Piedmont CONNECT: Questions for 2026 City Council Candidates
As it has done in past elections, Piedmont CONNECT distributed a list of questions to all five candidates running in the 2026 election for City Council. Four candidates returned responses, and their answers are provided below in the order received. The Board of Piedmont Connect wants to thank all the candidates for participating in this survey.
1. Should Piedmont adopt a mandatory policy on the replacement of water heaters at point of home sale like the BESO program in Berkeley. If not, other than incentives, what policies do you think the City should adopt to enhance the installation of electrical appliances?
Background: Piedmont’s GHG emissions rose in 2022 when the last CAP inventory was conducted. This reversed a declining emissions trend and has moved the City away from meeting its 2045 Net Zero goal. To address this, Piedmont is developing an electrification strategy that is based on incentives for home owners to install electrical appliances. The City of Berkeley implements a Building Emissions Saving Ordinance (BESO) which requires, at the point of home sale, for the seller to complete a Home Energy Score which is posted in the MLS. Sellers must either complete six credits worth of energy-efficiency/electrification upgrades (such as installing an electric heat pump space or water heater, solar panels, insulation, or electrical panel upgrades) before the sale, or defer the responsibility to the buyer. If deferring to the buyer, a $2,500 non-refundable city deferral deposit (or a shared escrow deposit) is required, and the buyer has two years to complete the upgrades. BESO results in a systematic change over of gas to electric appliances that reduces that city’s GHG emissions whereas an incentive program is voluntary.
Nancy Beninati: I support continued electrification in Piedmont because moving away from fossil fuels is one practical way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That includes electric vehicles, heat pumps and other electric appliances, and making our homes and public buildings more energy efficient. The City has an important role to play, both by electrifying its own buildings and fleet and by making it easier for residents to make these changes when they are ready. The Piedmont Community Pool is a great example of how the City can incorporate electrification into its own facilities.
I see policies like Berkeley’s BESO as one approach to reducing building emissions, but it’s important to understand that BESO mandates qualifying upgrades, not universal replacement of gas appliances. For me, the goal is to identify practical steps we can take as individuals and as a community. I drive an EV and use electric appliances in my home, and I’ve seen firsthand how these changes can become part of everyday life. I’d like Piedmont to continue exploring realistic ways to reduce emissions while being mindful of costs and the needs of our residents.
Bill Reichle: I would support adding incentives and/or requirements at the point of property transfer. This timing can be effective. For most individuals, a home purchase or sale is the largest financial transaction they will ever complete and both buyers and sellers anticipate having to fulfill various requirements to complete the transaction. While most are financial, this requirement would reaffirm values most Piedmont residents hold dear.
Water heaters are a good appliance to impose a new requirement or incentive to upgrade as electric water heater technology has improved in the last ten years. Further, water heaters are less subject to personal choice and design considerations than kitchen appliances.
I would want to ensure that buyers have adequate time to complete the upgrade (two years with Berkeley’s BESO is more than sufficient) as many new home buyers complete home renovations in their first two years of home ownership but can’t be expected to complete these by close of escrow.
On a personal note, my wife Julie and I purchased our first home in Berkeley in the 1990s. At that time, Berkeley offered a partial-reimbursement of expenses for seismic upgrades to strengthen houses. The first thing we did upon moving in was bolt the foundation, install sheer wall bracing on the cripple walls, anchor the water heater, and brace the brick chimney to the roof. While we understood the benefit of all of these improvements, we never would have prioritized them without the encouragement of the city-program. And the behavior carried forward; when we bought our home in Piedmont, we added seismic improvements before we moved in without any incentive program because we wanted the additional safety.
Adam Hundt: As opposed to mandates at the point of home sale, I prefer to create solutions to address the primary barriers to home electrification: first, the significant upfront cost of clean energy products; second, consumers’ lack of information about how to proceed, including locating qualified contractors and understanding permitting requirements; and third, utility requirements that add to electrification projects’ cost and implementation time. To remove these barriers, if elected to City Council, I will prioritize the following:
First, working with partners such as Ava Community Energy, I will approach county and state government agencies seeking additional financial incentives for Piedmont residents to electrify homes. Piedmont residents do not qualify for many of the incentives currently available because they are limited to individuals with specific income levels.
