There may be no more natural gas in the future for the 40 million residents of California’s government. In this movement to reduce environmental emissions, the Silicon Valley region is once again leading the way in California’s new energy boom. But within California, which is the state that most promotes environmental protection, there is also a great deal of opposition to banning natural gas, especially from low-income groups.
In order to actively address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the California government is leading the way in the United States, promoting a green war of new energy against traditional energy sources. Natural gas has become a major environmental target for the state of California. Governments at all levels, from state to local, have been enacting policies to restrict the use of natural gas and plan to ban it completely in the future in the world’s fifth largest economy.
The California Energy Commission, the state’s energy policy and planning agency, is currently seeking comments on new regulations that would ban the use of natural gas in new homes across the state next year. At that Time, residents of new homes in California will switch to electricity for heating and hot water (existing homes with natural gas lines will be gradually electrified); California will also become the first state in the nation to publicly say goodbye to natural gas.
The California Energy Commission updates its energy use regulations every three years. The current version of the policy was enacted in 2019 and will take effect in 2020. This means that if the California Energy Commission bans natural gas use next year, it will be in effect in 2023.
However, environmental groups are not satisfied with the pace of action by the state of California. They would prefer a ban on natural gas in new construction or even the elimination of existing natural gas pipelines as soon as possible. In an emailed statement to Sina Technology, environmental group Earthjustice said, “We don’t have time to wait another three years, (the California government) must comply with environmental demands.”
SierraClub, an environmental group with great influence in California politics and business, wants to start by pushing local governments to change. They are calling on the public to put pressure on various local government legislators to ban new construction from tapping into natural gas pipelines, leading to a natural gas-free California future. tesla CEO Musk is also a major supporter of SierraClub.
Silicon Valley carries the environmental flag
The California government has its own concerns. They are considering whether to set up a transition period with numerous incentives to encourage housing developers and residents to switch to electricity, followed by a mandatory ban. California Energy Commissioner McAllister (AndrewMcAllister) said in a statement, “We are already accelerating the pace (of natural gas to electricity), and plan to accelerate the pace of use of electric heaters through incentives. We need to give the market reason to accept (natural gas to electric) before we implement mandates.”
To date, more than 50 cities of all sizes in California have enacted new regulations that prohibit or restrict new homes from being connected to natural gas lines and have policies in place to phase out natural gas in steps. Once again, Silicon Valley is at the forefront of the movement to phase out natural gas in California. The vast majority of these 50+ cities are located in the San Francisco Bay Area. From San Francisco to Oakland to Berkeley to San Jose, many cities have introduced new regulations for electrification of new homes in the past two years.
Last December, the San Jose City Council announced a ban on natural gas in new construction, making it the largest city in the U.S. to restrict its use (yes, at 1 million people, San Jose is already the tenth largest city in the U.S.). In contrast, Southern California doesn’t seem too enthusiastic on this front, with only two small cities in all of southern California, Santa Monica and Carlsbad, making energy efficiency restrictions on natural gas use.
In the view of the California Building Industry Association, the deadline for banning natural gas in California is likely to be 2026, and sooner or later the state will require all homes, whether new or current, to be electrified. Four-fifths of California homes are built by the association’s member companies.
Ten percent of greenhouse gas emissions
Why would the California government want to get in trouble with natural gas and ban it under the banner of fighting climate change? Although natural gas has much lower carbon emissions than coal, it is still a traditional fossil energy source compared to new energy sources, and brings a lot of carbon dioxide emissions.
Sina Technology saw on the official website of the U.S. Energy Protection Agency (EPA), the 2018 official statistics on greenhouse gas emissions show that 28% of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the U.S. currently come from transportation (vehicles, ships, aircraft, 90% of which come from gasoline and diesel), 27% of GHG come from power generation (63% of which come from coal and natural gas power), 22% from from industry, and 12% from commercial buildings and residences (energy mainly from natural gas). Overall, 28% of U.S. GHG emissions come from natural gas.
According to the California Air ResourcesBoard, about 10 percent of California’s greenhouse gas emissions come from natural gas in buildings. CARB believes that California will become a flagship for a new energy transition in the United States that will help protect public health, improve indoor and outdoor air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and move California toward its goal of carbon neutrality.
CARB is an agency created by the State of California in 1967 to combat air pollution. At that time, due to the serious light smog pollution in the Los Angeles area (the word Smog is from California), the California government was determined to combat air pollution, and then California Governor Ronald Reagan (later the President of the United States) signed a bill to set up CARB, responsible for improving exhaust emission standards and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Over the past half-century, California has been a leader in U.S. environmental emissions reduction policies, regardless of state government turnover.
In addition to California, a number of other major cities under Democratic rule have also issued regulations related to restricting the use of natural gas. Seattle announced last year that all new government buildings would no longer be connected to natural gas, and promised to release plans this year to electrify all government buildings. Chicago announced a complete shift to clean, renewable energy and electrification of all buildings between 2035. New York City Mayor BilldeBlasio also released the 80×50 Plan, which plans to cut the scale of greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050, and electrification of buildings is a key component of that.
California’s environmental resolve
Back in 2017 under the Trump administration, California passed a law that planned to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2030 and achieve an 80 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050.In 2018, California again enacted a bill that plans to achieve 60 percent of its energy supply from clean energy by 2030 and complete cleanliness by 2045 energy. Both bills identified natural gas as a major target for emissions reductions.
The severe mountain fires have put additional pressure on the state of California. Due to climate change, forest maintenance, human negligence and many other reasons, California’s mountain fires have been trending toward increasingly severe outbreaks in recent years, with a record number of outbreaks and fire areas. Last year, the California fires burned a total of 4 million acres (about 1.169 million hectares) of land, which not only brought tragic economic losses, but also caused serious pollution to the California air.
