Existing Building Electrification Strategy

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Existing Building Electrification Strategy

Public Review Period Extended! Provide your input through January 15th, 2024!

The Existing Building Electrification Strategy is a roadmap for the transition of Sacramento's existing buildings to carbon-free electricity by 2045. Electrification of existing buildings is a crucial step in the City’s work to achieve carbon neutrality.

Want to review the strategy, but don't have a lot of time? Tour the document first! Click the 'guided tour' button at the bottom of the screen to get an overview of the document. Leave your comments and suggestions on the sections that are most important to you!

Guided Tour Full Document

Guided Tour

Hide

Step through this 10 part tour to learn more about each section of the strategy. Do the tour all at once, or feel free to exit the tour as you find sections of interest. You can review and comment on the strategy and pick up where you left off!

Comments

Commenting is closed for this document.

Most recent

Most replied

Most supported

By page

Replies

in reply to Richard Harrison's comment

Rick Codina Jan 15 2024 at 7:25PM on page 8

Heat pumps actually reduce electric loads in the summer since they are more efficient than the units they replace. In the winter, the added electricity requirements occur during periods of low loads when ample power is available. Heat pump water heating, essentially equivalent to a refrigerator, also does little to increase loads and can also be remotely controlled during peak periods (mine has had that function since 2017). SMUD is actively promoting electrification but also taking measures to assure resource adequacy to meet CAISO standards.

0 replies

in reply to Diana Hildebran's comment

Rick Codina Jan 15 2024 at 7:16PM on page 59

Gas furnaces and water heaters rely on electricity for their ignition starters, thermostat control and supply fans, so they will be affected by an electrical outage. Gas stoves can be ignited with matches, but you must be careful to provide ample ventilation to avoid poisoning. Outages in the SMUD area are rare and short-lived, but if concerned generators and house batteries can provide backup.

0 replies

in reply to Richard Harrison's comment

Rick Codina Jan 15 2024 at 7:09PM on page 11

Capping gas lines will be a PG&E decision which must seek approval from the CPUC. This is not something that will occur anytime soon in existing areas. But PG&E has refused to extend gas lines to new areas where it is too expensive or gas customers are highly limited. Rancho Murieta, Wilton and Sheldon are examples of where PG&E elected to extend gas lines, so they are served by SMUD or propane providers.

0 replies

in reply to Richard Harrison's comment

Rick Codina Jan 15 2024 at 7:03PM on page 1

This is a very cynical comment. The City can only enforce a replacement on burnout requirement if the contractor and equipment owner come forward for a permit. Currently only a fraction of citizens apply for a permit for an HVAC or hot water equipment replacement. This will have to change, but it is worth noting that the 2025 building code Title 24 standards are likely going to be requiring heat pump replacement on burnout, with some exceptions. Contractors are aware of these changes and adapting.

0 replies

in reply to Rick Codina's comment

Rick Codina Jan 15 2024 at 6:54PM on page 69

PG&E is now over 90% carbon free and SMUD is around 60%, though the utility has pledged to be 100% carbon free by 2030.

0 replies

in reply to Tim Castleman's comment

Rick Codina Jan 15 2024 at 6:53PM on page 69

Carbon free refers to electricity generation sources that do not emit greenhouse gases, measured as carbon dioxide equivalent. Primarily, they include hydroelectric, solar, wind, geothermal and biogas but now includes generators that use fossil fuels but capture and sequester the greenhouse gas emissions.

1 reply

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 6:25PM on page 91

Is the cost of obtaining a building permit from the City included in this expense?

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 6:23PM on page 90

An average based on two estimates? Seems like this could mean a high margin of error.

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 6:16PM on page 87

This seems like a missed opportunity. Two contractors do not seem to be a statistically relevant number to have a fair gauge on true costs.

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 6:12PM on page 81

Thank you for including this note about loss of incentives.

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 6:10PM on page 79

The cost of adding City staff should not be an additional expense burden to the building owner, but rather, shared by all who are benefitting from the changes (all City residents).

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 6:08PM on page 78

Suggestion

If the cost to make the shift to electric systems exceeds the incentives received, the City should allow some cost recapture to the housing provider - especially if the tenant is going to see utility bill savings that will not be realized by the owner.

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 6:05PM on page 78

The TPP was a heavily debated and arduously negotiated agreement. Please proceed with extreme caution before making any changes to the program. Also consider a full evaluation of the effectiveness of the program as it is written before making changes.

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 6:02PM on page 77

Suggestion

This should be an immediate education effort to homeowners.

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 5:59PM on page 77

Suggestion

Please speak directly to lenders (several) about possible challenges to expect with low-income loan financing options.

