|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In an abrupt reversal to its building requirements, Mountain View plans to roll back its ban on gas appliances in new homes and commercial developments to comply with federal law.
The City Council is expected to vote on the proposal to suspend the city’s all-electric building codes on Tuesday, April 9.
Five years ago, Mountain View adopted a set of “reach codes” – local building codes that exceed state standards – to phase out the use of natural gas in homes and commercial buildings. The reach codes prohibited natural gas hookups for cooking appliances, clothes dryers, water heaters and space conditioners (heating and cooling), as well as fire pits and fireplaces in all new and heavily renovated buildings.
At the time, city officials lauded the environmental impact of the reach codes, which would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But some industry leaders were less thrilled with the prospect of adhering to the new regulations.
This opposition came to a head in other cities, where the California Restaurant Association (CRA) filed a lawsuit against Berkeley, which was the first city to adopt an ordinance that banned gas infrastructure in new developments.
The lawsuit alleged that the ordinance was in conflict with federal law, specifically the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). Enacted in 1975 at a time when the U.S. was facing crippling oil embargos, the EPCA was passed by Congress to promote energy production and efficiency. Later on, the EPCA gave the federal government more control over energy standards.
Initially, it seemed the CRA lawsuit would not prevail. The U.S. district court dismissed it on the basis that the EPCA did not preempt Berkeley’s ordinance. “The ordinance did not directly regulate or mandate any particular type of product or appliance and its impact on consumer products was at best indirect,” according to a summary of the proceedings in the city council report.
But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision last year. It found that “the EPCA expressly preempts state and local regulations, including building codes, concerning the energy use of covered natural gas appliances,” according to a summary by city staff. The report also noted that the court maintained that local jurisdictions “could not prevent consumers from using covered products in their homes, kitchens, and businesses.”
To comply with the ruling, Mountain View plans to suspend enforcement of its all-electric requirements that prohibits the use or installation of gas appliances in new buildings. But the council report does not provide much detail about what the city intends to do next – only stating that it will monitor the legal landscape and will consult with other cities and regional groups, including Silicon Valley Clean Energy.
In February, Palo Alto halted enforcement of its all-electric building requirements. It is now planning to implement code revisions with strict energy-efficiency standards that will make it difficult to install gas appliances, specifically targeting water and space heaters that account for about 80% of a home’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Similarly, Mountain View maintains that it will continue to commit to its climate sustainability goals. “The Court’s ruling poses a significant challenge for cities across California. Mountain View remains committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from buildings and reducing the health hazards posed by gas-powered appliances,” the city said in an emailed statement.
“As we navigate developments in this area, Mountain View will continue to prioritize the well-being of all community members and residents,” it added.
This is a good decision.
Here are a few things the Activists do not consider:
1. Natural Gas (NG) Peaker Plants are need to support Solar and Wind
2. It is more efficient to burn NG at point of use
a) NG is used to generate a significant proportion of electricity at the central
utility
b) Burning NG to run a turbine has energy loss
b) Transmitting electricity over wires over long distances has energy loss
3. I am skeptical (and so are other organizations) about the Zero Carbon
claims or our local Silicon Valley Clean Energy. They have to import energy at night. Of course, they claim it is clean, and will say that they have certificates
claiming to be clean. But there those who are skeptical of this; perhaps initially certified as clean but in a crunch in the middle of the night, wehere are they really getting clean energy. Credible organization has raised questions about this.
4. Batteries are not ready to operate *At Scale*. Meaning Big Batteries with the capacity to store energy for an entire region, and have the chemistry and I/O wires to discharge and re-charge a massive amount of energy. Not ready. And it will still take a long time before we operate at scale. In 1993, we were able to run at zero resistance at negative 133 Kelvin. This promised both the Ceramic Batteries and wires we all want. 2024. Nada, Zippo. This is hard. And we need to be realistic about what we can do. Instead of unrealistic bans which accomplish little but allow people to feel good and brag while accomplishing very little.
I am skeptical for the reasons above. Good review.
A good reminder that Caltrain that needs $50million more a year to operate its electric trains vs diesel. Whoops?
I agree with skeptics, California has still to provide a plan for all electric transition. If we’re going to use gas the efficient thing to do is use at point of use for heating, cooking, water heating. This is well intentioned (you don’t want to lock in carbon production for the life of the building) but not very realistic.
Building codes and regulations should be handled at the state or federal level as we otherwise end up with a myriad of rules that vary between jurisdictions causing headaches for contractors, suppliers and manufacturers.
1) No, we no longer need peaker plants to support renewables. California has been busy installing batteries, and yes, they work. Take a look:
https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html
Just today, batteries peaked at 5,000MW. The “peaker” plants you are referring to could handle around 75MW.
2) No, it is not always more efficient to burn NG locally. It depends. What is true is that once NG is converted to electricity we can do so much more with it. My house heatpump together with a dual cycle NG power plant is twice as efficient and much cleaner as compared to an old fashioned furnace.
3) Our bulk energy use is during the day. Just 25 years ago California regularly saw daily peak usage at 40GW. Today we are running at 20GW. The difference is caused by residential and commercial solar. Add to that utility solar, and we often have an over production which result in curtailing solar systems. That is a real problem and for us to solve this decade. Because of higher day-time production, it is inevitable to see a shift in energy usage patterns.
4) On the contrary, batteries are ready and being installed at utility scale. Not as a toy, but because it is much cheaper to automatically operate a battery plant than fossil fuel plant. You doubt this? Take another look at the CAISO data.
As for Caltrain… I’m not sure about the $50M more per year – if true. But be careful how you compare electric vs diesel, because we are planning to operate more electric commuter trains per day than ever before. We can do that because electric trains accelerate and decelerate much faster than diesel trains.
As for a California plan? I’m not sure anybody can forecast that. If I had told you that just 10 years ago that we would have 5,000MW of utility batteries today, nobody would have believed me. We are in the middle of an energy transition and must be open to new methods and ideas as technology becomes available.
Do we need improved energy efficiency standards? Absolutely! Let us do it in incremental and continuous steps at the state and federal level.
The first two commenters don’t seem to understand what’s being proposed. The 5-year old ordinance relates to NEW buildings in Mountain View, not existing natural-gas fueled electric power plants. Heat pumps and induction stoves are far more efficient than burning gas at the point of use in homes and electric heating and cooking appliances do not produce toxic airborne chemicals when they operate. If you cook with natural gas (as I do), ALWAYS run your range hood fan on high to move as much of the combustion by-products out of your kitchen as possible.
That is a good decision.
Natural Gas (NG) is necessary to support Wind and Solar
And it is more efficient to use it at point of use, the stove
A significant amount of electricity is generated at the central utility using NG
But there is energy loss when it is burned to turn turbines and transmitted over wires.
Banning NG stoves does not yield many benefits and may actually be less efficient.
Over 20 countries committed to tripling the amount of nuclear power they will be using. Implicit is the recognition is that the rate of progression of Wind, Solar, Batteries is insufficient to get us to where we need to be.
This was at the World Climate Action Summit Dec. 23
Here is an article on
https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-declaration-triple-nuclear-energy-capacity-2050-recognizing-key
Sure there are still some people still claim that wind, solar and batteries are *the* solution. They are very zealous about their initiatives. But if you did into the subject, there are legitimate reasons to be skeptical about them. And claiming batteries and heat pumps are the solutions have enough detractors to serious wonder if they are the solution. Yeah, I know, government is on-board with this. But I don’t faith in government and the special interest groups which push their initiative through them.