Questions about the cost of switching from gas to electric appliances remains a thorny problem, with a recent San Mateo Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission addressing the subject as it looks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Building electrification calls for switching from using natural gas to carbon-free electricity for heating, cooking and cooling in buildings through gas stoves, water heaters, cooling systems and dryers. The city is working on ambitious reduction goals to help the environment and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, like reducing emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. However, the increased costs of switching for property owners have made some hesitant about the best way to proceed.
The San Mateo Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission meeting on Sept. 13 highlighted cost details and provided information on the types of rebates available to offset it, with city staff arguing that while costs for electrification are higher, parity could be reached with existing rebates. A city staff report showed the total cost to electrify without rebate incentives would be around $24,000 to $31,000. Staff noted commercial building electrification costs remain highly variable, with different sizes and systems preventing an accurate analysis. Marginal costs of full-home electrification after rebates could range from around $4,800 more to $700 in cost savings, with incentives often needed to achieve parity.
The commission noted costs remain the biggest impediment for people, with Chair Susan Rowinski calling for having a city rebate case manager to help people navigate the convoluted process of applying and being eligible for electrification rebates. City staff said around $21,600 is available to support home electrification, although the number could fluctuate.
“Rebates are very spontaneous and can change with or without notice and, frankly, the best thing people can do is get a quote in terms of the current pricing of their hardware and what rebates are available,” Rowinski said. “I think that’s the best we can do.”
Several speakers wanted more details and city planning for associated costs that come with replacement and how the city would help deal with potential expenses. Fernando Peña, with the San Mateo County Association of Realtors, said significant questions remained about cost estimates on residential electrification and grid reliability.
“What assistance will there be for low-income and middle-income households through rebates and incentives?” Peña said.
Several commissioners called for contacting different neighborhoods, construction and community groups to reduce distrust and show how switching could work financially. Commissioner Kimiko Naritai called for more specific information on electrification compliance dates and ensuring there was community outreach to prevent misinformation and disinformation from being disseminated. Commissioner Cliff Robbins noted the city had to be mindful of pushback, noting it would take time and outreach to overcome it.
Recommended for you
“It’s a public benefit, it’s not just a private benefit, but there are tradeoffs and competing interests, the principle one being cost and the general acceptance of mandates,” Robbins said.
Proponents of electrification and moving forward, like Dashiell Leeds, a conservation organizer with the Loma Prieta Sierra Club, noted methane emissions reductions are needed in the long run to reduce risks to children and families for asthma. According to a staff report, building emissions make up 38% of the city’s total and gas accounts for 85% of building-related emissions, while 59% of all residential gas use is for water heating, and 32% is for space heating. The city is requiring all new construction to be all-electric starting in 2023.
“We are glad to see the commitment from staff on equity and community engagement. We glad they recognize the need to educate community members and decision-makers on building electrification and incentives,” Leeds said.
Bike infrastructure improvements continue to progress, with the public praising city efforts to reduce car use and calling for more bike lanes at the meeting. Making the city more bike-friendly has been a priority of the City Council as it works to reduce greenhouse gas and increase safety. Since 2020, the city has completed bike infrastructure projects on Fifth and 28th avenues, in the North Central neighborhood, and Pacific Avenue, with ongoing work to improve elsewhere. The city recently adopted a school zone speed limit that calls for 15 mph within 500 feet of the school and 25 mph between 500 to 1,000 feet. The current speed limit at San Mateo schools is 25 mph.
Jon Felder, a teacher at Aragon High School, praised the city for recent successes in bike infrastructure, like bike lanes along Humboldt Street between Fourth and Ninth avenues, downtown and Fifth Avenue west of El Camino. He wanted to see more green-painted bike lanes on Aragon Boulevard.
“I think the city of San Mateo should think about prioritizing bike safety and improving on two really important crosstown streets, and those would be Fifth Avenue and Ninth Avenue slash Aragon Boulevard,” Felder said.
Others called for speed humps to reduce car speeds. Cooper Wong, a senior at Aragon High School, said he was worried about bike safety for his family and people who ride to the school.
“I sometimes bike or walk to school because I don’t always have a car to use, but I am nervous when I do it because cars drive so fast on Alameda,” Wong said.
Ah yes, the lunacy continues… “carbon-free electricity”? How’s that going to work when over half our electrical power in CA comes from natural gas-fired power plants? Are we going to continue taking money from the poor to give to the rich? You know, via taxpayer rebates to folks who can afford making changes to a single power source. (How often has going to a single source really worked out?) Talk about wasting time and money, and a commission, on this problem. How about canceling the train-to-nowhere and you’d have plenty of taxpayer money to spread around, while also reducing a bigly amount of carbon emissions? The lunacy continues, to solve a problem that isn’t there.
Yes - let us all pay close attention to this 'expert'. "Dashiell Leeds, a conservation organizer with the Loma Prieta Sierra Club". Where did he/she get his/her credentials other than from newspaper clippings. Even the California Resources Board, hardly a conservative bunch, has acknowledged that natural gas combustion has no proven impact on long term health or asthma for that matter. Can't believe that anyone in his or her right mind would even let him or her talk about already refuted and exaggerated concerns about natural gas. Also, the promised incentives from the Bidenomics system will not even available until late 2024, if then, which means that all conversions are on one's own nickel.
California politicians seem unable to do anything other than make life more expensive and more of a hassle. Ignoring the costs involved with switching from gas to electric, yet still mandating it, shows how common sense plays no part in their though processes. Any candidate for office who has pushed for this automatically loses my vote.
Residential contribution to greenhouse emissions in the US is less than 20%, and this is across millions of households. Given how little it makes up per household, "electrification" schemes do very little for carbon footprint, it does a lot more to line up pockets of contractors, equipment companies and trades people. What a scam.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(4) comments
Ah yes, the lunacy continues… “carbon-free electricity”? How’s that going to work when over half our electrical power in CA comes from natural gas-fired power plants? Are we going to continue taking money from the poor to give to the rich? You know, via taxpayer rebates to folks who can afford making changes to a single power source. (How often has going to a single source really worked out?) Talk about wasting time and money, and a commission, on this problem. How about canceling the train-to-nowhere and you’d have plenty of taxpayer money to spread around, while also reducing a bigly amount of carbon emissions? The lunacy continues, to solve a problem that isn’t there.
Yes - let us all pay close attention to this 'expert'. "Dashiell Leeds, a conservation organizer with the Loma Prieta Sierra Club". Where did he/she get his/her credentials other than from newspaper clippings. Even the California Resources Board, hardly a conservative bunch, has acknowledged that natural gas combustion has no proven impact on long term health or asthma for that matter. Can't believe that anyone in his or her right mind would even let him or her talk about already refuted and exaggerated concerns about natural gas. Also, the promised incentives from the Bidenomics system will not even available until late 2024, if then, which means that all conversions are on one's own nickel.
California politicians seem unable to do anything other than make life more expensive and more of a hassle. Ignoring the costs involved with switching from gas to electric, yet still mandating it, shows how common sense plays no part in their though processes. Any candidate for office who has pushed for this automatically loses my vote.
Residential contribution to greenhouse emissions in the US is less than 20%, and this is across millions of households. Given how little it makes up per household, "electrification" schemes do very little for carbon footprint, it does a lot more to line up pockets of contractors, equipment companies and trades people. What a scam.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.