# NYC eventual gas ban



## Keystone (Dec 27, 2021)

NYC's new gas ban highlights market growth needs for building transitions
					

Awareness, market development and worker training must scale up now that the largest U.S city is blocking gas hookups in future building construction.




					www.constructiondive.com
				





Dive Brief:​
The New York City Council made major climate headlines last week when it voted to gradually ban gas hookups in new buildings over the coming years. While other state and local governments, including in California and Washington, have enacted similar policies, New York City’s ban stands out given the city's sheer size, East Coast location and cold climate.
As the city seeks carbon neutrality by 2050, the bill was designed to decrease emissions from burning gas in buildings, which account for around 70% of New York City's greenhouse gas emissions. It also lays out requirements for the city to study the use of heat pump technology and, separately, the impact of the bill on the city’s electrical grid. Provisions will begin taking effect starting in about two years, with rolling implementation timelines by building height and based on whether a building includes affordable housing.
When considering the impact of the city's action, "calling New York City a city, of course, doesn't do it justice given the amount of building square footage there is" compared to many states, said Russell Unger, a principal at the non-profit Rocky Mountain Institute. "We haven't had a major cold jurisdiction do that," said Unger.

SPONSORED by Modular Building Institute
Interested in modular construction?
The industry's best event is back. Four days of in-depth education. Register today for the 2022 World of Modular.
Register Today
Dive Insight:​While critics of building electrification policies worry about the transition’s potential harm to housing affordability, advocates see the built environment as a critical battleground for achieving climate goals. Advocates for change also highlight the negative health impacts and air pollution that stem from burning gas. The bill passed last week, led by main sponsor Council Member Alicka Ampry-Samuel, was largely championed by environmental justice organizations.
Banning natural gas hookups in new buildings is poised to prompt the adoption of electric appliances such as heat pumps and induction stoves at a wider scale. 
But such a transition will require providing workers with the skill set needed to implement newer tech in buildings. Other sectors that are actively cutting fossil fuel reliance face similar challenges. Across the U.S., “there's a recognition that there's a tremendous amount of workforce development that has to happen,” said New Buildings Institute Communications Director Stacey Hobart. “But the planning for that and [figuring out] how to train this many people is still sort of nascent.”
Particularly in influential jurisdictions like New York City, the impact of these sorts of regulatory decisions may extend much further. As contractors get more and more experience with electric technologies, they'll likely recommend those options more to customers, leading to broader awareness among the general public, Unger said. And as for building owners, "when it comes time to replace existing equipment, they're going to be thinking twice before using fossil fuel equipment, just looking ahead to where policy's going."
Unger said that while many buildings in New York City and in North America have already begun implementing electric heat pumps to heat or cool spaces, they're less commonly used for water. And while there's precedent for adoption in smaller buildings, there's less experience using them in large buildings, Unger said — like the skyscrapers in New York. 
While cities have driven much of the momentum for building electrification policies, state and federal leaders have also contributed to the wave of change and acknowledged the need for market development.
New York state lawmakers are considering a bill that would require new buildings statewide to adopt electric power starting in 2024. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul announced on Monday a $30 million initiative to ***** demand and capacity for decarbonized homes by establishing a network of builders and developers committed to carbon-neutral construction. Those professionals would further provide training and technical support to others in the field wanting to advance the single-family carbon-neutral housing market, the announcement said.
On Tuesday, three city and state agencies announced an industry competition for heating and cooling equipment manufacturers to "develop a new electrification product that can better serve the needs of existing multifamily buildings and hasten the transition to fossil-free heating sources." The New York City Housing Authority, New York Power Authority, and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority say they will invest more than $263 million in the challenge. Still, amid the push for electrification, there are examples of utilities pursuing "greener" natural gas infrastructure.
The Biden administration this month announced it’s ordering federal agencies to slash greenhouse gas emissions from existing buildings in half over the next decade and to be carbon-neutral by 2045. As for new buildings, the administration intends to set "the first-ever Federal Building Performance Standard" and a "Buy Clean" task force will make recommendations on lower-emissions construction materials. The administration earlier also this year committed $30 million to workforce initiatives meant to train people to construct and maintain "high-performance buildings" that implement clean energy technologies.
Follow Maria Rachal on Twitter


