HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - January 30, 2026 - Building Electrification Study ResultsPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-5732
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Date: January 30, 2026
To: Cupertino City Council
From: Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works
Re:
Results of the Electrification Study — City Work Program project to conduct outreach,
policy research, and regional coordination to identify building electrification options in
light of recent legal rulings limiting local mandates.
Background
The City of Cupertino is exploring policy measures to fulfill its Climate Action Plan
(CAP) 2.0 commitment to eliminate building emissions by 2040. Natural gas from
buildings emits 75,510 metric tons of CO2e per year, approximately 17% of the City’s
total emissions1. While past efforts to ban gas infrastructure have been preempted by
recent court rulings, a range of feasible policy options remain available for both new and
existing buildings.
The Ninth Circuit Court’s decision in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley
(2023, finalized 2024) ruled that local ordinances banning gas infrastructure are
preempted by federal law. In response, on April 3, 2024, City Council added an
Electrification Study to the City Work Program to evaluate alternative policy pathways.
The alternative options for building policies have been grouped into three categories
based on building type and structural status:
Category 1: New residential and commercial buildings:
1 City of Cupertino 2021 Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report
https://www.cupertino.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/departments/documents/environment -amp-
sustainability/2021-cupertino-community-municipal-invts-rpt_final-w-app.pdf
2
On October 1, 2024, Cupertino repealed its 2019 all-electric building ordinance and
adopted Ordinance No. 24-2265. The replacement ordinance requires higher energy
performance standards than the California Energy Code and “electric-ready” features in
all new buildings, without banning gas infrastructure. This Code took effect in April
2025 and aligns closely with upcoming statewide standards. While the Code does not
ban natural gas infrastructure, installing electric appliances is the easiest way to achieve
the required energy efficiency. The next iteration of the base California Building Code
largely achieves the same result as the City’s ordinance.
California’s Energy Code has incrementally required more electrification of space and
water heating in new construction since 2022. For example, it requires single-family
homes to use heat pumps for both space and water heating; multifamily homes are
encouraged to use heat pumps for space heating, plus heat pump water heaters for
individual units.
Category 2: Existing Commercial Buildings:
While requirements for new buildings present a clear policy option for easy emission
reductions, achieving significant impact will require improvements to existing
buildings.
Staff and consultant, Raimi Associates, evaluated feasible electrification policies and
identified two preferred approaches. The findings (Attachment A) reflect legal
feasibility, greenhouse gas reduction potential, administrative burden, property owner
feedback, and alignment with regional best practices. Results showed that a combination
approach to modify building code and create an energy reporting program would
effectively reduce emissions from existing commercial buildings.
1. FlexPath Reach Code: A FlexPath reach code would apply to renovation projects
and allow property owners to choose from a menu to meet an energy efficiency
target. While this approach reaches fewer buildings, it supports significant
upgrades at the time of permit, offers owners flexibility, and can be administered
with minimal additional staff time and cost to the city. Approximately two
percent of existing commercial buildings would be affected annually.
2. Energy Benchmarking and Building Performance Standard Ordinance: This
approach would apply to all buildings over 10,000 square feet, not just those
undergoing renovations. The first phase would establish an annual energy
benchmarking ordinance requiring both commercial and large multifamily
building owners to report energy use and corresponding emissions data. This
data lays the groundwork for phase two. In the second phase, a building
performance standard would set thresholds for energy or emissions
performance. This approach captures more buildings and yields greater
cumulative greenhouse gas reductions but requires significant staff resources.
3
It is important to note that these policy options would not ban gas infrastructure,
including gas stoves, water heaters, or heating systems, consistent with the California
Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley ruling.
Outreach included workshops, phone calls, and virtual meetings in the fall and winter of
2024. No strong opposition was raised by the commercial building owners, managers, or
operators for either policy option.
On April 17, 2025, Cupertino’s Sustainability Commission recommended that the City
Council direct staff to pursue both policy options:
• Pursue adoption of a FlexPath reach code for commercial buildings; and,
• Develop an ordinance establishing Energy Benchmarking requirements for
buildings 10,000 square feet and larger; with the intent to,
• Develop and phase in a Building Performance Standard to support the City’s
Climate Action Plan 2.0's existing commercial buildings emissions reduction
goal.
Regionally and at the state level, policy actions are also underway to address energy use
and air quality in existing buildings:
• The Bay Area Air District has adopted policy that bans the sale of commercial
gas space heaters by 2029 and large commercial water heaters by 2031.
• The State of California implemented AB 802 in 2018, requiring commercial
buildings over 50,000 square feet to report their energy data (Energy
Benchmarking). A statewide building performance standard is in development
but it is several years away and may not cover smaller buildings that make up
the majority of the building stock in Cupertino.
• Seven other cities, including San Jose, San Francisco, Berkeley, and Chula Vista
have adopted benchmarking and performance standards ahead of the State’s
timeline.
No other cities have adopted FlexPath policies for commercial buildings.
Category 3: Existing Residential Buildings:
The Building Code is the primary tool local governments use to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from existing residential buildings. The following Reach Code options could
be considered:
1. AC-to-Heat Pump: Require new or replacement air conditioning units to be heat
pumps, which also provide heating and eliminate the need for gas space
heaters, which emit harmful greenhouse gases.
2. FlexPath: Require homes undergoing renovation to meet a performance-based
energy score through upgrades such as electric appliances, battery storage, or
4
building envelope improvements. This option mirrors the commercial FlexPath
approach described above.
3. Electric Ready: Require homes undergoing renovation to upgrade electrical
panels or wiring to accommodate future electric appliances, enabling ease of
transition when residents choose to electrify.
Source: BayAreaReachCode.org, Reach Codes 101 https://bayareareachcodes.org/wp-
content/uploads/2025/06/BARC_-Reach-Code-101-V1-Final.pdf
None of these options would ban the use of natural gas appliances. Residents would
retain the ability to keep existing gas cooktops, water heaters, and heating and cooling
systems. In addition, cost-effectiveness studies would be required before adoption.
A public outreach survey was conducted to gather insights and data on public opinions
about potential existing residential building policy options. This outreach was
supported by Kimley Horn and funded by Silicon Valley Clean Energy. A total of 767
survey responses were collected, of which 504 were from Cupertino residents.
The survey showed that 59% of respondents living in Cupertino supported a policy to
regulate home energy efficiency. Despite the majority support for the concept, written
comments reflected concerns about the cost of raising electricity rates and
misconceptions that these policies would ban the use of natural gas. Sustainability
Commissioners and Staff engaged with residents at the Earth and Arbor Day Festival,
Holi Festival, Cherry Blossom Festival, and the Cupertino Farmers Market between
March 25 and May 5, 2025.
5
Attachment B includes a detailed description of the public outreach and survey results.
Last year the state passed AB 130, which paused updates to the residential building code
until 2031. The policy options described could qualify for an exemption under AB 130.
Regional efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are underway. Aside from the Bay
Area Air District policy that will end the sale of residential gas water heaters in 2027 and
gas space heaters in 2029, the cities of Santa Cruz, Mountain View, Los Gatos, Los Altos,
and Sunnyvale have recently adopted AC to Heat Pump reach codes. Those codes
require new or replacement AC units to act as a two-way system, which removes the
need for a gas heater.
Next steps
If Council wishes to proceed with any of the existing commercial or residential policy
options, staff will bring forward a policy for consideration at a later time.
Sustainability Impact
According to Cupertino’s 2021 greenhouse gas inventory, existing buildings account for
approximately 20% of Cupertino’s communitywide GHG emissions, 10% from
commercial gas, 7% from residential gas, and 3% from electricity.
Reducing and eventually eliminating gas use through electrification of appliances is
critical to advancing the City’s climate targets, particularly Measures in the CAP 2.0:
• Building Energy (BE)-2 aims to reduce annual residential natural gas usage from
129 therms per person in 2018 to 71 therms by 2030 and 16 therms by 2040.
• BE-3 aims to reduce annual commercial natural gas usage from 119 therms per
person in 2018 to 90 therms by 2030 and 54 therms by 2040.
While State Energy Code and air quality regulations are advancing electrification,
Cupertino will not meet the CAP 2.0 goals without additional local policy actions on a
faster timeline.
6
Fiscal Impact
The fiscal impact varies depending on the selected policy option. Changes to the
Building Code would be largely absorbed within the City’s existing building permit
process with limited staff impact, although permit and building inspection staff capacity
should be further evaluated. Energy benchmarking and building performance standards
requirements would require extra staff to manage such a program. Based on the
experience of other jurisdictions, at least one additional staff person or hired outside
help would be needed to communicate requirements, enable, troubleshoot, and ensure
quality of reporting, and ultimately require and track energy efficiency upgrades.