0 replies

in reply to Rosie Yacoub's comment

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 5:56PM on page 77

Not all major renovations impact electrical use. Roof replacement, window replacement and even many kitchen and bathroom remodels do not require any changes to electrical use. Not ALL major renovations should have electrification readiness requirements.

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 5:49PM on page 73

Suggestion

The cost of additional staff must be shared among ALL City residents, as ALL City residents are theoretically benefitting from the reduction of GHG resulting from this electrification program.

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 5:44PM on page 70

Please remember that promoting housing also means not putting small scale housing providers out of business.

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 5:32PM on page 61

Suggestion

What if the electrification incentives do not cover the entire cost of the upgrade? It is poor policy to assume that all housing providers have the ability to pay up-front, out-of-pocket costs for these upgrades. The City must also have policy protections in place if making the change to electric systems is a financial burden to the housing provider.

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 5:28PM on page 60

Suggestion

Has the City considered reduced or eliminated permitting costs for owners who are electrifying?

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 5:27PM on page 59

Suggestion

Please be extremely cautious in which programs are recommended. Programs like PACE liens are incredibly problematic. We have seen contractors charge 2 and 3 times the cost for the same system change/upgrade as what it would cost for someone not using a PACE lien. In addition, we have seen predatory practices run rampant with some contractors/companies promoting this financing option, in particular to aging homeowners.

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 5:19PM on page 58

Suggestion

The payback period does not apply to housing providers when the savings in utility bills goes directly to the tenants and the housing provider cannot recapture any of their out-of-pocket costs through rent. The City should consider, at the very least, allowing a 'cost savings' sharing between the tenant and the housing provider which balances the up front cost reimbursements to the housing provider with the monthly savings that the tenant will realize in their utility bills.

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 5:16PM on page 58

I believe it is critical to continue to point out that this analysis continues to rely on incentives that will not always be available. The City should also have a plan for how policy will be implemented/affected/altered WHEN incentives are no longer available.

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 5:01PM on page 51

Question

Are 'mom and pop' housing providers considered small businesses?

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 4:55PM on page 48

*As long as rebates and incentives are available....

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 4:33PM on page 34

Question

Are the costs for permits included in up-front costs? I did not see reference to those.

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 4:24PM on page 36

Question

Incentives and rebates will not be available indefinitely. What does the cost effectiveness look like if there are no rebates or incentives?

0 replies

in reply to Nancy E Wolford's comment

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 4:19PM on page 32

Ditto! Not to mention - rebates and tax incentives will not be available indefinitely.

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 4:17PM on page 31

Question

Please see my comment above. For the homes where a panel upgrade will be necessary in order to shift to an electric heat pump or electric water heater, how will the City work with owners who are in an emergency situation when their system has failed unexpectedly?

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 4:15PM on page 31

Question

What will the City do to help owners prepare for instances when systems like HVAC and/or water heater fail unexpectedly? I can foresee significant delays in owners having the ability to shift to electric quickly, especially if an electrical panel will need to be upgraded in order to move to an electric heat pump, for example. If a home is without heat in the middle of winter and there is a significant delay for a homeowner to make the switch to all electric, how will the City work with them if that time of replacement is mandatory?

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 4:11PM on page 30

Question

Have more than 729 City residents participated? This seems like a very low number of people.

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 4:08PM on page 27

Suggestion

Housing providers, the majority of whom are 'mom and pop' owners, may also not have the funds available for out-of-pocket, up-front expenses, even if they were interested in electrifying.

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 3:46PM on page 9

Question

With these funds being used both across the country and across the state, how much will actually be available for use to owners in the City of Sacramento?

0 replies

Kellie Swayne Jan 15 2024 at 3:40PM on page 7

Suggestion

Tax incentives are only viable to consider when long-term funding has been approved. It is unlikely tax incentives will be available long enough for most Sacramento residents to take advantage of them.

0 replies

Richard Harrison Jan 14 2024 at 10:09PM on page 22

I haven't found anything in this document about what will happen when the electric power goes out in carbon free (no natural gas) Sacramento. Last year we lost electric power for four days. Lucky for us we have gas appliances- heater, stove and hot water heater. Those along with a small gasoline powered generator allowed us to remain in the comfort and safety of our home. We did not need to leave our home as many of our neighbors did theirs, nor did we loose a refrigerator and freezer full of valuable food due to spoilage. There isn't enough shelter space or hotel rooms in near-by regions to support refugees from a moderate-sized city like Sacramento. If this plan goes through I may need to get a new, very expensive and large ICE generator to power the load required by the new energy efficient heat pumps and electric hot water heaters. This plan has it backwards, it throws out a clean and plentiful energy source (natural gas) before it has been replaced. There is no need to go down this road until we have an abundance of electricity available on a modern robust and resilient power grid.

