CITY OF SAN MATEO
City Council Special Meeting
January 16, 2024
5:30 PM
City Hall Conference Room C
Entrance is on O’Farrell Street
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Lisa Diaz Nash, Mayor
Rob Newsom Jr., Deputy Mayor
Rich Hedges
Amourence Lee
Adam Loraine
AGENDA
THIS MEETING CAN BE ATTENDED IN PERSON OR REMOTE BY JOINING ZOOM – SEE CODES BELOW.
PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND REMOTEL Y.
SEE END OF AGENDA FOR OPTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING.
To join via Zoom – click here:
January 16, 2024
To join via telephone: (408) 638-0968
Webinar ID: 879 5168 6004 Passcode: 436213
CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
AB 2449 Requests and Considerations for Meeting Participation by Teleconference due to Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances
CLOSED SESSION
The public will have an opportunity to comment before the consideration of these items. Following the meeting a report of action from Closed Session will be provided if required.
1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation
(Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9) Name of Case: Danielle M., et al. v. Winchester, Noah, et al., San Mateo Superior Court Case No.: 22-CIV-01066
2. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation
(Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9) Name of Case: City of San Mateo v. Argonaut Insurance Company, United States District Court - Northern District of California Case No.: 5:23-cv-02504-VKD
STUDY SESSION
The public will have an opportunity to comment during the consideration of these items.
3. Sustainable Buildings Strategy – Project Update
Receive an update on the development of "Electrify San Mateo - Building for the Future: City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy" and provide direction on the policy options to include in continued project outreach.
CEQA: This informational report is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)
1 of 139
ADJOURNMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AGENDAS:
Agendas and material are posted on the City’s website on the Friday preceding each Council Meeting and can be viewed on the City's website at
www.cityofsanmateo.org
. Any supplemental material distributed to the Council after the posting of the agenda will be made part of the official record.
WATCHING A MEETING ON TV:
City Council meetings are broadcast live on Comcast/channel 27, Wave/channel 26, or AT&T/channel 99.
For transmission problems during the broadcast, please call (650) 522-7099. For all other broadcast comments, call (650) 522-7040, Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.
WATCHING A MEETING ON A COMPUTER:
There are three ways to stream.
1) Public Meeting Portal
www.cityofsanmateo.org/publicmeetings
2) City YouTube channel and stream it on YouTube:
http://youtube.com/CityofSanMateo
3) Watch TV live stream:
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/193/Channel-San-Mateo-Live-Stream
PUBLIC COMMENTS/REQUEST TO SPEAK
Prior to the Meeting
Send comments to:
[email protected]
until 4 p.m. the day of the meeting.
During the meeting
By Zoom:
Click the link at the top of the agenda and you’ll be added to the meeting. All attendees are muted by default. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select the “Raise Your Hand” icon and you will be called on at the appropriate time.
By telephone:
Call (408) 638-0968 and enter the conference ID found at the top of the meeting agenda. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select *9 to raise your hand. When called upon, press *6 to unmute, state your name and provide your comments.
In Person:
At the meeting complete a “Request to Speak” form, submit a request at the speaker kiosk or scan the QR code.
ACCESSIBILITY:
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those with disabilities requiring special accommodations to participate in this meeting may contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 522-7040 or [email protected]
. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
2 of 139
CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 6
1 4
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 3 Section Name: STUDY SESSION Account Number: 10-1311 File ID: 23-8275 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Manager's Office
MEETING DATE: January 16, 2024
SUBJECT:
Sustainable Buildings Strategy – Project Update
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive an update on the development of "Electrify San Mateo - Building for the Future: City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy" and provide direction on the policy options to include in continued project outreach.
BACKGROUND:
Building energy use represents 38% of communitywide greenhouse gas emissions in San Mateo. In January 2022, the City Council prioritized the decarbonization of existing buildings to help meet the City’s climate goals and reaffirmed this priority in 2023. The decarbonization, or electrification, of buildings refers to the transition from gas equipment to electric equipment for space and water heating, clothes drying, cooking and more. In San Mateo, Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) provides electricity Citywide that is 50% renewable and virtually 100% carbon free, and PCE is committed to delivering 100% renewable and carbon free electricity by 2025. Electrifying existing buildings is critical to further reducing communitywide greenhouse gas emissions and is a key strategy in the City’s Climate Action Plan. Technical analysis and community engagement are needed to develop a roadmap to clean energy buildings in San Mateo.
In late 2022, staff released a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking an experienced consultant team knowledgeable in decarbonization policy planning, analysis, and implementation, to help San Mateo develop a decarbonization strategy that centers on equity and promotes a collaborative pathway to electrification. After reviewing the proposals and interviewing the consultants, staff selected Rincon Consultants, Inc. because of their compelling approach to analysis and outreach and their experience with developing similar strategies for other cities. The City Council approved an agreement with Rincon for this project at the March 20, 2023 City Council meeting. This project, which is now titled, “Building for the Future: City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy,” launched in May 2023. On September 10, 2023, the project team presented to the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission on the Sustainable Buildings Strategy. The item received a high volume of public comments including 150 written and verbal comments as discussed later in this report.
This report provides an overview of the project and summarizes the local building electrification policy context, upfront electric equipment costs, community feedback staff has received so far, and policy options for San Mateo to consider. Staff is seeking Council feedback on the policy options to include in continued project outreach.
Project Overview
The goal of this project is to develop a long-term strategy document to electrify San Mateo’s existing building stock, including policies and actions for both residential and nonresidential buildings. Electrifying existing buildings is expected to produce many positive outcomes in San Mateo beyond reducing greenhouse gas emissions and helping meet climate goals. Electrification benefits include the added health benefit of reducing gas use in the home. Peer reviewed studies have documented that residences with gas stoves have 50 to 400% higher average nitrogen dioxide concentrations than
3 of 139
CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 6
1 4
homes with electric stoves.1 Living in a home with a gas stove may increase children’s risk of asthma by 42%.2 Additionally, gas infrastructure carries an inherent safety risk due to the volatile nature of gas, including risk of methane leakage, damage during earthquakes, accidental explosions, or fires. Nationwide, gas ignites over 4,000 home structure fires annually, causing on average 40 deaths and $54 million in property damage each year.3 When coupled with solar and battery energy storage, all-electric buildings can mitigate impacts of power outages and increase community resilience.
There is a common misconception that having gas appliances provides a redundant system during power outages; however, gas appliances like water heaters, stoves, and space heaters typically cannot function without electricity to power the fans and controls needed for operation.
The concept of energy equity recognizes that disadvantaged communities have been historically marginalized and overburdened by pollution, underinvestment in clean energy infrastructure, and lack of access to energy efficient housing and transportation (Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy)4. Equity will be centered in the development of the Sustainable Building Strategy and the equity criteria drafted by the project team builds upon the work done by the City of San Mateo’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee, and draws inspiration from equity work conducted in conjunction with its housing element from 2022, the DEI Strategic Framework Report, and City Council resolution work. As part of future policy exploration and analysis, staff will address how vulnerable communities will be supported in each electrification policy implementation.
Local Policy Context
As part of the FY 2022-2023 goal setting session, the City Council directed staff to present to them policy options to decarbonize and electrify existing buildings and eliminate natural gas use by 2030. The City’s Climate Action Plan also identifies electrifying existing buildings as a key strategy to reduce communitywide greenhouse gas emissions. The City promotes electrification through marketing electric equipment rebates and incentives and hosting workshops.
Additionally, the City adopted reach codes to encourage and require building electrification. In 2020, the City Council adopted an ordinance requiring all new residential and office buildings be all-electric starting on January 1, 2021. In 2022, the City Council approved an ordinance that expanded the all-electric requirement to all new buildings and requires electric-readiness and electric appliances for specific home remodels as of January 1, 2023. City staff are monitoring federal litigation involving the City of Berkeley’s ban on gas infrastructure and are reviewing recent Ninth Circuit caselaw on this issue.
In addition, the City is working on electrifying appliances at City facilities. The Senior Center kitchen replaced a gas stove with an electric cooktop. Staff are evaluating gas water heater replacement options with heat pump water heaters at multiple City facilities. Staff worked with PG&E’s program implementer, Willdan, and completed site assessments at 17 City facilities. Willdan staff identified seven sites that show the most potential for replacement through the turnkey program that would leverage PG&E and PCE rebates, resulting in new electric equipment replacement at no cost to the City. Staff are also planning to apply for PCE’s Member Agency Energy Grants. There is $11.5 million available, and monies will be disbursed based on customer count in the jurisdiction. The funding must be used for purposes consistent with PCE’s mission, such as efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support building decarbonization. Staff looks forward to PCE’s release of the grant funding and will allocate funding thoughtfully and strategically to advance the City’s climate and decarbonization goals in alignment with PCE’s grant guidelines.
At the regional level, in May 2023, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted zero nitrogen oxides (NOx) standards that will prohibit the sale and installation of gas water heaters starting in 2027 and gas furnaces in 2029 in 1 U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Oxides of Nitrogen – Health Criteria (Final Report, Jul 2008). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/071, 2008. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=194645. 2 Weiwei, L., Brunekreef, B., & Gehring, U. (2013). Meta-analysis of the effects of indoor nitrogen dioxide and gas cooking on asthma and wheeze in children. International Journal of Epidemiology, 42(6), 1724–1737. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyt150. 3 Ahrens, M. & Evarts, B. (2018). Natural Gas and Propane Fires, Explosions and Leaks Estimates and Incident Descriptions. NationalFire Protection Association. https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/News-and-Research/Fire-statistics-and- reports/Hazardousmaterials/osNaturalGasPropaneFires.
4 https://www.energy.gov/eere/energy-equity-and-environmental-justice
4 of 139
CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 6
1 4
the nine-county Bay Area. These standards are the most ambitious in the country and outpace the state’s goal of banning the sale of new gas furnaces and water heaters throughout the state starting in 2030. These policy efforts drive California closer to the ambitious climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.
Building Electrification Costs
Upfront costs include all costs to purchase an appliance, install and permit it, and make it operational. This includes wiring, labor, and contractor mark ups. Upfront costs to electrify were analyzed using the most recent and location specific data available for each appliance: water heaters, HVAC systems, dryers and stoves. Attachment 1 includes detailed cost analysis for residential building electrification and Attachment 2 includes cost analysis information for commercial and multifamily buildings.
Attachment 1 provides data for the electrification costs for the entire home, but most building owners are expected to replace appliances one by one, as the original gas appliances approach the end of their useful life and need to be replaced.
This means that the costs or cost savings to electrify will likely happen at the appliance-level, not the whole-home level.
The following table compares electrification costs and available incentives with replacing equipment with the gas equivalent for each appliance (see Attachment 1 for more details and analysis):
Electrification Marginal Upfront Costs + Incentives*
Appliance Electric
Appliance Cost
Combined
Incentives
Electrification
Cost After
Incentives
Gas Equivalent
Costs
Electrification
Marginal Cost
or (Savings)
Electrification Scenario Marginal Cost with Peninsula Clean Energy, BayREN, IRA Incentives Electric heat pump water
heater $6,000 $(7,500)** - $2,800 $(2,800)
Furnace Only without AC
Low-Cost HVAC Scenario $13,965 $(5,900) $8,065 $6,132 $1,933 Furnace Only without AC
Median-Cost HVAC Scenario $17,910 $(5,900) $12,010 $6,132 $5,878 Furnace and AC
Low-Cost HVAC Scenario $13,965 $(5,900) $8,065 $13,632 $(5,567) Furnace and AC
Median-Cost HVAC Scenario $17,910 $(5,900) $12,010 $13,632 $(1,622) Electric dryer $1,963 $(250) $1,713 $925 $788
Electric stove $2,375 $(250) $2,125 $1,155 $970
Panel upgrade (if needed) $3,700 $(1,600) $2,100 N/A $2,100 *Note that IRA incentives take the form of tax credits, while other rebates can be applied upfront by the building owner or contractor after completing program documentation requirements. Please refer to Attachment 1Error! Reference source not found. for a full summary of rebates and incentives by funder.
**Rebates cannot exceed total project cost which is expected to be $6,000 for a water heater replacement.
There are a few main takeaways that influence project cost:
•HVAC systems are a major cost variable: Differences across installation bids for electric heat pump HVAC systems are a major cost variable for the electrification of space heating. Accordingly, ‘low’ and ‘median’ scenarios are provided to detail the significant difference in installation bids for electric heat pump HVAC systems. This discrepancy in installation bids from contractors stems from home-specific needs for ductwork upgrades, locations to site HVAC systems, and labor costs which vary depending on the contractor. •Air conditioning: Most homes in San Mateo do not have air conditioning, though staff have observed an increase in the installation of new air conditioning units. Electric heat pump HVAC provides both space heating and cooling.
If an existing home does not include air conditioning, this is an added benefit but will increase marginal costs. •Panel upgrades: Not all homes will need a panel upgrade to electrify appliances. Panel upgrades can add to project costs, estimated at $3,700 without a rebate and $2,100 with a rebate. •Rebates and incentives: Significant rebates are currently available through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA),
5 of 139
CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 6
1 4
Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE), BayREN, and TECH Clean California. When combined, building owners are eligible for $15,500 in incentives. Incentives take the form of both rebates and tax incentives. Tax incentives through the IRA are provided as a credit but require the building owner to have some tax burden to reduce. Future funding through the High Efficiency Home Rebate Act (HEERA) will further reduce costs for low-income and moderate- income households. Rebates are challenging because they change often.
On-bill costs are another important piece of the overall economics of electrification. On-bill costs describe how much the building owner will pay to operate their appliances. PCE and Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) recently evaluated on-bill cost impacts of whole-home single-family electrification vs. mixed fuel in a September 2023 analysis. The PCE and SVCE Study5 shows that electrification of an average single-family home could lead to savings of ~$380/year when switching from gas to standard-efficiency electric appliances, and even more if high-efficiency systems are installed. More details are provided in Attachment 1 and the PCE and SVCE Study.
Community Feedback
Outreach for this effort is ongoing and will continue throughout the project. To date, outreach has focused on educating the community about the costs and benefits of building electrification and about the project’s general goals. Outreach also focused on gathering feedback on the equity and effectiveness criteria the City will use to evaluate policy options.
At the September 13, 2023 Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission meeting, staff and the consultant team presented the building inventory and market segmentation analysis as well as building electrification cost analysis. Over 120 written public comments were submitted for the item with the majority in support of decarbonization. 24 verbal comments were also provided at the meeting. Proponents of the City’s decarbonization support electrification policy efforts to reduce gas use in the community to combat climate change and to encourage the leveraging of incentives and rebates for electrification. For those opposed, the number one concern about electrification is the costs to the property owner. Other concerns include power outages, growth of the grid to accommodate future electric buildings, and passed on costs to renters. Commissioners' top concern was a robust engagement and outreach approach to make sure all voices of the community were heard.
In Fall of 2023, five General Plan Town Hall meetings were held to solicit feedback on the City’s General Plan Update. Staff had a poster board summarizing the Sustainable Buildings Strategy project efforts and received a mix of both supportive feedback for working on electrification requirements as well as concerns about costs related to electrification. On September 22, 2023, staff presented to the City’s Diversity Equity and Inclusion Task Force. Feedback from the Task Force included: the need to include education, data, and storytelling in outreach. The Task Force’s biggest concerns regarding electrification were related to the electric power outages and costs to homeowners. The Task Force also helped identify follow up opportunities for partnerships and project outreach.
The project team also launched an online survey to assess community priorities for building electrification that was open December 2023 through January 10, 2024. Results of the online survey will be shared orally during the January 16, 2024 City Council Study Session. Early survey results show that the major concerns and values related to building decarbonization are consistent with the feedback received and during fall outreach events as summarized above.
Policy Options
At this point in the project, the project team has focused on education and gathering feedback to prioritize the community’s goals for the Sustainable Building Strategy. The goal of this report is to outline potential policy options to include in continued project outreach, research and analysis, including legal review.
These policies are meant to be considered as a menu of options to achieve the City’s climate goals, while considering implementation and cost challenges for property owners across the City. Most local governments considering a building decarbonization strategy combine multiple strategies together to produce the most comprehensive, and equitable policy 5 Bill Impacts of Decarbonizing Existing Single Family Homes. September 2023. Peter Mustachich (SVCE), Blake Herrschaft (PCE). https://svcleanenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/SVCE-PCE-Single-Family-On-Bill-Impacts-Results-2023.pdf
6 of 139
CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 6
1 4
result. Potential policy options are summarized below and detailed in Attachment 3:
1) Follow State mandates and BAAQMD Zero NOx requirements for gas water heaters in 2027 and gas furnaces in 2029, continue with adopted reach codes, and focus on outreach and incentives 2) Explore and adopt new reach codes to encourage and require electrification at time of renovation 3) Require electric equipment upon replacement ahead of BAAQMD Zero NOx requirements 4) Establish Building Performance Standards for commercial buildings 5) Adopt an electric first policy for City facilities
Adoption of an “End of Flow Ordinance” was considered but not provided in the ultimate policy options. An “End of Flow Ordinance” establishes a long-term carbon-neutrality aligned target to end natural gas use in a jurisdiction. The adoption of such an ordinance sends a signal to regional planners and utilities that the jurisdiction has taken long-term action to end the flow of natural gas in the community. The City of Half Moon Bay is the only jurisdiction that has adopted such an ordinance; their ordinance requires fuel gas lines to be capped or decommissioned in existing buildings by 2045. This type of approach should not be adopted as a standalone policy because it requires additional short-term actions to electrify existing buildings to meet such a goal.
This list of potential policies includes a range of options to address different building types and equipment. Each policy option requires legal review, further research, outreach and engagement with the community, and cost resource allocation for implementation. In future policy analysis, staff will identify how vulnerable community members may receive the technical or financial support needed to comply with a potential policy.
Staff is seeking Council direction on which of the five policy options to include in its ongoing outreach efforts and future analysis. Building electrification is a complex topic and by providing example policy options for community feedback, the project team hopes to receive deeper engagement and provide a clearer understanding of potential building decarbonization strategy options to the community and for inclusion in the final Sustainable Building Strategy.
Project Timeline and Next Steps
The project team adjusted the original timeline to allow for deeper community engagement. Council feedback will inform the next phase of outreach, which will begin in July 2024. The final Sustainable Building Strategy would return to City Council for adoption in 2025.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This study session has no impact to the City's General Fund. Funding for the "Electrify San Mateo - Building for the Future:
City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy" was approved at the March 20, 2023, City Council meeting and funding was appropriated from the Advance Planning Fund (Fund 225).
