FILE – In this Jan. 11, 2006, file photo, a gas-lit flame burns on a natural gas stove. A federal appeals court on Monday, April, 17, 2023, overturned Berkeley, California’s first-in-the-nation ban on natural gas in new construction, agreeing with restaurant owners who argued the city bypassed federal energy regulations when it approved the ordinance. (AP Photo/Thomas Kienzle, File)

(NEXSTAR) – Over the past couple years, a wave of progressive cities and states have moved toward banning gas stoves and other appliances in new buildings. San Francisco, Seattle, New York and others have changed the rules in the name of the environment and residents’ respiratory health.

But the wave has been met with substantial backlash, opposing federal legislation and lawsuits seeking to overturn the bans.

Research has shown burning gas in the home doesn’t just pollute city skies, it also pollutes the air in your kitchen. NPR used an air monitor to measure the harmful gas nitrogen dioxide in a kitchen with a gas stove and oven on at the same time, as if they were cooking dinner. After 12 minutes, the journalist found the nitrogen dioxide levels were 60% higher than levels recommended by the World Health Organization.

Studies have found the harmful particles emitted by gas stoves can cause asthma and other respiratory issues, especially in children.

Berkeley, California, was the first U.S. city to put in place a ban installing gas piping in new buildings, but the local law was met with a lawsuit by the California Restaurant Association, a trade group representing restaurants.

In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed an earlier decision by a district court that upheld the ban. The federal court ruled that existing federal law “expressly preempts State and local regulations concerning the energy use of many natural gas appliances, including those used in household and restaurant kitchens.”

The judges wrote Berkeley tried to get around the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act by banning gas piping, not gas appliances. However, they rules the city couldn’t circumvent federal law by doing that.

But the federal court ruling was expected to be appealed, the Associated Press reported, meaning the legal battle could stretch on even longer.

Other cities and states have bans that are still on the books, or expected to go into place soon. New York, the first to pass a statewide ban, will phase in a law that requires all new buildings have electric cooking and heating appliances. The law will affect buildings under seven stories by 2026 and over seven stories by 2029, according to CNN.

All of the proposed or enacted bans focus on the appliances being installed in newly constructed buildings. No cities or states have suggested ripping out gas stoves in people’s already existing homes and apartments.

Meantime, federal legislators have moved to make sure a nationwide ban doesn’t happen.

In June, the House voted to keep the Consumer Product Safety Commission from regulating gas stoves as hazardous products, even though the head of the Commission said he’s not interested in pursuing a nationwide ban.

The legislation was unlikely to pass the Democratic-majority Senate, The Hill previously reported, and it has yet to see any action since passing the House.

However, Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia did support adding language into an appropriations bill that would limit the CPSC from banning gas stoves.

The post What occurred to fuel range bans? appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

During the annual Pride festival in San Francisco, Fernando Velez, a 34-year-old from Puerto Rico, presented his vibrant comic book collection featuring LGBTQ superheroes inspired by real people in San Francisco.

Velez said he was 25 when he created and wrote the first book in the Kraven Comics Universe, aiming to represent LGBTQ people with his creative vision.

“I feel like growing up I didn’t have any representation or identify with any character,” he told SFGATE during the festival. “When I look at my community, I think there are so many heroes that need to be celebrated.”

Velez said his first powerful, flamboyant superhero character was inspired by Sister Roma, one of San Francisco’s most notable drag queens.

Before moving to Los Angeles, Velez said he was influenced by the culture and community of the city of San Francisco, where he lived for 14 years.

“I always call it my playground, my muse, my inspiration,” he said. “That’s why the heroes’ base is actually in San Francisco.”

Velez said he got his first book out with the help of community fundraisers early in the coronavirus pandemic. Nine years later he has written about 13 different comics, each about LGBTQ heroes trying to protect humanity.

“All the classics [series] is about the six LGBTQ heroes who largely forgive humanity for how we have been treated for so many generations because, ironically, humanity’s survival rests in the hands of these gay heroes,” he said.

The comics creator said he’s had multiple reactions to his comics amid the controversy surrounding LGBTQ children’s books.

“I see a lot of transgender people cry when they see themselves portrayed in comics because as adults we all want to feel important, to belong, and it’s so important to be able to give that portrayal,” he said he.

Velez added that he loves to see straight parents show their kids the comics and say, “See if anyone tells you about this [LGBTQ] People are bad, they are told they are superheroes.”

In recent years, LGBTQ “book bans” have drawn national attention and caused an uproar as some seek to push for censorship of LGBTQ-themed books. Most recently, San Ramon Unified School District board members debated the district libraries’ book policies as some parents called for LGBTQ-themed books to be removed, SFGATE previously reported.

Velez’s comics are not immune to controversy either, some say they shouldn’t be viewed by children.

