California will ban sales of gas furnace heaters and water heaters

California will ban the sale of gas furnace heaters and water heaters, expecting people to replace them with electric powered heat pumps, and apparently electric heating elements for water heaters.

"This week, California implemented a plan aimed at phasing out the use of natural gas heating appliances throughout the state by 2030. The new proposal was passed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The decision was passed unanimously. It cements the state as the first to ban natural gas heaters and furnaces." ​

California first state to ban natural gas heaters and furnaces, The Hill, Gianna Melillo, September 23, 2022

"The primary goal of this measure is to reduce emissions from new residential and commercial space and water heaters sold in California. CARB would set an emission standard for space and water heaters to go into effect in 2030. Through meaningful engagement with communities and the process outlined below, CARB would adopt a statewide zero-emission standard which would have criteria pollutant benefits as a key result along with GHG reductions. Beginning in 2030, 100 percent of sales of new space heaters and water heaters would need to comply with the emission standard. CARB would design any such standard in collaboration with energy and building code regulators."​

Proposed 2022 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan August 12, 2022, page 101,
Zero-Emission Standard for Space and Water Heater

If you read further, part of the plan is to provide subsidies for lower income households to reduce the impact on them of the cost increases. But these will of course end up being paid by other households.
The state already has implemented "progressive tiered" pricing for its electric utilities, where customers are charged differently per unit of electricity depending on how much electricity the household uses and what their income level is.

Right now, only 33.6 percent of the energy on the state's electric grid comes from renewable sources.

Isn't California getting a little ahead of itself? Banning things, trying to force everyone to convert over to electric, when the state has not even been able to convert all its electric supply yet to renewable energy? Maybe it's because simply banning things doesn't cost the state government any money, whereas actually building renewable energy is a huge and expensive state investment?

I actually think that trying to convert to heat pumps for space heating actually makes sense in most parts of the state, due to winters being relatively mild, and the fact that heat pumps can double as air conditioning. In the state's climate, this is appropriate. However, higher up in some mountain areas the winters can get colder, and in many of these areas people rely on large propane tanks due to the remote location. And in some of these more remote locations that get lots of snowfall, it can be more common for there to be power outages. Heat pumps may not operate quite as well and do not operate as efficiently when the outside temperatures are very cold (below about 40 or 45°F).

For water heaters, I do not think electric energy is a good idea. That usually requires heating elements (of the type found in common small space heaters). Heat pumps would have difficulty creating the high temperatures required for hot water. It takes a huge amount of electric power to create heat. Heat pumps are not too bad because they are able to pump the heat that outside cold air contains and move it inside to create warmth, using about 4 times less electric power to create warmth than a heater that uses an electric heating element.
With current electric prices in California, it would cost $876 per year in electricity for an electric water heater.

With the older gas water heaters, you can still take hot showers and hot baths if the electric power stops working. Electric outages are probably 15 times more common than the gas ever needing to be shut off.

 

Berkeley, California - A federal appeals court overturned Berkeley's first-in-the-nation ban on natural gas lines in new buildings.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The measure, which took effect in 2020, was intended to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.
The Berkeley law required new residential and commercial buildings to use entirely electrical lines and infrastructure unless a building could not be constructed without natural gas piping, or the city granted an exemption in the "public interest."
The California Restaurant Association contended the ordinance violated the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act.​

Berkeley's natural gas ban overturned by federal appeals court (ktvu.com), April 2023

I hate electric stoves. They require several frustrating minutes before the coils get hot enough to start cooking, and then after cooking is over the coils remain dangerously hot for 15 or 20 minutes.
(Although it's not true for Berkeley, where I live the electric power often goes out intermittently in the winter, sometimes for days, due to winds and snow knocking out the power lines. It's really nice to be able to heat up some water when it's cold and the electric power has gone out)

 

I like having natural gas as a backup to electricity, as both normally do not go down at the same time, never in my lifetime anyways where I live

diversity of energy sources is a good thing

 

Theoretically, I could find reason to agree with you, but in reality most people are going to have one or the other. It's going to be too expensive to have double sets of appliances that run on both gas and electricity.
Although I personally kind of like the idea of a combined heating system that uses both a heat pump and a small gas furnace.
Unfortunately most of those looking to pass laws to ban things are not of the mentality to seek sensible compromises. Whenever they mandate something, they always want to get 100%. Which kind of demonstrates these policies are based more on emotion than actual logic.

