I write in support of this ordinance and its advancement of the recommendations proposed by the Mayor’s Climate Change initiative. I specifically support the electrification of all new residential construction beginning in 2023 and the inclusion of EV chargers at new multifamily dwellings to help increase electric vehicle accessibility. Last summer, we in Sacramento experienced the catastrophic effects of climate change with weeks of air pollution as a result of the worst wildfire season on record. We can’t fight climate change without reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, our aging gas infrastructure releases dangerous amounts of methane before it even gets to our homes. I also don’t support fracking, which is inevitably linked to fossil gas extraction. We need to transition to clean and renewable sources of energy. The technology is available and we need the will to follow the lead of other major countries and transition off limited and harmful fossil fuels.

Please see the attached letter from 350 Sacramento and other organizations.

I support this ordinance because it is cost-effective and equitable. Yesterday one of CA’s leading affordable housing developers, National CORE, announced it is phasing out fossil fuels in new homes and buildings because building all-electric is cheaper. The cost of adding gas infrastructure to new homes adds almost $9,000 to a home's cost. Furthermore, ratepayers subsisted the cost of gas infrastructure’s expansion. More affordable housing is made possible by ditching gas and going electric.

The fact that we need to do everything possible to limit GHG emissions is beyond scientific debate. We need to do these things now (or preferably 10 years ago). The electric grid can be and is getting de-carbonized. It is very hard to de-carbonize burning any fuel, including natural gas. The proposed ordinance seizes upon one of the many obvious solutions -- and we need them all.

The provisions for EV charging readiness makes this a win-win. Currently, Sacramento residents send hundreds of millions of dollars out of the area for liquid fuels that originate in Saudi Arabia and Texas, then are refined upwind of us in the Bay Area. Facilitating the use of EVs will help with numerous problems for local residents -- climate, health and fiscal. I have started a business to facilitate the transition to electric vehiclds, and hope to be part of a growing part of the local economy.

Will Brieger
Pacific Fleet Charging

I have been a lifelong resident of Sacramento in District 6 and strongly support the City's move to electrify as soon as possible, given that the City of Sacramento also take careful measures to work directly in conversation with labor groups on the topic of green workforce development programs and jobs (as City Council has expressed intent in working towards).

As the City electrifies, it must also become more efficient and sustainable with respect to energy, water, and transportation.

Safety and reliability are ensured when we partner with SMUD to maximize local renewable energy production and accelerate the transition off of fossil fuels; fossil fuels are an inherently risky energy source in terms of local public health as well as climate consequences. Pipelines for oil and natural gas will always leak, such as was the case just yesterday in San Francisco. Generating renewable electricity locally will prevent power line malfunctions and the subsequent outages and wildfires caused.

I am a restaurant operator in Sacramento and I believe this measure will negatively impact the growth of new restaurants in our area. Operating an all electric restaurant will be far more expensive and commercial cooking equipment using natural gas is the industry standard. I ask that our industry be granted a waiver. This law is bad for business. A large amount of Californias electricity is produced out of state often by gas powered plants. This law does not lead to a smaller carbon footprint print for the globe, only for California at the expense of local business owners and many others.

Hello i work in the hearth business.I am a dealer in this northern California area.This proposal is bad in so many ways.In many ways the greater Sacramento area uses natural gas for so many things we need.The customers we service i feel enjoy the natural gas products we carry and sell too them and its very popular and helps many out in the area.I also feel many people nowadays still sell natural gas units and as such family's rely on the income of these businesses.My personal family survive off these things we sell and these jobs of the sellers and of the people that own these places is at a huge risk.

This is so interesting; and I mean "interesting" in the fact that Californians support additional government control over them! How many of you had blackouts this past year? I had two in my neighborhood and one was 24 hours, the other was almost 48 hours! And, I'm old enough to remember "Global Cooling...the Next Ice Age" of the late 1970's and early 1980's. Apparently we corrected that and now have warming of the climate. The United States has done well in fighting pollution and warming of the climate. U.S. citizens have sacrificed and paid enormous amounts to aid in this battle. The HUGE culprits in this climate issue are the Chinese and the country of India among others. These countries need to held to account to do their share and not put the full burden on Californians and the American people as a whole. A natural gas ban in California would devastate many., many industries and literally kill our economy. Natural gas is getting a bad rap, as it is a clean burning fuel.

My name is Aaron Ziemer, I live in midtown and I am in strong support of this measure. Electrification is a vital step in protecting our community from the effects of climate change and is a great opportunity to expand local green jobs. And I am even more strongly in support of this if we are able to include language about greywater reclamation systems so that plumbers and pipefitters can continue to have good union work that is in the service of a green future.

I want Sacramento to join the other 42 cities in CA by eliminating fossil gas infrastructure in new home construction! I specifically support the electrification of all new residential construction beginning in 2023 and the inclusion of EV chargers at new multifamily dwellings to help increase electric vehicle accessibility because:

–Clean energy technology is available and we need the will to follow the lead of other major countries and transition off limited and harmful fossil fuels.
–Making indoor and outdoor air healthier is a social justice issue.
—Residential gas rates are estimated to increase more than 12X by 2050. Meanwhile electricity from renewables will continue to get cheaper.

This ordinance is essential for combating climate change, improving public health, and making housing more affordable and equitable!

For the sake of ongoing human existence and biodiversity on this planet... for our children's future.

I support the proposed amendments to the California Building Standards Code, which includes all-electric new construction and EV charging expansion. This ordinance is essential for combating climate change, improving public health, and making housing more affordable and equitable.

