From: ahouye
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: Re: Reminder: Electrify San Mateo: Upcoming Community Meetings Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 11:38:29 PM
Attachments: City of San Mateo Electrification Review 05272025.pdf image003.png
Greetings Andrea,
See attached file for feedback/comments concerning numerous initiatives related to electrification of existing buildings.
It is a long read, so hopefully it is useful and should address most concerns for affected parties.
Let me know if it was useful to spend my time on.
Thanks, Alan
On Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 02:00:11 PM PDT, Andrea Chow <[email protected]> wrote:
Reminder! Upcoming community meetings for Electrify San Mateo:
May 14: Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission
May 21: Community Relations Commission
We invite you to share your feedback and shape the Electrify San Mateo: Sustainable Building Strategy.
Community feedback will be shared with City Council tentatively scheduled for June 16, 2025. Please see the
Public Meeting Portal for meeting agenda and information posted roughly one week before the Commission meetings.
Andrea
Andrea Chow
Sustainability Analyst
City Manager’s Office
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7007 | [email protected]
From: Andrea Chow
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2025 2:14 PM
Subject: Electrify San Mateo: Three Upcoming Community Meetings
Hello,
Switching from natural gas to carbon-free electric equipment in our homes and buildings is critical to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in our community. Gas appliances release air pollutants and studies have shown that exposure to these pollutants pose significant health risks. In addition to advancing our climate goals, electrification eliminates these risks and can provide a safer and healthier environment.
The Electrify San Mateo project team will present existing building electrification policy pathways at three upcoming City Commission meetings:
May 12: Senior Advisory Commission
May 14: Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission
May 21: Community Relations Commission
We invite you to share your feedback and shape the Electrify San Mateo: Sustainable Building Strategy.
Community feedback will be shared with City Council tentatively scheduled for June 2025. Please see the
Public Meeting Portal for meeting agenda and information posted roughly one week before the Commission meetings.
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. 1 Report Review:
Sustainable Buildings Strategy
Project Update - May Evaluation
Summary:
This review is provided in the form of a due diligence evaluation and consumer protection for adopting full electrification to existing structures in the City of San Mateo. There appears to be numerous deficiencies in information and consumer safeguards addressed. No indication that a particular initiative that meets or exceeds the BAAD initiatives will make a significant difference to the local micro-climate. The primary consumer concerns appear to be affordability, achievability, and alternatives. There is a factor of unintended consequences. The escalating electricity and gas rates in a monopoly business environment creates a paradox of energy conservation versus energy consumption. The expectation is whatever is determined will be voted upon as it affects existing structures/property, unavoidable impact to its owners, and consequences to its occupants; therefore, a highly convincing justification and well-devised plan of implementation is required. Overall, a mix of the options available may have the greatest success for maximum effectiveness under affordable conditions.
Review Objective:
To provide an objective recommendation for an electrification and climate change abatement policy that may have the greatest level of success for adoption. Progression to a goal is considered superior to complete abandonment.
Background Review:
This review is based upon the following information provided:
"Electrify San Mateo: Sustainable Building Strategy - Feedback, May 12, 2025" "Electrify San Mateo: Sustainable Building Strategy - Feedback, May 14, 2025" "Climate Action Plan - Annual Progress Report - May 14, 2025" "Electrify San Mateo: Community Relations - Feedback, May 21, 2025"
There are established bans for the sale of new gas water heaters (2027) and new gas furnaces (2029) with near-term deadlines. If these near-term deadlines are maintained, this study may be an academic thought experiment too late for some affected parties. The most significant scenario example is a fixed income living condition that must replace a failed gas water heater in 2027 with insufficient amperage for an equivalent electric water heater. In this case, the lack of situational awareness and contingency planning for the impact of the ban is disturbing at the very least.
Project Overall Review:
There are five long-standing options to review in whole, in part, or in some combination:
1. Business as usual.
2. New reach codes for renovations.
3. Require electric equipment upon replacement ahead of BAAD Zero NOx requirements.
4. Building Performance Standards for commercial buildings.
5. Electric first policy for City facilities.
2 Information/Knowledge Review:
The Rincon Consultants Inc. report is the most objective information available.
The community concerns were identified as (per page 3):
These are unquestionably valid concerns that need to be addressed: Upfront costs of electrical equipment may be mitigated with consideration for flexible policies to choose electrification or other cost-effective strategies. On-bill or operational costs may be mitigated by cooperation with Peninsula Clean Energy. Installation and electrical infrastructure implementation challenges may be mitigated by flexible compliance paths. Grid reliability and resilience is assuming and planning for a 27% increase in demand by 2035.
