Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: GOP’s fundraiser featuring Sen. Kennedy pulling in big bucks
Next Post: Rate the ISP’s road rage radio ad
Posted in:
* Illinois Policy Institute…
The Chicago City Council is considering an ordinance that would effectively ban the use of natural gas in most new buildings, potentially doubling heating costs.
The Clean and Affordable Buildings ordinance introduced by Ald. Maria Hadden, D-49th Ward, would establish a lower emissions threshold for energy sources in new buildings, essentially prohibiting the future use of natural gas.
Proponents of the ordinance argue the lower threshold plays a key role in slashing emissions and reducing high gas bills in Chicago, while keeping environmental policy in line with other major cities.
Citizens Utility Board Executive Director Sarah Moskowitz said Chicagoans could save between $11,000 and $24,000 over 20 years by making their homes entirely electric.
But Peoples Gas, the natural gas utility serving the city, said making Chicagoans use all-electric heat could cost them double what they would pay for natural gas, and still increase emissions because of limited output from renewables.
* This is what Peoples Gas said in full…
The concerns expressed this week by aldermen, union workers, and business leaders are accurate. This proposed ordinance would increase costs and risk reliability for everyone, especially during the coldest days of the year like Chicago has been seeing.
Let’s look at the facts. It costs up to $75,000 to convert a Chicago home to all-electric. On top of that expense, forcing homes to rely on all-electric heat would cost Chicagoans two times more than natural gas.
Further, Chicago may see emissions go up under this plan. The grid that powers Chicago uses coal and natural gas to keep the lights on. Renewable energy accounts for less than 4% on any given day.
1) The city ordinance is about new construction, not conversion.
2) Most of Chicago’s electricity comes from nuclear power. The renewables number may not be accurate, either.
3) The Citizens Utility Board disagrees with PG’s cost argument…
This is just fear-mongering from a utility, Peoples Gas, that is trying to protect a 6-year string of record profits and distract us from the fact that their greed has rendered gas bills unaffordable for huge numbers of Chicagoans. Gas bills are so expensive that about one in five customers are struggling in debt and could face disconnection. Heating fuel that is unaffordable is, by definition, unreliable.
This is why it’s imperative to begin the transition to more affordable, reliable, cleaner energy sources for our homes and workplaces, and the Clean and Affordable Buildings Ordinance (CABO) represents a manageable first step in that direction. CABO would cover new construction only–and multiple studies show that all-electric buildings are cheaper to build and maintain than those with gas.
It’s ridiculous for Peoples Gas to assert that the emissions standards for new construction that CABO envisions wouldn’t help move us toward the climate goals that both the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago have embraced. Burning gas in our homes threatens our health, our climate and our bottom lines. We need strong policies like CABO to initiate a thoughtful, managed transition toward better options.
* Heather Cherone at WTTW…
The ordinance would set an indoor emissions standard that natural gas appliances cannot comply with, requiring all-electric heat and appliances to be installed in new construction. The proposal would not require exsiting homes and businesses to install electric appliances, Hadden said.
The change is designed to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in newly built structures, reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions and fighting climate change. Nearly 70% of total citywide greenhouse gas emissions come from buildings in Chicago. […]
New hospitals, research laboratories, emergency backup power generators and commercial cooking equipment would be exempt from the requirements, according to the proposal. […]
A 2022 analysis paid for by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that Chicagoans could save roughly $11,000 to $24,000 during a 20-year period by replacing natural gas appliances with all-electric stoves and furnaces.
That study is here. The proposed ordinance is here.
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 11:52 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: GOP’s fundraiser featuring Sen. Kennedy pulling in big bucks
Next Post: Rate the ISP’s road rage radio ad
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I can’t think of a less pressing issue, frankly, especially with the migrant crisis and everything else going on in the city. Picking this fight now and handing a talking point to MAGA/Fox News doesn’t make much sense
Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 11:58 am
Every minute of the council should be devoted to economic opportunity for every citizen of chicago and public safety (with some effort on migrant solutions). Job creation for every neighborhood in the city should dominate the council.
Comment by This Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 12:06 pm
Makes perfect sense for new construction. It also indirectly encourages developers to aim for higher LEED standards by doing things such as installing rooftop solar on their buildings.
Interestingly, there is also no longer a code allowance for building a coal chute in a residential building today.
Because there are better, safer, and cleaner options.
At one point, ‘light bulbs’ were made of fire too. Yet there isn’t a single person alive today who wants their house to have individually contained balls of fire illuminating the inside of their homes.
I understand people are afraid of change, but I guarantee you anyone who goes into a house using all electric and spends time doing the daily chores of life will absolutely not want to go back to any other way. Getting people to experience it for themselves is the biggest hurdle.
