It's part of a bigger movement away from gas, eg. https://barc.ca.gov/whats-happening/news/berkeley-becomes-first-us-city-ban-natural-gas-connections-new-buildi

It's part of a bigger movement away from gas, eg. https://barc.ca.gov/whats-happening/news/berkeley-becomes-first-us-city-ban-natural-gas-connections-new-buildings https://barc.ca.gov/whats-happening/news/berkeley-becomes-fi... It seems like a big deal to me to go from two redundant energy sources to one without discussing the trade offs in resiliency. I agree with OP, that there will be a large of human cost to giving up gas heat without making a corresponding investment in the reliability of the electric grid (which I have never seen mentioned). My impression is that the total cost to the decision to phase out gas has not been crunched. Pushing it to individuals to be prepared for electric grid failure is pretty bad for carbon and pollution. All those generators (and other emergency backup appliances) manufactured and maintained. I personally prefer having gas and electric, I feel that gives me adequate reliability, so I don't need to own a generator: I have my gas heat (millivolt pilot generator requires no AC power), gas hot water, candles, and flashlights. And I like not owning a generator (or emergency propane heater (aren't these commonly implicated in structure fires? [0]), etc). Plus many people can't afford generators. [0] https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Data-research-and-tools/US-Fire-Problem/Heating-equipment https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Data-research-and-too...