Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumSeattle, other cities use creative workarounds to ditch gas
Akielly Hu, News and Politics Fellow
Dec 19, 2023
Full article: https://grist.org/buildings/a-court-struck-down-local-gas-bans-so-seattle-and-other-cities-are-getting-creative/
A court struck down local gas bans so Seattle and other cities are getting creative
Amid an uncertain legal landscape, lawmakers are finding new ways to electrify buildings.
Seattles ordinance reflects a growing push to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in buildings, which would reduce indoor air pollution and cut carbon emissions. But some other local electrification policies have hit a wall. In April, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Berkeley, Californias first-in-the-nation ban on natural gas in new buildings. The ruling caused several cities across the 9th Circuit region, which spans 11 western states and territories including California, Oregon, and Washington, to suspend similar policies. Yet despite the setback, clean energy experts told Grist that governments still have plenty of options to electrify buildings. Cities and states like Seattle; Ashland, Oregon; and Washington state are sidestepping Berkeleys legal challenges by finding creative alternatives to banning gas outright including by setting emissions targets, updating building codes, and restricting indoor air pollution.
-snip-
In 2019, Berkeley became the first city in the country to ban new buildings from connecting to natural gas lines. The California Restaurant Association quickly mobilized to file a lawsuit against the city for its policy, backed with more than $1 million in funding from SoCalGas, the nations largest gas distribution utility. In 2021, a federal district court ruled against the restaurant industry, but in April 2023, a panel of three judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower courts decision, shooting down Berkeleys ordinance. The judges ruled that because national efficiency standards for appliances under the federal Energy Policy Conservation Act prevent cities and states from setting their own standards, local governments cant ban infrastructure to prevent the use of fossil fuel-powered appliances. The decision does not make a lot of sense legally, Jan Hasselman, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, wrote at the time. Since the ruling, other cities in California, including Encinitas, Santa Cruz, and San Luis Obispo, have pulled back their own natural gas bans. Eugene, which was the first city in Oregon to adopt a natural gas ban modeling Berkeleys, also suspended its ordinance in June. The Berkeley city attorneys office has requested a rehearing of the case before 11 judges on the 9th Circuit, which could result in a new decision.
In the meantime, Hasselman told Grist that building emissions standards like the one passed in Seattle are one way for cities to dodge legal hurdles by avoiding an explicit ban on gas. The Seattle policy sets benchmarks that ramp up every five years for large buildings to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and lets building owners decide how they want to reach those standards. Theoretically, they could hold onto their oil and gas appliances, though Plummer pointed out that avoiding electrification will likely become more and more difficult over time. Commercial buildings covered under Seattles new law must reach net-zero emissions by 2045, and multi-family buildings by 2050 a requirement that would effectively require swapping out fossil fuel appliances with heat pumps and other electric options. (Carbon offsets purchased by utilities would be allowed to count toward buildings net-zero calculations.) A handful of other cities have also passed building performance standards to cut emissions, including Boston, New York, and Washington, D.C.
-snip-
Full article: https://grist.org/buildings/a-court-struck-down-local-gas-bans-so-seattle-and-other-cities-are-getting-creative/
dutch777
(3,456 posts)I don't know that I have seen anything I would call definitive analysis on it, but I have seen some respected sources write that currently there is not enough electrical generation and distribution capacity if there was a large scale shift from fossil fuels to electricity, be that for building use and/or cars. And while Washington State has significant infrastructure in hydroelectric generation, it is a finite capacity. Other locales may need more generative capacity that will not be as eco friendly and will itself be a source of emissions. And power plants or other major production capacity and expanded and improved grids take decades to design, permit and bring on line and frequently face hurdles by NIMBY and rate payers opposing the impacts. Better have a comprehensive plan and start now if 2050 is the goal.
Think. Again.
(17,930 posts)...that's why so many people (including myself) are frantic to get more non-CO2 energy sources built as quickly as possible.
We see so much discussion on how, where, why, which, etc, etc, new energy plants to build but we just aren't actually building them!
The time for those discussions has long past. We'll have to get up as many of whatever plants can go up quickest and then improve the whole system over time once we're safely away from fossil fuels.
We've already wasted all the time we had to waste.
Response to Think. Again. (Original post)
Think. Again. This message was self-deleted by its author.