City Work Program Item/Description
Yes: FY 24-25
Electrification Study: Conduct public outreach, policy research, and coordinate with
regional efforts to develop policy options for electrification of Cupertino’s buildings in
light of recent legal rulings inhibiting certain electrification efforts.
City Council Goals
Environmental Sustainability
California Environmental Quality Act
The CEQA impact varies depending on the selected policy option. No CEQA barriers
have been identified at this time. A deeper analysis of CEQA impacts would be
conducted at a later date, and the results would be presented when the policy language
would be considered by City Council.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Victoria Morin, Sustainability Specialist
Reviewed by: Ursula Syrova, Environmental Programs and Sustainability Manager
Approved for Submission by: Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works
Attachments:
A – Commercial Building Electrification Policy Options
B – Public Outreach Survey Results for Existing Residential Policy Options
Memo
December 14, 2024
To: Victoria Morin, Ursula Syrova, and Sean Hatch, City of Cupertino
From: Walker Wells and Sami Taylor, Raimi + Associates
Subject: Cupertino Commercial Building Decarbonization Strategy Options
Background
This memo provides an analysis of policy strategies that could be used to promote the decarbonization of
existing commercial buildings in the City of Cupertino.
Cupertino has adopted the ambitious climate goals of a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by
2030 and carbon neutrality by 2040. To achieve these targets, each sector will need to substantially reduce
emissions, eventually to zero. According to the greenhouse gas inventory used in preparing the City’s Climate
Action Plan (CAP) 2.0, building related energy use is the source of 25% of communitywide GHG emissions,
with commercial buildings accounting for 9% (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: City of Cupertino 2021 Communitywide Emissions (437,190 MTCO2e)
To achieve carbon neutrality, fossil fuel systems in buildings, including gas-powered water heaters, furnaces,
clothes dryers, and stoves, must be replaced with zero-emission alternatives. While some transition will
occur through the natural cycle of equipment upgrades and replacement, regulatory and programmatic
interventions can accelerate the decarbonization of buildings in the city.
Energy
20%
Transportation
73%
Off-Road Sources
2%
Solid Waste
2%
Wastewater
3%Commercial emissions
= 40,590 MTCO
2
e or
9%
Alignment with City Plan and Policies
Cupertino’s 2022 CAP 2.01 outlines several building-related strategies to reduce GHG emissions:
• BE 1.3 Establish an energy benchmarking program in Cupertino that requires large commercial
entities (over 10,000 square feet) to report their energy usage and energy procurement details.
• BE 3.2 Develop a commercial building electrification strategy (CBES), building on the existing Baseline
Buildings Study from SVCE (2020).
• BE 3.3 Conduct engagement for the commercial sector to understand potential concerns and barriers
to commercial electrification.
• BE 3.5 Adopt an electrification ordinance for existing commercial buildings, which bans expansion of
natural gas infrastructure, requires electrification of natural gas appliances at time of major
renovation and time of replacement.
• BE 3.7 Conduct engagement efforts for the commercial sector to identify ways the City can support
commercial battery storage installations and improve local grid resiliency.2
The above strategies direct the City to adopt policies and establish programs that will decarbonize residential
and commercial buildings by switching to electric appliances and building systems. Strategy BE 3.7 related to
battery storage is considered as part of this effort because installing on-site renewables and storage is a
potential compliance pathway for the proposed policies. Electric building systems and appliances can capture
the greatest environmental benefits by operating on the clean power supplied to the City by Silicon Valley
Clean Energy (SVCE).3
BE 3.5 which bans natural gas is no longer feasible because of the “Berkeley Ruling.” As such, local
jurisdictions are pivoting from electric mandates and gas bans to other policies such as creating public health
standards like the BAAQMD rules related to combustion appliances, discussed below, or establishing
performance standards for carbon. These approaches can result in building owners choosing to electrify their
properties, while meeting EPCA’s preemption exceptions.4
Alignment with Regional and State Policy and Incentives
1 The City of Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan 2.0 is available on the city website here: https://www.cupertino.org/our-
city/departments/environment-sustainability/climate-action.
2 More specific information about each measure can be found in the City’s CAP 2.0. Available here: https://www.cupertino.org/our-
city/departments/environment-sustainability/climate-action.
3 SVCE supplies 100% carbon neutral energy to customers. More information about electric sources and carbon intensity can be
found in the 2022 Power Content Label available here: https://svcleanenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/PCL-Commercial_ADA.pdf.
4 The Berkeley Ruling refers to the Ninth Circuit decision in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley which holds that
Berkeley’s gas ban violates the U.S. Energy Policy & Conservation Act (EPCA). The Ninth Circuit broadly interpreted EPCA preemption
clause to prohibit state and local standards that interfere with “the end user’s ability to use installed covered products at their
intended final destinations” (Turner, Amy. 2023. “Ninth Circuit Holds Berkeley’s Gas Ban Preempted by U.S. Energy Policy &
Conservation Act.” Columbia Law School Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2023/04/18/ninth-circuit-holds-berkeleys-gas-ban-preempted-by-u-s-
energy-policy-conservation-act/).
Cupertino’s CAP 2.0 strategies align with State and regional efforts to decarbonize buildings (Figure 2). These
trends include the following:
• Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Rules 9-4 and 9-6: Starting in 2027, only zero
NOx (non-combustion) water heaters may be sold and installed, and in 2029, only zero NOx HVAC
systems may be sold and installed within the district, using a phased approach.5
• Building Code Update Cycle: California Building Standards Code (Title 24) and the associated Energy
Code (Title 24, Part 6) and CalGreen Standard (Part 11) are updated every three years. The next
update, which goes into effect on January 1, 2026, includes electric heat pumps as the standard for
operational efficiency.6
• Regional Coordination on Reach Codes: Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) is coordinating with
multiple cities to develop, revise, or replace electrification reach codes for new construction and
existing buildings in order to comply with the federal Energy Policy Conservation Act (EPCA) and
meet California Energy Commission (CEC) cost-effectiveness criteria. These actions are largely in
response to the “Berkeley Ruling” which ruled that all-electric requirements were in conflict EPCA.
• Incentives: Utilities, BayREN, and SVCE are encouraging voluntary electrification through financial
incentives and rebates.
• Assembly Bill 802: AB 802 is California’s Building Energy Benchmarking Requirement adopted in
2015. It requires all buildings 50,000 square feet and larger to report building energy and water use
to the State.7
Figure 2: Regional and State Context for Building Electrification
5 BAAQMD. 2023. Rules 9-4 and 9-6 Building Appliances. https://www.baaqmd.gov/rules-and-compliance/rule-
development/building-appliances. Accessed September 25, 2024.
6 The 2025 CALGreen building code efficiency standards are available here: https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-
topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2025-building-energy-efficiency.
7 More information about the regulation is available here: https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-
energy-benchmarking-program.
Community Engagement
The process of evaluating building electrification options is informed by input from the community,
specifically commercial property and business owners. The City held a stakeholder roundtable in September
2024 to educate property owners about existing building decarbonization options and solicit feedback on
prospective policies and programs. Retail, office, and large multi-family properties were represented, all had
a majority positive response to the proposed options. Some of the most common comments are listed
below:
• Many property owners are already benchmarking their larger buildings and are familiar with
EnergyStar Portfolio Manager.
• Concerns about meeting performance requirements due to bottlenecks for efficiency upgrades such
as fixed annual O&M budgets and organizational structure.
• Concerns related to data privacy and anonymity.
• Desire to align Cupertino’s program with existing AB 802 reporting timeline.
The City also hosted a small business resource fair in December 2024 to connect small businesses and
property owners with resources and incentives for energy efficiency and electrification upgrades. The main
takeaways from this event included:
• 64% of attendees were supportive or very supportive of a new annual energy reporting requirement
that helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The remaining attendees were neutral.
• 57% of attendees are already tracking building energy use.
• 29% of attendees have already made energy efficiency improvements to their buildings.
The City made additional but unsuccessful attempts to reach out to targeted stakeholders including strip mall
and shopping center owners and tenants as well as other smaller commercial property owners throughout
the city. As a result, additional community outreach should be conducted as part of future building
decarbonization policy or program development effort.
Commercial Building Decarbonization Policy Pathways
The City has considered several different policy approaches to encourage and/or require electrification in
existing commercial buildings. The two policy options that are the most feasible are described and evaluated
below. These are:
• Building Performance Standard (BPS)
• Flex Path reach code
A growing cohort of cities nationally have adopted policies using both these approaches. Several local
jurisdictions are also currently considering them through support from SVCE and neighboring Community
Choice Aggregation (CCA) programs. These policies are designed to prepare buildings for future
electrification upgrades or require electrification of building components at certain “trigger” moments, such
as application for a building permit (major renovation).