----------



## Paul Sweet (Dec 27, 2021)

ConEd must be behind this.  It's easier said than done.  Retrofitting heat pumps in existing buildings heated by fossil fuels usually requires replacing the electric service(s) with a much larger one.  The energy code will probably require some way for apartment residents to bear the cost of their own electric usage, rather than having a central plant . This will require replacing the main panel in every unit.  A lot of older apartment buildings are heated by steam or hot water, and don't have the ductwork for heat pumps. You also have to get rid of the condensate.


----------



## Beniah Naylor (Dec 27, 2021)

Also wonder what that will do to the plumbing industry in NYC, if there is no new gas lines to run.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 27, 2021)

Paul Sweet said:


> ConEd must be behind this


Ya think?








						New York approves Con Edison's proposed $800 million power line projects
					

The projects, which the state Public Service Commission said represent an $800 million investment, would maintain and improve reliability and allow several fossil fuel-fired power plants to retire.  The projects include transmission from New York neighborhoods Rainey to Corona, Gowanus to...




					news.yahoo.com
				












						Con Ed Wants State to Allow It to Own Large Scale Solar and Wind Farms
					

Con Edison doesn't own a production farm in its own state.




					www.ny1.com


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 27, 2021)

I wonder if you will still be able to use oil, coal or wood in NYC?


----------



## bill1952 (Dec 27, 2021)

As I read it, it is just new buildings, so gas is not going away; nor is any fossil fuel as far as I can tell.  Good start to reducing carbon.  A nationwide ban would be a good next step.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 27, 2021)

bill1952 said:


> A nationwide ban would be a good next step.


No it would not be a good next step, control maybe, a ban absolutely not. Plants need it to produce oxygen so life can exist. If the CO2 level gets below 150 ppm then the plants die and so will everything else.


----------



## bill1952 (Dec 27, 2021)

mtlogcabin said:


> No it would not be a good next step, control maybe, a ban absolutely not. Plants need it to produce oxygen so life can exist. If the CO2 level gets below 150 ppm then the plants die and so will everything else.


Sure seems like plants grew fine and maybe better before man started burning fossil fuels like there was no tomorrow and pumping carbon into the atmosphere.


----------



## e hilton (Dec 27, 2021)

Hope there’s an out-clause if the studies determine it’s not practical.   Oh, wait … politicians don’t have to be concerned with minor details like that.  

_ It also lays out requirements for the city to study the use of heat pump technology and, separately, the impact of the bill on the city’s electrical grid._


----------



## bill1952 (Dec 27, 2021)

Is it better to not do anything except burn more fossils fuel?


----------



## e hilton (Dec 27, 2021)

bill1952 said:


> Is it better to not do anything except burn more fossils fuel?


Hmm.  I guess the electricity used to replace gas heat comes from … a magic source?  That’s why all-electric cars are so awesome … free electricity for recharging from a non-polluting source.


----------



## bill1952 (Dec 28, 2021)

Yes, the plan includes increasing electricity generation from renewable sources.  I think we're around 20% in US now and 30% globally.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 28, 2021)

Wind and solar are not reliable as Australia and Texas have proven. Hydro and nuclear seem to be the ones that are the better choices to reduce CO2 IMHO because they are reliable but that is just me. On a separate subject I wonder how well electric vehicles will work when a mandatory evacuation is required for a hurricane along a coastal area. 250 to 300 mile ranges if they are fully charged just does not seem to be enough if fleeing some areas.


----------



## e hilton (Dec 28, 2021)

bill1952 said:


> Yes, the plan includes increasing electricity generation from renewable sources.


