Electrification Mandates and Slow Housing Growth
Electrification mandates for new homes take a long time to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
New housing construction has fallen sharply around the world due to COVID-19. Housing starts are down 30% in the U.S., and down up to 40% in the UK.
This is a challenge for electrification mandates which target new homes. From natural gas bans to “electric preferred” building codes, there is a growing set of electrification mandates aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from new homes.
For today’s blog post, I want to look at the U.S. housing stock. As I’ve dug into these data, I’ve been surprised by just how little new housing construction there is in the United States. Housing growth is much slower than it was in previous decades, and, ironically, tends to be particularly slow in states like California, New York, and Massachusetts that are the most active with electrification mandates for new homes.
The bottom line is that a lot of us live in older homes and will continue to live in older homes for a long time. Electrification mandates for new homes are not necessarily bad policy, but in countries with a long-lasting housing stock they take a very long time to reduce carbon emissions.
Not Building ‘Em Like We Used To
We just don’t build very many new homes anymore. Even before the most recent Covid-related crash, total U.S. new housing starts had reached an annual rate of only 1.6 million new homes.
This might sound like a lot but there are 128 million total U.S. households, so this is equivalent to barely more than 1% of households moving into a new home each year. In previous decades, the rate was above 2%.
Slow housing growth means that relatively few homes are subject to electrification mandates. For example, the city of Berkeley recently banned natural gas for new homes. This is a big change for new homes, but in the recent past only about 200 new homes are built in Berkeley each year, a city of over 120,000 residents.
Biden and many others are talking about drastic carbon dioxide reductions in the U.S. building stock by 2035, but 80%+ of the homes where people will be living in 2035 have already been built.
Where Are The New Homes?
Across all U.S. homes, only 6% were built since 2010. This ranges widely across states from below 4% throughout the Midwest, to above 8% through much of the South and West. The figure below plots the proportion of homes built since 2010 by state.
North Dakota ranks #1 — 16% of all homes were built since 2010. No other state comes close. The North Dakota oil boom led parts of the state to more than double in population over this time period. This is a classic demand shock, resulting in rapid housing growth.
While North Dakota is #1 for new housing growth, it ranks dead last – #50 – on ACEEE’s energy efficiency scorecard, and is one of only a handful of U.S. states to have no statewide mandatory energy code for buildings. Funny that in this one state which actually does have a lot of new homes, there has been little attempt to impose electrification mandates.
In contrast, housing growth is near the bottom for California, New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island – four states that have been recently active with electrification mandates for new homes.
This negative correlation between electrification mandates and housing growth is not a coincidence. Electrification mandates tend to be gaining traction in places where historically there have been density restrictions and other regulations on new housing. Wharton’s index of residential land use regulations ranks the San Francisco Bay Area, New York City, and Providence, RI, as the three hardest places in the country to build a new home.
Addressing the Old Home Challenge
Instead, you know what we have a lot of in the United States? Old homes. Nationwide, 17% of U.S. homes were built before 1950.
The states that have been most active with electrification mandates for new homes tend to be states with many old homes. In New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, for example, more than 30% of homes were built before 1950.
These older homes are a big challenge. It is relatively easy to upgrade an older home with energy-efficient lighting and smart appliances, but going all-electric with an older home requires a major retrofit. Previous Energy Institute research shows that retrofitting older homes is not cheap and it is hard to convince people to participate.
A related question is whether electrification mandates might lead people to stay in their older homes longer. There is an analogy with new vehicles often referred to as the “Gruenspecht Effect”. Fuel economy standards make new vehicles more expensive, which discourages drivers from trading in their older vehicles. This same disincentive might apply also with homes, albeit with a much longer time horizon.
Better Be Patient
I’m intrigued by the increased interest in electrification mandates for new homes. These are interesting developments, and I look forward to future Energy Institute research carefully measuring the benefits and costs. But what is immediately clear is that these policies will not be a fast route to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The U.S. has a lot of old homes and we aren’t building new homes quickly enough to rapidly renew the stock. Thus, whatever policy requirements are imposed on new homes, we should not expect these interventions to transform the housing stock overnight.
Keep up with Energy Institute blogs, research, and events on Twitter @energyathaas.
