Bob Kupperstein wrote: > “You make the argument that any changes Lincoln makes would have a miniscule impact, but Lincoln (and the US, for that matter) are unwilling to make any small sacrifices for the common good, then how can we expect communities/nations that can have a big impact to make sacrifices for our sake?”
Bob, you leave out the critical part of my argument. It’s not about “making small sacrifices for the common good”; it’s about forcing people to take actions/spend money on things that will have ZERO impact on the common good. As I mentioned, this falls into the nature of a collective-action problem. But, as I noted, trying to fight climate change by forcing new buildings to use only electricity for heating, even if adopted across the US, would be using a squirt-gun to fight a forest fire. It not only has no impact on the Lincoln level, this proposal adopted across the country would have virtually no impact on the national level. Which just demonstrates perfectly my point about how this is the Politician’s Syllogism (fallacy) in practice. Bob wrote: > “Your consistently libertarian mindset (little 'L'?) seems to virtually always prioritize personal choice over common good. That seems to leave little to discuss.” Perhaps a bit off-topic, but worthy of discussion. The beauty of having a libertarian/classical liberal mindset is that “the common good” is almost (but not) always best achieved THROUGH individual, personal choice. When a nation of folks are free to live their lives with the least-needed amount of government action forced on them, then that would, more often than any other political system, results in the best, most widespread common good. Bob wrote: > “And, yes, our brilliant minds and new technologies may come up with solutions down the line, but how much will be lost in the meantime? Island nations covered by rising seas; US cities being flooded; many species going extinct (forever); extreme weather events causing loss of life and property; etc., etc. Pretty minor in comparison to all of those things, but surely a symbolic local instance we can all relate to: the lobsters have left Connecticut and Long Island, are becoming rare in Mass. and are even disappearing in Maine. But, we'll figure something out?” Bob, you see to condense the issue into a BIG PROBLEM <time passes> <BIG SOLUTION> mindset. When that’s rare ever been the case with human ingenuity. Humans are massively adaptable, and solutions to giant problems usually take the form of incremental solutions, tested out by various individuals/groups/states/nations, over time. We’re not sitting around for Tony Stark to come up with ONE solution that stops climate change. Instead, we have folks around the globe adapting to climate change – while benefiting from the massive improvements in climbing out of poverty, including increased health and lifespans powered by affordable energy. And re your point about lobsters… um, what? Lobster populations are indeed decreasing in the Southern New England region, but booming like made in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank regions. The abundance of eastern lobsters has been growing strongly for the last quarter century, and show no signs of stopping. This is actually a *perfect* example of my point. (thanks, Bob!) If it is climate change that is driving lobster populations further north in search of colder water, then what’s the downside to us? We’re not running out of lobsters. And lobster fisherman are ADAPTING, by fishing for them in cooler waters – and catching MORE of them. http://www.asmfc.org/species/american-lobster and https://www.savingseafood.org/news/council-actions/american-lobster-benchmark-stock-assessment-finds-gom-gbk-stock-not-overfished-nor-experiencing-overfishing-sne-stock-significantly-depleted-assessment-introduces-regime-shift-methodology-to-addres/ Vty, --Dennis From: Bob Kupperstein <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 12:16 PM To: Dennis Liu <[email protected]> Cc: Belinda Gingrich <[email protected]>; Listserv Listserv <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Passive houses | RE: Forcing Lincoln to ban use of gas and oil at home? RE: Webinars regarding Citizen's Petition for Town meeting You make the argument that any changes Lincoln makes would have a miniscule impact, but Lincoln (and the US, for that matter) are unwilling to make any small sacrifices for the common good, then how can we expect communities/nations that can have a big impact to make sacrifices for our sake? Your consistently libertarian mindset (little 'L'?) seems to virtually always prioritize personal choice over common good. That seems to leave little to discuss. And, yes, our brilliant minds and new technologies may come up with solutions down the line, but how much will be lost in the meantime? Island nations covered by rising seas; US cities being flooded; many species going extinct (forever); extreme weather events causing loss of life and property; etc., etc. Pretty minor in comparison to all of those things, but surely a symbolic local instance we can all relate to: the lobsters have left Connecticut and Long Island, are becoming rare in Mass. and are even disappearing in Maine. But, we'll