Evaluation Criteria
Each of the policy options is evaluated using the following criteria:
• Number of buildings covered/impacted
• GHG reduction potential
• Relative cost to property owners
• Equity
• Municipal administrative needs for implementation
The BPS program approach and the Flex Path reach code capture different types, sizes, and numbers of
buildings, resulting in different energy use reductions and GHG emission benefits. The number of buildings is
a contributing factor to the impact that any existing building decarbonization policy will have.
Cost is considered in two ways in this analysis. The upfront cost to individuals and/or property owners is
estimated to convey the financial implications of the policy strategies.8 The second component is the
administrative impact to the City related to implementing the different strategies. The administrative impact
of the programs is evaluated in terms of the ability to utilize existing City staff, programs, or processes; the
need for additional staff; and the need for additional interdepartmental coordination.
An essential aspect of an effective decarbonization policy or program is to ensure that the policy does not
place disproportionate financial or other negative impacts on vulnerable populations and communities.
Building electrification almost always has a cost to the property owner. A concern is that these costs could
create a significant financial burden on low- or fixed-income property owners. Another concern is that the
cost of electrification upgrades could result in unsustainable increases in rent for tenants. Policies should be
structured to recognize vulnerable populations and provide protection from regressive economic impacts
through the inclusion of green leases, pass-through cost prohibitions, etc.
Access to electrification benefits can be increased by structuring programs and incentives in a way that
recognizes the full costs of decarbonization retrofits, which may include upgrades to electrical panels and
new wiring in addition to the cost of appliances or equipment. Many property owners have limited capital
available for upgrades. Furthermore, the City can practice targeted outreach that connects resources with
vulnerable populations, low- or fixed income individuals, and tenants.
Building Performance Standard
Program Description
Building Performance Standards (BPS) are policies that require commercial and multifamily buildings over a
specified size to meet certain established performance levels for energy use intensity (EUI) or greenhouse gas
emissions intensity (kgCO2e) per square foot. Components include: 1. Annual Benchmarking of energy and
water consumption with EnergyStar Portfolio Manager, 2. Reporting results to the City/State, and 3. Buildings
need to meet an established performance standard over time.
BPS can be designed to allow for compliance through multiple pathways such as energy efficiency, behavior
change, or electrification. Performance thresholds could be reduced in future compliance phases (years) to
levels that would require either fuel switching, carbon capture and removal, or the purchase of certified
carbon offsets to achieve building decarbonization.
8 Studies related to existing building electrification cost effectiveness can be accessed here:
https://localenergycodes.com/content/resources/?q=efficiency%20and%20electrification%20for%20additions%20and%20al
terations.
The greater the number of buildings included in the program, the greater the GHG emissions reductions. A
building performance standard may produce only modest GHG reductions per building in each compliance
period but apply to a larger number of buildings and thus result in a greater overall emissions reduction
potential. Table 1 shows the number of buildings in Cupertino that could be impacted by a BPS.
Table 1: Total Buildings in Cupertino Impacted by BPS
Building Size Total Number of Commercial/
Multifamily Buildings reporting
Comments
Above 50,000 sq ft 127 Currently reporting to state
Above 20,000 sq ft 314
Above 15,000 sq ft 504
Above 10,000 sq ft 923 Threshold that is indicated in CAP 2.0
Total commercial buildings 3,280 Total excludes schools, parking lots,
playgrounds, multifamily with < 5
units, and public facilities
There are three types of BPS: Benchmarking Plus, Energy Use Intensity, and Emissions Intensity. Beyond
Benchmarking programs build on benchmarking programs and require improvements over time if buildings
do not meet the performance threshold. Many cities have included multiple compliance pathways including
administrative (e.g. energy audit or systems retrocommissioning), prescriptive (e.g. a list of improvement
measures), or performance (e.g. already meets performance requirements).9 Cities that have adopted this
type of BPS include San José, CA and Brisbane, CA among others. An Energy Use Intensity (EUI) BPS requires
that covered buildings benchmark, report, and meet increasingly stringent energy use per square foot over
each compliance period (kBtu/sf/year). An Emissions Intensity BPS requires that covered buildings
benchmark, report, and meet increasingly stringent energy use per square foot (kgCO2e/sf/year) over each
compliance period.
For each type of BPS, the City can set the standard based on the average energy use or emissions of a
building or occupancy type or relative to each individual building’s performance. For example, Denver, CO,
and New York City, NY, established targets based on data for each Portfolio Manager building type and
Cambridge, MA established thresholds relative to individual building baselines (see Figure 3). 10
9 The City of Brisbane, CA provides an example of Beyond Benchmarking requirements: https://www.brisbaneca.org/bbep.
10 The City of Denver, CO provides an example of EUI requirements: https://www.denvergov.org/Government/Agencies-
Departments-Offices/Agencies-Departments-Offices-Directory/Climate-Action-Sustainability-and-Resiliency/Cutting-Denvers-Carbon-
Pollution/High-Performance-Buildings-and-Homes/Energize-Denver-Hub/Buildings-25000-sq-ft-or-Larger/Performance-
Requirements.
Figure 3: Examples of Performance Thresholds Relative to Prototype Buildings and Individual
Buildings
The BPS program would generally follow a timeline similar to the outline in Figure 4:
Figure 4: BPS Timeline
Individual: Cambridge, MA (Emissions
Intensity)
Prototype: Denver, CO (EUI)
Administrative Cost
The administrative cost to the City for program implementation is likely the same for each type of BPS. The
highest costs are incurred as part of program design, roll-out, and the first phase of implementation. Costs
and the level of continuing staff time needed may vary slightly based on the number of buildings covered by
the program. For reference, the City of Brisbane spent nearly $300,000 on program start-up costs, utilizing
grant funding and hiring a consultant for assistance.11
Depending on how the program is designed, the City could participate in a supporting role and shift most
implementation costs to the property owners who would be responsible for setting up Portfolio Manager12
(free energy management software provided by EPA), tracking and reporting their energy use, and
potentially upgrading their buildings. Benchmarking and reporting would likely cost the property owner less
than $1,000 per building per year based on research and quotes from consultants who provide these
services.
The role of city employees would be to design and administer the program. That role entails establishing
performance requirements, tracking reporting and performance compliance, and likely some quality control
of submitted data. These jobs would likely take 0.5-1 FTE annually, depending on the number of covered
buildings, with workload corresponding to the reporting and compliance timing.
Questions for the Commission
Question 1: What size building should report and when?
Option 1: Phased approach. The City could start with buildings 20,000 sq ft and larger for the first
compliance period (years 1-5) and expand the program to buildings 10,000 sq ft or larger in the
second compliance period and beyond (year 6+).
• Benefit: This approach will reduce staff time and allow for refinement of the process before
expanding implementation citywide.
• Drawback: Fewer emissions reductions in first years for program.
Option 2: The City could require all buildings down to 10,000 sq ft to participate starting in the first
phase.
• Benefit: This approach would have the largest ghg reduction sooner.
• Drawback: All upfront costs would be incurred at once, leading to an administrative burden
on City staff, likely exceeding existing resources.
Question 2: How should building performance and progress be measured?
Option 1: City established performance threshold.
11 According to a February 2020 City of Brisbane staff report approving the consultant contract for Beyond Benchmarking, the City
budgeted $299,000 to adopt the ordinance, begin implementation, and develop user resources and conduct community education.
The staff report is available here: https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/brisbaneca-meet-
b70198c62788436e99d306e82009a283/ITEM-Attachment-001-c0a492f2b26c4381bd157ec5d24b6695.pdf. Accessed December 2,
2024.
12 EnergyStar Portfolio Manager: https://www.energystar.gov/buildings.
• Benefit: Standardized goals for each building type.
• Drawback: Technical expertise and data are required to establish prototypical building
baselines. This expertise would likely exceed city staff capacity.
Option 2: Individual building performance threshold
• Benefit: Reduced technical expertise burden on city staff; provides option for mixed-use
buildings because performance is relative to itself.
• Drawback: Less standardized approach, potential for increased administrative effort by city
staff each compliance period.
Alternative: Flex Path Reach Code
Reach codes can be applied to alterations and additions to existing buildings, in addition to new construction.
Flex Path reach codes allow property owners and contractors to select from a weighted menu of measures to
achieve compliance. This affords them the opportunity to pick measures that best suit their plans and values.
The approach consists of a target score and a menu of individual measures with points weighted by site
energy savings. Applicants may select a set of measures that meet or exceed the target. Figure 5 provides an
example of options.
