The Patch reports that Brookline has been very busy these past few nights at their Town Meeting. The Town voted to approve a warrant article (see Article 21) which prohibits installation of fossil fuel piping in new buildings and in major renovation of existing buildings. Consequently, this policy will require heat, hot water, and appliances that are installed during new construction and gut renovation to be all-electric. For situations in which electric is not practical or cost effective, this by-law provides for exemptions, including for fuel piping for backup generators. An exception is also included for the Waldo-Durgin development, because it is the only major commercial project requiring a zoning change that has not yet pulled a building permit.”
The Town also voted to approve a warrant article to lower the voting age to 16 years old in municipal elections.
Will Newton be next?
Maybe I’m missing something, but where is there significant gain if most of the electricity is generated via fossil fuel at the power plant?
@Jim Epstein The value in electrifying is that over time our power grid is getting greener ie powered increasingly by solar, wind, etc. State law mandates a certain amount of clean energy (this year 14%, goes up 2% a year), and if our state legislature was not so beholden to the investor owned utilities it would be going up a lot faster. There will never be a renewable form of petroleum or fracked gas, which is why we don’t want to continue relying on those, but we can green up our electric grid, so that is what we should be doing as quickly as possible. And that is why what Brookline is doing is so valuable – they are putting a line in the sand and saying “no new fossil fuel reliance, and we mean it!”
On the question of 16 year olds voting, why not. Might as well extend voting to 16 year old non-citizen legal and illegal immigrants, since they are afforded in Newton and Brookline all the other citizen rights, privileges and benefits. And certainly all the new illegals essentially invited across what used to be a national border, are “welcome” to stay to enjoy these same rights and benefits. So why not voting.
I see no discussion of the costs of these kind of policies. It’s one thing to make a choice in one’s own structure about which energy source to use. It’s another to impose the cost on others.
Developers of new housing will probably be neutral, in that the up-front cost of the buildings might be less. Owners and tenants, on the other hand, will pay more in operating costs for the foreseeable future.
Along with those of us who are paying for renewable subsidies in our electricity bills. More here on that, in an article I published last year:
“How much should we pay to promote solar energy in Massachusetts? Recent state government programs have resulted in the commitment of at least $10 billion of consumer funds—well over $1,500 for every man, woman, and child in the state. Is there a need for more government-directed subsidization, or have we reached a point of diminishing returns?” https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/has-the-mass-solar-gamble-paid-off/
I don’t see hear much about members of the Brookline Town Meeting who voted for this taking actions to eliminate gas and oil use in their own homes.
BTW, the investor owned utilities could care less about all this. They don’t generate electric power any more, and they get full cost recovery, plus an extra administrative fee, when they procure renewable sources for us.
If we look at the low rate of uptake for the renewable option in the Newton electricity program, even for just a few dollars, it might suggest that people are not ready for the kind of financial commitment envisioned in this kind of policy. If our legislative bodies continue to push through these kinds of measures without regard to cost, it will surely generate backlash against the overall direction–just when our focus should be on generating support for thoughtful greenhouse gas policies.
BTW, the treatment of this topic with regard to residential structures in the recently approved Newton Climate Action Plan is much more sensible: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/100191
@Paul I have a different perspective on the low level of uptick to 100% in Newton Power Choice. The voluntary uptick was never the important piece of the program. The important detail is the default rate, which is higher in Newton than the default rate of any other community–by doing nothing, the majority Newton electricity customers are getting 60% of their electricity from clean energy! While 100% is better, 60% is waaaaay more than state law requires. So the fact that Mayor Fuller chose a high default rate is really the most important aspect of this program. (And kudos for Newton Coalition for Climate Action for their advocacy to her about this.) It is human nature to go along with the default on anything, the book “Nudge” is a great resource on that fact. That is why it is better for new employees to be automatically enrolled in 401K plans rather than be forced to take action to join.
And in terms of costs, what are the costs of our current reliance on fossil fuels – cost to our health, to our national security, to our environment, as we poison our air, our water and our lands, and warm our planet at an exponentially increasing rate. A responsible analysis of the cost of a no-new-gas hookup policy would take all of those costs into consideration.
