Law and Legislation Committee
Meeting Time: 08-16-22 13:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
Law and Legislation Committee 08-16-22
13:00
14 5 5 0 0
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
Law and Legislation Committee
08-16-22 13:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
4. New Building Electrification Ordinance - Proposed Framework File ID:
2022-01260
5 5 0 0
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for 4. New Building Electrification Ordinance - Proposed Framework File ID: 2022-01260 Overall Sentiment
Kate Wilkins
Location:
Submitted At: 7:56am 08-16-22
On behalf of the 350 Sacramento Electrification Team, I am attaching this letter of support for the new building electrification ordinance. This letter was sent by Rick Codina to the Mayor and council members on August 8.
Elizabeth Barrett
Location:
Submitted At: 1:30pm 08-15-22
Please don't buckle to pressure from developers. I would welcome a tougher ordinance, but this is in the right direction.
Rosie Yacoub
Location:
Submitted At: 7:30am 08-15-22
I look forward to seeing the City enact one of its early actions that was identified during the Mayors’ Commission on Climate Change beginning in 2026: City Council and Staff have created a very do-able new building electrification ordinance that is ready to enact today! The ordinance impacts only new residences and places of business, which should be cost effective as it is more expensive to develop new buildings that are dual fuel. New gas appliances perpetuate reliance on gas service and lock in all associated GHG emissions for the life of the appliance, unless it is retired early and replaced with an electric alternative. But early retirement of appliances has its own ecological cost.
The ordinance already has categorical exemptions for commercial cooking and industrial processes, and specifies that these will be re-examined before they are retired. By that time, changes in technology and access to these changes will likely move construction for some businesses towards all-electric even with the exemption.
And by that time, more contractors and builders will be doing all-electric buildings as a matter of course. There will be a continued process to apply for waivers, and that process can be reviewed at the same time the categorical waivers will be.
City Council, at the time of voting on the New Building Electrification Ordinance, separated the portion relating to electric vehicles out and passed it on its own. Because that portion is now behind State standards, that portion needs to be removed as staff have noted, leaving the default of adopting the State provisions in the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code relating to electric vehicles.
With the phase out of sales of gas cars by 2035, the City should look to writing and adopting better parking standards for EVs soon, to ensure that all units in multifamily housing that have parking have access to charging, even if that access is to level 1 (standard 120) outlets. Retrofitting electrical for charging is more expensive than building it right the first time. And passing that extra cost on to apartment owners can slow down the adoption of EVs by renters. Sacramento should be ahead of the State.
A key strategy the State of CA has identified to reach carbon neutrality by 2045 is to phase out gas usage in the building sector. This means that new gas infrastructure is likely to become a stranded asset: costing the utility more than it will see return during its lifetime. The maintenance and operational costs associated with new gas infrastructure will need to be paid for by a shrinking number of future gas customers. These customers are likely to be low-income residential customers and others who have either not chosen to or not been able to shoulder upfront costs of electrification. Provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act will help people with the switch to electric appliances, but the New Buidling Electrification ordinance is an important step to take EARL Y to minimize investment in new gas infrastructure, make sure that people living and working in new buildings are not saddled with gas appliances with over 10 year lifetimes, and get started on the path to carbon zero today. The ordinance should go into effect as approved, starting in 2023.
Thanks for your attention,
Rosie Y acoub
Marcy Barnett
Location:
Submitted At: 12:32pm 08-14-22
Hello City Council - I am writing to you to urge you to stay strong on the CAP measures. Sacramento, as Capitol of California, should be a model for the rest of the state on how carbon neutrality will not only slow climate change, but improve quality of life and spur innovation in building and community design. This is your legacy! Short-term thinking will not result in a long-lasting impact. Let's get on with implementing CAP measures and join San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, and other forward-looking cities to show the nation how greenhouse gas reduction is done.
Elia Bassin
Location:
Submitted At: 8:36pm 08-11-22
This Electrification Ordinance is fantastic. As a lifetime resident, renter and now I own two properties in Sac City limits, I am a huge fan of this Ordinance. I only wish it occurred years ago, would take affect for buildings over 4 stories a year earlier. I think a year is plenty of notice for those buildings to modify their plans. I would also urge it to apply for all remodels. I have converted three units from gas to all electric and with SMUD rebates the cost is insignificant. I am also 100% satisfied with mini-spits in old housing and my heat pump water heaters. I am in full support. Thank you for making things happen.
Elia Bassin
2821 63rd St, 95817
Support for Approval of New Building Electrification’s ProposedExemption Guidelines And Rebuttal to Metro Chamber Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We look forward with excitement to the Sacramento City Council’s approval this Fall of thefinal version of the New Construction Electrification Ordinance (“Ordinance”). This is animportant step to meeting the City’s climate goals and the first major action to follow theMayors Climate Commission recommendations. We urge the Council to approve the finalpiece to the Ordinance: the recently released guidelines on permitting exemptions forrestaurants and manufacturing.
So, it was disheartening and with not a little bit of annoyance that we read the MetroChamber’s letter to the Mayor and Council making unwarranted requests for changes to theexemption waiver process. Here is our response to that letter.
