Banning Natural Gas in B’game

Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

February 23, 2020

With several study sessions under their belts, the City Council is moving towards a ban on natural gas for new developments in town. We first heard this out of Berkeley and discussed it last July here. As the idea moves closer to home (the Daily Journal wrote it up here), I have some thoughts that I have just shared with the council via email. Here is my letter

Dear Councilmembers,

I am intrigued by the discussions regarding banning natural gas hook-ups in future Burlingame developments including commercial, multi-family and single-family residences. It strikes me that perhaps the councilmembers who support such a ban should lead the way in this change. I suggest that each councilmember take the initiative to change out the gas appliances in their own homes first. The community should be provided insights into both the capital and operating costs of this change.

It would be enlightening to understand the relative costs of electric furnaces, water heaters and high-end electric stoves and fireplaces that meld with typical Burlingame design aesthetics. Similarly, if any councilmember has a pool or outdoor hot tub, it would be good to understand the options available to heat these amenities. I can foresee some potential changes and additions to our existing building codes that might be revealed by councilmembers’ changeover projects. Understanding these changes first would save residents and developers time and money as well as bringing our building inspectors up to speed. The need for 220V power in many more home locations as well as the need for battery back-up and potentially back-up generators (with appropriate fuels if available) should be examined and shared with the community. In my nearly 30 years living in Burlingame, I cannot recall a single natural gas outage, but electrical outages are frequent and not likely to improve in the mid-term future.

Lastly, we should all be provided with actual operating cost comparisons for the newly refurbished homes. If these changeovers could be finished by next winter, a six-month cost comparison for the colder months of October to March would be ideal for assessing the true impact on Burlingame residents.

I look forward to the Council’s leadership on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Joe Baylock

————————————

I'll let you know what I receive in the way of responses.

Gas Ban

Posted in City Council, Climate, Local Real Estate, Planning, Power (Electricity, Gas)

62 responses to “Banning Natural Gas in B’game”

Paloma Ave

November 13, 2020

It is unfortunate that the environmental zealots have convinced politicians and some members of the public that these actions will make any difference at all. (They won’t.)
After all, they have a need to feel they are ‘saving’ the planet. Never mind the fact that we do not have a dependable source of electric power.
I am very glad I had my tri-fuel (including natural gas) generator during the recent 8 hour and 18 minute power outage.
Sign Me Up

November 15, 2020

Do not, I repeat do not believe these people who tell you it is just for new construction so you don’t have to worry about it. Only some clueless politician would believe that the ban won’t make it harder and more expensive to find good service techs and replacement parts. We are getting screwed on this.
Peter Garrison

November 15, 2020

I’m thinking of running for office on a no-more weird stuff philosophy.
Call it the Hell No Party
My election slogan will be, “A Yes for Pete is a No for you.”
PS- Everyone has to vote for me or my feelings will get hurt and I’ll drop out.
Let Common Sense Prevail

January 19, 2021

It may be January, but California’s fire season apparently isn’t over. Hundreds of thousands of residents may wake up today without power as PG&E and Southern California Edison contemplate shutoffs amid high winds reaching 90 miles per hour. Southern California Edison cut off power for around 2,000 customers Monday and warned another 283,000 customers could soon follow. PG&E said around 5,645 customers will lose power Tuesday morning in what marks the utility’s first January shutoffs. The gusty winds, paired with warm temperatures and extremely dry conditions — 95% of California is currently experiencing drought and the Sierra Nevada snowpack is at half its normal level — could potentially spark fires, contributing to red flag warnings popping up across the state. In yet another indication of California’s prolonged fire season, two fires in Southern California last week forced hundreds of evacuations.
Joe

January 22, 2021

The Daily Post is reporting that San Carlos’ “reach” will not include gas stoves and fireplaces–just heat and water heaters. It’s still a gross overreach.
hollyroller@gmail.com

