5. An Ordinance Amending and Adding Various Provisions of Title 15 and Title 17 of the Sacramento City Code and Adopting Local Amendments to the California Building Standards Code, Relating to Green Building Standards Including Electrification File ID: 2021-00102
I understand the importance of clean energy and climate change and I totally support it, But there is a whole industry based on products that provide heat in peoples homes from natural gas. Mine and many others job would be almost eliminated if this gas ban was to go through. Not to mention, areas that do not have consistent electric or have power outages that depend on propane or natural gas to support the heating in their home. Natural gas is the best of both worlds between electric and Wood burning. If you get rid of natural gas you only have two options, Electric that does not offer optimal heating, and wood which is already being short changed due to its proposed environmental harms. Many restaurants that we rely on to serve us the luxury of dining out Will also be highly affected because cooking is not the same on electric burners. Please consider not burning natural gas and more so maybe finding more efficient ways to use natural gas.
I support the city developing a reach code to require all electric construction. This will help improve indoor air quality as gas is notorious for leaks and increases asthma, bronchitis, lung cancer, and heart disease. Methane, the main component of natural gas is a potent greenhouse gas 34 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat over a 100-year period and 86 times stronger over 20 years. Pipeline leaks mean natural gas is as dirty as using coal. Not installing natural gas pipes will save money on new construction and reduce dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning or explosions like in San Bruno. Induction stoves and heat pumps are energy efficient and will be affordable with SMUD’s already low rates. Induction stoves are preferred by chefs and cause fewer fires. As a renter I have no control over the appliances in my apartment, so I look forward to a city mandate. Additionally, this will fit nicely with the existing solar rooftop mandate.
It's about time our progressive cities like Sacramento pick up the mantle and perform the hard work needed to address climate change! This is a step in the right direction and moves Sacramento towards carbon neutrality and at the forefront of the handful of cities that are making the change happen. Sacramento's municipal utility SMUD has already shown great leadership by committing to ZERO CARBON ELECTRICITY by 2030! It's now up to the citizens of this city to take on the challenge to move away from natural gas and on to clean electricity as the fuel to heat their homes. Breaking an old habit is not easy - and we are so used to natural gas that it seems like a very hard step to take - Questions like "What will we do when the electric power goes away?" seem hard to answer, but there are solutions to all these issues, such as batteries and grid and load management with smart controls. Old habits are hard to break, but this as good a reason to do it as any!
For commercial use electric burners and an all electric kitchen are not a practical nor a desirable option for a commercial or restaurant kitchen. The response time and transfer of heat from the burner to the pan or pot is horribly slow and not efficient resulting in an overall waste of energy. The overall cost of operating electrical kitchen equipment is more expensive than gas, and the equipment doesn't have the longevity of natural gas equipment. This requirement will be a deterrent for restaurants and other commercial kitchens to want to open a business in Sacramento.
My husband and I opened Hawks Provisions + Public House because we were excited to be a part of the burgeoning culinary scene in Sacramento. Sacramento has done so much to embrace it's restaurant community as America's Farm to Fork Capital, but I'm concerned what this ordinance will mean for the future of Sacramento dining. Aside from our wood grill, our equipment is largely gas powered. As chef's, there are instances where the precision of an electric induction burner is appreciated, but, by and large, gas is preferred among professional chefs for it provides superior results. Furnishing a new restaurant with all electric appliances will, no doubt, prove cost prohibitive for some. The current pandemic has brought to the forefront the fragile economics of restaurants. Successful restaurants must watch every penny and electric equipment will, inevitably, drive up repair and maintenance costs. With our gas ranges and ovens, it's always the electrical portion of the equipment that fails.
Restaurants should and must be carved out of this ordinance. This would be devastating to the culinary world and especially the minority owned small and medium sized restaurants that rely on natural gas for its ability to cook their cuisine as well as being available as a low cost resource. Wok cooking is also an art form and science that is part of a culture over a thousand years old that requires high heat and speed to cook its food. Technology is not there to duplicate the need for high instant heat nor is a tried and tested version on the market. This would deter Asian restaurants to open. Please at least carve out restaurants. There are other areas that should be focused on as restaurants are not the largest culprit of carbon footprint.
