By the Daily Post staff
Los Altos City Council will decide tonight (Sept. 6) how far the city should go in banning natural gas heaters, stoves and other appliances to stop climate change.
Previously, the council’s stance was that existing gas appliances could stay as long as a homeowner didn’t remodel their entire home. But that could be changing.
Council’s Environmental Commission is calling for the approval the “Bay Area Model Reach Code,” a template of new environmental laws that is intended to stop climate change.
Under Strategy 2, “Facilitate Building Decarbonization,” it would require the replacement of gas appliances with electric ones before a house could be sold.
Such a law would make homes more expensive, and real estate transactions more complicated if a home wasn’t all electric.
The proposals before council also say that homeowners must replace broken appliances — including furnaces, air conditioning, gas ranges, ovens and water heaters — with electric ones.
Anyone caught using gas would face fines. The Environmental Commission estimates the city will collect $500,000 in such fines in the first year.
The commission did an admittedly unscientific survey and found that only 37.7% of respondents (202 people) favored the new Reach Codes. Another 35.2% (191) said they were against the reach codes. About a fifth of respondents — 22.3% or 121 people — wanted the current laws to continue. And just 19.5% favored a stricter set of laws than proposed by the environmental commission.
The survey asked for written responses from the public, and here are a few. No names were provided by the city.
• “Government should not tell me what kind of stove I must have.”
• “China is opening as many coal plants each year as are still running in the US. Any tiny decrease in CO2 emission here is swamped by their output. America is for freedom, let people have a choice.”
• “Currently, our electric infrastructure can’t handle a significant increase in demand, as a result of eliminating gas appliances. Only a few years ago, we had rolling blackouts…and yet, these laws will make that issue worse? Doesn’t make sense.”
• “Love the idea of requiring all electric appliances of all types. Fully support the environmental commission’s recommendations!
• “If we don’t do something to save the planet, who will?”
• “Oh my goodness. I read the introduction at the top several times and I’m still not completely sure what I voted for in #4. That was really confusing. It’d be nice if there were a summary under each of the four options so I don’t have to scroll up to keep checking for the description. Also it’d be helpful if they were listed in order of rules restrictiveness (least to most restrictive or vice versa).”
• “What is the plan for recycling the carcinogenic materials (selenium, cadmium telluride, gallium arsenide and lead) which are contained in solar cells when the cells reach their end of life? If these cells are sent to a land fill, they will contaminate the soil and ground water. No solar cell supplier has been able to develop a successful recycling program after 15 years of efforts.”
• “We need balanced, common sense Green policies, not these draconian unbalanced (Over) Reach Codes that defy common sense. To require people to switch from gas to electric when buying a new appliance is absurd and unjust.”
• “Stop pushing more restrictions on people. If electric appliances were more economical, you wouldn’t need to pass ordinances to make people buy them. Free market principles work best. Take an Econ 101 course! And quit drinking the SVCE (Silicon Valley Clean Energy) Koolaid!”
• “Los Altos should get with the program. The temperature rise of the climate is changing rapidly for the worst. We need to do our part.”
• “As an avid cook, I wholeheartedly DO NOT want the city to dictate what type of stove I can use. Purchasing a home without a gas stove, and no ability to add one, would be a deal breaker for me. We would not purchase a home in Los Altos with these limitations.
The Realtors will be upset. No more campaign donations from them.
CA generates the vast majority of its electricity from natural gas – especially around dinner time. this policy makes no sense.
I strongly object to any implantation of so-called “reach codes” in the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan’s proposal that the Los Altos City Council ban all gas appliances, including gas cooking appliances, in all new construction and remodels. Most annoying and unreasonable is the proposal that if any existing gas appliances including gas furnaces and your gas cooking appliances break, you will be required to replace them with all electric appliances. This will place an undue burden on retired people on reduced incomes who are already getting hammered by 10% inflation.
We are constantly being warned about blackouts due to an overstressed electrical grid. These “reach codes” will only make this matter worse. And all this virtue signaling will have no impact on global warming as long as China and India continue burning fossil fuels.
Another offensive thing is the proposal to impose fines/penalties for using gas. This is nothing but a proposal to hurt citizens already being pummeled by inflation and high fuel prices. The EC estimates the city will collect $500,000 per year in gas fines.
I’ll believe global warming is a problem when the rich people who are telling me it is a problem start ACTING like it is a problem. They can start by getting rid their carbon-spewing private jets.
I do NOT support a gas ban and I oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state.
