It will soon become nearly impossible to install fossil-fueled appliances to heat new homes and businesses in Washington. [...]
The codes will require new homes and buildings to meet the same total energy performance as those built with electric heat pumps while allowing builders flexibility to choose appliances. Basically, if builders choose gas appliances, they will need to make up the efficiency losses elsewhere in the construction.
— Seattle Times
The state’s building code update puts them in league with California, Maryland, and major cities New York, Los Angeles, and Boston to have adopted similar policies.
The new amendments offer a “watered-down” alternative to a proposed electric heat pump mandate that was abandoned in the wake of a federal ruling against Berkeley, California’s natural gas ban from 2019.
The state’s building and construction industry is one of many being targeted by lawmakers in an effort to eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
18 Comments
Insanity.
Take my question as sincere, because a large part of my salary depends on helping organizations improve energy efficiency in their buildings: appliances that *don't* depend on fossil fuels don't really exist yet, correct? Because most electricity is *still* generating from coal or gas?
I applaud banning residential gas appliances, but labelling electric appliances as not fossil-fueled seems incorrect.
Donna, it's a fair question and I offer 3 things to consider.
1st, Regardless of the energy source, electric appliances are in some ways desirable because the energy grid can become more and more decarbonized in the future and individuals don't have to buy new appliances. In other words, an electric appliance can be completely free from fossil fuels tomorrow, even if it isn't today.
2nd, I believe there are advantages in efficiency and cleanliness in using grid electricity generated from fossil fuels rather than individual appliances that run on fossil fuels. I'd have to dig into it more, but basically the power plants can extract more energy from the fuel than everyone's individual gas appliances can (there is less energy lost as waste heat, etc.).
3rd, Washington State already has a very decarbonized energy grid. I believe it is the 2nd most decarbonized in the nation after Vermont.
This is what WA's electricity generation by source looks like:
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid...
While it's true that WA's electricity mostly comes from hydroelectric sources, and is thus relatively "clean," thinking that the electrical grid is going to be capable to expanding to serve all of these new uses and elimination of alternatives is purely magical thinking. A few years ago, a sustainability-minded client for whom I was designing a large residential mixed-use use tower project in downtown Seattle wanted to put in the infrastructure for EV charging stations at every parking stall in an 8-story underground garage. Seattle City Light flat-out refused to grant approval for doing that, stating that the line load would exceed the capacity of the entire neighborhood grid sector.
For every parking stall in an 8-story parking garage ... I don't blame them for refusing and frankly I applaud them for not laughing in their face. That's an extreme example though and not really comparable to the code updates.
I don't think the updates are going to cause major issues. The goal is to perform as good as, or better than, an theoretical electric heat pump baseline. This isn't about adding load (or even mandating electric vs gas) so much as it is about setting a standard for total energy performance. That approach should be more achievable and a lot less ridiculous than your client looking to set up an 8-story Tesla charging station downtown.
Oh, there was definitely some laughing going on at City Light over that request, and I don't blame them. But my broader point is that this is not something that should be a matter for code restriction but rather personal choice, and putting everything on electrical grids instead of more robust, distributed energy infrastructure is just asking for trouble. Truly, if we wanted to convert over to electric systems generally, not only do we need to dramatically upgrade our service infrastructure, but also move away from centralized generation systems to distributed networks. There are compact fission reactors in development and approval licensing right now which might fit that bill. But until that's a viable alternative, mandating electric systems is just insane.
I won't argue with your statement that we need to upgrade our service infrastructure. I just don't see these types of code updates as all that insane.
According to the reporting, the code isn't mandating electric. It is mandating a total energy performance baseline. If you can achieve that performance with gas or other sources of energy it seems to allow for that even though electric is going to be easier. They are allowing people make their personal choices for what the energy source can be as long as they can meet the baseline.
Thanks for all this insight, folks. I wonder about increasing electrical usage now that every appliance has an internet connection and everyone needs various mood lighting and recharging capability in every room of their house...but it's good to hear people more knowledgeable than me discuss some of the realities and fantasies of the movement. I also agree that a massive, massive investment in infrastructure is needed, and that it should allow for both local use and emergency backup if needed.
Honestly, any energy performance requirement is a stupid overreach. If somebody wants to build an inefficient building, that's on them, not a matter for bureaucratic fiat. You want to change these things, work on the demand side. Supply will follow.
With new construction, I don't see it as an issue. With existing buildings, banning fossil fuel appliances and forcing changing of the existing infrastructure of existing buildings and homes are going to have push back if forced. Legal push backs are things that would happen and are happening in places because historically, there is past precedence when government tries to force impose something to existing buildings (except when there is an actual renovation of such like a major kitchen remodel), the forcing people to change their gas-powered boilers, water heaters, etc. can be significant expenses not just replacing appliances is involved. It can involve significant overhaul of electrical systems to support the appliance. Some people have forced air heating system that uses natural gas burners. It is possible to change the burners out with newer units with electrical elements. Even the older units, there existed change out parts for changing over to electrical. The problem is, if states starts requiring the removal of natural gas service to the homes and the meters and the piping inside and outside, and the appliances, the state would be required to provide funding for it. 80% for people and businesses/organizations with certain income revenue or higher that can feasibly afford to make those changes. Otherwise, 100% with coverage up to 150% with contingency factored in. At home, we have forced air heating and natural gas stove. We have some equipment for cooking that can be done via electrical appliance. We use them. However, the forced air heating system burners are natural gas. Changing it out with electrical is technically possible. All forced air heating systems at the time had models that are basically the same as the natural gas powered but uses electrical elements instead of natural gas. However, given the age of it, even though there would have been parts at the time for a change over... a change-over kit, those parts are likely not manufactured anymore and would have to depend on whatever available inventory stock of these change-over kits which were always in limited supply even back then. Otherwise, you would have to cannibalize a forced air heater of the model that essentially the same except used electrical elements instead of the natural gas burner and electronics board associated with such change. That is the issue we have to deal with if such a change happened literally tomorrow. You can see, there would be push back. We would have to change out the heater unit but also there would have to be work done on the electrical panel to upgrade it so it can supply what maybe 60A service. Likewise, there could be a trigger of other electrical work upgrade with more circuits and possibly additional outlets or dedicated electrical for special wall mounted heating sytems that exists, now. I think the problem is going to be money and people will just end up telling the government to go F--- off. You want it done now, you pay for it. Otherwise, it won't happen until we are ready. I think the government just has to be careful applying the law to existing buildings. Financial incentive problems that does a big part in covering the cost will help but it has to be at mass not just a couple dozen out of 10,000 homes a year. I can support changes for energy efficiency and sustainability but that is all good in heart intention but people have to have money for it. In my case, it may not be as simple as changing out an oven. It depends on the proposed regulations when they come.
