News

Guest opinion: California needs an equitable strategy for transitioning to all-electric buildings

Hala Alshahwany turns on her electric stove at her home in Mountain View on Oct. 22, 2019. Photo by Magali Gauthier.

Tens of millions of Californians live and work in buildings that burn natural gas to power their air heating and cooling, hot water and cooking equipment. This energy use in turn causes about 10% of statewide greenhouse gas emissions and substantial amounts of harmful indoor air pollution.

To improve California's indoor air quality and fight climate change, some state and local leaders are now starting to consider ways to transition these buildings to all-electric energy sources in the coming decades. More than 40 California local governments have already answered the call with ordinances to phase out building natural gas use, from all-electric new construction mandates in Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose to electric-ready requirements in places like Richmond and San Luis Obispo.

But a patchwork of state initiatives and local ordinances may result in a slow or incomplete electrification transition, with wealthier Californians the first to benefit from new construction and retrofits. Lower-income communities, which face significant barriers to adopting efficient and electrified building technologies, could be left behind.

Despite the state's ambitious commitment to statewide carbon neutrality by 2045 and concerns for ensuring that all residents benefit from climate progress, California lacks a clear, strategic state timeline to phase out the use of this fossil fuel in our homes and offices.

The time is ripe for state leadership. Electric heat pumps, electric water heaters and induction cooktop appliances are widely available and becoming increasingly affordable. And newly proposed bills would direct local governments, state facilities and state incentive dollars to promote building electrification.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Almanac Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

To avoid inequitable outcomes and maximize the benefit of public expenditures while ensuring California is on a pathway to carbon neutrality by 2045, state leaders should develop a systematic strategy for the long-term phaseout of natural gas in our buildings.

Policymakers should begin with high-priority communities, targeting incentives and programs for lower-income communities with the least financial resources and the most to gain from improved air quality; areas with new construction and/or aging gas infrastructure already in need of replacement; communities with an expressed willingness to transition; and areas rebuilding from wildfire damage.

This strategy should include a firm timeline for the transition to complete electrification, in order to limit the risk of developing stranded assets in the natural gas distribution network. Otherwise, these assets could increase costs for a shrinking group of customers who can't afford to make the switch quickly and could undermine the long-term viability of utility investments and system maintenance.

State leaders should also develop a structured plan for a just transition for gas system workers, including funding and retraining support in fields that pay sustainable wages.

The task won't be easy. California has millions of pre-1990 homes, and although all-electric appliances can reduce energy bills in the long term, the upfront costs of retrofitting existing buildings can still be prohibitively high. The challenge is greatest in lower-income communities, which have more renters, more multifamily buildings and older construction. And a range of stakeholders, from utilities operating under decades-old business and regulatory models to residents wary of loss of service, may resist the transition.

State leaders can begin to address some of these barriers by clarifying utilities' legal "obligation to serve" to ensure that electrical service can be substituted for gas service, limiting expansion of the existing gas system, and better communicating the air quality benefits and long-term savings of electric appliances. But to ensure a timely and equitable transition, the Legislature, Public Utilities Commission, Energy Commission, local governments and others will need to craft a comprehensive and coordinated approach.

As California works to decarbonize its electrical grid through increasing deployment of renewable energy, with a mandate for zero-carbon power by 2045, this all-electric transition will help the state meet its long-term climate goals. Equally importantly, it will spare residents significant indoor air pollution while making our neighborhoods safer from vulnerable infrastructure, particularly in high-priority communities. It's time that state leaders take the steps needed to make it happen.

Ethan Elkind and Ted Lamm co-authored the new report "Building toward Decarbonization: Policy Solutions to Accelerate Building Electrification in High-Priority Communities." Elkind is the director of the Climate Program at University of California at Berkeley's Center for Law, Energy and the Environment and can be reached at [email protected] Lamm is a senior research fellow at the center and can be reached at [email protected] This piece was first published by CalMatters, a nonpartisan, nonprofit journalism venture that works with media partners throughout the state, including The Almanac.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

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

Guest opinion: California needs an equitable strategy for transitioning to all-electric buildings

by / CalMatters

Uploaded: Sun, Apr 4, 2021, 8:45 am

Tens of millions of Californians live and work in buildings that burn natural gas to power their air heating and cooling, hot water and cooking equipment. This energy use in turn causes about 10% of statewide greenhouse gas emissions and substantial amounts of harmful indoor air pollution.

