UPDATE!
Los Altos Reach Code/Gas Ban
LAR’S Efforts to inform residents about the proposed ban on natural gas in all new construction played a part in getting Mayor Pepper and Council Members Bruins and Fligor to back off a complete ban. Recognizing what the Environmental Commission had first recommended November 19, 2019, Council passed in a 3 to 5 vote, that will allow gas cooking appliances and gas fireplaces but ban gas space and water heaters in new single-family residences, ADUs, and up to 9 unit multi-family homes. New 10+ units multifamily homes will be banned from installing any gas except for outdoor uses such as BBQs, pool heaters, and fire pits. Gas is banned in new commercial buildings except for certain exemptions such as laboratories and commercial kitchens which brought about the most criticism from restaurant owners and builders with potential restaurant tenants.
LAR’s goal of amplifying the voices of all Los Altos Residents so that their elected representatives listen to their constituents and vote accordingly helped to beat back restrictions on gas cooking and fireplaces which a large majority of residents were in favor of retaining in new construction.
Mayor Pepper’s Conflict of Interest
More to come….
Mandating All Electric:
Is Banning Natural Gas Really the Answer?
Understanding the Benefits/Drawbacks of Reach Codes vs. Natural Gas
These codes will ban natural gas in all new residential and commercial construction,
as well as in major “scraped” remodels and accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
Here’s the link to watch this webinar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p_ETKwY0LU&t
Listen and learn from the Experts how these proposed Reach Codes will affect you.
Our webinar was a success! The speakers were amazing and did a fantastic job of sharing their vast array of knowledge regarding Energy, Electrification, Natural Gas and the Pros & Cons of the proposed Reach Codes. Please take the time to view the webinar.
A little background information: The City of Los Altos is moving ahead with exploring and possibly passing a limited gas ban that will “reach beyond” the state required energy efficiency building codes, thus the name “Reach Codes.” The proposed Reach Codes will ban natural gas appliances such as gas ovens, gas cooktops, and non-appliance items such as gas water heaters and gas home furnaces to heat homes. The proposed Reach Codes prohibit any appliance or device that uses gas in new construction, including Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), and “scraped” remodels.
As a reminder: The terms “Gas Ban” and “Reach Codes” are used interchangeably. Reach Codes are called Reach Codes because they reach beyond what the state requires.
Our webinar provided a great deal of information to allow the residents of our City to form their own informed views vis-à-vis the proposed Reach Codes, in particular whether banning natural gas makes sense at this point in the evolution of the energy industry. Los Altos Residents (LAR) continues to have grave concerns about the proposed Reach Codes. We are concerned about the following:
· Is it appropriate in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis that the City would conduct its required outreach concerning the Reach Codes during a time when most residents are distracted by and concerned with their health, their jobs or businesses, their children’s education among many, many other concerns.
· Why would the City ignore the results of the two City-conducted surveys, one pre-City Webinar that shows 70.3% of registered respondents and 64.8% of unregistered respondents are very unsupportive of Reach Codes? Click here Why would the City ignore the results of its post-City Webinar that shows 77.1% of respondents want at least some natural gas appliances in homes? Click here What happened to representative democracy in Los Altos?
· Is it reasonable to believe that a webinar that was attended by less than 200 in a City with a population of 30,000 constitutes adequate public outreach? The City’s post-webinar survey showed that 78% of the respondents had NOT viewed the webinar.
· At their best, City-sponsored virtual meetings are difficult for many residents to attend. A webinar conducted by the City is supposed to be a public meeting and residents should be able to have access to it and be able to fully participate in the webinar if it is to qualify as adequate public outreach.
· Moreover, a webinar conducted by the City about proposed Reach Codes should not be biased. The webinar conducted by the City and the Environmental Commission provided only information that promoted all-electric appliances. The webinar did not provide the public with the Pros & Cons of an all-electric Reach Code. No one was given the opportunity to challenge the promotional material provided by the “clean” energy consultant. By the way, the clean energy consultant to PCE/SVCE was the only invited speaker! Ask yourself, is this what Residents of Los Altos would consider adequate and unbiased public outreach? We think not, and that is why we conducted our webinar with experts who provided information about the Pros & Cons of an all-electric mandate. LAR believes you should have all the facts and decide for yourself.
