By: Scott Allen, Energy Policy Specialist
On Monday, November 18, the Future of Gas workshop wrapped up its exploration of building electrification as a decarbonization pathway. The previous workshop (November 4) focused on residential and industrial opportunities, while this time the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) discussed commercial appliance switching for space heating and cooling, water heating and cooking. The other two presentations were from ComEd and Ameren. ComEd’s presentation was fairly well structured and addressed questions about its ability to meet winter peaking demand and whether heat pumps can be both adequate and cost effective. Ameren’s presentation was the opposite of all that.
As was the case with industrial decarbonization, I think EPRI’s presentation is worth looking over if for no other reason than seeing some studies on the effectiveness of heat pumps and electric cooking. I also appreciated EPRI taking time to talk about the scale of commercial building emissions at the Illinois and national levels. It’s important to keep in mind the amount of gas each sector of the economy uses and for what purposes, lest we get caught up in the arguments from the fossil fuel industry that these sectors are either impossible to electrify, or that these sectors don’t represent much of an impact at all. This graphic shows us how commercial buildings use fossil fuels for heat, and the carbon dioxide emissions resulting from those uses:
Not surprisingly, space heating is particularly dirty in the commercial sector, followed by cooking and water heating. In Illinois, according to EPRI’s study of U.S. Energy Information Administration data, 20 percent of methane gas is used in commercial buildings, and these buildings also account for 20 percent of our energy use in the state. Illinois is the eighth largest methane consumer in the nation.
The good news is that across each sector of the economy the state can significantly reduce the amount of gas we need for all categories of end use, and we can begin that reduction now without much hesitation. Further reductions can continue through the medium term (5-15 years), and in the long term, we can focus on those “hard to decarbonize” end uses.
So what is stopping us from embarking on a more significant reduction? As far as I can tell from these workshops, it’s an absence of effective policy combined with fear-mongering from proponents of gas. That’s not to say that there aren’t legitimate concerns to discuss, but there’s a difference between discussion and action. The goal for gas advocates in this process is to ensure that we never get to the action part, and they work to achieve this goal by discussing barriers and pushing non-decarbonization actions.
Depending on the subject of the workshop and the points of view being presented, the challenges of decarbonization and the level of difficulty assigned to each of them tend to shift from meeting to meeting. When it comes to electrification, I think everybody involved would agree that the electric grid, appliance/equipment capability and affordability are three of the most important challenges to consider. ComEd addressed each of them in its presentation, and had a relatively positive outlook on our ability to overcome them.
Of course ComEd, being an electric distribution utility, has an interest in increasing the volume of electricity that is delivered over its lines. It earns a profit off of the capital investments it makes, and from the various energy efficiency, rebate, and demand response programs it offers to customers. Ceasing the use of methane gas to provide heat leads to a greater reliance on ComEd and represents a great opportunity for the utility.
Still, I recommend reading ComEd’s slides, and here’s a summary of how they addressed those three important challenges identified above.
The Grid
The gas utilities base their argument for maintaining, or even expanding, their infrastructure by claiming the electric grid cannot function under such increased demand, especially during the coldest months. Also, they say switching to electric heat will cause electricity demand to peak in the winter, as opposed to the summer, as it is now. For the second time during these proceedings, ComEd showed this graph based on its internal consumption data:
This graph shows that the utility is able to meet a higher winter demand with its current system, with about 7 gigawatts(GW) of capacity not being used. That tells us a significant adoption of heat pumps in the medium term is possible. For the long term, (2025-2040) ComEd showed how heat pump adoption at rates of 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent and 100 percent would affect capacity. They figure that a 100 percent conversion would mean adding 3 million heat pumps to their load, requiring nearly 24 GW of capacity. That’s 14 GW more than what was available during their highest winter peak, so that’s a challenge. But it’s not insurmountable, again, with the right set of policies and adequate planning.
Appliances
Consumers often ask us reasonable questions about heat pumps:
Do they work in really cold climates?
Are they really more efficient than gas furnaces?
Since ComEd’s presentation focused on heat pumps for residential space heating, I will stick with the studies they presented. For studies of heat pump water heating, cooking and industrial and manufacturing processes, see EPRI’s presentation from this workshop, as well as presentations by Lawrence Berkeley and Energy Innovation from the Nov. 4 workshop.
ComEd presented this graphic from a study of cold climate heat pumps in Ithaca, New York, which has a similar climate to Chicago:
Throughout these proceedings, fossil fuel advocates have insisted that heat pumps don’t work in cold climates. It’s hard to say what they mean by this because they don’t answer follow-up questions or support their claims. But as this graphic shows, this particular brand of heat pump performed slightly better than the manufacturer anticipated. ComEd added that under its incentive program, nearly 7,000 customers have installed heat pumps since 2022, showing that even moderate rebates encourage heat pump adoption, resulting in lower energy bills and fewer methane emissions.
Affordability
While heat pumps can save people money in the long run, there’s no denying that they (and all other appliances, for that matter) cost a lot, up-front. This fact may be the single largest deterrent for people who struggle financially to transition. Renters also face serious barriers-, financially, and practically (there are limits to what you can do to a property you don’t own); how can renters protect themselves against poor indoor air quality? These issues are separate from technological capability, and totally dependent on policy. (For example, robust incentive programs can help put more heat pumps in homes.) We have the ability to overcome these challenges, but do we have the will?
While we work to improve policy, there are small, temporary, albeit ultimately insufficient, workarounds for renters, or people who can’t afford more permanent solutions. ComEd’s presenter told us about a product that he was testing in his home: a Gradient window heat pump. These units can be installed quickly, and they plug into a 120 volt receptacle. Unfortunately, the units still have a relatively high upfront cost, they’re not rated for extreme weather conditions and, like other mini-split heat pumps, they are designed to condition only small zones (about 450 square feet, according to the website.)
Still, it’s possible we’ll see mini-split technology become more affordable and more adept, and these types of space conditioners certainly have a place in residential and commercial applications. But they’re not meant as a solution that will work for everybody. We simply need access to equipment and industry professionals to enable a transition that works more broadly.
The final presentation of this workshop was uninspiring. If you’re curious about what Ameren presented, you can scroll through their slides, but I’ll warn you that most of what you’ll find is incomprehensible–and the presenter wasn’t able to answer many of the numerous questions t he was asked. Ameren’s basic argument is: Home electrification is a pipedream, but a “hybrid” solution is possible, and it offers consumers a choice. At some point, I’ll address the “consumer choice” argument, and show that it’s a concoction of the fossil fuel industry. Until then, keep in mind, especially if you’re reviewing Ameren’s presentation, that Ameren is a dual-fuel utility. They have a profit interest in both electricity and methane gas, so we shouldn’t expect them to present evidence against the interests of their shareholders.
Happy Thanksgiving!
What’s Next?
The next meeting is December 9th on Geothermal. Check out our ICC Future of Gas page for more information.
Scott Allen, Energy Policy Specialist (he/him/his) — Scott joined CUB in February 2014 as the first downstate staff member, working first out of Hillsboro, then from Springfield, and now, Urbana. He focuses on outreach to Ameren customers and building relationships with downstate agencies and organizations. Scott also represents CUB at the downstate caucus of the Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition and works on a range of energy and consumer-related legislative initiatives. His favorite aspect of working at CUB is not having to worry about whether or not his efforts have a negative impact on society. In his time off, Scott enjoys napping, exercising and eating.