Second, I will enable collective purchasing of clean energy technologies to lower upfront costs for residents that wish to adopt solutions such as solar, batteries, heat pumps, and other products and services. Piedmont already participates in the Bay Area Sun Shares program. Ava Community Energy, the Community Choice Aggregator that most residents are enrolled in, has expertise in procurement and could be a good partner for such initiatives.
Third, I will create a city-level marketplace to bring together residents interested in electrifying their homes and service providers that can provide options at reasonable prices. On the demand side will be residents that want to electrify or may be interested in electrifying assuming they can do so at a specific cost. On the supply side will be vetted contractors that already have experience working in Piedmont or surrounding cities.
City government can create a repository of common issues facing Piedmont residences so that contractors have a better understanding of the opportunities and challenges of operating in Piedmont. For example, some residents have underground electrical lines that necessitate trenching, lack driveway or garage space to accommodate an EV charger, and will need to upgrade their home electrical panel to accommodate new devices like a home EV charger.
In the private sector, the technology company Zero Homes provides homeowners with a simple, digital home examination tool that enables Zero Homes to match the homeowner with a heat pump solution and third-party contractor. Zero Homes even calculates and guarantees the cost that the homeowner will be charged. The result is to make the process easy and straightforward for the homeowner. Piedmont can utilize services such as Zero Homes and emulate the way in which Zero Homes matches supply and demand and works to remove obstacles, thus increasing the number of transactions for affordable heat pumps and clean energy products.
Fourth, I will create an information exchange that all residents can access that will provide information about clean energy products and services, incentive programs available to Piedmont residents, and case studies of residents that successfully electrified their homes. In addition to the residents who have won Piedmont’s annual Sustainability award, the information hub will promote residents who have completed home electrification certification programs (for example, through Rewiring America) with the goal of being able to offer advice and consultation on an unpaid basis to individuals that want to electrify their homes.
Fifth, working with Ava Community Energy, I will enable neighbors to partner with each other to create distributed energy resource aggregations whereby residents agree to participate in efficient energy consumption programs in exchange for lower electricity rates. Based on resident participation, these programs could be tailored to residents’ lifestyles (e.g. charge EVs overnight or in the middle of day) and to the devices they already own and operate. Another benefit of these solutions is to decrease the need for new utility infrastructure. If neighbors are enrolled as a group in an aggregator program, one resident’s decision to upgrade electrical equipment – for example by adding a new electrical panel – is less likely to trigger a broader utility infrastructure upgrade and therefore will likely be completed sooner.
Finally, if elected to City Council, I will seek to understand the impact that Reach Codes have had on emissions reductions and home construction and renovation. Piedmont initially adopted Reach Codes in February 2021, with the goal of reducing residential natural gas usage, which represents approximately half of Piedmont’s GHG emissions. Piedmont’s reach codes require the use of electric appliances in new homes including ADUs. Second-story additions and projects that expand roof areas by 30% or more need to include solar panels on the roof. Renovations of $25,000 or more select an energy efficiency improvement from a set of options and renovations of $100,000 or more select two improvements. These improvements include replacing a gas furnace or water heater with a heat pump, adding floor insulation, and adding LED lights with motion sensors. I am also aware that it is important to keep in mind the Ninth Circuit ruling in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley (2023) and subsequent settlement (2024), the result of which is that state and local government cannot require all-electric buildings.
Tom Ramsey: I would like to understand how impactful Berkeley’s program is prior to replicating the ordinance here in Piedmont. I would also like to understand the added costs a new home buyer will incur to comply with the requirements, as well as the administration and enforcement commitments our town would be signing up for with a new ordinance like this. Additionally, we should be aware of any upcoming changes and timing regarding the BAAQMD’s existing residential water heater requirements so that we are aligned with regional regulations.
I prefer a “lead-by-example” approach combined with a “more-carrots, fewer-sticks” mentality. The cityremoved its number one source of GHG emissions with the construction of our new pool, however, we still have gas service to the commercial kitchen in Veterans Hall and gas kilns in the Recreation Department. We can budget for the replacement of both of those now, so we are ahead of the game when it is time to replace them.
I promote continuing to streamline permitting requirements to encourage electrical panel upgrades during major remodels. Let’s keep getting the word out regarding incentive programs while showing residents thatthe city is walking the walk, not just talking the talk on GHG emissions.