· Finally, a cost effectiveness study is required by the state in order for reach codes to be passed by any city. At this point it is unclear if the proposed Los Altos Reach Codes are cost effective. It appears that PCE/SVCE is going to rely on a state cost effectiveness study to try to push the Reach Codes through. Certainly there are proper ways to determine the cost effectiveness of these Reach Codes. We ask if our City actually made a thorough examination of the cost effectiveness of these specific Reach Codes? The City must show that the proposed Reach Codes are cost effective.
In keeping with the LAR mission, we feel it is crucial that the City Council consider these concerns, as well as the issue of Mayor Pepper’s potential conflict of interest, before making a decision regarding Reach Codes for Los Altos.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR AND ANSWERS FROM OUR EXPERTS
The following section contains questions we were unable to include in our webinar due to time constraints. Each speaker was given the opportunity to answer three identical questions. Here are their verbatim responses.
Tom Kabat
Tom Kabat is a long-time engineer and utility planner for a gas and electric utility. He is also an Energy Consultant.
Question 1. Will California have sufficient electrical energy without the use of natural gas in any form? Please explain
Answer 1. Reach Codes are a form of building electrification and they preserve natural gas for its efficient use in power plants that can deliver half the energy of a unit of gas as electricity to a home heat pump that uses it to extract three times as much heat from cool air passing by the yard or garage (using a system like your refrigerator uses to get heat from your icebox). Heat pumps deliver the combined two units of heat into the building. In this way, heat pumps even if they were powered entirely by gas fired power plants, can be powered by half as much gas to deliver the same amount of heat as the best gas furnaces. So YES, electrification does not end the use of natural gas, it puts our saved gas to better use providing grid peaking and support as needed in the transition.
Question 2. What do you know about increased risks, if any, caused by exposure to Electromagnetic Fields from induction cooking and an all-electric home? The International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection cautioned that pregnant women and children should keep a distance of 12 inches from an induction cooktop.
Answer 2. I think it’s fine advice to keep all users 12 inches away from all cooktops, especially gas fired ones. However all users might be well advised to stay outside when using a gas cooktop since it emits invisible fumes of NOx, formaldehyde and fine particulate pollution levels that drive most kitchens above the EPA allowable pollution levels for outside air. I just replaced my gas cooktop with an induction one and we are loving it and feeling healthier already. I don’t know about any increased risk with electric cooking, but here’s a link to an exploration of gas cooking’s health risk. https://zeroenergyproject.org/2020/06/08/the-smog-in-your-kitchen-what-the-experts-say/
Question 3. What are the cradle to grave environmental impacts of an all-electric home versus a mixed fuel home?
Answer 3. On the dimension of CO2e (equivalent to a pound of CO2) climate pollution, an all-electric home in Los Altos has a much lower cradle to grave climate impact than a mixed fuel home.
The NEW mixed fuel home with the high efficiency furnace and water heater would emit about 7,600 lb./year. (350 therms of gas leads to 4,060 lb./year of CO2 from combustion and about another 3,600 lb./year of CO2e from 3% upstream CH4 leakage that has about 30 times the GWP of CO2.
The same size All-Electric home would have added electric needs of 3,416 kWh that SVCE would match with newly procured renewables (since large hydro is all spoken for as the other speakers mentioned). The carbon footprint of delivering the electricity is about 480 lb./year assuming normal 7% transmission and distribution system losses (3,416 * 0.07* 2 lb./ kWh including gas leakage up to power-plant) If all the refrigerant from the heat pumps were to leak, that would only set back the CO2e savings by about one years' worth of gas use emissions, so fear of refrigerant GWPs is not a good reason to defer electrification.
The manufacturing emissions to make the gas or electric equipment is about the same and the all-electric house does not need the piping and exhaust management systems that gas homes need.
If one doesn’t believe in SVCE’s procurement policy for buying renewables, one can put solar panels on their own roof to push against grid power and feel better. While rooftop electricity is easy to make, it’s hard to do the same to meet one’s gas needs with home-made gas, and it would not be safe to keep it around or leak it.
Brief Summary Statement
Our generation has a moral obligation to make the climate safer and less chaotic for future generations who are not in power to protect it now. Electrification Reach Codes are a good way to start. They are not forever, they automatically sunset on 12/31/2022. They encourage cost effective market transformation that will make climate preservation more affordable for the rest of us. Los Altos has a chance to proudly join other forward looking communities in this market transformation and set an example for rapid cost effective statewide progress.
If you don’t feel Los Altos should adopt electrification Reach Codes for new construction at this time, how would you advise Los Altos council to act instead to show inspirational leadership in meeting the challenge of climate preservation?