The May 14, 2025, "Electrify San Mateo: Existing Building Electrification Pathways Analysis, Policy Analysis (pages 7 through 23) was vague and had some logic inconsistencies, so it was informative to some extent for background purposes. However, there is an apparent difference of how a commercial building is treated compared to a residential property. The Phased approach for commercial buildings with much more consideration taken versus a residential structure that is faced with the gas ban deadlines is disturbingly different and obvious preferential treatment.
The May 14, 2025, "Summary of Community Engagement for Electrify San Mateo" was far more useful to review.
Affordability:
The following surveys were interesting, but may lead to wrong conclusions. There should be an awareness of the conditions "house poor" or "rent poor" that is not taken into account.
3 What would be more useful is the disposable funds available, which would be free discretionary cash per month and discretionary reserve funds. The most troubling question is how large is the population in the City of San Mateo that can endure a significant financial impact aggravated by escalating energy costs, which have no foreseeable reason to significantly decline in part or in total due to the monopoly utility profit structure.
The following are some items have not been addressed to determine what costs may be directly or indirectly incurred and to prevent predatory pricing for some items:
1. Increased property tax and/or local tax to support city electrification improvements?
2. Increased utility rate charge for a higher amperage grid infrastructure to support the City?
3. Fixed or capped charge schedule for utility-provided services?
4. Fixed or capped charge schedule for City fees?
5. Fixed or capped charge schedule for electrical amperage service upgrades?
6. Are costs and rebates dependent upon the whims of the state government?
Without all this information, it is very difficult to determine if there is sufficient information for property owners to make financially-sound decisions. The state legislative consideration of AB 942 for solar is a significant blow to trust in a state government agreement.
The highly volatile economic and product availability conditions that may persist for a number of years is a major factor in consideration as well as the sense of declining support nationally and the troubled state financial conditions. The current observation is a negative environment of uncertain employment, higher inflation, and unfavorable outlook for climate change support.
Achievability:
There are practical considerations that have not been clearly addressed. Some are vague and others have no sound explanation.
For grid reliability, complete dependence on electricity for life-supporting space heating, and heated water is highly suspect. An event similar to the February 2021 Great Texas Freeze must be avoided, especially for the at-risk population. No detailed study has been presented as to how the 27% electricity increase may be sufficient. It is logically hard to believe the two highest energy demand devices in a residence can be compensated by a 27% energy increase, especially during the winter months. If out-of-state and/or in-state gas-fired generators are used
4 to supplement the 27%, then this makes sense, but does create a hypocritical compromise. Solar with a battery is less attractive due to the declining return on investment unless there is unreliable grid power, and is a financially presumptuous/arrogant comment. A low NOx gas water heater and low NOx gas space heating may be a more valid alternative for those resourceful to use a backup battery/portable power station during a grid power loss.
For supply issues, equipment, contractor, and city services availability are concerns. The cost and availability of electrical hardware may be uncertain to schedule work with the current trade turmoil. If a utility transformer is need for the higher amperage demand, this creates greater uncertainty. Contractor availability to meet a particular schedule is an uncertainty by experience.
Timely City and utility services are a further complication as it is highly uncertain if more support staff will be hired. Equipment to provide alternative electrical energy while grid electricity is disconnected may be problematic as well as the negative impact to the resident occupants.
Alternatives:
There are various alternatives of various effectiveness compared to full electrification with positive aspects. These are largely to favor renters to reduce incremental rent increases and the low/fixed income with restricted funding.
1. Low NOx gas water heater and gas space heater.
2. New or higher-effective insulation.
3. Higher efficiency windows.
4. Higher efficiency appliances.
5. High capacity air exhaust (gas and by-products when cooking).
There is an energy conservation versus energy consumption paradox in terms of energy rate escalation in a monopoly environment. Ironically, it may be better to consume more energy for the utility to gain greater revenue and achieve the desired profitability at the existing rate. Energy conservation may drive up rates to meet profitability targets. Therefore, with other factors beyond consideration, these may not necessarily keep energy rates at a reasonable/affordable level. In addition, what an affordable utility rate is has not been defined or even asked.
Community Feedback:
The following can be classified based upon some implied assumptions from the community feedback:
1. Implemented electrification due to available assets.
2. Implemented electrification with dissatisfaction concerns.
3. Concern for one-time and on-going costs.
4. Concern for increased rental/leasing costs to tenants.
There does not appear to be definitive information to address the concerns.
