CRAPPIFORNIA DOES IT AGAIN! California proposes to steer new homes from gas appliances

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

California proposes to steer new homes from gas appliances

 

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California’s energy policy and planning agency wants to transition new homes away from gas-powered appliances.

The California Energy Commission released a draft building standards code on Thursday that would require new homes to be equipped with circuits and panels that support all-electric appliances for heating, cooking and drying clothes.

The commission is set to adopt the updated code in August, and it would take effect on Jan. 1, 2023, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

 

While the code doesn’t explicitly forbid gas, the commission hopes it will lead builders to construct all-electric structures as part of a growing effort to eliminate fossil fuels from buildings, which account for about one-quarter of the state’s annual greenhouse gas emissions.

"We’re encouraging the technologies of the future,” energy commissioner Andrew McAllister said.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

9 hours ago, ceo_energemsier said:

California proposes to steer new homes from gas appliances

 

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California’s energy policy and planning agency wants to transition new homes away from gas-powered appliances.

The California Energy Commission released a draft building standards code on Thursday that would require new homes to be equipped with circuits and panels that support all-electric appliances for heating, cooking and drying clothes.

The commission is set to adopt the updated code in August, and it would take effect on Jan. 1, 2023, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

 

While the code doesn’t explicitly forbid gas, the commission hopes it will lead builders to construct all-electric structures as part of a growing effort to eliminate fossil fuels from buildings, which account for about one-quarter of the state’s annual greenhouse gas emissions.

"We’re encouraging the technologies of the future,” energy commissioner Andrew McAllister said.

To be fair, that's less regulation than I expected from CA. Home panels are already large enough to handle these loads, so at most you're adding three circuit breakers, three wires, and two outlets. Cheap if you do it during home construction; expensive if you try to retrofit it. It's not even that bad though. CA is warm enough that heat pumps are always efficient, and you have to have A/C anyway, so I don't know why anyone would bother with natural gas (NG) heating. Some people prefer NG stoves, but that's a niche market. It's definitely not common in apartments. I'd be surprised if the stove requirement affects anyone below the upper-middle class. But those people can afford retrofits if they want it, so why bother "helping" them?

Clothes dryers are where I think this regulation may actually make a *little* sense. Not much sense, but I see the reasoning. In the past, NG dryers were much cheaper than electric resistance dryers. Today, we have ventless heat pump dryers that do for clothes drying what heat pumps did for space heating. We also have front-loading washing machines that spin at high rpm, which extracts far more water from the clothes and, in turn, reduces drying costs. In that context, the added capital cost and explosion risk of an NG dryer doesn't do much for you. Thus, it's *possible* that requiring electric appliances will prepare consumers for the future. But then, ventless, 110V combination washer/dryer units are also available, so there's technically no need for *any* dryer plug.

I'll give CA a gold star for effort.

 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

Obsessive compulsive disorder

 

Excessive thoughts (obsessions) that lead to repetitive behaviors (compulsions).

Obsessive-compulsive disorder is characterized by unreasonable thoughts and fears (obsessions) that lead to compulsive behaviors.

 

Common

More than 200,000 US cases per year

 

Treatment can help, but this condition can't be cured

 

Chronic: can last for years or be lifelong

 

Requires a medical diagnosis

 

Lab tests or imaging not required

 

 

 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 5/9/2021 at 11:43 AM, Eyes Wide Open said:

Obsessive compulsive disorder

 

Excessive thoughts (obsessions) that lead to repetitive behaviors (compulsions).

Obsessive-compulsive disorder is characterized by unreasonable thoughts and fears (obsessions) that lead to compulsive behaviors.

 

Common

More than 200,000 US cases per year

 

Treatment can help, but this condition can't be cured

 

Chronic: can last for years or be lifelong

 

Requires a medical diagnosis

 

Lab tests or imaging not required

 

 

 

I'm not seeing your point; did you mean to put this here?

[turbguy + 1,401]

7 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

I'm not seeing your point; did you mean to put this here?