Dr. Frank Wolak
Dr. Wolak is the Holbrook Working Professor of Commodity Price Studies in the Department of Economics at Stanford University; Director, Program on Energy and Sustainable Development; Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research Senior Fellow by courtesy; Senior Fellow at FSI for International Studies; and Co-Director, Stanford Natural Gas Initiative. You can access more information about Dr. Wolak at https://profiles.stanford.edu/frank-wolak
Question 1. Will California have sufficient electrical energy without the use of natural gas in any form? Please explain
Answer 1. Electric power systems require controllable generation units to operate when there is little wind or solar resources available. It is important to remember that despite having close to 20,000 MW of grid scale wind and solar capacity in California, in 2019 more in 50% of the hours of the year less 3,200 MWh of energy was produced from these facilities. Consequently, there will always be a need for energy from controllable units. In addition, there are number technical operating constraints—voltage control and inertia—that make it necessary to operate controllable resources. These generation units are typically powered by natural gas or some other fossil fuel. This gas can be produced from excess renewable energy produced at other times of the year and stored. Alternatively, batteries can also store excess renewable energy. However, batteries are not cheap, and given intermittency of wind and solar resources, we will need a lot of batteries.
Question 2. What do you know about increased risks, if any, caused by exposure to Electromagnetic Fields from induction cooking and an all-electric home? The International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection cautioned that pregnant women and children should keep a distance of 12 inches from an induction cooktop.
Answer 2. I do not have the expertise to comment on this.
Question 3. What are the cradle to grave environmental impacts of an all-electric home versus a mixed fuel home?
Answer 3. This is an extremely difficult question to answer that depends on many factors specific to the location and type of home and how it is used as well as the future values of many variables such as the price of natural gas, price of carbon, etc.
Robert Sandor
Robert Sandor, M.S. Computer Science Instructor at Foothill College. Physical Sciences, Mathematics & Engineering Division. Master of Science, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from Stanford University
Question 1. Will California have sufficient electrical energy without the use of natural gas in any form? Please explain
Answer 1. The state of the California electrical grid is currently under enormous challenges even at our current use of electricity. Forcing the further electrification of service will most likely throw our entire infrastructure into a disastrous state:
a. We will lose 10% of our reliable, non-emitting, base source of electricity (Diablo Canyon) in 2025. There are no plans to construct any new source of energy to replace this. Renewables do not have the characteristics (reliability, stability, dispatchablility) necessary for replacing this huge resource.
b. There are no grid scale power plants of any type (renewable or natural gas) underway. Grid scale power plants can take over 10 years between submission, approval and construction (source- California Energy Commission: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/all_projects_cms.html). The unstable marketplace created by the state PUC and regulations combined with the CCA marketplace displacement has made CA a hostile place for energy investments.
c. The forced purchase of renewables by the CCA’s with no consideration to needs of and the stability of the resulting grid will be both operationally and economically disastrous.
d. Any increase in CA energy generation from solar and wind is most likely destabilizing. Since there are no current economically viable methods of storing this energy, and the use when available is already maximized, new sources will in general be shut off rather than used.
e. Increased sourcing of large scale hydro plants (new dams/reservoirs) seem to have fallen out of environmental favor. There are none under construction in CA. New solar deployments (including home panels) have to include the ability for the grid operators to shut them down during grid instability.
f. For now, any switch to electrical use (transportation, home heating) will absolutely be increasing the only real source of reliable energy, natural gas.
g. In the long run of course there will be new technologies (small scale fission reactors, fusion reactors, perhaps unknown energy storage mechanisms) but none of these are anywhere close to providing an answer to the questions.
Question 2. What do you know about increased risks, if any, caused by exposure to Electromagnetic Fields from induction cooking and an all-electric home? The International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection cautioned that pregnant women and children should keep a distance of 12 inches from an induction cooktop.
Answer 2. I personally do not believe that non-ionizing, RF fields have a health impact. If you believe otherwise (similar to the fear of cellular networks), then you should understand that the fields emitted by an appliance such as an induction range would be enormously higher field strength than a cell phone tower. Also understand that you presently have other such devices in your home (washers, dryers, air conditioners, fans) that they also have similar (though smaller) field emissions.
Question 3. What are the cradle to grave environmental impacts of an all-electric home versus a mixed fuel home?