And for those who want to complain heat pumps don’t work this far north - yes they do. Ground-source heat pumps work wonderfully well here even at 50 below zero and would be trivial to include in the cost of a new building.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 12:16 pm
I am with @Joe Bidenopolous . Are we just looking for things to waste time on now? \
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 12:17 pm
So I’m to understand that the natural gas structure remains in place everywhere for the distant future, but we’re cutting off access to new homeowners?
This now makes the Gaza resolution the second dumbest thing this council has done recently.
Comment by Jocko Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 12:17 pm
My house is in an all electric neighborhood of 500 homes, all with heat pumps. Heat pumps are simple to operate, essentially a central air conditioner that can also work in reverse. It is quite efficient, works well even in minus 10 weather, has been affordable for us, and is basically no more expensive than central air in a new or retrofit install in a forced air home. I can’t speak to the costs for a drafty older home or conversion of steam systems, but for new homes it is a no brainer.
Comment by thechampaignlife Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 12:20 pm
Incredible range from the IPI team of experts. Who’s guiding policy on utilities the guy who didn’t know a GOP fundraiser was a partisan event?
Comment by Sonny Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 12:22 pm
::Renewable energy accounts for less than 4% on any given day::
From the Energy Information Administration: “In 2022, renewable energy accounted for 14% of Illinois’ total in-state electricity generation, more than triple the amount generated a decade earlier”
https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=IL#:~:text=Natural%20gas%2Dfired%20power%20plants,%25%20of%20in%2Dstate%20generation.
With that said: the City Council could help reduce emissions a lot more by just getting the CTA to work properly. If the trains ran on time, fewer people would drive
Comment by Senator Clay Davis Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 12:31 pm
It’s interesting that a significant amount of the savings comes from not having to pay the monthly base customer charge. In other words, the marginal cost of the first btu is the monthly customer charge plus the fuel with nat. gas but with electricity it’s just the next watt-hour.
Comment by MikeMacD Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 12:33 pm
===In 2022===
As you’ll see later today or tomorrow, that number is higher now.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 12:34 pm
I worked in real estate development for a while. All our new projects were designed as electric-only; we realized that we could use solar panels to make our own electricity, but we couldn’t make our own natural gas. And since our buildings rented with all utilities included, that was a significant cost savings, even before the environmental benefit.
Anyhow, from my past experience, I’m inclined to believe the proponents of this bill, rather than the opponents.
Comment by Benjamin Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 12:43 pm
If all electric is cheaper to build and maintain as the study states and electric is cheaper in the long run for customers, why the need for an ordinance? Wouldn’t builders and customers be doing this already?
Comment by Jed Bartlett Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 12:52 pm
The renewable energy transition numbers are all over the map.
The Capitol News Illinois story that was posted here on the blog yesterday reported this:
“…the Illinois Power Agency – which handles energy procurement for the state’s utilities – reports that the state is lagging far behind its goals. In its current long-term plan for renewable purchasing, which was published in May, the agency projected that by the 2025 delivery year, only 8.1 percent of electricity will come from sources that qualify as renewable under state law…..The federal Energy Information Administration, which uses a slightly different method to calculate its figures, reports that 15.4 percent of Illinois’ electricity generation came from renewables in October.”
One is almost twice as high as the other, so I’m not sure it’s accurate that they’re using “slightly different” methods.
The state is supposed to be at 25 percent renewable generation next year. So even the more generous federal assessment shows we’re well behind schedule.
Comment by TNR Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 1:00 pm
@Jed Bartlett, not necessarily. There are a number of people, including myself, that prefer gas stoves over electric. To the point we would be willing to pay more if a place offered it.
Comment by Former Downstater Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 1:07 pm
Why doesn’t the ordinance include restaurants and hospitals?
How much longer are we going to continue to watch CUB shill for ComEd?
ComEd/Exelon hasn’t had record profits? CUB signed off on the billion-dollar agreements that scored ComEd insane profits?
https://www.wbez.org/stories/how-an-illinois-utility-watchdog-got-millions-from-utilities/213c3251-0461-4b18-8188-6d204ef2a08d
Comment by Frida's boss Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 1:08 pm
::The renewable energy transition numbers are all over the map.::
EIA assesses electricity produced in-state, IPA’s numbers refer to electricity use in-state. IL is a big exporter of power.
Comment by Senator Clay Davis Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 1:42 pm
Lots of self-interested fun with numbers here. I don’t believe a word Peoples Gas utters about this and a study from the Natural Resources Defense Council is hardly an unbiased assessment of the situation.