“But no, we gave free books to all drag queen study classes across the country,” Velez responded to the negative reactions.

Despite the controversy, Velez believes it’s important to keep pushing his creative work and aiming for a film adaptation of his comics.

“We can’t just sit back and let them win,” Velez said. “We need to get our content and our books out there.”

The post San Francisco LGBTQ comedian artist fights again towards guide bans appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

The California Convention passed AB 316 by a vote of 54 to 3. The bill includes a provision mandating the presence of a human driver in autonomous trucks during testing, which the Teamsters union had campaigned for. This is just an Assembly bill: to become law, it would need a Senate equivalent and the governor’s signature.

Earlier, San Francisco regulators, also lobbied by the Teamsters, turned down a petition by Waymo to convert warehouse space into employee parking at a new facility in an industrial area in southwest San Francisco. The parking had already been overwhelmingly approved by lower bodies, but descriptions of the meeting suggest the conflict between the Robotaxi companies and the city has escalated, and the denial of that parking request makes it seem like that’s about it and not about it about whether these parking spaces exist spaces are appropriate.

Robocar developers always anticipated that there would be a backlash as the technology became more real. Some of the backlash will be emotional or come from those who feel commercially threatened by the technology. Some will be entitled to the public safety and traffic disruption issues to be expected when trying out new technologies like this. On the issue of job preservation – many drivers drive drivers for a living – there is sympathy on both sides for those who feel their careers are threatened, but concerns about efforts to protect a dangerous and uncomfortable job just to keep jobs alive can stay. Such efforts have typically not stood the test of history, nor have they been retrospectively counted as good when they did.

For trucking, having drivers in trucks controlled by computers is obviously ridiculous in the long run. All teams are currently doing this to ensure safety. Their systems are immature and they know it. But all plans depend on that driver eventually being removed, as has already happened for robotaxis around the city. If the law passes, the driver will have to be there at least until 2029, when the DMV can issue a report with recommendations to remove the driver recommendation.

Outside of the state, several trucking companies are already conducting driverless tests, and one company, Gatik, is making regular daily deliveries without a security driver in the vehicle. Waiting until 2029 in California essentially pushes the tech out of the state, even though many of the companies have a strong presence there. Once something is banned, it becomes very difficult to get the ban lifted, as the officials who lift the ban practically take responsibility if something goes wrong. So they are afraid of it. They don’t want to take any risks, even legitimate risks, and face the consequences.

In fact, all of the companies that develop trucks have protested this bill and hope the governor will refuse to sign the bill. California is the world leader in autonomous driving technology and needs serious thought about deliberately giving up that lead as a union tries to keep jobs for its members. You should look for other ways to lessen the burden on these union members. The hard truth is that 2,000 people die in truck accidents every year in the US – many of them truck drivers. Keeping jobs is one thing, but keeping a job that kills so many people is harder to justify. It’s different than getting jobs that don’t cause deaths.

SF vs Robotaxi

It is likely that the fight in San Francisco will continue to escalate. The state has the right to regulate the roads, not the city. This has frustrated the city, which wants more influence over how robotic taxis work there. The city is frustrated at their powerlessness and seems to feel that the Robotaxi companies took advantage of them and didn’t show the city enough respect. Whether that’s true or not, feelings and perceptions matter more in such a battle, and the city has no means of asserting itself against the companies that operate there.

San Francisco executives meeting in San Francisco (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu) The vote to block Waymo was unanimous among those present.Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved

The jurisdictional boundary between state and city exists for a reason. If each city had too much power for different road rules, it could create chaos for motorists and businesses dealing with a difficult patchwork of regulators. Waymo and Cruise are based in the SF Bay Area, and that city is by far the best testing ground for both, but they may be starting to regret the issues that come with it. Despite being the big city in the high-tech capital of the world, San Francisco has a surprisingly insane history as a proving ground for the new technologies being manufactured there. That’s his choice, but it makes it harder for companies to work there.

In the past, that wasn’t a problem for SF. It had more than enough reputation to deter a few companies. Today, the shift to working from home has emptied downtown San Francisco more than any other city in the US, and one has to be wary of scaring companies even more to work there. SF has shown that even if it can’t regulate your technology, it will use its more mundane powers like planning permission to get what it wants. And they should win this fight if they want to and oust the companies – the real question is why would they want that. Yes, being the beta tester of such technology comes with problems. But a study by the SF Transportation Authority, which asked their drivers to log any problems with the robo-taxis, found surprisingly few incidents. Companies make mistakes and have many teething troubles, but it seems to be anecdotal, not a pattern, it is mistaken for a pattern.

The city must decide how many childhood illnesses it can tolerate, and then grit its teeth and tolerate them. As long as no one is harmed, technology promises to significantly reduce traffic risk in the future, and a few blunders may well be worth it, for society and even for the city.

