Hi, There are already many restrictions on our properties in Lincoln. I would personally like to maintain my property rights that I have left and not have others dictate what I can do and not do with my property or should I decide to sell it. That would limit the value of our properties, and for some of us that is a huge piece of our retirement. And who will decide what is an appropriate cause for a larger than three bedroom home? Likely the people who already have larger than three bedroom homes and the people pushing this agenda. I hope that people in the town will think carefully before putting any more restrictions here in the town of Lincoln. It is a lovely town and I have lived here for close to 30 years, and I would like to live here a lot longer. I treasure the rights that I do have.
Respectfully, Cookie Martin On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 12:23 PM Richard Panetta <richardpane...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why not also see if we can strict sizes of homes. Why does anyone need a 3 > car garage, more than 2.5 baths or 4000+ sq ft homes. > Why not see if we can require a special permit where they have to show > cause for such excess? > > This would accomplish two fold, reduce carbon footprints and reduce > housing costs this making homes less affordable > > Also haven’t we learned from past mistakes it works better when we ask for > the residents input before we ask the State for something? > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 12:16 PM Bob Kupperstein <bobk...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> You make the argument that any changes Lincoln makes would have a >> miniscule impact, but Lincoln (and the US, for that matter) are unwilling >> to make any small sacrifices for the common good, then how can we expect >> communities/nations that can have a big impact to make sacrifices for our >> sake? >> >> Your consistently libertarian mindset (little 'L'?) seems to >> virtually always prioritize personal choice over common good. That seems >> to leave little to discuss. >> >> And, yes, our brilliant minds and new technologies *may* come up with >> solutions down the line, but how much will be lost in the meantime? >> Island nations covered by rising seas; US cities being flooded; many >> species going extinct (forever); extreme weather events causing loss of >> life and property; etc., etc. Pretty minor in comparison to all of those >> things, but surely a symbolic local instance we can all relate to: the >> lobsters have left Connecticut and Long Island, are becoming rare in Mass. >> and are even disappearing in Maine. But, we'll figure something out? >> >> As for *why ask the legislature* before having community discussions - >> we could go back and forth on that forever, it's a chicken/egg situation. >> Why not find out if it's even possible, and if it is, then we can have >> meaningful dialog. Either way, everyone will have a chance to have their >> say. >> >> -Bob >> >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 11:56 AM Dennis Liu <bigheadden...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I neglected to address the other parts of Belinda’s questions. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Belinda wrote: >”** If I were building a new home I would want it to >>> be as air tight and well insulated as possible so that my energy bills for >>> heating would be minuscule. Who wouldn’t want a Passive House >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house> with minimal heating bills? >>> Should we be allowed to build inefficient houses because we haven’t heard >>> about better options?”* >>> >>> >>> >>> Ah, well, here’s the thing. “Who wouldn’t want X”? Indeed; here’s >>> another way to think about questions of that sort. *IF everyone wants >>> X, then we would not need a LAW that MANDATES X*. By virtue of having >>> to pass a law that forces people to choose X shows that there must be some >>> significant subset of people that would not want X. >>> >>> >>> >>> For the record, I built our house in 2011. I looked at passive houses >>> then, and while it had a lot of appeal to me, I ended up building something >>> that is very energy efficient, but not quite as efficient as a full, >>> certified passive house would have been. Why not? The return on >>> investment wasn’t there. >>> >>> >>> >>> As I repeat, over and over *ad nauseam*, pretty much everything in life >>> has a cost/benefit analysis. Residential solar power is great! At a >>> certain price level! It’s often the Pareto principle at work ( >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle). When I was building >>> my house, I could achieve 80% of the benefit of a passive house at 20% of >>> the upgrade cost. It would have cost a lot more for a much smaller, >>> diminished