New MA. Stretch Energy Code

EBEBRATT-Ed

So, this weekend I am punishing myself. Figured I might as well get it over with I took my update class for my gasfitters license this past Friday which is only 3 hrs./year. Not, a big deal.

Today was 7 1/2 hour electrical code update +7 1/2 hours tomorrow followed by 6 hours "professional development" in April. Tires you out more than working all day.

But the big news to me was that MA has adopted this new "Stretch" energy code which will start 1/1/24. Some towns have adopted it now but I guess it goes state wide the first of the year.

All new houses built after 1/1 will have to be wired as an "all electric" house regardless of what fuel they use in the initial build.

Wire for electric stove
Dryer
water heater
electric car chargers
Heat pumps
and run a conduit from the panel to the attic to support solar panels
An electric service to support all the above.

Not trying to make this a political discussion. It is just the way things are heading. The plan is to eliminate all fossil fuels.

Our instructor didn't have any more details but as we discussed the electric grid the way it now exists can not support this as of now, New home prices will take a big hike.

realliveplumber

They tried it in the 70's. Im just saying.

JMWHVAC

There is a brick wall ahead! All electric would make sense if they were rapidly building nuclear power plants and upgrading the transmission networks. To ban fossil fuel use in our homes but generate the electric with fossil fuels is..is.. ridiculous.

jesmed1

Changing our energy infrastructure is going to be painful and expensive. Not changing is also going to be painful and expensive, but in different ways.

I would love to convert our condo building to ATW heat pumps, but unfortunately its 100-year-old structure isn't easily adaptable, and the couple of phone conversations I had with installers here in MA made it clear that converting would be so expensive that none of our owners could afford it.

If we were building from the ground up, I would do some things totally differently, like install large-area radiant heating instead of our existing cast iron radiators. Radiant heating would be much better matched to an ATW heat pump with its low supply temperature.

Unfortunately, we're stuck with a very expensive building designed 100 years ago that isn't easily adaptable for less energy consumption. That's a problem with a lot of the housing stock in the US. If we could install heat pumps here, we'd be saving $2500/year in heating costs for the building. Our obstacle is not the electrical system, but the building itself and its antiquated heating system that can't easily be changed.

So while I know it will be difficult and expensive, I hope we can plan and build more adaptable housing in future that lets homeowners adopt new efficient technologies like, say, heat pumps, that can use less energy and save in operating costs.

Hot_water_fan

Wire for electric stove
Dryer
water heater
electric car chargers
Heat pumps
and run a conduit from the panel to the attic to support solar panels

Seems minor? And optional? What’s the big deal? I’ve lived in several homes that have had all of these except for the solar panel conduit and nobody batted an eye. Wasn’t political, just what the market wants. 

Our instructor didn't have any more details but as we discussed the electric grid the way it now exists can not support this as of now, New home prices will take a big hike.

What’s the evidence for this? New homes prices needn’t change at all. And what’s the evidence the grid can’t handle this? And won’t be able to change that over several decades? 

ChrisJ

realliveplumber said:

They tried it in the 70's. Im just saying.

They tried aluminum car engines in the 60s and failed.

But they tried again not too long ago and succeeded.  Sometimes you need to fail and keep trying.

Other times its just a bad idea that won't work.

Hot_water_fan

To ban fossil fuel use in our homes but generate the electric with fossil fuels is..is.. ridiculous.

@JMWHVAC do the math! It’s burning fossil fuels, but less using heat pumps. It makes good economic sense to use less natural gas by burning off site in a combined cycle. Alleviates gas supply constraints and should lower costs. 

EBEBRATT-Ed

@Hot_water_fan

Do you really think if all the homes now on fossil fuels converted to all electric that the grid would be able to support that? No, the grid would melt down.

I am not against "Clean energy" or fighting climate change or whatever you want to call it. But this is railroading people and housing prices will go way up. We talked about it in class and everyone agrees the electric grid can't support this and that the added cost for a house will be at least 10K more for material alone + the added labor. And no, all the extra wiring is not optional. It will be installed weather it is used or not when the house is built. Moving in that direction is fine but it needs to take place in a more measured manner.

Hot_water_fan

Do you really think if all the homes now on fossil fuels converted to all electric that the grid would be able to support that? No, the grid would melt down.