The Flex Path generates GHG reductions and meets Federal and State requirements because it is based on
energy consumption and does not restrict use of Federally approved appliances. It is also demonstrated to be
a cost-effective compliance pathway by the CEC.13
Although this reach code is relatively simple to administer as an amendment to the CALGreen building code
(Title 24 Part 11) or energy code (Title 24 Part 6), based on review of Cupertino permit data, its efficacy
would be limited because very few commercial buildings undertake renovations each year. Permit data
shows that fewer than 100 buildings pull permits for renovations annually. In 2023 there were 56 permits
totaling 173,415 square feet of renovated space. 55% of those permits were less than 1,000 sq feet. and
through November 2024 there were 68, all of which were tenant improvements. This limited reach would
result in a small GHG reduction potential. A Flex Path reach code that requires upgrades to existing buildings
at the time of remodel, may result in significant energy reductions for an individual building, but may only
apply to a small number of buildings or appliances each year, resulting in a low overall GHG reduction.
Although no local jurisdictions have adopted a Flex Path reach code for existing commercial buildings, many
cities have adopted Flex Path reach codes for existing residential buildings including Santa Moncia, CA and
Santa Cruz, CA, with additional jurisdictions exploring adoption.
Administrative Cost
Reach codes have a simple administration process that is implemented through the City’s existing plan check
and permitting processes. Adopting a reach code would not require any additional staffing by the city. The
largest cost to the city would be the reach code development process, which includes community
engagement, ordinance adoption, and filing with the California Building Standards Commission.
Summary and Recommendation
13 For more information about the FlexPath code and to review cost-effectiveness studies visit: https://localenergycodes.com/.
Table 2: Comparison of Existing Commercial Building Decarbonization Pathways
Building Performance Standard Flex Path Reach Code
Number of buildings
covered/impacted annually
127-923 <100
GHG reduction potential High Low
Cost to property owner Medium-High Low-High
Equity considerations Costs could create a significant financial burden on low- or fixed-income property
owners or result in increases in rent for tenants. Policies should be structured to
provide protection for vulnerable populations through the inclusion of green
leases, pass-through cost prohibitions, etc.
Municipal administrative
impact
High Low
Code amendment Municipal Code Building Code (Title 24 part 11) and/or
Energy Code (Title 24 Part 6)
Who has done it? Brisbane, CA; San Jose, CA; Denver, CO;
Cambridge, MA; New York, NY
None for commercial
Residential: Santa Cruz, CA; Santa
Monica, CA
For the City to meet its long-term climate goal and become carbon neutral by 2040, aggressive policy
interventions are needed to capture the city’s whole existing commercial building stock.
The City could choose to pursue only a BPS, focusing on larger properties that have higher levels of energy
use and thus greater potential for savings, or establish both a BPS and a local energy reach code like Flex Path
to capture smaller properties when permits are pulled for renovations.
Establishing a building performance standard is the most effective policy option to address emissions from
existing commercial buildings in Cupertino at the magnitude and pace outlined in the Climate Action Plan.
Depending on the program threshold, the BPS would apply to 314-923 commercial and large multi-family
buildings annually, representing 10%-28% of commercial buildings in the city. A Flex Path approach does not
capture enough buildings annually to achieve the CAP 2.0 emissions reductions needed from the building
sector. In 2023 only 56 commercial renovation permits were applied for, totaling 173,415 square feet or 2%
of commercial buildings.
Additionally, a BPS program potentially has greater longevity than the Flex Path reach code for existing
commercial buildings because it is likely that over the next two CALGreen building and energy code cycles
(through 2028), many of the menu options will be incorporated into the building code and become required
for major remodels.
BPS also offers flexibility in compliance. Similar to New York City’s BPS Local Law 9714 and Denver’s BPS,
performance compliance could be achieved initially through efficiency upgrades, fuel-switching, or the ability
14 More information about Local Law 97 can be found here:
https://www.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/pdf/presentations/2023bsls/ll97.pdf.
to buy verified carbon credits, renewable energy certificates (RECs), or offsets. The program can be designed
to accommodate various building typologies and sizes. For example, prescriptive options could be developed
for smaller buildings and allowances or incentives could be included for affordable housing.
Furthermore, the program itself could utilize a phased approach that allows property owners time to
prepare. For example, year one could focus on education, year two could focus on reporting accurate data to
Portfolio Manager, and year three could include the rollout of the BPS.
However, because the BPS would only cover buildings over a certain size, to achieve full coverage of the
existing building stock and achieve its GHG goals, the City will need to consider additional education and
outreach as well as incentives programs, including direct-install programs. This effort could be coordinated
with SVCE, PG&E, and BayREN. Post-Berkeley ruling, without the ability to directly mandate building
electrification, the City needs to be more creative in encouraging buildings to decarbonize. The BPS allows for
both efficiency and fuel-switching improvements while providing flexibility to property owners and
acknowledging existing high performing buildings.
City of Cupertino
Go Electric Survey
July 2025
2
Background
In the spring of 2025, the City of Cupertino's Sustainability and Environmental Programs
division conducted a survey to gauge community support and apprehensions about
developing a policy framework focused on enhancing existing home energy efficiency,
improving public health, and sustainable behavior change. Cupertino residents were invited
to share their knowledge, experience, and opinions on home energy efficien t appliances.
(i.e., referring to the use of electric appliances and equipment, such as electric panel
upgrades, induction cooktops, heat pump water heaters, and heat pump air conditioning
and heating systems) to ensure that any future proposed policy was aligned with the
community’s capacity and values. A total of 767 responses were received.
This initiative is part of Cupertino’s broader effort to promote environmental sustainability
and aligns with Building Energy Measure 2 of the City's Climate Action Plan 2.0 and is
specified in the City’s FY 24-25 City Work Program about building electrification.
Key Findings include:
• Community Support:
Approximately 68% of respondents expressed support for implementing a new home
energy efficiency policy. Notably, among these supporters, more than 60% were
Cupertino residents, indicating strong local backing.
• Policy Ambition:
While there was broad support for a policy, respondents preferred a moderate
approach—41% chose a “somewhat ambitious” policy level, compared to only about
15% who favored the “most ambitious” options.
• Primary Barriers:
The primary barrier to electrification identified was a clear preference for natural gas
appliances (19%). Additional notable concerns included affordability issues and
potential increases in utility bills, each cited by 14% of respondents.
• Awareness and Education Gap:
There is a notable gap in public awareness about available incentives —41% of
respondents were unaware of rebate, tax credit, or incentive opportunities,
highlighting the need for targeted public education campaigns.
• Misconception around potential proposed policy:
A significant number of the open -ended comments were not relevant or clearly
confused by the intent of the survey and proposed policy options that were being
studied.
• Underserved and Marginalized Specific Outcome:
o 61% of individuals who identified as low or fixed income, or disadvantaged,
having access needs, elderly, or historically underserved expressed support
for implementing a home energy efficiency policy.
o While there was broad support for a policy, underserved and marginalized
respondents preferred a moderate approach—32% chose a “somewhat
3
ambitious” policy level, compared to about 25% who favored the “most
ambitious” options.
o The primary barrier to electrification identified was a clear preference for
natural gas appliances (33%). Additional notable concerns from the
underserved and marginalized respondents included affordability issues (30%)
and potential increases in utility bills (24%).
This survey was available in English, Chinese, and Hindi between April 1 and May 5, 2025.
767 responses were collected, including sixteen responses in Chinese. No responses were
submitted in Hindi. The survey was available online at cupertino.gov/goelectricsurvey and in
paper format, with specific outreach to renters and homeowners in Below Market Rate (BMR)
housing to ensure diverse community perspectives as specified in the CAP 2.0.
The survey was promoted through the following methods:
- Digitally: City’s Scene newsletter, Cupertino Green email distribution, webpages,
Block Leader newsletters, municipal facility TV monitors, Facebook, Instagram,
Twitter/X, and Nextdoor channels
- Postcards: at City Hall, Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, and the Cupertino
Library
- In-person tabling at events including: Earth Day & Arbor Day Festival (4/5/25), Holi
Festival (4/13/25), Cherry Blossom Festival (4/26/25), and De Anza Farmer’s Market
(5/4/25)
- Door-to-Door: Distributed via door hanger to 257 BMR residential properties or units
This outreach was made possible by funding from Silicon Valley Clean Energy.
Digital and hard copy promotional collateral are included in Appendix A.
4
Survey Results
The following section provides a detailed analysis of the responses to each survey question,
including charts where applicable. Not every question was made mandatory, leading to
variations in the total number of responses for some questions.
Q) Natural gas, which is mostly methane, can negatively impact indoor air quality
and human health. What is your level of concern about those issues?
This question aimed to gauge concerns about natural gas by providing a range of options.
Among the 722 respondents, the most frequent response was "Somewhat concerned" at
approximately 37% (269), followed by "Very concerned" at 32% (233). Additionally, 31% (220)
of respondents indicated that they were "Not concerned".