improvement in efficiency. This is the same reasoning all of us >>> apply to all aspects of life! >>> >>> >>> >>> We want to go out to dinner one night; cool. Most of the time, most of >>> us will go out to a local-ish restaurant with good-to-great food, at mostly >>> reasonable prices. We could spend 3x the price, or go 3x the distance, and >>> have a better meal – and sometimes we do! – but most of the time we do >>> not. That’s because each of us is willing to spend $X for dinner out – >>> we’ve done the cost/benefit analysis for dinner *that night*. The same >>> can be said when we buy a Prius or Tesla Model 3 instead of a Tesla Plaid >>> or Lucid Air. When we fly basic or standard economy instead of business >>> class or 1st class. We can achieve the goal of arriving in Chicago or >>> Atlanta (at the same time!) for $194 instead of $495. >>> >>> >>> >>> [As a pure aside, if you’re concerned about COVID and similar airborne >>> pathogens being transmitted among residents in multi-family dwellings built >>> to passive house standards, it can be mitigated, but it’s complex and incur >>> more expense; see: >>> https://www.swinter.com/party-walls/designing-for-a-post-covid-world-with-passive-house/ >>> ] >>> >>> >>> >>> *Belinda also inquired re my stance on leaky gas infrastructure: > “Is >>> Gas a right? Massachusetts has very leaky natural gas infrastructure >>> contributing to global warming and not even heating our houses. It would >>> cost enormous amounts of money to repair even the major leaks and new leaks >>> are forming all the time. If we could all switch to electric homes we >>> wouldn’t need all the leaky infrastructure. I certainly don’t want to pay >>> for a leaky gas infrastructure. I want the government to legislate it >>> away!” [Citations below in original]* >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes, new leaks in natural gas pipelines do form from time to time. This >>> is another example of the Pareto Principle. Could we have completely >>> invulnerable, perfectly sealed gas infrastructure? Sure, of course. It >>> would just cost a lot, lot more money. Just as how we can have completely >>> reliable, unassailable electricity supplied to our house – if we’re willing >>> to spend $$$$$ to make it happen. >>> >>> >>> >>> Here’s the thing that will make many Lincolnites cringe – gas leaks are >>> not a big deal. (“GAHHH, no he did NOT say that!!! To the pitchforks and >>> torches!!!”) Yes, of course, I would hate living near a detectable gas >>> leak. Yes, of course, I would very much like not to have my house (or >>> neighborhood) explode! But, as in all things in life, there are risks >>> associated with everything. I would also like my house (and neighborhood) >>> to not burn down in an uncontrolled wildfire. Or blown apart by a tornado >>> or hurricane, or washed into the sea, or destroyed by a mudslide, or >>> flooded by the Mississippi. But we still build houses in fire-prone areas >>> and earthquake zones and on the shore. Because each of us has made a >>> trade-off! >>> >>> >>> >>> And this is a trade-off with natural gas. We are willing to endure the >>> cost of small leaks in the infrastructure, so that we may enjoy the benefit >>> of affordable natural gas heating. Yes, we can collectively do a better >>> job of making sure that externalities are not forced upon the unlucky few, >>> but we are never going to have a gas infrastructure that will be 100% >>> leakproof. For those that don’t want to take the risk, they can always use >>> electricity or propane (both of which come with risk too). >>> >>> >>> >>> Oh, and as for the effect on climate change from gas leaks? I wrote >>> this in January (in response to Belinda!): >>> >>> >>> >>> >From the cited study (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c04707) >>> itself: "For our methane emission measurements, we scaled our measurements >>> to calculate the total amount of methane emitted from stoves overall, >>> employing the usage patterns reported by Chan et al. and Zhao et al. >>> (18,28) (see the Materials and Methods section). We estimated that an >>> average stove (burners plus oven) emitted 649 [95% CI: 427, 949] g CH4 >>> year–1" >>> >>> >>> >>> *>So, 649 grams (or 1.43 pounds) of methane emitted by a stove per year >>> (from both in use and when not in use). Is that . . . a lot? Is that . . >>> . dangerous? One would think all of these news stories would provide this >>> context, right??* >>> >>> >>> >>> *>Google tells me that a single cow produces 220 pounds of methane per >>> year. That means that a gas stove produces about 0.65% of the methane a >>> cow does.