Final Vote on Adopting the All-Electric REACH code Is Next Tuesday, November 19th

Final Vote on Adopting the All-Electric REACH code Is Next Tuesday, November 19th

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...5_10-02-52.png

As many of you have learned through reporting and the grapevine, the City of Santa Rosa voted to hold the second reading and vote on an Electric REACH code for new construction. This final vote will take place this coming Tuesday, November 19th in the city council chambers at 100 Santa Rosa Ave. The vote will come after 5pm. since this will be item #15.2 on the agenda. It is conceivable the vote may occur even into the dinner hour.

This REACH code will effectively ban natural gas in new homes and multi-family buildings of 4 stories or less. The code will not apply to current victims of the 2017 fires.

This vote is important because it is the first serious policy to address the climate crisis locally. It is a step that can be built upon so we must make sure the council completes the task. Your attendance in person is so valuable because the council responds to a crowded chamber.

Here is a sample letter that one could email to: [email protected]
or send to 100 Santa Rosa Ave., Santa Rosa, Ca. 95404:

Dear Council members,
I’m writing to express my gratitude for your taking the initial step to approve the Electric REACH Code ordinance for new construction in Santa Rosa. Please vote 'yes' on Tuesday in order to finalize this measure that takes direct action against the climate crisis.

Respectfully, YOUR NAME. YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION.

Important Updates:

1) The Climate Action Sub-committee (CAS) has postponed this Monday's November 18th meeting. Future meeting To Be Determined.

2) The December 3rd study session on whether the City of SR should 'opt up' some or many of its energy accounts to Sonoma Clean Power's Evergreen program has been postponed until the January 28th, 2020 city council meeting.

Again, many thanks for your participation with the city council.
newnormal

This is a perfect example of why I am making my exit plan from CA...

What does this actually accomplish? A very small reduction in emissions, while removing the cheapest (and many of the cooks here would agree- best) source of energy from a market that is already unfriendly to anyone but the wealthy.

And let's see... even if you go with "Sonoma Clean Power" 42% of your power is going from major hydroelectric dams and all the baggage that comes with that- including destruction of salmon and other native fish. Almost 23% comes from wind which has multiple issues- from the use of rare earth minerals to bird kills to the placement of major transmission lines in high wind and fire prone areas... I think we are all beginning to understand that reality. Another 18% or so from geo-thermal - which has it's own issues (it appears to have been a transmission line from there that started this last fire, and, just as with fracking- earthquakes are a common reality- there was one just at the end of the fires.

Was it NASA that just recently flew CA looking at Methane emissions... our landfills and dairy farms were staggering culprits.

But I guess this is CA. Passing a feel good ban that most people won't even realize is a hell of a lot easier then confronting the hard issues and doing something bloody meaningful.

A Third of California Methane Traced to a Few Super-Emitters

Let's ban stoves, but leave those monopolized (I mean... government contracted) trash services alone!

Preceding comments have raised valid points. AOC was correct, we need to eliminate cow farts. Harris Ranch must be shut down. Convenience and low cost be damned, the switch to electric heating and cooking is a must.
Switching to all electric all the time might be painful, but it’s a matter of saving the planet. I’m willing to go EV and damn the expense. We must petition PG&E to upgrade and increase clean electric production to supply our ovens, cars and etc.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by cyberanvil:

... AOC was correct, we need to eliminate cow farts. Harris Ranch must be shut down. Convenience and low cost be damned, the switch to electric heating and cooking is a must. ...

---

Cows don't fart methane, they burp it. They also don't produce much without grain involved (I.E pastured cows aren't the problem). Laws would be to blame for the long transportation involved in production.

I'm unsure how PG&E increasing energy output to reduce stove use is a worthwhile trade. Consolidating energy sources is not a big gain, it's just NIMBY. Why we want to rely more on PG&E is an entirely different matter, but valid.
It's not like we're burning unrefined fuels or cow patties like developing countries.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by cyberanvil:

Preceding comments have raised valid points. AOC was correct, we need to eliminate cow farts. Harris Ranch must be shut down. Convenience and low cost be damned, the switch to electric heating and cooking is a must.
Switching to all electric all the time might be painful, but it’s a matter of saving the planet. I’m willing to go EV and damn the expense. We must petition PG&E to upgrade and increase clean electric production to supply our ovens, cars and etc.

---

sarcasm/irony works better if the propositions are outrageous on the face of them. Yours are only slight exaggerations of what's kind of true.

Hi folks,

I urge you to support the reach code for Santa Rosa this Tuesday, Nov. 19.

Also ask any young people you know - particularly who helped organize the big Climate Strike on Sept. 20 to support.

Note that as fossil fuel extraction often impacts low-income communities/ communities of color the most, this is absolutely a social justice issue.

