emisisons.
Given the level of development going on in Menlo Park, these measures could affect a number of developments proposed to be built across the city. According to Lucky, there were about 100 new homes built during the last state code cycle, and there are about 20 proposals for new multifamily, office, retail and hotel buildings that have been submitted or are awaiting permit approvals.
If those buildings use natural gas, they could generate about 213,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions over the life of those buildings, and could increase community greenhouse gas emissions by 1% to 2% annually.
The council was open to considering one exception: John Tarlton, developer and property manager at Tarlton Properties, which houses many of the life sciences lab and office properties on the city’s Bay side, asked to talk to city staff to come up with electricity alternatives for life sciences buildings.
“We have a concern in the proposed legislation that there is not currently technology available to us to heat life science labs and production facilities reliably with electricity,” Tarlton said, noting “unique airflow needs” in life science labs. He said he would be open to adopting that technology as it becomes available. The city directed staff to meet with Tarlton for further discussion before the ordinance comes back in August.
After August, the ordinance would be up for a second reading in September. The proposed reach codes would then go to the California Energy Commission in October before adoption, then the state Building Standards Commission for approval by Jan. 1, according to staff.
People that do a lot of cooking generally subscribe to the notion that a gas stove is better than electric, while an electric oven os better than a gas oven. I do not think forcing people to live with electric cooktops is a good solution. Requiring electric heaters and electric hot water heaters (preferable on demand) makes sense as does having people install solar panels to provide the electricity for those devices. I would avoid forcing people into something that is second best.
“If those buildings use natural gas, they could generate about 213,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions over the life of those buildings, …”
Producing solar panel generates greenhouse gases. Hydroelectric dams generate greenhouse gasses. Coal fired generators generate greenhouse gasses.
Does anyone know how many tons of greenhouse gas emissions will be generated to produce the electricity used instead of gas, or what fraction of the 213,000 tons would actually be saved?
Switching cooking and heating where there are good viable alternatives to gas now makes total sense. This will give us more time, and delay worst effects of climate crisis while research continues on alternatives for airplane fuels and other green house gas sources where replacements don’t exist yet.
As if California state laws are not so-called “green” enough,now Menlo Park has to join the likes of Berserkely in going totally over the top and banning gas heating and cooling, with discussions of banning gas from cooking. No calculations of greenhouse gas emissions from building, transporting and installing solar panels (BTW, are they still using child labor or slave labor in China to build them? Just asking). No talk of the greenhouse gasses produced by the gas and coal fired electricity generation plants. Looks like all calls were just based on 100% gas usage versus zero for all other alternatives.
What is the usual mix of power that developers use without government force or coercion being used? 50/50? Then the numbers are already half of the numbers used by our moronic City Council. And less if you add in all the other mitigating factors. How can theses people we elect be so clueless—-never mind, I already know the answer to that one. They’re politicians. Not much more to be said about that, I guess.
Some of these posters sure sound like the same posters who were denying climate change only a couple years ago.
Yes, I’d miss a gas stovetop. My kids and grandkids will miss a lot of shoreline being underwater, much more than my loss.
While they are at it, they should limit new housing units to no more than 2 bedrooms, to encourage smaller families and lower population growth, thus less greenhouse gasses.
Heck, why not just go full China and dictate that families are limited to 1child only. While they’re at it, just get it over with and outlaw all cars in Menlo Park and get on with bikes. Just think of the great traffic flow! No parking spaces anywhere, just more room for bicycles. Just think of the housing density we could achieve!! No cars, all electric and 1 kid only. Sounds like a workers paradise!!
Absolutely preposterous. I’m not sure whether it’s more ridiculous than the plastic straw ban, but it’s close. A large amount of inconvenience and annoyance for an utterly trivial environmental impact.
The fatal flaw in the proposed policy is PG&E’s new policy of making unannounced and prolonged shutoffs of electrical power. Without gas a building will be without any source of energy for cooking or heating.
And any reasonable architect would therefore add diesel powered generators to such buildings – a perverse outcome.
> Without gas a building will be without any source of energy for cooking or heating.
Are there gas heaters that run without electricity? I haven’t looked in a long time.
Let me get this right. What is proposed is to heat buildings with electricity. On cloudy days in the middle of winter when the most heat will be consumed, where will the electricity come from? Solar panels? Wind turbines? Hot air from the council chambers? Butterflies and Unicorns? No. The electricity will come from power plants. What will power the electric power plants with? Natural gas.
Now, if you think burning natural gas to generate electricity and send it across the state to heat buildings using resistance heat coils is more efficient than burning natural gas to heat buildings. You didn’t pass science 101. You are a person who believes in perpetual motion machines. Google it.