* >>> >>> >>> >>> >There are about 94.8 million cows in the US, and 43.4 million gas >>> stoves/cooktops/ovens. Which means, overall in the United States per year, >>> all gas appliances produce about 0.3% of the methane that cows do. >>> >>> >>> >>> >Which is not intended to diminish the fact that, yes, anything that >>> uses natural gas will generate methane - including those natural gas plants >>> that generate the electricity used for electric appliances. Also, we >>> should keep in mind, "According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), >>> about 40 percent of total >>> >>> global methane emissions occur naturally from sources such as wetlands, >>> geologic seepage, permafrost, and animal secretions. The remaining 60 >>> percent of global methane emissions are anthropogenic (man-made), and the >>> largest portion of these come from agricultural production such as raising >>> >>> livestock and rice production. Fossil fuel production, transportation, >>> and use account for approximately 20 percent (~113 million metric tons) of >>> total global methane emissions, and emissions attributable to gas power are >>> about 3% (17 million metric tons) of the global total." >>> >>> >>> >>> >Having said all of this, I cannot emphasize enough how much of a fan of >>> induction cooktops I am. I will never use conventional electric cooktops >>> again, and I would even switch from gas to induction when economically >>> appropriate. Induction is that awesome -- its faster than gas, can be more >>> controllable, and WAY, WAY, WAY easier to keep clean. >>> >>> >>> >>> Vty, >>> >>> >>> >>> --Dennis >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Belinda Gingrich <belinda.gingr...@gmail.com> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 15, 2022 6:33 PM >>> *To:* Dennis Liu <bigheadden...@gmail.com> >>> *Cc:* lincoln@lincolntalk.org >>> *Subject:* Re: [LincolnTalk] Forcing Lincoln to ban use of gas and oil >>> at home? RE: Webinars regarding Citizen's Petition for Town meeting >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Dennis, >>> >>> What would you do to solve the climate crisis? You give well thought out >>> ideas and it would be interesting to hear your proposals. >>> >>> >>> >>> India and China may be producing more greenhouse gases, as they are >>> supporting a few more people, but should we do nothing? What ideas to you >>> have for Lincoln to do? >>> >>> >>> >>> If I were building a new home I would want it to be as air tight and >>> well insulated as possible so that my energy bills for heating would be >>> minuscule. Who wouldn’t want a Passive House >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house> with minimal heating >>> bills? Should we be allowed to build inefficient houses because we haven’t >>> heard about better options? >>> >>> >>> >>> Is Gas a right? Massachusetts has very leaky natural gas infrastructure >>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/10/25/methane-leaks-natural-gas-boston/> >>> contributing >>> to global warming and not even heating our houses. It would cost enormous >>> amounts of money to repair even the major leaks and new leaks are forming >>> all the time. If we could all switch to electric homes we wouldn’t need all >>> the leaky infrastructure. I certainly don’t want to pay for a leaky gas >>> infrastructure. I want the government to legislate it away! >>> >>> >>> https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/10/25/methane-emissions-natural-gas-massachusetts-climate-change >>> >>> >>> >>> There are options. Propane tanks are an option for people who have a >>> leaky old house that needs back-up heat, for people who want a generator >>> because of trees falling on electric lines (not to mention squirrels >>> causing havoc), and for people who must have gas cooktops despite the >>> health warnings. This seems a good libertarian option that doesn’t depend >>> on a central infrastructure that everyone needs to buy into. Just my 2 >>> cents about a centralized gas system. >>> >>> >>> >>> Warm regards, >>> >>> Belinda >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mar 15, 2022, at 3:07 PM, Dennis Liu <bigheadden...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Forgive me as I once again touch the third rail here, but a few >>> questions for consideration. >>> >>> >>> >>> A Lincoln environmental group is asking Town Meeting to petition the >>> state legislature to grant the town the right to ban the installation of >>> gas and oil for new buildings. Stephanie Smoot asked the question, >>> effectively, why was this submitted with short notice and not much >>> investigation or discussion? Trish O’Hagan responded, effectively, this is >>> a TWO-STEP process, and that once the first step is completed (successfully >>> petitioning the legislature), THEN Lincoln can conduct that investigation >>> and debate. >>> >>> >>> >>> To which I ask . . . why not have that investigation and debate NOW? If >>> this is something that the green energy committee CAN