Answer 3. It is difficult to respond to a “cradle to grave” comparison. Just keep in mind the following:
a. The source of most of your electrical energy is, and will continue to be natural gas for the foreseeable future. Thus, the all-electric home can in the end use more natural gas than the equivalent, well-engineered home with natural gas appliances (well insulated, high efficiency gas furnaces and water heaters). Thus today, there is really no such thing as an “all-electric” home.
b. Keep in mind solar panels at industrial scales have their own environmental impacts. They are primarily produced using coal fired electricity in China (otherwise the energy used to manufacture these force them to be totally uneconomic). Any grid scale deployment uses large areas of land with its own local environmental impact. Mining for materials used for construction of the panels has harms. Removing and recycling of panels at all too soon ends of economic life has impacts.
c. For wind turbines, these also have huge environmental impacts. Depending on citing, land needs to be cleared of trees, roads built for construction and servicing. Removing and recycling the equipment at end of life is significant. Just the amount of cement and fuel used for such construction has large emissions associated with it. One might also think of the birds and bats harmed by such industrial scale turbines.
d. If you are considering residential “solar plus storage” as a component in your own energy mix, keep in mind that you’ll need to more than double the solar panels in your installation so as to power both your home and charge your batteries. All batteries have very significant environmental impacts in their manufacturing and end of life recycling and their life span might not be as advertised.
e. Finally, if you consider your wallet a factor in providing your own environment, know that the energy costs, equipment costs, maintenance costs for such appliances are going to be much higher for the “all-electric” home.
Mayor Jan Pepper: Conflict of Interest
Los Altos Residents is concerned that Mayor Jan Pepper has a conflict of interest with respect to the proposed Reach Codes. Mayor Pepper should recuse herself from all discussions and voting related to Reach Codes. Los Altos Residents has provided the Mayor and City Attorney Jolie Houston with copies of all the documents that support the finding that the Mayor has a conflict of interest. As set forth in one of three complaints filed with the Fair Political Practices Commission by LAR members, here are relevant acts, facts, concerns and links to the documents that provide evidence of the Mayor’s conflict of interest:
1. Mayor Pepper is CEO of Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE), a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that provides electricity to the residents of certain cities in San Mateo County;
2. It appears that actions taken jointly by PCE and Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE, a JPA that provides electricity to the residents of the City of Los Altos) to influence the writing and filing of city Reach Codes may have vitiated an arms-length relationship between the City of Los Altos and PCE, which suggests that;
3. Mayor Pepper may be in the position of wearing two hats. She is the CEO of PCE, which appears to have influenced the City of Los Altos regarding the content of its Reach Code, and is also the Mayor of the City of Los Altos who will cast a vote regarding that same Reach Code. Complicating matters further, it appears that CEO Pepper’s employment and compensation at PCE are tied to her performance as judged by the PCE Board.
These concerns are based on the following documented facts:
1. The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of PCE on July 26, 2018 suggest that CEO Pepper is compensated based on her performance. The minutes state that CEO Pepper received “ (1) an increase in salary by $10,000 to $285,000; (2) an extension of the contract by one year to June 2020; and (3) a mid-year evaluation that provides an opportunity to earn an additional salary increase of at least $10,000 and an additional one year extension of the contract if specific milestones identified by the Board during its June 2018 Performance Review are met…” Los Altos residents who wish to read the referenced minutes can click on this link and see Item #9. If they wish to read the entire document in which they are included, they can click on this link.
2. A memo written by CEO Pepper and PCE Programs Director Rafael Reyes to the PCE Board dated April 16 2019, indicates that PCE appears to have entered into an agreement with SVCE and the San Mateo Office of Sustainability (OOS) to influence city Reach Codes, and that they appear to have jointly contracted with a consulting firm (TRC Engineering) to assist in that goal. Among other things, the memo states that: “To further maximize efficiency and consistency, staff is working with Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) and the San Mateo Office of Sustainability (OOS) on a joint approach. Following a competitive bid process, the Board approved in January 2019 a contract with TRC Engineering (with sub-contractor DNVGL) to provide technical assistance on the reach codes and support the associated adoption process with a goal of implementing code updates to take effect on January 1, 2020…. For purposes of this memo, these three organizations plus the consultants will be collectively referred to as the ‘team.’” Los Altos residents who wish to read the referenced memo can click on this link. If they wish to read the entire document in which they are included, they can download them by clicking on this link.
