SF may soon ban natural gas in homes and businesses undergoing major renovations
sfchronicle.com
sfchronicle.com
In Australia they're looking to identify larger areas to remove from the gas grid at the same time. Otherwise the few remaining on gas bear the entire cost of upkeep of the grid.
BTW I went all electric because plumbing costs more than wiring.
If regulations like these are necessary, they should be applied in areas without a housing affordability crisis. But somehow, it’s always the high-cost cities that get hit with even more burdens.
Also, any desirable part of the country with jobs is facing a housing affordability crisis. High rents are caused by greedy landlords and the protections given to them by the government, not because of regulation requiring them to spend a little bit more on an electric range.
I bet the reason for this rule that house price in SF are finally in step with inflation.
Anyway Im not against doing this but let’s be honest here: this is going to make houses just less affordable. The are some benefits of this rule but affordability is not the one.
[1] https://www.redfin.com/city/17151/CA/San-Francisco/housing-m...
If rent is 3k, inflation say 3%, that’s 1k. The change is at least 3x that
Just add it to the pile of detrimental policies that California has created over the past few decades.
I've seen it first-hand, too. Pastry chefs in particular seem to appreciate the stability and evenness of low heat that high-end induction brings to the table. You can often see Cedric Grolet use an induction burner on his channel, for example: https://www.instagram.com/cedricgrolet/
I haven't been in a commercial kitchen in years, at that time everything was gas. It was obvious that chefs preferred gas over electric, but at that time induction was still too new for commercial use.
But I don’t get it otherwise. I’m rarely moving the pan so much that induction wouldn’t be usable.
Individuals excel when there's absolutely no rule stopping them, but enough to not make others a threat, and groups excel when there's rules to prevent individuals from taking an advantage over the rest, be it not paying their fair share on maintaining society, ignoring costs that society pays as a whole.
Here the idea is that natural gas is a greenwashed technology and that society would be better off moving away from it, so through this ban you'll start the migration away from natural gas. The individual standpoint is that natural gas is probably cheaper, so fuck the planet if that gets you a better price.
Are there other things to change if you care about the planet? Sure, but that's not the point and doing only one of them isn't going to make a dent on the upcoming climate catastrophes.
Liberalism used to be about the individual and individual rights/freedoms. The term has been redefined (at least in the US) to focus on social and collective issues. When you focus on collective issues you inevitably ban things deemed worse for the collective and enforce those bans on anyone who doesn't conform.
It's really interesting to me that this argument comes up often in environmental issues but is treated like the plague in other areas.
There was a thread a few days ago about the potential defunding of federal weather reporting services. I raised this same basic point, that we must do something about our deficit and even small cuts will help relative to doing nothing.
That landed like a lead balloon, the pain caused by any spending cuts just aren't acceptable to most people, unlike the pains caused by any regulations intended to help the environment.
I used to live in an area with regular tornadoes, having public weather data is life saving. People shouldn't have to die from tornadoes because they're poor.
Most even small towns in my area, the kind with one stop light at best, have community storm shelters. Granted those ultimately are partly subsidized by the federal government, but that is still different than a federal agency program.
To that end, if the concern is tornado safety why doesn't the government give communities or individuals storm shelters for free rather than partially subsidizing them for those who are at least well enough off to throw a few thousand at a small unit?
We absolutely do need to address the deficit as well as our debt. Expenses just to service the debt are a large chunk of our annual budget now. Do you know of any example of a country that ran up a debt to GDP (or similar) ratio this high and didn't have meaningful economic issues? Similarly, do you know of any country that debased its own currency through aggressive money printing and didn't end up collapsing, hyper-inflating, or both?
Interest accrued on debt must be added to the deficit as well, unless you are including that in the budget? I'm not sure how defaulting on debt payments would play out though.
The Republicans went nuts when Bill Clinton started reducing debt with a surplus. They thought debt reduction was a really really bad thing. American is actually pretty average in debt/gdp ratio for developed countries, however. Nowhere near as crazy as Japan.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I'm talking only about reducing the deficit, any debt already owed would still be there and interest on it would still be owed. Cutting spending to reduce deficit would just slow down how quickly the debt grows.
> American is actually pretty average in debt/gdp ratio for developed countries, however. Nowhere near as crazy as Japan.