A passive-aggressive struggle, with cities scrambling to find another way to get rid of these companies, isn’t good for either side. The sides should reconcile or separate, costly as that may be. Waymo may already be hoping for a better time in Los Angeles — that remains to be seen. Arizona and Texas have already shown they are ready to move forward. The problem is that San Francisco didn’t ask for tech to come to the city — it was born there, so it was never a welcome immigrant. A background fight does no harm to anyone.

Waymo will solve his parking problem. In fact, an obvious solution is to use a staging lot and have Waymo vehicles pick up employees from there. It’s a bit cumbersome, but a good test of a mode that will be necessary as robo-taxis prepare to handle things like stadiums and large buildings with high peak traffic. Doing it on a small scale is more expensive – you don’t want employees to have to wait more than a few minutes for a shuttle, but at this point that cost can be managed. But in the long run, finding a way to get SF on board is important.

follow me Twitter or LinkedIn. Cash my website.

I founded ClariNet, the world’s first Internet-based company, am Chair Emeritus of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and a Fellow of the Foresight Institute. My current passion are self-driving vehicles and robots. I worked on Google’s auto team in the early years and am a consultant and/or investor for automakers and many of the top startups in robocars, sensors, delivery robots and even some flying cars. Plus AR/VR and software. I found the faculty and computer science chair at Singularity University and I write, consult and speak on robocar technology around the globe.

Continue readingread less

The post California Invoice Bans Self-Driving Vehicles. San Francisco Supervisors Block Waymo. Does Luddism Reign? appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

April 10, 2023, ACHR NEWSSpace: San Francisco Bans Gas Stoves | ACHR News

This website requires certain cookies to function and uses other cookies to ensure you have the best possible experience. Visiting this website has already set certain cookies, which you can delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our website, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated For more information, see the privacy and cookie policy.

This site uses cookies
By closing this message or continuing to use our website, you agree to our cookie policy. Learn more
This website requires certain cookies to function and uses other cookies to provide you with the best possible experience. Visiting this website has already set certain cookies, which you can delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our website, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated For more information, see the privacy and cookie policy.

The post April 10, 2023, ACHR NEWSRoom: San Francisco Bans Gasoline Furnaces appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

The bureaucrats, the bans and the HVAC contractor | ACHR News

This website requires certain cookies to function and uses other cookies to ensure you have the best experience. Visiting this website has already set certain cookies, which you can delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our website, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated Privacy and Cookie Policy to learn more.

This site uses cookies
By closing this message or continuing to use our website, you agree to our cookie policy. Learn more
This website requires certain cookies to function and uses other cookies to ensure you have the best experience. Visiting this website has already set certain cookies, which you can delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our website, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated Privacy and Cookie Policy to learn more.

The post The Bureaucrats, the Bans, and the HVAC Contractor appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

San Francisco regulators have pushed back a vote to lift San Francisco’s ban on city officials doing business with companies headquartered in states that have enacted anti-LGBTQ laws, abortion bans or restricted voting access in recent years. They did so despite objections from local minorities and LGBTQ entrepreneurs who fear it will have a negative impact on them.

Meanwhile, District 8 gay warden Rafael Mandelman on Tuesday introduced an ordinance to completely abandon the city’s policy of banning travel to and doing business in conservative states. He was joined as co-sponsors by Supervisors Catherine Stefani of District 2 and Hilary Ronen of District 9, and Board Chairperson Aaron Peskin, representing District 3.

“Removing 12X will increase bidding competition and reduce contract costs, saving San Francisco tens of millions or more each year. And it will better advance our social policy goals by allowing us to engage with the actual communities impacted by restrictive LGBTQ, abortion, voting and human rights policies,” Mandelman said in announcing the regulation. “I got it As I said before, the best pressure we can put on red states is to show that progressive San Francisco can be governed effectively.”

District 11 Supervisor Ahsha Safaí had requested that the vote on his ordinance be postponed to the March 14 Board of Supervisors meeting to continue meeting with business leaders in the city. Last November, he introduced the ordinance to abolish the contracting ban.

But when the Regulators’ Rules Committee, of which Safaí is a part, finally raised the city policy overhaul known as 12X at its February 13 meeting, local business leaders complained that they had not been consulted on the matter. Safaí promised to meet with them to hear their concerns and asked for the continuation at Tuesday’s full board meeting to continue those discussions.

“We’ve had some of those talks, but I want to give space to continue those talks,” said Safaí, who voted to introduce the 12X policy when it was first proposed.

The 11 supervisors voted unanimously to allow progress, although District 7 Supervisor Myrna Melgar suggested that more time was needed to gather community input on the 12X policy change. It also includes a ban on most taxpayer-funded city breaks in the 30 states now covered by the directive, although the travel ban would not be affected by Safaí’s regulation.