Most of our consumer electronics appliances uses very little electrical power. The electrical power demand to cook is likely more than your cable model or router ever will or your phone. The biggest aim isn't cooking appliance, really... is it? That's not the biggest thing. Its the heating of our homes. They want to get rid of natural gas fired boilers and natural gas based forced air heating systems. This is because of the power utility companies wants more money and they tend to charge more (2-3 times as much) for heating than natural gas companies charges so they want to deny customers a less expensive options. It's really a form of discriminating against lower income people. It is about pushing them out of their homes and gentrify. They are weaponizing sustainability ideals (albeit good things) to do this to people. Burdening people who can't afford all this crap. If electrical companies stop price gouging, it wouldn't be a problem. People need backup power like natural gas-powered generator which should be an option for people. Here, if we changed to electric heating, our electrical bill would double if not triple. This means, the electric bill can easily become $600 to $800 a month in the winter months. That change in bill would be more than the natural gas bill + power bill, currently. So, in order to get the bill back down to what we pay now, we would be having to spend over $250,000 in renovation costs to put insulation throughout all walls and the roof. Which if we did that would reduce our natural gas bill in half or less and our electrical bill would be just our TVs, computers, and such. So, yeah, it's not an financial incentive. It's just more money spent and no cash saving. I would end up paying no less than now. This is because the electrical power company isn't reducing its fees to make that difference. They are the highway robbers. Thay are the ones charging the most so if heating space by electricity, it will raise the money spent on utility by a factor of 2-3x. There is no super efficient electric heating possible under laws of science that can make the electrical bill lower than the natural gas bill and would have to employ wind generators. In my house location and orientation, it sucks to use PV panels. The won't get the most efficient amount of solar energy. topography, other buildings, etc. While, removing a few trees helps, it is limited and some trees further distant but up the slope outside property boundary lines is outside out control and those trees do reduce solar energy from the sun during winter months. Only during the 2pm to 4pm timeframe to collect solar energy when the sun is not partially objected by trees and buildings. During the late-spring/summer, the angle of incidence is okay from 10AM to about 4 to 6PM timeframe. So we would have to use a two strategy approach and have a hell of a battery bank to provide electrical to offset heating use during the winter. We get wind throughout the year. During late fall to spring, we get the strong winds that would generate the highest amount of power. PVs would suck during this time of year but not optimally oriented with the sun and a PITA to get approval through the HLC in Astoria. So I can see such a thing would be a horrible pain in the rear. That is my issue of concern where these proposals may lead in the next 20 years. They are not attached to any REAL consideration of the REALITY of many people with existing buildings/homes.
Insurmountable, no. PAIN IN THE ASS..... yes.
Any ban on residential uses is moot, just a postcard for the gallery - like the 3 minute shower when hay exporters in california drink up a third of the colorado river.
I'd be terrified living here without a backup source of energy if power goes out. I'd keep a propane grill just in case.
I guess we'll see what happens in the new 78 units right next to us that are all electric, already having some kind of issue - delayed C.O. for undisclosed electric problems. This also reminds me of this picture.
Just as a safety and quality of life thing, I will never have a gas range again. Had one for years and thought I loved it, then I moved into a place with induction and water boils in 30 seconds and the air is so much cleaner.
Gas heating and hot water I'm a little more torn on. Gas is actually really resilient to natural disasters whereas electricity is always out. But a decentralized grid with household production and batteries and all around more efficient construction would solve that.
There's probably some local geographic and climate logic at play too. Like there is 0 need for any gas appliance in Southern California, but in snowy areas it can make a lot of sense. In Seattle I really don't think it is necessary as the climate is so temperate, and so much energy is sourced from renewables.
Ive been saying the same about gas ranges forever, but coming to the same conclusion from a different angle. We grew up with an electric induction oven/stove because gas hookups are not standard (actually very uncommon) in the majority of Canada; first time I moved abroad and into an apartment where there were only gas stoves available i thought there was a gas leak the first time i turned the thing on. Nope, turns out that burning gas inside your kitchen just makes the place smell like gas. Its horrible.
As far as residential heating is concerned the electrical grid is much more likely to go down in storms, ice storms, hurricanes, snow storms, floods, ect., than the natural gas service.
It's also funny how these various sustainability trends wax and wane in such a fad-like way. Just 15 years ago, Seattle codes were strongly incentivizing installation of gas heating systems over electric, because the were so much more "green." LOL
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.