Emily Norton,
You have written that you are opposed to nuclear power. Therefore, when you say or imply that essentially all electric power generating plants should be “solar, wind, etc.”, what is the “etc.”? You don’t think that any time in the foreseeable future all of our electric power generating plants will be fueled solely and wholly by solar and wind, do you, or that we can get wholly off fossil fuel without nuclear power (noting that new generation nuclear power technology is essentially full proof safe compared to earlier generation nuclear power, even now consuming its own nuclear waste)?
Also, how does switching electric power generating plants from fossil fuel to all solar and wind improve our national security vis a vis other nations?
A few rambling thoughts…
1
For those opposed to Nuclear Power. Consider the age of the technology. The last two plants built in the US were designed in the 1970’s. Did they have issues? Yes they did. Have we continued to improve the design? Not until recently. https://terrapower.com/about
Want to learn more? Watch the Netflix documentary on Bill Gates.
There have been accidents with NP and they have been notable. The problem is that we (humans) react to the big stuff that happens all at once. We have a hard time with the slow stuff (like climate change) or stuff that is not exciting. Why are shark attacks always front page? There are 16 per year. So nuclear power has caused issues, but not on the scale of many other hazards to humans and the earth. It just happens that nuclear accidents are “big boom” problems. Not slow burn issues. Think of the boiling frog analogy (look it up if you need to).
2
Cars are the top emission problem and yet electric cars are still relatively expensive, there are few choices and limited infrastructure. I don’t know how you fix this part BUT…. When we wanted to send a man to the moon, we spent a collective $152 Billion in today’s dollars. The US defense budget is $639 billion.
Electricity and industry are next on the emissions list. Commercial and residential are 11% of emissions. I think the Brookline changes were done with great things in mind but will end up having the impact of a fart in a hurricane.
3
We are starting to see the “do nothing cost” is going to be many times the current cost to make improvements. California fires, Venice, Hurricanes getting stronger, etc.
Hard choices to make. Pay now or pay a lot more later. Generally society prefers later. That’s why credit cards are popular.
4
I appreciate we need to adjust our life styles and we need local involvement. I’m not sure exactly where the right balance is. This specific legislation has a feeling of really, really good intention but lacking in the ROI component. We can act locally to help. We need to have federal involvement to fix a problem of this scale especially given the top carbon emission causes (cars, electricity gen and industry). I hate to say this, but investing now in changing the federal approach (read into that how you will) may be our best use of funds in the short term.
@Emily: “A responsible analysis of the cost of a no-new-gas hookup policy would take all of those costs into consideration.” Yes, it would. But, no, it hasn’t been done. Likewise, there’s not been a full analysis of societal costs for wind, solar, nuclear, coal, or oil. A lot of advocacy for each source is based on ideology, vested interests, and the like.
The valid issues put forth by Paul and Justin, taken together, describe why the personal ideological and theoretical desire to conquer Global Warming one tiny step at a time, city and town ordinances, will not make a dent in this global catastrophe. Almost every entity putting forth solutions, including the think tanks i have been involved with, concludes that with the tech existing today wind turbines and solar arrays even used at max capacity and spread widely will not solve the crisis – the advanced nuclear power could but the stigma is still there.
Punitive plans of any kind rarely work, can have the opposite effect and come with multiple unintended consequences. Our prisons are full because the punitive laws haven’t worked.
The costs of inaction are an uninhabitable planet. While Brookline isn’t going to save us on its own, their action will lead to more actions which will lead to more. The end of slavery, women’s suffrage, gay marriage… lots of positive changes in our society have begun with one community or state taking what seems like a radical step.
@Emily. This is an interesting view of the issue. In some ways I see where you are coming from. Global warming may have a “social” component to it. That is what the changes you gave example for all are based on. How societies function when they deal with each other.
Global Warming I believe has a different angle. Technology and habits. When in the history of humans have we been able to change habits? Not often. What generally happens as we see with coal is that supply/demand makes the changes beneficial to the people who “own the goods”. Which came first. People wanting more “green power” or was it the industry inventing a “cheaper way” or was it maybe a little of the need followed by government investment followed by changes to the market place? We need to sort that out for these initiatives. If they are not going to drive changes in the commercial aspect of the equation, they will not help much.