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This informational report is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Single-Family and Low-Rise Multifamily Building Electrification Costs Att 2 – High-Rise Multifamily and Nonresidential Building Electrification Costs Att 3 – Building Decarbonization Policy Options
Att 4 – Public Comment
STAFF CONTACT
Andrea Chow, Sustainability Analyst
[email protected]
(650) 522-7007
7 of 139
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
510-834-4455
www.rinconconsultan ts.com
Attachment 1: Single-Family and Low-Rise Multifamily Buildings Electrification Costs
Upfront Electrification Costs
Electrification upfront costs include all costs to purchase an appliance, install and permit it, and make it operational. This includes wiring, labor, and contractor mark ups. Upfront costs were analyzed using the most recent and location specific data available. See Appendix A for data sources.
For most upfront costs, median install values were selected to inform the cost analysis. Using median costs helped remove outlier quotes from contractors, which would have influenced the average value.
Quotes for some equipment, such as furnaces, could vary between contractors by as much as $15,000 for the same project. Where median costs were not available, averages were used.
In general, the costs for single-family homes and the costs per unit for low-rise multifamily buildings (3 stories and under) will be similar. Low-rise multifamily buildings tend to use similar equipment to single-family homes and one piece of equipment may even serve multiple units in some buildings. For example, an 80-gallon hot water heater being used by both units in a duplex. The refore, the per unit costs for electrification in Table 2 are assumed to be conservative for multifamily buildings which use residential (as opposed to commercial) sized equipment. High-rise multifamily homes (over 3 stories) look more like commercial buildings with a wide variety of equipment and the potential for larger centralized systems.
Like for Like Scenario: Replace Gas Appliances with New Gas Appliances Upfront Costs In the gas ‘like for like’ scenario (base case), where it is assumed that the building owner replaces existing natural gas appliances with new natural gas appliances, the typical whole-home cost in San Mateo without air conditioning1 is $11,012. Once costs for air conditioning (AC) are added in, the total projected cost to replace all appliances that run on gas plus an air conditioner is $18,512. The results are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 Like for Like Scenario: Replace Gas Appliances with New Gas Appliances Appliance, Install, Wiring End Use Median/Average Cost (All Data) Gas water heater Water Heating $2,800
Gas furnace Space Heating $6,132
Air conditioner (keep existing furnace)* Space Cooling $7,500 Gas dryer Clothes Drying $925
Gas stove Cooking $1,155
Whole-Home Total Cost without AC $11,012
Whole-Home Total Cost with AC $18,512
*Note: Existing datasets did not cover the cost of air conditioning, which was found using desktop research (Angie’s List), filtering for location-specific costs by zip code, refers to central air conditioner.2 The air conditioner uses electricity not gas to operate.
1 According to the 2035 Peninsula Clean Energy Decarbonization Analysis, only 25% of homes in San Mateo County have Air Conditioning, with central air conditioning being the most common type of air conditioner. 2 https://www.angi.com/articles/how-much-does-installing-new-ac-cost.htm
8 of 139
City of San Mateo
2 Electrification Scenario: Gas to Electric Upfront Costs (No Incentives) Installation costs for heat pump HVAC and the potential need for an electric panel upgrade are two of the largest influencers of cost in home electrification for the City of San Mateo. Differences across installation bids for heat pump HVAC systems are a major cost variable for the electrification of space heating. Accordingly, a ‘low’ and ‘median’ scenario was broken out for each to detail the significant difference in installation bids for heat pump HVAC systems. This discrepancy in installation bids from contractors stems from home-specific needs for ductwork upgrades, locations to site HVAC systems, and labor costs which are highly variable depending on the contractor. Note, heat pump HVAC systems provide both electric space heating and cooling. Electric panel upgrades were also a significant cost variable, adding $3,700 to total electrification costs if they were necessitated as part of the e lectric appliance installation.3 Upfront costs to electrify each appliance are described above in Table 2.
Table 2 Electrification Scenario: Replace Gas Appliances with New Electric Appliances (No Incentives)
Appliance, Install, Wiring End Use Median/Average Cost (All Data) Electric heat pump water heater Water Heating $6,000
Electric heat pump HVAC system
(provides both space heating and cooling)
Space Heating/Cooling:
Low-Cost Scenario
$13,965
Space Heating/Cooling:
Median-Cost Scenario
$17,910
Electric dryer Clothes Drying $1,963
Electric stove Cooking $2,375
Panel upgrade (if needed) Electrical $3,700
Electrification Scenario: Incremental Costs (Difference Between Gas and Electric Install Costs)
‘Incremental costs’ for electrification of individual appliances are at the core of this analysis because they describe the cost premium (if any) that a building owner would pay to make a switch to electric at the time of appliance replacement. Incremental costs describe the price difference between a gas replacement and an electric appliance . The incremental cost analysis below also factors in $7,500 savings for homes that displace both a gas furnace and air conditioning with a single heat pump HVAC unit.
Table 3 shows incremental costs for replacing gas appliances with electric appliances, with no incentives. The next section will demonstrate the impact of current incentives to reduce the upfront costs of electrification.
3 As discussed in the BayREN Decarbonizing Single-Family Homes Case Study, potentially costly electric panel upgrades are frequently recommended by contractors without first understanding the many potential avenues to avoid this cost through maximum usage of existing service capacity. The threshold for a panel upgrade appears to be around 100 amps. A single family home with a panel below 100 amps may need a panel upgrade to accommodate all-electric appliances. Panels 100 amps and above can likely find pathways to electrify without a panel upgrade. The BayREN Decarbonization Case Study recommends several ways for “panel optimization”, including making a whole home electrification plan, and investing in circuit sharing and pausing infrastructure instead of a panel upgrade.
9 of 139
City of San Mateo
3 Table 3 Electrification Scenario Incremental Costs (No Incentives) Incremental Cost = Electric Appliance Cost – Gas Equivalent Cost Appliance End Use
Electric
Appliance Cost
Gas Equivalent
Cost
Median/
Average
Incremental
Cost
Gas furnace only: Electric heat
pump HVAC system
Space Heating/Cooling:
Low-Cost Scenario
$13,965 $6,132 $7,833
Space Heating/Cooling:
Median-Cost Scenario
$17,910
$6,132 $11,778
Gas furnace with AC: Electric
heat pump HVAC system
Space Heating/Cooling:
Low-Cost Scenario
$13,965 $13,632*
$333
Space Heating/Cooling:
Median-Cost Scenario
$17,910
$13,632*
$4,278
Electric heat pump water heater Water Heating $6,000 $2,800 $3,200 Electric stove Cooking $2,375 $1,155 $1,220
Electric dryer Clothes Drying $1,963 $925 $1,038
Panel upgrade (if needed) $3,700 N/A $3,700
* Includes $7,500 for a new air conditioning unit as well as $6,132 for a new furnace.
Figure 1 displays the incremental cost to electrify as the difference between the blue bar [electric] and gray bar [gas], which display appliance replacement costs. The difference between each bar is the increase in cost for upgrading to an electric appliance before rebates are applied. 4 Note that Space Heating & Cooling [Total Cost- Gas] combines cost for AC and a gas furnace.
Figure 1 Incremental Costs ($) to Electrify Each Appliance
4 Figure 1 combines costs for AC + a gas furnace to illustrate the full cost of dual space heating and cooling. It also selects the median, not low-cost HVAC scenario as a conservative estimate for an electric scenario for space heating and cooling. Units are displayed in $ amount.
10 of 139
City of San Mateo
4 Figure 2 reflects four different HVAC scenarios which each result in a different incremental cost. A major finding is that when a heat pump HVAC is used to replace a gas furnace and AC, the incremental cost to upgrade is much lower and, in some cases, may be close to cost parity.
Figure 2 Incremental Costs ($) to Electrify: Detailed Heat Pump HVAC Scenarios
Whole-Home Electrification Incremental Costs
Electrification in existing buildings will likely happen on an individual appliance level instead of at the whole-home level, as building owners will likely only upgrade appliances as they fail. However, looking at the incremental cost to electrify on the whole -home level is useful for understanding the overall upfront cost impact of building electrification.
Over the course of 10-20 years a building is expected to replace each of its major gas consuming appliances including the water heater, furnace, air conditioner (if appli cable), dryer, and stove which all have effective lifespans of less than 20 years. During this time a homeowner would spend between $11,000 and $18,500 dollars to replace gas equipment with new gas equipment. During this same time period upgrading to electric appliances would cost between $24,300 and $32,000 before any incentives and dep ending on varied HVAC costs and need for a panel upgrade . This means the incremental or increased costs associated with whole-home electrification could be between $5,800 and $21,000.
A full cost table can be found in Appendix A detailing different scenarios for electrification.
11 of 139
City of San Mateo
5 Current Incentives for Electrification
Current electric appliance incentives available through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE), BayREN, TECH Clean California when combined make building owners eligible for $15,500 in rebates and tax credits, as summarized in Table 4. Incentives take the form of both rebates and tax incentives.
Data for existing rebates were collected from most recent online sources on existing federal-level (IRA5), local (PCE 6, BayREN 7, TECH Clean California 8) sources of home electrification rebates. Note that funders change available rebates often. Table 4 data reflect the most recent rebates as of December 2023.
Table 4 Current Electric Appliance Incentives – No Income Qualifications (as of December 2023)**
Appliance End Use
$ Rebate/
Tax Credit*
Available Funder Notes
Electric heat pump
water heater
Water
Heating
$2,000 PCE Stackable with other incentives, but most cannot exceed cost of projects. Must be a PCE Customer
$400 BayREN BayREN Home+ program. All BayREN- capped at $4,000 per customer over an 8-year period.
$3,100 TECH Incentives based on tank size- low-end highlighted here for conservative application of scenarios
$2,000* IRA Max for IRA 30% heat pump water heater tax incentive ($2000) max, must have paid taxes in
calendar year. Additional low-middle income IRA
incentives are upcoming but not included here.
Heat Pump Water
Heater Total Stackable
Rebates and Tax
Credits Available
$7,500 Note that incentives cannot exceed whole project cost which is projected to be $6,000. Whole
project cost currently covered with all stacked
incentives.
Heat Pump HVAC
System
Space
Heating/
Cooling
$2,500 PCE Stackable with other incentives, but most cannot exceed cost of projects
$400 BayREN High efficiency heat pump ≥ 17 SEER replacing existing natural gas system
$2,000* IRA Tax Credit, same as description for electric heat pump water heater
$1,000 TECH Single family incentives of $1,000 for new heat pump HVAC systems, with up to two incentivized
systems per home for a total of $2,000; must be a
TECH-enrolled contractor; project must be a non-heat
pump to heat pump installation; no new construction,
retrofits only; equipment must be AHRI matched
systems; equipment must meet Title 24 code
minimum standards.
Heat Pump HVAC
System Total Stackable
Rebates and Tax
Credits Available
$5,900
5 https://www.rewiringamerica.org/IRAguide
6 https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/residential-programs/ 7 https://www.bayren.org/articles-tools-tips/electrification 8 https://switchison.org/
12 of 139
City of San Mateo
6 Appliance End Use
Rebate/ Tax
Credit*
Available Funder Notes
Electric dryer Clothes
Drying
$250 BayREN Specifies heat pump clothes dryer
Electric Dryer Total
Stackable Rebates and
Tax Credits Available
$250
Induction Stove Cooking $250 BayREN Specifies Induction Range Induction Stove Total
Stackable Rebates and
Tax Credits Available
$250
Electrical Panel and New Circuits $1,000 PCE
$600* IRA Tax credit for panel upgrades- available in conjunction with other home upgrades (ex.
weatherization, electrification, solar)
Electric Panel Total
Stackable Rebates and
Tax Credits Available
$1,600
Total Electrification Incentives
(Rebates + Tax Credits) Available
$15,500
Total Electrification Rebates
Available $
$10,900
Total Electrification IRA Tax Credits
Available $*
$4,600
*While rebates can be applied upfront by either the building owner or contractor, depending on the incentive program, IRA tax credits can be deducted from total taxes owed, meaning that the building owner would have to wait until tax season to receive the full cost reduction to electrify. Tax incentives through the IRA are provided as a credit but require the building owner to have some tax burden to reduce.
** Note that funders change available rebates often. These rebates reflect the most recent rebates as of 12.15.2023.
13 of 139
City of San Mateo
7 Federal Electrification Incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) & the High Efficiency Electric Home Rebate Act9
The IRA was signed into law in August 2022, ushering in significant federal policy support and funding for building decarbonization. The High Efficiency Electric Home Rebate Act (HEEHRA) is the official name of the IRA’s rebate program for electric home technology including heat pumps, electrical wiring, and induction stoves, which will be available starting in 202 4. Low-income households up to 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) can access 100% of upfront discount incentives, while moderate -income households from 80-150% AMI can access up to 50% of the upfront discount, in addition to tax credits that vary based on household income. Total HEEHRA discounts are capped at $14,000 across all electrification projects.
Cost reductions under HEEHRA are not included in this analysis as details are still developing and the incentives and most City of San Mateo building owners are generally classified as high income and would be ineligible . However, for low and moderate -income households up to 150% of AMI in San Mateo, IRA incentives may further incr ease the effectiveness of local electrification incentives available via PCE and BayREN, and help to close the gap for appliances where subsidies don’t always zero-out incremental costs, like HVAC systems, dryers, and induction ranges.
Table 5 details the rebates available through HEEHRA. These rebates are also extended to multifamily buildings where fifty percent of the residents are LMI. 10 With all HEEHRA rebates a pplied, LMI households in the City could fully close the incremental cost gap to electrify, and potentially entire project costs up to $14,000.11
Table 5 High-Efficiency Electric Home Rebate Act (HEEHRA): low-moderate income rebates: <80-150% Area Median Income (expected to be available in 2024) Appliance End Use
$ Rebate
Available Funder Notes
Heat Pump Water Heater Water Heater $1,750 HEEHRA
100% electrification costs for <80% AMI
(Low-Income)
50% electrification costs for 80-150% AMI
(Moderate-Income)
Heat Pump HVAC Space
Heating/Cooling
$8,000 HEEHRA
Electric dryer Clothes Drying $840 HEEHRA
Electric stove/ cooktop Cooking $840 HEEHRA
Panel upgrade
(if needed)
$2,500 HEEHRA
$4,000 HEEHRA
All rebates from HEEHRA capped at $14,000.12
9 https://www.rewiringamerica.org/IRAguide
10 https://www.rewiringamerica.org/policy/high-efficiency-electric-home-rebate-act 11 $14,000 value includes $1,600 for weatherization (insulation, air sealing, ventilation), but each individual maximum electrification end use adds up to more than $14,000 total rebate cap.
12 https://www.rewiringamerica.org/policy/high-efficiency-electric-home-rebate-act
14 of 139
City of San Mateo
www.rinconconsultan ts.com
Electrification Costs with Incentives Applied
In the final piece of the analysis, we have applied the rebates described in Table 4 to the incremental costs described in Table 3 to see if rebates and tax incentives can make electric technologies the same cost, or less costly than the gas scenario . For this analysis, an available $5,500 whole-home electrification rebate provided by Energy Smart Homes California was not applied since it requires a whole-home electrification project at one time.
Electrification Incremental Costs + Incentives
Once incentives are applied, heat pump hot water heaters and heat pump HVAC systems which replace both the furnace and AC unit result in incremental cost savings. This means that it is less expensive to install efficient electric space and water heating today in many cases. Future changes to incentives for home electrification could continue to move the needle towards upfront cost -effectiveness for whole-home electrification. Additionally, as more building -owners install electric appliances, the upfront cost of these appliances is expected to decline over time as these electric technologies become more widely adopted.13
Figure 3 illustrates that stacked incentives help close the incremental cost gap to electrify , in some cases outperforming costs to install a new gas appliance. Stacked electric heat pump water heater incentives can cover all upfront costs for water heating .14 It should be noted that the total rebates claimed cannot exceed total project costs, even if they are available (in the case of water heating).
Bright blue bars indicate the total costs to electrify once rebates are applied . This visual allows for a comparison of remaining costs to electrify versus total new gas appliance cost which would have been taken on by the building owner.
On the high end of the incremental costs + incentives range, electrifying a home without AC, with a panel upgrade, under the Median HVAC cost analysis scenario, would be $8,536 more expensive than a gas-for-gas scenario. These results are summarized in Table 6 at the appliance level. Whole home- electrification costs are further described in Appendix A.
BAAQMD Zero NOx Covered Appliances: Water Heaters and Furnaces Upcoming BAAQMD Zero NOx rules require water heater equipment replacements to be zero NOx in 2027 and space heating equipment replacements to be zero NOx in 2029 . Based on the current incentives and installation costs, installing a heat pump water heater was found to be no-cost, resulting in savings of $2,800 dollars without a panel upgrade or a savin gs of $700 when paired with a panel upgrade. This represents a major opportunity area for building electrification in San Mateo. By electrifying water heaters now and installing a panel upgrade where needed, residents can save money compared to installing a new gas water heater while preparing for future electrification.
The electrification of furnaces with the addition of air conditioning also offers immediate cost savings of between $1,622 to $5,567 when compared to replacing both a furnace and AC. This means that electrification of water heaters as well as furnaces (when also replacing an AC offers immediate cost savings over a ‘like for like’ replacement scenario. Working to facilitate these replacements would both reduce GHG emissions and save residents money upfront in San Mateo while also preparing for these upcoming regulations.
13 https://www.rewiringamerica.org/pace
14 It should be noted that this table’s marginal cost references the combined cost for air conditioning and a gas furnace, as well as a ‘median’ case HVAC.