figure something out? As for why ask the legislature before having community discussions - we could go back and forth on that forever, it's a chicken/egg situation. Why not find out if it's even possible, and if it is, then we can have meaningful dialog. Either way, everyone will have a chance to have their say. -Bob On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 11:56 AM Dennis Liu <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: I neglected to address the other parts of Belinda’s questions. Belinda wrote: >” If I were building a new home I would want it to be as air tight and well insulated as possible so that my energy bills for heating would be minuscule. Who wouldn’t want a Passive House <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house> with minimal heating bills? Should we be allowed to build inefficient houses because we haven’t heard about better options?” Ah, well, here’s the thing. “Who wouldn’t want X”? Indeed; here’s another way to think about questions of that sort. IF everyone wants X, then we would not need a LAW that MANDATES X. By virtue of having to pass a law that forces people to choose X shows that there must be some significant subset of people that would not want X. For the record, I built our house in 2011. I looked at passive houses then, and while it had a lot of appeal to me, I ended up building something that is very energy efficient, but not quite as efficient as a full, certified passive house would have been. Why not? The return on investment wasn’t there. As I repeat, over and over ad nauseam, pretty much everything in life has a cost/benefit analysis. Residential solar power is great! At a certain price level! It’s often the Pareto principle at work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle). When I was building my house, I could achieve 80% of the benefit of a passive house at 20% of the upgrade cost. It would have cost a lot more for a much smaller, diminished improvement in efficiency. This is the same reasoning all of us apply to all aspects of life! We want to go out to dinner one night; cool. Most of the time, most of us will go out to a local-ish restaurant with good-to-great food, at mostly reasonable prices. We could spend 3x the price, or go 3x the distance, and have a better meal – and sometimes we do! – but most of the time we do not. That’s because each of us is willing to spend $X for dinner out – we’ve done the cost/benefit analysis for dinner that night. The same can be said when we buy a Prius or Tesla Model 3 instead of a Tesla Plaid or Lucid Air. When we fly basic or standard economy instead of business class or 1st class. We can achieve the goal of arriving in Chicago or Atlanta (at the same time!) for $194 instead of $495. [As a pure aside, if you’re concerned about COVID and similar airborne pathogens being transmitted among residents in multi-family dwellings built to passive house standards, it can be mitigated, but it’s complex and incur more expense; see: https://www.swinter.com/party-walls/designing-for-a-post-covid-world-with-passive-house/] Belinda also inquired re my stance on leaky gas infrastructure: > “Is Gas a right? Massachusetts has very leaky natural gas infrastructure contributing to global warming and not even heating our houses. It would cost enormous amounts of money to repair even the major leaks and new leaks are forming all the time. If we could all switch to electric homes we wouldn’t need all the leaky infrastructure. I certainly don’t want to pay for a leaky gas infrastructure. I want the government to legislate it away!” [Citations below in original] Yes, new leaks in natural gas pipelines do form from time to time. This is another example of the Pareto Principle. Could we have completely invulnerable, perfectly sealed gas infrastructure? Sure, of course. It would just cost a lot, lot more money. Just as how we can have completely reliable, unassailable electricity supplied to our house – if we’re willing to spend $$$$$ to make it happen. Here’s the thing that will make many Lincolnites cringe – gas leaks are not a big deal. (“GAHHH, no he did NOT say that!!! To the pitchforks and torches!!!”) Yes, of course, I would hate living near a detectable gas leak. Yes, of course, I would very much like not to have my house (or neighborhood) explode! But, as in all things in life, there are risks associated with everything. I would also like my house (and neighborhood) to not burn down in an uncontrolled wildfire. Or blown apart by a tornado or hurricane, or washed into the sea, or destroyed by a mudslide, or flooded by the Mississippi. But we still build houses in fire-prone areas and earthquake zones and on the shore. Because each of us has made a trade-off! And this is a trade-off with natural gas. We are willing to endure the cost of small leaks in the infrastructure, so that we may enjoy the benefit of affordable natural gas heating. Yes, we can collectively do a better job of making sure that externalities are not forced upon the unlucky few, but we are never going to have a gas infrastructure that will be 100% leakproof. For those that don’t want to take the risk, they can always use electricity or propane (both of which come with risk