Latest news with #Floodlight
Miami Herald
a day ago
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Support for renewables shrinks as fossil fuel interest grows
Support for renewables shrinks as fossil fuel interest grows Republicans and Democrats alike are less likely to support renewable energy than they were five years ago, according to a survey released June 5 by the Pew Research Center. Floodlight examines the survey results, which mirror growing pockets of opposition to solar farms, reignited political support for coal plants and moves by President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans to kill federally funded clean energy projects. This shift in opinion dates back to when Democratic President Joe Biden took office, said Brian Kennedy, Pew senior researcher and one of the study's authors. "This isn't a new trend," he said. Still, Kenneth Gillingham, professor of environmental and energy economics at the Yale School of the Environment, was surprised. "I see this shift … as a successful effort to link climate change and renewable energy to broader culture war issues," Gillingham said. He added that in the past, "prominent" Republicans supported renewables and sought solutions to climate change, but those stances could now be seen as "disloyal" to Trump. The survey of 5,085 U.S. adults taken April 28 to May 4 revealed that while 79% of Americans favored expanding wind and solar production in 2020, that number has dropped to 60%. And 39% of Americans today support expansion of oil, coal and natural gas - almost double the 20% that supported it in 2020. Combustion of fossil fuels - in transportation, energy generation and industrial production - is the No. 1 cause of climate change. Much of the change in opinion is driven by Republicans, whose support of oil and gas grew from 35% in 2020 to 67% today. But Democrats also indicated less support for renewable energy and more for fossil fuels than five years ago. While many results reflect Trump's policies opposing most renewables and boosting fossil fuels, Pew found a few notable exceptions: 69% of all respondents favor offshore wind - a technology Trump has specifically targeted. Both Democrats and Republicans indicated stronger support for nuclear power, with Republicans' favorable opinions increasing from 53% in 2020 to 69% in 2025. Democrats' support rose from 37% to 52%. The Trump administration has signaled support for a nuclear renaissance, despite its high cost. There were wide partisan splits on several topics. In March, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced it would scale back environmental regulations. Pew asked whether it was possible to do that and still protect air and water quality: 77% of Republicans said yes and 67% of Democrats said no. Pew didn't ask the respondents why their attitudes have shifted. But Kennedy said in Pew's past surveys, Republicans have expressed concern about the economic impacts of climate change policies and transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. Mike Murphy, a Republican consultant and electric vehicle backer, said when the environmental benefits of clean technologies are touted, it polarizes Republicans. Instead, Murphy said messages should be about pocketbook issues - like lower fuel costs - and jobs. "It's hard for pro-climate people to understand," said Murphy, who has advised dozens of state and national GOP campaigns including John McCain's 2008 presidential bid. "(They think) we just need to shout louder and hit people over the head about climate, climate, climate. The key is you want to talk about jobs and national security and other events that naturally resonate a lot more with right-of-center people." That's what Murphy's groups, the EV Politics Project and the American EV Jobs Alliance, are trying to do to depoliticize electric vehicles. "Whenever electric cars are seen through a climate lens," Murphy said, "their appeal narrows." It's a strategy also being used by the Electrification Coalition, a left-of-center pro-EV group. Ben Prochazka, the coalition's executive director, echoed Murphy's strategy, adding that EVs have "become overly politicized and caught in the culture wars, impacting markets and ultimately hurting our ability to realize their many benefits for all Americans." Prochazka noted that once introduced to EVs, consumers support them: "EV drivers love their vehicles, with more than eight out of ten reporting that their next car will also be electric." Perhaps those practical messages are getting through. In the Pew survey, electric vehicles were the one item that saw an uptick in support - 4 percentage points in the past year. But popular support might not be enough to stop Congress from killing a $7,500 electric vehicle credit, which Murphy said would be "policy disaster." Republicans, he said, are in a "real squeeze," because "they don't have enough money for the tax cuts the president has promised." Murphy said: "It's easier for Republicans to cut Biden electric cars … than it is for them to cut more Medicaid." Gillingham is still optimistic that solar, wind and other greenhouse gas-reducing technologies will move forward - because they are the cheapest. "The continued decline in the price of renewable energy and battery technologies, as well as other new technologies, is a reason to continue to have hope that the worst impacts of climate change can be addressed," he said. Published by Canary Media, Renewable Energy World Floodlight is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates the powers stalling climate action. This story was produced by Floodlight and reviewed and distributed by Stacker. © Stacker Media, LLC.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘Putting profit over people': big gas is waging war on a California clean air rule
