Just weeks after Brookline voted to ban the installation of oil and gas pipes in new buildings as well as in extensive renovations of existing buildings, Jon Chesto at the Globe reports that some Newton City Councilors want to do the same thing.
Here’s two excerpts from Chesto’s article:
Opponents representing various business development constituencies argue that this piecemeal approach to energy regulation will simply drive up construction costs and hinder economic development, while achieving minimal environmental benefits. They say the electricity-powered alternatives to natural gas, such as heat pumps, are more expensive and less effective.
[Newton City Councilor Emily] Norton, a former Sierra Club leader who oversees the Charles River Watershed Association, said she’s not really concerned about the impact on economic development. Instead, she’s more concerned about the role natural gas plays in global warming.
✅
So the councilor who routinely votes against multifamily development is now pushing for banning fossil fuel? Does she not see the hypocrisy?
@MrButch: Apparently not.
We have to start somewhere.
Building codes are already ahead of the curve re insulation, windows, and general tightness. Currently there is a loss of efficiency due to the requirement to provide make up fresh air due to products of combustion from gas or oil burning going up the chimney. With all electric systems and a deletion of the exterior make up air requirement, efficiencies will only get better.
Thank You EMILY NORTON !!!!
Does that involve a ban on cooking with gas also?
How is this not a conflict of interest between Norton’s day job and her elected role as City Councilor? It seems like a clear conflict for a city councilor to be proffering regulations for things directly related to their outside work.
@Mike, I’m curious how far that conflict of interest around her job should extend. Does it just concern her work around the Charles River Watershed or does it involve all environmental regulation? I would suspect that involving all environmental regulation would be too broad, but that I don’t have enough knowledge here.
I don’t see how this is a conflict of interest – it’s not like she’s funneling funds to the CRWA. Having a day job that works to protect the environment shouldn’t bar someone from working to protect our city’s environment.
I work in HIV clinical trials. Does that mean that if I were a city councilor and wanted to see initiatives related to ending the spread of HIV/AIDS it would be a conflict of interest? Or if I wanted to ensure that health-related regulations were based on sound science (since my job is creating good medical research)?
@Chuck–
Fair question. I don’t know the precise answer as to where the conflict of interest line is drawn in every instance. But I would hope that any city councilor would have the good sense to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest with their day job.
In my personal opinion, a conflict exists here. I’d certainly be open to Councilor Norton explaining why she doesn’t see the conflict. But since she’s previously referred to Village 14 as a “cesspool,” I’m not sure she’s willing to take that plunge.
Agree 100% with Meredith.
Also, this would be a really interesting post on the topic at hand, which is what Brookline did. I really am not interested in the second part of the post which focuses on Councilor Norton. Even if she is inconsistent in her positions, the overall environmental issues require us to focus, and the more we waste our time on internal b.s. politics and don’t focus on the issues, the less time we have to actually focus on the policy decisions that really matter.
So I don’t give a flying hoot about the conflict, or the inconsistency. Our next election is in 2 years. Can we please not have this discussion on every environmental post, which we are sure to have a bunch of during the next 18 months?
And someone needs to better explain the gas line issue to me, since I’m not sure how this works in Brookline in reality.
Here’s the actual docket item:
#438‐19 Discussion to limit or prohibit the installation of fossil fuel infrastructure
COUNCILORS CROSSLEY, KELLEY, LEARY, NORTON, ALBRIGHT, GREENBERG,
AUCHINCLOSS, MARKIEWICZ, NOEL, BROUSAL‐GLASER, COTE, DANBERG, KALIS, AND DOWNS requesting a discussion with the Sustainability Team to create an ordinance to limit or prohibit the installation of fossil fuel infrastructure in new construction and substantially renovated buildings, as well as to clarify the Council’s authority to prohibit the extension of gas mains subject to the condition of the existing infrastructure
And here’s a link to what was passed in Brookline:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/100512/438-19%20Article%2021%20-%20Supplement%2011.pdf
I am mostly cutting and pasting a comment from an earlier post regarding this issue. We need to analyze financial impact on residents and the city and tailor our policies so that we avoid unintended 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, and it’s an ongoing cost, not a one time one.