January 22, 2021

I did not read through the large amount of info regarding Natural Gas.
Is this “Boycott” the result of the San Bruno fires a few years ago?
Check out the Burlingame Libraries “Micro-Film regarding the Cabrillo/Garfield Ct. San Mateo “Bombing.” There is also @ five minutes of National News Film. That will be hard to find. It is out there.
Joe

May 5, 2021

Tell me again about the “Reach Code”. Here’s today gas laugh:
Will S.F. residents have to ditch their gas stoves, heaters? S.F. wants to ban them, but it could cost up to $5.9 billion
Electrifying more than 240,000 gas-powered housing units in San Francisco could cost between $3.5 billion and $5.9 billion, the city estimated in a new report. The report said a “key barrier” to electrical retrofits is the “financial burden” that would fall on property owners, city government or both.
To ease the financial burden, the report said the Board of Supervisors could mandate retrofitting at the time of building sale, at the time of natural replacement or incentivizing retrofits by charging property owners a fee for greenhouse gas emissions, which New York City does for larger buildings.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politics/article/S-F-wants-to-ban-gas-in-all-buildings-But-16151542.php
Joe

December 10, 2021

Here is why I reject the politicians who say “it’s just a ‘reach code”, it won’t affect you who already have a perfectly functioning, cost-effective natural gas systems.
Get a load of the BUFFOONS from Half Wit Bay:
The new ordinance (in Half Moon Bay) requires all newly constructed buildings must be built with all-electric design 30 days after the ordinance adoption. Major and minor remodels of residential buildings must be electric starting in 2023, while major remodels of non-residential and mixed-use buildings must be electric by 2025. New appliances installed in buildings must be all-electric 30 days after ordinance adoption, and ALL GAS LINES MUST BE CAPPED BY 2045.
Go here for the whole Daily Journal piece:
https://bit.ly/31OzxPZ
What a bunch of clowns. I hope normal Half Moon Bay residents toss the three clowns who voted for this out of office ASAP. And the other two quislings who quisled (made that word up) should be next.
You have to be massively uninformed to think that in the time before California goes Big On Nuclear Power, that natural gas is the problem. What buffoons. Let’s hope the ladder-climbers in Burlingame don’t get any ideas from this cluster.
Joe

August 16, 2022

A commenter was helpful in typing this out from an article in yesterday’s Daily Post about Palo Alto’s attack on natural gas. If you thought things would end with “it’s only a reach code for new construction”, think again……this reminds me of why it’s good we don’t own our own utility (of any sort) in B’game. For the record:
Daily Post today. City moving to electric homes.
New rules are being gradually phased in.
By Jan. 1 homeowners must buy new water heaters with heat pumps, not natural gas, when they replace the appliance as part of an add-on or remodel.
New gas hook-ups would be banned for outdoor equipment and new granny units would have to be all-electric.
Electric appliances would also be required for new offices, stores and restaurants.
By 2030, Palo Alto is aiming to have 95% of water heaters and 70% of space heaters be electric.
Upgrading the grid to handle a bigger load would cost between $30-$75 million.
The city would have to take out 124 miles of decommissioned gas lines which would cost another $11 million to $54 million over 10 years.
Utilities workers would spend up to 801,166 hours on the electrical upgrade and gas disconnection.
Sign me up

August 21, 2022

These people in Palo Alto are NUTS. Spending $11-54 million dollars to take out the gas lines in town? What about the gas lines in everyone’s houses? Who pays for that? Who pays for the new heaters and stoves? WTF?
Paloma Ave

August 21, 2022

Woke politicians will not allow common sense to get in the way.
Hey Duff, will Burlingame follow suit? Just wondering.
Cassandra

August 22, 2022

Vote these people out.
Wake up from being woke.

ABOUT THE VOICE

The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community. Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California. Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice are those of the poster and commenter and not necessarily the opinion of the Editorial Board. Comments are subject to the Terms of Use.