too). Oh, and as for the effect on climate change from gas leaks? I wrote this in January (in response to Belinda!): >From the cited study (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c04707) >itself: "For our methane emission measurements, we scaled our measurements to >calculate the total amount of methane emitted from stoves overall, employing >the usage patterns reported by Chan et al. and Zhao et al. (18,28) (see the >Materials and Methods section). We estimated that an average stove (burners >plus oven) emitted 649 [95% CI: 427, 949] g CH4 year–1" >So, 649 grams (or 1.43 pounds) of methane emitted by a stove per year (from >both in use and when not in use). Is that . . . a lot? Is that . . . >dangerous? One would think all of these news stories would provide this >context, right?? >Google tells me that a single cow produces 220 pounds of methane per year. >That means that a gas stove produces about 0.65% of the methane a cow does. >There are about 94.8 million cows in the US, and 43.4 million gas >stoves/cooktops/ovens. Which means, overall in the United States per year, >all gas appliances produce about 0.3% of the methane that cows do. >Which is not intended to diminish the fact that, yes, anything that uses >natural gas will generate methane - including those natural gas plants that >generate the electricity used for electric appliances. Also, we should keep >in mind, "According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), about 40 percent >of total global methane emissions occur naturally from sources such as wetlands, geologic seepage, permafrost, and animal secretions. The remaining 60 percent of global methane emissions are anthropogenic (man-made), and the largest portion of these come from agricultural production such as raising livestock and rice production. Fossil fuel production, transportation, and use account for approximately 20 percent (~113 million metric tons) of total global methane emissions, and emissions attributable to gas power are about 3% (17 million metric tons) of the global total." >Having said all of this, I cannot emphasize enough how much of a fan of >induction cooktops I am. I will never use conventional electric cooktops >again, and I would even switch from gas to induction when economically >appropriate. Induction is that awesome -- its faster than gas, can be more >controllable, and WAY, WAY, WAY easier to keep clean. Vty, --Dennis From: Belinda Gingrich <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 6:33 PM To: Dennis Liu <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Forcing Lincoln to ban use of gas and oil at home? RE: Webinars regarding Citizen's Petition for Town meeting Hi Dennis, What would you do to solve the climate crisis? You give well thought out ideas and it would be interesting to hear your proposals. India and China may be producing more greenhouse gases, as they are supporting a few more people, but should we do nothing? What ideas to you have for Lincoln to do? If I were building a new home I would want it to be as air tight and well insulated as possible so that my energy bills for heating would be minuscule. Who wouldn’t want a Passive House <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house> with minimal heating bills? Should we be allowed to build inefficient houses because we haven’t heard about better options? Is Gas a right? Massachusetts has very leaky natural gas infrastructure <https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/10/25/methane-leaks-natural-gas-boston/> contributing to global warming and not even heating our houses. It would cost enormous amounts of money to repair even the major leaks and new leaks are forming all the time. If we could all switch to electric homes we wouldn’t need all the leaky infrastructure. I certainly don’t want to pay for a leaky gas infrastructure. I want the government to legislate it away! https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/10/25/methane-emissions-natural-gas-massachusetts-climate-change There are options. Propane tanks are an option for people who have a leaky old house that needs back-up heat, for people who want a generator because of trees falling on electric lines (not to mention squirrels causing havoc), and for people who must have gas cooktops despite the health warnings. This seems a good libertarian option that doesn’t depend on a central infrastructure that everyone needs to buy into. Just my 2 cents about a centralized gas system. Warm regards, Belinda On Mar 15, 2022, at 3:07 PM, Dennis Liu <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Forgive me as I once again touch the third rail here, but a few questions for consideration. A Lincoln environmental group is asking Town Meeting to petition the state legislature to grant the town the right to ban the installation of gas and oil for new buildings. Stephanie Smoot asked the question, effectively, why was this submitted with short notice and not much investigation or discussion? Trish O’Hagan responded, effectively, this is a TWO-STEP process, and that once the first step is completed (successfully petitioning the legislature), THEN Lincoln can conduct that investigation and debate. To which I ask . . . why