It is foolish to eliminate a critical energy source. When our power was out recently, we were still able to cook, heat one part of our house, and have hot showers because our range, furnace, and water heater are all gas appliances. Wind turbines and solar panels are not reliable sources of energy; at best, they are capricious and very expensive. Wind turbines and solar panels are also high maintenance and relatively short-lived. Economically, they are bad investments, since California has to PAY other states to take our excess solar power, and there are no wind turbines that have lasted long enough to pay back their costs. Additionally, recycling these is going to be very costly. Let's instead reactivate Rancho Seco with a very safe thorium nuclear reactor to supply electricity for our growing needs without causing more CO2.
Thanks in advance for the opportunity to share with you why it is to Sacramento’s advantage to move to all-electric buildings as soon as possible.
We need to transition to all-electric buildings to meet the goals of our state to get to carbon neutral by 2045.
The youth will thank you. They are the ones who will likely endure the climate crises. We owe it to them to provide a livable planet.
Buildings output more GHG than Transportation if methane leaks are counted.
CA needs to move to an all-electric future. I thank you for your consideration to do that as soon as possible.
I support the measure and the phased in shift to electrification of our city, state and country. It has already been proven that electrification saves money for consumers, especially in Sacramento. Natural gas is not clean, neither in its production nor when it is burned.
Thank you for taking up this important item. I strongly support the move to accelerate the transition to 100% clean buildings, for the sake of public health, affordability, and to meet our city's climate goals.
I commend City staff for their excellent webinars and supporting educational materials. Natural gas in buildings is the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions and the City cannot meet its climate goals without phasing out its use. And clearly from the webinar presenters, any building can be successfully built without gas -- including entire college campuses, mid and high-rises and restaurants of all types. Existing buildings need not fear since the ordinance only affects the extension of gas lines to new construction. The time delay to 2023 and 2026 provides plenty of time to prepare, although I would argue for a quicker implementation timeline, given that more than 50 California cities have already enacted similar ordinances which are in effect now. Electric equipment is 3-4 times more efficient than gas and demonstrably more cost-efficient. Overall, the ordinances are needed to meet state and local climate goals and can do so without disruptive consequences.
It is important to note that climate change is science fact, something that we must address, and the goal of carbon neutrality is not only noble but also entirely essential. However, the city's statistics seem to point out that the impact of this ordinance are exceedingly small affording time for a more nuanced approach.
Our three public utilities necessary for the health and well being of our community are electricity, water and gas. The least reliable of those is electricity and the additional load will exacerbate that problem particularly when it is needed the most-during the heat of summer and the cold of winter. Having a three utility system is important for the health and well being of our community.
Though more costly, I believe a shift to hydrogen through legislation on utility providers would be simpler and easier to enforce and monitor progress while using existing infrastructure and minimizing the need for costly retrofits. It is cleaner than our grid and worth the cost.
On behalf of the Sacramento Chapter of Citizen's Climate Lobby, we write in support of the Commission moving forward with the proposed amendments set forth by the Staff Report regarding building electrification under Agenda Item 5. The Mayors' Commission on Climate Change (MCCC) spent two years developing its recommendations. One of the unanimous recommendations made by the MCCC was for the implementation of a building electrification ordinance during Year 1. Last fall, the City Council also directed staff to move quickly to implement several MCCC recommendations, including the ordinance before the Commission. Multiple jurisdictions throughout California have already taken this important step toward electrification in order to reduce greenhouse gases. Sacramento can delay no longer if we are to meet the challenge of climate change. Therefore, CCL strongly urges you to support the building electrification ordinance. Edith Thacher, Lead & Jill Peterson
Support building electrification. Agree with 350 Sac on need to move up schedule for mandatory electrification of new buildings to Jan 1,2022 for lower than four stories and Jan 1 2023 for four or higher. Failing that, at least mandate all new buildings be all electric ready by Jan 1, 2022. More cost effective to do now than retrofit later. Initiate program of public education for contractors, architects and owners of existing buildings re: upcoming mandatory electrification so they can prepare now. Also inform all applicants for permits to remodel. Sooner building owners can make existing buildings all electric ready the better. City and SMUD must work together to provide, grants, low or no interest loans and rebates to help owners of existing buildings make all electric transition with major assistance available to low income neighborhoods.
I support this if it is cost effective for the consumer and the technology to create the electricity is feasible and cost effective. The first priority should be new construction. When it does time to retrofit existing home construction, the costs to do so should be subsidized, at no-cost to the consumer.
