Take a look at your PG&E bill.
Last month, you paid $1.97 per therm for the first three therms or natural gas use.
After that, you paid $2.41 per therm.
How would you feel if Sacramento decided to push for a natural gas tax of $2.96 per therm?
That’s a tax of just over 130 percent.
Even crazy Sacramento wouldn’t propose such a tax, right?
You’d better hope they don’t get a big hit of encouragement on Nov. 5.
That’s when Berkeley voters will decide the fate of a proposed measure to do just that.
The East Bay city is proposing an excise tax on commercial and apartment buildings of 15,000 square feet or more that starts at $2.96 per therm of natural gas consumed.
It will raise $26.7 million a year.
That’s more than what Berkeley collects in annual sales tax.
And while it doesn’t apply to single family homes and smaller commercial properties, once the door opens on a new to tax to support an expensive green initiative, it’s just a matter of time before the middle class homeowner is in the crosshairs.
The Berkeley measure naturally exempts city facilities as state buildings (read that the University of California campus) within its jurisdiction.
Berkeley plans to use 90 percent of the $26.7 million to go toward retrofitting homes in the city with electric HVAC and appliances.
The remaining 10 percent would fund the city bureaucracy to oversee the program.
The Berkeley ballot measure comes on the heels of a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, not exactly a judicial panel packed with conservatives, to strike down a city ordinance banning natural gas hookups in new buildings.
The reason? It conflicted with federal law.
The proposed ban particularly irked ethnic chefs and foodies that believe cooking with electricity is barbaric.
So they hopped on the band wagon to try and derail Berkeley.
Hence, the tax measure end run.
The ballot measure reads, “It is the intent of the People to disincentivize obsolete natural gas and associated greenhouse gas emissions in existing buildings, thereby reducing the environmental and health produced by the consumption and transportation of natural gas.
The devil, though, is in the details.
The measure forbids building owners from raising rent to cover the cost of the tax.
They could do so at the time a lease is renewed or when a vacancy occurs in a rent controlled unit.
There are more renters than homeowners in Berkeley, where the average apartment rent is $3,200.
The measure conveniently glosses over the practice of most landlords requiring tenants to have utility services in their name.
The bottom line is big bad corporations won’t be the only one feeling the Berkeley excise tax burning a hole in their wallets. So will those struggling to pay the rent.
It gets worse.
Natural gas is less expensive to operate water heaters, to heat homes and buildings, and to cook food.
The State of California has already put in place laws banning the sale of water heaters and heating systems powered by natural gas starting in 2030. That means no replacing existing natural gas water heats and heating systems that fail after 2030.
The bottom line is the cost of energy needed to run a household is going to increase significantly.
It’s all because a handful of people have decided the best course is the 100 percent elimination of greenhouse gas emissions by 2045.
Not 70 percent. Not 80 percent. Not 90 percent. It must be 100 percent.
Keep in mind, as of 2023, the state estimated 90 percent of all residential water and space was heated by natural gas and not electricity.
Add to the equation California’s decision to throw the full weight of government subsidies, tax credits, and regulations behind electric vehicle instead of those powered by other clean technologies such as hydrogen and you begin to understand why PG&E is the darling of Wall Street hedge funds.
If you’ve ever wondered why no one in Sacramento has commissioned a study to determine the average household cost to go all-electric in terms of needed infrastructure right down to what is parked in the driveway, the reason is simple.
Everything from re-wiring homes to go from gas to electricity to replacement appliances costs money.
Hiding — or not bothering to identify — the true cost on a household basis is key to making sure there is minimum resistance.
It is why green initiatives rarely are transparent to the point the individual or household costs are made clear.
Omitting such details is not transparency.
Nor is the Berkeley campaign to “stick it to the rich” by slapping a 130 percent tax on “big business” or “the rich.”
The little guy will pay when he rents.
Rest assured, it won’t be legal for PG&E to collect an excise tax for the City of Berkeley on a 30,000 square-foot apartment complex if the natural gas is delivered to individual tenants that signed up for service directly with the utility.
To put the door Berkeley is trying to open in perspective, based on what an average US household consumes a month in natural gas, the tax — if it was applied to single family homes — would add $180 a month to typical natural gas bills.
Is it a cost justified by the end result?
Instead of simply shouting “global warming”, it would be nice if advocates quantified cost versus benefits in financial terms.
If greenhouse gas emissions is the No. 1 public enemy, then resources need to go toward tackling the biggest sources first instead of trying to do everything at once.
Not only would the best return for investments make more sense, but you reduce the risk of falling short across the board.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution in general makes sense.
What doesn’t is a Byzantine path, such as the Berkeley ballot measure, to reach a green goal.
It not only makes a torturous detour using the tax system, but it clearly adds to the cost given the $2.67 million Berkeley would receive annually to further bloat its bureaucracy.
This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com