15 of 139
City of San Mateo
9 Table 6 Electrification Incremental Upfront Costs + Incentives* Appliance Electric
Appliance Cost
Combined
Incentives
Electrification
Cost After
Incentives
Gas Equivalent
Costs
Electrification
Incremental
Cost or
(Savings)
Electrification Scenario Incremental Cost with Peninsula Clean Energy, BayREN, IRA Incentives Electric heat pump water
heater $6,000 $(7,500)** - $2,800 $(2,800)
Without AC
Low-Cost HVAC Scenario $13,965 $(5,900) $8,065 $6,132 $1,933 Without AC
Median-Cost HVAC Scenario $17,910 $(5,900) $12,010 $6,132 $5,878 With AC
Low-Cost HVAC Scenario $13,965 $(5,900) $8,065 $13,632 $(5,567) With AC
Median-Cost HVAC Scenario $17,910 $(5,900) $12,010 $13,632 $(1,622) Electric dryer $1,963 $(250) $1,713 $925 $788
Electric stove $2,375 $(250) $2,125 $1,155 $970
Panel upgrade (if needed) $3,700 $(1,600) $2,100 N/A $2,100 *Note that IRA incentives take the form of tax credits, while other rebates can be applied upfront by the building owner or contractor after completing program documentation requirements. Please refer to Table 4 for a full summary of rebates and incentives by funder. Note that incentive costs cannot exceed total project cost. **Rebates cannot exceed total project cost which is expected to be $6,000 Figure 3 Incentives Help Close the Incremental Cost Gap To Electrify ($)
16 of 139
City of San Mateo
10 On-Bill Costs for Single-Family Home Electrification On-bill costs are another important piece of the overall economics of electrification. On -bill costs describe how much the building owner will pay to operate their appliances. PCE and Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) recently evaluated on-bill cost impacts of whole-home single-family electrification vs. mixed fuel in a September 2023 analysis.15
The Study shows that electrification of an average single -family home could lead to savings of ~$380/year when switching from gas to standard -efficiency electric appliances. If high -efficiency electric appliances are used, savings could increase to $495 annually as shown below (depicted monthly savings) in Table 7.
Table 7 Bill Impacts of Mixed Fuel vs. All-Electric Homes
Source: PCE & SVCE September 2023 Analysis
With the caveat that both natural gas and electric rates, like incentives, change often, these values can be used to project potential return on investment for going electric. One whole-home electrification scenario led to immediate upfront cost-savings. As shown by Table 8 the remaining scenarios project a return -on—investment (ROI) ranging from 2 -18 years depending on if the household switched to standard or high-efficiency appliances.
15 Bill Impacts of Decarbonizing Existing Single Family Homes. September 2023. Peter Mustachich (SVCE), Blake Herrschaft (PCE). https://svcleanenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/SVCE-PCE-Single-Family-On-Bill-Impacts-Results-2023.pdf
17 of 139
City of San Mateo
11 Table 8 Whole-Home Potential Return on Investment for Whole-Home Electrification Whole-Home Electrification Scenario with PCE,
BayREN, IRA Incentives
Total
Incremental
Cost After
Incentives
Standard
Efficiency ROI
(Years)
High-Efficiency ROI
(Years)
Existing Home without AC
Median-cost HVAC scenario, with panel upgrade $6,936 18 14 Median-cost HVAC scenario, no panel upgrade $4,836 13 10 Low-cost HVAC scenario, no panel upgrade $891 2 2
Existing Home with AC
Median-cost HVAC scenario, with panel upgrade $(565) N/A- Immediate Cost Savings
N/A-
Immediate Cost
Savings
Median-cost HVAC scenario, no panel upgrade $(2,665) N/A- Immediate Cost Savings
N/A- Immediate
Cost Savings
The study also notes that switching to the electric residential rates (E -ELEC or EV-2A) were critical in achieving on-bill savings, as shown below in Table 9.
Table 9 Selecting the Correct Electric Rate is Critical for On-Bill Cost Savings
18 of 139
City of San Mateo
12 Appendix A
Single and Low-Rise Multifamily Building Data Sources + Analysis Overview For most upfront costs, median install values were selected to inform the cost analysis. Using median costs helped remove outlier quotes from contractors, which would have influenced the average value.
Quotes for some equipment, such as furnaces, could vary by as much as $15,000 for the same project.
Where there are exceptions to this data filtering process, due to missing data, the applied data substitution methods will be clarified in the relevant cell of the analysis. Data sources are shown below in Table A-1.
Table A-1 Data Sources Analyzed for Single Family Cost Analysis Author/Source Source Description Analysis Use and Considerations Peninsula Clean Energy
(PCE)
2035 Decarbonization Feasibility
Analysis & Plan: Complete Analysis and
Draft Plan (September 2022)16
Electric and gas appliance installation costs,
including wiring, appliance cost, labor, and
markup.
Commercial rooftop package unit cost data.
Josie Gaillard & Tom Kabat
via funding from BayREN &
County of San Mateo Office
of Sustainability
Decarbonizing Single Family Homes
(January 2023)17
Single-Family Home Decarbonization
Case Study: San Mateo 1-Story Home
(March 2023)18
Electric and gas appliance installation costs
(all-cost inclusive), based on specific
equipment and models, bids for 10 homes
under consideration as part of cumulative
case study.
One City of San Mateo Single-Family Home
case study analyzed.
BayREN Contractor Install
Dataset
BayREN Contractor-Input Raw Data for
Electric Appliance Installation (Excel),
filtered for most recent year input (2022)
This raw data source was also used to inform
the PCE 2035 Decarbonization Feasibility
Analysis and Plan
TECH Clean California
Install Dataset
TECH Clean California Install Dataset-
Input Raw Data for Electric Appliance
Installation (Excel), filtered for most
recent year input (2022)
This raw data source was also used to inform
the PCE 2035 Decarbonization Feasibility
Analysis and Plan
Note: Existing datasets and reports did not cover the cost of air conditioning (both appliance and installation), which was found using desktop research (Angie’s List), filtering for location-specific costs19
16 https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2022.09-BOD-2035-Decarb-Plan-Complete-Analysis-Draft-Plan-
1.pdf
17 https://www.smcsustainability.org/wp-content/uploads/Decarbonizing-Single-Family-Homes.pdf 18 https://www.smcsustainability.org/energy-water/decarbonizing-homes/cost-plans/ 19 https://www.angi.com/articles/how-much-does-installing-new-ac-cost.htm
19 of 139
City of San Mateo
13 Whole-Home Electrification Incremental Cost Scenarios The total incremental cost for whole-home electrification described in Attachment 1 is outlined in Table A-2 with detailed scenarios for primary cost variables including HVAC costs and need for panel upgrade.
Table A-2 Whole-Home Electrification (Replace All Gas Appliances with Electric) Incremental Costs
Existing Home without AC Whole-Home Electrification Incremental Cost
Low-cost HVAC scenario, no panel upgrade $13,291
Low-cost HVAC scenario, with panel upgrade $16,991
Median-cost HVAC scenario, no panel upgrade $17,236
Median-cost HVAC scenario, with panel upgrade $20,936
Existing Home with AC Whole-Home Electrification Incremental Cost
Low-cost HVAC scenario, no panel upgrade $5,791
Low-cost HVAC scenario, with panel upgrade $9,491
Median-cost HVAC scenario, no panel upgrade $9,736
Median-cost HVAC scenario, with panel upgrade $13,436
20 of 139
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
510-834-4455
1 Attachment 2: High-Rise Multifamily and Nonresidential Building Electrification Costs
To better understand costs and other constraints related to multifamily and nonresidential building electrification, Rincon reviewed best-available existing resources on this topic, namely, the PCE 2035 Decarbonization Plan (2022), and The Rocky Mountain I nstitute The Economics of Electrifying Buildings: Medium Size Commercial Retrofits (2022)1. This document review is also supplemented by original contractor interviews conducted by Rincon for the upcoming Sacramento Electric Buildings Strategy (2022). Tho ugh not strictly City of San Mateo specific, the technical considerations of challenges to electrify oversized buildings are consistent between Sacramento and San Mateo, so are referenced here as recent region-specific resources for commercial electrificat ion in Northern California.
Electrification Up-Front Costs and Other Considerations While single family and low rise multifamily residential buildings tend to use similar equipment and operate in similar ways, commercial buildings and high -rise multifamily buildings tend to be highly variable. In original research conducted by Rincon for the City of Sacramento in the summer of 2022, all interviewees2 communicated that larger multifamily and nonresidential buildings are more complicated to electrify than si ngle-family homes and estimating costs is typically only possible on a project-by-project basis. This is because for most larger buildings, replacing a gas system with a similarly sized electric system is cost-prohibitive and therefore, often requires building re-engineering to determine appliance replacement and sizing options. For this reason, a detailed cost analysis for larger multifamily and commercial buildings was not developed and included here. Smaller buildings with domestic-sized space and water heating end uses, such as small to medium-sized retail or service buildings, have similar electrification costs as seen for single-family homes.
However, some equipment types are similar across building types and the cost to electrify can be more readily analyzed at a high level. For example, the PCE analysis notes that packaged commercial HVAC equipment, namely, packaged Single Zone (SZ) Gas Furnace with Cooling, are easy to electrify, as existing building 2-way A/C ordinances can cover most units without the requirement for incentives.
The Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) ‘The Economics of Electrifying Buildings: Medium-Size Commercial Retrofits’ Report notes that local policy, or expectations of new local building electrification policies, will be a key driver in advancing commercial energy electrification, as portfolio owners will want to avoid stranded assets unless they undertake electrification. The RMI report focused on the electrification of HVAC systems from rooftop units (RTUS) with Heat Pump Rooftop Package Units (RTUs), on a prototypical 50,000 sq ft office building.
The RMI report modeled 5 cases to assess the economics of RTU retrofits: Case 1: No electrification, Case 2: Partial electrification, Case 3: Full electrification, Case 4: Efficient electrification, Case 5:
Efficient electrification + demand management, Case 6: Efficient electrification + demand
1 https://rmi.org/insight/economics-of-electrifying-buildings-medium-size-commercial-retrofits/ 2 To better understand costs and other constraints related to multifamily and nonresidential building electrification, Rincon conducted interviews with three energy engineering consultants working on large building decarbonization in Sacramento. Five additional interviewees were identified through the City’s contact network to speak to this topic, including energy managers and directors of UC Davis Health. Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Brighton Energy, Association for Energy Affordability, TRC Companies.
21 of 139
City of San Mateo
management and PV. These cases, found that in the cases of more temperate climates like Las Vegas and Seattle, building owners could achieve either neutral or positive 20-year net present value through full electrification (Seattle), or with full electrification with demand management and solar photovoltaics (Las Vegas), as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 RMI Report Exhibit 3: The 20-year Net Present Value of Each Case by City3
The results from the RMI study have three important San-Mateo-relevant takeaways, which is that 1) electrification policy, with electrification-specific prescriptive language for commercial building owners will be critical in actually electrifying commercial buildings, and 2) electrification of commercial building electric retrofits will likely have to be paired with a suite of demand management, energy efficiency, or renewable energy projects in order to make building electrification economical for building owners, and 3) heat pump rooftop package units are the most promising electrification solution for commercial building electrification, offering a replicable model for a 1:1 equipment swap-out.
Current Incentives
Current electrification programs and rebates are available for commercial and multi -family buildings in the City of San Mateo from PCE, TECH, and BayREN are summarized in Table 1. All residential appliance incentives also apply to multifamily residents if the applicant for rebates is also the ow ner of the apartment, in the case of PCE Incentives.4
3 Page 20 of: https://rmi.org/insight/economics-of-electrifying-buildings-medium-size-commercial-retrofits/ 4 https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Peninsula-Clean-Energy-Appliance-Rebates-Terms- Conditions_10.01.22.pdf
22 of 139
City of San Mateo
Table 1 Current Incentives and Programs for Commercial and Multifamily Buildings (as of November 2023)
Description Amount/Type Details
Commercial Building Incentives
Data Connect (PCE) Technical assistance Access or share PCE Data Connect platform to analyze facility energy data, access data to
help calculate energy carbon footprint. Could
be useful for future building performance
standard work.
Technical Design Assistance (PCE) Technical Assistance Free project assistance for all-electric buildings with TRC via AllElectricDesign.org
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) Commercial
Buildings Tax Credit
Tax Credit Tax credit for energy efficiency based on
square footage (Tax Credit 179D)
Multifamily Building Incentives
TECH Heat Pump HVAC Systems Serving
Multiple Apartments
$1,000/unit* HP HVAC equipment serving multiple
apartments
TECH Common area HPWH rebate $1,800/ system* Split or packaged rooftop/ multi/position heat pump (ducted or ductless)
TECH Electrical panel upgrade $1,400/ apartment
receiving electrical
upgrade*
Undersized apartment electrical
infrastructure is upgraded as part of an
apartment’s HPWH or HP HVAC Installation
BayREN Common Area HVAC $1,000/equipment Common area heat pump HVAC BayREN Laundry/Common Area Heat
Pump Water Heater
$1,000/equipment Common area laundry or heat pump water heater
BayREN Heat Pump Pool Heater $1,500/pool
BayREN Subpanel Upgrade $1,000/apt served
BayREN Central/common area panel
upgrade
$5,000/property
Source : https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/commercial-programs/, https://techcleanca.com/incentives/multifamily- information/, https://www.bayren.org/multifamily-property-owners/building-improvements *These incentives reflect November 2023 research, Note that TECH Clean California was currently not accepting multifamily reservations at the time of writing this memo, though multifamily unitary HPWHs were set to re-open for submission on December 5, 2023.
23 of 139
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
510-834-4455
www.rinconconsultan ts.com
Attachment 3: Building Decarbonization Policy Options
This memo describes a short list of policy options to decarbonize San Mateo’s building stock through regulatory requirements, incentives, and other programs . The project team first completed a nation- wide scan of existing policies and programs to decarbonize existing buildings in August of 2023.
Policies addressing building decarbonization is an emerging and evolving space. This short list of policy options was selected based on the cost and building stock analysis developed by the project team and is intended to illustrate a range of feasible approaches being considered in other cities.
These policies are meant to be considered as a menu of options to achieve the City ’s climate goals while considering implementation and cost challenges for residents and property owners across the City. Most local governments considering a building decarbonization strategy (e.g. City of Berkeley, City of Sacramento) combine multiple strategies together to produce the most comprehensive, and equitable policy result.
The City has established a Climate Action Plan goal (BE:2: All -electric existing buildings) of reducing GHG emissions by electrifying existing buildings by 102,210 MT CO2e by 2030 and by 221,260 MT CO2e by 2045. 1 Based on the City of San Mateo Climate Action Plan t his reduction equates to approximately 14,840 water heaters and 9,890 furnaces electrified by 2030.
Most policy options described in Table 1 only affect a subsection of the building stock or a particular appliance. Establishing a building decarbonization strategy that will span all building types found in the City while providing equitable support to the community will likely require combining multiple policy approaches. The sections below provide further detail on the policy options, identify c ities that have implemented or are considering implementing the policy approach, and expand on policy pros and cons.
1 City of San Mateo Climate Action Plan, Table ES-2: Reductions by Measure. https://sanmateo.primegov.com/Portal/viewer?id=8895&type=2
24 of 139
City of San Mateo
2 Table 1 Building Decarbonization Policy Summary
Policy Option Name and Number Description Pros Cons
Option 1: Follow State/BAAQMD
requirements, continue adopted reach
codes & focus on outreach and
incentives
Introduce no new building
decarbonization policies, increase
outreach and education around
incentives
Only voluntary costs taken on by
residents and business owners
Minimal/no additional GHG reductions
Option 2: New reach codes to
encourage and/or require
electrification at time of renovation
Explore and adopt new reach codes to
require electrification at time of
renovation
City has experience with reach code
implementation
Resistance to new regulations
Option 3: Require electric equipment
upon replacement ahead of BAAQMD
Zero NOx requirements
Require electrify on replacement for
water heating and space heating,
passed ahead of the 2027 Ruling 9-6 for
water heaters and 2029 Ruling 9-4 for
space heaters
Cost effective (time of replacement) –
appliance level
Wide reach --- encompasses both
commercial and residential building
stock
Leverages federal and local monies
Prepares community and workforce for
upcoming BAAQMD requirements
More politically difficult as affects
largest amount of building owners and
may incur upfront project costs.
Option 4: Building Performance
Standards for commercial buildings
Requires standards to track and
increase energy performance across
commercial buildings
Allows for a flexible approach for
variable commercial building
equipment
Allows for future right-sizing of systems
before they electrify
Policy precedes building electrification
for cost-effectiveness reasons, but
does not guarantee electric end uses.
Option 5: Electric First Policy for City
facilities
Requires municipal facilities collect
information for gas and electric
equipment, and choose the electric
option
Allows city to lead by example
Leverages known processes like capital
improvement plan to electrify
Robust municipal incentives from CCAs
to decarbonize municipal buildings
Only impacts municipal buildings
25 of 139
City of San Mateo
3 Policy Option Descriptions
Option 1: Follow State/BAAQMD requirements, continue adopted reach code implementation & focus on outreach and incentives
Policy Option 1 introduces no new building decarbonization requirements. Instead, Option 1 relies on City’s adopted reach codes and identifies opportunities to incentivize the electrification process using education, outreach, and connecting the community to rebates and technical support. The City’ s adopted reach codes established electric requirements for all new construction and electric equipment and electric -readiness requirements for specific residential remodels. The City’s most recent reach codes went into effect on January 1, 2023 and will expire at the end of the code cycle on December 31, 2025.2
This option would use future staff time to readopt the same reach codes each code cycle. It would also use future staff time to promote existing programming and incentives run by partners (e.g., PCE) to assist voluntary behavior shift towards electrification , and prepare the community to electrify space and water heating end uses in advance of upcoming BAAQMD Zero NOx requirements . For example, this option could include an education campa ign to encourage homeowners to prewire for water heaters and furnaces, so they are ready to make the switch once their appliance burns out. Another example of incentivizing electrification would be waiving permit costs for electric equipment upgrades.
Other Cities:
More than 100 cities in California have adopted reach codes that require all-electric new construction.
San Mateo is among a handful of cities with reach codes for residential remodels. Many cities focus on education and outreach to encourage dec arbonization. Menlo Park and Burlingame are local examples of cities that waive permit costs for electric equipment upgrades.
Policy Pros
• Policy already in place/ has received community support • No policy-related additional costs to building owners unless they voluntarily opt-in • Allows community to prepare for upcoming BAAQMD requirements through City -led outreach and education
• Allows community to prepare for upcoming requirements through electric -readiness requirements
Policy Cons
• Limited impact and reach: The adopted reach codes do not affect the majority of existing building stock (which is unlikely to be renovated)
• Outreach and education programs are extremely variable in their effectiveness .
Investment of staff time and city resources into outreach may not achieve substantial shifts in behavior that will be required to decarbonize buildings , even through major outreach campaigns.3
2 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/3363/Reach-Codes
3 https://www.wastedive.com/news/survey-save-the-food-campaign-successfully-raised-waste-awareness-in-first/446200/; this case study illuminates a $34 million NRDC & Ad Council ad campaign in food waste reduction that is considered a success because it raised consumer awareness (not underlying behavior change) from 51-54% during the campaign period. This illustrates the significant investment needed to effectively raise awareness, and the current lack of data behind environmental education campaigns and tangible behavior shifts.