Q) What is your level of support for a new policy in Cupertino about home energy
efficiency?
This question provided two options: “I support a policy…” or “I do not support a policy…”.
68% of all respondents stated that they would support a policy, while 32% would not.
Among the 493 who supported a policy , 298 respondents (59%) are Cupertino residents.
5
Q) If the City of Cupertino developed a policy for home energy efficiency, when
should the requirements be applied? (select all that apply)
Survey respondents were given a range of three answers and the option of “Other”. The
category that received the most answers was “At time of remodel or addition to a home over
a certain project value”. The following bar graph displays the remaining responses, including
a distinct column that emphasizes the feedback received from Cupertino residents .
The “Other” response category received several “Never” write-in responses in addition to
other constructive input as follows:
• Apply to brand new construction only
• At Build
• At owners decision
• At time required by federal law
• Consumer choice
• Leave it to homeowners
• If replacing an existing appliance with a higher capacity one
• Let the home owner decide
• Make this optional at time of replacement with perhaps a tax credit for incentive
• New house only
• New houses or apartments
• Only apply to restaurants/businesses if you have to
• Only for new construction
• Only when a new home is being built by a new owner. Current owner should be
exempted from mandatory electrifying.
• When a building is built new
6
Q) If the City of Cupertino developed a policy for home energy efficiency, how
ambitious should the City be?
Survey respondents were given a range of four answers, from “Most ambitious” to “Not
ambitious”, with an additional “Other” option. The category that received the most answers
was “Somewhat ambitious" at 41%. The “Least ambitious” and “Not ambitious” options
each received approximately 15% of the responses. The bar graph below displays all
responses, including a column that highlights input received from Cupertino residents.
The “Other” response category received several “Never” write-in responses in addition to
other constructive input as follows:
• Follow the state. It is already a leader in this area.
• Let the consumer decide. Give incentives.
• Most ambitious plan with rebates and incentives for replacement appliances.
Especially important for low-income homeowners.
• New home build! This is coming from someone that has driven cars with carpool tags
for over 20 years ranging from hybrid Hydrogen and electric. I also installed solar
panels early on. I made the choice, I don’t need the city telling me to install solar
panels, etc. Forcing these issues will be unfair and costly to existing homeowners!
• Requiring electric ready for homes can be stressful to those families that cannot
afford it. I would first offer educational campaign about the meaning of "electric-
ready", provide resources, info campaign so that those that can switch right away.
Perhaps add incentives, such as a discount on city fees, raffle, awards for those that
willingly comply. This alone will get many that can afford it to switch. Most people just
don't know. Then perhaps the city can partner with companies that will offer discount
for lower income homes.
• Should be a choice your mandating without the voters approving.
7
Q) Do you rent or own a home in Cupertino?
Of the total respondents, 133 (or 17%) rent, or live with people who rent, and 343 (or 45%)
own, or live with someone who owns their home. The second highest response, accounting
for 34%, came from individuals who own property in Cupertino and rent to tenants. Only 3%
of respondents reported that they neither reside nor own property in Cupertino, with three
individuals (1%) indicating they were displaced or unhoused.
Q) What style of home do you live in?
For those who responded that they rented their home, a secondary question asked them to
identify their style of home with the following options: the highest answer being “Single-
family detached home” (39%), followed by “Shared complex with more than 16 units” (26%),
with a close third coming from “Shared home with 4 or fewer units” (24%). “Shared complex
with 4 to 16 units” made up the remaining 11% of respondents.
8
Q) Renters may have additional barriers to electrify. Please indicate which of these
statements apply to you (select all)
For those who responded that they rented their home, 58% answered they “did not know of
or experienced any barriers to electrification”, while 33% answered they were “concerned
about the price of rent increasing as a result of building upgrades”. The remaining responses
are represented in the pie chart below.
Q) Do you (or someone in your home) pay for your energy bill?
Of the 133 respondents who rent, 126 (about 95%) said they paid their energy bill. Five
respondents stated that they do not pay their energy bill, and four were unsure.
Q) How familiar are you with heat pump water heaters, electrical panels, heat pump
space heating, induction cooktops, or battery storage technology?
Of the total respondents, 53% claimed to “Know a little” about electric appliances, with 29%
responding being “Very knowledgeable”. Only 18% responded that they “haven’t heard of it”.
9
Q) Have you started, completed, or considered upgrading your electrical panel
capacity or converting existing natural gas appliances to electric?
Survey respondents were given a range of four answers that are shown in the table below.
The category that received the most answers (252) was “None – I have all gas appliances and
plan to keep them”, accounting for over 34% of the respondents who chose to answer.
Completed – I have installed all electric appliances 32
Completed some – I have installed some appliances, and may plan to do more 106
Started – I am in the process of installing an appliance or upgrading my electrical panel 30
Considered – I want to switch 74
None – I have all gas appliances and plan to keep them 252
Q) Rebates, tax credits, or other incentives are often available to offset the cost of
electrification projects. Which of these did you experience? Select all that apply.
Of the total respondents, 27 (13%) claimed to have “Received rebates” and 38 (18%)
“Received tax credits”. There were 16 (8%) respondents who “Applied but did not receive”
and 41 (20%) respondents who “Did not apply because they did not qualify”. Eighty-four (84),
and highest percentage (41%) replied that they were “unaware of opportunities”, which
indicates that a public education campaign could be helpful for residents to understand
their options to offset the costs of home electrification projects. No one responded that they
“Received other incentives”.
10
Q) Is there anything preventing or holding you back from completing an
electrification project? Select all that apply.
Respondents were given several options that could be reasons for not pursuing a home
electrification project. Of note, the highest reason, or 19% of respondents, indicated that
they “Prefer gas appliances over electric”. “Electric alternatives are not affordable, even with
the rebates available” and “Concerns over increases to my utility bills” both received 14%.
The bar graph below displays the number and percentage of each option, but has also been
listed below from lowest to highest percentage:
▪ HOA requirements (2%)
▪ “No” response (3%)
▪ Could not get approval or buy-in from landlord/homeowner (4%)
▪ Difficulty finding a contractor (6%)
▪ Unfamiliar with different types of electric appliances (8%)
▪ Rebate process is too complex/unfamiliar (8%)
▪ Other (10%)
▪ Home improvement projects are too time consuming/Other home improvement
projects are higher priority (11%)
▪ Electric alternatives are not affordable, even with the rebates available (14%)
▪ Concerns over increases to my utility bills (14%)
▪ Prefer gas appliances over electric (19%)
11
Q) Do you identify with any of the following categories below? Select all that apply.
Respondents were given several options, and the pie chart below represents the answers
received. Notably, 30.6% identified as having a low or fixed income, being elderly, disabled,
and/or having access needs, or being historically underserved.
Q) If you identified with any of the previous categories, how concerned are you
about losing your home because of the potential additional cost that a new policy
may create?
Of those who identified with the categories provided in the previous question, 87 responded
that they were “Very concerned” about losing their home, 80 responded “Somewhat
concerned”, and 56 responded “Not concerned”.
Q) Do you have any further comments about policy implementation surrounding
home electrification and energy efficiency?
This open-ended question allowed respondents to express their views on creating a policy
for home electrification. Overall, sentiments were that a policy would limit the homeowner's
choice, and suggestions were made to avoid mandating changes. Concerns were also raised
about the reliability of the power grid, potential increases in PG&E prices (with electricity
seen as more expensive) and access to appliances during power outage s. Other points
included support for new developments to lead home electrification modifications and
prioritize measures such as solar panels, and dual -pane windows and doors.
Standout examples are provided below with a full list of responses included in Appendix B.
12
• Do not try to force change on homeowners. Give incentives like rebates instead.
• Educate the residents and let them decide how they want to improve efficiency.
• I appreciate Cupertino's mindset to be part of the climate change solution. However,
the constantly increasing electric bills do not add motivation for home electrification.
I prefer incentives for electrification/efficiency rather than regulations.
• I generally support the idea of improving home efficiency and reducing environmental
impact, but it should be a moderate policy that minimizes cost to homeowners who
may only be trying to replace a broken appliance with an equivalent unit.
• Make sure electricity is affordable and electric infrastructure is stable before
implementing aggressive policies and requirements.
• Not all gas appliances are equal. Focus on the inefficient ones.
• The City should not be able to require residents replace appliances unless the City is
willing to provide financial and other assistance to those “in need” or provide
exceptions. I live in a BMR.
Q) What is your age?
The highest age category was between 45 and 54 (23%), with 35-44 (22%) being the second
highest.
Under 18 31 6.5%
18-24 17 3.5%
25-34 34 7%
35-44 104 22%
45-54 112 23%
55-64 89 19%
65 and over 85 18%
Q) What is your gender?
