Looming gas appliance restrictions

Many readers may remember Stanford’s three-day outage last year, but few may know the cause: the recent dismantling of Stanford’s gas-supplied cogeneration plant — a taste of what’s to come under plans to reduce natural gas use.

Although a few recent studies claim gas stoves and appliances may negatively affect one’s health or the climate, we know from experience they provide affordable, reliable energy. And tellingly, these studies were performed by agencies with vested interests in green energy (Rocky Mountain Institute and Peninsula Clean Energy). In addition, proponents have failed to consider the health hazards of EMFs from surrounding ourselves with more electric appliances. It’s naïve to ignore downsides to this proposed energy transition.

So, let’s begin with a much-needed cost-benefits analysis.

What will this ban and pending restriction on new natural gas connection will really mean to us and the energy supply chain we rely upon?

We all seem to agree that interrupting the current energy supply method will be costly. But what about the formidable logistics of actually implementing these changes?

Starting with our energy delivery: Pacific Gas and Electric’s infrastructure will require major upgrades that involve massive engineering, redesigning substations, distribution network capacity increases and scheduling new electricity connection to our switchboards. PG&E will also have to disconnect and/or abandon its gas supply system to the electrified dwellings and businesses. These potentially huge costs will be passed on to consumers through skyrocketing PG&E bills. And a fully electrified facility can no longer rely on an alternative energy supply such as natural gas. This means no backups during electrical outages, which are also likely to become far more frequent as demands on our grid increase exponentially.

As for the touted transition: Will there be a suitable number of electrical contractors available to meet the projected demand? Will appliance and electrical equipment distributors be in a position to furnish all of the required hardware?

The local energy supplier, PCE, is a strong proponent of electrification. No wonder, as it would benefit substantially from being the sole supplier of energy, becoming a monopoly that can raise your rates without restrictions. Furthermore, while most PCE customers value the green energy electricity that it has committed to provide, it is only guaranteed through 2025. Incidentally, that’s when the first Bay Area Air Quality Management District restrictions on gas appliances go into effect. PCE’s energy supply portfolio relies on wind and solar generation, both notoriously unpredictable, meaning likely outages. Standby is currently provided by PG&E through an energy “banking system.” Ironically, much of that standby is fossil fuel driven.

Regarding costs: a typical electrification of a home on the Peninsula may cost $40,000 or more. And when tens of thousands of home and business owners start applying for new PG&E services, sign contracts with electricians, increase demand on PCE’s energy portfolio, endure disruptions in their facilities due to piping and wiring changes, and see substantial increases in utility bills, they may wonder whether any supposed benefit associated with the edict of the BAAQMD and others is worth the cost.

Admittedly, PG&E cannot even handle today’s requests for solar system interconnection. Will PG&E staff up for the eventual tidal wave of requests? Will PG&E have the capital to bolster its distribution systems and the manpower to install a zillion miles of wiring and new transformers? Will PCE realistically be able to supply carbon-free energy to accommodate the new loads going forward beyond 2027? These are valid concerns and demand an answer from those authorities who rubber stamped the BAAQMD regulation.

Total electrification makes no economic or practical sense. It removes an energy supply alternative which exposes us to relying on a single, unreliable source.

I urge our leadership to rescind the impractical and costly regulation being imposed without due process. I urge my fellow residents to let our city and county officials know this utopian clean energy dream will prove to be a nightmare of skyrocketing energy bills, unforeseen costs and frequent lengthy power outages.

Dirk A. van Ulden is a UC Berkeley engineer who has worked for utilities and private enterprises in various management and executive positions. Until retirement, he was a certified energy manager licensed by the Association of Energy Engineers.