Opinion: Bay Area's anti-natural gas “Burn-Out Ordinance” to crash and burn
Phillipe Jacques de Loutherbourg: Coalbrookdale by Night. Image in Public Domain
City Journal pipes in on the Bay's heat pump debate (all gas heaters must be replaced by electric, as early as 2027) and points out: Since the switch will debilitate lower-income residents and could—in tragic irony—actually amplify climate harm, why bother with an all-or-nothing mandate?
Electric-powered heat pumps, once an obscure appliance, are being hyped as the key to decarbonizing homes and buildings in California. Regulators in Sacramento and in the Bay Area are phasing out gas-furnace sales, and two upscale communities now require heat-pump retrofits when air conditioners wear out. But as with so many things “green,” advocates underestimate the true costs and burdens of these policies, while ignoring their adverse health and climate consequences.
In summer, a heat pump works like an air conditioner, using refrigerant to transfer heat outdoors for cooling. In winter, it can run in reverse, moving heat into a home. Activists insist that trading gas furnaces for heat pumps will cut costs and improve health while protecting the climate.
The cost benefits are as yet illusory. In late 2022, Bay Area bureaucrats effectively banned gas heaters, arguing that heat pumps would cost only $8,030 per installation, a figure well below the ranges estimated by their own consultants. Since 2021, heat-pump installations have averaged $18,872 statewide and more than $22,000 in greater San Francisco. Skyrocketing California electricity rates steadily erode potential savings from all-electric heating.
Unsurprisingly, lavish heat-pump subsidies overwhelmingly favor richer households. Since 2021, less than 8 percent of heat pumps have been installed in disadvantaged communities. And according to UCLA researchers, struggling lower-income households could face “tenant displacement” as landlords raise rents to cover heat-pump expenses....
California’s forced march toward universal heat-pump use and gas bans means that a growing number of residents, in a rapidly aging state, will be unable to keep indoor temperatures at safe levels when needed. The inevitable health impacts, including more illness and death, are never considered by climate advocates and regulators.
Nor is it clear that widespread heat-pump deployment will help reduce global warming, even as advocates claim that they will cut ozone and nitrous oxide emissions. The technology uses refrigerants, “the worst greenhouse gases you never heard of,” causing thousands of times more climate damage per pound than carbon dioxide. Refrigerant leakage already accounts for 4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, twice as much as from aviation, and is the fastest-growing source of all California greenhouse gas emissions. The loss of just a few pounds of refrigerant from a single home can produce as much global warming as driving a gas car for a year.
This article originally appeared in City Journal. Read the whole thing here.
Related:
Despite inadequate homeowner rebates, SJ staff weighs “Burn-Out Ordinance”
Analysis: Bay Area natural gas ban raises concerns of displacement and financial burden
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.