While I have a feeling he attempts to respond well, at times (actually, a large fraction of the time), those responses can be somewhat obscure.

I feel anyone who uses a "meme" as a means of response just seems to be copying/pasting the work of others, rather than their own thoughts.

Anyhow, it can be fun!

(A meme response expected in the near future).

Edited May 10, 2021 by turbguy

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

2 hours ago, turbguy said:

While I have a feeling he attempts to respond well, at times (actually, a large fraction of the time), those responses can be somewhat obscure.

I feel anyone who uses a "meme" as a means of response just seems to be copying/pasting the work of others, rather than their own thoughts.

Anyhow, it can be fun!

(A meme response expected in the near future).

Perhaps. I'll have to think about that.

My confusion stems from the fact that he didn't reference what he's responding to. Is he providing commentary on CA regulations? Is he taking a dig at my detailed response? For all I know, his comment could be pithy and insightful; I just can't tell without context.

Let's assume you're talking about my meme and not his screenshot. I am, in fact, forking someone else's work to make a point - but what of it? If the meme serves the purpose well enough, why reinvent the wheel?

That said, I always take issue with obscurity. Proper understanding and clear communication require hard work. Instead of doing that hard work, lazy people mask their ignorance in obscurity. At best, it highlights their incompetence; at worst, it's blatant dishonesty.

Then again, I'm the fool who wasted time responding to ambiguity. Next time I should just ignore it.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

9 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

I'm not seeing your point; did you mean to put this here?

Quite simply a tongue in cheek commentary at first glance, California has a history of very deep investments followed by catastrophic failure's. The state suffer's from a obsession, billions of dollars years of litigation and i ask you what do they have to show for it...aside from the obsession to build a bridge to no where..

Jerry Brown Leaves California With $100B Train Debt, As Texas Pursues Its Own Rail Boondoggle

https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2018/12/14/jerry-brown-leaves-california-with-100b-train-debt-as-texas-pursues-its-own-rail-boondoggle/?sh=63e4b1022b65

California Blackouts a Warning for States Ramping Up Green Power

https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-blackouts-a-warning-for-states-ramping-up-green-power-11597706934

Clean Energy Bill Failure a Disappointment

Statement by Laura Wisland, Union of Concerned Scientists

https://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/clean-energy-bill-failure

 

Actions Taken to Contain the Energy Crisis

The following actions have been taken by California and Federal Government authorities to help mitigate the energy crisis and to put into place permanent solutions to the problems California has been experiencing since the summer of 2000:

June 28, 2000: The California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) reduced its buy-side price cap to $500 per megawatt for the real-time, ancillary services, and congestion management markets. The CPUC further reduced its price cap to $250 per megawatt on August 1, 2000.

August 3, 2000: The CPUC issued a rate stabilization plan for SDG&E. The plan was designed to provide electricity price relief for some residential and commercial customers served by SDG&E.

August 30, 2000: The California legislature passed a law (AB265) that established rate caps of 6.5 cents per kilowatthour for SDG&E customers. The rate cap was retroactive to June 2000, and it will be effective through 2002.

December 14, 2000: The Secretary of Energy initiated an order requiring certain generators and power marketers to supply electricity to California's power system operator in order to help avert power outages.

December 15, 2000: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) ordered remedies for California's wholesale power markets. The order, among other things, eliminated the mandatory requirement that the three IOUs sell and buy all of their power through the CalPX. The FERC also terminated the CalPX's wholesale rate schedule that enabled it to continue to operate. CalPX discontinued operating in January 2001.

January 4, 2001: The CPUC granted PG&E and SCE an interim surcharge to raise rates. The temporary surcharge was in effect for 90 days.

February 1, 2001: Governor Gray Davis signed into law AB 1X authorizing California's Department of Water Resources to purchase power under long-term contracts for sale to PG&E and SCE. This law was passed because, in part, the two utilities were financially strapped and unable to obtain long-term power contracts with power generators. This law is significant in that the State now becomes an active participant in California's power industry.

