NY Times Coverage of Building Electrification Should Spur Scrutiny Of NJ Gov. Murphy’s Energy Master Plan

Murphy Energy Plan Vague – Postpones New Building Codes Until 2030

We are in a climate emergency and face existential risks. You don’t ask how much the fire engine costs when the house is burning down. The IPCC scientists recently warned we have about a decade to make deep reductions.

Calling it a “Movement”, the NY Times ran an important story today on proliferating efforts by local governments to adopt new building codes to mandate electrification of buildings as a key climate strategy to decarbonize the economy, see:

• ‘All-Electric’ Movement Picks Up Speed, Catching Some Off Guard – As cities across the nation embrace electric power as a cleaner alternative to natural gas, developers are scrambling to keep up.

They say that the NY Times sets the agenda, so let’s hope that NJ media follows the lead of the Gray Lady and does some in depth substantive reporting on the building sector policies of the highly touted NJ Gov. Murphy Energy Master Plan (EMP).

In this post, we’ll guide reporters and readers to where to find the skeletons.

The Murphy Board of Public Utility’s Integrated Energy Plan (IEP) is the technical (quantitative, modeled) basis for the BPU’s Energy Master Plan (EMP).

So, in order to tease out the substantive reality behind the rhetorical facade, we must engage in a careful dance between the IEP’s quantitative modeled future energy and emissions “scenarios” and the policy rhetoric of the Energy Master Plan (EMP). These IEP “scenarios” reveal major weaknesses in what are often vague and non-committal policy statements in the EMP.

The first place to look – which provides smoking gun data that exposes the language and spin of the EMP – may be found a document known as the “Integrated Energy Plan” (IEP) (Nov. 2019 webinar summary). Here’s Gov. Murphy’s Office on the role about the IEP:

• The Integrated Energy Plan (IEP) will identify the most economically beneficial and least-cost pathways to achieve state goals
• The modeling analysis will help to prioritize the timing, pace, and scale of achieving our objectives

The “final scenarios” of the IEP on page 14 are revealing (you may need to hit the link to the document, because the print below is very small):

Look at the “least cost” plan (the 3rd column from the left) – which is the preferred plan and basis for the Murphy EMP – and down to the third row, “Building Electrification”.

You will note the following key goals and timetables:

• Building retrofits – 90% by 2050 – rapid adoption in 2030
• Delivered Fuels – Transition to electric starting in 2030

Did you get that?

If you didn’t get it, here’s more specific language from the EMP, that specifically cross -walks the IEP modeled scenarios with the EMP policies:

.. the [IEP] scenarios assumed that buildings BEGAN to be retrofitted and electrified aggressively STARTING in 2030, so that 90% of building water and space heating was powered by electricity in 2050.” Murphy Energy Master Plan, @ p.159

So let’s repeat: While the NY Times writes about cities across the country who have already adopted building codes to mandate electrification, the Murphy Energy Master Plan is assuming that those building codes will not be adopted and implemented and will have no impact on greenhouse gas emissions for over a decade, until after 2030.

Cliche: too little, too late.

Now let’s compare  the IEP’s modeled “scenarios” regarding building electrification with the relevant data and policy text of the EMP.

According to the EMP, buildings are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions:

Here are the relevant goals and strategies from the EMP –

As you consider them, ask “who, what, when and how” on each of these EMP goals and strategies.

Be sure to keep the 2030 and 2050 numeric goals and timetables of the IEP on electrification of buildings in mind that I just highlighted above.

First note that the EMP does not specify or make time bound commitments to adopting enforceable regulatory building codes that are highlighted in the NY Times story.

Then note that the EMP uses evasive and “flexible” weasel words – which lack quantification and deadlines and specific administrative implementation tools and bureaucratic responsibilities –  terms like “strengthen”, “advocate for”, “establish”, “mechanisms” (which are distinguished from “regulations”), “start”, “develop”:

• 3.3  Strengthen building and energy codes and appliance standards

  3.3.1  Advocate for net zero carbon buildings in new construction in the upcoming 2024 International Code Council code change hearings

  3.3.3  Establish mechanisms to increase building effciency (sic) in existing buildings

  4.1  Start the transition for new construction to be net zero carbon

  Goal 4.1.4: Study and develop mechanisms and regulations to support net zero carbon new construction.

  4.1.5  Develop electric vehicle-ready and demand response-ready building codes for new multi-unit dwellings and commercial construction