San Jose adopts historic natural gas ban, but with a controversial exemption.
San Jose joins other Bay Area cities in plan to halt fuel use in new developments
San Jose made history last week by becoming the largest U.S. city to ban natural gas from nearly all new construction, looking to allelectric infrastructure as the city’s latest tool to combat climate change.
But a controversial exemption that allows new facilities that wish to generate and store energy on-site to continue using natural gas has some environmental advocates concerned that San Jose will set a bad example for other cities that might want to follow in its footsteps.
The San Jose City Council voted 8-3 Dec. 1 to prohibit natural gas in new commercial and high-rise residential buildings beginning August 2021. Council members Raul Peralez, Magdalena Carrasco and Pam Foley dissented, siding with environmental advocates who opposed an exemption added at the 11th hour.
“I am confident that we are taking a huge step here that is going to get us much, much closer to our climate goals,” Mayor Sam Liccardo said during the virtual council meeting.
That same night, the Oakland City Council also voted unanimously to ban natural gas in newly constructed apartment and commercial buildings. San Jose and Oakland join more than three dozen cities with similar all- electric building mandates, including San Francisco, Menlo Park, and Berkeley, which was the first city in the country to enact such a regulation last year.
San Jose’s move expanded upon a city ordinance that went into effect in January barring natural gas in new singlefamily homes, detached granny flats and low-rise multifamily buildings up to three stories.
Although natural gas has been heavily marketed as more environmentally friendly than other fossil fuels such as coal, the energy source has been found to be much more damaging to the climate than electricity. Removing natural gas from nearly all new buildings in San Jose will decrease greenhouse gas emissions and improve both indoor and outdoor air quality, according to San Jose Chief Sustainability Officer Kerrie Romanow.
T he cit y ’ s newly- expanded natural gas ban does not apply to existing homes or commercial buildings. Hospitals and new dwelling units attached to an existing home will be exempt and foodser v ice establishments and manufacturing facilities facing financial difficulties can apply for “limited hardship exemptions” through the end of 2022.
The particular exemption that drew backlash from dozens of San Jose residents, students and environmental advocates dealt with facilities that wish to generate and store energy on-site. Under the expanded ordinance, those facilities would not have to solely rely on electric energy until at least Dec. 31, 2024. Staff members will provide an analysis by the end of 2023 on whether or not to transition this to a hardship exemption beginning in 2025.
T he exempt ion wa s added just one day before the council was expected to take up the proposed ban last month, forcing a delay on the vote for two weeks. It was prompted by alarms raised at the last minute by Bloom Energy, a publicly-traded fuel cell company based in San Jose that sued the city of Santa Clara earlier this year over a requirement to meet certain climate standards. Liccardo’s friend and former Silicon Valley Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino now serves as executive vice president of the company.
Bloom’s fuel cells, which run continuously, are not vulnerable to electric power outages and can therefore provide a critical energy source during Pacific Gas and Electric’s power safety shutoffs that have left hundreds of thousands of Bay Area residents without power this fall. In a letter to the city, Guardino argued that intermittent renewable resources must be paired with reliable generation such as the Bloom boxes to “keep the lights on and business running.”
The issue for environmentalists, though, is that the fuel cells generate electricity using mainly natural gas, run at all hours of the day — not just during power outages — and emit more than three times as much carbon dioxide as power from the city’s utility, San Jose Clean Energy, according to city and Bloom figures.
Olivia Walker of the Natural Resources Defense Council called the exemption for companies like Bloom an “unnecessary and counterproductive” loophole that would allow “unfettered use of fuel cells powered by fracked gas.”
“This continuous use of gas-powered fuel cells would compromise the local and global benefits of San Jose’s increasingly clean fuel mix and even create demand for a new fossil gas infrastructure,” Walker said during the virtual meeting.
Linda Hutchins-Knowles of Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley echoed that sentiment, saying Bloom’s fuel cells “undermine our ability to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction goals” and could potentially lead other cities to follow the city’s misguided path. HutchinsKnowles urged the city to pass the natural gas ban without the exemption until it could more deeply research and understand the effects of allowing companies like Bloom to bypass the regulation.
Still, the majority of council members sided with Liccardo, who argued that guaranteeing companies have an uninterrupted supply of energy despite the region’s unreliable power grid was essential.
“We’re pushing folks toward an electric grid that is not reliable and not dependable,” the mayor said. “We hope all that changes in the years ahead, but PG& E is many years and tens of billions of dollars away from fixing its problems.”
Romanow, who proposed the parameters of the timelimited exemption, said she saw it as a concession to allow “a little bit more natural gas than we’d honestly prefer” in order to increase density and development in San Jose, therefore providing “economic prosperity to all our community through job creation and getting people out of their vehicles.”