I am an architect and business owner in Sacramento. This new policy will be another great challenge for our industry and it will affect some of our daily comforts that we've grown accustomed to in the spaces we reside, but we MUST address the existential threat of climate change with compassion and see beyond our immediate horizon and see the greater good. Without challenge, there is not progress.

I am grateful to live in a city that understands the importance of this challenge to humanity and is willing to take action.

I support the electrification of new homes and making EV charging more accessible because:

Health: Homes with gas cooking are shown to have dangerous levels of nitrogen dioxide—50–400 percent higher than homes with induction/electric stoves, resulting in a higher incidence of asthma in children. Air quality is a social justice issue. We need to ensure new dwellings are healthy and safe by excluding gas infrastructure.

Climate: Residential & commercial buildings = 12% of CA's greenhouse gas emissions. We can’t fight climate change without reducing GHGs.

Cost-Effective and Equitable: Yesterday one of CA’s leading affordable housing developers (National CORE) said it's phasing out fossil fuels in new homes b/c all-electric is cheaper. Adding gas infrastructure = almost $9,000. Electric construction makes housing more affordable.

When we learn that materials are dangerous--like asbestos--we stop using them. Let’s stop using dangerous and unhealthy fossil gas in new homes.

My name is Mat Marion builder sales manager for CAPO Fireside Sacramento. My family, myself and some of my closest friends have made their living in the fireplace and BBQ industry. Adoption of this electrification ordinance will severely hurt our bottom line and will encourage people to move their business's and builds to other counties and states. Customers consistently demand fireplaces and gas ranges in their homes. For these reasons and more homeowners are more than willing to build in other cities and counties that still allow Natural Gas and wood burning. I feel this ordinance is a knee jerk green-reaction. The majority of our power comes from burning dirty coal in other states. Getting rid of NG will only increase pollution if you look at it from the perspective of overall carbon neutrality of one cycle versus the other. Stop electrification now and protect your citizens, tax dollars and environment! Thank You! C= (916)206-5209 mmarion@capofireside.com

All electric residential construction is VERY SHORT SIGHTED. All electric homes are more expensive to keep warm, more expensive to heat water and more expensive (and less effective) to cook our food with. We do not have sufficient electric power available for the homes we already have and must use natural gas to generate electricity at HALF the efficiency of heating directly with gas...that means EVEN MORE GREENHOUSE GAS. What happens to the folks with medical problems who need electricity to operate life support products...even CPAP machines? That will endanger their lives when we loose power. It is NEGILENCE to mandate all electric homes and endanger peoples lives and the LIABILITY will rest squarely on the City of Sacramento.

1. All-electric homes depend on only one source of energy. We have learned that Energy Diversity is key to our safety and health in emergencies.
2. All-electric homes have lower values than homes with Energy Diversity.
3. All-electric homes are more costly to keep warm, heat your water, dry your clothes, cook your food, and may prevent you from enjoying a warm cozy fire.
4. Direct use of Natural Gas to heat your home is far more efficient (82%-95%) than a utility using natural gas to generate electricity (about 40%), cutting greenhouse gas emissions effectively by half or more.
5. Part of the proposed plan may include “Forced Electrification” of EXISTING HOMES that might entail changing out all gas appliances when we sell our homes.
6. Banning natural gas needs to be put on HOLD until electric utilities can ensure safe, efficient operation and reliable energy supply during power outages and catastrophes. Anything less will be negligence.

This is not fair to our lower income residents who may not have a choice about paying for high electrical cost in the future. As the state continues is march toward 'green' energy the cost of heating, cooling, washing clothes, drying clothes, bathing, powering home medical equipment will fall on the backs of our poor much more than then well to do in our society. The premium on gas inside a rental or home will increase the cost to rent or buy those dwellings. The choice for options for the poor will be reduced. During the intermittent times when wind and solar fail to provide adequate power many people will be without power or back up facilities that run on natural gas will have to provide that power anyway thus negating the intent of this plan. The cost of living in California are being driven by policies like this. Please do not fall all over yourselves to signal that your doing something about global warming. Those struggling to get ahead in life will pay the price.

Housing is already ridiculously expensive, partially due to regulations such as prevailing wages and solar. Don't do anything that increases government control or adds to the cost of housing, such as adding EV requirements. Your recent actions suggest you're interested in builders investing in much more housing. Changes like this will affect new building, which will affect prices for lower and middle class people, as well as the rich. What percentage of Americans drive EVs? Few, because they're expensive. Certainly, you won't put EV requirements in affordable housing neighborhoods, right?

Requiring all new construction to be all electric is short-sighted. The state power grid already struggles every summer to keep up with demand. During winter power outages, people with gas heaters can stay warm, cook on gas cooktops, and take warm showers with gas water heaters. Offer incentives to people to make the choice to go all-electric, but don’t force people to do so. Taking away people’s choices just ensures that more people will elect to leave the area.

The city should promote a society of abundance instead of scarcity. Rather than "taking away" gas, provide other, real options for energy. Allow people to make their own decision based on what works best for them. Incentivize other options. In a free country, people are given the freedom to choose. How electricity is made and how lithium (for EV cars) is mined, is NOT clean. If you are concerned about climate change, these all should be part of the discussion.

I love my gas heater, stove and water. If I were to sell and buy new, I would still want that. I would not move to a location thst was electric only. I do notbyhink it is a good idea to take away the choice of those who will be living there. It's not a good idea at all.