Serious question … not being controversial …

What sources of renewable energy are available for power generation?   Nuclear?  No.   Fossil?  No.  Hydro?   Yes, but only regionally.  Wind?   Not practical for nyc.  Solar?   Sure … in daylight and sunny days.  Wood burning?


----------



## e hilton (Dec 28, 2021)

Mtlog … i didn’t mean to copy you, you just typed faster.


----------



## bill1952 (Dec 28, 2021)

mtlogcabin said:


> Wind and solar are not reliable as Australia and Texas have proven. Hydro and nuclear seem to be the ones that are the better choices to reduce CO2 IMHO because they are reliable but that is just me. On a separate subject I wonder how well electric vehicles will work when a mandatory evacuation is required for a hurricane along a coastal area. 250 to 300 mile ranges if they are fully charged just does not seem to be enough if fleeing some areas.
> View attachment 8449


Better to skip electrical vehicles and assure all coastal areas are underwater and have to be evacuated? Yes, reversing the growth of fossil fuel use is going to be f...ing difficult and downright onerous.  And maybe I shouldn't care because I'll be dead before too much inconvenience and tragedy from continued and increasing use of fossil fuels but I do.


----------



## tbz (Dec 28, 2021)

bill1952 said:


> Better to skip electrical vehicles and assure all coastal areas are underwater and have to be evacuated? Yes, reversing the growth of fossil fuel use is going to be f...ing difficult and downright onerous.  And maybe I shouldn't care because I'll be dead before too much inconvenience and tragedy from continued and increasing use of fossil fuels but I do.


Wind and Solar will never replace or even become viable to reduce coal or gas until the devices those annoying humans keep wanting are no longer wanted or used.

And when you populate in high density, these alternative means become even less an option.

Off grid living shows a viable model, but what percentage of people will or want to live in this manner?

As to electric vehicles, were do all the batteries go?  

And all this great technology for electric based living is based on other rare earth metals, so aren't we just substituting one hole for another hole?

I don't have an answer, but substituting one element for another that comes from the ground, is it not the same thing with a different name?


----------



## bill1952 (Dec 28, 2021)

No, I don't think it's the same. One require combustion and putting carbon in the air.

Better nuke is probably a longer term answer, but solar, winds, hydro, and tidal should help in shorter term, in combination with cleaner storage.  And better energy efficiency.  

But burning fossile fuel in every building and vehicle is not a solution so the sooner it's rate of increase is slowed, the better.  And slowing it just increases the pressure - and incentive - to solve the problems.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 28, 2021)

I think the various politicians are moving faster than technology or the various industries can develop or produce what they are mandating by law. Not one one climate change prediction (computer model) about how we are running out of time and some serious climate change will destroy us has ever been correct. Heck computer models can't even predict an accurate hurricane path after 12 hours or less how can anybody think they can predict what the earths climate will be like in 50 or 100 years from now. Remember Murphy's Law  http://www.murphys-laws.com/murphy/murphy-technology.html

Just a few of them as they relate to climate change

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.   _(in other words politicians)_
New systems generate new problems.
Every solution breeds new problems.
Enough research will tend to support whatever theory.
Research supports a specific theory depending on the amount of funds dedicated to it.


----------



## bill1952 (Dec 28, 2021)

So are you denying the level of the oceans is rising?  Some clever witicism to dismiss that fact?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 28, 2021)

I am denying that it is an imminent threat as predicted by many "scientist". Just 30 and 40 years ago they said NY city would be underwater by now. I am  saying 40 years ago it was Chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs causing ozone layer depletion and destroying life. Today it is CO2 levels is the latest catastrophe in politics and the news. Scientific Consensus is only a judgment or opinion of scientist in a particular field. It is not a settled scientific fact and consensus can and will change over time as more is learned. Remember it was a consensus of "scientist" at the time that believed the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Can man change the weather? No. Can we be good Stewart's of this planet? Yes. Man has come a long way in cleaning up the environment and the damage we have done and there is still a long way to go. We still have lots time to do it right the first time. I remember the sign on the dash of my dads semi. "The hurrier I go the be hinder I get". Just like building a building first you have a plan and then you build it one brick at a time.
The only plan I have seen is CO2 is bad get rid of fossil fuels. That is a demolition plan not a building plan.


