As advocates celebrate the New York City Council vote to pursue an electrification ordinance in the city, New Yorkers should be wary. The move to ban the use of affordable and reliable natural gas when constructing new businesses and residential buildings will have massive impacts on energy costs and grid stability.
Forced Electrification Means Higher Costs
Proponents of electrification in New York have cited the need to reduce emissions as a key reason for the new mandate, but it doesn’t consider how that electricity is generated.
Currently, New York’s electricity comes from a mix of natural gas power plants, nuclear, hydropower, and renewables. The resulting increase in electricity demand will only increase the need for natural gas for electricity generation that will be then be sold to consumers at nearly four times the cost of using natural gas directly in buildings.
New Yorkers already pay 40 percent above the national average for electricity, and that cost is especially pronounced if you live in NYC’s older and less energy-efficient buildings. A preliminary analysis of data from NYC’s Department of Buildings shows that more than half of the city’s buildings receive a C or D rating for energy efficiency.
There is a better way to lower emissions than with unnecessary mandates – after all, NYC has already made steady progress to improve building efficiency and the overall health of its buildings. NYC’s Energy and Water Use 2017 Report found the incorporation of natural gas reduced carbon emissions in the city’s largest buildings by 14 percent, decreased their overall energy use by 10 percent, and, in nearly the same timeframe, reduced soot levels by 18 percent and winter sulfur dioxide levels by 84 percent.
The sheer number of homes that would need building efficiency improvements is daunting. According to a cost-benefit analysis of the state-level climate plan, NYC alone would have to retrofit more than 31,000 buildings a year with energy-efficient shells – 85 buildings every day – for the next 29 years if they want their buildings to be energy efficient by 2050.
Families in New York saved an average of $15.7 billion thanks to natural gas, but any savings from improved energy efficiency and energy-efficient building shells would evaporate thanks to increased electricity costs. And while policymakers argue about who would pay for the building upgrades, it‘s clear residents won’t benefit financially.
Faulty Assumptions
Proponents calling this a victory have paraded around a number of faulty assumptions to support their position.
A repeated claim is that electrification will improve air quality, but the stated findings are biased interpretations of the studies, funded in part by their own organizations. For instance, a recent Catalyst Environmental Solutions report found a UCLA Fielding School of Public Health and Sierra Club-funded study on natural gas cooking effects on indoor air quality “mischaracterizes emissions from gas stoves while advocating for an expensive and burdensome transition to all-electric.” Advocates casually cite the report but ignore its finding that indoor air quality is affected more by the act of cooking, than the cooking fuel.
Source: ACEEE
And by risking energy affordability, policymakers can jeopardize the health of residents. In 2016, New York State set a target that low-income New Yorkers should pay no more than 6 percent of their income towards energy bills. But the City of New York’s 2019 analysis found that close to half a million low-income families in NYC are paying more than that.
As electricity bills climb with electrification, chipping away at household pocketbooks, more people are likely to keep their homes at unsafe temperatures, forgo medicine, or skip meals. The 2019 analysis acknowledges that:
“Being unable to afford energy bills can lead to chronic stress and trigger anxiety and depression. Sacrificing comfortable home temperatures can exacerbate asthma symptoms and other chronic health conditions, thus posing additional health risks. Additionally, energy unaffordability can damage credit and even lead to housing insecurity, forcing families to undergo disruptive relocations.”
Grid Uncertainty
Electrification advocates see New York’s push to decarbonize electricity as the key enabler for all-electric households. But the overreliance on the grid is a risk.
The New York Independent System Operator report released this December anticipates rising challenges from higher demand and delays in planned projects in the 2021-2030 period. Any delay in planned transmission projects would impact the grid’s ability to meet power demand, threatening reliability to consumers in New York City starting in 2023.
The city is adopting the measure before the state legislature can complete the impact assessment and stakeholder feedback on a wider draft electrification plan. What is astounding is the fact that state officials haven’t measured the cost yet and have deflected, stating that they are incapable of articulating the costs because there’s no specific plan about who would bear them.
Any cost-benefit measured now relies on the projects being completed on time and on budget. A rarity for New York construction projects.
Conclusion
New York City policymakers have put the cart before the horse, passing the mandate before a cost analysis could be completed or a firm plan is in place. Residents will see higher electricity bills, pushed by rising demand and poor planning. As appliances age and are mandated to be replaced with electric, more residents will stay with inefficient appliances to save money, contemplating a transition, if/when their building is upgraded. And if cost concerns and reliability is not addressed, NYC is risking the health of its residents with energy poverty.
Advocates will celebrate today as a win, but New Yorkers will have to live this reality.
