HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/16/2020 Item 11, Reed
From:William Reed <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Public Comment "Clean Energy Choice for New Buildings"
To: San Luis Obispo City Council
From: William Reed, Executive Director, Diversified Energy California
Subject: The Clean Energy Choice for New Buildings
On behalf of Diversified Energy California, a statewide coalition of energy stakeholders and consumers, I would like to offer our comments with
respect to your proposed ordinance, “Clean Energy Choice for New Buildings.”
Diversified Energy California was founded on the premise that California’s energy future will require a balanced portfolio of energy sources
based on the unique attributes that each affords the energy consumers of the state. Further, we evaluate those attributes in an unbiased
manner and endorse each for applications they are best suited for.
“Clean Energy Source for New Buildings” is similar to others currently being considered throughout the state, aimed at adoption of electricity as
the exclusive source of energy for household and commercial applications, in an effort to reduce carbon emissions. While electrical power
certainly has many excellent attributes, our position is that it may not represent the optimal choice for some domestic or commercial
applications, namely heating water, space heating, laundry drying, and the cooktop. While electricity can certainly perform all of these
functions, operating costs and consumer preferences are certainly impacted, often negatively, when natural gas is removed as a possible
source of energy. Those of a certain age need only reflect on the “Medallion Home” initiative of the mid-1960’s which provided “all-electric”
homes to recall the consternation of many consumers for whom the displeasure of high electrical costs remained long after the joy of
purchasing those homes. That experiment was rather short-lived as builders re-introduced the natural gas appliances which the marketplace
demanded. We feel that while government at all levels should certainly act to influence responsible choices on the part of the consumer, it is the
consumer who should retain the right to make the final determination on their energy sources.
An unavoidable element of the discussion is the question of whether or not such an ordinance will ultimately result in a reduction in carbon
emissions. Unfortunately, despite California’s aggressive array of “green energy” initiatives, including community choice aggregation of
electricity, the California electricity consumer still receives an energy product which is substantially the result of fossil fuel generation, either at
local or remote sites. As such, we feel that any reductions in carbon emissions will be largely ephemeral since our atmosphere does not
respect borders of individual municipalities or other political entities. The anticipated benefits could be expected to be somewhat illusory.
One common element of each of these initiatives is increased costs to the ultimate user, which is particularly distressing in these times of
economic stress. We feel that neither families struggling to find affordable housing nor businesses trying to remain solvent deserve to have their
energy costs increased to the degree that this ordinance would certainly cause.
Past experience has shown that consumers are uniformly resistant to government mandates on their ability to exercise their discretion in
making choices for themselves. Further, it has been well demonstrated that compulsion, threats, or penalties are not the most effective means
of producing positive and durable changes in behavior. What we would like to propose as an alternative to your current ”Clean Energy Choice
for New Buildings” ordinance, which appears somewhat punitive due to its imposition of stiff fees for variances to the “electricity only” mandate,
would be an ordinance which, instead, would provide incentives to developers and builders to create all-electric structures, but would not
penalize those who determine that their needs require supplemental use of natural gas for those applications for which it may be better-suited.
Said incentives could be provided in the form of reduced development fees, an expedited approval process for all-electric structures and
developments, and the like. We feel that, in that manner, your ultimate goal of making a transition to reduced carbon emissions could be
achieved without inducing undue financial stress on those who can least afford it.
While we at Diversified Energy California appreciate your efforts to provide an improved model for energy use in San Luis Obispo, we feel that
“Clean Energy Choice for New Buildings”, it its current form, is not the optimal means of achieving that end.
Thank You for your consideration of our comments,
William Reed
Executive Director
Diversified Energy California
1