Suggested citation: Davis, Lucas. “Electrification Mandates and Slow Housing Growth” Energy Institute Blog, UC Berkeley, August 17, 2020, https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2020/08/17/electrification-mandates-and-slow-housing-growth/
Lucas Davis View All
Lucas Davis is the Jeffrey A. Jacobs Distinguished Professor in Business and Technology at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a Faculty Affiliate at the Energy Institute at Haas, a coeditor at the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, and a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He received a BA from Amherst College and a PhD in Economics from the University of Wisconsin. His research focuses on energy and environmental markets, and in particular, on electricity and natural gas regulation, pricing in competitive and non-competitive markets, and the economic and business impacts of environmental policy.
My question is on electric homes, mostly heating and cooling with heat pumps. What happens to grid demand on the coldest days of the year? I read a while back that gas use on cold days is larger than peak summer grid.
This blog seems to assume that local building codes that encourage electrification are the only or primary strategy to electrifying buildings – that is certainly not the case! Electrifying new buildings is just one small, but vital, first step in reducing emissions from buildings. It is already lower cost to build all-electric and you avoid stranded gas infrastructure. Plus, 1.6 million new electric homes per year would be a huge boost to the efficient electric appliance market, lowering the cost and increasing the availability of super-efficient heat pump equipment for existing buildings as well. The point about the “Gruenspecht Effect” is also misplaced. All-electric new homes are LOWER COST to build due to avoided gas infrastructure and in-home gas piping, as well as faster build times from only needing to connect one utility service (reduced build times = $$ for builders). Seems like this blog is grasping to create controversy where there really isn’t any – we all know that addressing new buildings is just one piece of the puzzle.
I’m skeptical that electrification mandates have anything to do with slow housing growth. There are easy, alternative explanations, like zoning laws and NIMBYism. Or perhaps the fact that people are fleeing places like NY and CA in droves due to high costs. People have been leaving the dense NE for warmer areas for a long time, too. See Glaser and Moretti. Against the broader landscape of factors that affect housing starts, electrification mandates can’t matter that much. It’s a tiny cost, possibly a negative cost, and it’s easy to make nice homes without gas.
Our old house in NC, from the 1950s, was electric only, and I honestly didn’t notice until we moved in. With an electric heat pump, utility bills were tiny all year around (rarely over $100/mo), and we were toasty in winter and cool in brutally hot, muggy summers. We stumbled into a remarkably fortuitous situation.
Most homes here in Hawaii have no gas. The only thing I ever miss is a gas cooktop. But induction is way better than gas, if you can find one that won’t break after a month or two. From what I read, we’ve crossed that Rubicon: induction cooktops are quickly becoming more reliable. Mandates actually accelerate the process of learning by doing, both for heat pumps (which now work in much colder climates) and luxuries like induction cooktops.
Older houses are a big challenge. But against all motivations for moving, gas can’t matter that much. Moving is a huge life change driven mainly by other things.
Yes, we have a national housing shortage. But to allude to a causal link here with less than a sliver of credible evidence seems, well, not very modern micro like.
First, it not clear that moving into a new home is environmentally beneficial. Older homes also tend to be smaller in square feet, which also tend to have a smaller energy footprint. It’s not expensive to quickly improve the energy performance of the building envelope.
Second, the increased longevity of cars has much to do with the emission warranties required by CARB for new vehicles. Four decades ago, a car with a 100,000 miles was an accomplishment. Now its an expectation due to the increased durability created by the 100,000 mile warranty. Higher prices have some effect, but as EI researcher Christopher Knittel has shown, much of the increased investment in cars has gone into horsepower and performance, not fuel economy and emissions control.
Finally, the key to retrofit electrification is catching homeowners as they replace appliances. That will require tracking the age of those appliances and either preemptively incentivizing a switch, or engaging HVAC contractors in presenting electric choices as the first option. It will require subsidies which could be a good use of GHG allowance funds.
It would be useful if you identified the types of “electrification manadates”, how and why they might impact the energy performance of the installed stock of homes, and what it might cost (economic and otherwise) to make those retrofits. It would then be easier to evaluate the cost-benefit tradeoffs involved in removing and replacing any part of the installed stock.
“From natural gas bans to ‘electric preferred’ building codes, there is a growing set of electrification mandates aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from new homes.”