Unintended Consequences:
These are "what if" scenarios/conditions that should be in consideration to mitigate risk as a few examples of consequences.
For the property owner of an aging multi-family building, it may be more financially attractive to do a teardown and build a new structure under reach codes for renovations. For example, it may have more a more efficient electrical space heating design, more electrical outlets, better insulation, energy-efficient windows, soundproofing, improved security, lower maintenance, and much more onsite parking for overcrowded streets. Therefore, this would change the affordability of the residences and reduce the amount of available housing for an extended period of time, but much more attractive option for tenants.
5 A developer/builder may avoid the City of San Mateo to repurpose an existing structure to meet a specified target market price, especially for affordable housing or affordable leased space for businesses under reach codes for renovations. It may be more profitable for the target market price to build to lesser codes elsewhere. Therefore, this may result in less affordable housing or business space.
There may be a question of trust in general due to the declining benefit of solar and the pending, solar contract-breaking AB 942. It now appears residential solar is a property owner-financed energy generating infrastructure expense and a solar battery that may be seen as a fire hazard.
An electrification-accelerating set of reach codes appears highly suspicious, especially if the Federal and/or State initiative goals may be relaxed due to economic or political conditions. The property owners may once again be spending funds under false expectations and those funds should have been held in reserve to pay for well-established, escalating energy costs in a monopoly environment. Therefore, a convincing commitment to the initiatives is required.
Recommended Policy:
The following is the recommend policy for the greatest level of success to achieve the various objectives based upon the information provided:
1. Electric first policy for City facilities: This must be done or this would be complete hypocrisy.
The expectation certain structures may be excluded for historical reasons. This would establish the base impact to the city electrical grid and any infrastructure costs resulting in utility rate and/or local tax increases. No further discussion is required.
2. Building Performance Standards for commercial buildings: There is a proposed, relaxed implementation phased plan. At-risk conditions must have back-up contingency system. A low interest rate loan for full electrical would be an added incentive. With the cost of the renovation being a depreciated expense and the low interest rate loan, these should be sufficient to have a high adoption rate. This should establish if there is an impact to the city electrical grid and any infrastructure costs resulting in utility rate and/or local tax increases.
3. Require electric equipment upon replacement ahead of BAAD Zero NOx requirements:
Completely invalid for consideration. There is insufficient information for a consumer to make an informed decision nor sufficient time to implement the requirement under certain conditions.
4. New reach codes for renovations: Full electrification-ready condition could be required for a property in a vacant condition (between property owners) or major renovations in a vacant condition. Full electrification conversion is at the discretion of the property owner, especially if there is no plan to change existing appliances. Full electrification should not significantly impact housing affordability for specific housing markets. Low interest loans for the full electrification expenses should suppress an escalating the cost increase and maintain affordability. The City would need to be monitor if the full electrification is used for the purpose of forced evictions. This should establish if there is an additional impact to the city electrical grid and any infrastructure costs resulting in utility rate and/or local tax increases.
5. Business as usual: Full electrification and BAAD Zero NOx requirements are waived/exempt for rental properties, fix income residents, and low income residents. This may assure no significant increase to rental rates or unnecessary hardship to the low or fixed income. The other listed alternative changes are at the discretion and encouraged for maximum benefit.
This is similar and equal allowances to the relaxed conditions allowed for commercial buildings.
Affected parties may still may face the collateral cost impact due to the accumulated impact from the other three policy conditions. Voluntarily adopting full electrification is highly encouraged as was for adopting solar.
6 Conclusions:
There is a fundamental problem for a lack of information as to how the various degrees of mitigating actions affects the local micro-climate outcome. It is a cost versus benefit decision or, in this case for some, reducing the quality of life sacrifice for a indeterminate outcome. The actual versus perceived financial status of the population is problematic for expectations to implement initiatives. The magnitude of affordable housing needed should be a sanity check.
There appears to be a lack of a systemic/comprehensive reference for what changes may be necessary for full electrification and/or electrification-ready. A cost of electrification calculator with a menu of itemized estimated costs and estimated time-to-completion would be highly useful.
This should be useful for an informed decision and/or approval. The provided recommended policy is largely based upon current economic and policy conditions which are very volatile and may be prohibitive to do anything of significance. The outcomes of past City initiatives and the fluid federal/state/local policy conditions may influence acceptance.