Of those who chose to answer (409), 50% identified as male and 48% identified as female.
Q) How would you describe your race/ethnicity?
The table below represents the cross-section of the community that responded to the survey.
American Indian or Alaska Native 7
Asian 261
Black or African American 6
Caucasian/White 81
Hispanic/Latinx/Latino/Latina 15
Middle Eastern 4
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 3
South Asian (e.g., Indian, Pakistani, etc.) 79
Other (please specify) 48
13
Q) What is the primary language spoken in your home?
Out of all survey respondents, 76% speak English, 8.5% speak Mandarin Chinese and 4%
speak Hindi in their home as their primary language.
Q) What is your current work status?
Over 54% of survey respondents identified as “Full-time employed”. The second highest was
“Retired” with 93 responses. The chart below provides the remaining responses.
Full-time employed 253
Part-time employed 33
Full-time student 34
Part-time student 2
Unemployed and not seeking employment 15
Unemployed and seeking employment 22
Retired 93
Other (please specify) 10
Q) How many people are in your household?
Of all survey respondents, 172 (or 37%) shared that four people lived in their household. The
next two highest categories were two people (25%) and three people (24%) living in the
household. Forty (40) shared that 5 or more people lived in their household, with only 24
respondents claiming to live by themselves.
Q) Do you represent, or are you associated with, any of the following community
organizations or groups? Select all that apply.
This question was aimed to get a sense of the diversity of respondents , with the vast majority
indicating that they were not affiliated with any of the categories .
Student 68
Real estate 16
Business owners 24
Public transit 20
Walking and cycling 63
Environmental advocacy organizations 21
Faith-based or religious groups 30
None of the above 284
14
Q) What is your annual household income?
Of those who chose to answer (263), nearly 52% identified earning “$150,000 or more”
annually. The graph below shows other annual household income categories of those who
responded, with 194 (or 42%) preferring not to answer.
Less than $24,999 12
$25,000 - $39,999 10
$40,000 - $59,999 19
$60,000 - $74,999 13
$75,000 to $99,999 22
$100,000 to $124,999 27
$125,000 to $149,999 24
$150,000 or more 136
Prefer not to answer 194
In Summary
Overall, the feedback received from survey respondents revealed strong community support
for a new home energy efficiency policy, with 68% backing the initiative. Most respondents
preferred a moderate policy approach. Key barriers included a preference for natural gas
appliances, affordability concerns, and potential utility bill increases.
The opportunity to enhance public education is evident, given the lack of awareness about
available rebates, tax credits, or other incentives available to offset the cost of electrification
projects. While some community members expressed confusion regarding the survey's
purpose in open-ended comments, many shared appreciation for the City's dedicated effort
to involve residents in shaping policy through a thoughtful engagement process. By
amplifying outreach and education, the City of Cupertino can make strides in greater
support of and participation in electrification policy.
15
Appendix A
Sample Social Media Graphics
16
7”x 5” Palm card (front and back)
17
Physical Doorhanger (front and back)
18
Appendix B
An open-ended question asked if respondents had any further comments about policy
implementation surrounding home electrification and energy efficiency. The full list of
responses follows. The responses are categorized into four sections supporting, opposed,
neutral, and misinformed/not relevant to this study.
• All home improvement projects should enforce upgrading to energy efficient electric
appliances. Any new developments/upgrades/improvements should also enforce other
measures like dual pane windows and doors.
• Any requirement for home energy efficiency tied to remodel/addition projects should not
raise the cost of the project by more than 5%. Only appliances or systems being replaced in
the remodel should be subject to energy efficiency requirements.
• The ROI in CA is super fast and you immediate result on your bills.
• Here is the thing. House in the bay are so old and so outdated. Breaker panel is so old, full
and only 100A. Some house got 2 prong outlet not even grounded!! So you will need to change
the entire panel with all the breakers. Wire the entire house for tho se new electric
appliances. Since everything is expensive here it will be crazy expensive! Landlord won’t pay.
Landlord mentality is simple. Do nothing until something breaks. Since we live in California
with no winter house degrade slowly. They don’t care. This is just the tip of the iceberg. .
Isolation in the wall is so old that when I watch with thermal camera, half the wall was not
isolated because isolation fell and compress to the second half. Then windows are make of
paper. Cold and heat escape so easy. Door, sliding door, etc leak air and cold.
I use to live in Quebec, Canada and my house (that we owned) was energy efficient, they
came to test the house and gave us a passing grade. In the bay, people rent and since it’s not
their house they don’t care and are clueless about efficiency.
I am full 100% in on those initiatives but don’t own the house. This should be state wise
mandate. In Canada the state and city would encourage this by having discount, etc. The
equivalent of PG&E was also encouraging and giving discounts.
One problem is that people(landlord) won’t renovate ($$$) so you won’t be able to enforce
this new policy. Forget new house construction, there is no land. Also if my gas oven
break, you won’t know and landlord will replace with gas. The only way is time base or force
people. I guarantee 100% price hike after those renovations.
Best of luck
• Any policy burdens homeowners. Let homeowners decide for themselves and make no
policy burdens. Work on education only.
• As I said in my previous comments, there are power outage happening from time to time. It is
not a good idea to switch to electricity only. We need some diversity in the energy source.
• Biggest concern over moving to all electric is the rising PGE prices. Cannot afford to have all
electric appliances.
• Concerned that the new federal administration will reduce or eliminate rebates and tax
credits.
• Cost to older home owners $$$$$$"$$$$$$$ I do my part for the climate buy keeping open
space plant trees. electrication is not the answer .
19
• Additional budget required to upgrade old house electric panel and the the appliances which
are unaffordable
• Avoid making mandatory changes in Gas vs electric appliances. Let home owners make
decision
• Cupertino is a small city surrounded by many other cities. Even if we change to electric, the
air from other cities can still come into Cupertino. Why put this burden on Cupertino
residents? Unless the whole state requires, do not do this.
If this has to be done, make sure to grandfather existing appliances. Many old people can't
afford to change.
• California needs to fix the power grid before we go all electric, from appliances to electric
cars. The grid can barely handle three consecutive hot days in August - how is it going to
handle all electric homes and cars?
• Decide quickly please
• Demonstrate financial implications to support change
• 1. Consider operating costs - electricity is more expensive and a monopoly.
2. Start by mandating solar panels.
3. Start with new constructions.
• Allow homeowners to decide whether they want to use gas or electric appliances. Both types
can be energy efficient. Forcing homeowners to switch is a big waste of time and money for
all involved.
• Don't force people to throw away working natural gas appliances
• Don't see any benefit of banning gas appliances. When electricity is off, how people cook if
there is no gas stove. Electricity is getting pricey as well. Not good good policy for residents.
• Electric appliances are not really reducing emissions as the source of electricity must be
green as well . Don’t push for appliance replacement , promote solar and battery install first .
Getting new homes to be ready or existing remodel to be installed w ithout gas is not ideal way
to migrate
• Gas cooking ranges work better for cooking food. Please consider that before taking that
option away.
• Gas is a much more efficient way to cook. Also how do we work around power outages - we
need to cook food for elderly and children
• I am absolutely AGAINST the city of Cupertino implementing any kind of restrictions on
residents using gas stoves. Gas stoves are reliable in cases of blackouts, of which we have
plenty, thanks to PG&E. My electricity bills is already high enough. Residents should be able
to decide for themselves whether or not they want a gas stove or an electric. This is a terrible
idea.
• I would like to keep Gas connection
• Back off!!! Stop trying to add additional expenses and regulations and reduction of
competition to our plates!!!!!!! We are done with you guys suffocating us and wasting our
money on bullshit/ legal court battles/etc.
• City council should focus on things that matter like how to stop unnecessary new
redevelopment and densification of the neighborhoods instead of dictating how residents
should live their lives.
• City should focus on local issues
• Climate change is a global issue and the impact of a small town is negligible. We all, as
individuals can focus our limited resources on those issues that we feel are most important
to us; be it climate change, race relations, gender outcomes, childhood e ducation, elderly
support, etc. These resources should not be taken from us by well meaning leaders to be
spent on their priorities.
20
• Concentrate you efforts elsewhere, Traffic congestion !
• Cost and help. Overall benefit vs cost
• Cupertino is already progressive and green in terms of energy usage. We should allow
residents to make their own decisions on their life style choice, government intrusion in
people’s homes is over the top now.
• Cupertino should consider switching to city owned utility first. Current electricity provide has
been doing poor jobs in Cupertino.
• Cupertino should focus on providing services to its residents--not telling them what to do.
• Cupertino should adopt a climate resiliency, net zero or other greenhouse gas reduction
policy/program. Such programs have been shown to be seriously flawed.