Oh sure, though in my opinion that's a sign of how many countries are in similar debt trouble rather than it being okay.
The US debt to GDP is currently around 124%. Until very recently it was broadly agreed in economics that over 100% was a huge risk and over 120% was effectively a point of no return before you follow in Japan's footsteps.
Those warning sign levels only got moved once the US passed them. Maybe they're right and it isn't actually a problem, but I can say those original levels came with specific historical examples of countries that failed after those levels and today's understanding of what ratios are okay seem to come with vague explanations and hand waving.
The only thing I don't like about induction are those cooktops where they put the controls as touch buttons on the surface. I'm glad we rented a place in the past with that to learn how stupid it is so as to get one with proper knobs that don't you can't accidentally get hot.
> easier to clean
I haven't found this to be the case, they both require effort to clean.
> not having to deal or worry about gas
Maybe its local specific, what do you worry about ? Whats the hassle in dealing ? The biggest worry I have with gas is remembering to pay the bill.
Electrics are (generally) a smooth flat surface. Of course you're not getting out of it entirely, but it's still a question of night and day compared to the mess of a gas stove.
I'd kill to have a gas stove and be able to do serious stovetop cooking.
[0]: https://www.electrolux.se/services/eml/asset/782bdf32-f709-4...
[1]: https://www.electrolux.se/services/eml/asset/fe80a43d-0b1c-4...
>flat surface with a cast iron disk protruding for each hot surface.
Never seen a design like that.
Given those URLs maybe it's a country thing? Are you in the USA?
Sweden.
We don't get gas pipeline connections here, we get bottles that a company comes and replaces.
Compared to gas, I find induction just as responsive, more powerful on the highest setting. A nice feature is the auto heat which gives it more power until the pan is at the target level then reduces. I also think (but not sure) that the lowest level is far cooler than the lowest gas setting was, making it easier to use for baking - melting butter, chocolate, things that require gentle warming.
So, as I say, other than the specific flames around a wok, it's better overall. I do have an induction wok, it's not as good. It's fine though, I wouldn't trade or bother with a separate gas cooktop just for that.
Unless you start cooking with dirty induction cooktop, they are much easier to clean simply because the temperature is much lower, the surface is flat and easy to clean
There's also no worrying about combustion gases in the house.
Natural gas emits particles we would rather not breath in…
I haven't found it to be rough on pans, but I only use thick stainless steel pans with aluminium/copper core.
PS: yes, gas is enjoyable as it gives you this primal heat feeling:)
I haven’t had a pan warp on me for years just being mindful of letting it heat and cool at a reasonable paces rather than blasting them with the ”power” mode. And this is in Europe with our 400v kitchen outlets.
It really depends on the quality of the appliance; something like the Breville Control Freak can give you induction cooking with temperature control down to the degree, whereas my cheap countertop Tefal induction hob just gives a few settings with broad power ranges and you have to figure out what works best for you.
Even for something as simple as pasta, having boiling water in 2 minutes instead of 7 or 8 minutes is huge. I can wait for the former, but with the latter I usually end up doing something else for a bit, and then suddenly 7 or 8 rounds up to 10 or 15 minutes.
"Yes, this is bad for kids with asthma who have the misfortune of living in my neighborhood, but it's great for quesadillas! So you have to look at both sides."
This comment and the other reply are just jaw-droppingly naive and ignorant. The indoor air quality while using a gas stove jumps to wildly unhealthy levels. But those pollutants do not just disappear! Much of it is deposited on indoor walls or residents' lungs, but much of it also leaks out of the building. Yes it is true that one teeny widdle stove won't hurt anyone except yourself, but that's why this is a tragedy of the commons that requires government regulation.
A simile to this is saying electric bikes are dangerous and should be banned because they are motorized transports, and as my neighbor died in a frontal collision between his car and 18 wheeler it's highly irresponsible to let a teenager ride on e-bikes.
Magnitude soup.
The only fix is proper ventilation. Which is unfortunate, because as you note many apartments and homes are not built for it... even in new construction.