So maybe we can start to make a dent in our use of gas and our use of natural gas if we all start driving electric cars and use electric heating. I would be interested to know “the math”. Let’s say every person in MA stopped using gas tomorrow. What impact would that have on industry? I actually have no idea. I am curious if this statistical approach has been discussed as we come up with our own “local plan” on how to get this movement going and the technology changed. I’m concerned that simply “thinking global, acting local” may be a tough way to start to address planet wide problems. Maybe the state of MA literally needs to put every dollar of green effort into getting everyone to drive an electric car and pay for green electricity???
@Justin Traxler: I encorage you to consider the companion document to the City’s Climate Action Plan, Paul mentioned. It is the Newton Citizens Climate Action Plan also availabile on the City’s web site. The former is a 5 year plan, the latter is a 30 year plan.
In both cases and in contrast with some talking/blogging points above, the focus in those documents is on decisions and actions that you and other Newton citizens can personally take without needing to wait for governmental action to do for citizens what citizens already have the power to do for themselves.
If you own your own house, you can cut your energy consumption and thus carbon footprint by 20% not eventually, not when the grid gets greener, not when Beacon Hill, or DOER, or Mass Save , or or or someone catches the hail mary pass with 2 seconds left on the game clock .. but now. Still, if you want that benefit for free or to result entirely from taxes and subsidies paid by other citizens so to make it worth your while, then “go back and reread Step 1”.
Don’t know how? There are people in Newton who do and can help you figure it out for your particular circumstances. If you cannot find one, contact the Sustainability Managers or the Mayor’s office at City Hall and tell them you’d like to speak with an Energy Coach … That position is called for in the plans and City Council unanimously voted that the Mayor should add funding in her budget.
But the people with those skills enough to help you cannot do it via a blog. Greenhouse gas emissions is a physical world problem we each and all need to address in the physical world here at home and not just off the coast of Nantucket.
Massachusetts ratepayers are on the hook for over $9B to replace 7,000 miles of leak prone pipe, unless we begin to move in a different direction. It would take about $100M to patch all the leaks in MA and avoid the billions to lock us back in to fossil fuels for the next 50 years and blow our chances of meeting our climate and clean energy committments.
National Grid knowingly leaves Grade 1 hazardous leaks unattended in Newton after repeated calls I make when I find them and subsequently visit and find that they have not been fixed.
National Grid’s leaking pipes along Route 9, Nonantum Road, Needham St. Nahanton St., Washington St. spew toxic gas – including carcinogens and neurotoxins. It’s been that way for decades with no indication of any urgency to repair the leaks.
National Grid and Eversource both have ownership and investment stakes in the high pressure “Algonquin” (a disgusting name appropriation) transmission pipeline, part of which borders Newton along I-95 and periodically spews uncombusted gas into Waban, Lower Falls, and even the grounds of Newton-Wellesley Hospital.
Good for Brookline. I can’t wait to get off of dependence on these rogue companies who are indifferent to anything other than their profits, along with their paid representatives.
I would like to hear from an apolitical economist whether Brookline’s choice will have the intended effect. I fear that Brookline has put the activism cart ahead of the technology horse.
If you believe this decision is good for Brookline, then logically it must be good for the entire country. And what if that happened?
My prediction: Many of us in New England would be very cold. Electricity prices would skyrocket. People would burn more firewood. The US would export more oil and gas, depressing prices abroad and driving more fossil fuel consumption in places like China and India.
And, of course, housing and utility costs will rise. That’s a certainty in Brookline.
An inconvenient truth: the Northeast can’t generate and transmit nearly enough electricity to heat our buildings. We’d have a fighting chance in 10-20 years with more nuclear power plants, but most environmental activists are dead-set against them. This is an utterly irrational position if you compare the safety of nuclear fission to coal combustion. There have been ZERO deaths in the US from nuclear power. How many deaths from lung cancer and global warming will it take for so-called environmentalists to abandon their unsubstantiated, flower-child views about nuclear power? (Before anybody cites them, this is the not Chernobyl or Fukushima; we have always had better safety and quality control than the USSR did, and we learned a lot from Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and other accidents).