Extension of Waiver Exemption.The Chamber calls foran indefinite extension of theproposed exemptions for manufacturing and restaurants, set to expire in 2026, andsubsequently subject to technology and cost feasibility. As they write:
“City Council should be compelled to extend theseexemptions now knowing that there hasbeen little to no change in both the access or existence of this technology, and certainly notat a cost that is feasible for most if not all of those in these industries.” The Chamber here appears to be asking the Council to revise the 2026 end date forautomatic exception to an undefined, open-ended period, without any justifiable evidence.They make a sweeping assertion that ignores the many electric technologies on the marketwhich are now being successfully used in restaurants and industrial processes. Such aunilateral action would violate the intent of the waiver exemption process which wouldrequire an applicant review of the particular industrial or commercial process for feasibilityat the time of future application. One cannot propose an exemption process for three yearsin the future only to sweep it away with unsubstantiated claims of current financial ortechnical infeasibility.
Expand Review Body. The Chamber also calls for a 60-day period of expanded review of thewaiver proposal to accommodate new representation by other groups. As they write:
“The complexities of various manufacturing processes and construction guidelines alongwith the diversity and impact to many of our cultural restaurants – especially the impact toour AAPI restaurants – requires more than a single representative when policy implicationsare being assessed. Representation from women and the LGBTQ community is also criticalto creating holistic policy that serves all citizens equitably and is currently not reflected inthe panel make up or the process by which input has been paced by the process adopted bystaff. City Council must give more time for real, authentic engagement from those who willbe most affected to ensure equity in the process and avoid intended consequences.” The group most impacted -- Asian restaurants -- are already well represented in thetechnical advisory group and have made their objections well known. A local manufacturinginterest also has a seat in the committee, and it would be implausible to expand thisrepresentation to the myriad of speculative commercial and industrial processes that couldpotentially locate within the City limits in the indefinite future.
Expanding the committee representation to other groups, including women and the LGBTQcommunity -- who have no association with the Ordinance or its impacts -- may appearpolitic, but would serve no useful purpose. It would be unnecessarily disruptive and likelycause a delay in City passage of the Ordinance. Nor does the communication of theseguidelines need to be as expansive as the Chamber recommends. The best point of contactand communication will be at the permit application process with the actual impactedparties. And the best time for subsequent review of the guidelines would be in 2025 whenthe exemptions are set to expire.
Misguided Rationale.The Chamber’s purported concernover of the New BuildingElectrification Ordinance appear to stem from its mischaracterization of the expectedimpacts. As stated in the letter’s second paragraph, the Ordinance will trigger threepotentially dire consequences:
“(1) (It) will create immediate economichardship and barriers for our minority-ownedbusinesses, This is an apparent reference to Asian American restaurants, none of which will beimpacted at allimmediatelyas implied since the ordinanceonly affects new businesses after2026. Even so, we believe the future economic impact of removing gas from Asianrestaurants would be slight if it all, given that many cost beneficial, perfectly suitable, andeven superior electric cooking equipment alternatives already exist. In fact, many Asianchefs from across the country have embraced induction wok cooking in response to theclimate impact of natural gas burning.
However, we do recognize many chefs will continue to favor open flame wok cooking for itscultural heritage and perceived culinary enhancement. In this regard, it is important to notethat the Ordinance will largely affect new construction builders and property owners andnot directly the minority-owned businesses who may lease space from them afterconstruction. Under the Ordinance, developers as a rule will not be extending costly gaslines to new buildings. If a prospective restaurant occupant seeks and receives theexemption following the guidelines, they must collaborate with the developer or buildingowner on the cost and feasibility of providing a gas line extension solely for their use. (2)” increase the cost of housing duringa housing shortage” The truth is that electrification will actually lower the cost of new construction. All of theNew Building Electrification Ordinances in the 60 California communities, includingSacramento, have been shown to be cost beneficial in state-approved studies. The savingscome from eliminating the extension and installation of natural gas lines, as well as thesubsequent bill savings from the efficient electric equipment. Moreover, SMUD continues toprovide robust rebates for electrification with additional incentives expected soon as aresult of state and federal climate action – with large, targeted funds focused on low-incomehouseholds and affordable housing developments.
It is also important to stress that the exemptions to the ordinance most likely represent 1%- 2% of new construction development, with building space and water heating making upthe bulk of the affected conversions to electric. This change is also quite incremental giventhat the 2023 state Building Code under Title 24 already mandates a default building designin the Sacramento climate zone for electric hot water heat pumps, with electric spaceheating highly likely to follow in a subsequent code cycle. and (3) drive away high-wage jobs in manufacturing … ”
This purely speculative threat assumes the City will deny legitimate claims for a gas useexemption by prospective manufacturers. If the industrial process requires natural gas, or iffeasible electric alternatives are too costly, the applicant can obtain the exemption andestablish a facility in the City.
The Ordinance Will Not Compound City’s Woes.The Chamberconcludes its litany of bogushardships the Ordinance may potentially trigger by linking it to the list of other trulyserious and difficult community problems:
“(These hardships are) all true in the best of economic circumstances but even moreimmediately felt at a time that small business is deeply struggling due to theon-going pandemic, work force shortages, increased housing costs, intense racial discrimination, and the ongoing economic challenges of the exponential increase inhomelessness in our City.” This guilt by association reference is an unwarranted, cheap shot at an Ordinance that willactually provide long-term financial savings and health benefits especially for low-incomehouseholds. And the Chamber is missing the truly transformative impact of the Ordinance:the first step in the removal of future greenhouse gas emissions, helping us do our part tolimit a dangerous and existential threat to the future livability of our local community.
Rick Codina on behalf of 350 Sacramento Electrification Team