not have that investigation and debate NOW? If this is something that the green energy committee CAN convince the majority of townsfolks to support, THEN go ahead with the petition process? Especially since that petition is likely to succeed, so the discussion will need to be had anyway. What’s the benefit of doing it in this order? Perhaps doing it this way makes it EASIER for the proponents to achieve their goal? My $0.02: I am a HUGE fan of induction cooking, preferring it to gas cooking (with electric resistance cooking a very distant third). Electric dryers work just fine, and any operating cost differential over gas dryers is minimal, if not actually cheaper). I do prefer, however, our tankless propane(gas) water heater. And if I were to build a new home, I’d strongly consider an electric heat pump system, but given our climate, would at the least have to supplement that with propane, gas, oil or electric resistance. Who cares, though, what that fool Dennis thinks? What’s critical is that this is just *MY* preference, *MY* choice. As a (small-L) libertarian, I’m very hesitant to *force* my choices on other people. I think folks should be free to determine for themselves what they want and do not want to do. If someone wants to buy bottled water, or use canvas grocery tote bags, or drive a Tesla, or recycle plastic, or use a plastic straw, then let them do there thing. I’m all for personal or group efforts to INFORM people, or PERSUADE people, but passing legislation on all that? Ugh. Yes, I acknowledge that climate change is a “collective-action” problem. But for a rule like this one . . . I will stand athwart the arrows and point out that this is, effectively, a *signal*. And also a way for the proverbial camel to stick its nose into the tent. Why? Because the total number of *NEW* buildings in Lincoln over the next, say, decade, will be, what? 15? 30? How much actual GLOBAL IMPACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE will there be as a result of 30 or 40 new buildings running heat pumps instead of gas/propane/oil? My calculator doesn’t have that many places to the right of the decimal. No, even for argument’s sake, the only real impact would be to *force* *current* homeowners to make the switch. What’s the best path to that, from those who would advocate such a change? Start by moving the Overton window, and make the change on new construction. That’s a reasonable path forward – if you’re in agreement with the end goal. Keep in mind, though, sadly, that none of matters *in the practical sense* because the greenhouse emissions coming out of China, India and other massively populated countries pulling their citizenry out of gross poverty completely and utterly overwhelms whatever savings might be achieved by forcing local townsfolks to making expensive switches to heat pumps. And do keep in mind that heat pumps, in using electricity available in Lincoln, like electric vehicles, are still consuming electricity from fossil fuels (albeit with lower collective emissions). AND also keep in mind that even with subsidies, heat pumps are still costing *all of us* real money – those subsidies are coming either out of the pockets of taxpayers or rate payers or gas/oil/propane customers. TANSTAAFL. Thus – my suggestion is that if this is something that the people of Lincoln should real consider doing, then please have the debate, fully informed, NOW, rather than later. See also: the Boston Globe, “Massachusetts should be converting 100,000 homes a year to electric heat. The actual number: 461” from August 2021, the full text posted below. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/08/21/science/massachusetts-should-be-converting-100000-homes-year-electric-heat-actual-number-461/ Vty, --Dennis Massachusetts should be converting 100,000 homes a year to electric heat. The actual number: 461 By <https://12ft.io/proxy?ref=&q=https://www.bostonglobe.com/about/staff-list/staff/sabrina-shankman/?p1=Article_Byline> Sabrina Shankman Globe Staff, Updated August 21, 2021, 2:36 p.m. When Massachusetts officials look into the not-so-distant future of 2030, they see 1 million homes across the state comfortably heated and cooled by sleek, efficient heat pumps, their old oil- and gas-burning systems — and the climate-warming emissions they spewed — relegated to the scrap heap. But they are woefully behind pace to reach that lofty goal, and the more time that passes without an urgent response, the further out of reach it gets. According to the <https://www.mass.gov/doc/building-sector-technical-report/download> state’s own plan, Massachusetts should be converting 100,000 homes a year from fossil fuels to electricity for heating and cooling. The reality is much different: Just 461 homes made the switch last year, according to data reviewed by the Globe. “We are nine years from 2030, and we have barely begun to scratch the surface in terms of what we’re doing and where we need to be going,” said Eugenia Gibbons, Massachusetts climate policy director for Healthcare Without Harm. “We need to be doing more, faster. The world is burning — I don’t know how else to say it.” Nearly <https://www.mass.gov/doc/building-sector-technical-report/download> one