This story is co-published with Floodlight. On a windy night in early January, Barbara Ishida, a second grade teacher, spotted the Eaton fire glowing in the hills behind her home in Altadena, California. Her mind turned to the deadly wildfires in Lahaina and Paradise and she thought, 'Let's get out – now.' Ishida and her husband evacuated safely, but the flames destroyed their home. An attribution study found that climate change, which is primarily caused by burning fossil fuels, made the January fires 35% more likely. She thought the least they could do was rebuild in a way that wouldn't compound the climate crisis that raised the fire risk. 'Building back is our only option at this point,' Ishida said, 'so we're going to build back super environmentally friendly.' Her vision is to build a fire-resistant home with no gas appliances. That approach is backed by a University of California Berkeley study in April that concluded all-electric construction was the best and most climate-friendly strategy to rebuild after the fires. But the gas industry is pushing back against this idea. Proposed rules that would have encouraged Ishida and other homeowners to buy furnaces and heaters that emit no nitrogen oxides (NOx) – a key pollutant from gas appliances – have been weakened and delayed by a coalition of groups that includes SoCalGas, the country's largest gas utility. SoCalGas has a history of lobbying hard against regulations that hurt its bottom line. After a fierce opposition campaign, the rules are going to a vote on Friday, 6 June. The rules are proposed by the south coast air quality management district (SCAQMD), the agency responsible for improving air quality in Los Angeles and nearby communities, one of the most polluted air basins in the United States. If passed, the rules are designed to create cleaner air and reduce planet-heating emissions by setting future targets for sales of new zero-emission space and water heaters. The rules would apply to manufacturers, distributors, sellers and installers. They are expected to prevent 2,490 premature deaths and avoid 10,200 asthma cases. 'Consumers will continue to have a choice of purchasing either a gas or electric space/water heaters when replacing their existing units,' explained Nahal Mogharabi, a spokesperson for the air-quality district. 'Importantly, consumers can continue to operate their existing units until the consumer chooses to replace it or the unit breaks.' SoCalGas defended its role in the opposition campaign. 'SoCalGas' stakeholder engagement and outreach efforts on this topic are a regular part of any rulemaking process where we share information that could affect Southern California customers,' Erica Berardi, a SoCalGas spokesperson, wrote in an email. BizFed, a business group that was also part of the opposition campaign, advocated for a delay in the rule-making process 'to allow for more transparency and sufficient public outreach to make Southern Californians aware of the significant costs associated with these changes', Elizabeth Daubel, communications director for BizFed, wrote in an email. At the same time that the opposition campaign ramped up, groups allied with the gas industry filed a lawsuit against the SCAQMD, aiming to undermine its authority to impose such regulations. The opposition is far from unique; a February report by a London-based thinktank, InfluenceMap, found that fossil fuel companies in the United States, European Union and Australia were waging parallel campaigns against laws that restrict use of gas in buildings – pushback that has largely succeeded in preventing and weakening these laws. Ishida signed a letter supporting the proposed SCAQMD rules because she believes they would encourage Altadena to build back in a sustainable way. When she heard about the organized opposition to the rules, Ishida felt angry. 'They're just putting profits over people,' she said. 'It's sad and it's selfish and it's not right.' Related: 'Big oil's negligence': LA residents call on fossil fuel industry to pay for wildfire damages Although progressive states like California are leading the transition away from fossil fuels, gas appliances remain ubiquitous in California homes and across the western United States. Buildings account for one-quarter of greenhouse gas emissions in California but are subject to local control, meaning that local regulators like the SCAQMD have a big role to play in lowering emissions. In 2023, recognizing the air pollution caused by gas appliances, the agency proposed amendments to two rules to encourage alternatives. Changes to Rules 1111 and 1121 would establish a zero-emission NOx standard for furnaces and water heaters. As originally written, the new rules