• Defund this project t and cancel it now. Leave our gas appliances alone. Don’t invent policies
we don’t need. Evict the homeless encampments and RVs instead. Or improve service with
building and planning. Or reduce permit fees. Or bring back services that were reduced. Do
something we actually need not things we don’t need.
• Do not enforce stupid policies.
• Do not force changes to newly built homes and require energy efficient upgrades only when
someone is building a new home or doing a major upgrade. It is morally and fiscally
irresponsible to force others to incur humongous costs in the name of efficiency
• Do not force the policy. Let owners decide
• Do not restrict my freedom of choice to access the freedom of choice and utilize the free
market. Government restrictions always have negative consequences. Leave us alone, it’s
none of your business.
• Do not try to force change on homeowners. Give incentives like rebates instead.
• Don't force on people. Let them decide and many know what they do
• Educate the residents and let them decide how they want to improve efficiency.
• Education with hard numbers
• Electrical energy here is the most expensive in the nation, unreliable, and is so poorly
managed they can't stop starting massive fires in the state. WHY ARE YOU ADVOCATING
FORCING PEOPLE TO THEM? You're going to get sued like Berkeley.
• Electricity costs are climbing with no recourse for home owners. Even solar subsidies are
being significantly curtailed by the state, with Newsom government considering breaking 2M
NEM 1/2 contracts. That's punishing the home owners that cared about the e nvironment and
spent significant amounts to install solar in their homes. Is this initiative going to be next?
Will the electricity rates make the homeowners pay not only for the shift to the new
appliances, but also significantly increase utility costs?
• Electrification relies on uninterrupted supply. Last few years have shown that Cupertino dies
not have reliable continuous electricity provider. This forces home owners to find own
alternatives at higher cost.
• Energy efficiency
• Energy efficiency is also responsibility of government. There are no measures in place to
reduce costs. High costs of living are making such upgrades to homes impossible now.
• Energy efficiency is fine, but in CA we do not have bandwidth and as a state we are not
generating more electrical plants to help with the increased demand from this sort of
initiative and electric cars etc. The choice should be with the home owner and the state
needs to increase supply of all sources of energy.
• environmental concerns are often considered as externalities so financially, it can be hard to
justify even if the cost is similar.
• Follow state guidelines please
21
• Follow the state. Educate vs mandate. I am 100% against mandates to transition, especially
when my current appliances are in fine working order.
Make sure everione knows about indentives and rebates and the advantages of natjural gas
alternatives.
• For private home, it’s just personal choice. But to business, the concern is whether the
transfer from natural gas to electricity will raise the cost. We shouldn’t force people to do
things which makes cost a concern to both business and consumer especially under current
environment which already have high inflation
• -Funding to allow those who can't afford
-load program -> future
• Gas stoves and heaters are much more efficient, cost effective, and in case of gas stoves
produce much better results. They are also a literal lifesaver in case of power outages - for
example a multi-day outages that we had back in 2022 and 2023. Solar backups are
unreliable given the nature of solar. Vulnerable or elderly folks need to have their cooking and
heating needs met when power is out, doing it with electric is significantly more expensive if
even possible. Battery backups are extremely expensive, their longevity is unclear and they
generate a huge amount of toxic waste, that in the case of fires greatly increases cleanup
time and cost as well as environmental impact. Gas-powered generators are literal life savers
in these situations, and is something I've actually considered installing for my elderly parents.
Please don't ban Gas - batteries and electric appliances are very far from being an adequate
replacement.
• Good & safe
• Government over reach. Green house gases is a scam!
• Govt should stay out of my home.
• How about lets not make Cupertino even less affordable than it already is. This is a terrible
idea.
• How can I answer the first question (about supporting a City mandate) when I don't know
what that mandate would be?
• How many times we lose power and currently use an induction stove top. I cannot cook or
boil water and it was winter. Unless pge stabilized electricity available (during non
stormy/windy weather), I prefer gas stove top and water heater
• I am agree with electric appliances
• I am no expert in this area, but my impression is that residential appliances are a relatively
small contributor to global warming. I would prefer the city let homeowners decide if and
when they want to convert from gas to electric appliances.
• I appreciate Cupertino's mindset to be part of the climate change solution. However, the
constantly increasing electric bills do not add motivation for home electrification. I prefer
incentives for electrification/efficiency rather than regulations. If it can be demonstrated that
the electrification and energy efficiency has a financial payback that should attract people to
buy into it.
On the other hand, Cupertino could consider privatizing its electric delivery similar to Santa
Clara. Considering the average monthly bill is $250 less in Santa Clara and Cupertino has
about 20,000 households... there is $60M more going to PG&E than an equivalent household
population in Santa Clara. It may be worth setting up a bond and finding a way to remove ties
from PG&E.
• I appreciate the city’s concern and am definitely not in favor of requiring current home
owners to make a switch from gas to electric. I think Cupertino and its citizens are already
doing a lot to support saving the environment.
22
• I generally support the idea of improving home efficiency and reducing environmental impact,
but it should be a moderate policy that minimizes cost to homeowners who may only be
trying to replace a broken appliance with an equivalent unit.
• I have concerns anything tied to pulling permits would be slowed down even more by these
proposed requirements.
any new policy should bias towards reducing the cost and time burden on the homeowners
pulling permits.
• I hope good developments will be made!!!
• I prefer dual fuel alternatives
• I prefer gas range for cooking over induction range. I don't have any issues replacing other
appliances to electric.
• I started to do some research on my house and what appliances are needed in my house to
go to all electric. I already have an electric cooktop and that could be converted to an
induction cooktop but I need redo the countertops and wiring possibly. For th e water heater,
it is current an Utra-low NOx high efficiency gas 40gal unit in stalled in 2013. To convert to an
electric water heater, I need a 240V outlet nearby in the garage. I have already an electric
dryer and a 240V outlet in the laundry room. I already have a high efficiency 95.5% gas
furnace upgraded back in 2015. To convert to an electric furnace, I would need another 240V
outlet wired into the hallway furnace room for it. If I were to get an EV, I would need another
240V outlet for the charger. For solar panels and a external outdoor storage battery, more
wiring and configuration of the electrical panel. So I need at least three more 240V outlets
and increase my 100amp electrical panel to at least 200Amp or maybe 400Amps. How much
would that cost in my monthly utility bill?
Why the EV? Governor Newsom is phasing out all ICE vehicles for sale in 2035. Plus all the
gasoline refineries are shutting down and leaving California which will lead to high gas prices
in the state. What about the capacity of PG&E to supply the electr icity to all the homes in my
neighborhood? PG&E will have to get power from outside of California because it can't
generate enough electricity in state from gas generation, nuclear plants. That will cost more.
Gov. Jerry Brown had the following quote: "A lot of roads are paved with good intentions, but
they usually don’t end up anywhere good." and "The more money we spend, the more
problems will grow out of the solution of spending more. It never ends."
• I think that homes that have gas stoves should be allowed to keep them.
• I welcome incentives to move away from gas to Electric, but it is difficult to switch for existing
homes in the area. Also PG&E is expensive and getting more so.
• I would not like to remove gas appliances from my home. I need the power to decide what to
do for my home. I already do my part for the environment and I dont want someone else to
dictate what I can and cannot do. Educate people to do the right thing and dont enforce and
make it a burden by way of implementing policy that is beneficial only for the corporates
rather than common people.
• I’d like to city to facilitate electrification upgrades by helping homeowners understand,
navigate, and apply for rebates. The city should also be advocating for the state to accelerate
the flow down of federal rebates that were passed by congress YEARS ago.
• I’m not sure what this is all about. Except for water heaters, don’t most homes in Cupertino
built since the 1970s have electric appliances? Under home electrification, would gas water
heaters need to be replaced with electric ones? If so, how efficient are heat pump water
heaters?
• Important to have the option of gas for cooking
23
• In general, I think it's good to have these standards to improve our homes in general. I
strongly feel that this should either be done when pulling permits or when replacing
appliances, though. It's not reasonable to push for anything before that, especial ly when
there could be recently purchased appliances out there.
• It is a policy overreach and would lead to a whole host of financial and practical problems for
Cupertino residents.
• It should be a personal decision, not required by government.
• It should be up to the individual homeowner to decide. No need for any policy on this.
• It should be upto the homeowner to decide on the power for the appliance . They can use gas
as long as they use it safely.
• Keep current gas appliances as is. Don't use political power to push people change. Let
people to choose it.
• Leave our gas lines and appliances alone. Cancel your survey project and abandon any
attempts to add costs to us on top of our already high costs.
• Leave out cooking appliances, having gas protects us during electricity outages which seem
to increase ever year
• Let home owner decide
• Let home owners decide for themselves when and if they want to make such changes.