Which might be a useful action point for regulatory intervention, rather than something which is much more performative than useful.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/6355613
Simply running a gas burner generates about twice as much PM2.5 emissions as pan-frying a chicken breast on an induction stove. And of course gas generates pollution when you're boiling or steaming things, quickly reheating, or anything that doesn't involve burning / Malliard reactions / etc. Using gas means you are at the very least doubling the amount of pollution, and in most cases it's much worse than that.
On top of all that, ventilation does nothing for the environmental impact: https://concernedhealthny.org/2022/10/burning-fossil-fuel-in...
The cited study performed no measurement of gas cooking.
> On top of all that, ventilation does nothing for the environmental impact:
Gas used for cooking is not a meaningful contributor to our overall gas usage.
Plus a whole bunch of cookware doesn't work with induction (clay pots, non ferromagnetic bases, etc). I do wonder if any of these "environmental" estimates factor in the environmental cost of replacing a bunch of cookware just to satisfy induction requirements.
South Asian flatbreads like naans, rotis, dosas and parathas can definitely be made well with induction. Plus the precision control of heating opens up new possibilities with all cuisine types.
As for embodied replacement costs - that talking point has been used or rather misused to dismiss everything from solar panels to EVs to wind turbines. Just because there is a payback period doesn't mean that it's insurmountable. What's the payback period on fast fashion and other consumerist nonsense? Infinity right?
Maybe they are better now but it is certainly not the case that all induction cooktops have these magical properties; many are cheap and skimp on something. While in the 5+ apartments I have been in gas has always delivered the same heating experience that I can rely on.
And to your point about rotis, no - it can not be done unless you get a different, heavier bottomed pan suitable for induction. Exactly what I was saying regarding the replacement costs.
As for environmental costs - the thing that surprises me is that induction easily warps even higher end pans. But yes you’re right, you can’t use many different materials.
I think a lot of people live with gas leaks without even knowing, especially in older buildings. This is a good change from a public health and safety perspective.
That's hundreds of miles of power lines running through Northern California forest to get power to SF because of state regulations. Downed power lines are directly responsible for a pretty large % of wildfires.
Same thing in LA, where a significant amount of power is sent from peaker plants near Las Vegas.
These regulations can't do anything to lower demand, they'll only serve to make things even more expensive.
Exemplary reasoning of a grown-up member of the society.
This is on top of other reasonable, practical considerations. My choice of car was the best imo in its price range and class overall. Great interior, stylish and sporty, Japanese car. longterm reliability, I can keep my mechanic and do routine stuff myself, I live super near a gas station.
No EV blew me away so why suffer when I can have my car delight me and be a solid price stretched over a bunch of years at 0%? I don't think it's villainous to buy gas in 2025 and it's p out of touch to act like it is (in America)
Stories like this just reinforce the obvious: the housing crisis is a problem of our own making. Wealthy residents and NIMBYs consistently show they have no interest in helping the poor, the homeless, or working-class people who simply want a place to live. The ones hit hardest are usually younger generations.
This should not be a political issue. Whether on the left or the right, rich people will always find a reason (legal, aesthetic, environmental, religious, etc.) to avoid fixing the housing problem. The excuses vary, but the outcome is the same.
Reminds me of prop 13. If you challenge grandma having a $3M house paying peanuts for property taxes you are a monster.
If you defend young people that are ready to start a family, "they can kick rocks and move to Bumfuck, Middle-Of-Nowhere, no one is entitled to live in the Bay Area".
PS: I grew up in south San Jose, graduated from Leland, but can't afford a home anywhere near where I grew up because rich people from all over the world gentrified the Bay Area and boomers went full NIMBY on new developments.
You think it’s going to put house outside of the market at their current price? It’s an insignificant dent in the profit margin.
This law makes renovations more expensive. That means use conversions, expansions and safety improvements all happen less frequently.
> It’s an insignificant dent in the profit margin
Limited supply means suppliers own the cards. There is zero chance these costs are born by landlords.
Landlords are already pricing their rentals as high as they can so who else would bear the costs? If they could extract more, they would already do.
Reducing supply increases the price they can charge because prospective renters have fewer alternatives.
In Sunset (San Francisco), most houses still have 100–150 amp electrical panels. To support full electrification these panels typically need to be upgraded to 200 or maybe 300 amps.