would have affected more than 10m gas-fired residential and commercial furnaces and residential water heaters. The rules would not affect gas stoves, a flashpoint in similar regulatory efforts. As they were written in October 2024, the proposed rules would have required all furnaces and water heaters installed to become zero-emission by 2026 for new residential and commercial buildings. Existing buildings and mobile homes had a few more years to comply. But in recent months, SCAQMD staff have softened the proposed rules. The current version now requires manufacturers to meet zero-emission sales targets for residential buildings, starting at 30% in 2027-28 and rising to 90% by 2036. The rule no longer requires that all new furnaces and water heaters be zero-emission by a certain date. The original rules would have reduced NOx emissions by 10 tons a day, which would have been the largest emissions-reducing rule package adopted in over three decades by the SCAQMD. The revised rules would achieve a reduction of 6 tons a day of NOx emissions. Kim Orbe, senior conservation program manager at Sierra Club, said pushing back the compliance date would allow manufacturers to continue building gas-powered equipment for years to come. She described the rules as 'tremendously weakened'. In late 2024, an opposition campaign sprang up, prompting SCAQMD's board to push back a scheduled hearing and final vote by six months, to Friday, 6 June. SoCalGas and groups aligned with the company helped delay the rule-making process by encouraging public officials to oppose the rules, according to records obtained by the Energy and Policy Institute and shared with Floodlight. Ahead of a major SCAQMD meeting on 20 December, SoCalGas employees sent 'urgent' requests to public officials, including mayors of cities in the south coast area, asking them to send letters, testify and pass resolutions opposing the rules. Their emails claimed – misleadingly – that the rules would prohibit the sale and installation of all gas furnaces and water heaters. Some of the letters that SCAQMD received from public officials were drafted by a consultant working for BizFed. Several city governments copied the consultant's draft letter on to their letterhead. Almost word-for-word letters were sent to the SCAQMD by the Orange county council of governments, the city of Lake Forest and the city of Loma Linda. The response to the rules was overwhelming, generating over 12,500 comments. But staff reported that many letters opposing the rules contained faulty information, including that the rules would mandate homeowners switch to all-electric appliances. The governing board delayed the vote and modified the rules to give more time to address concerns about 'cost, technology availability and consumer choice', Mogharabi wrote in an email. 'Even though the rule has been modified, as is typical during the rule-making process,' she added, 'the current NOx reductions are significant.' Mogharabi noted that this summer the agency was launching a Go Zero rebate program that will provide more than $21m to help residents and small businesses install zero-emission heating appliances. On 10 January 2025, as unprecedented mega-fires burned out of control in Los Angeles – destroying thousands of homes and killing 30 people – SCAQMD officials held a public meeting to consider the proposed rules 1111 and 1121. The tone of the meeting was somber. Officials began by acknowledging the wildfires and smoke cloaking the city, offering condolences to a board member who lost his home to the flames. Minutes later, lobbyists including a representative of SoCalGas asked for the rules to be delayed or retracted, citing the lawsuit challenging SCAQMD's authority to make such rules. Related: Big oil pushed to kill bill that would have made them pay for wildfire disasters Jessi Davis, a SoCalGas lobbyist said, 'We think it would be prudent for the board to postpone this rule-making until these issues are resolved by the courts.' In December, a coalition of groups, including homebuilders, restaurant owners and unions, filed the lawsuit against the SCAQMD, seeking to overturn a related rule that phases out large gas-fired furnaces and water heaters in commercial and industrial facilities. That rule is different from the proposed rules, which are specific to smaller residential and commercial furnaces and water heaters. 'The legal theories they're trying to push would undermine the ability of the [agency] to protect its residents,' said Adrian Martinez, an attorney at Earthjustice, an environmental non-profit that is intervening in the case. 'They're attempting to strip local entities like SCAQMD of the ability to clean up pollution.' With another wildfire season on the horizon, Ishida is thinking about the future of Los Angeles if climate change continues to worsen. 'We're not going to be the only community that burns,' Ishida said. 'We're not going to be the last if we continue down this stretch.' Floodlight is a non-profit newsroom that investigates the powerful interests stalling climate action. • This article was updated on 5 June 2025 to clarify that SCAQMD's board pushed back a scheduled hearing and final vote to Friday 6 June; an earlier version mistakenly gave the day as Tuesday.