third of Massachusetts’ emissions come from its more than 2 million buildings. The state says eliminating those emissions by shifting to electrical sources — and replacing fossil fuel energy generation with renewable sources, such as wind, hydro-power, and solar — is critical to achieving net zero emissions in time to do the most good. Between 2021 and 2030, the <https://www.mass.gov/doc/interim-clean-energy-and-climate-plan-for-2030-december-30-2020/download> state estimates, about 1 million residential heating systems will come to the end of their service lives — each a fossil fuel system that could be replaced by one using electricity. Heat pumps, which use electricity to heat and cool buildings, are the best tools for electrifying homes, according to the state’s <https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-clean-energy-and-climate-plan-for-2030> Clean Energy and Climate for 2030 plan. Yet clean energy experts and advocates say there are several roadblocks to widespread adoption, including high costs, lack of confidence by consumers, and ignorance of the technology among many heating contractors. One of the biggest may be the state’s own energy efficiency program, Mass Save. The program, which is funded by a surcharge on utility bills and run by utility companies including gas providers, offers rebates to homeowners for purchasing certain energy efficient equipment. While Mass Save purports to support the state’s climate goals, advocates say it fails to support full home electrification, and in some cases, appears to even actively discourage it. As the recent UN climate <https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/> report made abundantly clear, the time for action is running out. The planet has already warmed by roughly 1.1 degrees Celsius since the 19th century, and as this summer of extreme weather catastrophes has shown, even this amount of warming comes with dire consequences. No matter how quickly we ramp up climate measures, the planet is going to get even warmer, the UN panel said; how much warmer will be determined by the steps taken now to stop greenhouse gas emissions — specifically, by quitting fossil fuels. Unlike many other states and even countries, Massachusetts has a law on the books requiring the state to get to net-zero emissions by 2050. But setting a goal and achieving it are two different things, and failure to ramp up now could lead to a chaotic rush down the road — or make the goal impossible to reach. “We’re off by orders of magnitude from where we’re going to need to get to,” said Cameron Peterson, director of clean energy for the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. At Mass Save, the reluctance is hiding in plain sight. Some homeowners said contractors affiliated with Mass Save dissuaded them from removing their fossil fuel systems and going all-electric. Moreover, <https://www.masssave.com/saving/residential-rebates/electric-heating-and-cooling/heat-pump-qualified-list> the list of heat pumps that qualify for Mass Save rebates includes equipment that is not specifically designed for cold climates. And even the <https://www.masssave.com/-/media/Files/PDFs/Save/Residential/Central_AC_and_Heat_Pump_Rebate_Form.pdf?la=en&hash=FF90FEE79E9BCD2B13FCEF3AB8E40100D07F78B3&hash=FF90FEE79E9BCD2B13FCEF3AB8E40100D07F78B3> 2021 form that homeowners must fill out for a rebate on heat pumps includes this note: “The Sponsors of Mass Save do not recommend fully displacing existing central heating system with heat pump equipment.” Of the 461 full-electric conversions in 2020, fewer than half were facilitated by Mass Save. The rest came from programs sponsored by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center and the Department of Energy Resources. Both departments have offered programs that help homeowners purchase heat pumps. Though there may have been some additional electric conversions that year, experts in the field said that number is likely to be small. Critics who have been watching the slow progress in Massachusetts are coming to the conclusion that, in its current form, the Mass Save program, which for 20 years has been effective at increasing energy efficiency, may no longer be the best vehicle now that the program’s directive is shifting to helping fight the climate crisis. “It’s difficult to build new imperatives onto old programs,” said Matt Rusteika, who leads the buildings initiative at Acadia Center, a clean energy advocacy organization. While the utilities behind Mass Save say they support the state’s decarbonization plan, Chris Porter, the director of customer energy management for National Grid in New England, stressed that the current 2030 plan is still in draft form, and that in National Grid’s opinion, the best path forward may not be complete electrification. “Our perspective is that there are multiple potential pathways to achieving the goal, which is decarbonization, and achieving the targets laid out in the climate act,” said Porter. “There is still work to be done in order to determine what the optimal, lowest-cost path to achieving that outcome is.” Instead, Porter said, so-called renewable fuels such as hydrogen and renewable natural gas, which he said could