Though electrification could be of long-term benefit in the fight against climate change, instituting a “natural gas ban” then using natural gas-fired electricity for space heating, cooking, and laundry is a far less efficient use of energy. In California, an estimated 9% of electricity generation succumbs to line losses, and though solar electricity is often useful for helping to power air conditioning on hot days, it’s completely unavailable to power evening chores like space heating, cooking, and laundry.
The intermittency of renewable energy has a price, in both convenience and carbon emissions, and after the scheduled shutdown of Diablo Canyon Power Plant the situation will only get worse.
The ban on natural gas in new buildings is not about reducing emissions today, but rather about reducing emissions in future decades. Once installed, the existence of natural gas appliances creates inertia to electrifying existing buildings. It is much cheaper to build new all-electric, including savings of thousands of dollars in avoided gas infrastructure. Any incremental increase in gas generation (which is unlikely to be significant) today is offset by the large decrease in gas space and water heating use in the near future.
Electric heating, cooking, and laundry appliances are not only less practical (all take longer to get the job done), they’re 10-30% more expensive to operate. Maybe you believe thrusting this added burden on new homeowners is justifiable, in my opinion that shouldn’t be your decision to make.
The 130 degree temperature recorded yesterday in Death Valley reminds me of how pitifully ineffective renewables have been at lowering our carbon emissions (California’s gas consumption for power is unchanged since 2011). After California realizes it’s a mistake to shut down Diablo Canyon we can talk about eliminating gas appliances – until then, electrification will only be making our emissions worse.
We didn’t have “decades” to wait in 1986; we certainly don’t have them now.
You can take up your cost issue with E3 who conducted the electrification studies. (Navigant/Guidepost’s study has numerous errors.) In addition, the CEC conducted Title 24 studies showing that electrification of new homes is cost effective and can be required in local ordinances. Operating cost is only one part of the total cost equation. Installation of otherwise avoided natural gas infrastructure saves thousands of dollars, and electric appliances can be comparable to gas appliance costs. Further, electric cooking technologies are now as fast as gas with inductive cooktops and convection ovens. (I’ve used both.)
Click to access E3_Residential_Building_Electrification_in_California_April_2019.pdf
Diablo is a drop in the bucket of what we need in zero emission generation. It would take a decade at best to build another nuclear plant. We don’t have time to wait.
“electric appliances can be comparable to gas appliance costs…installation of otherwise avoided natural gas infrastructure saves thousands of dollars…further, electric cooking technologies are now as fast as gas with inductive cooktops and convection ovens. (I’ve used both.)”
100% unsupported personal opinion. Peer-reviewed references, please – advertising from marketing firms like “E3” will be ignored.
Where’s your purported documentation? It’s not just E3 that making these statements. As usual, anything that disagrees with your worldview, no matter how well documented must be a lie. It’s quite a conspiracy working against you specifically!
“It’s not just E3 that making these statements.”
I’m sure there’s a whole raft of marketers in the renewables/gas cabal that making those statements. I’m sure upper management at Mars, Inc. that claiming “Snickers Really Satisfies!” So what?
“As usual, anything that disagrees with your worldview, no matter how well documented must be a lie.”
Since you’ve provided no documentation at all, I can’t either disagree or agree with it. For evaluation purposes it’s worthless.
It’s quite a conspiracy working against you specifically!”
What conspiracy? Just a plain old, predictable advertising. Yawn…
You provided no documentation whatsoever for your initial assertions. Why do you continue to try to hold me to a higher standard than you hold yourself? Provide your documentation backing your statements about relatives costs, but make sure that they aren’t “advertisers” like SoCalGas. I’ve provided mine. And again, your retort to every single piece of evidence against you is that the sources are not sufficiently “pure.” If you can’t refute the substance of what is being written and presented, then you most likely just don’t have the evidence to refute the statement.
Here you go:
“Gas vs. Electric Stoves: Which is really more efficient?
The clear winner in the energy efficiency battle between gas and electric is gas. It takes about three times as much energy to produce and deliver electricity to your stove. According to the California Energy Commission, a gas stove will cost you less than half as much to operate (provided that you have an electronic ignition–not a pilot light).
Although the government’s Energy Star program, which rates home appliances for energy efficiency, doesn’t rate ranges, buying a gas stove and then following our energy-saving tips (see sidebar) can help you spend less each year. The final figure on your annual energy bill will depend on how much time you spend cooking on your stove, but energy company MGE asserts that you can expect to pay an average of $2.34 per month to run a gas range without a pilot light (based on a gas rate of $1 per therm, or 100,000 BTU), compared to $5.94 per month to run an electric range (based on an electric rate of $.14 per kilowatt hour).”