My sympathies lean toward the Green side on this, but I do have concerns about whether the electric grid can handle all the demand that would be created by off-loading gas heating and appliances. The ordinance only applies to new construction, so that alone certainly won’t overwhelm the grid. But the much needed electrification of transportation is coming, too. Decarbonizing generation while simultaneously super-sizing electrical demand is tough. It will be a long, long time before the grid can manage it all. And what happens if 25 years from now hydrogen is the cheapest and most efficient way to heat buildings?
@Jed Bartlett might be on to something with his suggestion that we should let the market decide.
Comment by Telly Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 2:08 pm
=Decarbonizing generation while simultaneously super-sizing electrical demand is tough.=
EIA Data shows in 1991 Illinois generated up to 33,000 megawatts of electricity in the summer. 15.2 of that from coal.
In 2022 Illinois generated up to 44,000 megawatts of electricity in the summer. 6.8 of that from coal.
The state has grown generation, moved from the dirtiest of the possible fuels, and we are in a much more energy efficient environment. The shift has been underway since CFL bulbs curly cued their way into your home.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 2:49 pm
As somebody who believes strongly in the energy transition, I don’t want the government telling me what kind of stove I can have in my house or apartment. I like gas for my stove. I like gas for my barbecue grill. I like gas for my fire table. I do not trust ComEd as far as I can throw them. And I remember the past well enough to remember what electricity price spikes were like. I do not want an all electric house and I don’t want City of Chicago telling me I must have one.
On a separate issue, this is a guaranteed loser for Democrats in general elections. It’s just more of the nanny state telling people what they can, and can’t do in their own homes and private lives. And I’m an activist Democrat.
Comment by New Day Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 2:58 pm
Kinda messy, but also from EIA data releases for 2022 in Illinois. Important to always keep in mind differences between capacity and generation, as well as dispatchability, when comparing fuels.
“State Historical Tables for 2022
Released: September 2023
Next Update: October 2024″
YEAR STATE TYPE OF PRODUCER ENERGY SOURCE GENERATION (Megawatthours)
2022 IL Total Electric Power Industry Total 185,223,322
2022 IL Total Electric Power Industry Coal 40,559,217
2022 IL Total Electric Power Industry Hydroelectric Conventional 115,235
2022 IL Total Electric Power Industry Natural Gas 19,789,290
2022 IL Total Electric Power Industry Nuclear 98,869,581
2022 IL Total Electric Power Industry Other Gases 264,574
2022 IL Total Electric Power Industry Other 262,966
2022 IL Total Electric Power Industry Petroleum 37,579
2022 IL Total Electric Power Industry Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic 1,548,365
2022 IL Total Electric Power Industry Other Biomass 282,709
2022 IL Total Electric Power Industry Wind 23,493,806
2022 IL Total Electric Power Industry Wood and Wood Derived Fuels 0
Comment by Anon221 Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 3:27 pm
===Important to always keep in mind===
…that these numbers are two years old.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 3:31 pm
====I can’t think of a less pressing issue, frankly,
Then you aren’t thinking. Moving away from fossil fuels is critical to political, economic, and climate stability. There is no need for gas in new construction and we should be moving away from it immediately. Many of these migrants are fleeing places facing increasing pressures from climate and political instability and it will get worse. We should have done this 20 years ago.
Comment by ArchPundit Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 4:29 pm
- Cool Papa Bell -
Thanks for the link. Yes, coal generation went from 15.2 to 6.8, but it looks like natural gas generation in Illinois increased from 1,023 to 16,846 megawatts between 1991 and 2022. So a lot of the net generation increase you site is coming from fossil fuel generation. In fact, if my math is right, a higher percentage of our generation came from coal and gas combined in 2022 than it did in 1991.
I’m tempted to say “I rest my case.” But I don’t want to be argumentative.
Look, I am pro-energy transition. I think it’s one of the most important issues we face. But the transition is going to take time — longer than we want to believe. We might have to rely on natural gas longer than we’d like to — at least it’s cleaner than coal.
Comment by Telly Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 4:29 pm
===But the transition is going to take time
Okay, so why not ban new construction? Building a house now with gas makes no sense. Yes, we are going to have to transition current gas houses, but that is what can happen over time. And we are about to get a good start with great incentives from IRA.
Comment by ArchPundit Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 4:45 pm
–I like gas for my stove. I like gas for my barbecue grill.–
Can you describe, either objectively or subjectively, how food cooks differently depending on the initial source of the Joules of energy used.
Unrelated, do you remember that PR campaign in the 80s, including constant TV and radio commercials, where the gas company convinced people that water heated with gas actually felt better than water heated with electricity.
Good times.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Jan 25, 24 @ 5:01 pm