Members of the City Council,
Upon brief review of the Climate Action Plan proposal for the council meeting this evening I would like to offer the following comments.
Do greenhouse gas emissions from residential buildings in Menlo Park pose a threat that needs to be mitigated by some new ordinance?
I would like to begin by stating my own calculation resulted in the number of 0.0043% of worldwide greenhouse emission come from homes in Menlo Park. How did I get to this number… after reviewing online a series of Environmental Protection Agency graphs on the source of worldwide emissions of greenhouse gas. The graphs showed that buildings worldwide were responsible for 6% of the emissions and that the United States was responsible for 15% of greenhouse emissions. 6% of 15% suggests that buildings in the United States may be responsible for 0.9% of emissions worldwide. Next, the number of single family homes in the US by one online site was 213.3 million and 38 million multifamily units for a total of 251.3 million units. Add to that 5.9 million, the number of commercial buildings in the US for a total of 257.2 million buildings in the US. From the Menlo Park census it appears that there there are 12,347 households in Menlo Park. Assuming that each household lives in a single family dwelling, or multi-family dwelling. This suggests to me that Menlo Park housing units represent 0.0048% of the total number of buildings in the United States (12,347 divided by 257.2 million). Then multiply that number (0.0048%) times the 0.9% of green house emissions that are attributable to buildings in the United States and we get the number 0.0043% of the world greenhouse gas emission that seem to be the result of greenhouse gas emissions from homes/dwellings in Menlo Park. Folks, that’s next to nothing, and you in the City Council and Environmental Quality Commission believe that the proposed conversion scenario discussed this evening is going to effect global warming worldwide, and in particular, sea water rise in San Francisco Bay?
What might be the best approach to get homeowners to convert gas appliances to electric?
In reading the documents it appears that the goal of the city is to penalize the owners of gas appliances in order to coerce them in making the change from those appliances to electric appliances. I think a better approach is to allow choice (i.e. no new regulation) and perhaps create programs that incentivize or reward property owners to make the change. It seems to me that the benefit of the conversion is to the city as a whole, thus shouldn’t the city be responsible for those costs?
Why diversity in home energy is important.
It is well known and understood that the electric grid in California is insufficient in providing continuous uninterrupted electric energy. It is simply a fact and we continue to have occasional regional blackouts. This means that diversity of energy sources for homes and businesses is important. The only argument presented in the CAP documents is that solar panels and battery backup will deal with the interruption problem of all electric homes, but at a significant added cost.
A puzzling statement and question.
The staff report of the Environmental Quality Commission states “Converting 95% of existing buildings from using natural gas to electric equipment is a top priority for the City Council as identified in their 2021 work plan”. Can someone tell me the make up of the remaining 5% of buildings that will not be the subject of the proposed natural gas to electric conversion ordinance?
Utility costs after conversion.
From the staff report supporting documents, “After reviewing the TRC draft report, we conclude that even using worst case assumptions, for the sum of $23‐$36 per household per month, city residents can convert their aging gas water heaters and furnaces to clean all‐electric heat pumps and help eliminate approximately 41% of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).” This means that after the expense of conversion, which is significant, a homeowner can expect to see his energy bills increase $276 - $432 per year in today’s dollars. If you are retired or low or fixed income household this becomes a significant issue.
Can owners of existing homes be required to convert gas appliances to electric?
There is an old concept in the building code, that of “Grandfathering”. When something is built to “code” it remains legal even when that provision in the code is changed and the item or construct is no longer code compliant. I see no reason why this principle would not continue. This tells me that requiring new homes to be all electric is at the discretion of City Council, but requiring older homes that were code compliant at the time of construction are off-limits to any new regulation.
Possibility of the termination of gas distribution in Menlo Park.
I am seeing in the staff report supporting documents the discussion of possibly eliminating natural gas transmission and distribution in the City of Menlo Park at some time in the future. If it were to occur I think that the City might become a defendant in major class action litigation.
The timeliness of the staff report and its distribution to the public.
As stated in the staff report “A working draft report was provided to the commission in July that was prepared by TRC and DNV under the direction of city staff. Staff and the commission reviewed the report concurrently.” The staff report and consultant documents are127 pages long and I was made aware of them less than 72 hours before the council meeting. It is not reasonable to expect the residents of this city to review and make comments on those documents in such a limited time. Therefore I request the meeting on this item be continued to a future meeting.
Finally
There is the reasoning presented in supporting documents that since other bay area cities are creating ordinances to stem natural gas use in buildings, we should do the same. This logic is more closely aligned with the old and embarrassing adage, “Monkey see, monkey do”. You need to determine if there is really a need for these conversions and as I stated in the first paragraph, I think the need is severely lacking.
When does common sense come into play?
Respectfully,
Michael Lambert
Menlo Park resident and homeowner
