How does government make it unaffordable to live in California? High taxes, high water, housing and energy costs. Then they also nickel and dime us out of the State.
“Gone is the outright ban, replaced by a fee-based system to penalize those choosing gas water heaters, set for consideration on June 6, 2025. Manufacturers face a two-tiered mitigation fee: $100 for space heaters and $50 for water heaters if within sales targets, jumping to $500 and $250 if exceeded. This equates to roughly $4 yearly for furnaces over 25 years and $3.30 for water heaters over 15 years—seemingly minor, but a deliberate scheme to make gas options unaffordable. The plan ratchets up over an 11-year period, with targets starting at 100% zero-NOx and dropping to 10% by 2036, pressuring adoption of costly electric heat pumps ($2,000-$8,000 upfront). A mid-2025 Go Zero incentive launch only deepens the financial burden. It’s a not-so-sly push toward electrification without admitting the ban’s failure.
These are the same people that want you to have a choice in killing a baby, but no choice in the car you drive or the water heater you use. Hypocrites—this is how a Totalitarian State operates.
SCAQMD Gas Water Heater Ban Back with a Vicious, Expensive Twist!
Original ban on gas water heaters revised to a fee-laden scheme, a $500 fee for manufacturers, escalating costs over 11 years, still burdening 17 million residents, vote this Friday.
Jon Fleischman, subtract, 6/3/25 https://sodoesitmatter.substack.com/p/southern-california-is-on-the-verge?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=4841705&post_id=165057967&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=x9o3&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
The Original Ban and the Backlash
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) initially proposed a draconian mandate to ban new gas-powered water heaters and furnaces in Southern California, targeting 17 million residents. The original plan would have prohibited these appliances in new construction by 2026 and mandated electric replacements in existing homes by 2027. This outrageous overreach sparked tremendous pushback from homeowners, renters, small businesses, and industry groups, with over 13,000 comment letters flooding in, along with resolutions of opposition being passed by many local jurisdictions. The outrage forced a revision, but the new proposal remains an imprudent disaster, cloaking its reckless intent in a deceptive facade of flexibility.
The Revised Proposal: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
Gone is the outright ban, replaced by a fee-based system to penalize those choosing gas water heaters, set for consideration on June 6, 2025. Manufacturers face a two-tiered mitigation fee: $100 for space heaters and $50 for water heaters if within sales targets, jumping to $500 and $250 if exceeded. This equates to roughly $4 yearly for furnaces over 25 years and $3.30 for water heaters over 15 years—seemingly minor, but a deliberate scheme to make gas options unaffordable. The plan ratchets up over an 11-year period, with targets starting at 100% zero-NOx and dropping to 10% by 2036, pressuring adoption of costly electric heat pumps ($2,000-$8,000 upfront). A mid-2025 Go Zero incentive launch only deepens the financial burden. It’s a not-so-sly push toward electrification without admitting the ban’s failure.
Why This Plan Remains a Reckless Disaster
This revised approach is a reckless assault on common sense, imposing billions of dollars in costs on residents and businesses, less than the original $20 billion ban but still an intolerable burden that will cost billions. The fees and retrofitting expenses—panel upgrades, plumbing changes—will crush budgets, especially as the plan’s pressure intensifies over time. It targets households instead of perhaps renewing a focus on mega-polluters — and of course pushing back on federal and state policy makers about terrible rule-making that burdens average citizens.
Misguided Focus on Residents
The policy’s folly lies in its misguided focus on everyday citizens rather than the port ships spewing NOx, which SCAQMD can’t regulate due to their offshore nature. This imprudent choice nibbles at quality of life for negligible gains, while Southern California’s air, cleaner than decades ago due to past innovations, is used as a pretext for intrusive rules. The plan’s escalation over 11 years only amplifies its recklessness, burdening 17 million with costs while dodging accountability for targeting the wrong sources. It’s a bureaucratic blunder prioritizing control over reason.
A Heavy Toll on Homes and Businesses
The societal cost is staggering. Small businesses, already strained by regulations, face collapse risks, while the grid—prone to outages—could fail under increased demand, leaving families without hot water. This plan’s billions in costs, ramping up over time, threaten economic stability with unfeasible expenses. Mandating electrification without grid assurance is not just irresponsible—it’s a reckless gamble, hitting homeowners, renters, and businesses in a region already crushed by housing costs, with no end to the financial strain in sight.
Refuting Ideological Overreach
The major problem at SCAQMD is its ideological staff, waging a religious-like jihad against emissions at literally any cost. Comfortable playing ‘SimCity,’ they burden people and businesses with reckless policies, showing no concern for prudence. A consistent board majority, rubber-stamping these draconian proposals, compounds the issue. Composed mostly of local elected officials—supervisors or council members—their constituents barely know what AQMD is, let alone their role on its board, inoculating them from consequences. This terrible system creates a vast gulf between those regulating and those suffering, a disconnect that must be overcome to stop this madness. The AQMD Board will vote on this dreadful proposal this Friday.
To protest this proposal, contact the South Coast Air Quality Management District at [email protected] to voice your opposition.
California is chasing out their middle income tax paying population and preserving their high income, low tax paying privileged Populus and the non working low income population who pay limited taxes because of all the subsidies. In his book “Personal Opinions of One Common Man” the author describes the 3 classes of society as “The Gots,” “The Haves” and the “Have nots”. To preserve their wealth, “The Gots” who own a very large percentage of the wealth protect their wealth by promoting a big schism between the Haves and the Have nots. It is the haves that are trying to protect what they have earned by leaving the State.
“