Nobody is proposing that this happen immediately. The regulation is for NEW homes. Over the course of 30 years, using dual fuels, this is easily accomplished. It’s common already in many parts of the US to have very high electric heating penetration, with no meltdowns. This is easy. 

I’m not sure how this $10k number came about for some wiring. If so, would anyone install oil heat? An oil heated home needs all of those things too. 

WMno57

Maybe MA will reopen Pilgrim, like Michigan is reopening Palisades.
The grid will be fine. Because all those new lectric doo dads will be "Grid Aware". If you don't speak woke, Grid Aware means rationing enabled.
Soon contractors will be selling 10 ton heat pumps. "Mr customer, you might get only 10 hours of electricity per day. You need a big HP to get your house back to 70 before they take over your thermostat again".
Have I told you guys about my generator collection? Maybe I better not. Yeah, all my gensets were lost in a tragic boating accident.

Hot_water_fan

Caleffi’s latest webinar discusses dual fuel systems well. That’ll be the way forward for many homes. More choices, more reliability, hopefully less complaining.

If you don't speak woke, Grid Aware means rationing enabled.

It’s so “woke” of me to pay less money for electricity when my utility incentivizes me to. I hate saving money! Darn the culture war. 

Jamie Hall

Time for a bit of a rant. Move on if you no like.

First place, some of us -- such as myself -- were aware of the impending problem 40 years and more ago. We were also aware that the technology existed at that time to move to more and more electric and less and less fossil fuel usage. Nobody paid much attention, and then folks such as Hanoi Jane made a big production out of how dangerous said technology was and scared everyone off it. So here we are, and the hopeful types who think that somehow our existing grid, even with upgrades but shorn of reliable dispatchable power will be able to power us out of the problem are, bluntly, either dreaming or deluded. Physics is a b**ch, but you can't get rid of it.

Some of the proposed solutions will, I will grant, work at least sort of in moderately to densely populated suburban areas. These areas are the ones which have the highest turnover in build infrastructure -- many houses built today are lucky to last 30 years -- and the people who live there can, by and large, afford the mandates which are proposed. Of course I can have a fancy heat pump which works in my temperature range. Of course I have a place to park and charge my 6 figure EV. Of course I have room on the roof of my McMansion for solar PV. No problem. What are you complaining about?

But what about @jesmed1 's 100 year old condo? Or a few tens of thousands of other walk up apartment buildings in more densely populated areas? The people living there can barely afford the rent as it is. The landlords can barely afford minimum upkeep after taxes. Who is going to pay for the upgrades? They at least won't have to worry about charging their car, since they won't be able to afford to buy one, so they will need vastly improved and more flexible public transportation. Who is going to pay for that?

And where will the power be generated to power all of this? Never mind stored for the moment -- just generated. The most recent figure I can find for New York City, for example, with other energy sources converted to electricity, is around 100 terawatts hours of energy per year. A terawatt is a million megawatts. Let us suppose, for the moment, that half of that is to be supplied by photovoltaics, and half by offshore wind (let's ignore the unknown environmental impacts of offshore wind...). That means we need 50 terawatt hours of energy from photovoltaics. Now the latest, and still very experimental photovoltaics can produce somewhere around 300 watts of power per square meter of cell. In the northeast, the best estimate for solar arrays is that there are about 3 hours of usable sunshine per day, on average, so it is safe to suppose that one can get around 1 kilowatt hour of energy from a square meter of array. That works out to around 4 megawatt hours of energy per acre of array per day or, very roughly, 1 gigawatt hour of energy per acre per year. So... I need somewhere around 50,000 acres of photovoltaics. And that's just the city -- not the metro area. Where is that land to be found?

Good question. Please don't tell me that it will be from photovoltaics on the rooftops...

One might also note that first thought -- all the power will be electric. That's twice what is used presently, so the grid capacity will have to be doubled throughout the city.

Then there are other problems in rural areas which no one wants to talk about. Expanding grid capacity is one; it will need to be more than doubled almost all areas. EVs are all very fine for your grocery getter, but not so much for agricultural machinery or the family pickup truck (and yes, I have driven an electric full size pickup. Very impressive. About as useful as a velvet lined frying pan, but very impressive).

And so on.

At some point in the future I have no doubt that most, if not all, energy use may become electric. It's not going to happen by 2035 or 2050 or some arbitrary date, and if a country is forced to try to meet such an arbitrary target times are going to get really tough for most of the population.

