> No it's not, especially if you replace natural gas with burning coal for electricity.
Berkeley has been transitioning businesses and residents to majority and most recently 100% renewable energy for years.
> Until the last coal plant shuts down, it makes zero sense to ban natural gas.
This is nonsense. Every year the % of renewable energy increases it makes more sense to electrify than it did previously. It's a lot easier to change the energy source for a power grid than it is to rip out all existing gas infrastructure.
>Until the last coal plant shuts down, it makes zero sense to ban natural gas.
I don't quite follow the logic here, why? California only had 1 coal plant left, and most of it has been decommissioned. It's not like natural gas usage would be replaced with coal. It would be replaced with either renewable, nuclear, or centralized natty
How fungible is it? When the US banned leaded gasoline, did other countries increase their usage?
I suspect when California finishes shutting down the last coal plant, it'll probably be with local unused natural gas capacity or renewable. I don't think it's practical for the state to import coal power from separate grids or across the country. I know reducing coal usage in the US might make it cheaper to burn in coal in other parts of the world, but there's still local benefits wrt lifespan and air quality
Answered in a sibling comment. Berkeley is dominantly solar during the day and dominantly natgas at night. There's very little coal in California whatsoever.
Until the last coal plant shuts down, it makes zero sense to ban natural gas.