One of the issues we face as a society is that a difference of opinion or a new idea is often looked at with suspicion. If someone brings up an idea that is counter to your belief, even if the goal is ultimately the same, then that person is immediately dismissed, perhaps even shunned. Their thoughts are deemed inaccurate, or worse, misinformation or disinformation.
There is too much emphasis on purity tests these days. You must be in lockstep, and if you question, you’re painted negatively. Whatever happened to not letting perfect be the enemy of the good? And the art of compromise and listening?
I wrote a column a week ago on what I felt was the best way to reach electrification in our state. This is an emerging goal, and has sudden urgency for some. In this piece, I describe an equitable and expansive path forward to achieving a goal of zero emissions in the state. Yet, I was promptly blasted by a number of people because of some of the details of my plan, and description of our current events.
I even caught the attention of a public relations firm headquartered in New York City whose representative sent me an Op-Ed purported to have been authored by the executive officer of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. In this piece, a condensed version of which was printed this week as a letter to the editor, my larger point about the confusion of multiple local efforts was proven as it seemed to conflate my points about that into its own singular effort to limit emissions from gas water heaters and furnaces. I do admit I made a mistake, however, in that I had said this initiative was for climate change mitigation and that the rule amendments were based on concerns over gas leaks. I corrected the column and apologize to everyone. There was a report that came out recently that said one of the dangers of methane gas use was when it leaked inside a house and that much of the danger could be ameliorated with a vent fan. But as the concerns and reports grow, and I should have been cognizant of that. The district’s effort is to reduce the impact of nitrogen dioxide inside our homes. A second point was that somehow I suggested that the air district had little discussion on costs to residents, though,, I was making that point about all the local efforts. Other points seemed boilerplate and didn’t seem to be in response to anything I wrote.
I did have some followup questions about the effort, its outreach and its economic analysis but have yet to receive answers; but I understand that the PR firm may be busy with other matters. I did ask about its contract with the district as well. I can let everyone know about that if I receive an answer.
To be clear, my intention is neither to beat up the PR firm, nor the district. They are just doing their jobs and adhering to their mission. Like me. My mission is to help spur conversation and create new ways of thinking. My idea to move toward electrification at the state level has the biggest opportunity to make the biggest environmental impact (40 million people!) in the quickest and most equitable fashion. It arrived out of my frustration that too little effort has been made to fully recognize the magnitude of electrification and its potential costs to average people. Two of the biggest ticket items with plans to electrify current homes are panel and service upgrades. I haven’t seen any information on how many homes will need them and how they will be accomplished in a timely manner. My idea would eliminate this concern by guaranteeing it would be paid for out of a bond. If the number of residences in need of this is small, so would the dollar amount. But asking for this is not misinformation, it is concern.
The district approved the plan to require no NOx emissions in water heaters by 2027 and furnaces by 2029, by the way. However, when agencies ask for outreach, they should take it in the spirit it is given rather than blast it. Too often, those with new ideas or concerns are dismissed rather than having them considered, and incorporated. This only grows suspicion. People need to be brought aboard and feel they are heard and not marginalized or put on blast.
This is the way our society needs to work. When asking for public outreach, listen. When proposing big changes, listen. Then learn and modify accordingly. Your way may be right for you, but it may not be right for everyone. I’m open to feedback, but are you?
Jon Mays is the editor-in-chief of the Daily Journal. He can be reached at jon@smdailyjournal.com. Follow Jon on Twitter @jonmays.
(15) comments
Jon, I agree that people need to consider opposing ideas. We electrification advocates welcome good faith feedback because we need solutions for legitimate concerns if our efforts are to be successful. It will set us back if we adopt inefficient policies that impose large costs that alienate the mainstream.
I also don't think ideas should be dismissed or shunned. That's why I think you made a mistake in characterizing the advocacy of typical electrification proponents as "end-of-the-world panic arguments and half-baked propaganda". I've been doing this work for three years and have collaborated with scores of local folks who volunteer their time to do the greatest good for the greatest number. We work extra hard to root our advocacy in facts, science, and practical policy because we know we need to overcome this trope, this conservative caricature of environmental advocacy. I was also highly impressed by the more than one hundred public comments during the BAAQMD meeting, the overwhelming majority of which were in support of the rules. They were well thought out and fact based - I didn't hear any hysterics. I think you are a good faith actor, seeking the truth and helping others do the same. You have published many pro-electrification and pro-climate letters and you've personally given our ideas a fair hearing. That's why this divisive language was so disappointing.
Re: BAAQMD, the BoD made up of local electeds voted 20-0 in favor (with our own Ray Mueller unfortunately being the lone abstention along with 3 other absences; BIG thanks to Supervisor Corzo and Vice Mayor Hurt for their excellent votes). The directors who voted in favor represent every constituency in the Bay Area: low-income, middle class, urban, rural, people of color, owners, renters, labor, and more. A number of directors expressed the exact concerns you did - costs and grid reliability. An implementation team will be working on these issues and will report back in 2 years at which point the BoD will have the option to delay the rules if enough progress hasn't been made. Also, the California Air Resources Board has committed to making similar rules to take effect in 2030. By starting earlier the Bay Area is well positioned to reap the benefits of cleaner air sooner and to utilize the funding mechanisms already in place.
