Electric Heat: The Doctor Answers the Skeptics

The Rutland Herald's Louis Porter writes about my proposal to use cheap, off-peak electricity to heat homes.  Some people in the industry view the idea with skepticism:

The idea should not be dismissed out of hand, but it does pose some risks, said Avram Patt, general manger of Washington Electric Cooperative.  "We need to be open to the paradigm changing but I don't think it has changed yet," he said.  For one thing, over the next several years the relationship between heating fuel costs and electricity costs may well be different than they are now.  "Installing a heating system is a very long-term investment," Patt said. "The relationship will be different five years from today."

Actually, it's not that long-term.  My estimate (admittedly crude) is that the capital costs of  installing an electric storage furnace would be paid for in fuel savings in five years.

Porter adds another criticism:

Using electricity for heat — even if it is gathered at night — has some other risks, as well. Electric heat uses a lot of power, so even a relative few households depending on it could mean utilities would need larger supplies and transmission lines, or perhaps not be able to transmit the additional power.

Vermont is a summer peaking state (we use more electricity in the summer than winter), and the peak load is on a hot summer day.   That means the electric utilities have to have enough transmission and distribution capacity to meet that summer peak.   If enough people switch to off-peak electric heat, it could shift our peak from a hot summer day to a cold winter night, but that would take a lot of people switching.

And the head of Efficiency Vermont also chimes in:

"It is commendable to seek creative solutions to the heating problems that many Vermonters will be faced with this winter," said Blair Hamilton, director of Efficiency Vermont. "Unfortunately this particular solution is problematic in its ability to be implemented and could have significant adverse impacts on the electric system. It is not likely to be a useful option for this winter, and as energy prices rise, including electricity, it is also not likely to be a good option in the long-term."

Wrong on several counts.  First, "significant adverse impacts"?  I don't know what they'd be.  My plan is unlikely to cause capacity constraints.  It will cause more electricity to be consumed but that's at night when power is cheap and readily available.  So what's the adverse impact, other than having people use more electricity? 

Second:  "not a useful option."  Why not?  As I've argued, it is cheaper than the alternatives and the units can be relatively easily purchased and installed, so it could provide relief this winter.  Installing these units also involves some work on an electrical panel and the installation of a new meter, but those are not prohibitively expensive or time- consuming.

Third: yes, in the future, energy prices will rise and so will electricity prices. But if they both rise, as long as off-peak electricity continues to be half the cost of on-peak power, off-peak electric storage furnaces will continue to save the customer money.   

Finally, Steve Wark, at the Vermont Department of Public Service, gives his take, which includes this:

"We are facing challenging economic times and there are no new funds for a new program that would be funded by the state."

Agreed.  But some organization--the state, utilities, Efficiency Vermont, or local non profits--can float bonds to pay for the capital cost of the units (assuming low-income Vermonters cannot get their own loans) and these loans can be repaid with a one cent surcharge on the price of electricity.  This kind of funding is similar to the way economic development projects are commonly financed in Vermont. 

Note that there is also no reason middle-income Vermonters can't use this heat source as a way to lower their own heating bills this winter.  I'm still waiting for a good reason why people should not be encouraged to use off-peak electric storage heat. 

Comments

[Chris Campion]

We've really rolled over to a modern European model of governance where any new viable idea is immediately banished to the outlands by the long-serving mandarins of state government. Not one of the reasons cited above as to why it won't work makes any sense at all, nor do some of the "reasons" rise to the level of a "reason" at all.

The state would gladly set up a program where buses drive around local communities, pick up residents, and shuttle them to a designated lumber site where they can cut their own firewood to stay warm in the winter. Only in mid-20th century China would such a program seem to make sense, yet it's in the offing here in Vermont.

What never seems to be mentioned is that if Vermont had anything even resembling a vibrant economy these concerns would fall by the wayside because there would be a tax base to help address them. As it is, when January rolls around and pipes are bursting in old homes because people can't afford to heat them, will those overnight electrical rates and ceramic heaters seem so illogical then?

[GreggB]

People shouldn't use off peak electricity to heat their homes because doing so might slow VT from returning to the 1800's. Simple and so obvious, now as soon as I find my buggy whip I'm off to the new Walmart supercenter in Woodsville for some shopping.

[Mark Shepard]

Great idea, especially in a state that hope to increase wind energy inits protfolio. Store heat when the wind is blowing and since it is generally coldest when the wind blows hardest the two make a great fit.

Another and perhaps less expensive option for people with existing hot water heating systems might be to heat the water with electricity instead of oil or gas and then add in a few insulated water tanks (perhaps old water heaters, electric or not) for storage of the heated water to be used as needed during the peak hours.

[Woodstock Libertarian]

Most important ( to the Green Dynasty, and their mandarins) is that having people bring up electricity as a heating alternative threatens their overarching plan to shut down Vermont Yankee.

For a true believer, it's better to have Vermonters suffer a slow death by freezing than allowed to live with the possibility that a random neutron might stray through the tens of millions of dollars worth of safeguards that have heretofore kept us radiation-free.

48% of CVPS electrical power is nuclear.

[Bob]

didn't we go down this road back in the 60's & 70's? Your idea is not a bad one provided the electricity is generated by solar or wind. The last thing I think we want to do is to create an over-reliance on a nuclear power plant that is failing more each week. It is an intriguing idea, though.

[Tom Evslin]

Our thinking is hampered by the mantra that "electricity is bad" and its usage must be reduced. The roots of that are in the anti-nuclear movement and it's been heightened by the realization that a lot of electricity comes from coal.

A generation of utility executives have grown up being measured by how much of their product they DON'T sell.

We use 63 billion gallons of oil per year to heat homes - easier by far to reduce that by using electricity (off-peak or geothermal) than to switch to electric cars (which'll eventually happen). But this easy target is being ignored (except by Vermont Tiger, of course).

Actually, see what Groton, SD is doing to accelerate installation of electric heat storage units http://www.grotonsd.com/city/Heat_Storage_Units.htm

I posted more on electricity coming out of the closet http://blog.tomevslin.com/2008/08/its-time-for-el.html

[the Gooch]

South Dakota is the new capital of rational thinking in this country. They also recently approved building the first new oil refinery in the US since 1976 in Elk Point.
Also, their mountains--the Black Hills--ain't half bad, they have no state income tax, and you can build a Wal*Mart within 20 years of applying for permits...