26 of 139
City of San Mateo
4 Option 2: New reach codes to encourage and/or require electrification at time of renovation
Option 2 would include the evaluation of additional reach codes to encourage and/or require electrification. Reach codes are typically evaluated on a three -year cycle in alignment with the new Building Code. New reach codes options would vary depending on the updated Energy Code and Green Building Code. The City’s adopted reach codes apply to residential remodels. The City could consider a variety or reach codes that apply to different building types and/or equipment.
Other Cities:
• City of Piedmont Building Electrif ication Ordinance (Adopted 2021 and updated 2022):
Ordinance requir es existing low -rise residential building owners spending $25,000 on home improvement projects, including kitchen or both updates, to select one item from a list of energy efficient insulation or electrification fixes (renovations of $100,000 or more must include two)4
• City of Burlingame (Adopted 2022): All-electric requirements apply to qualifying alteration projects.5
Policy Pros:
• City has experience exploring, adopting and implementing reach codes • Further analysis needed, policy pros are dependent on the reach code adopted Policy Cons:
• Community and builder resistance to new regulations.
• Further analysis needed, policy cons are dependent on the reach code adopted
4 https://piedmont.ca.gov/services___departments/planning___building/about_building_/reach_code_information 5 https://www.burlingame.org/departments/building/reach_codes.php
27 of 139
City of San Mateo
5 Option 3: Electric equipment replacement requirements for space and water heating ahead of BAAQMD requirements
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) requires zero NOx (currently the only options for Zero NOx appliances are all-electric) appliances for water heating by 2027 and space heating by 2029. Option 3 has the greatest potential to achieve GHG reductions and the goals outlined in the City’s CAP by moving faster than the 2027 and 2029 timelines outlined by BAAQMD. The City of San Mateo issues permits for space and water heating end uses that currently burn natural gas. The City could adopt and implement a local version of the BAAQMD zero N0 x threshold ahead of the current schedule to require all new space and water heating to have zero NOx emissions, and therefore, zero GHG emissions.
A ‘time of replacement’ ordinance would require the replacement of gas appliances with zero NO x versions when they fail or are voluntarily upgraded. This approach maximizes the lifespan of the existing gas appliance s. This is the most cost -effective approach for the building owner . As these appliances may function for dozens of years, it also is the timeliest option to replace gas appliances with electric-run appliances instead of locking in emissions from natural-gas appliances which could potentially continue to operate past the City’s target for carbon neutrality.
Other Cities:
Although time of replacement policies are widely considered to be the best way to reduce GHG emissions and achieve climate goals, there is not significant political precedent for establishing such a code. If passed, the City of San Mateo wou ld be the first local government in the nation to pass a time of replacement ordinance (not including BAAQMD zero NOx threshold). • City of Sacramento Existing Building Electrification Strategy [draft] has electrify on replacement for water and HVAC as a co re strategy for the Single-Unit Residential/ Small Multi-Unit Residential buildings. The strategy is currently open for public comment and has not yet been approved by City Council.
• City of Berkeley Electrification Strategy includes provisions but are not yet adopted:6 Adopt a time of replacement electrification policy for all municipal buildings Implement a time of replacement requirement for HVAC and hot water heaters once accessible funding/ financing option is available.
Policy Pros:
• Ambitious policy and opportunity to show leadership potential in Bay Area • Community and workforce prepared for 2027 and 2029 BAAQMD requirements • Upfront cost savings for water heating and homes with AC replacement with rebates • On-bill savings for homes that go all-electric
Policy Cons:
• Potential upfront costs for residents for home electrification • Not yet been passed by local government
6 Berkeley is in the early stages of Phase 1 (2021-2025) which will include pilot projects, voluntary electrification programs, tenant protections, and holistic funding and financing programs:
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _Energy_and_Sustainable_Development/Draft_Berkeley_Existing_Bldg_Electrification_Strategy_20210415.pdf
28 of 139
City of San Mateo
6 Option 4: Building Performance Standards (BPS) for Commercial Buildings Option 4 introduces new policy standards for commercial buildings (Building Performance Standards) aimed at increasing energy efficiency, and eventually, electrifying commercial buildings as a phased efficiency-focused approach.
Commercial buildings feature frequently oversized systems for heating and cooling. Process loads also vary significantly across commercial building types . For these reasons, electrifying commercial buildings necessitates a flexible approach where building managers can first make strides towards energy efficiency before electrifying to avoid potentially increased energy bills post installation of an all-electric system.
Typically, a BPS Program is implemented in phases where buildings first report energy use for several years, then perform a retro -commissioning process to identify opportunities before finally reducing emissions below an established threshold. Energy benchmarking must be completed prior to settin g BPS thresholds. Best practices for implementing a BPS threshold that would likely be a feature of the City’s BPS policy include:
• Standards and methods for energy benchmarking : Covered Buildings (buildings and properties with buildings totaling the specified size threshold or larger) report their annual energy usage in Energy Star Portfolio Manager. This process is already mandated by AB 802, which requires energy usage reporting to the CEC for buildings over 50,000 square feet. The data collected in the benchmarking phase improves building manager and City understanding of building energy usage and will inform GHG -emissions performance standards.
• Retro-commissioning: Retro-commissioning is a process through which a building’s energy consuming systems are analyzed for efficiency and proper operation. The retro- commissioning process serves two primary purposes. The first is to uncover inefficient operations, increase energy efficiency, and save building owners money. The second is to identify cost -effective opportunities to reduce building GHG emissions through electrification and energy efficiency. Building owners of covered buildings may complete retro-commissioning as a means of improving building performance and prioritizing retrofits prior to BPS implementation. Retro-commissioning would be a voluntary approach that building managers could pursue to identify the most cost -effective and efficient investments available for their building.
Other Cities:
Building performance standards are a well-established policy mechanism that has been adopted by many local governments across the country including the City of Reno, City of Ch ula Vista, City of Seattle, City of St. Louis, City of Boston, and City of New York.7 • City of Brisbane Building Efficiency Program adopted in 2019, requires annual energy and water benchmarking and reporting, and co mpliance with Beyond requirements to show that they are high performing, or improving performance for commercial buildings 10,000 SF and larger.8
7https://www.energycodes.gov/BPS#:~:text=Building%20Performance%20Standards%20(BPS)%20are,gas%20emissions%2Dbased%20p erformance%20targets.
8 https://www.brisbaneca.org/bbep
29 of 139
City of San Mateo
7 • City of Denver [2021], Building Performance Standards require buildings that are 25,000 square feet or larger to submit annual benchmarking data and meet specific energy efficiency requirements based on the building’s Energy Use Intensity [EUI]. It also features phased requirements to electrify buildings with heat pumps starting in 2025.9 Policy Pros
• BPS approach addresses high degree of variability in commercial building types by focusing on performance-based requirements
• Phased approach allows for structured guidance for facility managers , uncovering cost savings over time
• Can lead to incremental reductions in energy intensity (and corresponding GHG emissions reductions) but is still not a guarantee for decarbonization as some highly efficient options still may be mixed fuel
• Reduces pressure on harder to electrify equipment types (e.g. gas stoves) through phased approach, longer runway for electric equipment to become widely available and cost - effective on-market
• Robust programming examples from Cities who have already implemented Policy Cons
• Necessitates new staff time and staff members to implement and track BPS Data tracking through BPS requires facility manager education and fluency in new software and systems, requiring new uses of staff time by facility managers • Does not guarantee all-electric end usage in short term until phased retro commissioning phase, potentially missing some appliances that could be electrified • Limited building stock reach, best suited to large commercial building s (for example buildings >25,000 sq ft)
9 https://www.denvergov.org/Government/Agencies-Departments-Offices/Agencies-Departments-Offices-Directory/Climate-Action- Sustainability-Resiliency/High-Performance-Buildings-and-Homes/Energize-Denver-Electrification-Program
30 of 139
City of San Mateo
8 Option 5: Electric First Policy for City Facilities
This policy establishes a mechanism for local government renovations to go ‘electric first’, collecting comparative costs for mixed fuel vs. all electric renovations and new projects owned and operated by the City. This policy can also allow for technical and cost infeasibility on a project-level, as granted by Council. The main purpose of the policy is to ensure that financial and feasibility data is being collected for municipal facilities that will allow them to compare costs to electrify vs. replacing gas equipment, and opting out of electrification, instead of opting in.
Other Cities:
• City of Mountain View: Municipal Green Building Policy (2020): requires analysis of opportunities for electrification upon major upgrade of City-owned buildings, and develops a minimum of LEED Gold for new construction.10
• City of San Diego: Zero Emissions Municipal Buildings and Operations Policy ( 2022): any time a natural gas burning sys tem is being replaced, requires the new equipment to be electric.11
Policy Pros:
• Demonstrates City leadership of hard -to-electrify buildings that mirror the commercial sector
• Availability of significant local government incentives to electrify through Peninsula Clean Energy’s Gov BE and Willdan GK12 program
• Existing resources available through County of San Mateo including staff report, model code language, and case studies
Policy Cons:
• Limited reach as policy only covers municipal buildings
10 https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/790/637940944813700000 11 https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/zero_emissions_municipal_buildings_operations_policy.pdf
31 of 139
From: Richard Schram
Sent: Saturday, January 6, 2024 1:07 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Banning of gas appliances
Please note the recent Ninth Court of Appeals ruling as reported in Berkeley:
https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/01/03/berkeley-gas-stove-ban-ruling A copy of the ruling title pages has been dropped off at the City Manager's office.
32 of 139
From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: Fwd: Electrification survey
Date: Tuesday, January 2, 2024 7:00:00 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Genel Morgan
Sent: Monday, January 1, 2024 4:45:07 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Electrification survey
Dear Mayor Diaz Nash and Council Members,
I recently filled out the Electrification Survey. I found the questions slanted with weird options.
Why are there no questions on the survey asking what the concerns of the residents are about the mandate to convert from gas to electric and the city's decision to push forward mandating electrification? Why do we have to go above and beyond what the state mandates? There should be no mandate to convert from gas to electric appliances until the grid has the capacity to handle the increased demand. We have already experienced power outages in the past and residents were asked to minimize their use of electricity. It is also a concern that depending on only one source of power leaves us vulnerable to sabotage and weather events that could cut power.
In addition, as a senior citizen on a fixed income, I cannot afford to convert the few gas appliances I have to electricity. The cost is not just for the appliances but also to rewire my electric box.
Please consider ALL the options and the effect your decision will have on San Mateo residents.
Regards
Genel Morgan
San Mateo
33 of 139
From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: FW: City is Not Prepared for Fast-Tracking Electrification Mandates for Residents Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 1:25:46 PM
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA
94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042
From:
Lisa
Taner
Sent:
Tuesday,
September
12,
2023
1:23
PM
To:
Sustainability
&
Infrastructure
Commission
<[email protected]>
Cc:
City
Council
(San
Mateo)
<[email protected]>
Subject:
City
is
Not
Prepared
for
Fast-Tracking
Electrification
Mandates
for
Residents
Dear
S&I
Commissioners,
I
must
harken
back
to
the
decision
of
removing
parking
from
North
Central
to
create
bike
lanes
-
a
decision
which
I
believe is
now
being
reverted
after
much public
outcry.
A
'good
idea"
can
easily
become
the
opposite
when
there
is
huge
impact
to
the
community
or
little
community
buy-in.
I
daresay
your
discussions
requiring
residents
to
remove
their
gas
appliances
-
and
fast
tracking
it
at
that
-
will
also
have
the
same
result.
There
is
still
MUCH
to
consider.
San
Mateo
touts
that
it
seeks
an
equitable
environment for
all
its
residents,
yet
where
is
the
equity
for
costs
related
to
conversion
for
those
with
fixed
incomes,
those
putting
kids
through
college,
those
out
of
work,
those
living
paycheck
to
paycheck,
etc.?
A
good
idea
is
only
a
good
idea
with
great
implementation.
Please
deeply
consider
all
aspects
before
there
is
any
more
forward
movement.
Sincerely,
Lisa
Taner
Resident
34 of 139
35 of 139
From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: FW: Do not ban gas or require conversion to all electric appliances! Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 4:20:44 PM
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA
94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042
From:
Deborah
Villanueva
Sent:
Tuesday,
September
12,
2023
4:18
PM
To:
Sustainability
&
Infrastructure
Commission
<[email protected]>
Cc:
City
Council
(San
Mateo)
<[email protected]>
Subject:
Do
not
ban
gas
or
require
conversion
to
all
electric
appliances!
As
a
resident
and
home
owner
in
San
Mateo,
I
am
asking
the
Sustainability
Commission
to
vote
no
and
not
to
support
the
banning
of
gas
appliances
or
require
conversion
to
all
electric
appliances!
The
science
does
not
support
this
movement
of
banning
home
usage
of
gas.
The
cost
of
conversion
is
unaffordable
to
almost
all
households.
I
am
asking
you
to
listen
to
the
homeowners
of
our
City
who
oppose
the
banning
of
gas
and
conversion
to
electric
appliances.
Thank
you,
Deborah
Villanueva
36 of 139
From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: FW: Electric Stoves and Appliances
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 8:20:53 AM
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA
94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042
From:
Oser,
Roger
Sent:
Tuesday,
September
12,
2023
6:14
PM
To:
City
Council
(San
Mateo)
<[email protected]>
Subject:
Electric
Stoves
and
Appliances
To Whom it May Concern-
My
understanding
is
that
the
City
of
San
Mateo
is
considering
banning
all
electric stoves and appliances, including those currently installed.
Based
on
research,
I
also
understand
that
these
items
contribute
very
little
to
“climate
change”
and
therefore
believe
this
is
a
burden
all
homeowners
should
not
have
to
bear…applying
this
to
new
homes
and
remodels
is
more than what is reasonably needed.
Please
be
prudent
with
regard
to
your
decisions
on
this
matter.
Many
thanks!
Roger
Roger Oser
San Mateo, CA 94403
37 of 139
38 of 139
From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: FW: Electrification
Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 9:09:13 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Pam Mills Casey
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2023 1:51 PM
To: Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Cc: Casey Pam
Subject: Electrification
Dear city council and sustainability committee members:
I’m a longtime resident of San Mateo, living now in our community it’s for over 36 years.
I have gas appliances in my kitchen, and while I have read some reports of the potential hazards due to the use of gas fired appliances;
I have also read conflicting reports on the impact of converting everything over to electric in short order.
There are health and environmental impacts from all.
Due to the heavy cost burdens of conversion along with the negligible positive impact to members of our community -I ask that you not go forward with the expedited plan for electrification of residences here in San Mateo.
Let Sacramento set the timeline.
Thank you for listening.
Pam Mills Casey
39 of 139
From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: FW: Electrification Mandate Upon Replacement of Gas Appliances Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 8:41:30 AM
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA
94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042
From:
Lisa
Vande
Voorde
Sent:
Tuesday,
September
12,
2023
4:55
PM
To:
Sustainability
&
Infrastructure
Commission
<[email protected]>
Cc:
City
Council
(San
Mateo)
<[email protected]>
Subject:
Electrification
Mandate
Upon
Replacement
of
Gas
Appliances
Dear Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission,
The public puts its trust in you.
How can San Mateans
trust a commission
like yours that suddenly fast-tracks a
mandate to start in 2025, only one and half years away, that you had originally agreed to implement in 2030?
Who are you listening to?
Certainly not to the majority of
people of San Mateo who have no agenda, who may
choose gas over electrical appliances upon upgrade
(due to functionality, aesthetics, or aging) for many
reasons: The onerous cost of and extended wait times
involved with updating their electrical panel; fears of electrical grid overload and power outages; fears of
freezing in winter should their electricity go out; being unable to cook during outages (unlike electric, many gas ranges will still work without the electric pilot), and more.
40 of 139
All these situations simply magnify when a homeowner
suddenly has a gas appliance fail or break. That is an
emergency situation that will require IMMEDIATE action, and an IMMEDIATE solution. You cannot ask people to
wait weeks for a new furnace, water heater, range/oven, or clothes dryer.
You claim to want to hear from all stakeholders. Let's see exactly who you listen to. I urge you to go back to your original implementation date of 2030, and
instead use this time to get plans and infrastructure
in place, to include:
Exempting replacements due to
unplanned/emergency appliance failure. Allow
the replacement of sudden failed gas appliances
with gas appliances, and not require replacement
with electrical appliances. This will give
homeowners time to upgrade electrical panels.
Give homeowners the option to switch to electric
appliances for both emergency and planned
replacement. Provide rebates and incentives to
encourage the switch.
Ensure availability/accessibility to
rebates/incentives for ALL impacted
homeowners, and additional rebates for
elderly/disadvantaged/low income.
Limit the 2025 electrification mandate to NEW
construction and major remodels ONLY.
41 of 139
You are putting the cart before the horse in the race for a carbon-neutral footprint, and in doing so, you
SIGNIFICANTLY impact the lives of 100,000 San Mateo
residents. The horse may be ready, but the cart and all its components are not. Take the time, and do it right.
Thank you.
Lisa Vande Voorde
San Mateo Resident
42 of 139
From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: FW: Electrification
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 3:56:53 PM
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA
94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042
From:
Laurie
Hietter
Sent:
Wednesday,
September
13,
2023
3:24
PM
To:
Sustainability
&
Infrastructure
Commission
City
Council
(San
Mateo)
<[email protected]>
Subject:
Electrification
Dear
Sustainability
and
Infrastructure
Commissioners:
Please
do
not
accelerate
the
timeline
for
replacing
gas
appliances
with
electric
appliances.
The
costs
and
timeframe for
replacements
are
too
great
for
most
people.
As
for
indoor
health,
I've
had
a
gas
stove
my
whole
life
and
no
one
in
my
family
has
asthma.
This
is
my
choice.
I
do
not
want
any
of
you
to
make
that
choice
for
me.
The
City
Council
voted
for
the
electrification
ordinances
over
the
objections
of
many:
In 2020, the City Council adopted an ordinance requiring all residential and office buildings
be
all-electric
starting
on
January
1,
2021.
In 2022, the City Council approved an ordinance that expanded the all-electric requirement
to
all
new
buildings
and
requires
electric-readiness
and
electric
appliances
for specific
home
remodels
as
of
January
1,
2023.
In
May
2023,
the
Bay
Area
Air
Quality
Management
District
(BAAQMD)
adopted
zero
nitrogen
oxides
(NOx)
standards
that
will
prohibit
the
sale
and
installation
of
gas
water
heaters
starting
in
2027
and
gas
furnaces
in
2029
in
the
nine-county
Bay
Area.
These
standards
are
the
most
ambitious
in
the
country
and
outpace
the
state’s
goal
of
banning
the
sale
of
new
gas
furnaces
and
water
heaters
throughout
the
state
starting
in
2030.
