Over the last several years, most jurisdictions in San Mateo County, including San Mateo, baked all-electric standards into their energy codes for new buildings, sometimes referred to as reach codes, which go beyond state-level mandates.
After a regional overhaul of local energy codes due to a 2024 court decision, the San Mateo City Council passed updates to continue incentivizing use of electric appliances and penalize reliance on gas infrastructure in homes and buildings.
Over the last several years, most jurisdictions in San Mateo County, including San Mateo, baked all-electric standards into their energy codes for new buildings, sometimes referred to as reach codes, which go beyond state-level mandates.
Berkeley passed one of the strictest requirements in 2019, but it was struck down in court, a decision finalized by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024. The decision pushed San Mateo to re-evaluate how it would structure its new reach codes after the 2026 state energy codes went into effect. The council approved a new policy during its meeting March 2.
One part of the new code requires single-family homes, duplexes, townhomes and commercial buildings to install either a heat pump or higher-efficiency air conditioner at the time the original AC unit needs replacement. It also mandates the addition of electric infrastructure when certain types of renovations are already underway, with the requirements focused on “pre-wiring for gas cooking, water heating, clothes drying and outdoor appliances to reduce future retrofit costs,” according to a staff report.
Another major part of the code applies to single-family homes, duplexes and townhomes and requires homeowners to choose from several efficiency improvements, each with their own set of “points,” which would have to add up to a certain score. The requirement would only apply to major renovations — such as plumbing and appliance upgrades — that are 1,000 square feet or larger. The requirements would not apply to “routine repairs and maintenance, hazard mitigation, roof or windows projects, or [accessory dwelling units],” the report added.
Recommended for you
“In previous discussions of reach codes, we've always had people coming in and opposing, and what I think is a definite sign of progress is that no one has spoken out to oppose the reach codes and to me that is fantastic,” Councilmember Rob Newsom said during the council meeting. “I am definitely in support of these reach codes.”
Many cities, including San Mateo, have had to weigh the financial implications of electrification against climate goals and regional and state-level policies, as residents and city leaders have raised concern over the delta between the average upgrade costs presented by Peninsula Clean Energy — the county’s clean energy provider — and the costs they’ve experienced firsthand. While it approved prioritizing the electrification of all municipal buildings last summer, the City Council decided not to accelerate a version of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s standards, which will prohibit the sale and installation of gas water heaters starting in 2027 and gas furnaces in 2029.
“This is a milestone achievement for our city,” Mayor Adam Loraine said during the meeting. “Reach codes are a cost effective and vetted pathway to a more sustainable future.”
The new ordinance was passed unanimously. It must be filed and approved by the California Energy Commission and the Building Standards Commission.
“Reach codes are a cost effective and vetted pathway to a more sustainable future.” Yet another statement by an oblivious politician. No Adam, it is not cost effective and your vetting was done by the PCE which has an ulterior motive. Most of the world is now dumping this hyped attempt to direct Mother Nature. This will always be like trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole. It ain't working, just check with the conditions in The Netherlands and Germany. Politicians love to come up with cheap verbal solutions without considering practicality.
Another wonderful example of our inept San Mateo City Council focusing on all of the wrong things. None of them seem to have any logic. There is already a drain on the electric grids. Could any one of them to try to redirect the focus away from "reach codes" and "gas blowers" - which no one wants, nor cares about - toward something that truly matters such as improved infrastructure with all of the new housing being built and safer streets so people quit being hit by cars?!
San Mateo County Democrats have a huge problem with reaching California's sustainability goals.
For most cities around here we see
- 45% of GHG emissions are coming from homes and energy
- 45% of GHG emission are coming from cars and transportation
To reduce both, the county created a playbook in 2015:
- create Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) to "greenwash" all electricity by buying RECs from "green energy sources" in Kern or Shasta counties
- push all current GHG emissions towards "electrification" through reach codes and pushing electric vehicles.
- all electricity can now be "greenwashed" by PCE - but this still leaves the problem with gasoline engines in cars and leaf blowers, home gas heating, diesel trucks and buses.
Of course the hypocrisy became visible when the same politicians pushed for:
- highway widening of US-101
- sabotaging public transportation as much as possible by taking transit money and investing it into real estate.
- refusing to build safe bicycle infrastructure in their biggest cities (San Mateo and Redwood City)
- bullying children on electric bicycles (e-bikes) that dared to ride despite having no safe bike infrastructure.
This is all about "greenwashing" - nothing more, nothing less.
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!
(3) comments
“Reach codes are a cost effective and vetted pathway to a more sustainable future.” Yet another statement by an oblivious politician. No Adam, it is not cost effective and your vetting was done by the PCE which has an ulterior motive. Most of the world is now dumping this hyped attempt to direct Mother Nature. This will always be like trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole. It ain't working, just check with the conditions in The Netherlands and Germany. Politicians love to come up with cheap verbal solutions without considering practicality.
Another wonderful example of our inept San Mateo City Council focusing on all of the wrong things. None of them seem to have any logic. There is already a drain on the electric grids. Could any one of them to try to redirect the focus away from "reach codes" and "gas blowers" - which no one wants, nor cares about - toward something that truly matters such as improved infrastructure with all of the new housing being built and safer streets so people quit being hit by cars?!
San Mateo County Democrats have a huge problem with reaching California's sustainability goals.
For most cities around here we see
- 45% of GHG emissions are coming from homes and energy
- 45% of GHG emission are coming from cars and transportation
To reduce both, the county created a playbook in 2015:
- create Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) to "greenwash" all electricity by buying RECs from "green energy sources" in Kern or Shasta counties
- push all current GHG emissions towards "electrification" through reach codes and pushing electric vehicles.
- all electricity can now be "greenwashed" by PCE - but this still leaves the problem with gasoline engines in cars and leaf blowers, home gas heating, diesel trucks and buses.
Of course the hypocrisy became visible when the same politicians pushed for:
- highway widening of US-101
- sabotaging public transportation as much as possible by taking transit money and investing it into real estate.
- refusing to build safe bicycle infrastructure in their biggest cities (San Mateo and Redwood City)
- bullying children on electric bicycles (e-bikes) that dared to ride despite having no safe bike infrastructure.
This is all about "greenwashing" - nothing more, nothing less.
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.