Let it happen, yes. Work towards it, yes. Force it? Not a very bright idea, however much the elites want it.

JMWHVAC

@Hot_water_fan My reasoning that burning fuel in our home is better than in the power plant is based on efficiency. A gas power plant may be 40 -50% efficient while we put equipment in houses that is 90+. And what percent of electric is lost till it arrives at my house? If a country is serious about ending fossil fuels they better build nuclear. Solar is getting better but has a long way to go. What about the bird choppers? Don't ask.
Heat pumps are great until its cold. Although amazing what BTU the good ones produce, when they are spinning round the clock--Dec, Jan, Feb, the service or replacement is going to be far more $$ & sooner than my boiler.

Hot_water_fan

@JMWHVAC a 50% efficient combined cycle powering a heat pump with a COP of 2.5 is more efficient than any gas furnace or boiler. 2.5 x .5 > .99. 

hot_rod

Amazingly the power appeared to power the crypto  miners? Where was that extra capacity hiding?

127 terra-watt hours would power a lot of HPs

EBEBRATT-Ed

@Jamie Hall I agree. This all should have been started 50 years ago. We had Nuke power in the 70 and ranch house wired with aluminum, and everything was going to be clean electric heat as @realliveplumber mentioned above. Then they gave up on it and one reason was the nuke waste disposal. Nobody wants to be near that just like most will not give up the gas guzzling SUV. Everything looks nice and sunny until it shows up next door.

I just think it is way premature to force this wiring thing on these new house builds. It ups the cost and before it gets used some new technology may appear.

What @jesmed1 posted is the truth. "Changing our energy infrastructure is going to be painful and expensive. Not changing is also going to be painful and expensive, but in different ways."


What will happen by forcing the issue too fast will be a backlash which will slow or stall progress. We need reasonable people who know what they are talking about to make these decisions. Personally, I think heat pumps have a place but I don't see them being the end result in northern climates but that is JMHO

JMWHVAC

@Hot_water_fan Yes, those numbers don't lie but you need more numbers. Transmisssion losses, for one. I was also poorly trying to say that a heat pump will cost more in purchase and service than a boiler (per BTU) in the long term. I like numbers but maybe I am missing some also! Some areas get a lot higher percent of their electric from non-fossil fuel sources than other areas.

Hot_water_fan

@JMWHVAC for sure, there are transmission loses. They’re pretty minor. Gas pipelines leak too. The key for me is AC. Americans want AC much more than they want oil heat, propane, or even gas heat and they reveal this every year. Heat pumps can deliver that. If someone wants a heat pump and a separate fossil heater, I say go for it. More choices are better. Turning it into a anti woke culture war is just weird and off putting. 

hot_rod

I highly doubt energy of any source will just be shut off, completely, ever

we have a glut of NG so much that we export it
Why not use it for electric generation? NG plants can be built quickly and there is no push back from the public

Nuke plants  need water for cooling, thats why the small new technology plant got canceled in Utah. And the fuel it needed comes from Russia. So the group of utilities backed out of the deal.

Oddly the largest reactor we have is in the Arizona desert. It uses sewer effluent from Phoenix for cooling.

441 or so nuke plants in the world all have temporary 
storage  for the spent rods. Surely someone is keeping those facilities safe and updated?
Certainly Russia, China, Ukraine , etc will let us know right away if the containers start leaking.

realliveplumber

One of the major problems is that the people who are calling to eliminate fossil fuels, and the people that are listening to them and mandating it, do not have any experience or expertise on the issues and do not have a clue what they are talking about

EBEBRATT-Ed

@realliveplumber that is the real problem

Hot_water_fan

There’s informed people on both sides so some humility is in order. The complaint in the original post is that MA will mandate wiring that is extremely common in rural areas all over. Not mandated by “Elites”, just common sense. This is what an oil heated home looks like! It’s extremely common to have an electric stove, AC, water heater, electric dryer, and an outdoor outlet (240V is less common I will admit, but not sure if the regulations require that or not). The only new thing I see is the conduit to the roof. I think that’s unnecessary but it’s pretty minor all things considered. This applies to only new homes. Is that 1% of all homes in MA? 