There
is
no
need
for
the
City
of
San
Mateo
to
jump
ahead
in
the
timelines.
The
state
did
an
extensive
analysis
of
costs
and
benefits
before
setting
dates.
What
data
has
the
City
or
Commission
analyzed
that
led
you
to
believe
accelerating
time
frames
is
appropriate,
necessary,
or
will
make
any
difference
regarding
the
world
climate?
43 of 139
This requirement is an unnecessary burden on seniors and the disadvantaged community. Please do not accelerate any timeline for electrification.
The push for electrification is premature. The state power availability is decreasing with the planned shutdown of two nuclear plants. The transmission grid is aging and the lack of project upgrades proposed by PG&E (see https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical- energy/infrastructure/permitting-and-environmental-review/current-project) make me question how we can avoid regular power outages.
Electrification takes control away from citizens. Electric power can be shut off much easier than shutting off natural gas. I do not want to be cold and hungry when we have power outages that are all too frequent in California.
The highest equity priorities for San Mateo to focus on included prevention of evictions, support for homelessness, and more education and
programmatic support for low-income residents. Electrification will unduly burden the community the city is trying to protect.
Do not accelerate or expand electrification.
Thank you,
Laurie Hietter
44 of 139
45 of 139
From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: FW: Fast track mandate for electrification
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 8:07:14 AM
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA
94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042
From:
Genel
Sent:
Tuesday,
September
12,
2023
9:29
PM
To:
Sustainability
&
Infrastructure
Commission
<[email protected]>
Cc:
City
Council
(San
Mateo)
Patrice
Olds
<[email protected]>
Subject:
Fast
track
mandate
for
electrification
Dear
Sustainability
Commission,
I
strongly
oppose
your
intent
to
fast
track
the
mandate
for
electrification of
homes
in
San
Mateo.
While
I
support
attention
to
protecting
the
environment,
there
needs
to
be
reality
and
common
sense
used
when
making
decisions
that
affect
so
many
San
Mateo
residents
in
a
negative
manner.
What
incentives
and
rebates
will
be
offered
to
residents
who
can't
afford
switching
over
gas
appliances
etc
to
electric?
I
want
to
know
specific
amounts
before
you
vote.
As
a
senior
citizen
on
a
fixed
income,
I
cannot
afford
to
meet
such
a
mandate.
A
few
years
ago,
I
put
in
a
new
furnace
and
A/C
unit.
I
cannot
afford,
now,
to
replace
them!!!
How
can
you
recommend
more
people
switch
to
electric
when
we
have
experienced
so
many
more
power
outages
than
in
the
past.
Can
the
power
grid
handle
the
increased
demand
resulting
from
your
mandate?
I
doubt
it.
Until
there
is
enough
capacity
of
the
power
grid
to
handle
increased
electrical demand,
you
should
NOT
mandate
people
switch
over
from
gas
to
electric.
At
present
when
there
is
a
power
outage
I
can
at
least
cook
my
food
because
I
have
a
gas
cooktop.
If
I
had
an
electric
cooktop
I
would
be
eating
cold
cereal
but
probably
would
not
be
able
to
put
milk
on
it
because
I
wouldn't
want
to
open
my
fridge!
I
have
lived
in
my
home
for
28 years
and
I
have
lost
power
more
times
and
for
longer
periods
in
the
last
year
than
I
have
in
the
27 prior
years.
Demand
on
the
electric
grid
has
gone
up
so
that
the
capacity
can't
handle
it.
People
were
even
told
not
to
charge
their
cars
to
not
stress
the
power
grid.
46 of 139
As leaders in the community, you MUST make decisions for ALL residents. Take into consideration the needs of ALL residents before you decide whether to fast track the switchover to electric. It definitely should not be mandated to be done all at once. As appliances need replacing is the common sense way to do it. The expense for residents is not just paying for the appliance. Many houses need electrical work to support the increased demand.
Please step back and re-evaluate how switching from gas to electric can be done.
Sincerely,
Genel Morgan
San Mateo
47 of 139
From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: FW: Fast-track banning of gas appliances
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 8:10:23 AM
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA
94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042
From:
Rita
Armstrong
Sent:
Tuesday,
September
12,
2023
8:34
PM
To:
Sustainability
&
Infrastructure
Commission
City
Council
(San
Mateo)
<[email protected]>
Subject:
Fast-track
banning
of
gas
appliances
C'mon. Are you really going to make residents of San Mateo convert existing
gas
stoves
and
other
appliances
from
gas
to
something
else?
Even
cities
which
have
adopted
a
no-gas
policy
apply
the
ruling
to
new
construction
and
remodels
of
existing
facilities
only.
Are
you
really
going
to
make
me
take
out
my
fully-functioning
gas
stove
and
replace
it
with
something
else?
Replacing
gas
appliances
would
be
enormously
expensive,
especially
if
the
space
in
question
is
a
kitchen.
Replacement
would
involve
electrical
work,
cabinetry
re-work,
and
probably
flooring
work
as
well.
You're
talking
about
half
a
kitchen
remodel
for
equipment
that
is
currently
functional.
What
a
waste
of
time
and
money.
And
how
arrogant
are
you
to
think
that
this
is
no
big
deal?
I'm
appalled.
To
be
clear,
I
fully
support
conversion
to
other
energy
sources
in
cases
of
new
construction
or
remodels,
and
would
willingly
participate
with
this
type
of
ruling.
What
you're
proposing
is
costly
and
needless.
The
only
people
who
would
benefit
are
contractors
and
appliance
vendors.
Are
they
making
contributions
to
your
campaign?
Why
don't
you
focus
on
things
that
would
make
a
tangible
and
appreciable
difference
for
San
Mateans,
like
more
and
better
bike
lanes?
better
recycling
efforts,
especially
in
public
facilities
like
parks?
closing
off
more
downtown
streets
for
foot
and
bike
traffic?
replacing
weak
and
dangerous
trees
with
more
sustainable
varieties?
Converting
dormant
lots
(like
the
one
at
the
corner
of
El
Camino
and
3rd)
into
parklets
until
a
better
use
can
be
found?
I
could
go
on
and
on.
Call
me
at
the
number
below
if
you
want
more
ideas.
48 of 139
49 of 139
From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: FW: Gas ban opinion
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 2:46:45 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Colette O’Brien
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 2:07 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Gas ban opinion
I am opposed to voting on banning gas appliances. Our current electricity in this nation is generated by natural gas, oil, solar panels, and windmills, etc.
The last two items do not generate enough power to accommodate the new law
for EV vehicles, all electric
appliances, water heaters, AC units, etc.
I often feel there’s some confusion as to where electricity comes from.
Unfortunately, we are not there yet and I don’t see how this change will lessen the strain on our current grid, I feel it will only make it worse.
It’s just seems like smoke and mirrors at this time and a feel good situation. One day, we will be there but we are not there yet.
Colette
Sent from my iPhone
50 of 139
From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: FW: Home electrification - the need for more education Date: Saturday, September 30, 2023 3:00:21 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Mollie Carter
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 10:52 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Home electrification - the need for more education I'm a mother who fears for my family in a warming world. As a concerned member of our community, I urge our local government to educate constituents about the home electrification tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act.
The tax credits can reduce our carbon footprint and lower health risks. However, many residents are not aware of these benefits. I propose organizing town hall meetings, distributing informational brochures, and utilizing various media platforms to reach as many households as possible.
Collaboration with energy providers and environmental groups can enhance the effort.
Educating constituents will not only help the environment but also boost the local economy by increasing demand for clean appliances and the labor needed to install them.
Please support this effort for a greener future.
If you need help planning and executing this effort, as a 20 yr veteran in marketing, I can help.
Kind regards,
Mollie Carter
San Mateo resident for 21 years
51 of 139
From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: FW: Home electrification
Date: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 8:58:58 AM
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA
94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042
From:
Rick
Moody
Sent:
Monday,
January
8,
2024
4:44
PM
To:
City
Council
(San
Mateo)
<[email protected]>
Subject:
Home
electrification
I'm
a
grandfather
who
fears
for
my
family
in
a
warming
world.
Thank
you
for
the
work
you
are
doing.
As
a
concerned
member
of
our
community,
I
urge
our
local
government
to
educate
constituents
about
the
home
electrification
tax
credits
in
the
Inflation
Reduction
Act.
I
propose
organizing
town
hall
meetings,
distributing
informational
brochures,
and
utilizing
various
media
platforms
to
reach
as
many
households
as
possible.
Collaboration
with
energy
providers
and
environmental
groups
can
enhance
the
effort.
Educating
constituents
will
not
only
help
the
environment
but
also
boost
the
local
economy
by
increasing
demand
for
clean
appliances
and
the
labor
needed
to
install
them.
Please
support
this
effort
for
a
greener
future.
Thank
you.
Sincerely,
Harry
Moody,
San
Mateo,
CA
52 of 139
From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: FW: Home electrification
Date: Friday, January 5, 2024 9:59:52 AM
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA
94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042
From:
Rick
Moody
>
Sent:
Friday,
January
5,
2024
9:34
AM
To:
City
Council
(San
Mateo)
<[email protected]>
Subject:
Home
electrification
I'm
a
grandfather
who
fears
for
my
family
in
a
warming
world.
As
a
concerned
member
of
our
community,
I
urge
our
local
government
to
educate
constituents
about
the
home
electrification
tax
credits
in
the
Inflation
Reduction
Act.
The
tax
credits
can
reduce
our
carbon
footprint
and
lower
health
risks.
However,
many
residents
are
not
aware
of
these
benefits.
I
propose
organizing
town
hall
meetings,
distributing
informational
brochures,
and
utilizing
various
media
platforms
to
reach
as
many
households
as
possible.
Collaboration
with
energy
providers
and
environmental
groups
can
enhance
the
effort.
Educating
constituents
will
not
only
help
the
environment
but
also
boost
the
local
economy
by
increasing
demand
for
clean
appliances
and
the
labor
needed
to
install
them.
Please
support
this
effort
for
a
greener
future.
Thank
you.
Sincerely,
Harry
Moody
San Matteo
California
53 of 139
From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: FW: Home electrification
Date: Tuesday, December 26, 2023 4:04:10 PM
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA
94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042
From:
Laura
Brash
Sent:
Tuesday,
December
26,
2023
4:01
PM
To:
City
Council
(San
Mateo)
<[email protected]>
Subject:
Home
electrification
I'm
a
78 year
old
woman
who
grieves
the
loss
of
the
natural
world.
As
a
concerned
member
of
our
community,
I
urge
our
local
government
to
educate
constituents
about
the
home
electrification
tax
credits
in
the
Inflation
Reduction
Act.
The
tax
credits
can
reduce
our
carbon
footprint
and
lower
health
risks.
However,
many
residents
are
not
aware
of
these
benefits.
I
propose
organizing
town
hall
meetings,
distributing
informational
brochures,
and
utilizing
various
media
platforms
to
reach
as
many
households
as
possible.
Collaboration
with
energy
providers
and
environmental
groups
can
enhance
the
effort.
Educating
constituents
will
not
only
help
the
environment
but
also
boost
the
local
economy
by
increasing
demand
for
clean
appliances
and
the
labor
needed
to
install
them.
Please
support
this
effort
for
a
greener
future.
Thank
you
Laura
Brash
Sent from my iPad
54 of 139
From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: FW: Home electrification
Date: Monday, December 11, 2023 10:01:39 AM
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA
94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042
From:
Marty
Jordan
Sent:
Monday,
December
11,
2023
9:50
AM
To:
City
Council
(San
Mateo)
<[email protected]>
Subject:
Home
electrification
I'm
a
constituent
who
wants
a
livable
future
for
me
and
my
generation.
As
a
concerned
member
of
our
community,
I
urge
our
local
government
to
educate
constituents
about
the
home
electrification
tax
credits
in
the
Inflation
Reduction
Act.
The
tax
credits
can
reduce
our
carbon
footprint
and
lower
health
risks.
However,
many
residents
are
not
aware
of
these
benefits.
I
propose
organizing
town
hall
meetings,
distributing
informational
brochures,
and
utilizing
various
media
platforms
to
reach
as
many
households
as
possible.
Collaboration
with
energy
providers
and
environmental
groups
can
enhance
the
effort.
Educating
constituents
will
not
only
help
the
environment
but
also
boost
the
local
economy
by
increasing
demand
for
clean
appliances
and
the
labor
needed
to
install
them.
Please
support
this
effort
for
a
greener
future.
Thank
you
Get
Outlook
for
Android
55 of 139
From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: FW: Home electrification
Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 8:08:59 AM
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA
94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042
From:
Harry
R
Moody
Sent:
Thursday,
November
9,
2023
9:30
PM
To:
City
Council
(San
Mateo)
<[email protected]>
Subject:
Home
electrification
I'm
a
grandfather
who
fears
for
my
family
in
a
warming
world.
As
a
concerned
member
of
our
community,
I
urge
our
local
government
to
educate
constituents
about
the
home
electrification
tax
credits
in
the
Inflation
Reduction
Act.
The
tax
credits
can
reduce
our
carbon
footprint
and
lower
health
risks.
However,
many
residents
are
not
aware
of
these
benefits.
I
propose
organizing
town
hall
meetings,
distributing
informational
brochures,
and
utilizing
various
media
platforms
to
reach
as
many
households
as
possible.
Collaboration
with
energy
providers
and
environmental
groups
can
enhance
the
effort.
Educating
constituents
will
not
only
help
the
environment
but
also
boost
the
local
economy
by
increasing
demand
for
clean
appliances
and
the
labor
needed
to
install
them.
Please
support
this
effort
for
a
greener
future.
Thank
you
Sincerely,
Harry
Moody,
San
Mateo,
California
56 of 139
From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: FW: Home electrification
Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 10:18:37 AM
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA
94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042
From: Harry R Moody
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 4:30 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Home electrification
I'm a grandfather who fears for my family in a warming world.
I
live in San, Mateo, and I want to preserve its environment.
As
a concerned member of our community, I urge our local government to educate constituents about the home electrification tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act.
The
tax credits can reduce our carbon footprint and lower health risks. However, many residents are not aware of these benefits. I propose organizing town hall meetings, distributing informational brochures, and utilizing various media platforms to reach as many households as possible.
Collaboration
with energy providers and environmental groups can enhance the effort. Educating constituents will not only help the environment but also boost the local economy by increasing demand for clean appliances and the labor needed to install them.
Please
support this effort for a greener future.
Thank
you
Sincerely,
Harry Moody,
57 of 139
From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: FW: Home electrification
Date: Saturday, September 30, 2023 3:03:35 PM
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA
94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042
From:
Megan
Strain
Sent:
Thursday,
September
28,
2023
9:38
AM
To:
City
Council
(San
Mateo)
<[email protected]>
Subject:
Home
electrification
I'm
a
28-year-old
woman
who
is
worried
about
having
children
in
a
world
threatened
by
climate
change.
As
a
concerned
member
of
our
community,
I
urge
our
local
government
to
educate
constituents
about
the
home
electrification
tax
credits
in
the
Inflation
Reduction
Act.
The
tax
credits
can
reduce
our
carbon
footprint
and
lower
health
risks.
However,
many
residents
are
not
aware
of
these
benefits.
I
propose
organizing
town
hall
meetings,
distributing
informational
brochures,
and
utilizing
various
media
platforms
to
reach
as
many
households
as
possible.
Collaboration
with
energy
providers
and
environmental
groups
can
enhance
the
effort.
Educating
constituents
will
not
only
help
the
environment
but
also
boost
the
local
economy
by
increasing
demand
for
clean
appliances
and
the
labor
needed
to
install
them.
Please
support
this
effort
for
a
greener
future.
Thank
you!
58 of 139
From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: FW: Home electrification
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 12:56:49 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Teri Whitehair
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 12:56 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Home electrification
Thank you for making San Mateo a leader in sustainability.
Stay on the forefront of home electrification.
As a concerned member of our community, I urge our local government to educate constituents about the home electrification tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act.
The tax credits can reduce our carbon footprint and lower health risks. However, many residents are not aware of these benefits. I propose organizing town hall meetings, distributing informational brochures, and utilizing various media platforms to reach as many households as possible.
Collaboration with energy providers and environmental groups can enhance the effort.
Educating constituents will not only help the environment but also boost the local economy by increasing demand for clean appliances and the labor needed to install them.
Please support this effort for a greener future. Thank you Sent from my iPhone
59 of 139
From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: FW: Home electrification
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 10:43:26 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Rose LeBaron
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2023 6:47 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Home electrification
Dear honorable members of City Council,
I'm a mother who is angry about the lack of action on climate.
As a concerned member of our community, I urge our local government to educate constituents about the home electrification tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act.
The tax credits can reduce our carbon footprint and lower health risks. However, many residents are not aware of these benefits. I propose organizing town hall meetings, distributing informational brochures, and utilizing various media platforms to reach as many households as possible.
Collaboration with energy providers and environmental groups can enhance the effort.
Educating constituents will not only help the environment but also boost the local economy by increasing demand for clean appliances and the labor needed to install them.
Please support this effort for a greener future. Thank you.
Kind regards,
Mary Rose
60 of 139
From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: FW: San Mateo - Appliance Conversion from Gas to Electric (Electrify San Mateo) Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 2:46:57 PM
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA
94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042
From:
Sent:
Wednesday,
September
13,
2023
2:19
PM
To:
Sustainability
&
Infrastructure
Commission
City
Council
(San
Mateo)
<[email protected]>
Subject:
San
Mateo
-
Appliance
Conversion
from
Gas
to
Electric
(Electrify
San
Mateo)
Dear Commission and Council Members.
I am unable to join the meeting in person tonight. I'm concerned that an unpublicized recommendation will be made to move some of the mandates forward to 2025, from 2030 and want to ask you to consider declining the fast-track Appliance Conversion from Gas to Electric initiative, should it come up.
Keep in mind that a conversion such as this is costly for all of us, not just the cost of a new appliance. Consider that within our home, to convert from gas to electric could mean bearing the additional cost of running new electrical wiring, possibly requiring upgraded and/or new electrical panels, potentially modifying existing locations for appliances to fit, etc. Should all this be done within this accelerated program to 2025 from 2030, are resources available to accommodate the demand (ie: materials, general contractors & electricans). Have you verified that PG&E even has increased their capacity availability (some think there would be an inability for PGE to provide the electrical services although I have not verified this myself)? Would a new substation(s) be required and where will they be placed? Have you also considered that upgrading existing homes/ offices will increase the monthly cost of rentals, affecting more businesses and residents. Further, I understand that there may be a rebate but for many, even if they qualify based on usage (a single person using minimal gas, such as myself would not even qualify), however it would not cover the cost of the onerous burden you would unnecessarily mandate.
