However, it's important to note that for those claiming "oh just use a heat pump" that simply is not an option for high density residences or high rise buildings. Also, the efficiency of heating water with electric heating elements does NOT improve with scale, hence forcing buildings to purchase enormous electric boilers will again, just increase energy consumption AND net carbon emissions. But god knows that in CA, the gov't will just use tax payer money to pay rich developers and building owners to replace multimillion dollar hvac equipment (because "muh environmental impact").
I'm a brit in a small 3 bed 2 bath terrace house (I think you call them row houses in the US? Assuming you're American, apologies if that's wrong!).
30kW at 120V is 250A (it's actually more because of ACs power function). That's way above what a standard house or a domestic supply is designed to sustain.
Now add to that that this huge peak power is very synchronised. You, your neighbours and everyone else in your neighbourhood shower around the same times. And those aren't times renweables are most available. This is no problem for gas because you can store gas and pump it out as needed. But for electricity? You'll need to revamp your grid, forget non-constant renewables like wind or solar (I'm a fan of both but they're not suitable). And you need to build a tonne of capacity that won't be used 90% of the time.
This is the killer app for gas.
For the vast majority of use cases, heat pump hot water heaters are a reasonable solution [2] (unless you've got enormous demand within a short window of time, our heat pump hot water heater holds ~80 gallons at 120F). There is of course still work to be done for use cases where boilers are superior (high rises), but that doesn't mean it isn't solvable. I'm aware of a lot of folks in row homes in Australia who are successfully using heat pump hot water heaters!
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=load+shifting+water+heaters
[2] https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/water-heating/heat-pump-w...
Once you start looking at the emissions incurred by transmission loss, extra "peak" power purchased from states like Nevada and Oregon this stupid fantasy of electric everything solving the world's problems sans dealing with the production side fades quickly.
"The new all-electric, single-family home has a lower net present cost than the new mixed-fuel home in every city we studied: Austin, TX; Boston, MA; Columbus, OH; Denver, CO; Minneapolis, MN; New York City, NY; and Seattle, WA."
"In every city we analyzed, a new all-electric, single-family home is less expensive than a new mixed-fuel home that relies on gas for cooking, space heating, and water heating. Net present cost savings over the 15-year period of study are as high as $6,800 in New York City, where the all-electric home also results in 81 percent lower carbon emissions over the mixed-fuel home."
Enough sunlight hits the Earth in an hour to power all of humanity for a year; electrification of everything is therefore quite reasonable.
It also ignores the fact that some household appliances currently cannot be replaced with electrical models. Notably boilers: there is no way you can replace a simple and efficient combi boiler with an electrical model of the same output on a residential circuit, the equipment is too big and the electrical load is huge.
And that's without addressing the fact that we have basically decided NOT to cut our emissions and so doing any of this for Co2E reasons is a waste of time...