deliver lower-carbon fuels via existing infrastructure, could play a role in the state’s future. Both of those options are fraught. <https://earthjustice.org/features/report-building-decarbonization> Critics say that renewable natural gas, composed mainly of methane made from recaptured carbon or organic material like compost, likely doesn’t exist at the scale needed, and studies have found that gas leaks would still <https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9335/meta> contribute to climate warming. Meanwhile hydrogen currently is made from methane, and climate-friendlier versions are still in development while also being <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ese3.956> called out recently in a scientific journal as potentially as bad or worse than fossil fuels. A state official said the 2030 climate plan remains in draft form mainly to incorporate the more rigorous carbon-cutting goals of the Massachusetts law. As a result, any changes would likely step up the ambitions for electrification, not reduce them. The current and proposed incentives in the Mass Save program offer rebates to homeowners heating with oil or propane to purchase heat pumps, but not to owners with gas systems. Mass Save says this is for financial reasons: Heat pumps are expensive. While oil and propane customers can expect to experience savings, gas customers could see their bills rise slightly, and Mass Save has historically functioned first and foremost to save customers money while increasing their energy efficiency. But converting oil and propane customers alone will not get the state to 1 million electrified homes by 2030. Currently in Massachusetts, 750,000 homes are heated with oil or propane. To reach the goal, that means at least 250,000 gas customers must make the switch, too. Some residents said that as they sought to convert their homes off of fossil fuels, contractors, including those associated with Mass Save’s energy audit program, told them that heat pumps alone could not heat a home adequately through a Massachusetts winter. Rusteika saw this firsthand when he converted his own home to heat pumps. “I had five contractors here, and only one advised against a full replacement” of his fossil fuel system, he said. “That was the Mass Save partner.” Across the state, homeowners have said that as they sought to convert their homes off of fossil fuels, they were told by contractors that it could not be done because of the cold winters in Massachusetts. That’s simply not true, according to several experts in the field. “Certainly, we know that whole building electrification can work in Massachusetts,” said Jeremy Koo, an associate at Cadmus, a technical and strategic consulting company that helped the state develop some of its climate plans and which helps implement heat pump programs across the region. Unlike older models of heat pumps, which earned a reputation in the 1990s for failing to adequately heat homes, modern, cold-climate heat pumps can function in temperatures as low as negative 13 degrees. But while some contractors have embraced the new technology, the idea that heat pumps are ineffective lingers. Ben Butterworth, a Melrose homeowner and the senior manager for Climate and Energy Analysis at Acadia Center, said that out the five contractors he spoke with, only one was comfortable fully converting his oil-burning heating system to heat pumps. Because he works in the field and is well versed in the technology, he knew to look around for a more amenable contractor to help him make the switch. But others might be more likely to take the first contractor’s advice and keep a fossil fuel system for backup. Out in the field, Dan Zamagni, the director of operations for New England Ductless, said his company has installed several whole-home heat pumps, and has full confidence that they can do the job. “I think that with a trained eye and the right situation, you can make anything work,” said Zamagni. “These systems are becoming more and more efficient.” For many homeowners, the high costs of installation and operation can represent another big hurdle. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for heat pumps, so different kinds of equipment are needed depending on the specifics of an individual building. Installation costs can have a huge range. A whole-home heat pump program run by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center found an average project cost of $21,479, which was higher than expected, the program’s director, Meg Howard, noted in a blog. “I am hopeful that this cost premium will shrink as installers become more accustomed to designing whole home heat pump configurations,” <https://www.masscec.com/blog/2020/09/29/september-whole-home-heat-pump-pilot-update-still-time-apply> she wrote. Once heat pumps are up and running, homeowners who were previously on oil or propane can expect their monthly bills to decrease. While homes previously heating with gas might see a slight increase in the cold months, the annual bills are likely to even out because of savings from air conditioning, Rusteika said. Of course a lot of this depends on the house, according to the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, an