Restaurants are critical to urban core economic development. This would really hurt the community, especially those who are in underserved communities who have always have to do more with a lot less. I am really hoping that we can insert some measure of common sense into the path toward a performance based agenda. The performance being a more balanced ecology through natural resources and economically underserved communities. This prescriptive measure will surely cause collateral damage for people in this community including the underserved. The reality is disconnected to the dream of all electric, and this is simply irresponsible legislation. In any healthy evolving community, variation is critical. Why would we choose to put all our resources into 1 electric basket. 2020 has taught us nothing apparently, that electric infrastructure is detrimental to air quality. Restaurants cannot operate without nat. gas because the infrastructure and equipment is severely behind the curve.
This is short sighted. While I do support measures to help reduce green house gasses and reduce our carbon imprint, I find the City adopting the easy way out which will make the cost of housing more expensive. Electricity is expensive especially if used to maintain an entire house. So your measure will be hurting those who can barely pay their bills. What’s been shown to make the most impact, getting people out of their cars. We had visible evidence just this past year during the shutdown not only here but all over the world of how significant pollution was reduced by people not driving. Spend more time and money on public transportation.
We should not be left with the bill of inefficient, unsafe, and high-cost gas heating. Gas appliances and gas infrastructure places families and communities at risk, from leaks degrading indoor air quality, triggering asthma attacks and exacerbating respiratory conditions in children and the elderly, to fumes from oil drilling increasing the likelihood of pregnant women giving birth prematurely. Burning gas in the home is also massively less efficient than using electric appliances for heating and water. Electrifying buildings and homes will give Sacramento residents access to more efficient technology, lowered heating costs, and more control over their indoor environment, without the toxicity of gas.
I understand the importance of clean energy and climate change and I totally support it, But there is a whole industry based on products that provide heat in peoples homes from natural gas. Mine and many others job would be almost eliminated if this gas ban was to go through. Not to mention, areas that do not have consistent electric or have power outages that depend on propane or natural gas to support the heating in their home. Natural gas is the best of both worlds between electric and Wood burning. If you get rid of natural gas you only have two options, Electric that does not offer optimal heating, and wood which is already being short changed due to its proposed environmental harms. Many restaurants that we rely on to serve us the luxury of dining out Will also be highly affected because cooking is not the same on electric burners. Please consider not burning natural gas and more so maybe finding more efficient ways to use natural gas.
I support the city developing a reach code to require all electric construction. This will help improve indoor air quality as gas is notorious for leaks and increases asthma, bronchitis, lung cancer, and heart disease. Methane, the main component of natural gas is a potent greenhouse gas 34 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat over a 100-year period and 86 times stronger over 20 years. Pipeline leaks mean natural gas is as dirty as using coal. Not installing natural gas pipes will save money on new construction and reduce dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning or explosions like in San Bruno. Induction stoves and heat pumps are energy efficient and will be affordable with SMUD’s already low rates. Induction stoves are preferred by chefs and cause fewer fires. As a renter I have no control over the appliances in my apartment, so I look forward to a city mandate. Additionally, this will fit nicely with the existing solar rooftop mandate.
It's about time our progressive cities like Sacramento pick up the mantle and perform the hard work needed to address climate change! This is a step in the right direction and moves Sacramento towards carbon neutrality and at the forefront of the handful of cities that are making the change happen. Sacramento's municipal utility SMUD has already shown great leadership by committing to ZERO CARBON ELECTRICITY by 2030! It's now up to the citizens of this city to take on the challenge to move away from natural gas and on to clean electricity as the fuel to heat their homes. Breaking an old habit is not easy - and we are so used to natural gas that it seems like a very hard step to take - Questions like "What will we do when the electric power goes away?" seem hard to answer, but there are solutions to all these issues, such as batteries and grid and load management with smart controls. Old habits are hard to break, but this as good a reason to do it as any!
For commercial use electric burners and an all electric kitchen are not a practical nor a desirable option for a commercial or restaurant kitchen. The response time and transfer of heat from the burner to the pan or pot is horribly slow and not efficient resulting in an overall waste of energy. The overall cost of operating electrical kitchen equipment is more expensive than gas, and the equipment doesn't have the longevity of natural gas equipment. This requirement will be a deterrent for restaurants and other commercial kitchens to want to open a business in Sacramento.
