By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – The city is still gathering community input on 29 Draft Priority Actions in advance of a December 7 update before the city council for the City of Davis Climate 
Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP).
The draft CAAP actions are organized into four topic areas: Building Energy & Design, Transportation & Land Use, Water & Solid Waste, and Climate Risk & Carbon Removal.
The city council in March 2019 adopted the Resolution Declaring a Climate Emergency and Proposing Mobilization Efforts to Restore a Safe Climate which states that “the City of Davis commits to taking significant action to move toward net municipal and community carbon neutrality in the short term with maximum efforts to implement carbon reduction actions by 2030; and accelerate the existing 2050 Davis carbon neutrality goal to a 2040 target. The City of Davis and City Council will…accelerate a robust update to the Davis CAAP and integration with the City’s updated General Plan.”
The CAPP supports council actions that assess GHG reduction progress made since the city adopted CAAP back in 2010. This including identifying physical and social vulnerabilities, establishing and prioritizing climate action and carbon reduction policies toward carbon neutrality, as well as bringing the city’s policies into compliance with current state law.
“Carbon neutrality is demonstrated through ambitious local CAAP actions that reduce GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible, with local/regional agriculture-based local/regional carbon removal opportunities to remove any residual emissions estimated to occur in the 2040 target year, the city of Davis defined. “As necessary, the City will monitor carbon markets and industrial carbon removal as secondary options to remove remaining residual emissions.”
To comment on the 29 Draft Priority Actions go to: https://www.daviscaap.com/forum
Low income is obvious and includes everyone under a specified income level.
What is meant by and included in “vulnerable populations”?
Vulnerable to being called vulnerable.
I would think low income would cover it, why the addition of ‘vulnerable’?
Is this a way of introducing some social justice program to the Plan?
I highly recommend reviewing the comments on the plan as provided by the link on this article. In particular I commend the comments by Greg Rowe:
https://www.daviscaap.com/forum/building-energy-design/__a-2
Yes, Greg Rowe’s comments are dead on. Others seem not to care what costs and/or over regulation is involved. A just get it implemented type of attitude.
There really needs to be full Davis community input into all of these proposed changes. Not just the whims of a few.
There is input, it’s called elections. There’s also state law that the city has to follow.
Have Davis residents fully digested the changes and costs involved with these proposed changes? They should be fully informed and all policy changes should be fully vetted by the community.
According to this, there have been multiple council meetings, four workshops, and I know several articles in the Enterprise at least about it. So at what point is that sufficient for elected officials to act?
Keith O
You have been invited several times to participate, including by me in the Vanguard comments. You can put in your comments on the actions at the link that’s listed. There have been a number of workshops already plus it has been discussed at most of the NRC meetings since the spring. Plus there has been at least one mailer in the City utility bill. You also have a responsibility as a citizen to participate. Democracy takes some effort.
Don S
See my response to Greg Rowe’s comments (under Elizabeth Durbin’s similar comment) on that issue.
This item need to be pulled immediately from consideration pending adoption of a strong, enforceable tree ordinance establishing that mature and near-mature trees shall be conserved, full 50% parking lot shading by trees shall be mandated and maintained, and solar panels shall not cause trees to be removed nor displaced from those shading goals.
Lost that one already.
Don S
The parking lot shade 2×2 committee is already working on this and will have a draft ordinances by the end of the year. The next meeting is this Wednesday at 5 pm if you want to comment. It’s in the plan because the ordinance will include provisions of some type addressing solar panel in parking lots.
We are aware of that. Tree Davis will be presenting recommendations to this 2×2 subcommittee shortly.
Because we’re working on the ordinance, it’s also included in the CAAP list of actions. The specifics will be refined in the implementation phase.
If much of these changes are enacted I can see the already high cost of housing going up even more. You can add the price of renting an apartment or house too.
Do Davis residents even realize the huge cost involved if they are forced to convert their home heating system from gas to electric? Or the high cost of converting their water heater from gas to electric. It’s not just as simple as buying an electric home heating system or an electric water heater as they might someday find out, there will be substantial costs for electrician services. Also, the cost of running an electric heating system is far higher than natural gas. Is the public fully aware of this?
“Do Davis residents even realize the huge cost involved if they are forced to convert their home heating system from gas to electric? ”
How much will it cost if we have to make all shorts of changes for climate change? (Not that I think Davis making the change will make any impact)
Don’t you think that if Davis residents are forced to pony up many thousands of dollars for home and water heating conversions that they will be asking that same question?
That’s the beauty of collective action paradoxes. But all the city is really doing here is enforcing Title 32 and ultimately it’s going to be on the federal government to impose the restrictions nationally. The costs are Climate Change will be staggering regardless of how we approach it.
Huh? If Davis residents have to cough up thousands for some feel good local climate plan do you really think they’re going to be saying “That’s the beauty of collective action paradoxes”?
Electrification (and abandonment of all gas appliances, including fireplaces, stoves, furnaces, water heaters) at end of useful life (or at “time of remodel”).
