My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Correspondence - Item 18
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2025
>
02/18/2025
>
Correspondence - Item 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/18/2025 4:31:21 PM
Creation date
2/13/2025 10:47:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Public eComments
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Arevalo, Evelyn <br /> From: Lopez, Jessie <br /> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 6:50 PM <br /> To: eComment <br /> Subject: Fwd: Agenda Item 18: Opposition to the anti-electrification motion <br /> Sent from my iPhone. Please expect typos. <br /> Begin forwarded message: <br /> From: Virginia Bernal < <br /> Date: February 17, 2025 at 2:23:38 PM PST <br /> To: "Amezcua, Valerie" <VAmezcua@santa-ana.org>, "Phan, Thai" <TPhan@santa-ana.org>, <br /> "Vazquez, Benjamin" <bvazquez@santa-ana.org>, "Lopez, Jessie" <JessieLopez@santa- <br /> ana.org>, "Bacerra, Phil" <pbacerra@santa-ana.org>, "Hernandez, Johnathan" <br /> <JRyanHernandez@santa-ana.org>, "Penaloza, David" <DPenaloza@santa-ana.org> <br /> Subject: Agenda Item 18: Opposition to the anti-electrification motion <br /> Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana.Use caution when opening attachments or <br /> links. <br /> Dear Mayor Amezcua and Councilmembers, <br /> We,Juan and Virginia Bernal, residents of Santa Ana for nearly 47 years, are deeply concerned <br /> that tomorrow the City Council is considering opposing Proposed Amended Rules (PAR) 1111 <br /> and 1121 by the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). <br /> I, Virginia, have read the February 18 meeting Agenda Item 18 , the Draft Motion in Opposition, <br /> and find that 6 of the 10 arguments cited are about the cost—arguments which ignore critical <br /> aspects of reality. <br /> The cited $20 billion cost imposed on consumers do not deliver MINIMAL, but HUGE <br /> improvements: <br /> o Question the math: Citing net cost? Because gas appliance replacement cost <br /> too—the rules apply when purchases of new appliances are needed. The cost <br /> cited has no mention of time—I assume for several years, perhaps a decade? <br /> o Asthma, other respiratory and cardiovascular ill-health costs, plus work loss <br /> caused by fossil use in the home are valued at over$3.7 billion annually.1 <br /> o Residential appliances alone emit more NOx—and almost as much direct PM2.5 <br /> pollution— into the SCAQMD region as oil and gas production, oil refining, and <br /> cement manufacturing combined. 1 <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.