Sam Manolakas
Brookfields Restaurant
My husband and I opened Hawks Provisions + Public House because we were excited to be a part of the burgeoning culinary scene in Sacramento. Sacramento has done so much to embrace it's restaurant community as America's Farm to Fork Capital, but I'm concerned what this ordinance will mean for the future of Sacramento dining. Aside from our wood grill, our equipment is largely gas powered. As chef's, there are instances where the precision of an electric induction burner is appreciated, but, by and large, gas is preferred among professional chefs for it provides superior results. Furnishing a new restaurant with all electric appliances will, no doubt, prove cost prohibitive for some. The current pandemic has brought to the forefront the fragile economics of restaurants. Successful restaurants must watch every penny and electric equipment will, inevitably, drive up repair and maintenance costs. With our gas ranges and ovens, it's always the electrical portion of the equipment that fails.
Restaurants should and must be carved out of this ordinance. This would be devastating to the culinary world and especially the minority owned small and medium sized restaurants that rely on natural gas for its ability to cook their cuisine as well as being available as a low cost resource. Wok cooking is also an art form and science that is part of a culture over a thousand years old that requires high heat and speed to cook its food. Technology is not there to duplicate the need for high instant heat nor is a tried and tested version on the market. This would deter Asian restaurants to open. Please at least carve out restaurants. There are other areas that should be focused on as restaurants are not the largest culprit of carbon footprint.
It is foolish to eliminate a critical energy source. When our power was out recently, we were still able to cook, heat one part of our house, and have hot showers because our range, furnace, and water heater are all gas appliances. Wind turbines and solar panels are not reliable sources of energy; at best, they are capricious and very expensive. Wind turbines and solar panels are also high maintenance and relatively short-lived. Economically, they are bad investments, since California has to PAY other states to take our excess solar power, and there are no wind turbines that have lasted long enough to pay back their costs. Additionally, recycling these is going to be very costly. Let's instead reactivate Rancho Seco with a very safe thorium nuclear reactor to supply electricity for our growing needs without causing more CO2.
Thanks in advance for the opportunity to share with you why it is to Sacramento’s advantage to move to all-electric buildings as soon as possible.
We need to transition to all-electric buildings to meet the goals of our state to get to carbon neutral by 2045.
The youth will thank you. They are the ones who will likely endure the climate crises. We owe it to them to provide a livable planet.
Buildings output more GHG than Transportation if methane leaks are counted.
CA needs to move to an all-electric future. I thank you for your consideration to do that as soon as possible.
I support the measure and the phased in shift to electrification of our city, state and country. It has already been proven that electrification saves money for consumers, especially in Sacramento. Natural gas is not clean, neither in its production nor when it is burned.
Thank you for taking up this important item. I strongly support the move to accelerate the transition to 100% clean buildings, for the sake of public health, affordability, and to meet our city's climate goals.
I commend City staff for their excellent webinars and supporting educational materials. Natural gas in buildings is the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions and the City cannot meet its climate goals without phasing out its use. And clearly from the webinar presenters, any building can be successfully built without gas -- including entire college campuses, mid and high-rises and restaurants of all types. Existing buildings need not fear since the ordinance only affects the extension of gas lines to new construction. The time delay to 2023 and 2026 provides plenty of time to prepare, although I would argue for a quicker implementation timeline, given that more than 50 California cities have already enacted similar ordinances which are in effect now. Electric equipment is 3-4 times more efficient than gas and demonstrably more cost-efficient. Overall, the ordinances are needed to meet state and local climate goals and can do so without disruptive consequences.
It is important to note that climate change is science fact, something that we must address, and the goal of carbon neutrality is not only noble but also entirely essential. However, the city's statistics seem to point out that the impact of this ordinance are exceedingly small affording time for a more nuanced approach.
Our three public utilities necessary for the health and well being of our community are electricity, water and gas. The least reliable of those is electricity and the additional load will exacerbate that problem particularly when it is needed the most-during the heat of summer and the cold of winter. Having a three utility system is important for the health and well being of our community.
Though more costly, I believe a shift to hydrogen through legislation on utility providers would be simpler and easier to enforce and monitor progress while using existing infrastructure and minimizing the need for costly retrofits. It is cleaner than our grid and worth the cost.