March 27, 2001: The CPUC approved a 3-cents-per-kilowatt-hour average rate increase in an effort to support the financially strapped PG&E, and SCE.

April 5, 2001: Governor Gray Davis released a plan to resolve the State's energy problems and to protect residents from volatile energy markets. The plan contains numerous elements aimed at increasing power supply, improving energy conservation, and stabilizing the electricity industry in California.

April 9, 2001: Governor Gray Davis announced an agreement with SCE, and Edison International, SCE's parent company. In the agreement, SCE will sell their transmission system to the State of California for $2.76 billion. The sale is designed to help SCE recover from its financial difficulties. It must be approved by the State Legislature to be completed.

April 25, 2001: The FERC announced a plan to bring more stability, better control, and price relief to California's energy market. Among other things the plan gives the California Independent System Operator (California ISO operates the State's transmission system) more control of power plant outages, establishes price mitigation measures based on market principals, and requires new reporting obligations that will allow the FERC to better monitor the energy market in California.

May 14, 2001: The FERC announced regulatory actions to increase reliable energy supplies in California and other Western States. The FERC streamlined regulatory procedures for wholesale power sales and for certification of natural gas projects. It also urged all hydroelectric licensees to assess the potential for increased generation capacity at their respective facilities.

May 15, 2001: In March the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) agreed to raise retail electricity prices to customers of PG&E and SCE. Today, the CPUC released a rate structure indicating exactly which customer classes will have their rates increased and by how much. Overall retail rates will increase an average of 19 percent, but low-income customers, medical baseline customers, and residential customers using power below 130 percent of baseline usage amounts will not have a rate increase.

May 16, 2001: Governor Gray Davis signed Senate Bill 6X creating the California Consumer Power and Conservation Financing Authority. The California Power Authority will have broad powers to construct, own, and operate electric power facilities, and finance energy conservation projects.

May 22, 2001: Governor Davis signed another emergency bill, Senate Bill 28X, designed to shorten the times for reviewing an application for a new power plant, and re-powering (i.e., upgrading) an existing power plant. The new law also allows new owners to pay emission mitigation fees in lieu of obtaining actual emission offsets when the new owner can show that emission offsets are not available.

May 28, 2001: U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Abraham ordered the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), a 15 State power marketing arm of the U.S. DOE, to complete planning and to seek outside financing for increasing California's transmission capacity. This action aims at reducing power transmission bottlenecks on Path 15, a high-voltage power line connecting northern and southern California (see item 4 under Factors Contributing to the Energy Crisis).

June 19, 2001: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission extended and broadened its price mitigation and market monitoring plan (issued in April 2001). The price mitigation plan will now apply to spot market sales 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in all 11 States in the Western Systems Coordinating Council. The formula to calculate the market clearing price was changed to reflect the marginal cost of replacing gas used for generation, based on gas prices reported in Gas Daily for three spot market prices in California, adjust operating and maintentance expense upward, and eliminate the emission costs from the calculation (emission costs will be invoiced to the CA ISO and recovered separately). The price mitigation efforts will now apply to all spot market prices. When operating reserves are above 7%, the prices may not exceed 85% of the highest hourly price that was in effect during the most recent Stage 1 reserve deficiency period called by the ISO.

July 18, 2001: The California PUC published for comment a draft rate agreement between the CPUC and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The draft agreement contains the mechanism the CPUC will use to set electricity rates to satisfy the DWR's revenue requirements and supports the DWR's power purchase program. The revenue requirements include the costs required to issue and pay off the bonds issued for purchasing power (authorized under AB 1X), costs for DWR's power purchase program, cost of load reduction programs, and operating costs. Comments are to be filed by August 1, 2001.

September 20, 2001: The California PUC issued an interim opinion that suspended retail choice in California. The CPUC estimates that about 5% of the State's peak load of 46,000 MW is currently under direct access contracts, mostly with large industrial customers. Contracts in place will be allowed to continue until their expiration.

