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 Mountain View 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 Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice 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

Nora S.
Registered user
Rex Manor
on Apr 5, 2021 at 10:11 am
Nora S., Rex Manor
Registered user
on Apr 5, 2021 at 10:11 am

While my neighbors with their newfangled all-electric houses are reduced to opening cans and taking cold showers during the ever-more-frequent rolling blackouts, I will be cooking and bathing as usual. Thank you, gas appliances!

This gimmicky push to eliminate gas is ideological rather than numbers-driven. Number one way to reduce household emissions: mandate better insulation of all new construction and retrofits of old. I wish our politicians would stop virtue-signaling and start working on the real problems.


Sam
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Apr 5, 2021 at 2:38 pm
Sam, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Apr 5, 2021 at 2:38 pm

Natural gas is an very efficient energy source. Going fully electric has some advantages but the green infrastructure for producing electricity is woefully lacking. It’s irresponsible to promote impractical solutions.


bluesjr
Registered user
Monta Loma
on Apr 6, 2021 at 6:23 pm
bluesjr, Monta Loma
Registered user
on Apr 6, 2021 at 6:23 pm

My house is powered with natural gas: furnace, water heater, dryer and cooktop. I've recently seriously considered two big incentives to switch to electric appliances:
1) SVCE's heat-pump water heater rebate, combined with a separate rebate for any necessary electrical work, both fairly tempting and generous.
2) Solar panels with the current 26% federal tax credit (which does me no good in my situation).

Problems with both projects "penciling-out" as the developers say. The heat-pump water heater solution does not fit my interior closet (deal killer in itself), and the electrical portion would require upgrading my 60A panel. Indeed, the plumber that has successfully completed SVCE projects told me it would not pay for itself even if it did fit. The price/loan on the solar panels would not save me anything given my lack of electric appliances. Maybe if I were to switch my dryer, and cooktop or water heater it would make sense. Or add air conditioning - that's the big electricity hog.

The point is, to get people like me to switch based on dollars and cents will require much more substantive incentives. I can't afford it just to be green.


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.