convince the majority >>> of townsfolks to support, THEN go ahead with the petition process? >>> Especially since that petition is likely to succeed, so the discussion will >>> need to be had anyway. What’s the benefit of doing it in this order? >>> >>> >>> >>> Perhaps doing it this way makes it EASIER for the proponents to achieve >>> their goal? >>> >>> >>> >>> My $0.02: I am a HUGE fan of induction cooking, preferring it to gas >>> cooking (with electric resistance cooking a very distant third). Electric >>> dryers work just fine, and any operating cost differential over gas dryers >>> is minimal, if not actually cheaper). I do prefer, however, our tankless >>> propane(gas) water heater. And if I were to build a new home, I’d strongly >>> consider an electric heat pump system, but given our climate, would at the >>> least have to supplement that with propane, gas, oil or electric >>> resistance. Who cares, though, what that fool Dennis thinks? What’s >>> critical is that this is just **MY** preference, **MY** choice. >>> >>> >>> >>> As a (small-L) libertarian, I’m very hesitant to **force** my choices >>> on other people. I think folks should be free to determine for themselves >>> what they want and do not want to do. If someone wants to buy bottled >>> water, or use canvas grocery tote bags, or drive a Tesla, or recycle >>> plastic, or use a plastic straw, then let them do there thing. I’m all for >>> personal or group efforts to INFORM people, or PERSUADE people, but passing >>> legislation on all that? Ugh. >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes, I acknowledge that climate change is a “collective-action” >>> problem. But for a rule like this one . . . I will stand athwart the >>> arrows and point out that this is, effectively, a **signal**. And also >>> a way for the proverbial camel to stick its nose into the tent. >>> >>> >>> >>> Why? Because the total number of **NEW** buildings in Lincoln over the >>> next, say, decade, will be, what? 15? 30? How much actual GLOBAL IMPACT >>> ON CLIMATE CHANGE will there be as a result of 30 or 40 new buildings >>> running heat pumps instead of gas/propane/oil? My calculator doesn’t have >>> that many places to the right of the decimal. >>> >>> >>> >>> No, even for argument’s sake, the only real impact would be to **force** >>> **current** homeowners to make the switch. What’s the best path to >>> that, from those who would advocate such a change? Start by moving the >>> Overton window, and make the change on new construction. That’s a >>> reasonable path forward – *if* you’re in agreement with the end goal. >>> >>> >>> >>> Keep in mind, though, sadly, that none of matters **in the practical >>> sense** because the greenhouse emissions coming out of China, India and >>> other massively populated countries pulling their citizenry out of gross >>> poverty completely and utterly overwhelms whatever savings might be >>> achieved by forcing local townsfolks to making expensive switches to heat >>> pumps. >>> >>> >>> >>> And do keep in mind that heat pumps, in using electricity available in >>> Lincoln, like electric vehicles, are still consuming electricity from >>> fossil fuels (albeit with lower collective emissions). >>> >>> >>> >>> AND also keep in mind that even with subsidies, heat pumps are still >>> costing **all of us** real money – those subsidies are coming either >>> out of the pockets of taxpayers or rate payers or gas/oil/propane >>> customers. TANSTAAFL. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thus – my suggestion is that if this is something that the people of >>> Lincoln should real consider doing, then please have the debate, fully >>> informed, NOW, rather than later. >>> >>> >>> >>> See also: the Boston Globe, “Massachusetts should be converting 100,000 >>> homes a year to electric heat. The actual number: 461” from August 2021, >>> the full text posted below. >>> https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/08/21/science/massachusetts-should-be-converting-100000-homes-year-electric-heat-actual-number-461/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Vty, >>> >>> >>> >>> --Dennis >>> >>> >>> >>> *Massachusetts should be converting 100,000 homes a year to electric >>> heat. The actual number: 461* >>> >>> *By Sabrina Shankman >>> <https://12ft.io/proxy?ref=&q=https://www.bostonglobe.com/about/staff-list/staff/sabrina-shankman/?p1=Article_Byline>* >>> Globe Staff, >>> >>> Updated August 21, 2021, 2:36 p.m. >>> >>> When Massachusetts officials look into the not-so-distant future of >>> 2030, they see 1 million homes across the state comfortably heated and >>> cooled by sleek, efficient heat pumps, their old oil- and gas-burning >>> systems — and the climate-warming emissions they spewed — relegated to the >>> scrap heap. >>> >>> But they are woefully behind