Colorado Bill Pushes Electric Appliances; Shaky Studies, Data, and Public Comment Testimony Cited as Argument that Residential Indoor Gas Appliances Create Health Risks
If most consumers can’t reasonably afford something, is it still a consumer choice? Technically, every American has “school choice”: there are no required government schools. But tuition means many US households simply can’t choose a private school. Those households use public schools, and—in nearly every school district in America— residents are already paying for public schools through taxes. Yet, there is still a free market, as it were, with education. Technically.
A similar dynamic plays out with the recent home warranty electric appliance option that may become law in Colorado. It aims to encourage citizens with home warranties to consider electric appliances to replace expired gas devices.
When queried about costs, Rep. Joseph who is a proponent of the bill admitted that it’s possible switching certain outlets for a new electric appliance could cost $2500 but that maybe a third could be rebated by federal credits. Is that consumer choice?
Climate Advocates Pushing Electric
Colorado House bill 1134 promotes electric appliances over those powered with gas in-home warranty replacements. If passed, home warranty providers in Colorado may have to offer electric appliances if a customer’s gas appliance breaks. But it goes further than that.
Colorado General Assembly Bill 1134: Require Electric Options in Home Warranties
- Effectively, certain home warranty holders are financially prodded—through the law applied to home warranty companies—to replace broken gas stoves and similar appliances with electric ones.
- If a home warranty holder makes a claim, the cost of a gas replacement and the cost of an electric replacement are compared.
- (The exact calculation is never explained in a coherent language in the text of the bill nor in the hour-long committee hearing on it.)
- That calculation aims to discourage the homeowner from choosing gas-powered appliances instead of electric.
The home warranty company has to offer an electric appliance. As for the financial punishment for choosing a gas appliance, the word “may” is an important caveat. “A home warranty service contract may require a homeowner to pay any additional cost…” Technically, it’s consumer choice. Philosophically and politically, the bill is much larger than its proposed highly conditional policy.
Low-Impact Bill Affects Few Buildings or Homes; Is it Political or Policy?
Practically speaking, the bill is a puzzling proposal as probably a single-digit percentage of households in the Centennial State will be affected. Less than 4 percent of US households have a home warranty, according to Frontdoor Inc (cited in Warranty Week, a clearing house for the warranty industry.)
However, politically speaking, the bill has some currency. For base Democrats, the non-profits that support it, and the news media covering it, the bill makes sense.
Stated and Implied Beliefs Behind Colorado House Bill 1134 Summarized
- Global climate change (including any regional droughts) comes almost entirely from the last two centuries of burning fossil fuels worldwide (including in Colorado).
- Natural gas, used to power gas stoves and appliances, is a fossil fuel.
- Natural gas bans or natural gas industry throttling are efforts to curb emissions, and stopping fossil fuels is paramount for stopping climate change (replacing the fuels is secondary)
- Coercing citizens to use electric appliances reduces fossil fuel consumption.
- Electric heat pumps and induction cooking are becoming more popular as we adapt for a greener, healthier future.
The discussions suggest a cast-iron philosophical purpose for the bill. Hard-left Longmont City Council member Polly Christensen (speaking as a private citizen) testified in favor of the bill and her words are representative of the animus behind the proposal.
While framing her message around the finances, her opening statement was that HR 1134 is needed to “help establish the precedent of the shared responsibility to solve the problem of catastrophic, irreversible climate change that threatens us all.”
When questioned by opponents of the bill, she continued: “… we know we have to eliminate our burning of fossil fuels. We have to.” She mentioned “the transition” several times.
Her philosophy-heavy testimony came at the tail-end of discussions; the beginning of the Colorado general assembly meeting was from experts on the supposed health hazards of gas stoves.
General Assembly Public Testimony that Gas Stoves Create Indoor Air Pollutants in Colorado
Numerous experts have claimed health problems are created or exacerbated by gas stoves. The Maverick Observer has covered the purported link. This past winter’s eruption of news – stories citing a recent study – was written about just last month. The hearing on this bill mentioned some of these supposed health risks.
Chief among those testifying for the bill was the Health Educator at Physicians for Social Responsibility. While qualified to speak on public health, the individual apparently lives in New York City, making him a puzzling selection to offer testimony on a bill specific to home heating/cooling and cooking appliances in a state of widely variegated climates 2000 miles away.
In his three minutes of testimony, he cites numerous studies: one conducted by his own agency, one at the University of California’s Lawrence Berkley study on natural gas appliance pollution of homes, “another recent study,” and one study that was “a meta-analysis of 41 studies involving children.”
Overall, the public witness asserts that these studies conclusively demonstrate that having gas stoves are a severe health risk, especially for children. He asserts he is giving testimony “from the health and medical perspective.”
Some questionable elements in these studies are not disclosed, including conflicts of interest.
Key Facts about Studies Claiming that Gas Stoves Harm Coloradoans and Others
The Lawrence Berkley study, as the Health Educator witness concedes, was for “cooking on a gas stove without ventilation.” An unvented stove is unlikely for the demographic of homeowners with enough disposable income to have home warranties.
That study, cited in public testimony in favor of HB 1134, states their own participant bias in favor of homes with a higher likelihood of indoor gas appliance air pollution.
The methodology used to select homes was designed such that homes with characteristics expected to cause higher pollutant concentrations would be oversampled. The screening survey was used to identify factors that increase the likelihood and magnitude of pollutants entering the home from gas appliance use. Impact of Natural Gas Appliances on Pollutant Levels in California Homes by Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkley Laboratory
Meta-Analysis Study Linked to Dark Money
The Health Educator’s testimony of a meta-analysis of studies regarding children’s illnesses was also problematic. An analyst at the left-wing environmentalist Rocky Mountain Institute authored this study linking health hazards and indoor natural gas pollution from appliances. Another lead author of this meta-analysis works for Rewiring America, which is a project of a $153 million non-profit environmentalist agency in DC.
Rewiring America is technically a “project” of this mega-fund. As such, they aren’t required to file non-profit paperwork with the IRS. There is the smell of dark money; even the hard-left Atlantic, cited in Influencewatch.org, saw this. That secondary lead author—for this paper by the Rocky Mountain Institute which is based in Colorado— apparently also lives in New York.
But the most questionable part of this study used to promote HR 1134 is the appearance of bias toward finding a link between gas stoves and childhood health problems. The meta-analysis article looked at hundreds of studies from 2013 regarding indoor air pollution and gas appliances.
As reported in the Washington Examiner and elsewhere, the study concedes that 27 full manuscripts “were independently reviewed by co-authors; none reported new associations between gas stove use and childhood asthma specifically in North America or Europe.”
Symbolic Commitment to Banning Natural Gas
In effect, the bill looks a lot like a symbolic commitment to the left-wing effort to ban natural gas and fossil fuels in general. Few people are affected. It’s technically a choice for consumers, even if it could cost more than $1500 extra.
Apocalyptic language is used in public testimony for the bill. The health of children is supposedly at stake. But this is according to questionably created studies that look designed to find a link between gas stoves and health problems. They are studies proffered by an expert who may not be a Colorado constituent or resident.
Also, why all that hype if it’s just a tiny bill about consumer choice?