Please don’t bother responding with more advertising for “unusables” – they’re a waste of everyone’s time and money.
Of course you’ve completely missed the point of electrification. What’s the GHG emissions from a natural gas stove (not to mention the indoor pollution from carbon monoxide and particulates)? 117 lbs of CO2 per MCF. What’s the additional average cost of a natural gas hookup for a new house? $2700 (https://www2.socalgas.com/regulatory/tariffs/tm2/pdf/20.pdf) What’s the GHG emissions from an electric cooktop supplied by renewable power? 0 lbs What’s the incremental cost of the hookup for that stove? $0
And so now you’ve switched from climate change being such an emergency that we need to throw good money after bad on nuclear power, to saying that climate change isn’t such a problem and we can just go our merry way burning more gas? Are you really the alter ego of Jonathan Galt? (I really want to see the two of you get into a disagreement to convince me otherwise.)
“I’m quite familiar with the calculation–may be you should also become more familiar before you say anything more.”
Whatever “calculation” you’re quite familiar with has no basis. Edison is not required to report the source of up to 40% of its imports. You don’t know their source, CEC doesn’t know it, and tthough Edison knows who they paid for the power, “PacifiCorp”, or “Intermountain”, they have no idea whether it came from wind turbines, coal plants, gas plants, or any mix thereof (but thank you, your suggestion about what I should say / when I should say it has been given due consideration). 😉
“California IOUs and the CAISO account for most the GHG emissions from specific out of state power plants.”
Nope. By definition (CAISO): “Unspecified sources of power refers to electricity from transactions that are not traceable to a specific generation source.”
“What’s the GHG emissions from an electric cooktop supplied by renewable power?”
Ah, the mythical “electric cooktop supplied by renewable power.” Where might one find this magical appliance, other than in the vivid imagination of renewables advocates? Electric cooktops supplied by gas-fired electricity, augmented by solar/wind on an as-available basis, they’re all over the place. Take the energy content of the gas, multiply by .5 for efficiency losses (mixed CCGT/simple cycle during dinnertime), then by .91 for line losses. Not even close.
The cost of a gas connection, spread out over the lifetime of a home, is insignificant. The cost of a $30,000 solar array, foisted on first-time homebuyers with a 30-year mortgage, is $1,000/year – plus interest.
“The bottom line is that you still have not refuted the fact that electricity emissions have fallen since 2012 and are much lower than they were in 2011.”
No, the bottom line is that you have no idea whether emissions have fallen or whether they’re higher. You’re trusting IOUs with $billions in potential savings from concealing the source of cheap, imported, fossil power.
What was San Onofre replaced by when it closed in January 2012? A picture worth a thousand words: http://cgnp.org/images/unspecified.jpg
Your statement about SCE and PG&E is incorrect. I can see 95% of the specific emission sources for those utilities in their ERRA filings. I can see the specific gas fired generators, hydro plants, QF cogenerators, renewable solar and wind PPAs. SCE and PG&E are net SELLERS into the CAISO–PG&E’s net sales being about equal to its output from Diablo.
Again, the IOUs are accounting for the small remaining amount of GHG emissions at a “system” emission rate that is about two and a half times higher than the actual sources which are combined cycle plants. You’re the only person who’s uncomfortable with what’s being reported, and you have no real evidence that the current accounting isn’t sufficiently accurate. And regardless, if that’s the case you have no basis for asserting that GHG emissions have risen since 2012. You have never present the math with documentation to support your contention. It’s all a fantasy as far as we can tell.
So you turn to “How Stuff Works” to try to refute the work of several different studies showing that electricity is current cost effective with natural gas? That’s a hilarious joke. Please come back with a real source of information.
“Your statement about SCE and PG&E is incorrect. I can see 95% of the specific emission sources for those utilities in their ERRA filings.”
It’s wonderful you can see them, Richard. Until I can see them, however, I’ll believe CAISO’s definition: “Unspecified sources of power refers to electricity from transactions that are not traceable to a specific generation source.”
“You have no real evidence that the current accounting isn’t sufficiently accurate.”