Someone emailed me asking why we need to go all-electric. The quick explanation is that methane is the main component in natural gas. Methane is more than 80 TIMES more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Our existing natural gas infrastructure already leaks lots of methane. We shouldn't be adding any new fossil fuel infrastructure.

Natural gas extraction (fracking) releases a lot of methane, again which is more than 80 times more potent at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. Fossil fuel extraction including natural gas often happens in low-income neighborhoods, and releases hazardous toxins, often right next to residences and SCHOOLS.

Here's a 24 minute documentary about fracking in CA. It's called:

Dear Governor Brown

https://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/dear-governor-brown

Gas rates are going to go up - to upgrade aging gas infrastructure. Fracking is very expensive. That cost will be passed on to the consumer. The cost of renewable energy on the other hand will continue to drop. All-electric buildings are actually more cost-effective these days. Converting to all-electric is a great investment for one's future - especially once you retire and are living on a fixed income.

For health, climate & equity reasons, it’s important that we stop building new fossil fuel gas infrastructure and instead use clean energy.

We can’t dither and delay this ban on natural gas in new buildings, much as fossil fuel companies might want to continue to make lots of money off of us - instead of investing in clean energy.

Our aging gas infrastructure is leaking methane. Last summer, a study found that U.S. oil and gas operations are leaking 60 percent more methane than the EPA had previously calculated. We cannot be adding more fossil fuel infrastructure. We are running out of time. If we don't reduce and REMOVE carbon in the atmosphere, these fires, drought, food insecurity, homelessness and many other problems are just going to get worse.

Fossil fuels are killing us, killing the planet. The City of Santa Rosa has the chance to speed us along to a clean energy future, and away from fossil fuels. Where cities lead, the State of California often follows. The City of Santa Rosa could help set the standard for the state. Which in turn will inspire other cities and states across the nation and across the globe.
_________

Here is an article which helps people to understand the advances in electrical appliance technology. Most people my age or older (including myself) have really loathed all-electric kitchens for decades. But the technology has vastly improved (see the 3 short videos on this page):

Additionally, heat pump technology has also greatly improved efficiency for both heating and cooling (air conditioning), and saves money on utility bills for years to come, as renewable energy costs diminish over time.

As Bill McKibben says, "Given the magnitude of the task, everyone has to step up their game."
_____________

Share event on Facebook/social media:

https://www.facebook.com/events/719279348555766/

Share this WaccoBB.net announcement (if you are not on Facebook):

Thank you!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 350kitty:

Giant block of hard to read blue text trying to look important

---

So... you're trying to help these "low-income communities" that are effected by the extraction of fuel.... by eliminating their jobs?

The REACH code, is not going to stop lessen, or even mildly effect the production of Natural Gas (which methane is a BY-PRODUCT of).

Instead you advocate going all electric without acknowledging that the act of conversion is itself a negative impact on the environment. You're advocating people THROW AWAY established products, and buy new products for what is a minuscule effect.

I respectfully disagree with a mandatory switch to all-electric, especially after the last round of power outages. Anyone with an all electric-household could neither bathe nor cook for several days. Additionally, electric power does not consistently come from climate-friendly sources. Until that is the norm, this process will only be costly, inconvenient, and ineffective in addressing the very important issue of climate change.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by american dream:

I respectfully disagree with a mandatory switch to all-electric, especially after the last round of power outages. Anyone with an all electric-household could neither bathe nor cook for several days. Additionally, electric power does not consistently come from climate-friendly sources. Until that is the norm, this process will only be costly, inconvenient, and ineffective in addressing the very important issue of climate change.

---

I tend to agree with you as a practical matter. I look at this like I look at the MFA fight, though. I don't believe it's going to happen all that soon, but it really should. So people may as well start fighting for it now. And if I'm wrong about either, and the change happens sooner than I expect, it'll be a pleasant surprise and we can deal with any unforeseen consequences. Those won't be worse than the side effects of the current systems that we blindly live with as 'normal' today.

So what would be your choice for our energy source?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by SonomaPatientsCoop:

...even if you go with "Sonoma Clean Power" 42% of your power is going from major hydroelectric dams ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by occihoff:

So what would be your choice for our energy source?

---

We need to develop and install Zero Point Energy modules. ASAP.
So what would your choice be?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by cyberanvil:

We need to develop and install Zero Point Energy modules. ASAP.
So what would your choice be?

---

Certainly not doubling down on a utility who fails to provide the service, and refuses to accept the consequences for their actions. Certainly not relying on a source that is so dramatically affected by the weather, costing BILLIONS to the ratepayers...while nothing gets done about securing the source. I'm out of the danger zone, and will be leaving the state soon, so will no longer care.