The BAAD Zero NOx requirements ban for gas water heaters and gas furnaces appears impractical and a blow to initiative management creditability, and/or will create predictable collateral damage. The gas devices can provide stand-by, systemic redundancy as a contingency.
The full electrification has good intentions, but there is a lack of information as well as contingency planning that may endanger the safety of a portion of the population. Predictably, failure to maintain benefits of adoption for a mitigating action will have negative consequences for any initiatives in the future or sustaining the existing ones.
Alan Ouye
May 27, 2025
From: Jennifer Mora
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: Fw: Electrify San Mateo: I support all five decarbonization options Date: Monday, May 12, 2025 6:42:48 AM
FYI
From: Emily Morris < >
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 5:00 PM
To: Emily Morris < >
Subject: Electrify San Mateo: I support all five decarbonization options
Hello,
I'm a resident of North Central San Mateo, and I am writing in strong support of all five decarbonization options as part of the Electrify San Mateo project. I believe it is critical we reduce greenhouse emissions so we can enjoy a livable, breathable San Mateo for many years to come. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you,
Emily Morris
From: Pam Rittelmeyer
To: Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission
Subject: May 14 SIC meeting agenda: support new business item 1 Date: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 10:33:59 AM
Dear San Mateo Sustainability and Infrastructure Commissioners, I am writing as a resident of San Mateo and President of Borel Neighborhood Association to urge you to take action to reduce our community's greenhouse gas emissions by supporting the decarbonization objectives being considered tonight as item 1 under New Business.
We are in a race to limit impacts from climate change. We have the energy efficient technology, the technical assistance programs, and a growing workforce to act now. The objectives in this agenda item are flexible and sensible. By committing to a clean energy future for our buildings, San Mateo can demonstrate leadership on climate action, create healthier living environments, and ensure a just transition for all residents.
Thank you for your attention to this critical issue and for your ongoing work to build a more sustainable and resilient city.
Sincerely,
Pamela Rittelmeyer, PhD
President, Borel Neighborhood Association
Sent from Gmail Mobile
From: Robert Whitehair
To: Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission
Cc: Andrea Chow; Michelle Hudson
Subject: May 14, 2025 SIC Meeting - Item 1 Under New Business Date: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 5:24:09 AM
Dear Chair Narita, Vice Chair Michael, and Andrea Chow
We thank you for the opportunity to provide this letter of support, and for your continued climate leadership. As you know, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has determined
that if we continue to emit greenhouse gas emissions at the current rate, climate change will become irreversible in five years. The time to take strong climate action is now, and, in light of the federal government’s inaction on climate, it’s more important than ever that cities like San Mateo demonstrate strong climate leadership.
Item 1 under New Business on the May 14 agenda will go a long way towards implementation of the following City Council objective which has already received strong SIC backing:
“Establish policies to decarbonize existing buildings and infrastructure, and eliminate methane gas use by 2030.”
We respectfully request that the SIC support all five objectives of the Sustainable Building Strategy:
Keep in place the very successful reach codes for new construction Extend reach codes to retrofits of existing buildings
Support accelerated elimination of Nitrous Oxides, specifically the Air District requirements to replace failed gas water heaters and gas furnaces Build upon an established program of building performance standards Support electrification of City buildings
We want to take this opportunity to emphasize all that has been done already:
Significant City support for decarbonization – The City of San Mateo hired a consultant and provided valuable City staff time, to prepare a decarbonization study for adoption over the next few months
Even More City support for decarbonization – The City of San Mateo has created a valuable website: “Electrify San Mateo”
Concierge service for Electrification – Peninsula Clean Energy has created a “Concierge Service” for electric vehicles and electric home upgrades, available to everyone
Equity for renters – San Mateo community-based organizations are directly involved in helping renters within the City of San Mateo
More Equity for renters – PCE has active rebate programs focused on renters.
Equity for homeowners – Free electric appliances are now provided by PCE for income qualified homeowners
Clean energy at rates lower than PG&E – Peninsula Clean Energy has provided $22.8 million in savings for residents and businesses within the City of San Mateo
Reduced GHG – San Mateo residents and businesses have signed on to electricity from PCE, which has reduced emissions from electricity by 98% in just 10 years.
Significant rebates are available to all for EVs, EBikes, water heaters, heating/cooling and other components.