pace to reach that lofty goal, and the more >>> time that passes without an urgent response, the further out of reach it >>> gets. >>> >>> According to the state’s own plan >>> <https://www.mass.gov/doc/building-sector-technical-report/download>, >>> Massachusetts should be converting 100,000 homes a year from fossil fuels >>> to electricity for heating and cooling. The reality is much different: Just >>> 461 homes made the switch last year, according to data reviewed by the >>> Globe. >>> >>> “We are nine years from 2030, and we have barely begun to scratch the >>> surface in terms of what we’re doing and where we need to be going,” said >>> Eugenia Gibbons, Massachusetts climate policy director for Healthcare >>> Without Harm. “We need to be doing more, faster. The world is burning — I >>> don’t know how else to say it.” >>> >>> Nearly one third >>> <https://www.mass.gov/doc/building-sector-technical-report/download> of >>> Massachusetts’ emissions come from its more than 2 million buildings. >>> The state says eliminating those emissions by shifting to electrical >>> sources — and replacing fossil fuel energy generation with renewable >>> sources, such as wind, hydro-power, and solar — is critical to achieving >>> net zero emissions in time to do the most good. Between 2021 and 2030, the >>> state >>> estimates >>> <https://www.mass.gov/doc/interim-clean-energy-and-climate-plan-for-2030-december-30-2020/download>, >>> about 1 million residential heating systems will come to the end of their >>> service lives — each a fossil fuel system that could be replaced by one >>> using electricity. >>> >>> Heat pumps, which use electricity to heat and cool buildings, are the >>> best tools for electrifying homes, according to the state’s Clean >>> Energy and Climate for 2030 >>> <https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-clean-energy-and-climate-plan-for-2030> >>> plan. >>> Yet clean energy experts and advocates say there are several roadblocks >>> to widespread adoption, including high costs, lack of confidence by >>> consumers, and ignorance of the technology among many heating contractors. >>> >>> One of the biggest may be the state’s own energy efficiency program, >>> Mass Save. The program, which is funded by a surcharge on utility bills and >>> run by utility companies including gas providers, offers rebates to >>> homeowners for purchasing certain energy efficient equipment. While Mass >>> Save purports to support the state’s climate goals, advocates say it fails >>> to support full home electrification, and in some cases, appears to even >>> actively discourage it. >>> >>> As the recent UN climate report <https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/> made >>> abundantly clear, the time for action is running out. The planet has >>> already warmed by roughly 1.1 degrees Celsius since the 19th century, and >>> as this summer of extreme weather catastrophes has shown, even this amount >>> of warming comes with dire consequences. No matter how quickly we ramp up >>> climate measures, the planet is going to get even warmer, the UN panel >>> said; how much warmer will be determined by the steps taken now to stop >>> greenhouse gas emissions — specifically, by quitting fossil fuels. >>> >>> Unlike many other states and even countries, Massachusetts has a law on >>> the books requiring the state to get to net-zero emissions by 2050. But >>> setting a goal and achieving it are two different things, and failure to >>> ramp up now could lead to a chaotic rush down the road — or make the goal >>> impossible to reach. >>> >>> “We’re off by orders of magnitude from where we’re going to need to get >>> to,” said Cameron Peterson, director of clean energy for the Metropolitan >>> Area Planning Council. >>> >>> At Mass Save, the reluctance is hiding in plain sight. Some homeowners >>> said contractors affiliated with Mass Save dissuaded them from removing >>> their fossil fuel systems and going all-electric. >>> >>> Moreover, the list >>> <https://www.masssave.com/saving/residential-rebates/electric-heating-and-cooling/heat-pump-qualified-list> >>> of >>> heat pumps that qualify for Mass Save rebates includes equipment that is >>> not specifically designed for cold climates. And even the 2021 form >>> <https://www.masssave.com/-/media/Files/PDFs/Save/Residential/Central_AC_and_Heat_Pump_Rebate_Form.pdf?la=en&hash=FF90FEE79E9BCD2B13FCEF3AB8E40100D07F78B3&hash=FF90FEE79E9BCD2B13FCEF3AB8E40100D07F78B3> >>> that >>> homeowners must fill out for a rebate on heat pumps includes this note: >>> “The Sponsors of Mass Save do not recommend fully displacing existing >>> central heating system with heat pump equipment.” >>> >>> Of the 461 full-electric conversions in 2020, fewer than half were >>> facilitated by Mass Save. The rest came from programs sponsored