To improve California's indoor air quality and fight climate change, some state and local leaders are now starting to consider ways to transition these buildings to all-electric energy sources in the coming decades. More than 40 California local governments have already answered the call with ordinances to phase out building natural gas use, from all-electric new construction mandates in Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose to electric-ready requirements in places like Richmond and San Luis Obispo.

But a patchwork of state initiatives and local ordinances may result in a slow or incomplete electrification transition, with wealthier Californians the first to benefit from new construction and retrofits. Lower-income communities, which face significant barriers to adopting efficient and electrified building technologies, could be left behind.

Despite the state's ambitious commitment to statewide carbon neutrality by 2045 and concerns for ensuring that all residents benefit from climate progress, California lacks a clear, strategic state timeline to phase out the use of this fossil fuel in our homes and offices.

The time is ripe for state leadership. Electric heat pumps, electric water heaters and induction cooktop appliances are widely available and becoming increasingly affordable. And newly proposed bills would direct local governments, state facilities and state incentive dollars to promote building electrification.

To avoid inequitable outcomes and maximize the benefit of public expenditures while ensuring California is on a pathway to carbon neutrality by 2045, state leaders should develop a systematic strategy for the long-term phaseout of natural gas in our buildings.

Policymakers should begin with high-priority communities, targeting incentives and programs for lower-income communities with the least financial resources and the most to gain from improved air quality; areas with new construction and/or aging gas infrastructure already in need of replacement; communities with an expressed willingness to transition; and areas rebuilding from wildfire damage.

This strategy should include a firm timeline for the transition to complete electrification, in order to limit the risk of developing stranded assets in the natural gas distribution network. Otherwise, these assets could increase costs for a shrinking group of customers who can't afford to make the switch quickly and could undermine the long-term viability of utility investments and system maintenance.

State leaders should also develop a structured plan for a just transition for gas system workers, including funding and retraining support in fields that pay sustainable wages.

The task won't be easy. California has millions of pre-1990 homes, and although all-electric appliances can reduce energy bills in the long term, the upfront costs of retrofitting existing buildings can still be prohibitively high. The challenge is greatest in lower-income communities, which have more renters, more multifamily buildings and older construction. And a range of stakeholders, from utilities operating under decades-old business and regulatory models to residents wary of loss of service, may resist the transition.

State leaders can begin to address some of these barriers by clarifying utilities' legal "obligation to serve" to ensure that electrical service can be substituted for gas service, limiting expansion of the existing gas system, and better communicating the air quality benefits and long-term savings of electric appliances. But to ensure a timely and equitable transition, the Legislature, Public Utilities Commission, Energy Commission, local governments and others will need to craft a comprehensive and coordinated approach.

As California works to decarbonize its electrical grid through increasing deployment of renewable energy, with a mandate for zero-carbon power by 2045, this all-electric transition will help the state meet its long-term climate goals. Equally importantly, it will spare residents significant indoor air pollution while making our neighborhoods safer from vulnerable infrastructure, particularly in high-priority communities. It's time that state leaders take the steps needed to make it happen.

Ethan Elkind and Ted Lamm co-authored the new report "Building toward Decarbonization: Policy Solutions to Accelerate Building Electrification in High-Priority Communities." Elkind is the director of the Climate Program at University of California at Berkeley's Center for Law, Energy and the Environment and can be reached at [email protected] Lamm is a senior research fellow at the center and can be reached at [email protected] This piece was first published by CalMatters, a nonpartisan, nonprofit journalism venture that works with media partners throughout the state, including The Almanac.

Comments

Ed Kahl
Registered user
Woodside: other
on Apr 4, 2021 at 10:33 am
Ed Kahl, Woodside: other
Registered user
on Apr 4, 2021 at 10:33 am

Electrifying office and industrial buildings will increase blackouts in CA because wind and solar electricity are unreliable. Wind doesn’t blow enough at night to provide steady state power. Retro-fitting existing office buildings is extremely costly and the money would be better spent developing affordable battery storage, exploring alternative forms of green energy like the solar/hydrogen cycle, and updating our grid and transmission lines. There is also little bang for the buck converting office buildings to all electricity because most of their energy use is for electricity for lighting and cooling. Heating is mostly achieved by the greenhouse effect of windows. The main beneficiary of our prematurely electrifying office buildings will be Austin TX which will welcome our businesses and their tax bases with open arms.