Many local community-based organizations are aligned in this important effort. For example, we have learned that along with San Mateo Climate Action Team and 350 Silicon Valley, so many other organizations are working towards successful implementation of sustainable building strategies: One San Mateo, El Concilio, Climate Resilient Communities, Sustainable San Mateo County, Indivisible San Mateo, Peninsula Interfaith Climate Action, Sierra Club, Citizens Climate Lobby, and Physicians for Social Responsibility, just to name a few.
Many thanks for all you are doing.
Michelle Hudson and Robert Whitehair, Co Leaders
San Mateo Climate Action Team and 350 Silicon Valley San Mateo City Team From: Ricki McGlashan
To: Senior Commission Mailbox; Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission; City Council (San Mateo); Community Relations Commission
Subject: Electrify San Mateo
Date: Monday, May 12, 2025 5:16:55 PM
I totally support any measures our city can take to encourage or require all electric houses. We shut off our gas line 18 months ago and have been so pleased. San Mateo has become notable in my mind for being at the forefront of issues that can make our lives better in the long run. This is a huge area where you can get in front and stay in front of the pack.
Ricki and Doug McGlashan
San Mateo
From: Gary Trott 2
To: Senior Commission Mailbox; Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission; Community Relations Commission; City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: "Gary Trott"
Subject: Decarbonization Study - public input
Date: Sunday, May 11, 2025 9:58:28 PM
Dear San Mateo City commissioners and boards
Re: Decarbonization Study agenda item
Across the next days, all of you will be hearing from the Electrify San Mateo project team about the findings from the Decarbonization Study. Unfortunately, I am not able to attend the commission meetings. Nevertheless, I strongly support all five of the decarbonization proposals contained within the decarbonization report. The five options under consideration are shown below.
As a home owner, and resident of San Mateo City, I am three quarters the way through the process of electrifying my whole home. I am changing the appliance energy source from natural gas to all electric versions. I am doing this across a span of four years to maximize the federal tax credits.
So I
know in-depth about all of the implementation challenges. Including specific details associated with my house, and listening to home owners at various climate related events about their experiences.
There are many points of contention. People make poor choices. Contractors try to maximize their revenue instead of helping their clients.
And the rebate application processes are adding
burdensome overhead in Time-Of-Use reporting requirements. Only by providing information resources, and best practices, to be shared with citizens can the best implementations with a reduction in non-traditional, installation problems be achieved.
Time is of the essence to begin implementation of the methods described in the report. Day -- by – Day we collectively are putting more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The climate disasters that scroll across our TV screens from stronger hurricanes, stronger tornadoes, large temperature swings, wildfires and more will continue to worsen across the next decades.
Acting
today, by taking positive steps to reduce San Mateo City greenhouse gas emissions, will be a positive step towards reducing the future climate hazards, rebuilding costs, and the health and safety of all San Mateo residents.
Act now to get the electrification converstion process started as soon as possible.
Regards
Dr. Gary Trott
Homeowner
1 Business as usual: City should continue with adopting reach codes for new construction and focus on outreach
and incentives.
2. Reach codes for renovations: This approach would include the evaluation of additional reach codes to
encourage and/or require electrification during renovations.
3. Require electric equipment upon replacement ahead of BAAD Zero NOx requirements:
4. Building Performance Standards for commercial buildings: This pathway would establish a new set of policy
standards for commercial buildings aimed at increasing energy efficiency, and eventually, electrifying commercial buildings as a phased approach.
5. Electric first policy for City facilities: This policy establishes a mechanism for local government renovations to
go electric first.
From: t3e lolz
To: Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission
Subject: comments on Electrification and PG&E
Date: Friday, May 9, 2025 6:21:26 PM
If we are to electrify San Mateo, then we first need to get our electricity rates down. PG&E's electricity rates keep going up and up, while the rates for natural gas are relatively stable.
Until either PG&E suffers some accountability or San Mateo starts it's own utility (similar to Santa Clara and Alameda) then it makes no financial sense to electrify our homes.
Please do
not force electrification upon us until you get our electricity rates under control.
Thanks,
Garrett
From: Connie Schram
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: Gas stove
Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 4:04:10 PM
Dear Andrea Chow, I really enjoy cooking with my gas stove. Where do you plan to get all this electricity? And how will the electricity be generated? I have lived in homes with electric stove tops and I hate them. How do you expect me to pay for converting a furnace, clothes dryer, water heater, oven and stove top in my home? And then pay for that electricity!