by the >>> Massachusetts Clean Energy Center and the Department of Energy Resources. >>> Both departments have offered programs that help homeowners purchase heat >>> pumps. Though there may have been some additional electric conversions >>> that year, experts in the field said that number is likely to be small. >>> >>> Critics who have been watching the slow progress in Massachusetts are >>> coming to the conclusion that, in its current form, the Mass Save program, >>> which for 20 years has been effective at increasing energy efficiency, >>> may no longer be the best vehicle now that the program’s directive is >>> shifting to helping fight the climate crisis. >>> >>> “It’s difficult to build new imperatives onto old programs,” said Matt >>> Rusteika, who leads the buildings initiative at Acadia Center, a clean >>> energy advocacy organization. >>> >>> While the utilities behind Mass Save say they support the state’s >>> decarbonization plan, Chris Porter, the director of customer energy >>> management for National Grid in New England, stressed that the current 2030 >>> plan is still in draft form, and that in National Grid’s opinion, the >>> best path forward may not be complete electrification. >>> >>> “Our perspective is that there are multiple potential pathways to >>> achieving the goal, which is decarbonization, and achieving the targets >>> laid out in the climate act,” said Porter. “There is still work to be done >>> in order to determine what the optimal, lowest-cost path to achieving that >>> outcome is.” >>> >>> Instead, Porter said, so-called renewable fuels such as hydrogen and >>> renewable natural gas, which he said could deliver lower-carbon fuels via >>> existing infrastructure, could play a role in the state’s future. >>> >>> Both of those options are fraught. Critics say >>> <https://earthjustice.org/features/report-building-decarbonization> that >>> renewable natural gas, composed mainly of methane made from recaptured >>> carbon or organic material like compost, likely doesn’t exist at the scale >>> needed, and studies have found that gas leaks would still contribute to >>> climate warming >>> <https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9335/meta>. >>> Meanwhile hydrogen currently is made from methane, and climate-friendlier >>> versions are still in development while also being called out >>> <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ese3.956> recently in >>> a scientific journal as potentially as bad or worse than fossil fuels. >>> >>> A state official said the 2030 climate plan remains in draft form >>> mainly to incorporate the more rigorous carbon-cutting goals of the >>> Massachusetts law. As a result, any changes would likely step up the >>> ambitions for electrification, not reduce them. >>> >>> The current and proposed incentives in the Mass Save program offer >>> rebates to homeowners heating with oil or propane to purchase heat pumps, >>> but not to owners with gas systems. Mass Save says this is for financial >>> reasons: Heat pumps are expensive. While oil and propane customers can >>> expect to experience savings, gas customers could see their bills rise >>> slightly, and Mass Save has historically functioned first and foremost to >>> save customers money while increasing their energy efficiency. >>> >>> But converting oil and propane customers alone will not get the state to >>> 1 million electrified homes by 2030. Currently in Massachusetts, 750,000 >>> homes are heated with oil or propane. To reach the goal, that means at >>> least 250,000 gas customers must make the switch, too. >>> >>> Some residents said that as they sought to convert their homes off of >>> fossil fuels, contractors, including those associated with Mass Save’s >>> energy audit program, told them that heat pumps alone could not heat a home >>> adequately through a Massachusetts winter. >>> >>> Rusteika saw this firsthand when he converted his own home to heat >>> pumps. “I had five contractors here, and only one advised against a full >>> replacement” of his fossil fuel system, he said. “That was the Mass Save >>> partner.” >>> >>> Across the state, homeowners have said that as they sought to convert >>> their homes off of fossil fuels, they were told by contractors that it >>> could not be done because of the cold winters in Massachusetts. That’s >>> simply not true, according to several experts in the field. >>> >>> “Certainly, we know that whole building electrification can work in >>> Massachusetts,” said Jeremy Koo, an associate at Cadmus, a technical and >>> strategic consulting company that helped the state develop some of its >>> climate plans and which helps implement heat pump programs across the >>> region. >>> >>> Unlike older models of heat pumps, which earned a reputation in the >>> 1990s for failing to adequately