WMno57

A letter to the Editor
Published in the Boston Globe
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/11/14/opinion/letters-to-the-editor-housing-construction-high-costs-energy-requirements/

Energy rules are contributing to the chill in housing construction

The Globe’s reporting on the decline in residential construction clearly demonstrates the link between building costs and completed projects (“For builders, new housing just doesn’t pay right now,” Page A1, Nov. 8). We concur that the high costs — of borrowing, construction materials, and regulatory requirements — are causing fewer homes to be built.

Our organization recently commissioned a study by MIT and Wentworth Institute of Technology that looked at the impact of the state’s new “net zero” stretch energy code on the cost of construction. It concluded that building to this higher environmental standard would add between 1.8 percent and 3.8 percent onto the statewide cost of a new single family home; for large multifamily buildings, the added cost is an estimated 2.4 percent.

While these figures may appear marginal to some, the quote in Catherine Carlock’s story from a developer who cites new requirements for energy efficiency demonstrates that these added costs are preventing new housing projects from proceeding, thereby worsening our housing crisis.

Builders believe in the need for more housing while addressing climate change, but the public must understand that the rapid adoption of rigorous new energy codes does come at a cost to housing affordability. We can’t pit one crisis against another.

Jeffrey A. Brem

President

Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Massachusetts

Jamie Hall

The observation you note, @Hot_water_fan , isn't really quite true. While it is common enough to have some electric appliances -- stove, dryer, sometimes electric hot water -- the actual problem in more rural areas is two fold: first, the house wiring, though usually volt split, is also quite commonly also 100 amp service. Some farms, like Cedric's, do have 200 amp service -- but for those it is quite likely that that service is pushed pretty hard, too. So to go all electric is going to require a substantial upgrade to the service -- which isn't just a matter of slapping a bigger breaker in the box. For example, to upgrade Cedric's home, a farm, to all electric would require going to a 500 amp service. Since this also involves several hundred feet of drop from the nearest transformer to the service entrance, as well as all new entrance switchgear and main breaker box, the cost wouldn't be trivial.

Unhappily, though, there is an additional problem: one or two houses doing that might be conceivable, though it's unlikely that the homeowner would be happy about it, but doing that for the 5 mile stretch of power grid which is inolved would require that the capacity of that stretch of wire also be upgraded to about 3 times its present capacity. That would be anything but trivial.

I'm afraid that I do take some offense from your remark about humility; I presume you mean that us country bumpkins should just put up and shut up?

Hot_water_fan

I'm afraid that I do take some offense from your remark about humility; I presume you mean that us country bumpkins should just put up and shut up?

No, Jamie that’s a bad faith reading of that. This is not a rural vs. urban situation. I do not want to make it one. 

I was referring to this, not something you said:

One of the major problems is that the people who are calling to eliminate fossil fuels, and the people that are listening to them and mandating it, do not have any experience or expertise on the issues and do not have a clue what they are talking about

This is false and disrespectful. You can critique the approach, maybe the timeline (I certainly do!), but the personal attacks need to stop. There are smart, informed, experienced people on both sides of this. Caleffi, for one, has published a lot of content on how exactly to do this. They have a clue. 

But you’re right - 100AMP service can be limiting. That’s why I love the dual fuel approach - you can fit a heat pump with an gas/oil backup. Will this work for every single home/farm? No, and that’s okay. 

WMno57

Longer article here:
Worth reading because it details how states adopt codes
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-tougher-building-codes-fix-climate-change/

Could Tougher Building Codes Fix Climate Change?
E&E News, Thomas Frank
6–7 minutes

CLIMATEWIRE | It seems almost too good to be true.

But the Energy Department says one step by states would help the United States reduce future carbon emissions by nearly 2 billion metric tons and cut $180 billion from the country's collective energy bill over 30 years. And the move needs no new technology, equipment, infrastructure or vehicles and would be the equivalent of removing 445 million gasoline-powered cars from the road over 30 years.

What's required is for states to force new buildings to meet stronger energy standards that reduce consumption.

The Energy Department is touting the benefits of this change in an unprecedented campaign that urges states to make buildings more climate-friendly by adopting new energy codes.

The campaign is unusual because DOE is offering states millions of dollars each through a new energy-codes program. DOE also has produced data showing the amount in energy bills and emissions that each state would drop by adopting up-to-date energy codes.

The data highlight the unheralded role that state building energy codes play in climate change — and the archaic condition of most state codes.