Sent from my iPad
From: Maureen Galindo
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: Electrify San Mateo
Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 3:20:08 PM
Dear Andrea,
In response to your email regarding switching from gas to electric equipment, I am not in favor of this action. When I have incurred the loss of power at my home (which has been happening more frequently) I am happy to have a gas stove in order to prepare breakfast/dinner. We also have a restaurant business and the ability to prepare orders on an electric appliance on a busy night would be next to impossible.
I believe the city should provide the pros and cons of switching over to electric appliances, then let the people decide whether to move in that
direction. Forcing the people to switch to
electricity is not in the best interests of the citizenry of San Mateo.
Regards,
Maureen Galindo
From:
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: Re: Reminder: Electrify San Mateo: Upcoming Community Meetings Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 2:10:42 PM
Attachments: image003.png
Hi Andrea,
Thank you for the reminder. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the meeting. I would like to provide a comment. The City currently has a $5 million deficit. Next year the deficit
balloons to $15 million. In light of this dire situation, I think the city should look carefully at all line-item expenditures. Climate resiliency is one area where the city could postpone expenditures. At 0.10 to 0.12 inches sea level rise per year, we have some time. Let's
postpone significant expenditures for at least 2 years.
Thank you,
Laurie Hietter
On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 2:00 PM Andrea Chow
<[email protected] > wrote:
Reminder! Upcoming community meetings for Electrify San Mateo:
May 14: Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission
May 21: Community Relations Commission
We invite you to share your feedback and shape the Electrify San Mateo: Sustainable Building Strategy. Community feedback will be shared with City Council tentatively scheduled for June 16, 2025. Please see the
Public Meeting Portal for meeting agenda and
information posted roughly one week before the Commission meetings.
Andrea
Andrea Chow
Sustainability Analyst
City Manager’s Office
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7007 | [email protected]
From: Andrea Chow
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2025 2:14 PM
Subject: Electrify San Mateo: Three Upcoming Community Meetings
Hello,
Switching from natural gas to carbon-free electric equipment in our homes and buildings is critical to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in our community. Gas appliances release air pollutants and studies have shown that exposure to these pollutants pose significant health risks. In addition to advancing our climate goals, electrification eliminates these risks and can provide a safer and healthier environment.
The Electrify San Mateo
project team will present existing building electrification policy pathways at three upcoming City Commission meetings:
May 12: Senior Advisory Commission
May 14: Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission
May 21: Community Relations Commission
We invite you to share your feedback and shape the Electrify San Mateo: Sustainable Building Strategy. Community feedback will be shared with City Council tentatively scheduled for June 2025. Please see the
Public Meeting Portal for meeting agenda and
information posted roughly one week before the Commission meetings.
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. --
Laurie
From: wendy woodard
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: Electric Conversion
Date: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 10:16:04 AM
I am not in favor of moving up a deadline that surpasses state law and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Wendy Woodard
From: Dino Martins
To: Andrea Chow; City Council (San Mateo); [email protected]; Clerk Subject: Electrify San Mateo - , San Mateo
Date: Monday, April 28, 2025 2:40:17 PM
Hello Andrea,
I just received your email pertaining to the upcoming meetings/discussions regarding the "Electrify San Mateo" initiative.
Unfortunately I am going out of town in May during the dates that you listed when the public discussions are taking place.
I just went through the process of getting my service upgraded to accommodate
some enhancements that we made to the property and to
be prepared for the upcoming requirement of switching over from natural gas to electricity. The process was a disaster and took almost one year to get completed. While the main issues were with PG&E the City of San Mateo also contributed to the delays.
There is WAY TOO MUCH RED TAPE in the current process. In our case this lead to costly delays and much frustration to my wife and I.
I would be happy to share my thoughts with you, should you or someone else want to reach out to discuss in detail.
I hope to hear back from someone.
My mobile number is: .
Warm regards,
Gualdino "Dino" Martins
, San Mateo, CA 94402
From: Ines Malardino
To: Alex Khojikian; Andrea Chow
Subject: No on decarbonization pls
Date: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 12:01:08 PM
Hello…
The proposed plan to begin the decarbonization of existing homes, commercial, and retail buildings
is so unacceptable for so many reasons. Please do not assist on this?
Ines Malardino
From: William Williams
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: Electrification
Date: Friday, February 21, 2025 10:55:25 AM
Please take into consideration the cost of modifying small existing structures.
The power grid does not have sufficient capacity to provide for "all-electric." Higher electric rates add a forever escalating cost on top of modification costs.
The best solution is to have everyone consume less energy instead of increasing electricity demand.
X Bill Williams, San Mateo
Sent from Outlook