2. Do you support the adoption of balcony portable solar panels in Piedmont without the imposition of design review or fees by the Planning Department and subject only to current provisions of Piedmont’s design/building and fire/safety codes?
Background: California recently legalized portable balcony solar panels under SB 868 (the Plug and Play Solar Act), which permits the sale of portable solar panels that can be installed to generate electricity without modifying a roof or getting complex utility approvals. These panels are portable and reduce the user’s electrical bills by generating electricity for the grid.
Nancy Beninati: I support the potential of using portable balcony solar panels as a practical way to advance sustainability. Germany has demonstrated the value of these systems, and I believe they are worth exploring for Piedmont. However, these products raise important safety questions, particularly regarding electrical connections, product certification, secure mounting, and wildfire risks. Before Piedmont considers adopting any regulations, we must first establish what federal and California law allows and ensure that appropriate U.S. product safety standards and applicable building, electrical, and fire-safety requirements are met. I would support exploring a streamlined permitting process once these requirements are established, avoiding unnecessary design review and fees while retaining appropriate safety inspections and consideration of the panels’ placement and Piedmont’s residential character. We should encourage sustainable innovation, but not at the expense of public safety.
Bill Reichle: I support plug and play solar technology installations that are properly installed to prevent fire danger and feedback danger to utility workers. I need to understand whether approved devices offer these safety features automatically or if they would need to be inspected for compliance for proper installation. Assuming the point of this question is that the technology is designed with these safety-features built-in, I would support its adoption in Piedmont.
For our particular home, we have been advised by three different solar companies that we are not a good candidate for roof-mounted solar panels based on the shape and orientation of our roof. Yet we have a western-facing, sloping backyard which would have good potential for portable panels.
Adam Hundt: Yes, I support the adoption of balcony portable solar panels in Piedmont without the imposition of design review or fees by the Planning Department and subject only to the current provisions of Piedmont’s design/building and fire/safety codes.
This technology has been widely adopted in Germany in recent years. I personally know the leaders of a nonprofit called Bright Saver, based in the SF Bay Area, who are working with state governments across the U.S. to pass legislation such as California’s Plug and Play Solar Act. The intent is minimize permitting and approval requirements and make purchasing and setup as easy as any home appliance that a consumer would find at Costco, Home Depot, or similar store. The benefit to consumers is immense – these devices can supply approximately 20% of the electricity used in a home and reduce annual bills by several hundred dollars.
With costs as low as $300 for small kits, plug in solar devices are inexpensive compared to typical residential solar. They can be located on a balcony or window or in a backyard. The simple setup enables renters and homeowners whose rooves cannot accommodate solar panels to save money and reduce emissions. California’s Plug and Play Solar Act aims to increase adoption of balcony solar, as the owners of these devices are not required to register them with utilities, thus reducing the time and cost typically associated with residential solar installations. California law does require that the entire balcony solar system pass a higher bar in terms of safety compared to similar legislation passed in states such as Utah and Maryland, where only system components need to complete a safety check. There is currently only one organization, Underwriters Laboratories, that can perform the certification test that California law demands. That said, as the devices gain greater adoption, it is likely that certification standards will evolve.
Tom Ramsey: This is now state law, so plug in solar panels are allowed provided they comply with building, electrical, and fire safety codes. It would be helpful for our planning staff to offer a simple, online safety checklist so residents can install balcony solar panels safely and confidently. From my experience on the Planning Commission, portable items are typically exempt from fees and planning regulations, so I see a typical small “appliance” installation as being exempt by default. (This status needs to be confirmed.)
3. What steps should the City take to reduce Piedmont’s GHG transportation emissions? While an EV charging hub is proposed for Grand Avenue, we are particularly interested in your opinions on private curbside EV charging.
Background: Staff recently indicated that the City of Piedmont has an EV adoption rate of 25%, the highest in Alameda County. Yet, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from transportation rose from 2021 to 2022.
Nancy Beninati: I support reducing transportation emissions through practical steps that encourage electrification, along with walking, biking, and public transit. I support the proposed EV charging station at the former Shell station on Grand Avenue and Wildwood as one way to expand public charging options in Piedmont.