61 of 139
While I appreciate we must look at options for curbing climate change and reducing the carbon foot-print, it seems to me that we should also do so in a thoughtful, cost-effective manner.
Many are struggling to meet financial obligations in these economic troubling times and this initiative just does not help San Mateo. Since the proposed requirement to end gas for EXISTING homes and buildings is above code set by the State of California AND it would negatively impact residents, I request that you decline the plan, should it be proposed at today's meeting.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sandra Jamme
62 of 139
From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: FW: The 2023 IPCC Climate Change Report
Date: Monday, October 2, 2023 5:04:54 PM
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA
94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042
From:
Harry
R
Moody
Sent:
Monday,
October
2,
2023
4:17
PM
To:
City
Council
(San
Mateo)
<[email protected]>
Subject:
The
2023
IPCC
Climate
Change
Report
Dear
San
Mateo
City
Council,
I'm
a
grandfather
who
fears
for
my
family
in
a
warming
world.
I
live
in
San
Mateo,
too.
I
am
writing
to
urge
you
to
read
the
Summary
for
Policymakers
in
the
UN
IPCC’s
latest
(2023)
report.
The
summary
is
short
and
highly
readable,
and
can
be
found
here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/
Briefly put,
the
situation
is
continuing
to
rapidly
degrade.
It
is
impacting
human
life
now
and
will
be
devastating
if
we
don’t
act
immediately.
The
New
York
Times
highlighted
this
sentence
from
the
report,
“There
is
a
rapidly
closing
window
of
opportunity
to
secure
a
livable
and
sustainable
future
for
all
(very
high
confidence).”
Please
take
a
few
minutes
and
read
the
summary
for
policymakers.
Thank
you,
Harry
Moody
63 of 139
64 of 139
From: Elaine Salinger
To: Clerk
Cc: Michelle Hudson; Robert Whitehair
Subject: A comment for the City Decarbonization Study Session Date: Saturday, January 13, 2024 10:43:24 PM
Hello Mayor Nash and City Council members,
I want to thank you for electrifying San Mateo buildings, for showing leadership, and for honoring your commitments.
There are numerous studies showing that gas appliances are more expensive to run than the newer electric appliances. We replaced a gas furnace with a heat pump and our energy bill went down by 70%. And it is projected that the cost of gas will rise faster than electricity.
The reach codes that San Mateo approved last year do not mandate removal of functioning gas appliances. No one is mandating removal of appliances that are working, but appliances that fail should be replaced with energy efficient electric appliances.
The Rincon Report shows that replacing gas with electric appliances is now comparable in cost, and possibly less expensive than replacing with gas appliances, especially for low income homes.
The 1200+ Citizens Climate Lobby members in San Mateo County and I urge you to move forward with building electrification in San Mateo. CCL has over 200 members living in the city of San Mateo.
Elaine Salinger, San Mateo County Chapter Leader
Citizens Climate Lobby
GREAT!
1) Thank the City for considering this very important issue. It is an example of how the City of San Mateo continues to show leadership and honor its commitments. 2) Strong decarbonization implementation is in accordance with Cit GREAT!
1) Thank the City for considering this very important issue. It is an example of how the City of San Mateo continues to show leadership and honor its commitments. 2) Strong decarbonization implementation is in accordance with Cit when it
fails and take full advantage of funding and rebates.
8) Better yet, removing gas equipment from San Mateo h
65 of 139
From: Linh Dan
To: Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item 1: Sustainable Buildings Strategy - Project Update Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 9:22:37 AM
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers:
Thank you so much for holding a study session on this issue critical to public health & equity and a livable climate.
First, thanks to staff for a report that highlights the health and equity benefits of electrification,
and the cost chart that unequivocally proves that NOW is the time for homeowners and property owners to opt for a heat pump water heater over a gas one! Regarding the recommended policy options, I urge you to be more ambitious and front load the efforts to have a chance of meeting the 2030 goal, including directing staff to take all actions necessary NOW to completely smooth the path for same day heat pump water heater replacements to be available in the City of San Mateo by 2025 in time for BAAQMD to see the possibilities of smooth implementation of their clean air water heater rule so BAAQMD Staff can share results with their board.
I'm a Menlo Park resident, and we often take our kids to eat at one of San Mateo's many diverse and wonderful restaurants, combined with a stop at the park or library.
Thank you for your service and leadership, and I look forward to the example the City of San Mateo can set for other Bay Area cities.
Linh Dan Do
66 of 139
From: Anjuli Mishra
To: Clerk
Subject: City Council 1/16 Meeting Comment
Date: Monday, January 15, 2024 1:41:24 PM
Dear Mayor Lisa Diaz Nash and San Mateo City Council Members, My name is Anjuli Mishra. I am 16 and a student in San Mateo . Thank you for taking the
time to consider the crucial issue of building electrification. As a young person, I am afraid of the world that my generation will be inheriting due to the impacts of climate change. The IPCC has determined that the earth only has 6 years until the damage to climate change will be irreversible. In 6 years I will be graduating college and entering the workforce, and I want to be entering a workforce where working in sustainability and climate solutions can still have an impact rather than being looked at like a lost cause.
I applaud the city for taking action and setting the goal to eliminate methane gas use by 2030. However, the city will never reach this goal by not taking the strongest possible actions in a swift manner. Now is the most critical time to act. I don’t want to graduate from college and see that nothing has changed, and that young people still have to fight for the same minimum necessary action that I was fighting for when I was a freshman in high school.
It has been well established that the impacts of climate change will fall disproportionately on low-income communities of color. Addressing climate action from the perspective of equity is crucial. Adoption of a strong electrification policy encourages low income San Mateo residents to take full advantage of PCE’s draft proposal to pay for the electrification of low income homes.
This is how the council can address equity.
Strong electrification does not mean removing existing gas infrastructure from homes, but replacing it when it fails and taking full advantage of rebates and funding. Just one San Mateo home electrifying will eliminate 10 tons of greenhouse gasses, and when applied to even more homes, that is potentially hundreds of thousands of tons per year. In addition to reducing emissions, replacing gas equipment also has significant health benefits. Children who grow up in homes that use fossil fuels for heating and cooking have a much higher chance of developing asthma. Replacing gas is one of the most direct actions that a person can take to respond to the urgency of the climate crisis. San Mateo should be empowering
67 of 139
their residents to take action and use the city’s unique positioning and privilege to provide the adequate education and resources for San Mateo residents to take full advantage of the funding available.
Listen to the youth. Our future is in your hands.
Thank you,
Anjuli
68 of 139
From: Gary Trott 2
To: Clerk
Cc: "Gary Trott"
Subject: City Council meeting 16-Jan-2024 Study Session Item #1 Sustainable Building Strategy Date: Sunday, January 14, 2024 10:32:54 PM
Dear Mayor Nash
and San Mateo City council members
Re: Jan 16, 2024 San Mateo City Council meeting
Study Session Item #1: Sustainable Building Strategy
Thank you for considering the future of electrification in all the buildings of San Mateo City. It shows the city leadership is really concerned about the environmental safety of it’s citizens. I am strongly in favor of decarbonizing existing buildings and infrastructure in the best possible way on or before 2030. Especially eliminating methane gas as soon as possible.
Climate change is real. It is happening now. So the time for action is now. The Rincon Report shows that replacing
appliances with electric versions in the home is equal or less expensive than installing replacement gas appliances.
However, implementing broad scale changes upon citizens is fraught with uncertainty. So the key elements needed from the city leadership is to promote equity and education to facilitate the changes.
Please take the strongest possible actions to promote decarbonization and provide educational resources to help citizens implement the change from gas to all electric appliances. Resulting in cleaner air, a healthier environment, and a safer future for all.
Regards
Dr. Gary Trott
San Mateo citizen
69 of 139
From: Jayden Wan
To: Clerk
Subject: City Council Special Meeting (1/16) Public Comment Date: Monday, January 15, 2024 7:47:07 PM
San Mateo City Council,
I'm Jayden Wan, a high school student in San Mateo County, and a proponent of building electrification. I represent the youth-led nonprofit San Mateo Youth Climate Action, whose website can be found here (https://www.svyouthclimateaction.org/san-mateo-county ).
Of the proposed "Attachment 3: Building Decarbonization Policy Options," I strongly support the following:
Option 2: New reach codes to encourage and/or require electrification at time of renovation
Option 3: Require electric equipment upon replacement ahead of BAAQMD Zero NOx requirements
After reading the "Sustainable Buildings Strategy – Project Update" extensively, I'm in favor of these options due to their impact and action toward a less fossil-fuel-dependent society. I'm a student, so I don't have first-hand experience owning a home or paying the bills. I can tell that there's significant opposition to the aforementioned policy options due to their economic implications in households -- the switch from gas to electric entails financial implications.
At the same time, I'm concerned about the state of the world, and the state of our cities. I don't think there'll come a time when people don't
oppose electrification, or any policy change that'd
purportedly take money out of their pockets. Whether it's at this upcoming council meeting, or in 10 years, I'm not sure that the social consensus will be much different -- in fact, I think that by then, there'll be even more opposition to electrification, seeing as more time has passed where people are used to gas systems. I'm from a first-generation immigrant family myself, and we're not exactly that well-off. However, I think that the opportunity cost for "neglecting" electrification progress will be too much for the future to bear. Climate change won't destroy us tomorrow, in a week, in a month, or in a year. But it's becoming harder to predict, and I wouldn't be confident to say that we'd be unaffected in San Mateo for the next decade. The action we make in a day can influence the years to come.
I urge the council to adopt the aforementioned policy options, and make good on their precedent-setting progress.
Best,
Jayden Wan
San Mateo Youth Climate Action
70 of 139
Report Review:
Sustainable Buildings Strategy - Project Update
Meeting January 16, 2024
Summary:
A combination of Policy Option 1 following the State/BAAQMD requirements and Option 5 appear to be the most prudent consideration. Option 1 gives the affected parties time to financially plan for the transition. Option 5 is a financial burden that everyone will have for increased property taxes to pay for the municipal infrastructure work. Unclear why the disadvantaged communities are not assigned high-priority. It would be show of good faith. The property tax increase will filter down to the renters. If the increase in property tax becomes a burden, it is common sense that individual electrification expenditures would be prohibitive or require state funding. The latest City of San Mateo flood control funding that increased property tax a small sum barely passed the voters. Overall, Option 5 will be a success/fail reality check and increase confidence a transition will not lead to chaos of the past. In general, this agenda report lacks critical review and information.
Background Review:
The Peninsula Clean Energy statement is vague as to what it means:
What amount of energy are they referring to by 2025? Is this the current electrical demand or the projected energy demand to replace all the gas-provided energy by 2025? What is the projected new electrical demand? This report requires further clarification or the statement has no value.
Project Overview Review:
This section requires some questioning:
71 of 139
The nitrogen dioxide concentration levels from gas stoves referred to would be this:
This data can be interpreted in different ways as these are conditions during operation/in-use. It is apparent that a gas stove with a pilot light should not be used if there is a health concern and substituted with an electrical ignition. It is also apparent that an exhaust should be used to remove the trace nitrogen dioxide as well as oil vapor, coating out-gassing, and/or smoke.
Electrical fires are also an inherent risk carrying high amperage. A gas leak may be easier to detect compared to compromised electrical wiring confined in a wall or attic.
It is implied that solar and battery storage is implemented as a band-aid for power outages and an additional cost with declining benefit (i.e. NEM 3.0). The lack of reliable electrical infrastructure is the problem and not burdening the public with the lack of power management, competence, and/or profit over power security.
A gas furnace and gas water heater can operate with a battery backup and inverter. If it needs to operate for an extended period of time, then the lack of power reliability is the problem. A gas range for cooking can be lit with a match as one would do before a pilot light and/or electrical ignition was available or when camping. This portion is reads as looking for an excuse and loses credibility to shielding the utility from accountability.
I am not sure what this is implying other than a sense of priority:
The disadvantaged communities should be considered as high priority as well as the resulting financial burden, if this intent is meaningful at all. Retrofitting these communities may be costly and inconvenient requiring alternative, short-term housing and state funding.
Project Overview Review:
The structure of the policy options are self-limiting in nature and lacks strategic thought:
72 of 139
Option 1 appears to be the most prudent and least problematic. The California Public Utilities Commission cannot even figure out when a nuclear power plant can be decommissioned correctly (now a 5-year push-out). These mandates may need to be revised further into the future.
Option 2 appears to be prudent as one does not want to dig and install a new power service line as an example. The local grid infrastructure should be deemed ready for full electrification with the necessary capacity. This will add further undetermined cost to utility bills by the CPUC.
Option 3 is only common sense viable if full electrification and necessary capacity is deemed ready in the selected area.
Option 4 is controlled by business interests and influence as well as economic impact, so the expectation the implementation will be delayed.
Option 5 would be a practical demonstration the transition to electrification can be accomplished to the City Council goals and expectations in the prescribed deadline. The cost will impact the public in terms of higher property tax for an undetermined number of years. This cost will reduce that amount of financial resources for the individual, so this cost must be known first.
Building Electrification Costs Review:
This review is missing the first logical condition: does the structure have a sufficient amount of total amperage per code to power these new electrical loads? If not, what is the cost to increase the amperage to support this new electrical load? How many structures are affected? If not, it may mean digging up and installing a new, higher amperage service line or removing and installing a new higher-amperage weatherhead and a new, higher-amperage service panel in both cases. This would be even more costly for a multi-residence. There appears to be no incentives to offset these costs. Unclear how this fundamental condition of total required power was missed and may require state funding.
Project Timeline and Next Steps Review:
It is unclear why there is a sense of urgency for any action sooner than the State/BAAQMD mandates. This sense of urgency should be clearly stated if there is a near-term threat to the welfare of the City. Based upon the public vote for flood control, the public seems to not see this real-time threat as significant as it barely passed. For this small increase in property tax, the household economic conditions may not be as good as assumed requiring state funding.
Overall, this report lacks significant information to do a common sense assessment. The Rincon analysis was superficial and lacked important information. It appears most of the Rincon report can be obtained by complying information from contractors, equipment specification and performance data, and publicly available information. A "collect problems and fix the problems later" plan of operation should be avoided based upon public comments. A ballot measure for funding the electrification of all municipal buildings may be challenging.
Regards,
Alan Ouye
January 13, 2024
73 of 139
From: Robert Mayo
To: Clerk
Subject: comments for city council meeting
Date: Sunday, January 14, 2024 2:48:35 PM
I would like to provide comments to the City Council about the Sustainable Building Strategy to be studied at the meeting on January 16th.
Congratulations on your stated desire to electrify all buildings by 2030. With the climate crisis upon us, as seen by the events of last summer, action on climate is of critical importance.
The report in the agenda packet presents five policy options. They all should be moved forward as rapidly as possible. However, they seem insufficient to achieve the goal. Further options should be developed.
For city buildings (policy option 5) simple math says that electrifying 100% of city-owned buildings by 2030 requires that 16% be completed each year. Please develop a plan for electrifying 16% this year and another 16% next year.
Option 1 requires outreach and incentives. The current pace is too slow, though, to accomplish the task. The city needs to find ways to step this up.
New reach codes for renovation are important to electrify the existing base. (option 2) A burnout ordinance, perhaps based on zero-NOx (option 3) is important. The BAAQMD rules are too far away to meet the city's goals. San Mateo can show leadership by passing this ordinance. In addition, going first with the implementation allows the city to gain experience in overcoming any related practical obstacles.
Please also adopt the building performance standards for commercial buildings, or a similar policy solution.
In short, please take the strongest possible action.
Robert Mayo
Mountain View, CA
Visitor to San Mateo--Bob
74 of 139
From: Robert Whitehair
To: Clerk; Lisa Diaz Nash; Adam Loraine; Amourence Lee; Richard Hedges; Rob Newsom Cc: Michelle Hudson
Subject: Decarbonization and Sustainability
Date: Monday, January 15, 2024 4:06:52 PM
Dear Mayor Diaz Nash and City Council
I thank the City of San Mateo for national leadership in decarbonization, which is an example by the City Council of its implementation of bold policy and honoring commitments.
Please take the strongest action policy position possible for the sustainable buildings strategy - decarbonization - on tomorrow's study session agenda.
The time for electrification is here now, because of rebates, tax credits, and other funding by the state, Peninsula Clean Energy, the federal Inflation Reduction Act, and many agencies. Adoption of a very strong policy encourages low and fixed income San Mateo residents to take full advantage of Peninsula Clean Energy‘s pending proposal to pay for the electrification of low income homes. This is one of the best ways to address equity.
Let's make sure that our residents and businesses are given the best possible advantage. You will be remembered for that.
Let's also be very clear: no one is proposing to remove gas equipment from the home. No one will come knocking on doors. But help our residents and businesses be ready for the replacement, if and when equipment fails. Allow us all to take full advantage of funding and rebates.
Why replace gas with gas, when outstanding rebates are available to make electrical replacements even more cost effective than replacing gas with gas? Better yet, removing gas equipment from San Mateo homes will eliminate 10 tons of greenhouse gas per home per year, several hundred thousand tons per year in San Mateo.
I think you know that Teri and I have fully electrified our home, receiving the electrical modernization award from Peninsula Clean Energy in 2023. We have learned so much, which we are gladly sharing with others.
The members of San Mateo Climate Action Team stand ready to help the decarbonization of all buildings in San Mateo.
I cannot speak for Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action, Silicon Valley 350, Citizens Climate Lobby, Elders Climate Action, or Elders Action Network, but I do know that elimination of carbon, through electrification, is a major goal of the hundreds and hundreds of members of those organizations.
75 of 139
We will salute bold action
Thank you
Robert Whitehair
San Mateo Climate Action Team Co-Leader
76 of 139
77 of 139
78 of 139
From: Rustard Mustard
To: Clerk
Subject: Decarbonization/electrification of all buildings in San Mateo.
Date: Friday, January 12, 2024 9:30:00 PM
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council,
I want to thank the City of San Mateo for considering this urgent issue.
The City of San Mateo has set a cutting edge path toward a clean and healthy future where we continue to exist. That said, the plan can get even better if we truly commit to saving ourselves and our planet.
It is imperative that we eliminate carbon emissions by leaning strongly into electrification.
We are lucky in San Mateo County to have Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) which provides carbon free electricity every day, all day long. PCE is committed to delivering 100% renewable energy by 2025. The Rincon report shows that replacing gas appliances with electrical appliances is comparable in cost as a result of help from the Federal government, the State, PCE, and other organizations.