----------



## Msradell (Dec 28, 2021)

bill1952 said:


> So are you denying the level of the oceans is rising?  Some clever witicism to dismiss that fact?


I'm not denying that any sense of the word but I am questioning that caught for it. As stated elsewhere in this thread 30-40 years ago it was something else causing the changes in the atmosphere. We got rid of that and guess what? Scientists found something else to get rid of. Once we get rid of fossil fuels I'm sure they will find something else. Many studies are shown that over the millenniums the earth has had many fluctuations in global temperature going up and going down. We can't stop at until we know the true cause which I don't believe anybody has proven.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Dec 29, 2021)

Sea level has been rising a foot or so per century ever since the glaciers that once extended to NYC started receding.  Rising CO2 levels may be increasing the rate of rise, but did not cause it.  Many of our coastal cities were founded over 300 years ago.  What was a reasonable distance above sea level then is no longer adequate.

I think that fossil fuel use will decline as more and better renewable sources are developed, but it will take a few decades to make the transition.  Premature government regulation might lock in an available technology and make it more difficult to replace it when a better technology comes along.


----------



## tbz (Dec 29, 2021)

bill1952 said:


> So are you denying the level of the oceans is rising?  Some clever witicism to dismiss that fact?


Bill, if history and archaeology have taught us anything, it is that the earth's oceans and landmasses have changed over time and nothing anyone does will change that.

I am not saying it's ok to pollute and dump just anything, but enacting fixed methods to push over to a technology that can't be supplied at the currently levels needed without turning out the lights on rolling blackouts already, seems like a loosing battle unless you own stock in it, I guess.

Would it not be simpler to just halt any new buildings be allowed to be constructed over the current footprint and square footage they are already at.  Thus stopping the growth of any need of more supply and limit demand?  If they can't build bigger or may be not allowed to build anything larger that uses more resources than the existing, thus establishing a goal post for reduction in the numbers, while building larger in the high density of the asphalt jungles.

But to think sticking a fixed energy source will solve the issue, not having an efficient supply solution already in place, well just another money grab in my book, history will see it, probably none of us.


----------



## ICE (Dec 29, 2021)

There is an industry tied to climate change.  The solar industry is one facet and it is mostly populated with get rich quick entrepreneurs.  The government slush funds drew them in.  The players are good at furthering their objectives and once it became a cause celebre we were doomed.

In the not too distant future, a large portion of the PV that has been installed will begin to fail.  As fossil fuel wanes and solar takes over we will reach a point of no return....solar will crap out and the lights will go out.

Scoffers tell me that I am wrong about the demise of solar.  There is after all a twenty year warranty.  The stuff is light gauge aluminum on a roof.  The Sun will kill it just like it kills everything else.  I have witnessed how it is put together and it’s not good.  Every array has bare copper ground wire in contact with the aluminum module frames and aluminum racking.  Not one fastener was torqued and the expansion of aluminum on a roof is a concern.  It goes together like IKEA furniture…..nobody reads the directions and there’s parts left over.

Battery powered cars are another boondoggle.  I can obtain fuel for my Tundra with little inconvenience.  My brother-in-law relies on Edison to charge his Tesla battery.  I have choices and there is a marketplace that determines the cost of gasoline.  Edison is a monopoly. Of course my brother-in-law can get juiced from his Tesla solar array….for now.  So he’s $150k into a fancy car and solar on his roof and somehow it made financial sense.