In order to deal with climate change, the California government is already fully committed. In the California government’s fiscal year 2021-22 budget, there is $1.5 billion to invest in new energy vehicles, committed to achieving the goal of banning the sale of new vehicles with internal combustion engines by 2035. This budget investment is even higher than the budget for supporting small businesses ($1.1 billion) and creating jobs ($780 million).
Not only does the state of California impose additional fuel taxes, but gasoline quality standards are also much higher than the U.S. federal standards, which has resulted in gasoline prices in California being one-third higher than the national level in the U.S. AAA’s website shows that the current national average gasoline price in the U.S. is $2.456 per gallon, while in California it is $3.438 per gallon. High gas prices and EV subsidies are also the main reasons why California residents are so enthusiastic about buying electric vehicles.
North and South California have very different attitudes
On the issue of whether to ban natural gas, Southern California and the San Francisco Bay Area show completely different attitudes. PG&E, a natural gas company in the San Francisco Bay Area, has declared itself supportive of local governments’ policies to promote full electrification of new buildings, and will avoid investing in natural gas in the future, working with local governments to achieve long-term carbon neutrality goals.
PG&E primarily serves 5 million people in the Northern California region. PG&E was forced to file for bankruptcy under pressure of high claims lawsuits due to numerous hill fires caused by aging transmission lines, and was only able to reach a debt agreement and reorganize in bankruptcy under the protection of the State of California. Reducing natural gas operations to boost electricity supply actually helped PG&E’s profit margins.
Not everyone supported the policy of restricting natural gas. Southern CaliforniaGas, which is responsible for the Southern California region, was reluctant to accept restrictions. They chose to oppose the natural gas restrictions by suing the California Energy Commission, arguing that the policies of various local governments to restrict natural gas were based on the California Energy Commission’s 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report, which made negative determinations about natural gas. Southern California Gas Company is the largest utility in the United States based on revenue.
The California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition also announced a lawsuit against CARB’s truck emissions policy, which requires all medium- and heavy-duty truck manufacturers to sell an increasing percentage of zero-emission trucks in California starting in 2024. The California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition alleges that this requirement will result in the construction of extensive infrastructure related to hydrogen refueling and charging stations, which will have a significant short-term impact on the environment.
No concern for low-income people
However, California also has many controversial issues regarding natural gas. Natural gas is currently used in 86 percent of California homes, primarily for gas stoves, water heaters, dryers and heating stoves, among other uses. A ban on natural gas would result in a dramatic increase in residential electricity use, which would not only place a significant burden on California’s weak electric system, but could also result in a significant increase in energy costs for residents from an energy efficiency standpoint.
For low-income areas and groups, banning natural gas would lead to high electricity bills, making their lives more difficult. Even Democratic Congressman Jim Cooper (D-CA) has joined Rubio (R-CA) in publicly accusing environmental groups of not caring about the needs of low- and moderate-income people. While Democrats advocate for the environment, their districts are Home to a large number of low-income families and legislators must represent the will of their constituents.
Californians who oppose the gas ban have even accused the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which is responsible for natural gas policy, and the Sierra Club, an environmental group, of having a stake in it. Last year the CPUC and the Sierra Club signed a common interest agreement to investigate whether Southern California Gas Company was improperly promoting the use of natural gas and impeding energy efficiency, and the CPUC ultimately asked the state of California to fine Southern California Gas Company $255 million.
To add insult to injury, the CPUC just last December approved PG&E in Northern California to raise electricity prices by 8.1 percent, which equates to an additional $13.44 per household per month. Low-income people believe that banning natural gas will inevitably lead to a spike in electricity use, which will only benefit PG&E in terms of increased revenue. And California’s electricity prices (which averaged $0.19 per kilowatt-hour last year, with a tiered rate in place) were already 47 percent higher than the U.S. average.
The state of California was originally facing numerous lawsuits over the ban on natural gas. In addition to Southern California Gas Company, The TwoHundred, a Southern California Latino constituency, and the California RestaurantAssociation have announced a lawsuit against the state of California, taking a clear stand against the gas ban. A gas ban would make things more difficult for low-income families and for California’s restaurant industry, which was hit hard during the Epidemic.
Overwhelming the Electric System
In addition, an outright ban on natural gas could also overwhelm California’s weak electrical system. A study by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Environment and Sustainability shows that housing electrification could exacerbate California’s peak electricity load and increase energy costs for households. And a complete ban on natural gas may only have a limited impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite being the most economically advanced region in the United States and even ranking as the fifth largest economy in the world, it is no exaggeration to say that California’s electricity system is as weak as that of a developing country. Due to aging transmission lines in disrepair, California experiences major and minor power outages every year, leaving thousands of families dependent on small generators to meet their electricity needs.
In the mountain fire season, California power companies will also be in severe weather when the early blackout, in order to avoid storms blowing down wooden power poles triggered by the tragedy of the fire again. In early September last year, for example, PG&E shut down power early before high winds hit, directly causing 172,000 homes in 22 counties to lose power. In addition, California has never been free of power shortages.
Last week the San Francisco Bay Area was baptized by a storm that saw the collapse of the famous BigSur on Highway 1 once again, and widespread power outages for Bay Area residents. Waking up one morning without a coffee maker, microwave and toaster, our Family was still able to make water for tea and breakfast on the gas stove, and the house was still heated. If there is no more natural gas in the future, will California’s weak electrical system really be able to carry the energy needs of 40 million residents in the future?
Recent Comments