On behalf of the Sacramento Chapter of Citizen's Climate Lobby, we write in support of the Commission moving forward with the proposed amendments set forth by the Staff Report regarding building electrification under Agenda Item 5. The Mayors' Commission on Climate Change (MCCC) spent two years developing its recommendations. One of the unanimous recommendations made by the MCCC was for the implementation of a building electrification ordinance during Year 1. Last fall, the City Council also directed staff to move quickly to implement several MCCC recommendations, including the ordinance before the Commission. Multiple jurisdictions throughout California have already taken this important step toward electrification in order to reduce greenhouse gases. Sacramento can delay no longer if we are to meet the challenge of climate change. Therefore, CCL strongly urges you to support the building electrification ordinance. Edith Thacher, Lead & Jill Peterson
Avoid unintended increases in fossil fuel use by timing expansion of electricity use.
Do not expand use of electricity while SMUD power content label shows fossil fuel supplying their green pricing programs.
You should of recently received a power content label sent to you by SMUD by mail, or email if you chose email to receive label.
SMUD's label: https://www.smud.org/SMUDPCL
SMUD's electricity is balanced by Balancing Authority of Northern California (BANC).
These charts show BANC power sources.
https://wwmpd.com/e-iq/eba/banc/index.html
BANC's only declared renewable source is solar, compare solar here.
https://wwmpd.com/e-iq/eba/psl-solar/index.html
Perhaps Sacramento should wait until SMUD matches PG&E for delivered carbon free electricity percentages before adopting all electric codes?
PG&E's label: https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/your-account/your-bill/understand-your-bill/bill-inserts/2020/1220-PowerContent-ADA.pdf
ever onward,
Steve Uhler
sau@wwmpd.com
Support building electrification. Agree with 350 Sac on need to move up schedule for mandatory electrification of new buildings to Jan 1,2022 for lower than four stories and Jan 1 2023 for four or higher. Failing that, at least mandate all new buildings be all electric ready by Jan 1, 2022. More cost effective to do now than retrofit later. Initiate program of public education for contractors, architects and owners of existing buildings re: upcoming mandatory electrification so they can prepare now. Also inform all applicants for permits to remodel. Sooner building owners can make existing buildings all electric ready the better. City and SMUD must work together to provide, grants, low or no interest loans and rebates to help owners of existing buildings make all electric transition with major assistance available to low income neighborhoods.
I support this if it is cost effective for the consumer and the technology to create the electricity is feasible and cost effective. The first priority should be new construction. When it does time to retrofit existing home construction, the costs to do so should be subsidized, at no-cost to the consumer.
I work in the construction industry and support Sacramento’s move toward all-electric buildings.
Restaurants are critical to urban core economic development. This would really hurt the community, especially those who are in underserved communities who have always have to do more with a lot less. I am really hoping that we can insert some measure of common sense into the path toward a performance based agenda. The performance being a more balanced ecology through natural resources and economically underserved communities. This prescriptive measure will surely cause collateral damage for people in this community including the underserved. The reality is disconnected to the dream of all electric, and this is simply irresponsible legislation. In any healthy evolving community, variation is critical. Why would we choose to put all our resources into 1 electric basket. 2020 has taught us nothing apparently, that electric infrastructure is detrimental to air quality. Restaurants cannot operate without nat. gas because the infrastructure and equipment is severely behind the curve.
This is short sighted. While I do support measures to help reduce green house gasses and reduce our carbon imprint, I find the City adopting the easy way out which will make the cost of housing more expensive. Electricity is expensive especially if used to maintain an entire house. So your measure will be hurting those who can barely pay their bills. What’s been shown to make the most impact, getting people out of their cars. We had visible evidence just this past year during the shutdown not only here but all over the world of how significant pollution was reduced by people not driving. Spend more time and money on public transportation.
We should not be left with the bill of inefficient, unsafe, and high-cost gas heating. Gas appliances and gas infrastructure places families and communities at risk, from leaks degrading indoor air quality, triggering asthma attacks and exacerbating respiratory conditions in children and the elderly, to fumes from oil drilling increasing the likelihood of pregnant women giving birth prematurely. Burning gas in the home is also massively less efficient than using electric appliances for heating and water. Electrifying buildings and homes will give Sacramento residents access to more efficient technology, lowered heating costs, and more control over their indoor environment, without the toxicity of gas.