Pushed off till 2028, but still here

As a Massachusetts homeowner, engineer, and concerned inhabitant of a warming planet, I'll venture to make a few comments.

As an engineer, I've read the science, and it's clear that human-generated greenhouse gases are warming the planet (in general, though some local effects vary). It's also clear that there may be other mechanisms like methane release from warming permafrost that can amplify/accelerate the warming trend. But while the rate and ultimate severity of warming is difficult to predict, the fact that it's happening now, and what the root causes are, aren't seriously debatable.

What is debatable is what should we do about it, who pays for it, and what are reasonable costs for governments to levy on citizens. We will all have different answers to those questions depending on our points of view, financial situation, etc.

In my case here in MA, our 100-year-old 4-unit condo building burns oil for heat. A few years ago I looked into converting our boilers to gas, but some of the price quotes I got were ridiculous. I finally gave up. In retrospect that was fortunate, because last winter natural gas prices in eastern MA rose sharply as utilities tried to recoup the costs of upgrading aging delivery infrastructure. So we still burn oil, about 1200 gallons per year.

I also looked into converting to hydronic heat pumps. Our original cast iron radiators would be ideal for heating the building with low-temperature (120 degree) water heated by air-to-water heat pump. I contacted a local heat pump expert and was told that such a conversion would probably cost somewhere in the $50k-$100k range as a rough ballpark. As we are a condo association with 4 owners, most of whom do not have a clear idea how long they will be here, a potential $25k hit for an energy conversion of dubious payback is a non-starter. So until the cost of air-to-water heat pumps comes down drastically, this is not an economically feasible option.

@DCContrarian generously offered to run some numbers on potential heat pump energy savings for us, and I can find that post now, but as I recall, his numbers showed only a few hundred dollars per year potential cost savings. So not only would the conversion cost be astronomical, the payback in cost savings would be minimal.

So I understand people's frustration with "mandates" geared towards shifting to heat pumps. In some areas it does seem to make sense. Maine is adopting residential heat pumps at record rates, and they have incentives that both lower the cost of conversion and lower the cost of the electricity to run them. So Maybe Maine has figured out a reasonable system that other states could learn from.

Here in Massachusetts, as I understand it, the Clean Heat standard would not force homeowners like us to convert to heat pumps. Rather, it would require energy providers (like our oil company) to "earn" clean heat credits by weatherizing/insulating homes, installing heat pumps for homeowners who want them, etc. And yes, energy companies who don't earn enough credits would likely be taxed, with the additional cost passed on to consumers who continue to burn oil and gas.

So we would probably end up paying more for our heating oil, as we have no economical way to convert to heat pumps. Then the question is, what is a reasonable tax amount, and who should pay it? I recognize that our oil consumption, and my gas-burning car, are heating the atmosphere in a way that's likely to severly impact future generations. Unfortunately I can't convert to less impactful heating and driving systems right now, so I'm willing to pay a reasonable tax that would incentivize/help others to make that conversion. What is a reasonable tax, and who should be required to pay it, are reasonable questions that different people will answer differently.

You brought up two different issues. Is it cold in Maine? Yes. Can heat pumps work efficiently in cold climates? Yes. Norway is leading the world in heat pump adoption, because they work and save energy.

"

“The reason we have big growth is that it works,” said Rolf Iver Mytting Hagemoen, head of lobby group the Norwegian Heat Pump Association. “If you have lots of customers who have complaints and bad experiences with heat pumps, they will tell all their neighbours it doesn’t work.”

The second issue you mention is availability and repair. That's a fair question for any heating system. No one wants to buy a heating system, whether it's a heat pump or a mod/con gas boiler, where parts aren't available and/or difficult to repair. Presumably the people in Maine and Norway buying heat pumps are buying ones from well-established dealers that have good supply chains and parts are available. If I were buying a heat pump, that's what I'd do.

Don't like heat pumps? Don't buy one. MA is not going to be forcing you or me to buy a heat pump. What they probably will do is levy a tax on fossil fuels to subsidize and incentive program to encourage people to buy heat pumps where it makes sense to switch.

As I already said, we can't afford to do a building-wide heat pump conversion, and even if we could, it wouldn't be cost-effective. So yes, there are cases where heat pump conversions don't make sense. But don't misprepresent what the MA Clean Heat program does. It's not forcing people to switch to heat pumps. It's taxing fossil fuels to incentivize consumers to switch to heat pumps where they make sense.

Energy, like everything else, is going to cost more. Probably. Envirowhacko s will continue to make life harsher.

I don't know what the status of the HP is.

We get a fair number of complaints here from people who have installed them and are unhappy

Yet others say they will work down to below 0

Maybe these installed systems are poorly done (the complainers)

All I know is the colder it gets the less HP output you get and that they then spend time defrosting and running electric heat.

Also, the discharge air temp is low and that becomes more noticeable the colder it gets outside.

People with warm air heat complain about cold air blowing on them when the air is below 110 F or so.

It's fair to question what is the right level of taxation to promote energy efficiency and conservation. That debate is certainly happening here in MA, where last winter's drastic increase in natural gas prices caused a public outcry.

We currently have a statewide program called Mass Save that basically taxes natural gas and electricity and uses the proceeds to give rebates to consumers and contractors who install insulation, better windows, and more efficient heating systems. On average, the Mass Save "tax" costs the average residential customer about $500/year, or about $40/month.

Most people I know are not going to "go broke" from a $40/mo Mass Save average "tax." I do know some people who are just scraping by, for whom an extra $40/mo cost is not trivial, and I am sympathetic. On the benefit side, low income people can get virtually free energy upgrades from Mass Save like insulation, air sealing, LED bulbs, and upgraded thermostats that can save them money on their heating bills.

But it's pretty clear from Gov. Healey's delay on implementing the new Clean Heat program that she understands another energy tax is going to be unpopular with many MA residents, regardless of its benefits, real or imagined.