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 potential impact 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. Extra bonus is that they are more efficient, using less energy.
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, on the other hand, are incentivized to reduce installation cost and maximize simplicity. They tend not to choose the most efficient system. 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.
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.
Hold on. After months of consideration, the Council just approved the Climate Action Plan, which has no indication of a ban on fossil fuels for private residences. And, now, out of the blue, there is talking of limiting people’s use of natural gas for heating, water heating, clothes drying, and cooking if they happen to undertake a major renovation or build a new structure? Even if you think that natural gas is a transitional fuel on the route to a renewable energy economy, do you think that limiting its use by a few hundred houses in Newton will make a whit of difference to carbon loading in the atmosphere? In the past, I’ve suggested that over-reaching by advocates in this arena will stimulate backlash against a positive direction in public policy. This would be one such example.
And, further, to “explore the Council’s authority to prohibit the extension of gas mains subject to the condition of the existing infrastructure?” This is a matter of jurisdiction for the state’s Department of Public Utilities, not a municipality. Does Newton think it has the expertise to evaluate the state of gas mains running under its streets? How much of the City budget are we going to allocate to conducting underground surveys of hundreds of miles of pipes? Please, spend time on things that are relevant and jurisdictional to the city. Take the money that you would use for this and plant trees instead: We’ve fallen well behind the replacement rate in that regard.
I am an environmentalist but also a scientist and a realist. I am still waiting for proponents of this fossil fuel ban to tell me where all the electricity will come from to heat our homes in the winter. Could it be … power stations that burn fossil fuels? What will be the net carbon impact? Could it actually be WORSE than what we have today?
Before you say solar panels, remember, we don’t get much sun here in the coldest months.
I am sure that many here in Newton can afford 5-fold higher winter energy bills along with their Tesla Model S and cupboards provisioned from Whole Foods. Most working people in this state cannot afford those things.
We are truly blessed as a city that we can even debate a measure like this. But not all of our neighbors, or people who want to become our neighbors, can afford these proposals.
Also, I suspect that if we could just get more people in Newton to insulate their homes (with available government subsidies) we would not only achieve greater near-term reductions in fossil fuel use but would also support local businesses who do the work. If you haven’t already looked as MassSave, check it out!
@ Newton Mom,
Yup ,.. all electric cooking,.. no gas, firewood or coal .
@ Paul,.. in my brief review of Newton’s pie in the sky “Climate Action Plan”, I do recall a goal of all electric heat and appliance usage, primarily via the restriction of building permits, even for remodeling projects.
I’m not sure how we plan on getting everyone into electric / hybrid cars,.. especially by regulation locally.
Norway will be all electric vehicles by 2025, but they have a nationally controlled mandate, and 98% of all their electricity is generated by hydro.
“Does Newton think it has the expertise to evaluate the state of gas mains running under its streets?”
Yes.
Read more: Newton’s next ban? How about fossil fuel? | Village 14 https://village14.com/2019/12/12/newtons-next-ban-how-about-fossil-fuel/#ixzz67w4CNhgW
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike
Follow us: @14thVillage on Twitter | Village14 on Facebook
@Nathan, are you being sarcastic or serious? Hard to tell in this setting.
@Blueprintbill, I think that related to special permit developments, no private residences. At least the last version I saw. See discussion here: https://village14.com/2019/10/16/have-you-read-the-climate-action-plan/#axzz67vrbRq1j I said:
“The City will work with homeowners to increase energy efficiency and reduce reliance on natural gas and heating oil in the City’s existing building stock. Moving the needle for existing buildings will require the City to put in place ‘carrots and sticks’ to incentivize significant action by the private sector.”
When I asked what “sticks” were being envisioned, I was assured that there were none.
Brookline’s ban strikes me as more grandstanding than practical. Brookline, like Newton, isn’t exactly a leader in approving new development so unless there’s a part two encouraging new fossil free buildings is this actually going to move the needle?
