View of downtown from a corner suite at the Marriott Residence Inn in Downtown Berkeley on December 8, 2021. Credit: Kelly SullivanBerkeley voters are poised to reject a ballot measure that would tax property owners of large buildings that rely on natural gas for heating, cooking and other uses.
Measure GG, an effort to slash climate change-causing emissions, would have imposed a tax on most buildings 15,000 square feet or larger that use natural gas. It was designed as a more“pragmatic” alternative to Berkeley’s first-in-the-nation ban on natural gas hookups, which was struck down by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
“We are obviously disappointed by the early results, but are also not surprised given that we were outspent on the campaign by hundreds of thousands of dollars,” Daniel Tahara, a city climate commissioner and a leader of Fossil Free Berkeley, the group that organized the measure, wrote in an email. He did not concede, saying in a text Wednesday it was “a bit premature” as there are still votes left to be counted.
The city is behind on its efforts to address methane emissions and meet its climate goals, Tahara wrote in the email. The measure, he said, was an attempt to address what he considers a “huge equity burden facing our community in the coming years.”
The initial tax rate — $2.96 for every 100 cubic feet of gas consumed — would have been about 1.5-2 times what PG&E charges its customers for natural gas, and would rise at 6% above inclination each year, expiring in 2050. The rate, according to the measure’s authors, was based on the social cost of carbon, an estimate of how harmed society is by greenhouse gas emissions. It needed a simple majority to pass.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has amended its building appliance rules to gradually phase out some gas appliances that emit nitrogen oxides, which have been linked to asthma, lung cancer and premature death. By 2027, you will only be able to buy zero-emission electric water heaters in the Bay Area.
But the regulation “left a lot of the thorny implementation issues to local municipalities,” such as how to make it affordable for homes and businesses to make the switch, Tahara told Berkeleyside last month. The measure sought to bridge the gap by raising funds for electrification projects like heat pumps, induction stoves, solar panels, battery storage and electric vehicle charging.
“We put forward Measure GG because we see a huge equity burden facing our community in the coming years and because of the City’s failure to meet its climate goals,” Tahara wrote. “Unless that changes, we have no choice but to try again with adjustments, taking into account new feedback from community members about various ideas for the next round.”
Measure GG faced a well-funded opposition campaign
Berkeley Repertory Theater endorsed the No on GG campaign, arguing the natural gas tax for big buildings would “disproportionately” hurt nonprofits and art organizations. Berkeley Rep’s Medak Center, which provides artists housing, has been recognized for its sustainable design but still relies on natural gas. Credit: Ximena Natera, Berkeleyside/CatchLight LocalThe measure’s supporters included environmental and progressive advocacy groups such as 350 Bay Area, Sunrise Movement Bay Area and the Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club of the East Bay. Had it passed, legal experts said it would have been the first tax in the country to target the use of a specific fuel source for buildings.
But the effort faced a strong “No” campaign funded by business interests and endorsed by well-known brands like Boichik Bagels, Berkeley Bowl and Berkeley Repertory Theatre, which argued the measure would harm businesses and nonprofits.
“We’re pleased at the outcome thus far,” said Berkeley Chamber of Commerce CEO Beth Roessner, who co-chaired the No on GG campaign alongside John Caner, the CEO of the Downtown Berkeley Association.
Roessner said she’s waiting for the county’s official results before declaring victory.
“We believe we ran a really robust campaign meant to educate voters on the true impact of the ordinance and we’re delighted to see that folks recognize that and saw the impact it was going to have on the arts and nonprofits and they voted accordingly,” Roessner said.
The “No” campaign reported taking in $239,785 during the most recent period, from Sept. 22 to Oct. 19, for a total fundraising haul of $370,840. That’s the most raised by any of the measure campaigns. The money the “No” campaign raised just in the four-week reporting period is more than double the $95,335 raised by the “Yes” side over its entire campaign.
In the latest fundraising period, the National Association of Realtors gave the “No campaign” $100,000. The commercial builder Wareham Development gave $58,500, while the political arm of the arm of the Bay Area Council, the regional business lobby, gave $30,000. As of the filing deadline, the campaign had spent $275,000, much of which went toward advertising and literature.
“This is a case of the corporate opposition misleading voters,” Tahara said in the email, noting the opposition campaign’s funding came “largely from outside influences.”
He also blamed “the media and City leaders” for repeating the opposition’s misrepresentation of facts. “Voters were not given an opportunity to see through the lies,” he wrote.
Roessner pushed back against Tahara’s criticism of the “No” campaign’s funding.
“The very businesses that were going to be impacted by this tax — if they can’t afford the tax and they can’t afford expensive upgrades with very little lead time, we certainly did not expect them to contribute to the campaign financially and we had other interests who were willing to contribute to the campaign,” Roessner said.
She noted that the measure could have ultimately impacted tenants, making it a “real estate issue to a degree.”