The Guardian
13-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Tulane University scientist resigns citing environmental censorship
Environmental advocates are questioning the actions of a private university in Louisiana after the resignation of a scientist who researches the health and job disparities in a heavily industrialized part of the state known as Cancer Alley. Kimberly Terrell served as a director of community engagement and a staff scientist with Tulane University's Environmental Law Clinic before resigning and accused university leaders of trying to censor the work she is doing to spotlight the harms to local communities plagued by industrial pollution. Terrell said her research in collaboration with Floodlight highlighting job disparities in hiring at local petrochemical facilities triggered a backlash from state and Tulane leaders. That led to Terrell being put under an ''unprecedented gag order' by the dean of the university's law school, she said in a prepared statement issued by a group calling itself the Louisiana Alliance to Defend Democracy. Terrell resigned on Wednesday from the New Orleans-based university, saying she would rather leave her position than have her work used as a pretext 'to dismantle' the law clinic. 'After being affiliated with Tulane for 25 years and leading groundbreaking research at [the law clinic] for seven years, I cannot remain silent as this university sacrifices academic integrity for political appeasement and pet projects,' Terrell wrote in a letter to her colleagues. On Thursday, a university spokesperson said Tulane was 'fully committed to academic freedom' and 'the strong pedagogical value of law clinics'. Tulane declined to comment on Terrell's resignation, calling it a personnel matter. A spokesperson for Louisiana's governor, Jeff Landry, said in an email that Landry never threatened to withhold state funding for the project. 'However,' the spokesperson said, 'I applaud Tulane for their actions standing up for our Louisiana businesses and jobs.' Terrell's resignation drew outrage from grassroots environmental advocates in the state who credited her with providing data and scientific research substantiating the harm from the petrochemical industry suffered by the predominantly Black communities in south-east Louisiana. 'We are frustrated that a person who is just doing their job, and doing it well shouldn't be punished for it, she would be uplifted,' said Jo Banner, who co-founded a non-profit focused on community activism and cultural preservation in St John the Baptist parish, Louisiana. Her twin sister and co-founder, Joy Banner, added: 'This is an attack on her freedom of speech.' A 25 April email provided to Floodlight from the Tulane Law School dean, Marcilynn Burke, states that 'effective immediately all external communications' from the law clinic that were not 'client based' would have to be approved by her. That communication included 'press releases, interviews, videos, social media postings, etc'. In another email, dated 4 May, Burke noted that the job disparity research was impeding the university from gaining political and financial support for its $600m downtown redevelopment project in New Orleans. The email said Tulane University's president, Michael Fitts, was facing criticism from elected officials and potential donors of the public-private project unless the university's leadership curtailed the work of its environmental law clinic. 'At present, the president is focused upon the role of the staff scientist,' Burke wrote. 'He understands her role in supporting the clinic's representation of the clients. Thus, I need an explanation of how the study about racial disparities relates directly to client representation.' The email goes on to say, 'He is concerned, however, that her work may go beyond supporting the clinic's legal representation and veer into lobbying.' Floodlight reported on the research Terrell led for the university in April 2024 while it was still undergoing peer review. Preliminary data showed that minorities were being 'systematically' underrepresented in the US petrochemical workforce – despite promises that nearby communities would benefit from better job opportunities. Terrell said the pollution v jobs narrative was oversimplified because the tradeoff affected different groups unevenly, with petrochemical jobs mostly going to white workers who don't live in the predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods that suffer most of the health impacts of that industry. That research and Floodlight's reporting was recently featured in a documentary produced by The Years Project. Nationally, Terrell's research found that higher-paying jobs in the chemical manufacturing industry disproportionately went to more white people in Texas, Louisiana and Georgia – where minorities represent 59%, 41% and 49% of their respective states' populations but held 38%, 21% and 28% of the better-paid jobs within the industry. In the petroleum/coal industry, people of color were underrepresented in higher-paying jobs in at least 14 states – including Texas, California, Louisiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Illinois, the research found. Terrell, in her letter to colleagues, said the gag order came after the research had been peer-reviewed and published online on 9 April in Ecological Economics. Terrell said the research on job disparities had already been cited in legal arguments for student attorneys in the law clinic on behalf of clients from industrialized communities. And she said her 2022 study highlighting the health impacts in Cancer Alley ranked in the top 1% for research impact, garnering 28 citations and 87 news mentions to date, according to Almetric, which tracks the reach of research. 'Such impact would be celebrated by most institutions,' Terrell wrote. 'Scholarly publications, not gag orders, are the currency of academia. There is always room for informed debate. But Tulane leaders have chosen to abandon the principles of knowledge, education, and the greater good in pursuit of their own narrow agenda.' The Banner sisters are concerned Terrell's departure and the university's focus on restricting the work of the law clinic will probably make collaborations harder. 'They're following their responsibility, they're following the mission of the organization, and answering our call for help, and then now they're getting slammed for it,' Joy Banner said. 'No one has questioned her findings. No one has questioned her assumptions. The only thing that they have said is: the truth is creating problems for us.' Floodlight is a non-profit newsroom that investigates the powers stalling climate action
