CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE—
2023–2024 REGULAR SESSION
Assembly Concurrent Resolution
No. 175
Introduced by Assembly Member Essayli
|
April 10, 2024 |
Relative to electricity.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
ACR 175, as introduced, Essayli.
State energy policies: implications for the state.
This measure would urge that priority be given to developing state energy policies that would support the implementation of a Plan B approach so that California residents and businesses will not be asked to bear the full cost of the zero-carbon aspirational goals with the full knowledge that, as a practical matter, those goals cannot be met within the timeline proposed.
Digest Key
Fiscal Committee:
NO WHEREAS, Current state policy to convert the entire residential housing sector of California to 100 percent reliance on electricity in an effort to reach the goal of zero-carbon emissions faces enormous financial and political challenges to providing electricity to the 11,000,000 current gas customers; and
WHEREAS, The initially successful effort to ban gas from all new construction at the city level will inevitably face legal challenges in the courts, infrastructure constraints, and consumer opposition; and
WHEREAS, The movement toward total electrification of residential and commercial consumers ignores the broader societal risk of further diminished energy reliability and resilience, the increased financial burden on low-income populations based on rising electricity cost, and the issue of the lack of affordable basic housing for the citizens of California; and
WHEREAS, In California, the cost of electricity measured in British thermal units (Btu) is three to four times the cost of a Btu of electricity generated from natural gas, and even modern heat pump technology for space and water heating cannot eliminate the difference in cost; and
WHEREAS, The capital costs associated with eliminating the use of natural gas in existing residences and commercial buildings are staggering. A recent report found that electrifying the entire nation, with a goal of eliminating the direct consumption of fuel gas and reducing climate change emissions, would cost between $18 trillion and $29 trillion; and
WHEREAS, The recent actions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the banning of natural gas in the City of Berkeley and, by extension, all over California, remind everyone that the current California pathway to a zero-carbon economy cannot be done in isolation from national energy policies, such as the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Public Law 94-163); and
WHEREAS, It is time to consider an alternative pathway that addresses the need to significantly reduce the level of carbon consumption and emissions, while also recognizing that an “all-of-the-above” multipathway energy solution approach will provide the consumer with fuel choices that are not available with complete electrification; and
WHEREAS, An alternative proposal (“Plan B”) could be pursued in concert with electrification and focus on the most problematic portion of this economic and political dilemma by offering a pragmatic, economically affordable, and technically achievable transition to a lower carbon, but not zero-carbon, level for those consumers who cannot afford, or will not voluntarily convert to, all-electric-homes; and
WHEREAS, The Plan B alternative proposal would include some or all of the following five elements:
(1) Reducing gas consumption by replacing appliances with high-efficiency condensing models.
(2) Reducing gas consumption and environmental emissions by means of the injection and combustion of renewable natural gas or hydrogen blended fuels.
(3) Reducing gas consumption by improvements to building envelopes.
(4) Using the internet to improve home or building automation, fuel optimization, and consumer safety through technology integration in the home or building.
(5) Eliminating fugitive gas emissions from interior house piping with advanced flexible piping and improving physical resiliency; and
WHEREAS, These five elements can be integrated into existing homes either individually over time or by combining multiple options at far less expense and disruption to the homeowner and the existing service providers, though it is not necessary to combine all five elements in order to achieve a significant reduction in carbon consumption; and
WHEREAS, Plan B is meant to work with electrification and to identify and use the most cost-effective approach available to the homeowners, depending on location, financial circumstances, available public and private incentives, and access to the lowest cost energy source; and
WHEREAS, By working together to meet green building standards and related regulatory requirements, Plan B is an effective way to demonstrate that there is an alternative to the “one-size-fits-all” electrification approach currently proposed by the state; and
WHEREAS, Until there is, at the very least, a national energy policy that is implemented in every state, the reduction of carbon is a global problem that will require global compliance. It is hard to imagine that every citizen of California will be asked to bear the full cost of aspiring to that goal with the full knowledge that the State of California will not meet the goal alone; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate thereof concurring, That the Legislature urge that priority be given to developing state energy policies that would support the implementation of a Plan B approach so that California residents and businesses will not be asked to bear the full cost of the zero-carbon aspirational goals with the full knowledge that, as a practical matter, those goals cannot be met within the timeline proposed; and be it further
Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.