Ah, but I never claimed emissions have risen. You, however, are calling “electricity emissions have fallen since 2012 and are much lower than they were in 2011” a fact. Proof, please.
“I can see the specific gas fired generators, hydro plants, QF cogenerators, renewable solar and wind PPAs. SCE and PG&E are net SELLERS into the CAISO–PG&E’s net sales being about equal to its output from Diablo.”
I don’t have a pair of your special rose-tinted renewables glasses, though. Please provide evidence CAISO is wrong – that electricity from those transactions is traceable to specific generation sources – or don’t waste my time.
“You’re the only person who’s uncomfortable with what’s being reported, and you have no real evidence that the current accounting isn’t sufficiently accurate.”
I have to admit, I don’t believe everything I read – especially pedants who try the lame “bandwagon” argument out on me. The burden of proof is your job – now do it.
“It’s all a fantasy as far as we can tell.”
That a 21st-century grid can be powered by solar panels, windmills, unicorns, and pixie dust is indeed a fantasy. Finally, some common ground.
“So you turn to “How Stuff Works” to try to refute the work of several different studies showing that electricity is current cost effective with natural gas…Please come back with a real source of information.”
Anyone who calls PR pamphlets “studies”, or considers industry advertising “real sources of information”, either: 1) has never seen a peer-reviewed study 2) has no sense of humor, or 3) both. Please come back with an impartial source of information, whose author isn’t someone being paid to tell you what you want to hear. Thanks!
The CAISO’s definition is irrelevant because the CAISO doesn’t conduct the GHG accounting–CARB does. And CARB does account for the generation sources for the utilities. And we’ll have to let the readers decide if they’ll believe someone who is speculating, or someone who has testified under oath before the CPUC on the sources of generation, as I have. I risk perjury–what do you risk?
So provide a peer reviewed study by someone who wasn’t paid by anyone (since everyone who is paid has some sort of agenda in your worldview) that supports your positions. (Note that both the CEC and the EIA pay their analysts who conduct their studies and each agency has its own agenda.)
“In-state California gas electricity has been flat since San Onofre was shut down – not in 2011, but January 2012. That’s a fact:
That graph appears to show a decrease of our 25% since 2012 to 2019.
“The CAISO’s definition is irrelevant because the CAISO doesn’t conduct the GHG accounting–CARB does. And CARB does account for the generation sources for the utilities.”
Not for Unspecified Sources of Power (USP) they don’t. By the way, how do you explain the graph I provided showing Edison’s USP jumping to 41% the year SONGS was shut down? Coincidence, right?
“And we’ll have to let the readers decide if they’ll believe someone who is speculating, or someone who has testified under oath before the CPUC on the sources of generation, as I have. I risk perjury–what do you risk?”
Don’t worry, you’re not under oath now, and I’m all for letting readers decide whether someone incapable of providing evidence when challenged is trustworthy. FYI, before you get feeling too ultra-special, I’ve testified before the CPUC, too – I just wouldn’t feel the need to brag about it.
“So provide a peer reviewed study by someone who wasn’t paid by anyone (since everyone who is paid has some sort of agenda in your worldview) that supports your positions. (Note that both the CEC and the EIA pay their analysts who conduct their studies and each agency has its own agenda.)”
The idea I believe “everyone who is paid has some sort of agenda” is your fabrication.
However, everyone conducting an analysis who stands to benefit from its findings, in either direction, has a conflict of interest. That’s not my belief, that’s a fact. The only agenda of EIA, from my experience, is providing the most reliable, objective interpretation of data they possibly can. As a federal agency EIA sees it as their mission to be neutral (they’ve told me so in emails), and it’s precisely why they’re challenged by renewables advocates who can’t believe, for example, operating expenses for nuclear are cheaper than every source of generation other than hydro:
or that the price of installed grid-scale batteries is a capacity-weighted average of $1,250/kWh (updated Jul ’20):
Click to access battery_storage.pdf
In the last decade California is awash in natural gas influence – that, too, is a fact. In 2015, energy companies surpassed healthcare are the biggest source of lobbying and political donations – over $150M since 2010. That has everything to do with the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (2005), which eliminated SEC oversight of utilities, and the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United vs. FEC (2010).