John
Registered user
another community
on Apr 5, 2021 at 12:14 pm
John, another community
Registered user
on Apr 5, 2021 at 12:14 pm

Until our electric grid is made more robust and reliable, residents will resist the mandate for all heating and cooking to be lectric. Higher costs, although declining, also remain a disincentive.
Let's see if we can target some federal dollars to address these underlying issues.


Enough
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Apr 5, 2021 at 2:30 pm
Enough, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Apr 5, 2021 at 2:30 pm

Many of us prefer gas for things such as cooking and heating and as of the last time I looked there is not a good alternative to gas on-demand water heaters. I am all for reducing the carbon footprint (that is one reason I installed solar) but until there are good alternatives don't try to push all electric


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Apr 6, 2021 at 7:59 am
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Apr 6, 2021 at 7:59 am

Electric water heating is terrible. Always has been. It's expensive and slow. Until that is overcome there will continue to be resistance to all electric.

In addition, until ALL electricity is generated without producing CO2, all it is doing is producing carbon somewhere else. We need to talk about the energy that no one wants to talk about, nuclear. It works well in europe and there is no reason not to use it here, especially if the goal is to reduce carbon emissions and go all electric. Renewables will never produce enough power for that goal.

And as someone else mentioned until the grid is brought into this century and made more robust there will be resistance.


Tom
Registered user
Menlo Park: The Willows
on Apr 6, 2021 at 1:57 pm
Tom, Menlo Park: The Willows
Registered user
on Apr 6, 2021 at 1:57 pm

Three big changes have occurred to give us chance at preserving a livable climate for many.
1) Advanced heat pumps that are 300-400% efficient at moving heat to the temperatures we want for comfort and hot water (the same machines even provide summer cooling, plus induction cooking that's twice as efficient as my old gas cooktop and much cleaner and safer.
2) Clean electric policies from Peninsula Clean Energy (providing 100% carbon free electric volumes matched to annual usage.)
3) Our understanding of climate change and the importance of transitioning off of dangerous polluting methane.
And there's a lot of helpful info to plan our home's safe clean future in this free guide. Web Link


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Apr 6, 2021 at 6:42 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Apr 6, 2021 at 6:42 pm

Tom:

I'm sorry, but my experience with hybrid, heat pump water heaters is they are just as bad at heating water as standard electric. Not to mention heating water with a heat pump relies on pulling heat from the air to heat the water. If it's cold, like it is in winter, there's not much heat to pull. No one I've installed them for has been happy with them.

Yes, we on the peninsula have access to power generated by renewables. Much of the rest of the state and the country doesn't. So, their electricity gets generated by burning fuel. Again, until there is a consistent, reliable supply of power to all of the grid, people will still resist going all electric.

Let's not get started on the environmental devastation caused by the mining of the rare earth metals used in batteries and electric vehicles. Until these things are addressed we're just trading one environmental problem for another.


Tom
Registered user
Menlo Park: The Willows
on Apr 7, 2021 at 2:42 pm
Tom, Menlo Park: The Willows
Registered user
on Apr 7, 2021 at 2:42 pm

The heat pump water heaters I've helped friends install in garages and basements on the peninsula are working great and people are happy with them.

Air that feels cold to warm blooded humans has plenty of heat for extraction by heat pumps. (Our freezers are cooled by a heat pump extracting heat at about zero degrees F and putting that heat into the kitchen at about 80F )

I don't think we have to delay action on preserving the climate until everything else is perfect everywhere else. If we delay, we overburden our kids. So, I'm for moving forward here and now.


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Apr 7, 2021 at 3:55 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Apr 7, 2021 at 3:55 pm

Tom:

If we trade one environmental disaster for another how does that relieve the burden to our kids? How about we find a way to fix the problem we have without creating another?


Tom
Registered user
Menlo Park: The Willows
on Apr 7, 2021 at 9:13 pm
Tom, Menlo Park: The Willows
Registered user
on Apr 7, 2021 at 9:13 pm

I think we do our kids a favor by doing what we can do now to transition to clean energy systems (like heat pump water heaters powered by Peninsula Clean Energy's basic 100% carbon free electricity [at a slightly lower rate than PG&E]). If we start with that and move on to heat pump space heating and cooling (very efficient two-way air conditioners ) etc., we can start something that leaves our kids with an easier row to hoe. If they are not burdened by runaway climate change and all its costs and dangers and losses, they will have more economic band-width to tackle remaining environmental issues. I know it's not perfect, but I don't see a better practical path forward. I owe my kid my best shot at helping this transition to clean energy work out. I think of heat pump water heaters as little pieces of clean energy infrastructure. It feels like a step in the right direction.