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
SoCal rejects plan to phase down new gas furnaces and water heaters
On Friday, air-quality regulators for Southern California rejected a plan to gradually phase down a major source of pollution: new gas-burning space and water heaters in homes. It's a blow to efforts to clean up harmful, planet-warming emissions from buildings — in Southern California and possibly beyond. The rules would've reduced smog-forming emissions in the South Coast Air Quality Management District, home to more than 17 million residents across Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties — a region with some of the nation's dirtiest air, according to the American Lung Association. 'We had the opportunity to pass life-saving legislation that would have significantly reduced air pollution from home appliances sold in our region,' Holly J. Mitchell, an LA County supervisor and SCAQMD board member who voted in favor of the measures, said in a statement. The rules were a chance 'to improve health, reduce medical expenses, and fulfill our job of bringing our region into compliance with the Clean Air Act.' Friday's 7-5 vote against the rules, which were poised to be the agency's strongest in three decades, came after more than two years of development and months of intense industry-led opposition. An investigation published by Floodlight and The Guardian last week found that, since December, the Southern California Gas Co. — or SoCalGas, the nation's largest gas-distribution utility — and allied groups have spread misleading information about the rules and encouraged mayors and other public officials to send letters, testify, and pass resolutions opposing the measures. On Thursday, the Trump administration threatened to sue if the measures were adopted. At the end of the six-hour meeting Friday, the board sent the rejected rules back to a committee. They won't be revisited this year, according to the agency. But what comes of any further rejiggering is 'almost without a doubt, going to be weaker than what was initially proposed,' said Christopher Chavez, deputy policy director at the California nonprofit Coalition for Clean Air. Opponents repeatedly claimed the proposals, updates to rules 1111 and 1121, were a mandate to switch to electric equipment and a ban on gas-burning appliances. But they were, in fact, neither. The rules would have allowed residents to keep their gas-fueled equipment — and even to replace it at the end of its life with gas systems if that's what they chose. SCAQMD's staff had proposed a glide path for manufacturers to gradually increase their sales targets of super-efficient electric heat-pump water heaters and heat pumps: from 30% by 2027 to 90% by 2036. Manufacturers would have also paid a nominal mitigation fee of $50 to $500 per gas appliance sold — far less than the actual health costs associated with them, the agency acknowledged in March. Heat pumps can cost more or less than conventional appliances depending on the equipment and home type. For example, according to the SCAQMD, installing a heat pump in a single-family home typically costs $1,000 less than installing a gas furnace and AC. Industry-led pressure had already significantly watered down an earlier draft of the rules that would have effectively barred the sale of gas-burning heaters and water heaters. Still, even the weaker measures would have slashed emissions of nitrogen oxides by 6 tons per day by 2060 in the smoggiest region in the country. In its socioeconomic analysis, the agency estimated the regulations would have saved around 2,490 lives and $25 billion in health costs from 2027 to 2053. Opponents included the Orange County Business Council, the Central Valley Business Federation, and former LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat running for California governor. Many claimed the rules would impose a huge financial burden on consumers, referencing a report that puts the cost of the measures at $8.9 billion annually. The report's author works for the California Business Roundtable, an organization that SoCalGas parent company Sempra paid membership dues to last year. A SCAQMD staff member called the oft-cited analysis inaccurate, pointing out severe flaws in the modeling approach at Friday's meeting. The agency's staff, which is separate from the voting board, maintained that the measures made economic sense, ranging from an estimated price tag of $174 million to an estimated savings of $191 million annually. But even after the staff's briefing, board members who voted no continued to bring up costs. Southern California's decision has put advocates on guard as other jurisdictions aim to develop and implement zero-emissions appliance rules, according to Dylan Plummer, building electrification campaign advisor at the Sierra Club. That includes the San Francisco Bay Area, which adopted a zero-emissions standard for space and water heaters in 2023; the state of California, as air regulators could produce a similar proposal late this year; and Maryland, which is crafting zero-emissions rules for heating homes and businesses. For SCAQMD's proposed regulations, the gas industry, real-estate associations, and the California Republican Party mounted an effective campaign of falsehoods about costs and consumer choice, Plummer said. 'We have a lot of work to do to inoculate not just the public but regulators and elected decision-makers against those talking points.'