October 5, 2001: U.S. District Court Judge Lew approved the California PUC and Southern California Edison's settlement concerning the lawsuit filed by SCE against the PUC in November 2000. SCE claimed the PUC had violated federal law and unconstitutionally took property by its actions in not providing sufficient retail rates for SCE. The settlement is intended to restore SCE's creditworthiness and enable it to begin purchasing power for its retail customers, limit ratepayer's cost of paying off SCE debt, and enable SCE to pay its debt over a reasonable certain period of time.

January 10, 2002: Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed a suit against Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation because its proposed reorganization plan for its utility would be "a violation of California's unfair competition law." Under the plan, PG&E Corporation would acquire the utility's hydroelectric and transmission assets and transfer them into three new California-based companies, and therefore preempt many state laws and PUC jurisdiction.

January 31, 2002: The California PUC issued a proposed rate agreement with the Department of Water Resources so DWR could issue bonds to pay back the General Fund. According to state law, the PUC "may enter into a rate agreement that would irrevocably commit ratepayer revenues to repay any bonds issued by DWR." A final decision is expected on February 21, 2002.

February 21, 2002: The PUC issued two decisions regarding the adoption of a rate agreement between the PUC and the Department of Water Resources and cost recovery of the agency's revenue requirements for purchasing power under ABX 1. In the first decision, the PUC adopted a rate agreement that allows the DWR to issue bonds to repay over $10 billion in debt, including over $6 billion to California's General Fund. In the second decision, the PUC agreed to implement a cost recovery mechanism for DWR's revised revenue requirements for power purchases made on behalf of the state's three largest utilities: Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric. The revenue requirement for the period covering January 17, 2001 through December 31, 2002 is $9 billion, which is significantly lower than the original requirement. The PUC adopted a 9.295 per kilowatthour charge for PG&E customers, 9.744 cents per kWh for SCE customers, and 7.285 cents per kWh for SDG&E customers. According the PUC revenue requirement order, "these charges shall apply to each DWR-supplied kWh included on bills rendered on or after March 15, 2002."

March 21, 2002: The PUC voted to keep September 20, 2001 as the suspension date for direct access. According to the PUC's decision, customers can renew their contracts or change their electricity providers if they had contracts as of September 20, 2001. The PUC is hoping to impose an exit fee on these customers to provide DWR with more funds to cover the cost of purchasing power. Exit fees will be dealt with in a separate proceeding and order.

As further actions develop, they will be added to this site.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/policies/legislation/california/subsequentevents.html#:~:text=California's energy crisis can be,three major investor-owned utilities (

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

10 hours ago, turbguy said:

While I have a feeling he attempts to respond well, at times (actually, a large fraction of the time), those responses can be somewhat obscure.

I feel anyone who uses a "meme" as a means of response just seems to be copying/pasting the work of others, rather than their own thoughts.

Anyhow, it can be fun!

(A meme response expected in the near future).

You are quite correct in many ways, do you not feel insulted when another voices your opinion could not hold water in a sinking ship. Or perhaps asking a individual just how he or she arrived at their conclusion after they have written three of four well articulated paragraphs that fundamentally gibberish. 

Meme's are quite a nice distraction from such occurrences..they say a picture is worth a thousand words...Frankly they allow a expression of thought without to much disdain...frankly it is art form...I have a few favorites.

Now if we agree to disagree...Such is Life...sadly there are a few true intellects that no longer post here. They gave these forums great depth and moments of reflection.

Edited May 11, 2021 by Eyes Wide Open

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 5/9/2021 at 1:22 AM, ceo_energemsier said:

California proposes to steer new homes from gas appliances

 

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California’s energy policy and planning agency wants to transition new homes away from gas-powered appliances.

The California Energy Commission released a draft building standards code on Thursday that would require new homes to be equipped with circuits and panels that support all-electric appliances for heating, cooking and drying clothes.