I would pose the same challenge to a potential ban here – what is the expected return we’re expecting on new fossil free development and what is the burden going to be for new residents? There’s a ripple effect in that if it’s more expensive to build due to this ban then that cost gets passed on in even higher housing prices. If it’s more expensive to maintain due to increased electric costs then it makes it that much harder to afford Newton. Housing costs are already a significant issue here, would this ban exasperate that? And if it would is that really something we want to pile on right now?
Then there’s the issue that this only applies to new construction and significant renovations (I’m assuming on the level of a full gut/rebuild) so if we’re not adding significantly more housing stock then this is going to have minimal effect. Have we looked at encouraging conversions of existing properties as opposed to a ban on gas in new construction? What about other programs that could help with things like insulation and materials to decrease heating/fuel usage? Are we going to make it easier to build with this ban to actually get some fossil free buildings up?
There are a lot of potential impacts that need to be considered, let’s not jump to a knee jerk reaction because Brookline banned something before we did.
Sooo, are we (The City of Newton) going to pass this before the school committee changes high school start time????
It’s time for Emily to focus her next reduction plan to reducing the size of the City Council.
@Mike Halle – Your info above caught my eye. You mentioned that heat pumps are roughly 3 times more efficient than electric resistance heaters. I didn’t know anything about heat pumps but that would seem to violate the laws of thermodynamics … said the engineer in me.
Since virtually 100% of the metered electric power used in resistance heaters is converted to heat – i.e. 100% efficiency, how can you do better than that?
A few minutes of Internet research as usual yielded the answer. While heat pumps appear to violate the laws of physics ( i.e more energy comes out then you put in), it’s really an incredibly useful illusion. From someone’s heating their house’s perspective they are indeed 300% efficient – more power comes out than comes in. The way that can happen without bringing the universe to a standstill is that it captures and moves the latent heat in the surrounding air – so the energy isn’t created, it’s just moved. The heat from the cooler outside air is extracted (making that air colder) and the heat is moved indoors.
It’s an incredibly cool piece of technology … particularly because its possible to have one system that can move the heat in or out of the house – heating or cooling depending on the season.
One big caveat though is that the apparent “efficiency” drops off with temperature with the break even point being roughly 30 degrees Fahrenheit. The colder it gets, the more expensive those BTU’s become. Sounds like a perfect system for very moderate climates and somewhat less practical and cost effective in colder climates. From my few minutes of reading it looks like in the dead of cold New England winter it’s probably as expensive as old school electric heat but in the spring and fall, significantly cheaper.
Thanks for inspiring a bit of technical self-education tonight.
Anyone who actually knows more about this than my drive-by wikepedia knowledge, please chime in on what would be the expected cost of heating a home for a year in this New England climate with heat pumps.
@Jerry. I won’t try and comprehend everything you said, but I do know that heat pumps were standard features in many homes when I lived in DC during the 80s and 90s. I thought of them in terms of my house in Newton, but was repeatedly told they could not operate effectively in the colder climate up here. The technology must have improved since I was down there.
I think its pretty clear to most folks that Emily can walk, chew gum and organize her day without difficulty.
@Jerry we have an old heat pump in our Finished attic which does a rather poor job heating the space below 30 degrees.
We have a newer heat pump in our basement which does a better job at < 30 F
But I doubt we could effectively heat our 1890 house with only heat pumps. Without gutting the house and re insulating.
But they are improving.
Jerry, the real winner is geothermal or ground-source heat pump technology:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/5-things-you-should-know-about-geothermal-heat-pumps
More expensive and harder to install, but more efficient for both heating and cooling. They use the earth as a giant heat capacitor.
Also note that the ductless mini-split air conditioning systems are essentially small heat pumps. As they become popular in New England, manufacturers are making them better for low temperature winter heat use.
I have been considering replacing our home heating system and had 5 companies come out to give me options. Only one suggested a heat pump and that was just to supplement heat to our 3rd floor. In researching it looks like geothermal installation costs are 2xs another system which is already @$25k you are not talking chump change. Plus there are some site issues to consider the feasibility of a geo thermal system. It just doesn’t seem like the technology is there on a normal heat pump and geo thermal seems cost prohibited for most. I feel like this is a measure that sounds nice in concept but it isn’t realistic in practice. I would prefer to see incentives to encourage more eco friendly solutions than penalizing people. Let see technological developments in this area funded better to make these solutions able to be implemented by the masses instead.