Arizona could save energy ratepayers in the state $23 billion over 30 years, according to DOE. That’s the equivalent of $8,600 per household.

The state also could cut building emissions by 253 million metric tons in that period. That’s the equivalent of removing 2 million gasoline-powered cars from the road.

Arizona ranks first in projected savings and reductions — both in total and per-capita numbers — in part because its building energy code is more than 14 years old. The code is one of the oldest in the United States.

“Energy codes are pretty behind the times,” said Cherylyn Kelley, manager of building energy codes and policy at the Institute for Market Transformation, a nonprofit focused on building improvement. “There’s an immense amount of opportunity for states to update.”

DOE is offering Arizona $10.5 million — one of the largest state allocations — to help develop, implement and enforce a new energy code. Every state is eligible for several million dollars under a $400-million DOE energy-codes program created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

A DOE spokesperson said states with older energy codes such as Arizona will see “more efficiency savings” by adopting a new code. States with newer energy codes such as Massachusetts “will see less incremental savings,” the spokesperson said in an email.

Massachusetts is projected to save just $284 million through a code update. That move also would reduce building emissions by 1 million metric tons over 30 years.

The Inflation Reduction Act along with the bipartisan infrastructure law created several programs aimed at improving state energy codes and reducing building emissions. Buildings produce 30 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, according to EPA.

“It’s unprecedented. It’s an immense amount of money,” Kelley said of the Biden administration's efforts to address climate change through building code updates.

Yet the funding comes amid growing resistance to improving energy codes and other building standards.

The Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature in August blocked an effort by Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper to strengthen the state’s energy codes. In June, U.S. House Republicans sought to defundthe new DOE energy-code program.

“It’s a pretty political process,” Kelley said, noting that home builders have lobbied effectively against updated codes in some state legislatures.

DOE records show that in 24 states, the building energy code for residential buildings was written before 2010. Twelve states use pre-2010 codes for commercial buildings.

Homes built under new energy codes are 40 percent more efficient than homes built under codes written 15 years ago, DOE says.

States typically adopt model energy codes written by large nonprofit groups. The International Code Council writes the code for residential buildings. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, known as ASHRAE, writes energy codes for commercial buildings.

Both organizations produce new codes every three years. But U.S. states are slow to adopt the updates.

Only five states have the most up-to-date residential codes, published in 2021, according to DOE. Ten states have up-to-date commercial codes.

In addition, eight states do not have a statewide energy code, which leaves any requirements to counties and municipalities.

“It costs money and time to update to new codes,” Kelley said. “There are additional costs with adhering with new codes and getting the workforce up to date.”

The DOE created a formula based in part on population and potential savings to determine how much money each state can receive from the new grant program.

The allocations range from $3.7 million for Montana to nearly $18 million for California.

But states must apply to collect their share, which raises the possibility that some will forgo their allocation. States may apply over the next two years.

E&E News reported recently that several states had not bothered to apply for millions of dollars of guaranteed funding from a federal program that helps build climate resilience.

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has spurned tens of millions of dollars is new federal funding from several programs to improve energy efficiency and develop renewable energy sources. DeSantis is seeking the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

DOE’s state-by-state data on emissions reductions and energy savings aim in part to encourage states to apply for their share of the $400 million.

“It’s extremely useful data, and it helps a lot to have something to point to,” Kelley said. “DOE has done everything in their power to provide a carrot.”

realliveplumber

Hot_water_fan said:

There’s informed people on both sides 

There may be informed people, but they do not have experience or expertise.

Hot_water_fan

There may be informed people, but they do not have experience or expertise.

Not a single one? The Caleffi folks have no expertise or experience? 

ChrisJ

Jamie Hall

As I said somewhere above, I expect that, in time, much (but not all) of the desired transition to more genuinely clean, environmentally sound electricity will take place. In time. Had we started 50 or 60 years ago, when the possibilities of large scale clean electricity began to be clear (anyone remember Reddy Kilowatt? Or does that date me too badly) and had we followed up on all the available technology, none of this would be an issue.

That hasn't happened.

That said, what doesn't help -- at all -- is that there is presently a tendency to make sweeping predictions of disaster followed by poorly thought out mandates -- at least some of which simply don't make sense. This tendency just doesn't help at all getting us to where we need to be -- in fact, probably makes getting there much harder than it needs to be.

That's what bothers me.