• Lower or remove pge monopoly. Learn from Santa Clara city, their electric prices are so
affordable
• Make it affordable
• Make sure electricity is affordable and electric infrastructure is stable before implementing
aggressive policies and requirements.
• More educational resources are needed to make decision.
• more efficiency
• MUST be paired with significant rebates with no income cap
• My understanding is that gas heating is much more efficient than electric heating. Electric
heating will cost more. Also, cooking with gas is better than electric.
• Need free assessments
• Need central info
• Needs to be ease and fiscally solvent companies in other words need to feel confident that
they will be around .
• Neighbor cities tried and failed to implement this electrification mandate, because it is too
costly upfront and not cost efficient in the long run.
• Not all gas appliances are equal. Focus on the inefficient ones.
Electric rates keeps increasing and even with Solar they add up.
• offer incentives for landlords. They otherwise have no reason to switch.
• Only new homes should be brought under this new initiative.
• Our experience in dealing with the city of cupertino is highly negative. I have zero faith that
cupertino would handle the electrification issue in a fair and just manner. We would not get
honest or correct information from cupertino to allow citizens to make an informed choice.
Just as is the case with this survey.. A select few people who govern and regulate cupertino
make the decisions and then force these decisions upon the rest of the population. You can't
predict the future. After going to great cost and trampling on individual rights to go electric
you might well find, in a few years, that this decision to go electric with all of the city was
entirely incorrect. Don't be so quick to jump. Wait a while and see what changes occur. Best
to leave well enough alone.
24
• Our neighborhood often losses power. With the gas stove at least we can cook and have hot
water when we loss power. Without a gas stove, we won’t be able to cook when we loss
power.
• People are in different stages of life with varied family, financial, immigration challenges and
forcing them to upgrade / change there homes is disruptive to there lives.
• PG & E is very expensive and recently the electric outage has been a concern. When there are
long outages, the ONLY thing that keeps the house going is the gas stove. I strongly oppose
mandating the switch to electric for everything.
• PG&E Rate Hikes
• PGE Bills are astronomical and any restrictive policy would add immense hardship &
significant reduction in quality of life.
• PGE electric rates are huge
• PGE prices
• Plant more street trees!
• Please consider cost to those of us who cannot afford this !!!
• Please do not force people to convert from gas to electric cooking
• Please do not tell people what to do inside their own home if it is not risking other people. You
are most welcome to educate but stay out of my home.
• Please stop this nonsense policy.
• Renters should be able to get the process done when the policy is mandated
• Renters, as myself, might not have too much to say about the policy. I would love to get it
introduced asap, but I don't know about how my landlord will be willing to adjust
• Should leave this to the homeowner. Gas option should be available in addition to electric.
• Should not make a policy and just let people do what makes sense to them.
• solar preferred
• Stop policies that burden homeowners with new costs to benefit manufacturers and
politicians
• Stop the nonsense
• Stop! Focus on other needs for the city, for starters, the architecture on new homes going up
everywhere in the city is horrendous!!! Cupertino is beginning to look ugly!! How about
cleaning up the RV parking near Target, cleaning the graffiti all over the city and most of all the
new cockroach and rat problems that are out in the open. Try walking down De Anza Blvd at
night near the BJ’s area without stepping on a massive roach!!! Do t create new problems, fix
the existing!!!
• Strongly against any policy by a few people that affects the entire population, increases costs
to renovate, and increases the chance that there is not enough supply of electricity at a
reasonable cost for residents. We have very many things to worry about and any
implementation of this will increase housing costs for owners, landlords, renters and deplete
the assets of individuals. Leave it alone and let owners change as they feel ready to make that
commitment. I would encourage rebates for people that want to embark on this or some
other financial incentive but no penalties against people that are already struggling to stay in
the area.
• Technology is changing so fast it's ridiculous to assume forcing today's technology is the
best.
• The California electric grid cannot support much higher electrification, let alone full
electrification of homes. Frequent power failures are already happening too frequently.
Diversity of energy supplies for residences are needed for availability and cost reasons. The
CPUC forcing NEM1 and NEM2 residential solar customers to switch to NEM3 to install more
25
capacity is a non-starter which prevents current NEM1 and NEM2 installations from
expanding their solar.
• The City should not be able to require residents replace appliances unless the City is willing
to provide financial and other assistance to those “in need” or provide exceptions. I live in a
BMR. It is very frustrating that suddenly we are now told gas pol lutes indoor air as a reason to
switch to electric.
• The city wants to go electric but has not put in the effort of educating the public about it at
various events like Earth Day, Cherry Blossom Festival etc)
The City needs to talk/display at various events & have discussions/talks at City Hall.
• The feed back from people who have gone through this at Palo Alto, tells us that effort was a
disaster, some business were shut down or relocated, residents are complaining left and
right. I have done induction cooking stoves at other properties, and find that it is not useful,
the heat comes up slowly, and it can't be shut off right away, which is wasted energy and a
safety hazard. I feel this initiative is trying to force another un-proven, half baked solution
under the guise of Environmental protection. We are tired of our voice not being heard, and
initiatives like this being forced on us without consent. So if initiatives like this gets passed
without consent of the governed, we will be organizing and pursue all necessary avenues to
push back on this.
• The questions asked in this survey are biased towards supporting all electric. The questions
imply you are not supportive of energy efficient if you don't choose all electric. Also, the
answers won't allow you to pick a hybrid approach (electric + gas). As I mentioned in
comments area in previous questions, do you know how many times PG&E had power outage
in 2024 and 2025? During outage, we cannot cook, take bath, charge our phones & car, etc if
we only have electric appliances. Why can't we allow Cupertino residents to have a hybrid
solution?? If power it out, we can still use gas to cook, take bath and do other things critical to
our wellbeing.
• There should be an allowance for cooking gas stoves
• Think how you will guarantee electricity supply when elderly need it for food, and equipment
before jumping on the band wagon!
• This idea is being pushed by Silicon Valley clean energy? What’s in it for them ?
• This is a chimera. Let’s not force this. These are expensive changes and all the more difficult
in the current economic conditions
• This is conversation is all based on a false premise to consider all electric mandates isn't
supported by any fact based science.
• This option is being forced on us
• This policy has a potential to kill people when electric power is down for an extended time.
People will be unable to heat their homes, cook, use lifesaving equipment. It happened not
that long ago in Texas when electric grid failed in winter. There could be wrongful death
lawsuits against the city. Residents will be on the hook to pay awards. Unfortunately, city
managers who push this idea, will bear no personal responsibility.
• To do all the electrification, I would need to double my panel load capacity for an EV charger,
electrical furnace and water heater, electric stove-top, solar panels and storage battery, etc.
Additional rewiring of my house to support the load. PG&E would have increase the
electricity delivered to my neighborhood and double their capacity. Can PG&E do that? How
high will our electrical bills go up? My PG&E bill doubled over the past two years; even with
the Silicon Valley Clean Energy electric generation charges. The City Council makes policy
without thinking the down the road impact on the residents (homeowners and renters) cost of
living. (Similar to Trump's tariff policies. ) You would think energy efficiency means I would
26
save money. Higher home living costs, higher rents, less affordable available housing for
renters and homeowners. Drive businesses out of the area and less business tax revenue.
• To expensive, requires rewiring the house to support the new eclectic loads. plus, the cost of
the new stuff.
• To force electrification on home owners with no consideration to the associated costs and
lack of reliable electric service just so you can "feel good" doesn't work for me.
• Too expensive
• Unknown costs associated with contractors
• Unless government is sponsoring it for all home owners,such policies can be breaking for
home owners. Not everyone can afford it .
• We need the government (fed, state, local) to also buy in to energy efficiency. Lead from the
top.
• We should always have alternate sources of energy besides electric since it has become so
unreliable.
• we should let home owners decide. Changing appliance is not affordable for everyone
especially with tariffs in place, cost of upgrades will go high
• When the power was out from rain and wind storms during the winter, the only thing keeping
us a little bit warm was hot water from our gas water heater. We do not want an electric
water heater with cold water during power outages.
• Whether Cupertino adopts such a policy cannot possibly affect climate change in any
meaningful way. It's an absurd lie to say otherwise.
• With PGE continuing to raise their rates, it is unfair to force residents to “electrify” their
homes.
• Yes need to mandate all electric
• Yes, don't want city to implement any kind of policy to my property or home.
• You need to consider that you are mandating something and taking a choice away from
consumers.
• Your questions are inherently biased! I would like to be energy efficient but my ideas of
efficiency do not align with yours. Elctricity production causes co2 emmissions which is also
a greenhouse gas. Ca has not yet reached a position where the energy generated is all solar
or wind based. So no i don't think that the high cost of remodel is justified.