My favorite written responses from the survey in no particular order followed by my own comments:
• “Government should not tell me what kind of stove I must have.” Yes, one size fits all solution is central planning and we know how well that worked under communism with no input on prices from entrepreneurs and consumers.
• “China is opening as many coal plants each year as are still running in the US. Any tiny decrease in CO2 emission here is swamped by their output. America is for freedom, let people have a choice.” China also had a one-child policy for decades and was first to impose lockdowns for arguably fake pandemic (fewer excess deaths in 2020 compared to several previous years in 21st century for every country).
• “Currently, our electric infrastructure can’t handle a significant increase in demand, as a result of eliminating gas appliances. Only a few years ago, we had rolling blackouts…and yet, these laws will make that issue worse? Doesn’t make sense.” Well said, diversifying our energy sources rather than putting all our eggs in one basket – which is unreliable to begin with – is smart, common sense policy.
“Stop pushing more restrictions on people. If electric appliances were more economical, you wouldn’t need to pass ordinances to make people buy them. Free market principles work best. Take an Econ 101 course! And quit drinking the SVCE (Silicon Valley Clean Energy) Koolaid!” Top comment. This person clearly understands basic supply & demand and incentives.
Great summary, and this bad idea is yet another to be pushed by the climate “emergency” wackos running California and the USA into the ground. Vote for new government leaders!
Case in point: All Bay Area elected officials should read this morning’s news about the 37 treatment plants pumping excess sewage into the Bay killing millions of fish and causing massive algae booms with estimates as high as $13 billion to upgrade the treatment facilities. Talk about risks to the planet! Where are the activist councils on this topic? Prime example of how the authorities aren’t doing their jobs – ignoring real problems – while trying to force new mandates to solve fake emergencies.
These horrible policies by the climate “emergency” activists must be stopped. Instead, sound and practical long term solutions to protecting our environment need to be implemented. Step one: upgrade the enviro hazard human sewage treatment plants dumping into the bay.
If you look at the air pollution satellite maps on Windy.com and see the massive flows of pollution coming out of China, India and Russia, and compare these to the very clear USA air (except when California’s mismanaged forests are burning up), you can clearly see any significant fix of global warming caused by excess fossil fuel emissions can only be accomplished by those three countries stopping their use of fossil fuels. Newsflash to climate “emergency” activists: try chaining yourselves to a Chinese coal plant and see how it goes – guess you’ll disappear in a minute.
The solution lies in a 50-100 year plan in USA to transition to cleaner burning natural gas and other diversified mix of energy generation, including fuel cells, hydrogen powered car engines, etc. Current battery tech electric cars will pollute the planet far more than gas powered, especially if you scale up the battery production. We should partner with Oil & Gas industry to get there, not put them out of business first before any practical solutions are available.
As for China, India, Russia, the best solution is for USA to become energy independent (Trump had us going in right direction on this), be a shining example to world of clean natural gas use and new energy solutions, homegrown in America. The last thing we should do is become dependent on Chinese solar/wind equipment, made from their coal burning factories, and net result is USA becomes third world country as solar/wind does not provide enough energy for 21st century industry. If we don’t get smart fast and stop the climate “emergency” madness, we will most certainly be in a mad max type USA in our near future, enslaved to China.
California has not provided enough good transportation, or water, or energy, or housing, or good schools, or green spaces or well-run agencies that are not constantly behind their mandates, or enough cops or enough courts or enough security at the borders or enough shelters for the needy or enough maintenance for it’s bridges, road, tunnels, and tracks. Politicians are not doing their jobs. California is a bad example of a decent place to live just about everywhere as things decline up and down the state. California built massive agriculture and industry and forty million people on top of a dry state and keeps building more. Everything is too expensive in this imagined utopia. Everything is too ugly and deteriorating in our urban cores and even a small box to live in is too much to afford for too many. On top of that we have the highest taxes and those are going up. Global warming isn’t the most immediate problem for most Californians – not even close. California has much more urgent problems. Our one party dictatorship in CA pushes fantasies instead of solving real problems – global warming, everyone is a racist, gender is fluid. We will need natural gas for a long long time while other forms of energy advance. These people are mandating really bad solutions. Time to get new leaders.
Reach codes as proposed in the Bay Area model should really be called Overreach codes. I suggest that proponents who want true and meaningful action on combatting global warming should change their focus to the national and international level. Full compliance with current and future CA regulations will keep us in the forefront of all other states and Federal environmental protection efforts.