The proponents of climate change have studied the bugaboo from my youth…Acid Rain.  People figured out that it was a scare tactic.  So this time around a softer alarm bell has been rung….and after all, isn’t the climate always changing….who can deny that?

The knee jerk reactions by politicians is awful.  Eliminating natural gas is shortsighted at best and criminal at worst.  Killing the Gas Company and handing the spoils to Edison will hurt.  What are the unintended consequences?…and rest assured there will be some.  Whole industries will disappear and be supplanted by new, largely uncharted territory.  How many fires are caused by residential natural gas systems…how about fires from faulty electrical?  Where will the copper be sourced…not the USA.  What will become of a few trillion solar panels.…the many trillions of lithium batteries.

Statistics are suspect….statisticians claim that the US is responsible for 14% of the global warming emissions.  Next is China at 28% with the rest of the Earth’s inhabitants contributing 56% (the statistician was a women).  How is it that the USA will bear 100% of the grief for 14% of the problem.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Dec 30, 2021)

"Statistics are suspect….statisticians claim that the US is responsible for 14% of the global warming emissions.  Next is China at 28% with the rest of the Earth’s inhabitants contributing 56% (the statistician was a women).  How is it that the USA will bear 100% of the grief for 14% of the problem."

Because it is politically correct to blame all the world's problems on the USA.


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 30, 2021)

Paul Sweet said:


> "Statistics are suspect….statisticians claim that the US is responsible for 14% of the global warming emissions.  Next is China at 28% with the rest of the Earth’s inhabitants contributing 56% (the statistician was a women).  How is it that the USA will bear 100% of the grief for 14% of the problem."
> 
> Because it is politically correct to blame all the world's problems on the USA.


I never herd of blaming USA for all the worlds problems.



			https://slate.com/technology/2021/05/germany-renewable-energy-energiewende-feed-in-tariffs-nuclear.html


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 30, 2021)

And Germanies average electrical rates are 3 times higher than ours
Germany electricity prices​
Germany electricity prices*Household, kWh*​*Business, kWh*​ Euro0.320​0.210​ U.S. Dollar0.363​0.238​
Germany, March 2021: The price of electricity is 0.363 U.S. Dollar per kWh for households and 0.238 U.S. Dollar for businesses which includes all components of the electricity bill such as the cost of power, distribution and taxes. For comparison, the average price of electricity in the world for that period is 0.136 U.S. Dollar per kWh for households and 0.124 U.S. Dollar for businesses. We calculate several data points at various levels of electricity consumption for both households and businesses but on the chart we show only two data points. For *households*, the displayed number is calculated at the average annual level of household electricity consumption. For *businesses*, the displayed data point uses 1,000,000 kWh annual consumption.









						If Renewables Are So Cheap Why Is Germany’s Electricity So Expensive? - American Experiment
					

Renewable energy advocates like to say we should be a lot more like Germany when it comes to generating more electricity from wind and solar. This argument often goes like this: "Wind and solar are already less expensive than fossil fuels, and greedy corporations are the only reason we don't...




					www.americanexperiment.org
				



The renewables surcharge now accounts for just over 23 percent of a household’s electricity bill. It corresponds to the difference between the wholesale price and the higher, fixed price for green energy, which is guaranteed by law to renewable power producers for 20 years. Grid operators pass on the difference to consumers.


----------



## dancinbear (Jan 4, 2022)

Since the end of the last ice age approximately 10,000 years ago the earth's oceans have risen roughly *200 feet! *So the average rise has been about 2 feet every 100 years for the last 10,000 years. The earth has been through many cycles of glaciation and warming. The activities of mankind may have a measurable effect, but are tiny compared to the forces of nature that caused our current warming cycle and will dictate the start of the next ice age.


----------



## bill1952 (Jan 7, 2022)

Governor and legislature promising to extend ban on fossil fuel heating and hot water in new construction to all of NYS.  Trying to out-California California. https://www.eenews.net/articles/n-y-governor-backs-nations-first-statewide-gas-ban/


----------