We must make every effort to eliminate the flow of natural gas in San Mateo by 2030.
There is help for those who are of limited income and NOBODY will be required to change a gas burning appliance that continues to be serviceable.
Rebates and incentives are AVAILABLE and
MAKE THE CHANGE POSSIBLE FOR ALL SAN
MATEO RESIDENTS.
I am fed up with people making excuses about not everybody can afford it. This is a bold-faced lie intended to mislead us down a dangerous path. Please don't be fooled.
New research shows that over the long run electricity will be a more affordable source of energy.
In closing, I urge the City Council to think carefully and boldly take the strongest action possible to save our planet, our children, our grandchildren and all of humanity.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Bonilla
79 of 139
80 of 139
From: Ricki McGlashan
To: Clerk
Subject: Electrification.
Date: Saturday, January 13, 2024 9:03:31 AM
I have been so proud of San Mateo in regards to moving toward electrification. What the council does now to further this movement can serve as a model—is serving as a model—for cities all over the country.
Replacing gas appliances with electric when they need replacing is one of the most direct and effective way any of us can help with the climate crisis.
Any council anywhere could kick the can down the road, but I hope you/we will stand up and continue to be leaders. Imagine how our kids and grandchildren would feel if we didn’t address this with all the powers we have.
Ricki and Doug McGlashan
San Mateo
81 of 139
Replacing gas with electricity is the one most direct,
immediate personal action that anyone can take in response to the climate crisis.
Replacing gas with electricity is the one most direct,
immediate personal action that anyone can take in response to the climate crisis.
Replacing gas with electricity is the one most direct,
immediate personal action that anyone can take in response to the climate crisis.
82 of 139
83 of 139
From: L. Eberhart
To: Clerk
Cc: Robert Whitehair; Michelle Hudson
Subject: Electrify San Mateo - Building for the Future: City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strateg Date: Sunday, January 14, 2024 1:40:39 PM
Dear City Council Members:
Thank you for considering this very important issue. It is an example of how the City of San Mateo continues to show leadership and honor its commitments that we are able to review this report today. The city of San Mateo decarbonization work arrives at the right time. Peninsula Clean Energy is currently delivering carbon free energy on a yearly basis, and PCE is committed to delivering 100% renewable energy by 2025.
Addressing San Mateo residents concerns of cost and grid capacity through educational outreach is an excellent idea.
We want everyone to be on-board for our cleaner future. There is no time like the present to proceed with sharing the scientific facts and benefits that rebates can deliver. The Rincon Report shows that replacing gas with electrification is now comparable in cost, if not less expensive than gas replacement, especially for low income residents.
No one is proposing to remove existing gas equipment from the home, but to replace it when it fails and take full
advantage of funding and rebates. This is an important point and one that should be shared widely so that people living in San Mateo can understand that their voices and concerns are being heard. This is a mission to help all people in San Mateo with cleaner air and healthier lives. We will all benefit without imposing hardships on anyone.
Thank you for your continued effort to help move San Mateo forward with education and health.
Sincerely,
Leane Eberhart
84 of 139
From: Cheryl Weiden
To: Clerk
Subject: Electrify San Mateo: Decarbonize All Buildings in San Mateo Date: Monday, January 15, 2024 1:27:34 PM
Dear Mayor Lisa Diaz Nash and City Council
San Mateo must act now to decarbonize. It's not just about the environment; it's about our health, our economy, and our future.
The urgency is undeniable. We have a narrow window, mere years until 2030, to avoid irreversible climate damage. Extreme weather, respiratory illnesses, and economic instability are all on the horizon.
But we have the power to change course.
Peninsula Clean Energy is currently delivering carbon
free energy on a yearly basis, and is committed to delivering 100% renewable energy by 2025. Funding abounds, and studies show electrification is affordable, especially for low- income residents.
It's not just about the planet. Electrification means cleaner air.
The Bay Area Air Quality
District estimates that eliminating NOX and particulate matter from gas fired air and water heaters can save lives (up to 85 a year) and reduce asthma attacks (15,000 yearly). It fosters green jobs and attracts sustainable businesses.
Choose to be leaders. Adopt ambitious electrification policies with a 2030 deadline. Choose clean air, a healthy future, and leave a legacy of resilience.
With utmost respect and hope,
Cheryl Weiden
85 of 139
86 of 139
From: Andrea Chow
To: Patrice Olds; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Tues, Jan 16 Study Session on Sustainable Buildings Strategy Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 8:44:49 AM
Attachments: image013.png
image014.png
image015.png
image016.png
image017.png
image018.png
From:
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2024 10:27 AM
To: Andrea Chow <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Tues, Jan 16 Study Session on Sustainable Buildings Strategy
Andrea-
I am a disabled retiree, working part-time and I cannot afford a $40,000 home energy retrofit with correspondingly higher electricity rates.
The fact that I am a white homeowner in San Mateo is irrelevant.
Inflicting economic hardship on low income residents while virtue signaling is cruel.
X Bill Williams, San Mateo
Sent from Outlook
From: Andrea Chow <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2024 12:00 PM
Cc: Andrea Chow <[email protected]>
Subject: Tues, Jan 16 Study Session on Sustainable Buildings Strategy
Study Session on Sustainable Buildings Strategy – Tuesday, Jan. 16
Join the upcoming City Council Study Session on Tuesday, Jan. 16 to learn more about building electrification and the policy options being introduced for City Council feedback and direction.
Your feedback is critical in shaping an equitable and effective strategy which reflects the lived experience and values of all San Mateans.
The session will focus on analyzing how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our community by decarbonizing homes and buildings. Staff will share an update on the development of the “Building for the Future: City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy.” The goal of this project is to develop a long-term strategy to electrify buildings in San Mateo, including policies and actions for both residential and nonresidential buildings. The meeting packet is available on the
87 of 139
San Mateo Public Meeting Portal.
You are receiving this email because you responded to our survey or made a public comment on a Sustainable Buildings Strategy or electrification item. If you would like to be removed from this list, please reply to this email.
Sincerely,
Andrea
Andrea Chow
Sustainability Analyst | City Manager’s Office
330 W. 20th Ave. San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7007 | [email protected]
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you.
88 of 139
From: Marty Jordan
To: Clerk
Subject: in support of electrifying San Mateo buildings Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 10:39:53 AM
Dear Mayor Nash and City Council –
I am writing to express my strong support of the initiative “Electrify San Mateo.” I appreciate the Council and City for their ongoing leadership and commitment to this important effort. The time for electrification is here, what with all the local, state and federal funding/rebates available to everyone. It is important to adopt a strong electrification policy now to abate ongoing climate pollution in our city.
In promoting this policy, it is important to dispel the myth that the city is going to take away everyone’s gas stove.
Our citizens need to understand that all that is being asked of them is to replace any gas appliance, that needs to be replaced, with an electric one. And given the rebates and the decreasing cost of electric appliances, and the positive impact on the environment with this action, this is a no brainer.
Please take the strongest action possible.
Marty Jordan
89 of 139
From: Rick Ballard
To: Clerk; City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Public comment regarding San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 2:35:12 PM
Dear Mayor Diaz Nash and City Councilmembers,
Climate change is the most urgent issue of our lifetime; an existential crisis dwarfing all others. I applaud the council for your time and attention to electrification policy, and I urge you to move forward on decarbonization and electrification measures for our city. We need to stop replacing aged-out gas appliances with new gas appliances which continue to burn fossil fuel. The ideal time to electrify most existing homes is when their appliances already require replacement, so we can't afford to miss that opportunity. While there are challenges to any new policy, please devote your energy to addressing those challenges instead of backing down from electrification. Future generations are depending on you.
Thank you,
- Richard Ballard
San Mateo Resident
90 of 139
From: Chip B. Goldstein
To: Clerk
Subject: Support for electrification
Date: Sunday, January 14, 2024 9:04:01 PM
San Mateo City Council,
Please keep enhancing your previous commitment to "Establish policies to decarbonize existing buildings and infrastructure and eliminate methane gas use by 2030." Although I am a resident of Half Moon Bay, which has adopted electrification goals, the pernicious effects of carbon emissions do not distinguish between city and regional boundaries.
Thank you,
Dr. Chip B. Goldstein
Half Moon Bay
91 of 139
From: Michelle Hudson
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Subject: Sustainable Buildings Strategy Session
Date: Monday, January 15, 2024 9:10:15 PM
Dear City Council Members,
Please adopt the strongest policies and actions possible for the sustainable buildings strategy - decarbonization - in tomorrow's study session.
With the intersection of the climate crisis, increased understanding of health hazards of gas appliances, and the very generous sources of funding now available, the era of building electrification has arrived in San Mateo.
Please continue the City’s strong leadership in advancing building electrification through the adoption of strong decarbonization policies, and by providing educational resources to help residents make the change from gas to electric appliances.
Thank you for all you do to provide the community with cleaner air, a healthier environment, and a safe future.
Thank you,
Michelle Hudson
San Mateo Resident
92 of 139
From: Matthew Lau
To: Clerk
Subject: Urging San Mateo to Take Action on the Climate Date: Monday, January 15, 2024 11:22:07 PM
Dear Mayor Lisa Diaz Nash and San Mateo City Council Members, My name is Matthew Lau and I am a Junior at Aragon High School in San Mateo. Thank you for taking the time to consider the crucial issue of building electrification. As a young person, it is terrifying to know that my generation will inherit the impacts of climate change on Earth. The IPCC has determined that the earth only has 6 years until the damage to climate change will be irreversible. As I see news everyday about climate disasters ravaging the world and reports being publicized that the planet's temperature is rising to an unbearable high, it is extremely concerning and makes me almost hopeless. I will be graduating soon, and I hope to pursue learning more about environmental science so that I can become a change-make in mitigating the effects of climate change. But as with everything, it will take time for me to get to that level. Currently, I am part of SMC organizations like the San Mateo County Youth Commission to reduce effects of climate change, but I cannot personally firsthand create policy changes in the government field.
I applaud the city for taking action and setting the goal to eliminate methane gas use by 2030. However, the city will never reach this goal by not taking the strongest possible
actions in a swift manner. Now is the most critical time to act. I don’t want to graduate from college and see that nothing has changed, and that young people still have to fight for the same minimum necessary action that I was fighting for when I was a freshman in high school.
It has been well established that the impacts of climate change will fall disproportionately on low-income communities of color. Addressing climate action from the perspective of equity is crucial. Adoption of a strong electrification policy encourages low income San Mateo residents to take full advantage of PCE’s draft proposal to pay for the electrification of low income homes.
This is how the council can address equity.
Strong electrification does not mean removing existing gas infrastructure from homes, but replacing it when it fails and taking full advantage of rebates and funding. Just one San Mateo home electrifying will eliminate 10 tons of greenhouse gasses, and when applied to
93 of 139
even more homes, that is potentially hundreds of thousands of tons per year. In addition to reducing emissions, replacing gas equipment also has significant health benefits. Children who grow up in homes that use fossil fuels for heating and cooking have a much higher chance of developing asthma. Replacing gas is one of the most direct actions that a person can take to respond to the urgency of the climate crisis. San Mateo should be empowering their residents to take action and use the city’s unique positioning and privilege to provide the adequate education and resources for San Mateo residents to take full advantage of the funding available.
Listen to the youth. Please help take action for our planet that we can continue in the future.
Thank you,
Matthew Lau
94 of 139
From: Elaine Salinger
To: Clerk
Cc: Michelle Hudson; Robert Whitehair
Subject: A comment for the City Decarbonization Study Session Date: Saturday, January 13, 2024 10:43:24 PM
Hello Mayor Nash and City Council members,
I want to thank you for electrifying San Mateo buildings, for showing leadership, and for honoring your commitments.
There are numerous studies showing that gas appliances are more expensive to run than the newer electric appliances. We replaced a gas furnace with a heat pump and our energy bill went down by 70%. And it is projected that the cost of gas will rise faster than electricity.
The reach codes that San Mateo approved last year do not mandate removal of functioning gas appliances. No one is mandating removal of appliances that are working, but appliances that fail should be replaced with energy efficient electric appliances.
The Rincon Report shows that replacing gas with electric appliances is now comparable in cost, and possibly less expensive than replacing with gas appliances, especially for low income homes.
The 1200+ Citizens Climate Lobby members in San Mateo County and I urge you to move forward with building electrification in San Mateo. CCL has over 200 members living in the city of San Mateo.
Elaine Salinger, San Mateo County Chapter Leader
Citizens Climate Lobby
GREAT!
1) Thank the City for considering this very important issue. It is an example of how the City of San Mateo continues to show leadership and honor its commitments. 2) Strong decarbonization implementation is in accordance with Cit GREAT!
1) Thank the City for considering this very important issue. It is an example of how the City of San Mateo continues to show leadership and honor its commitments. 2) Strong decarbonization implementation is in accordance with Cit when it
fails and take full advantage of funding and rebates.
8) Better yet, removing gas equipment from San Mateo h
95 of 139
From: Linh Dan
To: Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item 1: Sustainable Buildings Strategy - Project Update Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 9:22:37 AM
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers:
Thank you so much for holding a study session on this issue critical to public health & equity and a livable climate.
First, thanks to staff for a report that highlights the health and equity benefits of electrification,
and the cost chart that unequivocally proves that NOW is the time for homeowners and property owners to opt for a heat pump water heater over a gas one! Regarding the recommended policy options, I urge you to be more ambitious and front load the efforts to have a chance of meeting the 2030 goal, including directing staff to take all actions necessary NOW to completely smooth the path for same day heat pump water heater replacements to be available in the City of San Mateo by 2025 in time for BAAQMD to see the possibilities of smooth implementation of their clean air water heater rule so BAAQMD Staff can share results with their board.
I'm a Menlo Park resident, and we often take our kids to eat at one of San Mateo's many diverse and wonderful restaurants, combined with a stop at the park or library.
Thank you for your service and leadership, and I look forward to the example the City of San Mateo can set for other Bay Area cities.
Linh Dan Do
96 of 139
From: Anjuli Mishra
To: Clerk
Subject: City Council 1/16 Meeting Comment
Date: Monday, January 15, 2024 1:41:24 PM
Dear Mayor Lisa Diaz Nash and San Mateo City Council Members, My name is Anjuli Mishra
. I am 16 and a student in San Mateo. Thank you for taking the time to consider the crucial issue of building electrification. As a young person, I am afraid of the world that my generation will be inheriting due to the impacts of climate change. The IPCC has determined that the earth only has 6 years until the damage to climate change will be irreversible. In 6 years I will be graduating college and entering the workforce, and I want to be entering a workforce where working in sustainability and climate solutions can still have an impact rather than being looked at like a lost cause.
I applaud the city for taking action and setting the goal to eliminate methane gas use by 2030. However, the city will never reach this goal by not taking the strongest possible actions in a swift manner. Now is the most critical time to act. I don’t want to graduate from college and see that nothing has changed, and that young people still have to fight for the same minimum necessary action that I was fighting for when I was a freshman in high school.
It has been well established that the impacts of climate change will fall disproportionately on low-income communities of color. Addressing climate action from the perspective of equity is crucial. Adoption of a strong electrification policy encourages low income San Mateo residents to take full advantage of PCE’s draft proposal to pay for the electrification of low income homes.
This is how the council can address equity.
Strong electrification does not mean removing existing gas infrastructure from homes, but replacing it when it fails and taking full advantage of rebates and funding. Just one San Mateo home electrifying will eliminate 10 tons of greenhouse gasses, and when applied to even more homes, that is potentially hundreds of thousands of tons per year. In addition to reducing emissions, replacing gas equipment also has significant health benefits. Children who grow up in homes that use fossil fuels for heating and cooking have a much higher chance of developing asthma. Replacing gas is one of the most direct actions that a person can take to respond to the urgency of the climate crisis. San Mateo should be empowering
97 of 139
their residents to take action and use the city’s unique positioning and privilege to provide the adequate education and resources for San Mateo residents to take full advantage of the funding available.
Listen to the youth. Our future is in your hands.
Thank you,
Anjuli
98 of 139
1.16.2024 City Council Meeting
99 of 139
Presentation Outline
▪ Project Overview
▪ Local Policy Context
▪ Building Electrification Costs
▪ Single family & Low-Rise Multifamily Upfront and On-Bill Costs ▪ Multifamily & Commercial Upfront Costs
▪ Community Feedback
▪ Building Decarbonization Policy Options
2 of 22
100 of 139
3 of 22
Council Feedback Needed: What policy options
should the project team include in continued project
outreach?
Policy Option Name and Number Description
1) Follow State and BAAQMD
requirements, continue adopted reach
codes & focus on outreach/incentives
Introduce no new building decarbonization policies, increase outreach and education around incentives
2) New reach codes to encourage and/or
require electrification at time of
renovation
Explore and adopt new reach codes to require electrification at time of renovation
3) Require electric equipment upon
replacement ahead of BAAQMD Zero NOx
requirements
Require electrify on replacement for water heating and
space heating, passed ahead of the 2027 Ruling 9-6 for
water heaters and 2029 Ruling 9-4 for space heaters
4) Building Performance Standards for
commercial buildings
Requires standards to track and increase energy
performance across commercial buildings
5) Electric First Policy for City facilities Requires municipal facilities collect information for gas and electric equipment, and choose the electric option
101 of 139
Project
Overview
102 of 139
Sustainable Buildings Strategy Goals
5 of 22
• Develop an actionable roadmap with
concrete steps for City of San Mateo to
electrify buildings
• Align approach to meet climate goals
while balancing costs and other impacts
• Use best available science and data
• Listen to the community: engage early
and often, two phases of community
outreach
103 of 139
6 of 22
How do we
electrify
buildings?
▪ Building Electrification: Appliances that usegas are replaced with electric technologies
▪ ‘Electrify on Replacement’ & Cost Effectiveness: Replacing gas appliances with electric when they stop working (‘burnout’), or would have been upgraded anyway, increasescost effectiveness since appliance would have been replaced regardless
Space heating and cooling:
Gas Furnace → Heat Pump
Water heating:
Gas water heater → Heat Pump
Hot Water Heater
Cooking:
Gas stove → Induction Stove
Clothes Drying:
Gas Clothes Drying →
Electric Dryer
104 of 139
Electrification Benefits
7 of 22
▪ Greenhouse gas emission reductions
• Building gas: 42% of total GHG emissions in 2030, 36% in 2045 ▪ Community Health
• Electronic appliances → improved air pollution, reduced risk of asthma (particularly childhood asthma)
▪ Energy Affordability
• Gas bills could more than double over time
▪ Resilience & Safety
• Decreased fire & carbon monoxide risk, increased resilience with solar
▪ Equity
• Equitable access to health, safety, upgraded buildings & comfort benefits.
