Electric energy codes are in legal limbo in San Mateo County

The lawsuit, filed by the California Restaurant Association, claimed food service businesses require gas appliances for their operations and cited the code’s conflict with the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which provides energy efficiency standards for household appliances, including those with natural gas.

Over the last several years, most jurisdictions in San Mateo County have baked all-electric standards into their energy codes for new buildings, sometimes referred to as reach codes, which go beyond state-level mandates. Electric appliances are seen as a way to move away from fossil fuels, which contribute to greenhouse gases. And while some Bay Area cities entertained the idea of Berkeley-style restrictions, Rafael Reyes, director of energy programs at Peninsula Clean Energy, a public electricity provider throughout the county, said many of the codes adopted on the Peninsula are different than the East Bay city.

“It’s important to understand that Berkeley’s code is very different from the ones that our cities have adopted. … It’s been adopted under their municipal code, whereas the model that our cities adopted is in the energy code,” he said. “However, the interpretation of whether it applies to the energy-based reach codes is an open question. Cities are making their own determinations about that. Most cities in our service territories are continuing to enforce their reach codes.”

The practical difference between enforcing all-electric developments via municipal versus energy code varies by city, but Reyes said in Berkeley’s case, it comes down to when a development is evaluated for compliance, which, in its code, occurred at the entitlement stage, instead of closer to construction.

But a key distinction between Berkeley and most Peninsula cities — and a central argument surfaced by the court — is that the former prohibits the installation of any natural gas connections in new developments, with some exceptions, while the latter follows state level codes, also known as Title 24, which would permit the a gas connection but still require that the appliances are electric.

“For example, if someone puts in an exterior barbecue — and not every code adopted by every city is the same — but that could be allowed under certain Title 24 codes, but might not be allowed under the Berkeley code,” Reyes said. “So there was a little more flexibility in the Title 24-based codes in general.”

Some San Mateo County municipalities have also made more exceptions for natural gas usage, such as for hospitals, labs or even some affordable housing developments.

Reyes said many cities in the area, as well as Peninsula Clean Energy, are continuing to monitor the situation, and said each jurisdiction should do their own precautionary assessments, as Title 24 regulations have not been tested by the courts yet.

Since last year, the agency has developed alternative model codes that cities can refer to which Reyes said may be more defensible in a court of law than previous codes.

“The old model actually defines what all-electric means and the requirements to meet it. The new model code strictly speaks to the total energy use in the building, and in general, electric appliances are substantially more efficient than the alternatives. So, as a consequence, it’s easier to meet an energy-based standard using electric, efficient appliances than the alternatives,” Reyes said.

Regardless of any legal challenges, he said independently growing consumer demand, coupled with a gradual deconstruction of cost misconceptions, ensures momentum for all-electric initiatives doesn’t slow down.

“There’s been a tremendous increase in interest in electric appliances,” he said. “Over time, there is increasing understanding that it’s not as hard as many people believe it is.”