How do they decide which states get what? Some of the richest states in the country get a huge chunk of the funds to give grants to people for installing new heat pumps? Mass already has some of...
How do they decide which states get what?
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Maine will get a total of $450 million to accelerate adoption of cold-climate heat pumps and water heaters.
Some of the richest states in the country get a huge chunk of the funds to give grants to people for installing new heat pumps? Mass already has some of the best grants in the country for heatpump adoption, why not give these funds to other states to help improve their HVAC infrastructure?
The EPA's priority is not to help people afford heating, but to reduce carbon emissions. It seems likely that they selected these states because they would translate to the greatest reduction in...
The EPA's priority is not to help people afford heating, but to reduce carbon emissions. It seems likely that they selected these states because they would translate to the greatest reduction in emissions per dollar.
If the goal were to help people pay for heating, rather than address climate change, it would be a different agency distributing the funds.
These states are already among the most energy efficient as well, states with the lowest energy efficiency also happen to be the poorest. It seems like it would be much better to invest in states...
These states are already among the most energy efficient as well, states with the lowest energy efficiency also happen to be the poorest. It seems like it would be much better to invest in states that could both use the funding and the increase in energy efficiency.
25% of all energy usage (not just electricity, all energy usage) is used to heat and cool homes and commercial buildings. Poorer states have people with outdated and inefficient heating and cooling infrastructure; often in the form of ancient AC systems and fully resistive heating or oil/coal burning systems.
Wouldn't it make more sense to supplement the advancement of their infrastructure rather than the states that already have the funds to have these more efficient systems in place? Not to mention that $450 million would go a lot further to actually reduce emissions in a state where getting a water heater replaced or a heat pump installed doesn't cost 20-30k because of outrageous labor costs.
Here's the full list of projects. There's a lot of stuff in there for poor states and poor people in wealthier states. I was going to make a bigger post itemizing, but I was mostly just...
There's a lot of stuff in there for poor states and poor people in wealthier states. I was going to make a bigger post itemizing, but I was mostly just cross-referencing the state-wealth wikipedia.
Bear in mind these projects needed to be submitted for approval, and I'm betting Kentucky, Alabama, and Missisipi didn't even bother to submit any any applications, for similiar reasons to rejecting added Medicare money.
Without access to the data that the EPA based this decision on, I can't possibly say what makes more sense. It's certainly very plausible that, despite these states' already high energy...
Without access to the data that the EPA based this decision on, I can't possibly say what makes more sense. It's certainly very plausible that, despite these states' already high energy efficiency, there are still more gains to be had in them (e.g., due to a combination of winter temperatures, population density, and carbon output of their existing and/or projected electrical generation) than there would be in other states.
That being said, I would absolutely love to see more hybrid approaches aimed at maximizing a combination of carbon reduction and poverty alleviation. Since solutions to both problems have a lot of overlap, focusing on each of them in isolation may not be the most effective use of funding. But I am not sure that the EPA has the authority to do this (I suspect not).
These were projects submitted to the EPA, you can read the full list I posted in a sibling to your post. I'm betting they approved most that were anywhere near reasonable in terms of cost/impact....
These were projects submitted to the EPA, you can read the full list I posted in a sibling to your post. I'm betting they approved most that were anywhere near reasonable in terms of cost/impact.
Several proposals target poorer communities with greater weight than wealthier ones.
That is good to know, thank you! It is probably more impactful than the more purely EPA-led program I was imagining, since locals tend to have the best understanding of the ins and outs of local...
That is good to know, thank you! It is probably more impactful than the more purely EPA-led program I was imagining, since locals tend to have the best understanding of the ins and outs of local issues.
A lot of homes in those states, especially NH and ME, still run on oil and coal. The ones that don't mostly run on natural gas. Air-source heat pumps weren't really viable as a whole-home solution...
A lot of homes in those states, especially NH and ME, still run on oil and coal. The ones that don't mostly run on natural gas. Air-source heat pumps weren't really viable as a whole-home solution even 10 years ago.
In terms of raw impact, getting all the northernmost states fully off those, even if it means 100% subsidies, is going to be proportionately more emissions reductions than any other HVAC improvements elsewhere.
In the poorest southern states, building out more resiliant and better generation and transportation will be more bang/buck in that vein.
People who always grew up with a full grid complement of electricty/water/sewer/gas/internet from the city (or city-sanctioned private company) have no idea the logistics of having to provide...
People who always grew up with a full grid complement of electricty/water/sewer/gas/internet from the city (or city-sanctioned private company) have no idea the logistics of having to provide everything but electricity for yourself.