Enough
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Apr 7, 2021 at 10:03 pm
Enough, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Apr 7, 2021 at 10:03 pm

Just curious, who has to foot the bill if you force people off of gas? Homeowners? They would need to convert furnaces, water heaters, stoves, dryers and other appliances and that is not cheap. Who would pay for that?


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Apr 8, 2021 at 6:44 am
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Apr 8, 2021 at 6:44 am

Enough:

The homeowners and building owners foot the bill, of course. Government is very good at issuing mandates and not picking up the tab. Every house built now has to have solar panels. They are very expensive and the homeowner has to pay for them. Yes, they get an offset in a lower power bill, but it is years before the system pays for itself. They also don't last forever.

People and governments want to provide low cost housing, yet they put forth all kinds of mandates like solar and electrical requirements that drive up the cost of housing. Do they really want to provide lower cost housing, or do they just want to be seen as "doing something" about global warming? Something, that when one looks at the BIG picture, isn't really doing anything at all when one takes into account ALL of the negatives associated with it.


Tom
Registered user
Menlo Park: The Willows
on Apr 8, 2021 at 9:09 am
Tom, Menlo Park: The Willows
Registered user
on Apr 8, 2021 at 9:09 am

Regarding who pays... To jumpstart the transition to all-electric, there are incentives like the $2,500 one from Peninsula Clean Energy available: Web Link
And I see additional incentive for low income customers.
For the safe, clean, precise induction cooking I see $300 incentives from BayREN Web Link
As for solar, it appears to cost 1/4 as much as regular grid electricity. I see local installer SunWork.org offering it at about $2.50/Watt before Tax Credits and Tesla offering it down as low as $2.01/Watt. Even with a 5% interest loan factored into the system cost it would be a steady cost under 10 cents per kWh and that's lower than average peninsula utility electricity at 23 cents per kWh. So solar plus a loan is cheaper from day one. Or Solar without a loan is even cheaper (around 5 cents/kWh over the life of the system) if that's where you want to invest a couple thousand dollars.


Tom
Registered user
Menlo Park: The Willows
on Apr 8, 2021 at 9:22 am
Tom, Menlo Park: The Willows
Registered user
on Apr 8, 2021 at 9:22 am

Enough:

I sometimes ask myself a similar question: Who will foot the bill for climate change? I think it will be an escalating cost of damage and loss and crippling of systems burdening my offspring even more than me. I want to leave them a best chance at a great life like I've enjoyed. If that means I deploy some money now in cleaner devices that are fairer to the future, I'm OK with that.


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Apr 8, 2021 at 9:24 am
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Apr 8, 2021 at 9:24 am

Tom:

I'm happy for you that you have the money to deploy. Many of us don't.


kbehroozi
Registered user
Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Apr 8, 2021 at 1:55 pm
kbehroozi, Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
Registered user
on Apr 8, 2021 at 1:55 pm

MV, Tom (who is not particularly wealthy AFAIK) is donating tons of his time and engineering expertise to help people find inexpensive ways to transition away from gas, which has not only longer-term environmental implications but also near-term health benefits.

I agree that we need to be sensitive to the cost impacts of clean energy, and in fact that's the whole point of this article. You're skeptical. That's fine. What would it take to convince you? Cost neutralization? monthly savings? improved functionality? I'm genuinely curious.


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Apr 8, 2021 at 2:18 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Apr 8, 2021 at 2:18 pm

kbehroozi:

There are several things. Cost is one. Solar costs more initially. That is money a homeowner has to come up with. Not to mention virtually everything that is done to be "green" costs more than traditional building costs. Some of it provides immediate payback, but much of it is to cut carbon emissions. That's great, but not everyone has money to throw around trying to save the planet when they're struggling to put a roof over their head.

Functionality is another. Electric water heaters are terrible when compared to gas. Their recovery rate is abysmal compared to gas. The only way to improve their performance is to feed them more electricity which makes them even more costly to operate. If one wants to be more energy efficient a demand water heater is the way to go. I have yet to see an electric demand water heater that will provide what gas will.

Another is that the carbon output is just getting shifted in most cases. No, not on the peninsula, but most of the state does not have power supplied by solely renewable, hydro, or "green" power. So, forcing people into a much more expensive way to heat their homes and water is what you're doing with no real benefit to carbon reduction. If we are going to go all electric we have to have a stable reliable grid with a stable continuous power source. Until people are willing to get over their fear of nuclear power will we really be in a position where I would consider forcing people into all electric. Not retroactively either. That would put onerous costs on people if they are forced to retrofit. But, also see my other objection, lousy functionality.

