When you get China to stop using and building coal fired power plants then I'll consider changing to electric furnace but only if I don't have to spend a dime on my transition and any increase in utility costs.

I don't believe the city of Menlo Park should mandate what type of appliances (gas/electric) I put in my house.
It's government overreach.

I prefer gas for cooking and appreciate being able to do so during a power outage.

Leslie,

I agree. The city can offer incentives to move to electric appliances but I do not need the city trying to force me to replace gas appliances that have many years left in their life. Besides relying on PG&E to provide consistent electricity is a pipe dream. They are responsible for the major fires and for rolling blackouts. I will keep my efficient gas appliances for the time being.

The current proposal does not affect stoves or dryers, only water and space heating appliances. You will still be able to cook if the power goes out.

Yes, China must act, but to refuse to do anything until China acts is to accept that higher temperatures (and forest fires and droughts and hurricanes and floods) will continue to intensify.

We need to act thoughtfully, but we also need to act.

Richard:

The country needs to act. What MP is proposing is virtue signaling as it will have almost zero benefit beyond making a few people feel good about themselves. I'm not willing to come out of pocket with money I can't afford to do something that has no benefit.

Great idea to increase UUT to support lower income homeowners.
Mayor Combs gets it about other recommendations. The practical aspects of these need attention.
Owners of older homes would be hurt by a ban on replacement gas water heaters.
If their water heater stops working, they won't have the luxury to wait to install an electric water heater and associated lengthy replacement of their electrical supply. They will need hot water right away. There is little incentive to replace water heaters until they stop working. Their homes will be demolished when they sell.

Have these people seen the cost of electric in CA? my incremental Kwh cost is over $.43/kwh......natural gas is WAY WAY cheaper. And with the high efficiency furnaces/boilers and tankless water heaters the waste is near zero (none of my gas devices even have a chimney anymore, they just produce water vapor)

unless they are willing to mandate lower cost electricity from PG&E (or subsidize ALL the MPK residents bills) keep this high implementation and operating cost ideas to yourselves.

the final nail in the coffin is how long our planning department would take to permit and inspect the electrical upgrade work.....their pace is slower than a snail (the slowest euphemism I could find). clearly the council members haven't dealt with that department lately.

Roy Thiele-Sardina

Roy. Friend near Winston-Salem, NC said his Duke Energy electric bill is charged at 8.8 cents per kwh. Reg gasoline is under $3gal. I'd say we're getting ripped off big time.

Has it been discussed where all this electricity come from,

Also Roy is correct the building and planning dept.s are extremely slow, I suggest a commission to study that before any new mandates,

"She explained that switching all of the county's residential power used for water and space heating, as well as "cooking needs", from gas to electricity"

It was mentioned above these mandates won't affect changing stoves from gas to electric, Can we get some clarity on that, please,

Also I'm quite sure changing your stove from gas to electric will require a permit to convert to install 220V, why so much misinformation

"why so much misinformation"

Because they're "saving the world" and they'll do whatever it takes, including obfuscation to achieve their goals.

Where will all this new electricity come from?

Westbrook:

all this power will just magically appear. And be carried on a grid that can barely handle the load it currently carries. None of that matters to the true believers though. They're "saving the world".

Has anyone considered getting rid of cats and dogs? Why is this not being considered over taking care of humans first? The carbon foot print is large enough. And, without cats, we would have more songbirds. Without dogs, perhaps some people would sleep better without dogs barking.
Check out the carbon footprint:
Web Link

Of course, having 1 or 2 kids instead of 3 would also reduce carbon footprint. But, people want their kids. The kids will have to live in the world you create for them.