Overboard local code requirement

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

brother

Senior Member
Location
"I have learned, in whatsoever STATE I am, therewi
Had a friend send me a copy of a local city ammendment that requires them to install 200 amp size service even for a studio (barely 500sqft) unit. This is even when the load doesnt require it, most of the heavy load in it is mostly on natural gas. other I do not know of any local close by cities that do this and I do not understand why they that one is requiring it, just be politics. Whats your opinion of this? Does any of your local area have any way over board local code requirements??



200 ampere service capacity shall be required for all new single-family and duplex residential units of 500 square feet or more. An entire service upgrade shall not be required when only replacing a meter base, or mast, or panel, unless the load requirement is greater than the rating of the existing service and/or specific electrical safety concerns associated with said equipment are detected
 
This may be in preparation for "banning" Natural gas. Many cities in CA have tried to remove the use of Natural Gas and are pushing towards all electric in new construction. People have fought back hard (rightfully so) and many places have started going down a path of creating incentives to go all electric, fee reductions, credits, etc. Requiring a 200 amp service now may mean that they have a goal of eventually cutting of NG.
 
Joe.B said:
This may be in preparation for "banning" Natural gas. Many cities in CA have tried to remove the use of Natural Gas and are pushing towards all electric in new construction. People have fought back hard (rightfully so) and many places have started going down a path of creating incentives to go all electric, fee reductions, credits, etc. Requiring a 200 amp service now may mean that they have a goal of eventually cutting of NG.
Click to expand...
Never heard of this before! banning of natural gas??!! Why? what is the motive behind this? Natural gas when done right can be more effecient and less costly.
 
Natural gas heating has a lower carbon footprint than either coal or oil, but significantly worse in many areas than a heat pump regardless of the source of electrical power.
One assumption supporting the move away from residential natural gas is that renewables will form a increasing part of the electricity supply in the future.
It will, however, definitely raise heating cost.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk
 
Another benefit to discouraging the additional build-out of natural gas infrastructure is the reduction of distributed emissions. Centralized emissions are much easier to reduce or eliminate in the future.

Cheers, Wayne
 
While I dislike gas ranges, there are many who love them & in a restaurant environment I can't see anything other then gas. The crazy scheme to ban gas seems to not been well thought out as the infrastructure is not there to support a all electric system, electric rates are high here too, I pay .29 & .31 cents a KWH, the ratepayers are also going to be paying the costs from the recent wildfires, as this State is expensive already, that mandate will help accelerate the exodus from this State. :)
 
jimport said:
It will be interesting when the power company turns off the power due to wildfires. No heat, no way to charge your Tesla and the list goes on.
Click to expand...
Obviously you have missed drinking the Musk Koolaid that when the power goes off your attached Tesla will now power your home.

But... maybe it was your Tesla bursting into flames that started the wildfire. Oh, my!

Dwell upon a world where everything is powered by batteries as the forward thinking leaders of the world now envision.

The science fictions writers never came up with a world that ended not with nuclear war but...
 
Science fiction writers have produced a wealth of cataclysm stories involving environmental destruction of one sort or another without war. Many where we come on remnants of the affected race/civilization, many where the hero(s) save us from that destruction, many about life after. Not a lot with straight unhappy endings though.
 
Doesn't make much sense since a lot of the power produced by the electric companies is produced by burning natural gas.

Our local utility produced 31% of the electricity used by burning natural gas. (Edit: I guess I should say 31% of the power they purchased was produced by burning natural gas. Not all utilites produce their own power anymore.)

Only 13% was produced by wind or hydro power. (Big fat 0 for solar, so it must be some fraction of a percent.) Most of their power (34%) was coal fired power.

So they are really loosing ground by requiring an extra conversion to electricity (which isn't 100% efficient) and transportation by electricity which again isn't 100% efficient due to voltage drop. It would probably be better to just deliver natural gas to the point of use, and burn it there.

On second thought, maybe that's the whole idea - the gas gets burned in Arizona, or somewhere besides California. I guess it would reduce local polution.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top