The other thing I don't like about forcing everyone into electric is that the things like mining rare earth metals that are required to do that are environmentally devastating. You may not think that's so bad because it's devastating other countries, but it's our earth and I don't want to trade one environmental problem for another.


CyberVoter
Registered user
Atherton: other
on Apr 11, 2021 at 7:34 am
CyberVoter, Atherton: other
Registered user
on Apr 11, 2021 at 7:34 am

Once again, well-meaning people want to do "something" to combat Climate Change & forcing people to go "All Electric" sounds good. In fact, it it tremendously expensive and may actually make things worst. Unintended consequences include:'
1) More transmission & distribution lines that are expensive, ugly & cause greta environmental damage from construction (tree canopy reduction) and become a source of Forest fires.
2) All electric homes will (& are) drive a massive installation of standby diesel generators that are very polluting - but people demand backup with the unreliability of CA's Power Grid.
3) Destruction of the distribution pipelines that would enable Green/Clean Biogas to be commingled with Natural Gas & eventually replace it in many areas - Thus we kill a major Green Energy opportunity

If you want to make a real impact by 2030, spend your efforts canceling the High Speed Rail Project. Even its greatest advocates agree that it will take greater that 50 years to become Carbon Neutral -- IF the wild ridership projections would ever happen. Until then the carbon liberated in the construction & environmental damage will be a net massive Carbon Source!

Let's start doing good instead of just feeling good & spending other people's money!


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Apr 11, 2021 at 7:48 am
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Apr 11, 2021 at 7:48 am

Well said CyberVoter


Tom
Registered user
Menlo Park: The Willows
on Apr 14, 2021 at 1:01 pm
Tom, Menlo Park: The Willows
Registered user
on Apr 14, 2021 at 1:01 pm

More electric car companies are announcing that 2023 models will have 2-way charging so my car can be an affordable backup power supply to my house.
An EV battery may hold 5 or more days worth of home electric needs and my 6 cent per kWh low cost solar can recharge it.
Gas on-demand water heaters I've seen don't run in power outages since they depend on electric sensors, controllers, electric igniters and blowers. Electric heat pump water heaters have stored hot water and deliver it instantly (even in several-hour-long power outages) unlike on-demand water heaters that need to warm up after they sense water flow. Heat pump water heaters are very energy efficient since they don't have a drafty chimney up the middle and because they use a heat pump that gets 60-75% of its energy from the garage air. (operates as a heat mover like a backwards refrigerator to heat water).

We need to start somewhere, and it seems helpful to start with replacing burned out gas furnaces, water heaters and appliances with clean safe modern electric alternatives here.
But the climate problem is large problem and will require many parallel efforts. They say there is no one silver bullet for climate change but there is silver buckshot. So each of us can find ways to make progress without needing to stop each other. We don't need to wait for some silver bullet. We need to figure out how to take the next steps our city can take for climate progress.

Attacking climate change now will be less costly (because we can inspire many other cities to join us and act with with the leverage of leadership) than being attacked by climate change and then starting to work on it.


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Apr 14, 2021 at 2:18 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Apr 14, 2021 at 2:18 pm

Sorry Tom, but as efficient as heat pump water heaters are, they still suck. Everyone I have installed them for has been very unhappy with them. The problem is the recovery rate. I don't think you will find a heat pump water heater with a recovery rate anywhere close to a gas fired water heater. Not to mention, high efficiency gas fired water heaters don't have "drafty flues". They have external ducted air intakes for combustion air. The combustion chambers are not open to the inside of the structure. The same is true for high efficiency furnaces.

Are we going to force people to retrofit their homes? This is extremely expensive and unless someone else is going to foot the bill, undoable. Of course, spending other peoples' money never seems to be a problem for those "saving the world".

You continue to ignore that there is not a safe, sufficient and reliable power grid or source of power for everyone to go all electric. You also continue to ignore the fact that there is a large ecological impact to going all electric. The rare earth mining is devastating large areas right now.

People are not going to want to run their homes off the power of their car if the power goes out. Especially, if they need it to go to work. People will install or use fuel based back up generators.

Sorry, all electric is not ready for prime time and forcing people into it is just going to cause more problems than it solves.


