San Mateo commissioners, public weigh five policy pathways to electrify existing buildings

City of San Mateo sustainability staff and a consultant presented an update on “Electrify San Mateo” — a city-led effort to identify pathways for replacing natural‑gas appliances with electric alternatives in existing buildings — and asked the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission for feedback on five policy approaches.

Andrea Chow, the city’s sustainability analyst, and Ryan Gardner of Rincon Consulting described the project’s goals and the five policy pathways under consideration: (1) business as usual (outreach plus continued all‑electric new‑construction reach codes); (2) reach codes for renovations (time‑of‑replacement or work‑threshold triggers such as an air‑conditioner replacement or major renovation); (3) moving faster than the Bay Area Air District’s phase‑in of low‑NOx equipment (an earlier local start date for banning new NOx‑producing space and water heaters); (4) commercial building performance standards (benchmarking and retro‑commissioning for larger nonresidential buildings); and (5) a municipal “electric‑first” policy to require or prioritize electric equipment in city facilities. "Our goal tonight is to provide more background and overview of building electrification and how the project has progressed so, thus far," Chow said.

Why it matters: staff framed electrification as a major lever for San Mateo’s Climate Action Plan. Gardner told the commission that, under current modeling, natural gas could still account for roughly 38–39% of the city’s emissions by 2030–2045 unless existing buildings are decarbonized. He said electrification reduces greenhouse gases and local air pollutants and — with available rebates and the right electric rate — can lower household bills over time.

Key technical and financial details presented: Gardner summarized the project’s outreach and modeling and gave ranges for upfront costs and incentives. Examples from the presentation and public discussion: - Heat‑pump water heaters: average installed cost shown at about $6,000; Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) rebate $2,500; a federal tax credit figure used in analysis was $2,000, yielding a modeled out‑of‑pocket example near $1,500 when incentives are available; a comparable gas water heater was estimated at about $2,800. (Gardner noted continued uncertainty about the longevity and availability of federal incentives.) - Heat‑pump HVAC (space heating and cooling): model ranges centered near $18,000 installed with modest local rebates (PCE rebate values discussed in the presentation were roughly $1,500, with an additional lower‑income kicker of $1,000 in some programs). A replacement gas furnace cost example was about $6,000; incremental costs vary widely depending on whether an air conditioner is already present and whether panel upgrades are required. - Electric panel upgrades: panel upgrade costs were cited as examples in the mid‑thousands (one figure offered was about $3,500). Gardner cited a UCLA statewide analysis estimating roughly 5–6% of residential properties might require panel upgrades (higher in some low‑income or older neighborhoods). - Estimated 2030 greenhouse‑gas impacts from the modeling in the presentation (assumptions described by staff): business‑as‑usual new‑construction reach codes ~1,000 metric tons CO2e; AC‑to‑heat‑pump reach code pathway ~2,200 metric tons; FlexPath renovations ~730 metric tons; an accelerated low‑NOx approach (earlier than the Bay Area Air District schedule) produced the largest modeled reductions (presented as nearly 10,000 metric tons by 2030 under the study’s assumptions); municipal electric‑first was modeled as a smaller reduction (~145 metric tons) but framed as leadership. These numbers were presented by Ryan Gardner and are modeling outputs described in the staff slide deck.

Public comment and community views: more than a dozen residents and representatives spoke during the public‑comment period. Supporters included climate‑action volunteers, nonprofit staff and students: Michelle Hudson (350 Silicon Valley / San Mateo Climate Action Team) and colleagues urged support for "all five pathways," and Zach Scott, a tenth‑grader at Aragon High School, told the commission he and his group seek rapid reductions and asked the commission to implement the city council's goal to eliminate methane (natural gas) use by 2030. Several speakers highlighted Peninsula Clean Energy’s rebate and concierge programs as critical to equitable implementation; some speakers described personal energy‑bill savings after electrification.

Opposing or cautionary remarks focused on cost and implementation: speakers, including representatives of the San Mateo County Association of Realtors, urged voluntary measures rather than mandates and raised concerns about older buildings, renters, seniors and people on fixed incomes, panel‑upgrade costs and utility reliability. One commenter urged slower action and questioned some climate‑science conclusions; commissioners and staff repeatedly distinguished commenters’ opinions from the staff’s technical modeling.

Commission discussion and questions: commissioners asked detailed questions about legal authority, enforcement, cost‑estimation methods and equity protections. Staff and the consultant said the city cannot unilaterally prohibit gas appliances in all circumstances but can adopt time‑of‑replacement requirements, renovation triggers or building performance standards and can set hardship exemptions. Gardner noted the Bay Area Air District’s phased NOx rules (water‑heater rules beginning region‑wide in 2027 and furnaces in 2029) and said the study’s options were modeled as additional to those regional requirements. Commissioners pressed staff on: (a) how to structure renovation thresholds (example thresholds discussed: $75,000 permit value or other dollar or square‑foot triggers), (b) hardship and equity exemptions for households needing urgent living‑space changes, (c) enforcement mechanisms for low‑compliance scenarios, (d) how benchmarking and retro‑commissioning would be staffed and phased for commercial buildings, and (e) steps the city could take to partner with Peninsula Clean Energy for financing and customer outreach.

Staff direction and next steps: staff said they will take the commission’s comments into the public review draft and present the strategy to City Council on June 16, 2025. Andrea Chow said staff will continue outreach and further refine thresholds, hardship language and supportive programs. Staff also agreed to follow up with a public commenter (Carol Steinfeld) who requested city coordination with Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA/BOSCA) matters.

Votes at a glance (formal procedural actions recorded earlier in the meeting): the commission approved two procedural items at the start of the meeting — (1) a motion to allow Commissioner Kranz to participate remotely for medical reasons (motion approved by roll call), and (2) approval of the April 9, 2025 meeting minutes on the consent calendar (motion approved by roll call). Those votes were procedural and not related to Electrify San Mateo; staff recorded both as passed motions and will include them in the meeting minutes.

What remains unsettled: commissioners diverged on whether San Mateo should accelerate the Bay Area Air District’s NOx replacement dates locally; several favored prioritizing Options 1, 2 and 5 (new‑construction reach codes, renovation reach codes and municipal electric‑first) and urged staff to budget for technical assistance and community outreach. Multiple commissioners and speakers urged mechanisms to prevent cost burdens on renters and lower‑income households, including subsidies, loans or temporary city financial support targeted at the "missing middle." No local ordinance was adopted at this meeting; the item proceeds to City Council for direction and possible ordinance language.

Ending note: staff emphasized the mix of policy tools required — codes, financing, contractor training, targeted rebates and city leadership — and asked the commission for the detailed feedback recorded in the meeting packet; city staff will return to council with a public‑review draft later this summer.