0 replies

in reply to Rosie Yacoub's comment

Richard Harrison Jan 14 2024 at 9:37PM on page 1

It is likely the final version of this document will be the reference most cited when the new ordinances are proposed. Equipment type changes at time of replacement will give way to a requirement to change working or not. That is the top down nature of city government works in Sacramento.

1 reply

Richard Harrison Jan 14 2024 at 9:27PM on page 35

Question

It was to double to $3 on page 8. Which scary number do we worry about?

0 replies

Richard Harrison Jan 14 2024 at 9:20PM on page 11

Of course gas rate will rise under this plan. With the planned decommissioning, denial of maintenance permits, denial of permits to change gas appliances with gas appliances all while the region's population increases only means a smaller and smaller customer base to support gas service. Classic market manipulation, by the government in this case.

1 reply

Richard Harrison Jan 14 2024 at 9:12PM on page 10

Question

The people need the opportunity to vote on this. Who is asking for this infrastructure decommissioning?

0 replies

in reply to Richard Harrison's comment

Richard Harrison Jan 14 2024 at 9:07PM on page 5

edit- their climate justice base

0 replies

Richard Harrison Jan 14 2024 at 9:06PM on page 5

This whole plan is all a bunch of grandstanding by politicians and there climate justice fan-base that will cost ratepayers and taxpayers a fortune. This plan doubles down on the never ending need to raise rates. Sacramento (plus California and indeed the U.S.A.) is but a tiny slice of the world's population of some 8 billion plus people. There is absolutely nothing Sacramento can do to change the direction of carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases floating around in the atmosphere that will make any difference. The expanding populations in China, India and developing world are using the cheapest and easiest fuel available to them: COAL. Taking away gas from local residents and businesses only drives up expenses and in Sacramento's case gives SMUD a monopoly on energy. That is too much concentrated power. Additionally it is too high a risk to have only one energy source while responding to possible crises which may occur- outages due to weather, fire, cyber attack or government instability.

1 reply

Richard Harrison Jan 14 2024 at 8:31PM on page 54

This is a particularly insidious plan by city government to undermine it's residents without their specific and direct approval (to vote on the matter). The city should not advocate to take away choice in how one operates their home or business i.e. if a resident/shop keeper wants gas appliances and the service exists then gas it is. The choice belongs to the property owner. This kind of action does not build trust between people and their government. I think of the line Ronald Reagan used to illustrate this point- I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

0 replies

Chef David Soohoo Jan 12 2024 at 1:56AM on page 13

Question

On equity and cultural concerns - why are LOCAL ASIAN and ETHNIC CHEFS LEFT OUT on real advising? City and SMUD hired electric energy company Frontier Energy food experts from San Ramon that has NEVER met with local chefs or gone into our communities.

0 replies

steve holmes Jan 11 2024 at 8:06PM on page 2

Suggestion

this whole idiocy comes from the premise that CO2 causes warming and thus is bad. Well, that's a LIE as shown by a study of 400,000 years of ice core samples in Vostok, Antarctica. Though that is REAL SCIENCE, it doesn't seem to matter to those who propose this and tout "I believe in science" but are mostly ignorant about it. Those who push the CO2 LIE want to send us PEASANTS back to 1800s lifestyle while they laugh at our (your) idiocy. Educate yourself, if you dare (which you won't do because you're afraid that other FOOLS will criticize you for actually using your brain: link

0 replies

Bill Motmans Jan 11 2024 at 4:50PM on page 28

Why incentives if this is such a good practice? Why so much taxpayer subsidy if this is so inherently good?

0 replies

Bill Motmans Jan 11 2024 at 4:44PM on page 5

The reason electrification is "becoming common across the state" is because cities like Sacramento continue to mandate its implementation. While the mandate will save some people some money, the improved health outcomes are not fully vetted or proven.

0 replies

Richard Harrison Jan 5 2024 at 5:37PM on page 23

Question

How many people attended events? This section needs to include the actual number of participants to each event. I think the number is very small when compared to the number of households and businesses that will be affected by this plan.

0 replies

Richard Harrison Jan 5 2024 at 5:21PM on page 8

This is another estimate (guess). We already know Sacramento can barely get by on the hot summer days. Winter peak loads will likely be similar. There is not enough "clean" electricity to go around.

1 reply

Richard Harrison Jan 5 2024 at 5:17PM on page 8

Indoor air contaminants also include- tobacco smoke, incense , "air fresheners", "fresh scent" (and others) laundry detergents and clothes dryer products. The list of indoor pollutants is long.

0 replies

Richard Harrison Jan 5 2024 at 5:11PM on page 7

This is a poor quality citation. The lung association particulate graphs do not explain or take into account whether the particles are dust or smoke. Sacramento is a dusty town and the valley in general can fill with forest fire smoke.

0 replies

Leave this field blank

View all