The City is currently considering curbside EV charging, and I think it is important to evaluate where that infrastructure is most needed. Many Piedmont residents can charge at home, while others may not have that option. Public charging should help address those gaps, but decisions about curbside charging need to take into account the City’s long-term infrastructure projects, competing priorities, and budget.
Bill Reichle: For residents of Piedmont who do not have access to a garage, curbside EV charging makes sense. On our street, several neighbors charge their cars on the street with cords running to their garage. But, for most neighborhoods, there are more cars than garages.
Toyota has projected that the lack of garage access for a significant portion of Californians will suppress the adoption of electric vehicles and limit ownership to people living in single-family detached homes. In California, 44% of people live in some other household (apartment, townhome, etc.) other than a single-family detached house. That is one reason Toyota keeps a small commitment to hydrogen vehicles which can be refueled in a similar experience to a gasoline refueling experience. There is a gas station on Grand Avenue in Oakland that features a hydrogen refueling pump.
I am interested in studying last-mile delivery services in Piedmont and finding a way to regulate or incentivize vendors to switch to electric or hydrogen vehicles. As it stands, the US Postal Service, UPS, FedEx, and Amazon use gasoline and diesel vehicles for stop and start driving in town. As Piedmont residents rely more on online shopping, this has theoretically reduced shopping trips but may have inadvertently resulted in an increase in trips with small deliveries coming into town.
Adam Hundt: The City can take the following steps to reduce Piedmont’s GHG transportation emissions: first, develop a permitting process to safely locate charging cords across or under sidewalks so that residents without driveways can charge EVs at their residences; second, work with Ava Community Energy on resident aggregator programs that reduce the need for new utility infrastructure and therefore expedite project timelines for electrical panel upgrades often required to support an EV charger; third, work with AC Transit and Alameda County to improve public bus accessibility for Piedmont residents; fourth, improve the safety and accessibility of Piedmont’s pedestrian and bike pathways.
First, I will work to create a permitting process for extending charging cords across or under sidewalks, enabling residents to utilize home charging rates, which are significantly lower than public EV charging rates. Thus, although it is helpful to have a nearby public EV charging hub, given the high number of Piedmont and Oakland EV owners that charge at their residences, I worry that the Grand Avenue chargers will have a low utilization rate and therefore may not be financially viable in the long run.
Furthermore, curbside EV charging solutions that work in urban areas like San Francisco, such as bollards, pedestals, or pole-mounted configurations, are not well-suited to suburban residential areas. Private companies own and operate the equipment and thus seek locations with high utilization where the utility infrastructure can accommodate its expected high electricity demand. Piedmont could look to, for example, Oxford, England which has pioneered a “OxGul-e” solution which is essentially a narrow gulley in the sidewalk pavement tailor-made for a charging cord, allowing for home charging while still complying with street and sidewalk safety standards. It is also possible to bury the cord underneath the sidewalk and create an access station at ground-level, located in the sidewalk buffer/ planting strip area. These solutions avoid trip hazards such as charging lines lying across sidewalks.
Second, if elected to City Council, I will work to develop programs that either allow residents to install an EV charger without needing to upgrade an electrical panel or accommodate new electrical panel installations without triggering major utility infrastructure upgrades. The energy technology company SPAN sells a product that allows a user to avoid an electrical panel upgrade by reducing home electricity consumption at times of peak demand. Another option is for residents to join an Ava aggregator program which has some control over the group’s energy usage – this creates headroom capacity on the grid and avoids the need for additional utility infrastructure, even as more customers electrify their homes.
Third, I will work with AC Transit and Alameda County to explore adding bus routes serving Piedmont residents. Buses reduce usage of passenger vehicles as well as traffic congestion, thus reducing GHG emissions. In 2025, the City of Piedmont and PUSD wrote a letter to AC Transit asking for the reinstatement of a route used by school attendees. I support the Regional Transit Measure, on the ballot this November in Alameda County and other Bay Area counties, which will raise approximately $1 billion annually over 14 years for AC Transit and other local transit services. There have been reports that without this funding, AC Transit will dramatically curtail service. Locally, Congresswoman Lateefah Simon, State Senator Jesse Arreguin, State Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, and Alameda County Supervisor Nikki Fortunato Bas, among others, support this ballot measure.