105 of 139
8 of 22
Local Policy Context Paves the Way for Building
Decarbonization
• Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
Zero NOx Space and Water Heating Requirements
• Zero NOx water heating by 2027
• Zero NOx space heating by 2029
• Collectively makes up 91% of home gas usage
• City of San Mateo Building Electrification Reach Codes • All-Electric New Construction & electric ready and
appliance electrification (Started: Jan 2023)
• Electric readiness and electric appliance
replacement requirements for specific home
remodels (Started: Jan 2023)
• City of San Mateo Policy: Climate Action Plan (CAP)
• Climate Action Plan 2030 & 2045 Targets:
• BE 1: All-electric new construction
• BE 2: All-electric existing buildings
• BE 2 = most significant driver of GHG
reductions
106 of 139
Building
Electrification
Costs
Single Family & Low-
Rise Multifamily
107 of 139
10 of 22
Gas-to-Electric Scenario – Incremental
Cost
Electrification Without Incentives is More Expensive Than Replacing With Gas Appliances
Note that this figure combines cost for AC + a gas furnace to illustrate the full cost of dual space heating and cooling for the first row of ‘gas equivalent cost’. It also selects the median, not low-cost HP HVAC scenario to provide a conservative estimate in this visualization. See detailed HP HVAC scenario in the next slide for more detail.
108 of 139
11 of 22
Incentives Help close the Incremental Cost
Gap to Electrify ($)
Electrifying Water Heating & Space Heating /Cooling (+AC) = Upfront Cost Savings for Building Owners
109 of 139
12 of 22
~$30-40/ Month in Utility Bill Cost Savings for All -
Electric Homes on Correct Electric Rate
▪ Electrification of a single-family
home could lead to on-bill savings
of ~$380/year when switching
from gas to standard efficiency
appliances
▪ These on-bill cost savings could
cover the costs of whole-home
electrification, with a return on
investment ranging from 2-18
years
▪ Selecting the correct electric rate
is critical for on-bill cost savings
[e.g. TOU, E-ELECT].
▪ Source: SVCE/Peninsula Clean
Energy 2023 Analysis
▪ Natural gas and electric rates
change often- this analysis reflects
2023 conditions
110 of 139
Building
Electrification
Costs
Multifamily &
Commercial
111 of 139
Multifamily and Commercial Upfront Costs Are Variable
With Some Clear Cost Wins for Specific Appliances (Rooftop Package Units) ▪ Electrification of commercial and high-rise
multifamily buildings feature variable costs &
technical challenges.
▪ Most will need to be costed out on a project -by-
project basis.
▪ However, these building types can feature
similar equipment types; like rooftop package
units.
▪ Peninsula Clean Energy 2035 Decarbonization
Plan shows near cost parity for rooftop
packaged heat pump installation costs.
14 of 22
112 of 139
Community
Feedback
113 of 139
Initial Community Feedback
16 of 22
o September 13, 2023: Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission meeting
▪ Over 120 written comments and 24 verbal comments
o Five General Plan Town Hall meetings in Fall 2023
o September 22, 2023: Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Task Force meeting o Online survey: Dec 2023 – Jan 2024
T op Concerns
• Growth of grid to accommodate
future electric buildings
• Power outages / resilience
• Costs
T op Values
• Climate change is a pressing
issue, need for City to take
action
• Electric equipment incentives
and rebates available now
114 of 139
Survey Highlight: Community Members Support
Building Electrification Action Beyond State Minimums
▪ Survey Question: How Fast Should the City of San Mateo Electrify its Buildings to Achieve Climate Action? ▪ The majority of respondents support City movement to electrify buildings beyond State or Local (BAAQMD) requirements.
▪ This approach lies somewhere in the middle for ‘Move ahead on easy issues with cost savings now beyond State minimums’ and ‘Electrify everything’
17 of 22
115 of 139
Building
Decarbonization
Policy Options
116 of 139
Policy Options Overview
19 of 22
▪ Menu of options to decarbonize San
Mateo’s building stock through
regulatory requirements, incentives,
other programs
▪ Based on nation-wide scan of existing
policies and programs as of Fall 2023
▪ A successful building decarbonization
strategy will require combining
multiple policy/ programmatic
approaches & continued community
outreach
117 of 139
20 of 22
Policy Options Summary Table
Policy Option Name and Number Description
1) Follow State and BAAQMD
requirements, continue adopted reach
codes & focus on outreach/incentives
Introduce no new building decarbonization policies,
increase outreach and education around incentives
2) New reach codes to encourage
and/or require electrification at time of
renovation
Explore and adopt new reach codes to require
electrification at time of renovation
3) Require electric equipment upon
replacement ahead of BAAQMD Zero
NOx requirements
Require electrify on replacement for water heating and
space heating, passed ahead of the 2027 Ruling 9-6 for
water heaters and 2029 Ruling 9-4 for space heaters
4) Building Performance Standards for
commercial buildings
Requires standards to track and increase energy
performance across commercial buildings
5) Electric First Policy for City facilities Requires municipalfacilities collect information for gas and electric equipment, and choose the electric option
118 of 139
21 of 22
Project Timeline and Next Steps
▪ Original project timeline adjusted to allow for deeper and more robust engagement
▪ July - December 2024: Outreach and strategy development/finalization ▪ 2025: Final Sustainable Buildings Strategy adoption
119 of 139
22 of 22
Council Feedback Needed: What policy options should the project team include in continued project outreach?
Policy Option Name and Number Description
1) Follow State and BAAQMD
requirements, continue adopted reach
codes & focus on outreach/incentives
Introduce no new building decarbonization policies, increase outreach and education around incentives
2) New reach codes to encourage and/or
require electrification at time of
renovation
Explore and adopt new reach codes to require electrification at time of renovation
3) Require electric equipment upon
replacement ahead of BAAQMD Zero NOx
requirements
Require electrify on replacement for water heating and
space heating, passed ahead of the 2027 Ruling 9-6 for
water heaters and 2029 Ruling 9-4 for space heaters
4) Building Performance Standards for
commercial buildings
Requires standards to track and increase energy
performance across commercial buildings
5) Electric First Policy for City facilities Requires municipal facilities collect information for gas and electric equipment, and choose the electric option
120 of 139
Appendix
121 of 139
Appendix A:
Detailed
Costs
122 of 139
Gas-to-Electric Scenario
No Incentives
Electrification implications + Key Takeaways
▪ Avoiding panel upgrades through home
electrification planning, panel splitters, “watt
diet” etc. could save building owners ~$3,700
▪ Because of significant market, labor quote
variation in HVAC system, Rincon ran two cost
scenarios to control for significant variation
(low, median cost)
▪ Note that heat pump HVAC systems provide
both heating and cooling, displacing the need
to have two separate appliances in the ‘gas for
gas’ scenario (gas furnace and AC).
Electrification Scenario: Cost to Replace Gas Appliances with Electric Appliances (No Incentives, Total Costs)
Appliance, Install, Wiring End Use
Median/Average
Cost (All Data)
Electric heat pump water
heater
Water Heating $6,000
Electric heat pump HVAC
system
(provides both space heating
and cooling)
Space
Heating/Cooling:
Low-Cost Scenario
$13,965
Space
Heating/Cooling:
Median-Cost Scenario
$17,910
Electric dryer Clothes Drying $1,963
Electric stove Cooking $2,375
Panel upgrade (if needed) Electrical $3,700
25 123 of 139
Gas-For-Gas Scenario
Electrification implications + Key
Takeaways
▪ Most San Mateans (75%) do not have AC
▪ If a building owner were to replace
every electrifiable appliance, with a
similar gas appliance, they would spend
$11,012 w/o AC
▪ Key takeaway: building owners would
have invested in costly appliance
upgrades regardless, in a ‘electrify on
replacement’ scenario
▪ Full appliance replacement with new gas
appliances would cost building owners
$11,012-18,512
Like-for-Like Scenario: Replace Gas Appliances with Similar, New Gas Appliances (Total Costs)
Appliance, Install,
Wiring End Use
Median/Average Cost
(All Data)
Gas water heater Water Heating $2,800
Gas furnace Space Heating $6,132
Air conditioner (keep
existing furnace)* Space Cooling $7,500
Gas dryer Clothes Drying $925
Gas stove Cooking $1,155
Whole-Home T otal Cost without AC $11,012
Whole-Home T otal Cost
with AC $18,512
26 124 of 139
Gas-to-Electric Scenario – Incremental Cost
Electric-Gas Appliance Replacement Costs (No Incentives) Electrification implications + Key Takeaways
▪ If a heat pump HVAC displaces both a
gas furnace and an air conditioning
unit, electric vs. gas reduction reaches
near cost parity [low-cost HVAC
scenario]
▪ Marginal costs to electrify are highest
for space heating and cooling
functions, and lowest for stove and
dryer applications [total cost]
Electrification Scenario Detailed Incremental Costs
Appliance End Use
Electric
Appliance Cost
Gas Equivalent
Cost
Median/ Average
Marginal Cost
Gas furnace only:
Electric heat pump
HVAC system
Space Heating/Cooling: Low-Cost
Scenario
$13,965 $6,132 $7,833
Space Heating/Cooling: Median-
Cost Scenario
$17,910 $6,132 $11,778
Gas furnace with AC:
Electric heat pump
HVAC system
Space Heating/Cooling: Low-Cost
Scenario
$13,965 $13,632* $333
Space Heating/Cooling: Median-
Cost Scenario
$17,910 $13,632* $4,278
Electric heat pump
water heater
Water Heating $6,000 $2,800 $3,200
Electric stove Cooking $2,375 $1,155 $1,220
Electric dryer Clothes Drying $1,963 $925 $1,038
Panel upgrade (if needed) $3,700 N/A $3,700
* Includes $7,500 for a new air conditioning unit as well as $6,132 for a new furnace. 27 125 of 139
Electrification Incremental Upfront Costs +
Incentives
Costs to Electrify with Incentives Applied
Electrification implications + Key
Takeaways
▪ Heat pump hot water heaters
are the cheapest available
option to heat water, saving
building owners $2,800.
▪ Electrification of space heating
and cooling will save building
owners money if it displaces
both a gas furnace and an air
conditioner, resulting in cost
savings from $1,622-$5,587
▪ Across all-appliances,
incentives play a critical role
in reducing upfront costs of
electric appliances
• Key Variables: HVAC install costs,
electric panel replacement
needs, AC displacement
Electrification Marginal Upfront Costs + Incentives
Appliance Electric Appliance
Cost Combined Incentives Electrification Cost
After Incentives Gas Equivalent Costs
Electrification
Marginal Cost or
(Savings)
Electrification Scenario Marginal Cost with Peninsula Clean Energy, BayREN, IRA Incentives Electric heat pump water heater $6,000 $(7,500)** - $2,800 $(2,800) Without AC
Low-Cost HVAC Scenario $13,965 $(5,900) $8,065 $6,132 $1,933 Without AC
Median-Cost HVAC Scenario $17,910 $(5,900) $12,010 $6,132 $5,878 With AC
Low-Cost HVAC Scenario $13,965 $(5,900) $8,065 $13,632 $(5,567) With AC
Median-Cost HVAC Scenario $17,910 $(5,900) $12,010 $13,632 $(1,622) Electric dryer $1,963 $(250) $1,713 $925 $788
Electric stove $2,375 $(250) $2,125 $1,155 $970
Panel upgrade (if needed) $3,700 $(1,600) $2,100 N/A $2,100 *Note that IRA incentives take the form of tax credits, while other rebates can be applied upfront by the building owner or contractor after completing program documentation requirements. Please refer to Table 4 for a full summary of rebates and incentives by funder. Note that incentive costs cannot exceed total project cost. **Rebates cannot exceed total project cost which is expected to be $6,000 28 126 of 139
Appendix B:
Detailed
Policy
Options
127 of 139
Option 1: Continue Adopted Reach Codes & Focus on
Outreach and Incentives
▪ Other City Examples
▪ More than 100 Cities in California have
adopted reach codes similar to San Mateo
requiring all-electric new construction
▪ Cons:
▪ Limited impact and reach – majority of
building stock not affected
▪ Outreach and education programs unlikely to
achieve scale of behavior shift needed to
decarbonize all building stock
▪ Pros:
▪ Reach codes already in place with community
support
▪ No additional costs to building owners unless
they voluntary opt-in
▪ Allows community to prepare for upcoming
BAAQMD requirements
30 128 of 139
Option 2: New Reach Codes to Encourage and/or
Require Electrification at Time of Renovation
▪ Other City Examples
▪ City of Piedmont Building Electrification
Ordinance ($25,000 spend threshold)
▪ City of Dublin CALGreen Amendment
requiring electrification if square footage
modified by more than 50%
▪ Cons:
▪ Community resistance to new regulations
▪ Further analysis needed, dependent on
reach code adopted
▪ Pros:
▪ City has experience exploring, and adopting
new reach codes
31 129 of 139
Option 3: Electric Equipment Replacement
Requirements for Space and Water Heating Ahead of
BAAQMD Requirements
▪ Other City Examples [under consideration]
▪ City of Berkeley Electrification Strategy
[Municipal Buildings]
▪ City of Sacramento Existing Building
Electrification Strategy [Space and Water
Heating]
▪ Cons:
▪ Potential upfront costs for residents [gas
furnace with no AC]
▪ Not yet passed by California local governments
([Currently being considered]
▪ Pros:
▪ Ambitious policy and leadership opportunity
▪ Workforce and community preparedness for
BAAQMD regulations
▪ Best GHG reduction option
32 130 of 139
Option 4: Building Performance Standards for
Commercial Buildings
▪ Other City Examples
▪ Well established, adopted by many local
governments including Chula vista, New York, Seattle
St. Louis, Boston.
▪ Local policy example: City of Brisbane Building
Efficiency Program
▪ Cons:
▪ Necessitates new staff time to implement and track
▪ Does not guarantee all-electric end usage in short
term till phased retro commissioning
▪ Best suited to very large buildings – limited building stock reach
▪ Pros:
▪ BPS approach addresses high level of variability
commercial building stock
▪ Phased approach allows for structured guidance by
facility managers, uncovering cost savings over time
▪ Can lead to incremental reductions in energy
efficiency
33 131 of 139
Option 5: Electric First Policy for City Facilities
▪ Other City Examples
▪ City of Mountain View: 2020 Municipal
Green Policy
▪ City of San Diego: Zero Emissions Municipal
Buildings and Operations Policy
▪ Pros:
▪ Demonstrates city leadership in hard to
electrify buildings that mirror the
commercial sector
▪ Availability of significant local government
incentives to electrify
▪ Cons:
▪ Limited reach as policy only covers
municipal buildings
34 132 of 139
Appendix C:
Policy
Selection
Background
& Project
Details
133 of 139
Next Steps: Phase 2 Community Outreach
Summer 2023 Fall 2023 Winter
23-24
Spring
2024
Summer
2024
• Development of Equity
+ Effectiveness
Criteria
• Identify range of
feasible policy options
• Building Inventory and
Market Segmentation
Analsysis
• Phase 1: Community
Outreach: Effectiveness +
Equity Criteria Feedback
• Results of building
inventory and market
segmentation
• Draft prioritized policies list
• Incorporation of community
feedback for equity and
effectiveness critera
• Draft policies & pathways list -
Community feedback
• Phase 2: Outreach:
Community feedback on
policies & pathways
• Incorporation of community
feedback in prioritized policy
list
• Drafting of pathway
• Public review of draft strategy
36 134 of 139
▪ Reach Climate Action Plan Goals:
▪ BE-2: All-electric existing buildings
▪ 2030: Reduce emissions 40% below 1990 levels
▪ Building emissions make up 38% of the City total
▪ Gas accounts for (85)% of building related
emissions
▪ Electrification of existing buildings is the
most cost-effective way to achieve carbon-
free buildings
▪ Electricity will be carbon free by 2045 (SB
100)- San Mateo is already on the way with
ECO100 from Peninsula Clean Energy
▪ Any replacement of new gas appliances locks in
fossil fuel infrastructure, taking us farther from
achieving climate goals
▪ Building electrification can achieve a host of
other co-benefits, including indoor air quality,
protection from rising gas prices, and
concurrent building upgrades
What is Building For the Future?
Image source: ThisOldHouse
37 135 of 139
How the Policy Selection Process Works
Community feedback shapes Equity & Effectiveness criteria: the values and outcomes that the City will bring forward when selecting policies.
Selected policies must touch on all equity and effectiveness criteria
Building and Market Segmentation Analysis provide
City-specific cost & natural gas data to select the
best-fit policy for San Mateo
Equity and effectiveness criteria + building and
market segmentation data shape final policy
pathway
38 136 of 139
Equity + Analysis = Policy Analysis
Framework
▪ Your feedback will be critical in refining
equity and effectiveness criteria.
▪ Equity Criteria informs direction for
how to equitably electrify existing
residential and commercial buildings;
▪ Effectiveness criteria ensures full
realization of electrification benefits,
and that there will be no unintended
consequences to other City priorities,
or harm to residents or business
owners
▪ Each policy pathway should include
actions that address at least one action
that addresses each effectiveness and
equity criteria.
39 137 of 139
Environmental Justice Communities
in San Mateo
▪ From the Draft San Mateo General Plan 2040:
Equity priority communities are neighborhoods
that experience both higher than average sources
of pollution or contamination (such as poor air
quality or contaminated groundwater) and
population and health characteristics that make
them more vulnerable to negative health
outcomes from that pollution.
▪ North Central, North Shoreview/Shoreview neighborhoods Strive San Mateo: General Plan 2040 Draft July 2023
https://strivesanmateo.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/07/StriveSanMateo_GP2024_DRAFT_7-28-2023_Web.pdf Image source: General Plan 2040 Draft July 2023
40 138 of 139
Equity Policy Analysis Sources & Approach
▪ Building electrification & equity and
environmental justice is a growing
space for research:
▪ Policy analysis referenced leading
organizations/agencies like Greenlining
Institute*, Rocky Mountain Institute,
U.S. Department of Energy, Equitable
Building Decarbonization, Building
Energy, Equity, and Power (BEEP
Coalition; CARB)
▪ Policy analysis must be informed by
equity-centered community outreach
to reflect : community feedback, lived
experience, equity & cost concerns will
be incorporated into the final equity &
effectiveness criteria
*GreenLining institute was critical in the initial review of Rincon’s Equity Guardrails approach for City of Berkeley
41 139 of 139