heat homes, modern, cold-climate heat pumps >>> can function in temperatures as low as negative 13 degrees. But while some >>> contractors have embraced the new technology, the idea that heat pumps are >>> ineffective lingers. >>> >>> Ben Butterworth, a Melrose homeowner and the senior manager for Climate >>> and Energy Analysis at Acadia Center, said that out the five contractors he >>> spoke with, only one was comfortable fully converting his oil-burning >>> heating system to heat pumps. Because he works in the field and is well >>> versed in the technology, he knew to look around for a more amenable >>> contractor >>> to help him make the switch. But others might be more likely to take the >>> first contractor’s advice and keep a fossil fuel system for backup. >>> >>> Out in the field, Dan Zamagni, the director of operations for New >>> England Ductless, said his company has installed several whole-home heat >>> pumps, and has full confidence that they can do the job. >>> >>> “I think that with a trained eye and the right situation, you can make >>> anything work,” said Zamagni. “These systems are becoming more and more >>> efficient.” >>> >>> For many homeowners, the high costs of installation and operation can >>> represent another big hurdle. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for >>> heat pumps, so different kinds of equipment are needed depending on the >>> specifics of an individual building. Installation costs can have a huge >>> range. A whole-home heat pump program run by the Massachusetts Clean Energy >>> Center found an average project cost of $21,479, which was higher than >>> expected, the program’s director, Meg Howard, noted in a blog. >>> >>> “I am hopeful that this cost premium will shrink as installers become >>> more accustomed to designing whole home heat pump configurations,” she >>> wrote >>> <https://www.masscec.com/blog/2020/09/29/september-whole-home-heat-pump-pilot-update-still-time-apply> >>> . >>> >>> Once heat pumps are up and running, homeowners who were previously on >>> oil or propane can expect their monthly bills to decrease. While homes >>> previously heating with gas might see a slight increase in the cold months, >>> the annual bills are likely to even out because of savings from air >>> conditioning, Rusteika said. >>> >>> Of course a lot of this depends on the house, according to the >>> Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, an energy-efficiency nonprofit. >>> Homeowners who weatherize their homes before getting estimates will find >>> they save on both installation and operating costs, while a drafty home is >>> going to end up costing more. >>> >>> For oil and propane users making the switch to heat pumps, Mass Save >>> rebates can add up to as much as $6,250 in savings for the average sized >>> home, according to the Acadia Center. >>> >>> By any metric, the rate of heat pump installations is behind. The vast >>> majority of heat pumps are installed in homes where they will supplement >>> existing oil, gas, or propane systems, not replace them outright. And in >>> 2020, the Mass Save program helped install just 3,300 heat pumps, far short >>> even of its own goal of 15,000 a year. >>> >>> Now, a state-run board that oversees the program, the Energy Efficiency >>> Advisory Council, is pushing the utilities behind Mass Save to go further. >>> The council says the program should up its goal to 120,000 heat pumps >>> installed between 2021 and 2024, or 40,000 a year. But there’s no clear >>> goal around how many buildings would be fully electrified in that process, >>> and it remains to be seen whether Mass Save will ultimately adopt the >>> council’s goal. >>> >>> Installing heat pumps but keeping a fossil fuel system as a backup helps >>> decrease greenhouse emissions, and can lead to increased consumer >>> confidence in the technology, making homeowners more likely to fully >>> electrify in the future, several experts said. >>> >>> But there’s a downside, too. “Keeping in fossil fuel equipment has >>> ramifications not just on how far the state gets towards its emissions >>> targets, but also has implications for the infrastructure that’s in place >>> to continue supporting fossil fuel delivery,” said Koo, of Cadmus. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Lincoln <lincoln-boun...@lincolntalk.org> *On Behalf Of *Trish >>> O'Hagan >>> *Sent:* Saturday, March 12, 2022 3:03 PM >>> *To:* lincoln@lincolntalk.org >>> *Subject:* Re: [LincolnTalk] Webinars regarding Citizen's Petition for >>> Town meeting >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Stephanie, >>> >>> Thanks so much for your interest in the webinar. Hopefully you will join >>> us this week as we all share ideas and learn together about electrification >>> of buildings as a way to combat the climate emergency. >>> >>> To be clear, the Citizen's petition, if passed, would simply ask >>> the legislature to give Lincoln the option to require new construction to >>> be all electric. At that time, Lincoln could begin a robust discussion >>> about what works best for our town and would require a vote at a town >>> meeting in the future. >>> >>> I hope this helps clear up some of your concerns. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Trish O'Hagan >>> >>> Lincoln Mothers Out Front >>> >>> >>> >>> On 03/12/2022 1:39 PM Stephanie Smoot <stephanieesm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> There is so much to know about impacts of this proposed proposition- >>> I'm very suprised that *days before the meeting such significant >>> legislation is being proposed*. Especially how it impacts costs to >>> Lincoln Residents. None of this has been studied in any depth and data on >>> our current NetZero buildings such as the expensive all-electric new school >>> is unconfirmed-are we comfortable in them and are they affordable to run? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Its important to note that *none of the towns mentioned* (Acton Concord >>> Lexington) have actually passed such initiatives and there is already a >>> NetZero stretch code proposed state-wide. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> *Stephanie Smoot* >>> >>> >>> >>> 857 368-9175 work >>> >>> 781 941-6842 personal cell >>> >>> *617 595-5217* work cell >>> >>> 126 Chestnut Circle >>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/126+Chestnut+Circle+%C2%A0+Lincoln,+MA+01773?entry=gmail&source=g> >>> >>> >>> Lincoln, MA 01773 >>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/126+Chestnut+Circle+%C2%A0+Lincoln,+MA+01773?entry=gmail&source=g> >>> >>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/126+Chestnut+Circle+%C2%A0+Lincoln,+MA+01773?entry=gmail&source=g> >>> >>> >>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/126+Chestnut+Circle+%C2%A0+Lincoln,+MA+01773?entry=gmail&source=g> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> >>> >>> Virus-free. www.avg.com >>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 10:06 AM Trish O'Hagan <pmok...@comcast.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> *Citizen’s Petition — Restrict Fossil Fuel Systems in New Buildings* >>> Related to climate change advocacy, a group of residents is asking Town >>> Meeting to support a petition to the state legislature that would require >>> new construction be all-electric for heating, cooling, and indoor cooking. >>> Lincoln would join other towns who similarly have petitioned the state. >>> The changes are necessary to help achieve the statewide reductions in >>> greenhouse gas emissions nset in the climate act signed in March 2021. >>> Learn more at Zoom meetings on Monday 3/14, 7-8pm, and Thursday, 3/17, >>> 3-4pm (links below), or call Trish O’Hagan (781-248-5657) or Paul Shorb >>> (617-543-5590) with questions. Additional information will also be posted >>> at https://www.lincolngreenenergy.org/. >>> >>> - Time: Mar 14, 2022 07:00 PM >>> >>> https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82072433671 >>> >>> Meeting ID: 820 7243 3671 >>> >>> >>> >>> - Mar 17, 2022 03:00 PM >>> >>> https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81095315671 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >>> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. >>> Browse the archives at >>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >>> Change your subscription settings at >>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >>> >>> -- >>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >>> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. >>> Browse the archives at >>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >>> Change your subscription settings at >>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >>> >>> >>> >> -- >>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >>> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. >>> Browse the archives at >>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >>> Change your subscription settings at >>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >>> >>> -- >> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. >> Browse the archives at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >> Change your subscription settings at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >> >> -- > The LincolnTalk mailing list. > To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. > Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. > Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ > . > Change your subscription settings at > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. > >
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