3. The same April 16, 2019 memo from CEO Pepper and Director Reyes to the PCE Board appears to detail a seven-step process by which “the team” would write, package, and submit city reach codes in their joint market areas. It states, among other things, that: “The team (not the city) packages the adopted reach code and submits to the California Energy Commission (CEC) for approval.”
4. The City of Los Altos appears to have recognized that PCE and SVCE were working together to influence its Reach Codes. The Los Altos Environmental Commission slide on “History of Commission Efforts” which was part of the presentation made by Los Altos City Staff at its “Community Webinar Reach Codes: Building Electrification and Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure” on April 29, 2020, states that: “Regional Reach Codes Effort Spearheaded [sic] by PCE and SVCE. Provides regional approach and resources to help cities adopt.” Los Altos residents who wish to read the referenced statement can click on this link. If they wish to read the entire document in which the statement is included, can click on this link.
The following California Government Codes govern the Mayor’s conflict of interest:
1. Under the Political Reform Act (PRA) codified in California Government Code Section 87000 et seq., no public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use her/his official position to influence a governmental decision in which s/he knows or has reason to know s/he has a financial interest.
2. While the adoption of an ordinance of general application has been determined by the FPPC not to constitute a financial interest in violation of the PRA, the financial incentives in Mayor Pepper’s contract with PCE raise the question as to whether it is reasonably foreseeable that the adoption of the Reach Code has a material financial effect on Mayor Pepper’s income.
3. Under the California Government Code Section 1090 et seq (a) Members of the Legislature, state, county, district, judicial district, and city officers or employees shall not be financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity, or by any body or board of which they are members.
Mayor Pepper had City Attorney Jolie Houston write to the FPPC Legal Division on her behalf asking for legal advice regarding whether she has a conflict of interest. However, the only information provided to the FPPC upon which they are to make their decision is information provided solely by the Mayor. The information provided by the Mayor does not address the fact that her company PCE is working as a “team” with SVCE to get as many cities in their respective areas to adopt reach codes as possible – going so far as to offer a $10,000 “incentive” to any City Council that will sign a Letter of Intent which obliges them to only consider the reach codes! The City Attorney has been provided with all the information in the complaints filed with the FPPC and has been asked to supplement her letter to the FPPC and provide them with the additional highly relevant facts about the Mayor’s conflict. To date and to the best of our knowledge, City Attorney Houston has failed to update her opinion based on these facts and the FPPC has not been made aware of these facts. Not surprisingly, the FPPC recently advised that they did not find a conflict of interest. They made it clear, however, that their advice “assumes your facts are complete and accurate.” Click here.
The FPPC has advised that the complaints filed with the Enforcement Division cannot be acted upon. In correspondence dated June 2, 2020 relating to COM – 05192020-009696, the FPPC stated, “After review of the complaint, the Enforcement Division will not pursue an enforcement action in this matter. While there may be a potential conflict of interest, the City Council has not yet voted to take an action on the Reach Code Ordinance in question.” Click here.
As City Attorney, Ms. Houston’s client is the City of Los Altos not Mayor Jan Pepper. Ms. Houston’s responsibility is to the City of Los Altos as a whole. The FPPC should be made aware of all the relevant information and facts surrounding Ms. Pepper’s role as CEO of PCE, including the company’s goal of increasing the number of “clean" energy customers, the market for “clean” energy, its work in concert with SVCE to increase their share of the market for energy in the Bay Area. Most importantly, the FPPC should be made aware of Ms. Pepper's opportunity for financial gain should Los Altos adopt the Reach Codes she advocates for, including a raise, the extension of her employment contract and a $10,000 bonus Since the adoption of all-electric Reach Codes is one of PCE’s top priorities, Ms. Pepper’s insistence that Los Altos adopt the Reach Codes before the end of her term most certainly raises real concerns regarding whether she is acting in the best interests of Los Altos, or whether in addition she is motivated by the opportunity for financial gain and prestige within her company and the “clean” energy industry.
Click here for additional documents relating to the Mayor’s conflict of interest.
HAVE A HOT TOPIC THAT affects the residents of los altos? Let us know by telling us more in the form below.
Thank you for submitting your hot topic.
Once we review your submission and determine, in our view, that it is a bonafide pro-resident issue, we will work with you and post your issue as a Hot Topic in this section of our website. We will also offer to create email campaigns to further publicize your topic. Some hot topics have residents on both sides of the issue. If we reach out to our network and determine that this is the case with your topic, we will seek to find a contrary resident opinion and post it as well in order to provide a balanced report and better educate residents on the issue.