I know the EIA has its own agenda. Having reviewed their gas price forecasts and the infamous “fan” its clear that the EIA has had a bias towards protecting the interests of status quo industries. EIA has done many good studies, just as the CEC has and other agencies. (And I know that the CEC has a different bias than the EIA.) You’re naive if you believe that the EIA hasn’t colored its analyses such as the Energy Outlook over the years. I accept their studies as useful and account for their biases and mistakes when I review them. That one on energy storage was quite a doozy of an error. Note that the analysis is no longer with the EIA.
“That graph appears to show a decrease of our 25% since 2012 to 2019.”
Assuming baseload isn’t still being farmed out to PacifiCorp coal plants in Wyoming (unlikely), NG generation is the same as it was before SONGS closed – flat. I was under the impression we were trying to lower carbon emissions as quickly as possible. If so, it’s not fast enough.
Visually, that’s not what that graph tells me. I see in the early part generation well above 10,000 at the peak and never below 5,000, but at later, it just edges above 10,000 and is well below 5,000. Supply the numbers to prove otherwise.
Here’s the chart with nuclear below. Seasonal gas minimum in 2011 was almost exactly what it was this year:
In August, 70,000 SCE customers lost power when renewables and CA gas couldn’t deliver. Edison, still dependent on “unspecified sources” for 37% of its electricity, suddenly couldn’t depend on them either.
Still no numbers. The minimum is not the total generation. 2011 was a wet year so of course generation was lower. Give us numbers.
“I know the EIA has its own agenda. Having reviewed their gas price forecasts and the infamous “fan” its clear that the EIA has had a bias towards protecting the interests of status quo industries.”
As I expected. Frustrating it must be, that EIA doesn’t turn out the research-for-hire upon which renewables advocacy depends. Get used to it.
“Note that the analysis is no longer with the EIA.”
Of course it is. They’ll never preach the gospel you and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) want to hear, but that’s not their job:
“This report was prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. By law, EIA’s data, analyses, and forecasts are independent of approval by any other officer or employee of the United States Government. The views in this report therefore should not be construed as representing those of the U.S. Department of Energy or other federal agencies.”
I’m sure that NREL and LBNL have the same charge as the EIA. Here’s the updated EIA study on battery storage costs, showing $834/kWh capacity cost in 2017, dropping by 61% in 2 years. At that trend rate, battery storage capacity would cost $323/kWh in 2019, which is consistent with the high end of Lazard’s 2019 cost estimate.
Click to access battery_storage.pdf
Choosing 2011 as a reference point is disingenuous considering we closed down SONGS that year. Even so you’re still wrong because California has dropped gas power production since then despite adding 3 million additional people.
I have repeatedly presented to Carl Wurster the CARB GHG inventory showing that emissions jumped slightly in 2012 (it was the first year of the drought too which drove up emissions with less hydro) and then a continuous drop in emissions to 2017 (the last year available). He has refused to acknowledge the existence of this clear evidence contradicting his worldview.
What’s disingenous? In-state California gas electricity has been flat since San Onofre was shut down – not in 2011, but January 2012. That’s a fact:
But that’s only in-state power production. By labeling it “Unspecified Sources of Power”, California is now buying up to 40% of its electricity from gas and coal plants in other states:
“The law, as amended in 2009, allows retailers to characterize a portion of their power as coming from “unspecified” sources. Statewide, that represents more than 14 percent of the delivered electricity; for Southern California Edison, that number has exceeded 40 percent. And the power in this category is not just any electric generation – the unspecified category is dominated by imported power that is likely to include output from the dirtiest generators serving California markets.”
Beyond disingenous, “green” California is a total fraud.
California IOUs and the CAISO account for most the GHG emissions from specific out of state power plants (the remaining emission rate is biased high. I’m quite familiar with the calculation–may be you should also become more familiar before you say anything more.) In addition the GHG emissions from the other Western states that supply California also have fallen The bottom line is that you still have not refuted the fact that electricity emissions have fallen since 2012 and are much lower than they were in 2011. Come back with a full accounting, not speculation, if you disagree. Assertions are not facts.
This is very valuable information. Electrification advocates hope that new building mandates will, within a few years, build up supply chains and installer expertise that will make it more affordable to electrify existing homes. This would be similar to the way that the solar PV industry grew from its initial base of “off the grid” households to widespread deployment in existing single family homes. As the 130 degree temperature recorded yesterday in Death Valley should remind us, we’re running out of time to make the necessary changes.