All that will be accomplished is creating more CO2 where the power plant is located rather than out the vent of the building.
“In addition, the council agreed to the commission’s recommendations to require a minimum amount of solar power on nonresidential buildings.”
And what about those homes build under heritage trees that shield mandated solar panels from the sun?
Requiring each house to have solar panels is about the least efficient and most expensive way to provide solar power compared to solar power plants, which benefit greatly from economies of scale.
Naturally, both Menlo Park and California are trying vigorously to mandate roundabout and costly measures that will achieve very little. It’s almost as though our government was rather incompetent.
But Joseph, they’re “doing something”. Never mind it is pointless, will have unintended consequences and will end up actually creating more carbon emissions when power has to be generated by gas fired power plants. They’re “doing something”. That is what politicians love to do. Appear to “do something”. Whether what they’re doing will actually make a difference or just make it appear they’re “doing something”. It’s nonsense.
Joseph:
solar power is a jobs program. It makes work where none existed. That’s all it’s about. When you look at the cost and the payback period to offset that cost, not to mention the carbon impacts of producing solar panels. It is not cost effective and it doesn’t help the environment when you look at the big picture.
Electric vehicles have exactly the same problem. Sure, they produce no emissions while driving, but we get 45% of our power that charges those vehicles from natural gas. Natural gas being burned to boil water, produce steam, turn turbines and generators and then transmit the power over power lines. All of these things produce a loss of some of the power generated. We’d be better served by powering the same vehicles with natural gas as the power would go directly to driving the vehicle without the attendant losses from remote generation and transmission.
I lived in Westridge for over 50 years.
Y’all have gone batshit crazy. The morons in positions of power need to be dragged out of office and locked up so they can’t do any further damage to California. You might add to the California NEW Green Deal and tear down all buildings and live like animals to eliminate the human impact on the planet. California is headed towards mass Jones Town like killings if you don’t turn things around NOW. You may have gone past the point of no return.
The grass isn’t greener on the other side of the boarder, so don’t leave the State and spread your cancer to other States that may still have a chance to turn things around. It makes me sick to my stomach see what has happened to the State I once loved. Shame on you all for letting the Socialists/Progressives have their way with your lives. You are all guilty of Child abuse because of the world you are creating and leaving them.
At no time in the post I wrote was I not civil. I stated facts by anyone standards. I called a spade a spade. And it is to bad that things have gotten so bad that you all have to censor free speech on an opinion that doesn’t match your own. I commented on what was going on in Menlo Park which includes Portola Valley and never attacked an individual person. I used a more colorful description of the insanity going on in Menlo that maybe you found objectionable. I will change that to what is going on is just plan CRAZY. In clinical terms.
When I grew up in PV and as an adult the area was primarily educated individuals with a high degree of education. We could communicate with each other without censoring or fighting with each other. I guess the Socialist/Progressives feel so threatened by any difference of opinion that it just can’t be tolerated at all.
It is sad that California has deteriorated to the level we are seeing now. Oh and at least I used my real name unlike the other people that are afraid to post comments on this forum. When government no matter how small uses force to accomplishment their insane goals you can expect some push back. You should have let others comment on what I had to say, rather than take my post down. Let them be the voice of disapproval or approval. This is suppose to be a free society. Maybe a lesson in American History is where one should spend some free time.
> I guess the Socialist/Progressives feel so threatened by any difference of opinion that it just can’t be tolerated at all.
Nice Whine! Would you like a side of Facts with that? Oops, a side of Facts would sour your Whine, wouldn’t it?
One notes your post is entirely opinion without fact. Nice that you can share your feelings – thanks! Can you share a definition for us?
> CRAZY. In clinical terms.
We’ll wait.
Is this an upcoming episode of South Park ? Where everyone in politics is not smart, The council and mayor should be recalled, voting with feelings rather than brains. More of the stupid few trying to control the masses, this is a form of OCD This is what you get when they forget that climate is always changing, climate change has been happening since the earth was created. Oceans have risen and receded ,temps are determined by the orbit around the Sun. Not from the orbit of your emotions. In the 1960-70s the mantra was we’re heading into an ice age, no money could be made off of it, then ten years later we are heating not cooling and headed for global warming then temps did not increase as they predicted and they needed a new title that could cover every part or possibility of the environment , hence Climate Change explains everything. And if you question anything they expouse they label you a climate change denier. Whole careers are betting on this farce.
Let’s recognize this for the innovation it is:
the Stealth Anti-Flatulence Ordinance of 2019.
Council must be very proud of themselves.