I know you are concerned about panel and service upgrades. I am too and so is the BAAQMD BoD. The following PG&E course demonstrates how even a 3k sqft house can electrify on a 100 amp panel by picking efficient appliances and using circuit splitters among other strategies, so I believe this is a challenge that can be overcome. https://pge.docebosaas.com/learn/course/external/view/elearning/1206/home-electrification-retrofits-without-upsizing-the-electric-panel-previously-recorded
Some people will require upgrades (e.g. some people are on 60 amp panels). Personally, I think that since the benefit of the emissions reductions are shared by everyone, the cost should be spread among either ratepayers or taxpayers. But let's see what the implementation team comes up with.
As I mentioned, our work will be for naught if we alienate the mainstream and I'm sure the electeds on the BAAQMD BoD want to avoid that scenario too. I know you prefer a comprehensive state-level solution and so do I, but let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Let's let the process play out.
ChrisFrank338 – a long response, but a response that continues to ignore legitimate feedback that over 50% of California’s electricity has been supplied by natural gas power plants for the past twenty years, if not longer (https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/electric-generation-capacity-and-energy). Of course, let’s not forget CA wildfires in 2020 created enough carbon emissions to offset 16 years of reductions, twice over. If CA were really serious about climate change and emissions, instead of taking money from the poor and giving to the rich, California would put that money towards forest management and wildfire prevention, to the benefit of everyone.
As for alienating the mainstream, a recently released Rasmussen poll shows 60% of Americans don’t believe climate change is about climate, but about power. Only 25% strongly believe. When lower income folks realize they’re subsidizing higher income folks and when everybody realizes that larger costs associated with forced electrification doesn’t make a whit of difference to global emissions, more and more folks will realize climate change actions aren't about climate.
Meanwhile, the UK is firing up coal generators because their “green” energy can’t keep up. Germany, last year, purchased over 44 million tonnes of coal, mostly from Russia. China purchased $114 billion worth of oil from Russia (while increasing coal mining operations in China). India is planning on importing 33 times more oil from Russia than last year. China plans to build almost 200 coal power plants this year. Overall global use of coal has climbed to a record high of over 8 billion tonnes.
Thank you for the constructive feedback Terence.
The fact that California’s grid is half fossil gas does not support your anti-electrification case for two reasons. 1) Even under CA’s current mix, we would use significantly less gas if heating were transitioned to heat pumps because they are multiple times more efficient at converting energy into heat compared to gas appliances. See here: https://cleantechnica.com/2023/03/14/with-heat-from-heat-pumps-us-energy-requirements-could-plummet-by-50/
This is because instead of using electricity to create heat directly through a heating element, heat pumps use energy to gather heat from the ambient environment and move it indoors. This works at very low temperatures and they are getting better every year. Finland and Sweden have heat pump penetration >40% and in Norway it’s over 60%. See here: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-heat-pump-sales-are-starting-to-take-off-around-the-world/
An added benefit is they work in reverse and can provide cooling which will be important as the climate warms since many Bay Area homes do not have AC today. ACs are, in fact, heat pumps that work in one direction – another creative solution the state should adopt is to require that devices sold as air conditioners do cooling and heating.
2) The GHG intensity of California’s grid is going to fall. SB 1020 signed into law by Governor Newsom in 2022 targets zero carbon sources supplying 90% of all retail electricity by 2035 and 95% by 2040.
Let’s do building electrification AND forest management.
For the policies we are considering, we have to worry about the mainstream in the Bay Area and California. I think the 20-0 vote by the BAAQMD BoD made up of local electeds demonstrates that the Bay Area mainstream is ready for building electrification. Even Ray Mueller who had some pretty tough comments about the proposal in his closing remarks couldn’t bring himself to vote against it – he abstained. Similarly, California has been leading on environmental action for decades, capped most recently by the package of laws from 2022 that included the goal for net zero carbon emissions by 2045 (AB 1279) and SB 1020 that I discussed previously, and Democratic hegemony remains firmly entrenched. It’s safe to say the mainstream in California favors government intervention to promote a stable environment.