“If we’re going to reform it, we have to do it wisely,” Melgar said, adding that she feared two weeks wasn’t “enough time to get the community involved.”

District 10 Supervisor Shamann Walton reiterated his opposition to the proposal, which he originally made during the hearing before the Rules Committee, of which he is vice chair. A major objection made by Walton is that changing the 12X policy would result in rewards for large multinational corporations headquartered in states that have legislated against the values ​​that support San Francisco and its residents.

“In my opinion, this will only support the people who support these discriminatory laws,” Walton said.

The 12X Directive was first enacted in 2016 and initially included only those states that had previously passed laws that discriminated against their LGBTQ residents. In 2019, the policy was extended to states that restricted abortion and again in 2021 to states with election-busting laws. California also has a law that bans most taxpayer-funded travel to states that have passed anti-LGBTQ laws in the past eight years, but does not prohibit contracts with companies in those states.

With more than half the country now on San Francisco’s blacklist, critics argue it’s hampering city governments’ ability to find qualified contractors. They also insist it increases the cost of projects because companies that could make the work less expensive won’t bid for them at all if they’re in a banned state.

Critics of 12X, like District 6 gay supervisor Matt Dorsey, also claim that it has failed in its goal of convincing lawmakers in affected states to repeal the laws that put them on San Francisco’s ban list . According to a 16-page memo the city government’s office sent to regulators earlier this month, the implications of the 12X policy in other states are “not clear.”

It concluded that the 12X policy created “additional administrative burdens for city staff and vendors and unintended consequences for San Francisco citizens, such as: B. the restriction of enrichment and development opportunities”.

The memo came at the request of five supervisors who asked the city bureau to review the 12X policy last October. Among them was Mandelman, who supports updating the ban but had been working on his own ordinance for it.

“I don’t think the right way to make a change is to flip the bird and walk away,” he told the Bay Area Reporter, writing last week that supervisors are slowing down their decision-making process on the 12X should policy.

In a letter sent to the Rules Committee and shared with all supervisors, the San Francisco Latino Black Builders Association questioned whether there was any data showing that a change to the 12X policy was warranted. It asked supervisors to require city authorities to prove that work efficiency was reduced or costs increased as a result of the contract ban.

“We support the intent of the original regulation and the support it offers to LGBTQ communities across the country. We also approve of the idea of ​​supporting local and Californian businesses,” wrote Anne Cervantes, a founder and co-chair of the association.

But former District 8 gay supervisor Scott Wiener, now a senator, is urging current supervisors to repeal the entire 12X policy he originally wrote. It is no longer a sound public policy, he claims.

“When I penned 12X, we believed that a coalition of cities and states would form to create real consequences for states that enact these despicable, hateful laws,” Wiener said. “However, as it turns out, that coalition never formed and the full potential impact of those policies never materialized. Instead, San Francisco is now penalizing businesses in other states — including LGBTQ owners, women owners, and people of color. owned corporations — for the sins of their far-right governments. Additionally, the City of San Francisco employees are unable to fly to a large number of states for critical needs, whether collaborating on HIV prevention and treatment strategies or helping working together on critical transportation strategies, it is time to acknowledge that this policy has not worked and we must back down.”

UPDATED 2/28/23 to include the new regulation put in place to repeal the entire 12X policy.

Help keep the Bay Area Reporter going during these trying times. To support local, independent LGBTQ journalism, consider becoming a BAR member.

The post UPDATED: San Francisco supervisors transfer to finish journey and contract bans masking conservative states :: Bay Space Reporter appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

Now you don’t cook on gas.

As of June, buildings constructed in San Francisco will no longer be allowed to have natural gas heating, gas appliances or gas fires.

The city’s regulator unanimously voted Tuesday to ban fuel in buildings that apply for building permits after June 30, 2021. The ordinance would affect planned development of more than 54,000 homes and 32 million square feet of commercial space in the San Francisco Chronicle.

The move was taken as an “incremental but important step in saving our planet,” said District 8 supervisor Rafael Mandelman, sponsor of the legislation.

“Natural gas is the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in San Francisco and poses major health and safety risks,” Mandelman said in a Twitter post. “The all-electric construction in new buildings is a critical step towards a safer, healthier San Francisco and planet for future generations.”

The gas is responsible for around 44% of all greenhouse gas emissions in San Francisco, according to 2017 data.

Other reasons for switching to all-electric power were to reduce the risk of fire or explosion from gas pipelines or other infrastructure that could be damaged during an earthquake, and to improve indoor air quality.

San Francisco joins Berkeley to pass a natural gas ban. With Berkeley’s going into effect in January, San Francisco delayed implementation by six months, allowing developers to request a waiver of gas stoves for restaurants in otherwise all-electric buildings. The waiver applies until the end of 2021.

San Francisco had previously banned natural gas in city buildings.

The post San Francisco bans pure gasoline in new buildings appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.