I grew up with semi-regular oil deliveries and septic tank pumping. On a home well with our own filtration in the basement. And that was in PA.
Most of these programs need to have municipal, county, or state level applications - or even county/state level programs for municipalities to participate. A lot of these federal grants or RFPs...
Most of these programs need to have municipal, county, or state level applications - or even county/state level programs for municipalities to participate. A lot of these federal grants or RFPs are hard to navigate and there to be enough infrastructure in place for viable applications to be made. In other words it takes a lot of money to unlock this money and thus begins the self fulfilling cycle where only rich states/counties/municipalities can make use of the funds. If you want a really good example look at the FEMA disaster buyout programs.
How do they decide which states get what?
Some of the richest states in the country get a huge chunk of the funds to give grants to people for installing new heat pumps? Mass already has some of the best grants in the country for heatpump adoption, why not give these funds to other states to help improve their HVAC infrastructure?
The EPA's priority is not to help people afford heating, but to reduce carbon emissions. It seems likely that they selected these states because they would translate to the greatest reduction in emissions per dollar.
If the goal were to help people pay for heating, rather than address climate change, it would be a different agency distributing the funds.
These states are already among the most energy efficient as well, states with the lowest energy efficiency also happen to be the poorest. It seems like it would be much better to invest in states that could both use the funding and the increase in energy efficiency.
25% of all energy usage (not just electricity, all energy usage) is used to heat and cool homes and commercial buildings. Poorer states have people with outdated and inefficient heating and cooling infrastructure; often in the form of ancient AC systems and fully resistive heating or oil/coal burning systems.
Wouldn't it make more sense to supplement the advancement of their infrastructure rather than the states that already have the funds to have these more efficient systems in place? Not to mention that $450 million would go a lot further to actually reduce emissions in a state where getting a water heater replaced or a heat pump installed doesn't cost 20-30k because of outrageous labor costs.
Here's the full list of projects.
There's a lot of stuff in there for poor states and poor people in wealthier states. I was going to make a bigger post itemizing, but I was mostly just cross-referencing the state-wealth wikipedia.
Bear in mind these projects needed to be submitted for approval, and I'm betting Kentucky, Alabama, and Missisipi didn't even bother to submit any any applications, for similiar reasons to rejecting added Medicare money.
Without access to the data that the EPA based this decision on, I can't possibly say what makes more sense. It's certainly very plausible that, despite these states' already high energy efficiency, there are still more gains to be had in them (e.g., due to a combination of winter temperatures, population density, and carbon output of their existing and/or projected electrical generation) than there would be in other states.
That being said, I would absolutely love to see more hybrid approaches aimed at maximizing a combination of carbon reduction and poverty alleviation. Since solutions to both problems have a lot of overlap, focusing on each of them in isolation may not be the most effective use of funding. But I am not sure that the EPA has the authority to do this (I suspect not).
These were projects submitted to the EPA, you can read the full list I posted in a sibling to your post. I'm betting they approved most that were anywhere near reasonable in terms of cost/impact.
Several proposals target poorer communities with greater weight than wealthier ones.
That is good to know, thank you! It is probably more impactful than the more purely EPA-led program I was imagining, since locals tend to have the best understanding of the ins and outs of local issues.
Many are hybrid programs, with the feds doing matching funds with the local ones.
A lot of homes in those states, especially NH and ME, still run on oil and coal. The ones that don't mostly run on natural gas. Air-source heat pumps weren't really viable as a whole-home solution even 10 years ago.
In terms of raw impact, getting all the northernmost states fully off those, even if it means 100% subsidies, is going to be proportionately more emissions reductions than any other HVAC improvements elsewhere.
In the poorest southern states, building out more resiliant and better generation and transportation will be more bang/buck in that vein.
MA is also mostly oil heat and hot water outside of the major cities, where people tend to use natural gas.
People who always grew up with a full grid complement of electricty/water/sewer/gas/internet from the city (or city-sanctioned private company) have no idea the logistics of having to provide everything but electricity for yourself.
I grew up with semi-regular oil deliveries and septic tank pumping. On a home well with our own filtration in the basement. And that was in PA.
Most of these programs need to have municipal, county, or state level applications - or even county/state level programs for municipalities to participate. A lot of these federal grants or RFPs are hard to navigate and there to be enough infrastructure in place for viable applications to be made. In other words it takes a lot of money to unlock this money and thus begins the self fulfilling cycle where only rich states/counties/municipalities can make use of the funds. If you want a really good example look at the FEMA disaster buyout programs.