I’m calling BS on $3500 _extra and the lack of justification in the article reinforces my belief. Then when I tried to go back the site tried to retain me twice. Indications of a junk source.
It’s the main newspaper in San Jose, so probably about as reliable a source of news as you’re going to get. The author is their senior environmental reporter too.
If someone is going from gas to the highest end heat pump, I could see an extra 3500 being possible with higher cost for the heater itself as well as the extra labor to install a new electrical outlet.
But that’s a worst case scenario. There are a few newer heat pumps that can use a standard 120v/15a outlet, and that would be much cheaper
Does San Francisco/California not have heat pump rebates on water heaters? Did the feds get rid of their rebate?
My heat pump water heater cost me next to nothing because I was able to stack rebates in my state.
I think it varies by muncipality. Which makes it tough.
We have them in Sacramento but it’s a local subsidy. Can’t speak to the Bay Area.
In principle one should save a lot of money with heat pumps. Surely one can get a low-interest loan for the amount by increasing one’s mortgage, which should more than pay for itself?
You will not be able to swap out a water heater for $3500.
I’m curious if there’s a reason for an outright ban vs simply imposing a premium on the hardware and/or the gas. Why not just level the playing field? Some board members are in favor of it, so it seems possible. Perhaps market it as a smog tax. (Which you don’t have to apply to vehicles, but could later on down the line. And yes, that’s basically a carbon tax by another name.)
On the other hand, I do obviously agree though that health should be considered a big cost as well. Public education is paramount, and this is a prime example of why.