Tom
Registered user
Menlo Park: The Willows
on Apr 16, 2021 at 9:46 am
Tom, Menlo Park: The Willows
Registered user
on Apr 16, 2021 at 9:46 am

The two easy ways I've found for satisfying clients' hot water needs with efficient heat pump water heaters are to choose a larger tank size e.g. 50, 65 or 80 gallons of stored already hot water and to dial up the temperature setting to 130F (or higher with a thermostatic mixing valve to blend it back down ) so they have a lot of instantly ready hot water. Instead of forcing people to retrofit their homes, perhaps we can get them to use two-way heat pumps that provide heating and cooling next time they want to add cooling or replace their cooling or their heating. That way they don't need to spend money maintaining or replacing their gas fired furnaces. This can even free up some garage space compared to having separate furnace and cooling. Lots of all electric homes are being built around the country. I see all-electric now as the way to avoid stranding new investments into gas fired equipment that will need to be retrofitted later to reduce mounting climate damage.


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Apr 16, 2021 at 10:30 am
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Apr 16, 2021 at 10:30 am

Tom:

hydrogen looks to be in our future. We outlaw natural gas now and we kill the needed future infrastructure for hydrogen distribution. We shouldn't be rushing head long into something without considering ALL the ramifications.


CyberVoter
Registered user
Atherton: other
on Apr 16, 2021 at 11:15 am
CyberVoter, Atherton: other
Registered user
on Apr 16, 2021 at 11:15 am

To Menlo Voter:

You are correct, by banning natural gas hook-ups we are removing the:
1) Future options of carrying Hydrogen or Biogas/RNG through National/State Pipelines to homes/restaurants/offices. etc.
2) Ability of the "Market" & individuals to determine the best option

We assume that the "Experts" have considered the entire environmental, economic & health implications and we MUST follow their "Science". The environmental, health & global economic impact of mining the rare earths & other metals/materials to make batteries & solar panels are vastly underestimated. Further, we develop/make the Natural Gas, Biogas, Hydrogen, Next Technologies in the USA. However, virtually all the raw materials & most of the components for Batteries, Solar Panels & Wind Turbines are controlled by & most made in China!

Banning Natural Gas connections is a "Fools Errand" and will be both an environmental & economic mistake. BUT, it "Feels Good". Let's continue to make Natural Gas an option & let the Consumer & Market make the choice!


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Apr 16, 2021 at 11:22 am
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Apr 16, 2021 at 11:22 am

CyberVoter:

Agreed!


Michael
Registered user
Menlo Park: The Willows
on Apr 20, 2021 at 1:44 pm
Michael, Menlo Park: The Willows
Registered user
on Apr 20, 2021 at 1:44 pm

@cybervoter I agree, let the market make the choice but in the interest of fairness, to know what the market wants, remove all subsidies for fossils first.


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Apr 20, 2021 at 1:54 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Apr 20, 2021 at 1:54 pm

Michael:

you'll need to remove subsidies for solar at the same time.


Michael
Registered user
Menlo Park: The Willows
on Apr 20, 2021 at 2:13 pm
Michael, Menlo Park: The Willows
Registered user
on Apr 20, 2021 at 2:13 pm

@menlo voter, agreed. They do not require subsidies as long as we are are not subsidizing fossils. Will be enlightening to see what the beloved markets do with that.


CyberVoter
Registered user
Atherton: other
on Apr 21, 2021 at 1:33 pm
CyberVoter, Atherton: other
Registered user
on Apr 21, 2021 at 1:33 pm

Menlo Voter & Michael:

I applaud you approach! I would very much like to see comprehensive & complete analysis of the subsidies, incentives & taxes/disincentives for:

1) Natural Gas
2) Oil/Gas
3) Biogas
4) Entire Solar System (Mineral mining, Solar panels, installation, etc.)
5) Entire Wind Turbine System
6) Nuclear Power
7) Hydro
8 Various Electricity generating options

Shut down & "Close out"/decommissioning & maintenance costs should also be included. IF you can "Pick & Choose", you can always prove "Your Choice" to be the best!

Make them compete equally & let the Market choose!


Michael
Registered user
Menlo Park: The Willows
21 hours ago
Michael, Menlo Park: The Willows
Registered user
21 hours ago

@cybervoter Also include all the costs of cleanup and health costs from respiratory problems, cancers and such for all choices. Need very thorough analysis to make an informed decision.


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
20 hours ago
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
20 hours ago

Michael:

agreed. Impacts and costs analyzed need to include the ecological impacts of things like mining of materials for various options.


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

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.