The commission is set to adopt the updated code in August, and it would take effect on Jan. 1, 2023, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

 

While the code doesn’t explicitly forbid gas, the commission hopes it will lead builders to construct all-electric structures as part of a growing effort to eliminate fossil fuels from buildings, which account for about one-quarter of the state’s annual greenhouse gas emissions.

"We’re encouraging the technologies of the future,” energy commissioner Andrew McAllister said.

Natural gas is better all the way around, so no surprise California is against it. Their leaders are that stupid. 

[notsonice + 1,069]

54 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Natural gas is better all the way around, so no surprise California is against it. Their leaders are that stupid. 

I rather live in California than a shithole State like Illinois. Only Idiots live in Illinois, the land of the FISH

Edited May 12, 2021 by notsonice

[ronwagn + 6,290]

I lived half my life in California and half in Illinois. Both are screwed up because of Democrats now. Fortunately I live in a relatively rural area. Democrats mainly screw up the big cities, but everyone in the state suffers from their leadership. California is the most beautiful state in the Union and Illinois is fine aside from Chicago. If we could lop it off we would be AOK. 

[notsonice + 1,069]

46 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I lived half my life in California and half in Illinois. Both are screwed up because of Democrats now. Fortunately I live in a relatively rural area. Democrats mainly screw up the big cities, but everyone in the state suffers from their leadership. California is the most beautiful state in the Union and Illinois is fine aside from Chicago. If we could lop it off we would be AOK. 

Quote

Illinois??? had to work at a plant site there for a year, 1992 in  rural Illinois. Like I said a Shithole state. They earned the nickname FISH for a reason. Was corrupt then and is corrupt now. You could not pay me enough to ever work or live there.

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 5/9/2021 at 11:23 AM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

To be fair, that's less regulation than I expected from CA. Home panels are already large enough to handle these loads, so at most you're adding three circuit breakers, three wires, and two outlets. Cheap if you do it during home construction; expensive if you try to retrofit it. It's not even that bad though. CA is warm enough that heat pumps are always efficient, and you have to have A/C anyway, so I don't know why anyone would bother with natural gas (NG) heating. Some people prefer NG stoves, but that's a niche market. It's definitely not common in apartments. I'd be surprised if the stove requirement affects anyone below the upper-middle class. But those people can afford retrofits if they want it, so why bother "helping" them?

Clothes dryers are where I think this regulation may actually make a *little* sense. Not much sense, but I see the reasoning. In the past, NG dryers were much cheaper than electric resistance dryers. Today, we have ventless heat pump dryers that do for clothes drying what heat pumps did for space heating. We also have front-loading washing machines that spin at high rpm, which extracts far more water from the clothes and, in turn, reduces drying costs. In that context, the added capital cost and explosion risk of an NG dryer doesn't do much for you. Thus, it's *possible* that requiring electric appliances will prepare consumers for the future. But then, ventless, 110V combination washer/dryer units are also available, so there's technically no need for *any* dryer plug.

I'll give CA a gold star for effort.

 

All dryers spin dry. Fancy dryers are very expensive and electric dryers cost a lot more to run than natural gas dryers. The same is true for water heaters. Let the consumers decide what to buy. 

https://www.aga.org/globalassets/2019-natural-gas-factsts-updated.pdf

Edited May 14, 2021 by ronwagn
add

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

A state lacking any fundamental of thought..

Walters: Why California eliminating hydropower makes no sense

 

When California embarked on its quest to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as a global model to stave off climate change, its first target was the state’s electric power industry.

A series of ever-tightening decrees required utilities to shift from coal, natural gas and other carbon-based sources to a “renewable portfolio,” eventually reaching 100 percent non-carbon sources by mid-century.

The acceptable alternatives were specified in law, dominated by windmills, solar panels and geothermal wells. But for purely political reasons, the list omitted two power sources that are both free of greenhouse gases and renewable: large hydroelectric dams and nuclear plants.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/05/09/walters-why-california-eliminating-hydropower-makes-no-sense/