See what Berkeley is cooking up in renewed attack against natural gas
Just when you thought it was safe to cook up your fall chili recipe in peace, the city of Berkeley, California, is rolling out a new natural gas ban initiative set to rekindle the politically flammable issue that everyone else would prefer to move on from… before it all boils over once again.
Undaunted by its unequivocal loss in the courts last year, Berkeley’s city leaders have released a new strategy to curb natural gas use, this time by imposing taxes on large buildings in which it is used.
As if there’s not enough to consider on Nov. 5, the city’s residents will vote on a ballot measure that proposes taxing the owners of buildings of 15,000 square feet or larger based on the amount of natural gas consumed each year.
If passed, Berkeley’s proposal would become the first tax in the country to target the use of a specific fuel source for buildings.
EXPERTS RIP 'TRIPLE CROWN OF BAD REGS' AS BIDEN ADMIN POSTS GAS STOVE RULE IT DENIED WAS A BAN
Proponents of the new tax gathered over 4,500 signatures from community members to get their proposal on the ballot. The tax aims to charge large building owners $2.96 for every 100 cubic feet (or 100,000 BTUs) of natural gas that is utilized. The value is based on the city’s own calculus of the social cost of carbon, a formula estimating damage caused to society by excess greenhouse gas emissions.
Berkeley uses a "more just and equitable" discount rate to measure that cost than either the Biden-Harris (or Trump) administration’s numbers; their costlier figure is meant to avoid "shifting the cost burden of emissions to future generations." Whether Berkeley building owners also see justice and equity in the city’s approach to their tax obligations is doubtful.
The local building and construction trades council criticized the measure for levying additional costs on businesses in an area already hit by higher-than-average taxes. And while the measure explicitly prohibits property owners from passing on costs to renters, a city report expressed concerns that higher rental costs could ensue "either at the time of lease renewal or… [through] adjustments during times of vacancy."
Berkeley has a lot of work to do. Consumers overwhelmingly prefer choices, and the performance, reliability and cost of natural gas appliances often wins out.
Berkeley sparked widespread pushback against the Biden administration for seeking to curtail natural gas stoves, hot water heaters, furnaces, clothes dryers and more.
Biden-appointed Consumer Product Safety Commissioner Richard Trumka (now under investigation by the House Small Business Committee) fanned the flames by telling Bloomberg News that, when it comes to natural gas appliances and the potential for indoor air pollutants, "Any option is on the table. Products that can’t be made safe can be banned."
DEMS JOIN HOUSE GOP'S REBUKE OF BIDEN LNG EXPORT PAUSE: 'WHOLE-OF-GOVERNMENT ATTACK' ON US ENERGY
Undercutting Trumka’s apparent desire to enter Americans’ kitchens, the World Health Organization subsequently released a sweeping analysis of the health risks of cooking or heating with natural gas compared to other fuels and to electricity. It found no significant association between natural gas and asthma, wheezing, coughing or breathlessness – and a lower risk of bronchitis when compared to electricity. Its conclusions contradicted prior claims of asthma incidence attributable to natural gas.
Perhaps another question Americans should ask themselves on Nov. 5 is where former Berkeley resident and current presidential nominee Kamala Harris stands on the issue? While no one knows for sure, the vice president’s Thanksgiving picture with husband Doug Emhoff posted on X last November offered a potential clue:
If Kamala and Doug like a good gas stove, will the rest of us get to keep ours too? Should we plan ahead this Thanksgiving and, if the Harris ticket wins the election, set an extra place at the table in case Richard Trumka shows up?
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
America’s ceaseless culture wars will no doubt sort out these questions, and so much more. As many already realize, however, the most realistic way to achieve a sustainable economic future in which U.S. energy use is clean, safe, reliable and affordable is to maintain access to natural gas as a long-term option.
Berkeley’s hungry political leaders may have forgotten the lessons of the past few years, but most Americans would prefer to leave Natural Gas-gate on the back burner where it belongs.