Finally, I will prioritize improvements to Piedmont’s pedestrian and bike pathways. Enhancing the safety and accessibility of walking and biking throughout Piedmont will reduce vehicle usage and thus GHG emissions from transportation. The Piedmont Safer Streets report from December 2021 advised addressing crosswalks where drivers had poor visibility of pedestrians, creating a series of dedicated bike paths in the city, and taking measures to curb speeding via speed bumps/humps and other tactics.
Tom Ramsey: Many years ago, during a Planning Commission meeting, EV charging ports came up in a design review. My comment at the time was, “We don’t regulate garden hoses; we shouldn’t regulate EV ports.” They take up the same amount of space and look similar. However, I would qualify that statement now with three caveats:
1. Electrical: The electrical installation needs to be up to code and properly inspected. Inspection is cheap insurance. Most of us live in older homes with older electrical systems, so this safety check is important for everyone. Several years ago, there was a small fire in a neighboring garage triggered by a poorly installed EV charger. Fortunately, it was caught quickly enough that we were able to shut off
the power before the fire truck arrived.
2. Sidewalks: The city spends funds every year on sidewalk maintenance, and part of that expenditure goes toward accessibility compliance by grinding uneven sidewalks to meet ADA requirements and remove tripping hazards. Allowing cables to lay across sidewalks would run counter to that effort.
3. Public Way: Although it is not always treated this way by residents (and I am guilty of this as well), street parking is public parking. Parking is not reserved for those living in the closest proximity.
4. Should the City initiate discussion of a tree ordinance via the Park Commission to ascertain community interest in a private property tree ordinance for Piedmont?
Background: The City of Piedmont has a beautiful urban forest on both public and private lands, manages a Heritage Tree program for city trees and is currently partnering with local organizations on a reforestation project. Many surrounding cities have tree ordinances that require a permit to remove protected trees on private property (Palo Alto and Oakland ).
Nancy Beninati: Yes. I support initiating a discussion through the Park Commission to understand community interest in a private property tree ordinance. Trees are an important part of Piedmont’s character, and we should have a thoughtful conversation about how best to preserve our tree canopy while respecting private property rights. I would welcome community input on the potential benefits, concerns, and practical implications of an ordinance before considering any specific requirements.
Bill Reichle: When people are asked why they enjoy living in Piedmont, “beautiful trees” are often mentioned.
A tree ordinance would be beneficial to Piedmont’s urban forest and it would be important to begin a conversation soon as trees are becoming more stressed due to our changing climate. Protecting our urban forests will require assessing the health of our trees and also making recommendations for trees that will thrive in the coming decades on less water and more hot days. Providing guidance to homeowners on suitable trees will prove beneficial.
On the UC Berkeley campus, there are now more than 600 diseased and dying trees, many of them redwoods which are not adapting well to our now-drier climate. Campus arborists have advised against replacing these trees with new redwoods as conditions have changed and new species will need to be recommended.
In my neighborhood, having more clearly defined rules around trees and views would be beneficial as well. Berkeley has more clearly defined tree-view ordinances in the hope that they can resolve issues between neighbors.
Adam Hundt: Before recommending that the City initiate discussion of a private property tree ordinance for Piedmont, I would like to understand approximately how many trees and residents would be affected by the ordinance. In 2018, Piedmont initiated a heritage tree ordinance which relates to trees that are on city property. There are approximately 35 “Piedmont Heritage Trees” and each year the City can give this designation to as many as 5 additional trees.
I have read the recently published Piedmont Sustainable Parks Management Plan and I agree with its implementation priorities, including maintaining parks for long-term sustainability, repairing irritation systems, replacing lighting structures, addressing stormwater and erosion risk, adding climate-adapted plantings, enhancing accessibility, and ensuring there are both preserved nature areas and recreational spaces.
Tom Ramsey: I am always in favor of community discussions, so I say yes to that part of the question. However, we should approach conversations regarding adding regulations to private property with care. The city struggles with enforcement, and there are many complexities in determining what qualifies a tree to be protected and how that may affect a homeowner’s use of their property. Currently, major renovations on private property that propose landscape improvements typically require design review. Tree removal, protection, and replacement are already handled as part of that review by the Planning Commission. Any proposed
additional regulations should be evaluated in the context of our current practices.