 

I just have a pure gas heater, hooked to gas, costs nothing to sit there unless emergency arises, also have a electric oil based heater, again costs nothing to sit there


Kismile 1500W Oil Filled Radiator Heater $84.99

my gas heater is about 40 years old, but on Amazon looks like run a couple of hundred now

then have my main heating system that is gas with an electric fan system

 

I think the issue you are getting at is very off topic. I realize this may be too "complicated" for many people to understand, but electric heaters that use heating elements (such as normal indoor electric heaters) are very different from electric heat pumps. Electric heating elements are actually extremely inefficient in terms of amount of energy consumed to produce a certain amount of heat.
Although on the other hand, they can sometimes be more efficient because they can be used to heat just a certain area of individual rooms, rather than an entire house like with a central heater.
If you had to rely on only small indoor electric heaters, and tried to use those to heat your entire house (you'd probably have to buy many of them to be able to do that), your electric bill costs would be through the roof. In other words, that person would realize how stupid they were. (Wouldn't be good for the environment either, obviously)
When we're talking about government trying to force people to use electric heaters, we are not talking about the normal indoor electric heaters many people are familiar with.

 

I do not support banning gas lines to houses, I prefer dual fuel options, that is very on topic

it gets very cold here at times, I would like alternative heating options if needed in an emergency, that should be a consumer's choice

I am not trying to heat my whole house with those, thought I made it clear, they are for emergency heat if one source of fuel goes out

 

Well, there are many greenies out there that have gone completely insane.

The Bay Area in California, they are more extreme than most.

 

so do you support consumer choice, you seemed to be against my choice is why I ask

I do not support those that want to ban natural gas lines to our houses

 

I wasn't against your choice. I was just against what you were talking about because I felt it didn't actually really have to do with the issue I was talking about, with you bringing up a type of electric heaters that had nothing to do with what government wants to make people use.

 

I brought up both a natural gas heater and a portable electric oil based heater as I have both in case of an emergency if either gas or electricity go out, which means my heating system for the house goes down as it's both gas and electric

the point is, having dual fuel options is a good thing

 

As a matter of logic, it seems to me that a gas ban would have to be paired with a robust investment in nuclear power.

 

No, it's just easier to force everyone to turn to electric, ban everything that isn't electric, and then worry about the very expensive public investments to develop renewable energy later...

Like I said before, these policies are ALL about emotion, logic does not actually seem to be involved here.
This mentality that "electric is good, fossil fuels are bad", and that "we'll eventually (some day) switch to all renewable sourced electric power, so we should start switching over everyone to using only electric power now."

It's incredibly stupid, it's like the logic of an immature child. They got the order of steps reversed.

I think part of the issue might be that those central planners know the electric prices will spike if and when they switch over to 100% renewable sources, so they want to start forcing the public to switch to all-electric appliances now, before there will be big complaints.
There are many reasons to oppose the forcing of these all-electric appliances, but the biggest reason for many people will be how it will impact their wallet. Public electric rates in California are already the highest in the nation.

California has already been shutting down their nuclear power plants. They've announced they're going to close down the last one in 2024 or 2025.

 

I'm aware of the illogic of California's policy.

 

Whether this actually makes "sense", that is a little bit complicated. Complicated to explain because it involves some understanding of engineering, math and science.

To produce heat the "normal way", with an electric heat element, it takes a huge amount of electric energy to produce a small amount of heat. Now the conversion of electricity to heat is "100% efficient". (It's one of the rare examples of something that's actually 100% efficient) It's just that heat, by its nature, contains an enormous amount of energy. So it is not very "efficient" to produce heat directly from electric energy.

Heat pumps are about 4 times more efficient than conventional heating elements (meaning it will take 4 times less electric power to warm up the inside of the building by the same amount). Of course, we can debate whether that is still very efficient.
When, on the other hand, we burn something, that releases a huge amount of energy, all of it in the form of heat. (It's not like we have to go to the trouble of converting that heat to mechanical movement or electrical energy)

If we were to burn natural gas in a power plant, to produce electric power, and then transmit that power to a home, the overall efficiency loss would probably be about 65%.
But of course in addition to all that efficiency loss, it would add a huge amount of added expense (for generators, much higher capacity transmission lines) compared to piping natural gas directly. And we have to consider the energy cost of building all that infrastructure in the first place, which could easily be equal to all the energy that infrastructure will ever carry over its lifespan.

Heat pumps also become less efficient when the outdoor temperature is below 6.5 C (45F). At -4 C, the efficiency might drop down 30%, for example. The heat pumps really have to strain when there is less heat available to extract from the outdoor air. It really has to do with heat differential, it becomes harder to create a larger temperature difference between indoors and outdoors.
There are other possible alternatives, like geothermal heat pump (since deep in the ground is not as cold as the air), or take the air that has been warmed by the heat pump and then pass that through a fire-burning furnace to get it up to the desired temperature.

Unfortunately most people don't understand this, aren't going to bother to do all the calculations and thinking, and government can often be stupid and often does not pursue environmental policies based off perfectly logical reasons.