Professors AOC and Ed Markey have a different solution: we’ll simply build a lot of solar and wind farms in the next 10 years. The scientific and engineering community have said their idea is ridiculous. Politicians do enormous harm when they make magical proclamations without involving scientific experts. Much of the public, aroused in an emotional frenzy, thinks the scientists and engineers are bad guys and pessimists when they are simply telling the truth.
Even if we could build all those solar panels and wind turbines, the amount of mining we’d have to do would be an entirely different environmental problem. People in the US care less about that because most of the toxins will be in the developing world.
I want to see our world reduce its use of fossil fuels. Brookline’s policy will not accomplish that. It will only shift consumption to other markets, increase the financial burden on local people, and distract us from what we really need: new energy sources that people CHOOSE on their technical and economic merits without compulsion from the government. We need a nuclear fusion moonshot, not naive local regulations.
@Marry
Thank you for alerting me to those documents. I took a quick look and found a few hundred pages of text so I doubt I can read all of them before this thread died.
I agree action is required. I agree we will all need to change. I agree this is going to cost everyone in some way.
The point of my post is not that it should be “free” for me personally. I’ve actually already invested heavily in improving the insulation of my home, upgrading all my thermostats so they “set back”, spray foaming crawl spaces, and using my own time to caulk and fix air leaks. I plan to move towards “greener” cars when I need to buy one. I’ve decided it’s best to drive my current cars as long as I can (maybe this is wrong) since there is a lot of waste when a car is retired.
My point is this is all a big ROI project. What gets the most bang for the buck. What should government do to change behavior through carrots and sticks? I’ve watched just about every episode of This old House (they do more and more green episodes now) and frequently read up on the topic of home efficiency. I’ve actually never seen anything on moving to all electric heating as part of the short to medium term solution.
I don’t have the data to understand the Brookline ordinance so my opinion (based on few fact in this case) is that it does not appear to fall in line with a statistical driven approach. I may be 100% wrong.
Brookline’s goal WILL be met, progressive “feel good”ism. It certainly has no actual significant effect on climate change.
I agree with Paul Levy about the need for a detailed analysis of costs, if only so that we don’t induce unwanted consequences.
Massachusetts has an estimate of heating costs for an average house using various fuels here:
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/household-heating-costs
Bottom line: natural gas is $983, electric resistance heat $4511. That’s a huge difference.
Two months ago we were arguing whether we could raise the price of parking meters after twenty years (even though the change was only to make the meter rates variable.) This is clearly something that we can’t hand-wave away.
The good news is that the same table shows that “air-source heat pump” electric heat costs only $1262. Not as low as gas, but much better.
Better yet, geothermal heat pumps (not listed) are about twice as efficient again as air-source heat pumps, potentially dropping the current price of electricity below that of natural gas. They improve the efficiency of air conditioning as well. The installation cost is higher, though, and may not be practical for gut rehabs and particular lots.
Developers and contractors are incentivized to reduce installation cost and simplicity. That’s not aligned with the costs to the consumer, who we should be looking out for. Installation costs hit buyers once, but efficiency hits them for the life of the dwelling. A short-sighted decision by a developer to install a new but lower-efficiency system is not likely to be reversed by an owner. We are stuck with it.
It the city’s responsibility to act in the best interests of its citizens as well as the planet. We need to design incentives to help keep cost of living down while at the same time increasing the efficiency of our housing and commercial stock. A mandate for electric heat and hot water alone simply isn’t enough to achieve those goals. More, objective, information helps us make good decisions.
On a related topic, a lot of the cost and challenge of solar PV installation is permitting and inspection, something that happens anyway with new construction and renovation. Developers often don’t consider solar when they are doing the construction because of the incremental increase in cost, ignoring the lifetime savings to the owner. I would propose that every developer be required to do a solar audit as part of the permitting process (very low cost or free from the solar companies). That way the client would have a cost/benefit analysis, any work could be done cheaper during construction, and developers would start thinking about solar as a tool in their construction toolbox. Even if solar is done post-construction, much of the legwork would already have been done.
The only way to shift the energy grid is to begin in earnest. This planet is overflowing with brilliant minds. The pieces are there, so the Green World can knock the poisonous multi-national oil companies of their pernicious royal seat. If they lower the municipal voting age to 16, it makes sense to have misgivings these 16-year-old individuals could be proxies for others.