The measure’s language barred building owners from raising rents or passing the cost of the tax — which would be added directly to the landlord’s yearly property tax — to residential tenants. But a city report said that would be difficult to enforce in practice, noting that “the tax may result in higher rental costs” at the time of lease renewal or “for price controlled units … during times of vacancy.”
Roessner said she believes climate action policies should focus on providing incentives, not imposing penalties.
“We are willing to come to the table and help craft reasonable policy to achieve our climate goals but it needs to be equitable and the measure that was put before the voters was not equitable and it would have impacted small businesses housed in large buildings,” she said.
What comes next for electrification in Berkeley?
Gas stoves pose health risks and contribute to climate change-causing emissions. Credit: Creative CommonsA lack of public understanding of the dangers of methane may have contributed to the measure’s defeat, according to some clean energy experts.
Ric O’Connell, the executive director of GridLabs, a nonprofit clean energy consultancy housed in the David Brower Center, opposed the tax, likening it to “doubling the cost of gasoline at the pump and expecting people to switch to electric cars immediately” in a letter to the City Council. (The David Brower Center, an environmental activism hub that owns a 50,000-square-foot building downtown, also opposed the tax.)
O’Connell said he was frustrated because he felt the measure was a “wasted opportunity” for Berkeley to again lead the way for innovative climate policy, as it did when it originally passed the since-reversed gas ban. But good, durable policies, he said, needed “a little bit more consensus.”
“Just the level of the tax, I think if it had been 10% of what it would have been proposed, I don’t think I would have opposed it,” O’Connell said. “I think I would decide, well, it’s maybe not the best policy, but it’s pretty good and we’ll go with it.”
O’Connell believes a combination of incentives — such as those offered through President Joe Biden’s IRA, or Inflation Reduction Act, a sweeping piece of climate legislation, which allocated $370 billion toward shifting the U.S. to cleaner forms of energy — and penalties for those who fail to move away from climate-harming fuels are needed, as well as more workforce development and consumer education on how to decarbonize and switch to heat pumps.
But he said a carbon tax may be more effective if implemented statewide instead of just in Berkeley, where a few large facilities could simply move.
Ben Paulos, a clean energy consultant and former city energy commissioner, urged caution in interpreting Berkeley voters’ rejection of the proposed tax as a wider rejection of the need for climate action.
“I think the story is more obvious — that a tax is seen as a punishment and voters did not want to punish these beloved Berkeley institutions,” said Ben Paulos, “I’m sure if you asked Berkeley voters, ‘should we do something about global warming,’ you’d get a strong response.”
Paulos said he voted for Measure GG as he felt it would motivate owners of large buildings to reduce natural gas consumption, even if they could not immediately afford a full electrification retrofit. But the measure faced a great messaging challenge: People don’t consider gas water heaters and ovens as health risks and contributors to climate pollution.
“We’ve been taught for a long time that coal is the big problem, that cars are a problem … It’s only recently that there’s been a focus on natural gas as a significant climate pollution source, so I think the general public is not there yet on that issue,” Paulos said.
Like Paulos, Tahara said Berkeley residents want climate action but need more education.
“But there’s still a lot of work to do to educate and support people on the options and the importance,” Tahara wrote, noting that many don’t understand what technologies and financial resources are available to help them switch to cleaner energy sources. Nor do they understand the health dangers of methane, he said.
Paulos said he is hopeful that a “structural approach,” such as making buildings greener by tightening building codes and enacting regulations like the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s gradual phase-out of gas appliances that emit nitrogen oxides, will drive long-term change.
Berkeley City Council member Igor Tregub, a renewable energy policy consultant and Berkeley resident for over 20 years, poses for a portrait. Credit: Ximena Natera, Berkeleyside/CatchLightBerkeley City Council member Igor Tregub, who works as a climate policy consultant, said the city is drafting amendments to Berkeley’s green code that could tighten regulations around — but not outright ban — construction of new buildings that release nitrogen oxide emissions. He’s hopeful this pathway would not open the city up to potential lawsuits. (The city spent nearly $300,000 defending its now-defunct ban on gas hookups in new construction from a lawsuit from California’s restaurant industry.)
“It’s a different way to achieve the same outcome, but one that would be less likely to open us up to legal scrutiny,” Tregub said. No timeline has been set, but Tregub said he expects it to go before the council “fairly expeditiously.”
It remains to be seen what impact President-elect Donald Trump, who in his four years in office rolled back many environmental protections and criticized gas bans like Berkeley’s, will have on climate change, but with a Republican-controlled Senate, he could undo key national climate policies, including the IRA.
“It’s clear that we cannot rely on the federal government to fund the transition for us, so we need to figure out how to fund it ourselves,” Tahara wrote.
The Measure GG campaign, Tahara said, helped “grow the climate movement in Berkeley” and in the wake of Trump’s election, he plans to continue his local advocacy efforts to secure funding for climate action.
Berkeleyside associate editor Nico Savidge contributed reporting to this story.
"*" indicates required fields
Send a private note to the editors.*
See an error that needs correcting? Have a tip, question or suggestion? Drop us a line.
English (United States) ·