"In a vote held late Wednesday, the board of directors of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted rules that will require new water heaters and furnaces to have zero emissions of nitrogen oxides, or NOx."
It seems like a big deal to me to go from two redundant energy sources to one without discussing the trade offs in resiliency. I agree with OP, that there will be a large of human cost to giving up gas heat without making a corresponding investment in the reliability of the electric grid (which I have never seen mentioned). My impression is that the total cost to the decision to phase out gas has not been crunched.
Pushing it to individuals to be prepared for electric grid failure is pretty bad for carbon and pollution. All those generators (and other emergency backup appliances) manufactured and maintained. I personally prefer having gas and electric, I feel that gives me adequate reliability, so I don't need to own a generator: I have my gas heat (millivolt pilot generator requires no AC power), gas hot water, candles, and flashlights. And I like not owning a generator (or emergency propane heater (aren't these commonly implicated in structure fires? [0]), etc). Plus many people can't afford generators.
[0] https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Data-research-and-too...
I live in New England and utilize heating oil primarily. Even that won't work without electricity.
If we want to talk about power outages causing loss of life due to freezing then we can talk about that problem. But I'm pretty confident that "put today's gas furnaces in everybody's home" is the appropriate way of attacking that problem. Especially in a place like the bay area where you just aren't seeing 10 degree lows.
Recommended? Of course not. But a lot of (especially rural propane) users do it to avoid freezing pipes and people.
SF maybe not so much, but in climates where you can literally die without heat (often because you're simultaneously "snowed in"), you really really want dissimilar redundancy.
(obviously NEVER heat with a stove, because as we all know you'll burn down your house and/or asphyxiate from carbon monoxide)
Did you mean "is not". And I never suggested this. But certainly there are vulnerable populations that should be considered.
If the purpose of this legislation is to improve "indoor air quality", as another poster suggested, why not educate the populace and allow them to make the decision for themselves?