energy-efficiency nonprofit. Homeowners who weatherize their homes before getting estimates will find they save on both installation and operating costs, while a drafty home is going to end up costing more. For oil and propane users making the switch to heat pumps, Mass Save rebates can add up to as much as $6,250 in savings for the average sized home, according to the Acadia Center. By any metric, the rate of heat pump installations is behind. The vast majority of heat pumps are installed in homes where they will supplement existing oil, gas, or propane systems, not replace them outright. And in 2020, the Mass Save program helped install just 3,300 heat pumps, far short even of its own goal of 15,000 a year. Now, a state-run board that oversees the program, the Energy Efficiency Advisory Council, is pushing the utilities behind Mass Save to go further. The council says the program should up its goal to 120,000 heat pumps installed between 2021 and 2024, or 40,000 a year. But there’s no clear goal around how many buildings would be fully electrified in that process, and it remains to be seen whether Mass Save will ultimately adopt the council’s goal. Installing heat pumps but keeping a fossil fuel system as a backup helps decrease greenhouse emissions, and can lead to increased consumer confidence in the technology, making homeowners more likely to fully electrify in the future, several experts said. But there’s a downside, too. “Keeping in fossil fuel equipment has ramifications not just on how far the state gets towards its emissions targets, but also has implications for the infrastructure that’s in place to continue supporting fossil fuel delivery,” said Koo, of Cadmus. From: Lincoln <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > On Behalf Of Trish O'Hagan Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2022 3:03 PM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Webinars regarding Citizen's Petition for Town meeting Dear Stephanie, Thanks so much for your interest in the webinar. Hopefully you will join us this week as we all share ideas and learn together about electrification of buildings as a way to combat the climate emergency. To be clear, the Citizen's petition, if passed, would simply ask the legislature to give Lincoln the option to require new construction to be all electric. At that time, Lincoln could begin a robust discussion about what works best for our town and would require a vote at a town meeting in the future. I hope this helps clear up some of your concerns. Best, Trish O'Hagan Lincoln Mothers Out Front On 03/12/2022 1:39 PM Stephanie Smoot <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: There is so much to know about impacts of this proposed proposition- I'm very suprised that days before the meeting such significant legislation is being proposed. Especially how it impacts costs to Lincoln Residents. None of this has been studied in any depth and data on our current NetZero buildings such as the expensive all-electric new school is unconfirmed-are we comfortable in them and are they affordable to run? Its important to note that none of the towns mentioned (Acton Concord Lexington) have actually passed such initiatives and there is already a NetZero stretch code proposed state-wide. Regards, Stephanie Smoot 857 368-9175 work 781 941-6842 personal cell 617 595-5217 work cell 126 Chestnut Circle Lincoln, MA 01773 <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> www.avg.com On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 10:06 AM Trish O'Hagan <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Citizen’s Petition — Restrict Fossil Fuel Systems in New Buildings Related to climate change advocacy, a group of residents is asking Town Meeting to support a petition to the state legislature that would require new construction be all-electric for heating, cooling, and indoor cooking. Lincoln would join other towns who similarly have petitioned the state. The changes are necessary to help achieve the statewide reductions in greenhouse gas emissions nset in the climate act signed in March 2021. Learn more at Zoom meetings on Monday 3/14, 7-8pm, and Thursday, 3/17, 3-4pm (links below), or call Trish O’Hagan (781-248-5657) or Paul Shorb (617-543-5590) with questions. Additional information will also be posted at https://www.lincolngreenenergy.org/. * Time: Mar 14, 2022 07:00 PM https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82072433671 Meeting ID: 820 7243 3671 * Mar 17, 2022 03:00 PM https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81095315671 -- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> . Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. -- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]. Search the archives at <http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/> http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. Browse the archives at <https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at <https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. -- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> . Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to [email protected]. Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