I wonder how “remodel” would be defined, and whether or not they’d all need to be electrified (replaced) at that time.
This is an ENORMOUS cost.
Yes Ron, I didn’t consider the costs of replacing a gas stove, gas clothes dryer or gas fireplace with electric and the resulting electrician conversion costs. Have the citizens of Davis really thought this through, are they totally informed and aware of the costs?
I’m just as curious as to how they’d define a “remodel”, which would then require replacement of some (or all) of those units.
If something like this proceeds, the gas lines themselves will eventually be abandoned.
No – I don’t believe that residents, businesses, and/or property owners are aware of what the city is considering. It is an extreme proposal.
Nor has the impact on the cost of housing been analyzed. (I assume that those living in subsidized housing don’t have to be concerned about that.)
Not to harp on DISC, but I recall that Tim Keller said that gas lines are essentially a necessity, for his type of business and/or those he serves. And I suspect that he’s correct regarding that.
Think about it, with everything converting and being powered by electricity how are we going to produce enough without using gas? How many more power plants will have to be built? How much more electricity has to be generated? Has this really all been thought out or is it all just a pie in the sky feel good plan?
Keith O
A number of studies show that full electrification is quite feasible. This is an area that I have followed professionally quite closely. It’s a non issue raised by those not familiar with the planning that’s going on.
The electric industry promoted “all-electric” homes in the late 50’s, 60’s… then the electric industry jacked up the rates…
In a power outage, if you have an “all-electric” home, you’re pretty much screwed for heating/cooking/hot water… As Keith O points out, there are also energy efficiency issues.
Alternatives have environmental costs too: solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, geothermal…
TNSTAAFL
Not only that, KO, but without a competitive mode, if electricity goes WAY UP for any reason (see: Gasoline), there is no choice but to heat your home with electricity and pay it. Electricity is an extremely wasteful way to heat. Up I-5 you’ll see huge power generation stations that burn massive quantities of natural gas, turn it to electricity, this then goes into the power grid and is converted to heat in electrically heated homes. This is extremely wasteful and burns much more natural gas than burning it at the point of use. This electric heat thing is a fallacy, and tying everyone to the cost of electricity without a competing mode is inane. It works in utopia, not in real-world Davis.
How do you get to carbon free energy without eliminating natural gas?
How do you produce enough electricity to power our economy without the use of natural gas? Please enlighten us. Now if you say nuclear power I would agree with you, but we know that ain’t happening.
I have asked this before and crickets…. how do you plan to address climate change?
Can’t speak for other’s people’s crickets, but I have said before, I plan to move to a higher latitude and a higher elevation. When I’m 170.
It appears that there is a far more efficient way to heat – heat pumps – https://www.cnet.com/home/energy-and-utilities/heat-pump-vs-furnace-learn-the-difference-and-find-out-which-one-is-best-for-your-home/
Have you read the entire article? I just did, and it fits with my knowledge gained over many years… key take-away: “it depends”…
Except that if it’s close tie goes to the carbon-saver.
So in the winter, if one has a heat pump where’s the heat going to come from that can be transferred within your home if the heat pump isn’t producing heat?
You didn’t answer my question. How are we going to power this country without gas?
Solar panels on every inch of open space and hope for sunny days?
Alan M
None of what you wrote is true. Heat pumps are more efficient than gas furnaces and the state won’t be at a significant portion of electrification until the grid is largely powered by renewables. Gas generation will have only a tiny contribution to these loads.
Here’s one of my blog posts about how California will be able to meet its electrification goals while eliminating natural gas fueled generation: https://mcubedecon.com/2021/11/16/what-to-do-about-diablo-canyon/
Good to know. Yet I still believe my untruths.
Step #1: Don’t pretend that you have a “climate action plan” while simultaneously advocating for DISC. (Actually, the easiest and most-effective step of all.)
Five comment rule is in effect. Please monitor your own comment count.
Keith O cannot comment on this post any more today or tomorrow.
How do you get to carbon free energy without eliminating natural gas?
Until we all stop breathing we will never get to carbon free energy. What we should do is prioritize targeting the most carbon intensive activities and work down to the least carbon intensive.
If we were to do two things we could make much more headway than f***ing with people in their homes in Davis and demanding they spend tens of thousands of dollars for dubious marginal reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. This is especially true before we have the non-carbon generation available. Getting rid of a gas furnace and replacing it with coal powered electricity seems foolhardy to me. Also, as we recently saw in England, getting rid of carbon without a reliable source of energy as a replacement wasn’t sustainable.
The two biggest things we could do involve reduction of methane emissions. First we need to stop leaking methane from oil wells. Second, and this is likely to happen in the next few years, we need to breed cows that produce less methane. Beyond that we need to reduce air travel and reduce coal generation. Replacing home furnaces seems to be a much smaller bang for the buck.
That same goal might apply to some people. (No – no one here that we know of, at least.)
Though I believe they generally produce more carbon dioxide, than methane.