Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/16/2020 Item 11, Gang From:Pete Gang < To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Clean Energy Choice for New Buildings Attachments:My Top 12 arguments against Natural Gas.doc Dear members of the SLO City Council, As an architect and green building educator, I want to add my voice to the chorus speaking in favor of switching from natural gas to clean electricity. My thoughts on the matter are formed from reading of the literature and from many years' experience designing all-electric homes. Our local Petaluma City Council recently directed Staff to draft a Berkeley-style ban on natural gas in all new construction. In addition to overwhelming community support, our local utility, PGE, has submitted a letter in support of this proposed action. Most members of the public are unaware of the issue of fugitive emissions of methane, which is the main component of natural gas. Most discussions conveniently overlook this critical issue. Collectively, building professionals are just starting to pay attention to methane and its effect on the heating of our planet. One recent study estimates that the radiative forcing due to methane is equal to ~ 46% of the radiative forcing due to CO2 (0.97 W/m2 vs 1.68 W/m2). Attached is a summary of my thoughts on the matter, My Top 12 Arguments Against Natural Gas. Thank you for actively working to ensure a livable future for our children, Pete Gang, Architect Common Sense Design Petaluma, CA 707-338-7111 I 1 Pete Gang, Architect October 15, 2019 My Top Twelve Arguments Against Natural G as 1. All of the current literature substantiates the fact that all-electric new homes are less expensive to build than mixed -fuel homes. The most significant cost savings result from the avoided costs of installing the underground gas piping (from the gas main to the gas meter ) and the gas piping inside the home. According to the 2019 Cost-effectiveness Study: Low Rise Residential New Construction, released by California Energy Codes and Standards , incremental cost savings for an all-electric new single-family home (compared to a mixed-fuel new home) are estimated to be $6,171. According to an April 2019 study funded by Southern California Edison, SMUD, and the LA Department of Water and Power titled Residential Building Electrification in California, initial cost savings are estimated to be in the range of $3,000 to $10,000. According to a September 2018 report prepared by TRC Solution s for the City of Palo Alto titled, “City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Analysis DRAFT,” the costs saved by not installing natural gas in residential new construction — including plan review, street cut fee, connection charge to existing main, gas meter, gas piping within the residence, and the cost of appliances — total $6,314 (assuming iron piping). 2. Even greater cost savings are available to fire survivors who choose to rebuild all-electric: the Advanced Energy Rebuild program (offered jointly by Sonoma Clean Power, PGE, and BAAQMD) offers financial incentives of up to $17,500 per home. 3. Many builders conflate discussion of optional all-electric reach codes with discussion of mandatory changes in the upcoming 2019 CA Energy Codes (which take effect January 1, 2020). The 2019 Energy Codes will require installation of a PV system of sufficient size to provide for the electric needs of a mixed-fuel home (typically a ~2.5 kW system). Even though this added feature has been proven cost-effective over a 30-year timeframe, it is expected to add around $10,000 to the cost of a new home (at approximately $4 per watt). 4. Not only does all-electric construction result in reduced initial costs, homeowners will see reduced ongoing utility costs due to efficiencies of 300% or more that are typical of electric heat-pump technologies used for heating/cooling and water heating. In contrast, gas appliances have a theoretical maximum efficiency of only 100%. 5. Builders also mention that their customers don’t like cooking on electric stoves. Most of those customers are thinking of the old radiant coil electric cooktops. Few customers, it seems, are familiar with electric induction cooktops, which are the new standard. Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) reports that 91% of people who try cooking on an electric induction cooktop, prefer it over gas. 6. Replacing gas appliances with electric appliances results in healthier indoor environments. We are required to install carbon monoxide (CO) detectors in all new residential construction due to the hazards associated with combustion byproducts. Electric appliances do not carry similar hazards. 7. The California Energy Commission acknowledges that we are moving inexorably toward all-electric buildings and away from using natural gas. 8. PGE acknowledges that we are moving inexorably toward all -electric buildings and away from using natural gas. In a letter dated August 21, 2019 to Windsor Town Manager Ken McNab, PGE Vice President Robert S. Kenney states, “PG&E welcomes the opportunity to avoid investments in new gas assets that might later prove underutilized as local governments and the state work together to realize long-term decarbonization objectives. With all t his in mind, PG&E supports local government policies that promote all -electric new construction when cost effective.” 9. When builders attempt to compare the greenhouse gas emissions of gas appliances with those of electric appliances, they typically limi t their discussion to CO2 emissions and neglect to mention emissions of CH4, or methane, which comprises ~85% of natural gas. We now understand that methane is a relatively short-lived greenhouse gas with around 150 times the heat- trapping potential of CO2 on an annual basis. Fugitive emissions of methane occur at all points in the production, distribution, and storage of natural gas and are currently conservatively estimated to be around 3% of production. 10. 90% of the natural gas used in California is imported from out of state and obtained through hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. It is now widely understood that fracking is associated with a long list of catastrophic consequences, including aquifer depletion, aquifer contamination, destruction of lan dscapes, air pollution, and widespread physical and mental health consequences. 11. Builders sometimes suggest that instead of working to reduce or eliminate the use of natural gas in buildings we should work on reducing emissions from the transportation sector. It’s not an “either-or.” We need to do all of the above. 12. Builders sometimes bemoan the fact that these proposed changes are happening so fast. The reason that we are calling it a climate emergency is because it is an emergency. One responds to an emergency with appropriate alacrity.