ChrisFrank338 – thanks for your response. In short, you’re going to run into the same issue. If the issue were only converting heating from natural gas to heat pumps, I’d say that heat pumps for most of temperature California would be a good option (and thanks for the link) although you’d be at the mercy of a monopolistic electric utility. But the issue is not specific to HVAC, CA is shortsightedly attempting to mandate a change to all-electrical, including cars. Even if you lowered natural gas consumption via heat pump usage, you will offset that decrease with a considerable increase in natural gas consumption because our electricity still needs to come from somewhere. And as has been shown historically, most likely from fossil-fuel burning power plants, whether in CA or elsewhere. Unfortunately, I’m not hearing of a rush in nuclear or hydroelectric projects. But all of that is beside the point…
The biggest point, and which most pushing for all-electrification ignore (including the BAAQMD), is that man-made global warming is just that… global. There’s the issue of developing countries using fossil-fuels to their hearts desires. I’m sure they’re happy if you and other folks want to cut down usage of your fossil-fuels – more for them, and likely cheaper. Meanwhile developed countries, because they’re not able to generate enough “clean” electricity are increasing consumption of fossil fuels.
I think that is very presumptuous that "benefit of the emissions reductions are shared by everyone, the cost should be spread among either ratepayers or taxpayers" Do we really know what these benefits are? And, how to convert that elusive benefit into monetary terms? Also, the PG&E course on how to live with less is something that is not appealing and certainly not practicable for most of us. Especially that there is no demonstrated need to suffer from this intrusion. We are in the 21st Century and you are recommending a major step in reverse. However, if you believe it is acceptable, please go ahead but don't force us into a constrained lifestyle.
Almost every house built since WWII was built with a 100 ampere service. That needs to be upgraded to a 200 amp main service (or more) to comply with these new regulations. Then you need to run a new 240 volt circuit to the heat pump water heater. Depending on where it is located, you will probably also need to add new air ducts to carry outside air to and from the heat pump water heater since what it does is pump heat energy from the air into the water. (Unless you want it to refrigerate the air around the water heater and lose efficiency.) You can probably re-use the existing 120 volt furnace circuit for the air handler portion of the heat pump, but you need to run a new 240 volt circuit to the condensing unit outdoors. Then you need to run at least one new 240 volt circuit to the electric car charger, since fuel vehicles will be banned. If your existing gas water heater dies, your local plumber won't be able to replace it the next day. An electrician will first need to make major wiring modifications and deal with PG&E. When the electrical work is complete, the plumber can then add the ducts and install the heat pump water heater. These new regulations will require almost every house to get a new main electrical service plus other major electrical modifications over time.
Thanks for your detailed food for thought, Newell Post. I don’t imagine this electrical work will come cheap so folks thinking about electrification may want to budget for these additional installation costs. You sound like you have experience in the field. Maybe a side job providing electrical conversion estimates, partnering with an electrical contractor should that expertise not be in your wheelhouse…
I have about 13 Woks for sale, Jon.
Feel free to drop by. [unsure]
It appears that stoves are exempt. No word about the ubiquitous gas fireplaces either. That should tell us something about the BAAQMD staff's arbitrary ruling or ignorance.
Mr. Mays - it appears that the horse is out of the barn and the electrification effort is going forward. I do not agree with most of it but will do my part to at least minimize the economic impact on most of us in this District who have no idea what the implications are. First and foremost, we need to get PG&E, as the delivery utility, and then PCE, as the provider, to lay out how they intend to make electrification a viable project. So far, all PCE has said not to worry and that there will be sufficient carbon free energy available for all. That should worry all of us. Then there is PG&E which cannot even keep the lights on these days and will demand funding to boost its transmission and distribution system. Everyone talks about what needs to happen at our homes and small businesses and the hope is that much of the associated cost can be met with rebates. Now, who or what is funding the rebate kitty? Biden's generosity, at taxpayer expense, will soon be depleted. My suggestion is that we form unpaid citizen committees that have authority to guide this process. Relying on organizations like PCE, PG&E and the Citizens' Climate Lobby is asking for trouble and there will never be any accountability. We need more level headed individuals like Mr. Carboni who are the real experts to assist. If asked, I will also make myself available.
Mr. van Ulden – it’d be interesting to see if anyone takes you up on your offer to assist or asks Mr. Carboni for input. I don’t imagine common sense and reality would be appreciated by the organizations you’ve listed and they would likely mandate training (aka brainwashing) before you’d be accepted into the fold. Meanwhile, the poor folks in our state will be forced to continue subsidizing those with much greater means.
Thanks for your letter, Mr. Mays. Unfortunately the issue, although you and many others are open to feedback, is that so-called state leaders have made the decision for everyone, whether they like it or not. What is right for you but is not right for everyone doesn’t matter, you’re not given a choice. You must march in lockstep with those who think they know better, but who mostly rely more on emotions than science, or be bullied into marching in lockstep. Meanwhile, discussion of the elephants in the room, China, India, and other developing nations are taboo as their actions don’t fit a global warming narrative as is the fact half our electricity is provided by natural gas power plants.
Yeah right you made honest mistakes that are trademarks of the patriarchy. Nice job telling people that that the debilitating lifelong income and lifespan reducing effects of asthma- 46% according to the rule change in low income communities- is a process that just needs a little dialogue between elites.
Your commuting on a bike increased the asthma percentage from 43% yesterday to 46% today. Nice going, buddy!
Dirk... send me an email in the by-and-by.
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.