In some places in the US where entire new neighborhoods are being laid out, the developers are digging centralized wells for ground-source heat pumps. The ground loop water then becomes just a utility for the individual buildings. The economy of scale then makes ground-source much more cost competitive.
We’re not seeing entire new neighborhoods at this scale in the Northeast, but this example shows that the premium for ground-source is less for an entire apartment/condo building than it would be for a single-family house.
Retrofit of a central heat pump (ground source or otherwise) into an existing house only really makes sense, in my opinion, if your system is forced-air or ducts have already been run (or can be run) for central air. If you’re sticking with hot-water (or steam) radiators I don’t think the economics is there yet. But I’m hopeful we’ll see improvement by the time my house needs a new boiler.
Rather than piling on Emily Norton, as usual, this time for her concern with the effect of fossil fuels on climate change, let’s take the Brookline ordinance as a prod in the direction of eliminating coal and gas from use in the Garden City. How fast should it be done? How can we balance our climate action plan with our desire to encourage white-collar businesses to locate in Newton? How can a series of steps evolve that will lead us to the promised land?
Resolving these countervailing desires involves trade-offs, with compromise at every stage and no purely right or wrong approach. As my last article indicates, actions can already be taken, and many have been, in our effort to lower Newton’s carbon footprint. Let’s debate the possibilities in search of the right balance. Can we avoid the Trumpian “If you’re not 100% with us, we will villify you” approach?
@Bob: Unless you’re referring to Peter Karg’s tiresome efforts to turn every thread into a discussion about reducing the council, I’m not seeing a lot of “piling on Emily Norton” happening over the course of 30 comments here.
Norton is one of the councilors who docketed this and the only Newton voice in Chesto’s article. Are you suggesting Chesto was “piling on” by only quoting her?
But since you’ve raised it: I did and and do agree with Mr. Butch’s comment that there is an unexplained inconstancy in which local sustainability issues Councilor Norton chooses to endorse. But how is that not a fair issue or would it have been “piling on” (even though it hasn’t dominated this thread, although maybe now it will since you raised it).
Greg any claim that your policy positions are environmentally friendly are absurd. All you’re in favor of is build, build more, and build higher! The added environmental impact of 1 million sq. feet of development at Northland and another million more at Riverside will mean Newton residents breathing in tons more polluted air from all the increased traffic we will get.
When you become the leader of a genuine environmental organization or propose an ordinance directly related to the environment, than your comments about the environment might be taken seriously.
Until then, I will trust Emily Norton’s environmental positions every time over yours and I hope the rest of Newton will too.
Arthur. Don’t trust me on the environmental necessity for multi family housing. Trust Green Newton and environmental groups across the state, the country and the planet.
Although ground source heat pumps (GSHP) have higher efficiencies, it’s often unclear whether their additional installation expense justifies the investment, particularly with the soils in New England. In addition, for homes with minimal yard space, the typical horizontal loop configuration may not be an installation option and the additional cost of using wells rather than a loop can be fairly high. There are newer variants on ASHPs whose overall efficiencies are quite high, for example, variable refrigerant flow systems (VRF), that can provide both heating and cooling (HVAC) services and water heating. It’s always a good idea to go to the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership’s website which has a useful spreadsheet that lists the latest ASHP units and their efficiencies in warm and cold temperatures.
https://neep.org/ashp
That website is updated nearly every month.
If you have an interest in installing a heat pump, it’s also a good idea to go to the MassSave website which has a variety of rebates for different kinds of heat pumps.
Thanks, @Philip!
Brookline’s ban was just struck down by the MA AG as being out of compliance with state level building and gad codes that preemp local regulation:
https://patch.com/massachusetts/brookline/ma-attorney-general-strikes-down-brookline-ban-fossil-fuels