Yahoo
07-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
California board hits pause on plan to phase out gas appliances
Read the Los Angeles Times story here. A board that regulates air quality in the Los Angeles area voted Friday to consider more alternatives to its plan to levy a fee aimed at phasing out gas-fired water heaters and furnaces. That proposal was defeated on a 7-5 vote. But board members agreed 7-4 to consider less-stringent options, citing concerns over the cost to property owners and manufacturers and the ability of the electric grid to withstand more demand. South Coast Air Quality Management District Board Chair Vanessa Delgado said that means any rule changes aimed at lowering nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions likely would not come before the board until at least next year. The proposed rules would have encouraged homeowners to buy furnaces and water heaters that emit no NOx — a key pollutant contributing to smog — by placing a fee on manufacturers that sell natural-gas-fired appliances in the district. More than 200 speakers testified in person and online for and against the plan. The governing board's vote followed a warning Friday from Bill Essayli, the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, that any action to impede the use of domestic energy resources would face a legal challenge by his office. 'California regulators are on notice: if you pass illegal bans or penalties on gas appliances, we'll see you in court,' Essayli said on X. 'The law is clear — feds set energy policy, not unelected climate bureaucrats.' Opponents of the rule changes told the board that housing was already too expensive and the cost of living too high for area residents. Floodlight found that a coalition of groups that included SoCalGas, the country's largest gas utility, led a massive opposition campaign that included convincing officials from dozens of cities in the four-county district to oppose the rules. Those testifying in favor cited the positive health effects of the rules, which were projected to prevent 2,490 premature deaths and avoid 10,200 asthma cases by cutting NOx emissions by six tons per day. Some noted that natural gas — also known as methane — is a potent greenhouse gas that helped make the devastating wildfires that ripped through the Los Angeles area in January more likely. In voting against the proposed rules, board member Janet Nguyen said they would unnecessarily penalize people by raising the cost of household appliances. 'I, like everybody here, support clean air,' said Nguyen, who also serves as an Orange County supervisor. 'But we must also pursue environmental progress without punishing the very people we serve today. These rules don't target refineries or shipping ports. They target people, the 17 million homeowners, renters ...' Board member Holly Mitchell took the other side, saying the rules were needed to improve air quality in the nation's smoggiest air basin. 'If we don't start now, when will we effect any change?' asked Mitchell, a Los Angeles County supervisor. 'We have the worst air quality in the nation. That forces us to make hard decisions.' Board member Patricia Lock Dawson, mayor of Riverside, reflected her colleagues' mixed feelings. 'It is our job to improve air quality. We are specifically charged with reducing NOx,' Lock Dawson said. 'But Californians are really struggling now. (And) poverty is a health issue, too.' She added: 'I wish this were more carrot than stick.' To meet the targets, 30% of manufacturers' sales would have needed to consist of zero-emission models starting in 2027. That would rise to 50% in 2029 and eventually 90% by 2036. The rules were projected to affect 10 million gas appliances. Under the rules, manufacturers would be charged $100 for each gas furnace and $50 for every gas water heater they sell within the targets. For sales that exceed the cap, they would pay $500 and $250, respectively. Revenue from these fees would be used to help pay for zero-emission appliances, especially in disadvantaged communities, according to the air district. The proposal was a 'compromise,' Mitchell said, noting that staff had made numerous changes in the original proposed rule changes to answer cost concerns. Among the thousands who had registered opinions with the air-quality district ahead of the vote was second-grade teacher Barbara Ishida. Her Altadena home was destroyed in the Eaton Fire. Ishida's vision is to build a fire-resistant home with no gas appliances. That approach is backed by a University of California Berkeley study released in April that concluded all-electric construction is the fastest, most cost-effective and most climate-friendly strategy to rebuild after the fires. Ishida had signed a letter supporting the proposed rules because she believed they would encourage Altadena to build back in a sustainable way. She criticized opponents for 'thinking short term.' 'They're just putting profits over people,' Ishida said in an interview before the vote. 'They're not thinking long term, And they're not thinking very well for the next generation.' Floodlight freelance reporter Hilary Beaumont contributed to this story. Floodlight is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates the powerful interests stalling climate action.