That upgrade alone costs around $10,000, including labor, permitting (which is surprisingly expensive), and inspections. If rewiring the house is also required (which is often the case) that can push the total to $30,000.
But it doesn’t stop there. PG&E’s infrastructure in many areas like Sunset is already maxed out. If your upgrade triggers a red flag, PG&E may require additional capacity upgrades. However, they won’t pay for them (they’ll just refuse the work until you do). These utility-related infrastructure upgrades can cost anywhere from $25,000 to $50,000, and yes, those costs fall on the homeowner.
So in total, you could be looking at $60,000 or more for this.
At least for new dwellings, building without gas piping is _cheaper_ than building with it. It's very cheap to run additional 240V/60A lines from the load center to the kitchen and laundry/utility room.
Depending on the renovation, it can be even cheaper to go all-electric, for example, if the kitchen/laundry/heating is being moved.
However, renovations don't have much effect either way on the housing affordability crisis in San Francisco, because renovations don't generally increase housing capacity. Most renovations in SF are done for the purpose of converting existing lower end homes into higher end homes.
Definitely not "a lot of the time". The coldest it gets is maybe 40°F on a particularly chilly winter night - with a well-insulated house you hardly even need central heat.
2. 40°F is 4°C. That's cold. What do you expect the indoor temperature to be in those conditions, without heating?
I'm currently living in a well insulated German new build, and over this last winter was wearing a T-shirt inside while it was actively snowing outside. The average combined power consumption of all things in this property is about 500 watts. It would be lower, but we didn't know how to correctly configure some of it in the first 6 months.
SF is probably the only place in the country where this makes sense, solely because of the earthquake problem. (Do you know how to shut off your gas meter in an emergency? Probably not.)
Yet same people who insist hopscotching amongst piles of human feces is part and parcel to living in the city, not the public health hazard it is, want you to believe your gas stove is killing you.
As a wok owner, I'll take that chance.
Ultimately, mandates like this just make housing even more expensive. Which, frankly, seems to be the real goal. God forbid home prices actually decline or even stop rising.
If you allow new construction dependent on existing natural gas distribution lines, they increase the pressure to accommodate the increased demand. This makes explosions from pipes leaking/catastrophically failing more likely.
I thought it was obvious the long-term goal was to reduce if not completely eliminate the need for natural gas distribution _especially_ in these regions.
Second, you're missing another reason for getting a heat pump water heater. We just last week replaced our 13 year old (and therefore on its end of life) gas heater with a heat pump water heater. It requires no gas :). One reason for doing that is that using electricity to run a small heat pump is far cheaper where we live than gas. (We have solar panels, which makes it still cheaper--in fact, free.)
The only things remaining in our house that use gas are the stove and a gas log fireplace. We've used the latter twice during the 13 years we've lived in the house. If we replace the stove (which we'll need to do some day, it's almost 25 years old) with an electric one, then I'd be easily persuaded to turn off the gas fireplace, and end the delivery charge on gas.
As an electric appliance owner, I'll take that chance.
PG&E in CA is criminally expensive. If you’re lucky to be in one of the cities in the bay that isn’t on it, you get incredibly cheap energy in comparison.
There are plenty of water heaters that use a pilot light. I’ve been in many homes where they all use pilot light based gas water heaters.
They really discourage solar in a variety of other ways as well.
It's 240v, uses a double circuit breaker, so you need to check your circuit breaker panel to make sure you have two places open.
Our utility company had a special deal--we paid only $240 for the heater, although installation was around $3k (they brought an electrician to run the wire from the panel).
That may be different for professional gastronomic equipment, but I have no experience with that. I think a pizza-oven or larger cooking range could have some sort of thick CEE-plug/coupling like you sometimes see on construction sites.
In Germany that fixed wiring for stoves was/is at 380/400Volts.
Since this was about a Wok initially, I assumed mobility and no fixed installation.
Why this matters in daily life(If you don't want to have gas anymore), everything takes longer to heat(with standard mains electricity), even boiling water for brewing coffee or tea in the US.
Leading to such strange contraptions like induction cooking tops with integrated Liion-battery, to at least be able to compensate for a while for the lack of oomph.
This isn't necessary, or the case in Germany.
Even from a 120V you can get a 1300W induction plate that will transfer heat faster than all but the biggest range burners.