5. Do you support converting the Highland-Sheridan Triangle to a sustainable and native plant garden? If not, do you have other suggestions for the use of this lawn?
Background: The City recently completed the Sustainable Parks Management Plan (SPMP). The SPMP identified key aspects of City parks (dog parks, natural beauty, mature trees) residents want to see preserved through the plan. The SPMP also recommends the city adopt sustainable landscape management practices such as less irrigation, slope stabilization and the planting of native species. As required by AB1572 (Nonfunctional) the Park Commission is currently identifying lawn areas to be designated as non-functional turf on which potable water cannot be used. The Highland-Sheridan Triangle is an area of high water use and its replacement with more sustainable and native species has been proposed.
Nancy Beninati: I walk by the Highland-Sheridan Triangle regularly, and I do think a change is warranted. In my view, the lawn appears to be overwatered, and converting it to a native and drought-tolerant garden is one option worth considering.
At the same time, I think we should evaluate the site as part of Piedmont’s long-term planning for infrastructure and public facilities before committing funds to a particular design. I would not want the City to invest in a native garden now only to have to remove it later if a different use would better serve the community. I would support exploring alternatives, gathering community input, and identifying the best long-term use for the space before making a final decision.
Bill Reichle: I assume this question refers to the Highland-Sheridan crescent where lawn is still installed around the bus stop and not the triangle island which has the magnolia tree and ceanothis. The lawn area stretching from Sheridan to Sierra along Highland could be suitable for a picnic or a play area but I have never seen it used this way. This presents a wonderful opportunity to replace the lawn with something that can be even more beautiful, sustainable, and enjoyed by more people.
During the years I worked at UC Berkeley, the University removed many of its lawns and stopped irrigating the campus. While some areas were just covered with mulch, others were converted into native gardens and riparian areas that serve research and education purposes.
I would support converting this area to a California native plant garden that reduces water and supports native pollinators. Further, I would like to see it turned into a demonstration garden that educates Piedmont residents about native plants that could be suitable for their home gardens. Many homeowners support the idea of native gardens but select plants based on what they see in their neighborhood that they admire and do well. This could present an opportunity to design a centrally-located public garden that educates and inspires behavior at the residential-level.
Adam Hundt: Yes, I am inclined to support the conversion of the Highland-Sheridan Triangle to a sustainable and native plant garden, though I would first want to understand both the cost of the project and how City organizations feel about the change. My understanding is that there is currently a magnolia tree located in the triangle and that the tree and landscaping are a memorial in honor of Irene Henshaw.
Thus, before approving a change, I would like to discuss with the Piedmont Beautification Foundation and the Piedmont Garden Club to determine if they also support the transformation of the triangle. If they do support a new plant garden in that location, I would investigate if private fundraising can be used to help pay for this project. Additionally, I would discuss with the Public Works department to understand the impact to water usage. Finally, my assumption is that this project would not affect existing transportation routes along Highland Avenue and Sheridan Avenue, but I would want to confirm this as well.
Tom Ramsey: I think we can look at AB 1572 as an opportunity to make non-functional turf areas more functional and climate-hardy, and I welcome ideas for the Highland-Sheridan Triangle. The conversations at our Park Commission have been very interesting regarding how we manage our parks in an era of climate change. Some of these conversations even go beyond historic native species to look at what will likely become the “new native” species over the next 50 years. Discussions regarding these shifts are exactly what we need to
plan for the future.
______________________________________________
City releases Draft Home Electrification Strategy; Public comment by November 2
Developed by the Piedmont Sustainability Division with the assistance of the all-volunteer Electrification Task Force, the Draft Home Electrification Strategy aims to identify ways the City can better support and remove barriers for residents who want to replace natural gas appliances with electric alternatives and improve energy efficiency in their homes. The draft Strategy proposes 15 programs — to be implemented in phases over a five-year period — that aim to reduce costs, simplify projects, and provide practical information and support to residents.
The Strategy will be presented to City Council on November 2, 2026, with a recommendation for adoption.
The City encourages you to share your thoughts, either through written comments or by attending the meeting virtually or in person on November 2.
Read the Draft Home Electrification Strategy.
Send comments to ElectrificationStrategy@piedmont.ca.gov
